home

R2000 Nevada Poll: Obama By 1

Nevada is one of those states where the map can change for Democrats. But it's tight according to this Research2000 poll (I find R2000 to have a slight tendency to favor Dems):

A new RGJ/KTVN Channel 2 poll being released today shows Nevada continues to be a true toss-up in the presidential race. In the poll of 600 likely Nevada voters, 44 percent favor U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and 43 percent favor U.S. Sen. John McCain. The results also indicate that support for Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, expected to do well enough in Nevada to draw votes away from McCain, is slipping. He registered just 3 percent support, while independent candidate Ralph Nader is at 2 percent. Six percent of voters remain undecided. The poll was conducted Aug. 18-20 by Research 2000 and has a 4 percent margin of error.

Colorado, NM and Nevada are tighter than I thought they would be when I called Obama a shoo-in. Iowa is still Obama country. Virginia is tight. The rest of the map, at least to me, looks like the Red/Blue map we've seen for the past 8 years.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Forget Who, When? Open Thread | Sunstein: Obama A "Univ. of Chicago Democrat" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • He just (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    Came out with an ad attacking McCain for the Yucca waste plan.  I wonder if that will help here.  Seems like he is trying to take your advice, more of his ads are attack ads now, just not the right ones, although they may play better locally.

    Expect a counter-punch using Exelon (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    That was the company Obama mention in his bogus claim about nuclear regulation.

    Axelrod worked for Exelon.

    Exelon owns Commonwealth Edison.  

    Bill Ayers' father used to be CEO of CE.

    Parent

    I saw another one (none / 0) (#10)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    On YouTube, not on tv, which attacks McCain for saying the economy is solid, and then asks "oh really?", talks about foreclosures, and then mentions that McCain has 7 houses.

    I liked it. It's a straight, direct punch. It's an encouraging sign that these ads are out there. But I don't know in what numbers and in what markets.

    Also, I can't find it anymore, which makes me wonder if it was all a dream.


    Parent

    If you are quoting accurately, then the ad (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    is wrong.

    McCain has 4 houses.

    One thing that is really mandatory on attack ads, is to get the information right or the credibility factor hurst the name that "approves this message".


    Parent

    Does McCain Have Four Houses? (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    Or does McCain's wife have four houses.  I suspect it's the latter.  McCain is basically a trophy husband and so doesn't really own anything. The people who think Cindy McCain is the trophy have it backwards, IMO. She married the handsome war vet to have on her arm and keeps him happy by supporting his little political career while she makes all the real money through her business holdings (which she has made damned sure have remained hers). I'm kind of sick of the press and Democrats marginalizing and trivializing Cindy McCain and acting like what's hers is his. Just because John McCain is the man does not mean he controls his wife or her money. If he did, wouldn't it be their money by now? It's hers, not his. He basically lives on the dole.

    Having said that, I'm all for people looking into John McCain's finances and his wife's business holdings, which aren't irrelevant since like all good wealthy women with trophy husbands, she supports the little man's diversions. It keeps him happy and out of the way.

    Although I do think when we start arguing about which elite person running for president has the bigger house that everyone loses.  The problem with McCain is not that his wife is rich, it's that he wants to enact policies that hurt the poor to help the rich (among other things).

    Parent

    Very true, and I said that in an earlier thread (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    It is all Cindy's and he just goes where he is told to be. Their houses are theirs as a product of community property unless they were purchased with money she came into the marriage with. Were pre-nups around 28 years ago?

    I'd bet he doesn't care one bit how many houses she has, or why. He probably really doesn't know for sure how much property is in their name.

    Although finances are certainly fair territory to explore, I just don't think this is going to be as effective against McCain as other topics would be. He doesn't come across elitist, and no amount of houses will change that.

    Parent

    I Bet The Image McCain Would Prefer (none / 0) (#35)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    (if he has a choice)

    is that of a rich man who doesn't know how many houses he owns, rather than a trophy husband who doesn't know how many houses his wife owns.

    Parent

    McCain as trophy (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    it a bit of a stretch

    Parent
    I Agree With You (none / 0) (#111)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    I was responding to BDB's comment that Cindy McCain was less a trophy wife than John McCain could be seen as the trophy.

    Parent
    No it isn't. (none / 0) (#28)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    McCain's attack ads aren't exactly 100% true either, but that doesn't matter.


    Parent
    4 or 7 or 8 or 9 (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    The McCain staff says 4, Newsweek says 7, Cindy says they have eight or nine.

    Parent
    Is the difference between investment (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    homes and residences?

    Parent
    I'll correct myself (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    If you believe the research done on this site 10 then the actual number of houses owned by the McCain's is ten.... Actually a nice round number and should be easy to remember.

    Parent
    McCain has 4 houses? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    He said "at least" four.  Depending on whether you count two that he combined into one, or multiple houses on the same property - estimates range up to 12.

    This is going to be McCain's Bush SR.'s supermarket scanner moment - showing he is completely out of touch with average Americans.

    Parent

    Hey Ennis! (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    How's it goin'?
    Me thinkith "they cling to their guns, religion and bigotry" is a tad more out of toucheth than the scanner deal. Owning many houses tis not being out of toucheth. It's being rich. So are all rich people out of toucheth?
    (was i more creative in my rebuttal that time?)

    Parent
    Um, McCain was grocery shopping (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    with voters while Obama was speechifying on his Euro tour. McCain was in your average working class German restaurant while Obama was speechifying in Germany. Who looks outta touch?

    Parent
    you're consistent (none / 0) (#201)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    Consistently wrong, of course.

    What is it with Obama Supporters desperately needing to paint people with a broad brush?  Not all wealthy people are out-of-touch.

    My family owns more than a few houses.  How many?  I can't tell you.  Some have been in the family for generations, some are overseas (in France and England) and some are investments made years ago.  Do we live in them all?  Nope.  And I own an apartment here in NYC, an apartment in Paris and a home in Los Angeles.  Am I out of touch?  Nope.

    And those people we call our friends who are equally blessed financially are also far from out-of-touch.  We just have different lives and our days are filled with different challenges and circumstances.  The scenery changes, but not much else.

    But someone who complains that it's hard to make do on $10,000 a year for dance classes IS out of touch.  I would NEVER, being aware of how people really DO struggle, think to complain about my financial situation.  There are other ways to let people know you understand their struggles without being politically tone-deaf and elitist.  And how much money one has has very little to do with it.

    It just bugs me when people who probably don't know any better paint with such a broad brush.  Grrrrrrrr ...
     

    Parent

    McCain has already counter-punched (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    With Rezko

    Parent
    And McCain's response was much (4.00 / 3) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    better than obama's weak, not accurate, ad...when will they learn?

    Parent
    that (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    ad is already producing a huge blowback against Obama. His campaign made a huge mistake when they started after the no. of houses McCain had and made the ad personal. It might have worked if they stuck to ISSUE, but NOOOO, the losers who are running the Obama campaign always have to employ the smear tactics of a loser. Now, it's all over the news about how Obama has a mansion that a convicted felon helped him purchase. Obama put a target on his own back with that ad.

    Parent
    His campaign (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by miriam on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    is trying to treat the general election run like it did the primary and are relying, unsuccessfully, on the media to prop him up against McCain as it did against Hillary.  But Hillary's hands were tied behing her back, because she couldn't be too critical of another Democrat (and would have been called racist again if she was), and the same is not true of McCain. He can hit Obama much harder than she could and can hardly be called racist convincingly when he has a black adopted daughter.  It's already taking its toll.  The more Obama tries to attack McCain, the more it ends up looking like a gnat swatting at an elephant.  And if Obama becomes a figure of ridicule, it's all over.    

    Parent
    which is why this idea (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    that the primary opponents ought to be easy on each other totally chaffes me off. It is in the best interest of the party if the candidates don't go easy on each other and hit potential weaknesses.

    Parent
    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    Here's the headline from RCP:

    Obama Brings a Knife to a Gunfight

    In repsonse to attempts to link McCain to Abramoff, the McCain campaign responds:

    However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let's start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama's political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, 'I don't regret setting bombs... I feel we didn't do enough.'

    Ouch.  In 6 months of primary campaigns, I saw maybe a half dozen headlines that even marginally favored Clinton.

    And can I just say, I truly could not understand how all the true believers could insist that Ayers was now a 'productive' member of society and this association wouldn't taint Obama.  Sorry, middle America just doesn't freakin' care that Ayers is a professor now (the prof thing alone does no one any favors with the gen pop), but the guy can be fairly tagged as a terrorist.

    How long do you think Rogers was saving up for that one?

    Parent

    And don't forget (none / 0) (#129)
    by angie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    as I said many, many time during the primary (on this very board) re: the racist label -- the GOP doesn't care if you label them as racists because they are not relying on the AA vote to win.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    I don't live in NV but the Yucca mountain ad was bad imo. Maybe it plays better locally thought the polling numbers sure don't show it.

    Parent
    McCain shot himself in the foot... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    ...with his statements on the Colorado River Compact.  It will have an effect on Colorado and New Mexico...

    "McCain's comments created a firestorm in the state with Democrats and Republicans alike denouncing the notion, saying McCain could lose votes over it in Colorado and New Mexico, which have been called possible swing states in this year's presidential race between McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama."
    --The Pueblo Chieftain

    When all of the major newpapers in the state, along with the Republican candidate for Senate slams you on this issue, it is going to be a problem.

     

    Spot on (none / 0) (#55)
    by trublueCO on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    This is one of the few times that I have seen EVERYONE (rural/urban, Dem/Rep) swiftly denounce someone's comments here in Colorado.

    I don't know how this plays out in the other Compact states, but this will certainly cost him some votes here.

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    ...outsiders have absolutely no idea how important and volitile an issue water rights are in the West.  People have fought and died over who gets what amount of water from where.

    This really hurts him the most in places that are tradional Republican strongholds--the Eastern Plains and the Western Slope.

    When Bob Schaffer/Dick Wadhams says things like "Over my cold, dead, political carcass", you've got a real problem on your hands.

       

    Parent

    Arizona pander? (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    Doesn't he know he'll probably already win that state... geez...

    Parent
    You bet... (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    ...that's certainly part of it.  He wouldn't want to betray his many developer friends in AZ.  Got to build those golf courses and gated communities in the middle of the desert!

    Parent
    Are you counting on Obama winning NH? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:20:14 PM EST
    He's down to a 1% lead there.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    If Obama leads in many more states, he's going to lose really big!

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    are u guys seeing the plan... put the focus on McCain and he starts gaffeing and being exposed...he has a nice soft tender under belly to go after

    I don't know, obama seems to be the one (4.28 / 7) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    reigning supreme on gaffes at the moment.  You can wish and hope and pray, but if obama doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, much of the time he gives ammo to the repubs imo.

    Parent
    Neither candidate seems much good at speaking (none / 0) (#127)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    Both seem to find a new way to say something dumb every time they're in front of a microphone.  For anything but a prepared speech, McCain and Obama are pretty much useless.  The debates should be hilariously bad.

    The reason for the trend in this race is that Obama won't let go of the mike and McCain is quite happy to let him have it.

    Parent

    There is a groundswell in NV of Dems (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    for McCain, so it will be interesting to see what happens....just saying.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    I can't even get a hit on Google with "Nevada Democrats for McCain."

    Parent
    What's So Depressing (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    is how easy it's been for McCain to close the gap.  He hasn't even hit Obama all that hard and it looks like it's working.  I always thought Obama had a bit of a glass jaw, but this is ridiculous.  It underscores, I think, how a big asset in the primaries - people project on you what they want - gets turned into a huge liability in the GE.  Predictable, but still frustrating.  Frustrating that Obama hasn't defined himself even now.  Frustrating that he's just now starting to define McCain.

    I'm not all that invested in Obama, but this is still depressing to watch.  McCain is awful.  And the flashbacks to 2004 are starting to give me a headache.

    Democrats have been talking up McCain's (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    character for years and years. He's no pushover in a campaign, when he can produce quotes from practically every Democratic leader effusively praising him.

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    This is a self-inflicted wound.  As Bob Somerby has documented, while they love trashing Big Dems like Gore and the Clintons, "liberal" journos love gushing over McCain or being quiet while others do.  So do many Democratic politicians for that matter.

    Parent
    He already tried that and failed miserably (2.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    All the subject Democrats immediately made very damaging counter statements to the effect that McCain of 2000 wouldn't even support the McCain of 2008.

    Parent
    bwahaha (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    so damaging I've never heard of them.  Ooooo, I'm sure McCain's running scared...

    Parent
    which is one more reason (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    the Bushes third term thing is going to be difficult.

    Parent
    Right. Better to portray McCain as weak (none / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    and vacillating. He really does flip-flop to an amazing degree.

    Parent
    you know what though, (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    you know what most people remember about McCain.
    that he championed the surge in the face of unbelievable pressure to change his position once he got into the presidential race.  he never changed his position and now the media is starting to say it worked and he was right.
    not saying any of this is fair or correct, just life.


    Parent
    Um, yes. Rather like Hillary wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    budge on  her Iraq vote..

    I swear, Democrats did not want to elect a winner this time.


    Parent

    THIS time? (none / 0) (#130)
    by sancho on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    as i know you know, there are so many precedents for Obama's possible Nov. fall. i see 2004 on the horizon with a dash of 1988. of course your favorite might be 1980. and who can forget 1984 and 1972? vintage dem years, those.

    Parent
    Glass Houses (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    With the flips of Obama since the primary, he would have a hard time making an issue of it with McCain

    Parent
    Beautiful theories destroyed by ugly facts (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    This was a stupid year to experiment.  

    Well, I thought they were nonsensical (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    theories, but yeah, bad idea.
    At this point, I'd give McCain at least 3 to 1 odds on winning, and I see a small chance of  a 10% or more margin.

    Parent
    Just for comparison, here's a thought (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    experiment. Do you remember how stupid you thought Bush was in 2000? I sure do. He was obviously a total buffoon, ignorant on every aspect of policy, and not even good at reading a speech. At yet he beat Gore (more or less) and knocked out Kerry in 2004. Do you REALLY see McCain as worse than how you perceived Bush in 2000? I think McCain is a far better candidate. His likability factor is much higher, for starters.

    Parent
    I've said (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    it before: McCain is a far, far, better candidate than W. He is very personally appealing and has a very appealing biography that plays well all over the country. Obama is a worse candidate than Kerry. He's already repeated some of the mistakes that Kerry did in 2004 but Kerry had a united party behind him. Obama has been unwilling to unite the party.

    Parent
    i saw a bit of his stump speech on cnn (none / 0) (#133)
    by sancho on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    today and all i could thinks was, my god, he is worse than kerry. he made me nostalgic for kerry's candidacy. i think he may have better campaign advisers than kerry but, alone with an audience, he's no better and maybe worse than the Dem Fighter of '04.

    Parent
    Alone (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    with an audience he's worse than Kerry. I believe Kerry could answer the question "Why do you want to be President". Kerry spoke in senatese but Obama stumbles over his words.

    Parent
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#124)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    I was uber-relieved in 2000 when GWB got the nomination, because I was convinced he didn't stand a chance in hell but McCain was a real threat to Kerry, esp. on the veteran vs veteran side.

    Parent
    Yep, (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    if Obama keeps up the inept dithering campaign I'll start quoting BTD except stating that I'll switch the Obama part for McCain. Even Kerry didn't blow an election this early. And Kerry was at least smart enough to realize he had a problem and bring on people like Joe Lockhart. I don't think Obama's that politically astute.

    Parent
    You should (none / 0) (#39)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    go bet the ranch on entrade...they have mcCain trading at 30-35 vs obama at 65 to 70. You invest 35k on mcCain and he wins..you get 100k.

    You could make a killing.

    Parent

    So you think Intrade knows anything? (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    I think Intrade is exactly as stupid as David Broder. Heck, maybe I should start making some money by betting against Intrade!

    Is it right about this? Who knows.

    Parent

    Never experiment with the presidency (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    during a war.  Period.  And it may not be a war that has hit home to too many in the elites -- because it is the working class that is being hit worst by the loss of more than 5000 sons and daughters and many more thousands severely wounded, while it also is the working class that is being hit worst with the economic costs and the downturn every day.

    And the working class will decide this election despite you, DNC.  It is a time when they want to see a fighter.  It is a time for a fighting Dem.

    Not a time for latte Dems worried about getting bigger yards and ballet lessons.  Do you hear us now?  Let us move a little to the left.  Do you hear us now?  Okay, a little more to the left.  Do you hear us now?

    Parent

    Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    not going to carry NV. He's going to have a difficult time out west because it's McCain's home territory. And from reading the above posts, he has no authority on the Yucca Mtn issue due to the fact that he voted to fund it twice.

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    The voted-for thing is a double edged sword.  McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts but he's still running on them.  I think misleading attack ads can work.  Not everyone looks at factcheck.org.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:54:50 PM EST
    Obama's ad shop needs to do a better job then. His ads are horrid, at the ones I've seen are. If you like the Allstate commercials, then you'll like Obama's commercials. Obama's commercials mostly make me want to scream "Go Away!".

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    I don't think they're good ads.  Although I do like that he is going on the offensive.  Then again, I don't really have an opinion on the Yucca mountain stuff, so it's kinda hard to judge.  If you really care about it it may work better. Or not...

    Parent
    To be brutally honest, I think that (none / 0) (#48)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
     a candidate who wants to put nuclear waste in the desert of Nevada will be popular with people in the other 49 states. It doesn't sound like such a bad idea if you live in Iowa!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    I imagine that's why they aren't playing those ads in Iowa.

    Parent
    Money (none / 0) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    The Globe has an article about campaign spending -- Obama outspent McCain by a factor of 5-3, and polls are still tightening:

    link

    I agree, it not just because Obama's ads haven't gone negative yet (although sounds like in more local places they have at least started), it's because his positive ads aren't very good -- not very memorable and pretty bland.

    Every time I saw the Olympics one where the ad says Obama will create 5 million new jobs in new energy fields/development, all I could picture was some working class folk worried about their own jobs, sitting on their couch watching and thinking, well isn't that great for them.  But what will 5 million jobs in whatever he's talking about do for me?  I don't work in alternative energy.  And that is the only memorable part of that ad.

    Parent

    last i saw (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Turkana on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    even minnesota was tightening.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    Kill Me Now (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    Even Mondale carried Minnesota (yes, I know it was his home state).  

    If Obama loses this thing (and in this environment he would have to lose it), then every single Democratic leader should resign.  Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rahm, Dean, Clyburn.  This was their guy and their strategy - they wanted to run someone with 2 years Senate experience, no experience campaigning against a tough Republican, and who was a blank slate to most Americans.  They ate his bipartisan schtick up and believed he could change the map.  Even as the cross-tabs in later primary exit polls should've told them they had a problem.  He went from a 10 pont lead in SD to a 15-point loss after he'd already been annointed the nominee by the media - that kind of indicates a problem.

    Don't get me wrong, he could still pull it out.  He'll have no mandate and will now probably squeak by the finish line, but he could do it.  

    What a waste of an opportunity this election has been.

    Parent

    You forgot... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    You forgot Brazile.

    And will the get the headquarters the h3ll out of Chicago, while they're at it?

    Parent

    If the past several elections are any indication, (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by JDM in NYC on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
     I am afraid that if Obama loses, the Dems will say that it was because he was TOO LIBERAL and that the party needs to move even further to the right.


    Parent
    There's no mechanism to force their (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    removal. The Democratic party rewards its failures, unlike the GOP.
    I think Dean will resign if Obama loses, but that's as far as the head-rolling will go.


    Parent
    No Formal Mechanism (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    which is why I'm trying to start this meme.  

    If enough big Democratic donors, including Obaam donors, are willing to take the view that any loss by Obama is not just his failure (and you can believe all these people who call him a blessing from God now will be too happy to trash him if he loses), but a failure of the party as a whole.  That they will not donate money or support the party until changes are made at the top.  And I don't just mean Dean and Pelosi, I mean everybody.  If they can't win this year, they can't win and a new team needs to be brought in that can.  

    Parent

    Getting rid of Pelosi and Dean would be (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    enough, for people at the top. Reid has not been nearly as bad. Of course Brazile would need to be let go---and not lightly either: the people responsible for pushing Obama need to be publicly humiliated by the new Democratic leadership.

    Parent
    I'll second that (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    There is one area where the (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    online public could make a difference after the election: cutting off the O-list bloggers.
    If Obama loses this election, Kos should be a nobody by Jun. 2009. No one should link to him, mention him, invite him to speak. The same goes for JMM and Aravosis. Sure, if they want to be FOX Democrats, I'm sure there will be a warm welcome---but no haven on the left.

    Parent
    Hear, hear! I like the link block (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    and appreciate the trend here to warn others when linking to blogs from orange to apricotish.:-)

    But the netroots is doomed as a political force again unless it polices itself and some wiser blog hosts take such a stand.  Link if you will, but at your peril, and only with full warning to those of us who do not wish to add to those blogs' hits.

    Hit 'em where it hurts, in their advertising.  Force them back to their beginnings, before they became dazzled by the big bucks and media appearances.

    Parent

    Actually, I think this possibility is why (none / 0) (#140)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    some of the netroots have started to wimpily criticize Obama's tactics.  So they can say, we weren't wrong about the candidate, the candidate didn't listen to our genius tactical advice, otherwise he would have won.

    A couple of months back, I predicted this -- the netboys would turn on Obama to maintain the facemask of uber-clever political analysis.  But I was wrong on one big point -- I thought it wouldn't happen until after Obama'd been in office a few months.

    But seems like they are starting early, possibly because he might not make it the office.

    Parent

    Brazile definitely needs to be removed from any (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    active role in the DNC or any other Democratic Party organization. She is one of the top offenders and owns a large share of the blame for the lack of party unity.

    As far as I'm concerned, all those in leadership who are complicit in promoting Republican agendas need to lose their positions.

    Parent

    No It Wouldn't Be Enough (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    This bipartisan schtick is just as much about Steny and Rahm as it is about Pelosi and Dean.  And I'll be darned if I'm going to get rid of Pelosi so we get Steny and Rahm, who are every bit as bad if not worse.  And Clyburn behaved horribly and dishonestly throughout the entire race.  

    They all need to go or else the rot goes on in the next generation. It isn't just getting rid of the most obvious losers, it's getting rid of the leadership that thinks all of this is some great strategy.  And Hoyer, who negotiated the FISA bill, and Rahm, who has told women that Roe is why Dems lose elections, are part of that coalition.  Oh, let me also add Chuckie Schumer to the list.

    Parent

    And no vetting mechanism for candidates either (none / 0) (#128)
    by laurie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    Latest (none / 0) (#42)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    poll out of minnnesota has Obama up by 10. Not sure how that compares to older polls but seems reasonably safe to me.

    Parent
    Latest? Must be a long time ago, that one. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    And before the polling even began for the primaries, Minnesota elected a Republican governor.  And it looks like he's rebounding.  And if he is picked for the GOP ticket, of course, Minnesota is gone. . . .

    Of course, also add in the local bounce from the GOP convention and all the coverage it will get there.

    I said it before:  Minnesota in a Pig's Eye for Obama.  (Since his Big Acceptance of the Nomination A Few Months Prematurely was in St. Paul, which originally was called Pig's Eye.:-)

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    One out today. Minnesota is solidly blue.

    Parent
    susa two days ago (none / 0) (#125)
    by Turkana on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    2 points. who knows?

    Parent
    The Minnesota Public Radio one? Ummm (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    it doesn't look solid at all, once you get past the simple numbers in the lede of the news release.  With such a high percentage of Independents -- and especially with a huge boost beyond what McCain needs there if he picks Pawlenty.  See more about what the pollsters themselves say -- and which cautions they emphasize, even in bold face -- at here.
    If there's another one of which you speak, I don't see it at the usual sites or in the Twin Cities press.  

    Plus, Minnesotans still include a cantankerous group of Populists I know well.  And they're unpredictable, when there is such a sizeable percentage of Independents aka curmudgeons.

    Parent

    Don't know whose poll (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    Survey USA on Aug 14 says Obama 47%, McCain 45%.  A ten point poll must be old

    Here's a link, scroll down:  Link

    Parent

    Minn. Public Radio and Univ of Minn. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    link

    has this one with 10 pts out today.  The others with only a 2pt margin are Rasmussen, Quinnepac and SUSA, over the last month or so.  Although stuck in there is also a Rasmussen one with a 12pt lead on July 22.

    The two most recent are Ras and SUSA, from last week.  

    SUSA, which seemed to be the best at state polling during the primaries, has always had them much closer than other pollsters, going down from a roughly 5-6 pt lead during the primaries downs to 2 pts or so since.

    Parent

    See upthread for the link (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    in my comment to the actual report from the Public Radio.  It's a bit more complicated than that.  Minnesota (like my state) always is.

    Think about it as an uncomfortable combination of Chicago and North Dakota.:-)

    Parent

    its getting ridiculous. and exhausting. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ohmercy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    I've lost any kind of interest in participating in the election anymore except to read sites like this one -and  as a somewhat cynical observer... and defender against the CDS that dominates at HuffPo.
    But thats just as an exercise in futility. (plus, admittedly i sometimes enjoy giving a hard time back to the Hillary Hating Addicts.)
    They are going on and on RIGHT NOW ON A POST THAT O SAYS HE WANTS SOMEONE WITH NO EGO.
    PRETTY FUNNY, EH?
    OF COURSE TONS OF SNARK AND CDS ABOUT HILLARY.
    I WAS LOOKING FOR THE PHOTO OF OBAMA NOMINATING HIMSELF BUT I CAN'T FIND IT.
    I REALLY WANTED TO POST IT over there. (oops, sorry for the caps lock, don't want to retype.)

    Oh well.
    I just don't get how he is losing so much ground.
    I think going on vacation was a big mistake- thought so at the time.
    Gawd, I hate the thought of McCain winning. I mean I reaaallly hate it.
    I know, don't really have to say that.

    OK, back to lurking.


    What the polls overall (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by miriam on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    seem to indicate is that Obama is not only losing support he once might have had or inherited from the losing primary candidate, but he also is not gaining new supporters.  Ironically, he's too amorphous (which is what he seems to pride himself on), and it's way late to define himself more specifically.  He should have done that long ago instead of relying on the "Hope and Unity" cliche--and if he tries it now it will sound politically contrived like everything else he has said.  And the worst liabililty is that he has absolutely no record on which to build credibility when he makes promises.  Bush was deficient, heaven knows, but at least he could point to a leadership position as governor of Texas (never mind it was a symbolic title in that state--how many voters knew that?)  

    Did anyone else watch CNN's two stupidly titled specials "McCain Revealed" and "Obama Revealed" last night?  I was struck by how fulsome, honestly patriotic, and interesting McCain's life has been, his flaws and missteps notwithstanding; and, in contrast, the paucity of Obama's life experience.  It was actually rather humorous to think of the two of them competing for anything, much less the US presidency.  Only the Democratic party could push a community organizer against an undeniably heroic POW and rather unconventional, larger-than-life, long-time senator.  And McCain's sense of humor, which is genuine and often self-deprecating, has carried him far and still does.  Obama seems humorless except for the cutting one-liners he uses against opponents.  

    I disgree that "Bush's third term" will be effective as a campaign tool against McCain.  He's clearly very different from Bush, so the believability factor just isn't there.  I have come to doubt that Obama can beat him, with or without Hillary.      

    OT: breaking news: Wright's back (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Wright is publishing a book which will be out before the election. Ah, the gift that keeps on giving. I just heard it and thought I'd put it out there since we're talking about polls here.

    Isn't it (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    due out around October?

    Parent
    My understanding is that he has (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    a fall book tour planned. Dude seems to love the spotlight, so this could be interesting . . . .

    Parent
    KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    That sound you heard was a donkey stepping on a land mine. Ew.

    Yep, it's gonna be an interesting fall.

    Parent

    You link to a source in April (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    so I think that the August source linked above is probably better.  But with Wright, who knows -- he seems the type to do a book tour sans book.

    Parent
    Yeah. He's the source (none / 0) (#170)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    of the "rumor" and speculation though. I just did a quickie google cause I'm feeling lazy. I was more or less responding to the "don't let the facts get in your way". Kinda hard when it started from the horses mouth  ;)

    Parent
    Hmm . . . . (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    Uuummmmmmm!! (none / 0) (#184)
    by D Jessup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    Who am I'm going to believe Roland Martin or Ben Smith?  

    Parent
    Not only that (none / 0) (#192)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    Ben Smith changed his tune too.  This one is dead.

    Parent
    Pelosi's glowing endorsement of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    is beginning to hurt him with military voters.  New old friends have arrived home at Mother Rucker to take career advancement courses.  Last night's topic on the table......how the new Democratic leadership did nothing about Iraq and abandonded their own soldiers in this Iraq horror for their own political gain.  If she said evil things about Obama in front of the cameras she would help him more than hurt him.

    Stop obsessing about the polls (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by LCaution on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:58:15 PM EST
    BTD,
    Please.  All these polls you have been obsessing about have results well within the margin of error - and those that aren't are so close to the MOE as to make no difference.

    Basic polling 101: The MOE reflects the fact that there is a sampling error (unlike an election)based on the size and other factors about how the poll is conducted.  Any diff. between candidates within the MOE is irrelevant, just the luck of the draw.  If Candidate was up 2 points last week and is down 3 points this week and the MOE is 4 it means that nothing has changed. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.  Or, at best, that you can't prove anything has happened on the basis of the poll.

    On top of that, when polls are being conducted daily or almost daily, differences can be due to nothing more important than the day's headlines or pundit talking points.

    Trend lines of multiple polls over time can, possibly, suggest something even if the results are all in the MOE - but I'm not sure even pollsters can make a good case for that.

    A couple of things are interesting about the polls. Obama is, apparently, doing much worse than Kerry, Gore and even Dukakis at similar points in the election cycle.

    This was supposed to be a Democratic slam dunk, but Mr. Charisma is fighting for his life.

    You've been saying for months that your only reason for choosing Obama over Clinton was that he was more electable.  He may win, but if so, it's likely to be a nail-biter.  You might, one day, want to think critically about your assumptions.

    Favorite post of the day (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    trying to school BTD on polling...lol.

    Parent
    Also (2.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    Obama should get at least five extra points on every poll because none of them reflect intensity, new voters, and cell phone users.

    Parent
    Oh, does a vote (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    count for more where the voter intensely supports Obama?

    "I object."

    "Overruled."

    "But I strenuously object."

    Parent

    Wrong. Please tear up that Obamamemo (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    along with the rest of your spoonfed errors here, Ennis.  Go read pollster.com and other sources for how they're contacting or otherwise accounting these days for all those who want their news text-messaged today.

    You are relying on people who did polling a decade ago.  That is so, like, ovuh.

    Parent

    Or we could deduct five points (none / 0) (#194)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    for those who support him only tepidly, are lying, refuse to talk to pollsters, or juts want to get off the phone.

    It would make exactly as much sense as your suggestion.

    Ennis, you gotta stop making it so easy to mock you.

    Parent

    Yes, look how close we almost got!! (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:33:22 PM EST
    Congratulations.  You almost elected Kerry.  Maybe you can almost elect Obama, too.

    "the b!itch and moan TalkLeft posters" (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by D Jessup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    I am going out and supporting the good fight, but I'm only backing true Democrats and Obama ain't one of them.

    That's where I'm at. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    And true Democrats that have fight are oh so appealing :)

    Parent
    I just (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    think it's hilarious that you think Obama is definitely going to take Nevada because Kerry almost took it four years ago.  

    Electing a President is not cumulative.  It's not like you gain 99 yards in 2004 and get 2008 to gain the last yard.

    Yippee.  You almost won in 2004.  Now you get to start over with an entirely different team -- which, apparently, sees itself as being in a rebuilding year.  So, even if success was cumulative, your manager is busy throwing out the 99 yards you've already gained and the only coach who ever won the big game.

    Meanwhile, your quarterback can't read the defense, is missing the blitz being telegraphed, and keeps finding himself with a face full of linebacker.

    I think Nevada is winnable (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    It has a generally Republican tilt, but Clark County is booming, and it's pretty D heavy. Essentially, I think Nevada is like a slightly less Republican Utah with Vegas and Reno attached.

    The Yucca mountain issue is big there, and Obama is right to press on it in his ads.

    Overall, though, I think it's probably a longer shot than Virginia.

    Hillary will bring out the Latino vote (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    Just sayin'

    Parent
    How will Bayh do with the West? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    Will Obama be a shoo-in with Bayh as VP?

    Parent
    No HRC (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by gaf on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    It's not going to be Hillary.

    Check this link




    In an unusual move, Hillary Clinton's staff is creating a 40-member "whip team" at the Denver Democratic convention to ensure that her supporters don't engage in embarrassing anti-Obama demonstrations during the floor vote on her nomination, according to people familiar with the planning.


    The VP announcement is going to be happening before the convention. If Clinton was going to be the VP pick, then there is no way this whip team to control protestors would have been created.




    Parent
    Obama team loss (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    if she isn't. She's proven time and time again that she is an awesome team player. Frankly, if Obama had shown half the concern about protecting her from his most ardent supporters the same way she is doing so even now, we wouldn't be in the fine kettle of fish we are in.

    Parent
    She's going to need more than 40 (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    and it's extended beyond the floor

    HILLARY'S HELLIONS

    Methinks next week is going to be, ahem, interesting to say the least  ;)

    Parent

    And to quote the reporter (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    This problem is partly of the Obama camp's own making. It has yet to do any serious outreach to Clinton supporters - and it missed chances throughout the primaries to treat them respectfully or honor the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy.

    Gotta love the part about touchy-feely therapy from the Kennedy clan aka Mrs. Republican Governor of California.  That was an interesting way to get over it for her.  I think I'll refrain from following it.

    Parent

    love this (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    Bet the Obama people are just thrilled.
    Not that they don't support women's issues; they have to.

    Parent
    Clinton has to do this (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by miriam on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    if she is to retain political power post-election. This way no one can convincingly accuse her of trying to scuttle the Democratic nominee.   The operative word, of course, being "convincingly."  Obama supporters will blame her, no matter what she does or doesn't do.  

    Parent
    I agree. I just think it's (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    d@mn funny when reading through the list of groups and their plans. Perhaps the era of the sheeple is coming to an end?

    And I don't know how the Obama campaign could think that they could really afford to p!ss off that many women. Maybe in another time when there was no competent woman running they could benefit from the fall in line voters, but with Clinton is the race?! Hello judgment, not.

    Parent

    A quasi Move-on.org for women (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    is gonna be fun.  So are the not-so-well-behaved blogs already.  The Sisterhood of the Pantsuit and Laptops, Too is not going gently into that good night again, folks.  

    I'm having such fun following this, since I have researched women's earlier social movements and specifically their use of media then.  Ha, had Cady Stanton and Anthony had the internet toobz, imagine!  Women accomplished so much with an incredibly powerful underground of print media, even then, when so many could not even own property or make contracts. . . .

    Parent

    There was a poster at the Confluence (none / 0) (#138)
    by laurie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    today who denied this story. He said it was a pure invention. He was a Hill delegate and had heard nothing re whips.

    Parent
    Obama needs little help with Hispanic voters (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    By the end of the primaries, he had as much or more support than Clinton among Hispanics.  Early in the campaign, Hillary enjoyed a name recognition advantage with among all voters.  If not, she would have been put away by January instead of February.

    Parent
    Uh, what. She won nearly 70% (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    of the latino vote in every contest.

    Parent
    AND, even with the BIG unions (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    endorsing obama, the members went enmasse for Hillary.  I wouldn't count on the hispanic vote dashing over to obama that way.

    Parent
    I have not argued one way or another. But (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    the notion that latino voters moved away from Hillary is nutz.  In every single contest they voted for her by about 70%.

    Parent
    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    My point was an effing simple one - Clinton helps Obama with Latinos. this is undeniably true.

    Unless you think Clinton is evil and will deny here any merit.

    Are you one of those?


    Parent

    Jeesh, (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by tree on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    can we PLEASE stop the meme that if a demographic doesn't support Obama it must be because of his race?! No one here has said that but you, and I think you should be ashamed of yourself for your tasteless implication.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    Hispanics don't like and do not trust Obama.  He may carry the Latino vote, but not with Hillary's margins. It's not an AA issue, it's the candidate.

    Parent
    Your "Not True" Is Not True (3.00 / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    I have no doubt that if HRC were still in the race she would still lead among the Latino voters, or that as VP she'd bring even greater support, but once she left the race, his numbers in this community swelled.

    July 24 CNN

    Parent

    With all due respect (2.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    Baloney.  Obama is attracting more Hispanic voters than any candidate in the past two presidential elections.  They love him.

    Parent
    Proof? (none / 0) (#159)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    Proof (2.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
     Obama's approval rating with registered Latino voters, the nationwide Pew Hispanic Center poll found, is at 66 percent versus 23 percent favoring McCain.

    Obama's "strong showing in this survey represents a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries.....



    Parent

    Do you not ever run out of strawmen? (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    No one said anything about believing Hispanics won't vote for an AA.  I've never read any such comment at TL in the past 5 months.

    What I have read, repeatedly, is that Hispanic support for Obama is soft and there's a considerable danger they won't turn out for him.  Nothing to do with being AA; they just overwhelmingly preferred Clinton.

    Parent

    You have misread the matter (2.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    Obama's support among Hispanics is very strong at 65% to 70%.

    The reason Hillary attracted more Hispanic voters in the primaries was name recognition and warm fuzzies about their socio-economic progress under another person named Clinton.

    Obama's support over McCain is stronger than Hillary's was over Obama.

    Parent

    Pssst! Hillary has a long history (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    with the Hispanic community. As I recall, started way back when registering voters in Texas. You might want to look it up.

    Parent
    Wierd (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    You must have observed that in some reverse alternative universe.

    Well I have 2 words for you:  Puerto Rico.  

    Go look it up.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    That Clinton killed Obama with this demographic in the primary.  But polling suggests he is having no problem winning them over McCain.  I think Clinton as V.P. might bump him up higher here, but I think there are other, more significant reasons to pick her (white working class dems) and he will win the latino vote with the usual margins w/o her.  W/ her, I think he will clean up this group in an even more convincing fashion, but she isn't as make or break in this demographic as some others.

    Parent
    Turnout (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by BDB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    I think where Clinton helps is in turnout.  Obama is winning latino voters over McCain, but not enthusiastically.  Historically, Mexican-Americans don't have a great turnout rate.  That was very different in the primaries, at least here in California.  It was not just that they voted 2-1 for Hillary, it's that so many more turned out than usually do.  

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    for Obama is getting them to actually vote for him. From what I understand there is a large portion of the population who just isn't that thrilled with him and may now show up. He may get large margins but if people sit home it won't help.

    Parent
    This Is One Of Those (none / 0) (#144)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:26:00 PM EST
    time will tell scenarios--i.e. Election Day.

    Because I don't know how to stack up anecdotal 'I understand...' and others who report 'From what I hear...' with the hard polling numbers that suggest Latinos support Obama and plan to vote for him.

    I'm also encouraged that polling suggests his enthusiasm numbers in general among his voters is much higher than McCain's.

    Parent

    Puerto Rico was an exception (2.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    and not representative of the traditional Hispanic vote.  Obama is killing McCain among Hispanics, and that support was moving his way well before the end of the primaries.

    Parent
    Gosh, where do the "traditional (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    hispanics" come from?
    Mexicans in large numbers are a rather new phenomenon, so it can't be them..
    Hmm... Guatemalans? Help me out.
    Do traditional hispanics speak Hispaniceze or Spanish?


    Parent
    Southwest, Florida (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    Trust me, Puerto Rico does not count in presidential elections.  But if it did, the majority of voters there would probably go with the influence of New York and name recognition.

    Parent
    No, it wasn't. Where on earth do you get this (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    stuff?  Did you miss Texas or something?

    Parent
    Texs was not a late primary (2.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    but Obama won it partially on the basis of Hispanic support.

    Parent
    Ha! Obama did NOT win the TX primary. He lost it (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    by 100k votes, and Hillary wailed him among latinos.

    Parent
    Obama won the most delegates (2.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    That's the purpose of primary elections.

    Parent
    He won the caucus delegates, not (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    the primary delegates.  And he got whupped by 100k votes.  

    Parent
    Texas: Obama Got 99 Clinton 94 (none / 0) (#146)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    according to the Real Clear Politics site.

    I think the bottom line is really the total number of delegates a candidate gets from a state, at least to earn the nomination.

    Parent

    That's a win (2.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    The purpose of state primary elections, caucuses, and combinations thereof is to win delegates.  Obama won, and many Hispanic citizens contributed to his victory.

    Parent
    uh (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    when you poach 4 delegates and clain delegates in a state you weren't on the ballot on that isn't called "winning" the delegates. It's called rigging. There is a distinction.

    Parent
    Go look at the results from Webb County (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    and El Paso.

    And "won" Texas. The kool aid runs strong with you Ennis.

    Parent

    Must be the magic mushroom? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    You're completely wrong about the primaries.

    Parent
    Bigotry: b/w racism about Obama always, evah ... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:57:37 PM EST
    ... has been an overly-indulged Team Obama campaign theme. It's become tiresome, irritating and insulting to so many groups and individuals that experience it in harsher ways.

    Strong Latino support of HRC and not necessarily marching in lockstep behind BO isn't suprising, nor considerations aboutJMcC by any voters.

    Beyond egregious anti-Clinton (aka The Clintons) pile-ons and overt misogyny (like the Feminist Lawn Jockey), Latinos, Asians and other groups have been rendered inconsequential by the attempt to make ANY criticism of Obama's personal qualities about racism.

    Many of his statements and actions have been baldly arrogant and dismissive, despite attempts to characterize the intended meaning, eg, as "uppity" and apply the conjured outrage as leverage on media coverage or towards silencing critics.

    This just trivializes the much needed ongoing hard work people do to maintain and advance human rights for all.

    I won't soon forget the bigotry towards all kinds of voters that support(ed) Sen Clinton. It was just appalling.

    Months of stomping demands from Obama supporters in and outside media that HRC supporters shaddap and get over it went beyond ridiculous long ago.

    Parent

    You always kill me Ennis! (4.50 / 8) (#16)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    Your comments always give me a chuckle.
    Like you're deliberately trying to say the most ridiculous thing possible. Throwin' in a stick bomb and running away.
    It's cute.

    Parent
    Please make your personal attacks (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    more creative.

    Parent
    why? (4.00 / 4) (#74)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM EST
    Too Funny Not to rate a 5, LOL (none / 0) (#92)
    by Boo Radly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    I thought that was plenty creative. (none / 0) (#196)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:53:18 PM EST
    Spot on, too.

    Those are some real high standards you got there, Ennis. For everyone but Obama.

    Parent

    sheesh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    Yucca Mountain (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    Obama is taking a risk with this ad - Exelon, one of his biggest campaign contributers is heavily mixed in with Yucca.

    Plus he voted twice to fund Yucca in 2005.

    I didn't watch the video, but apparently it cuts off McCain's quote on Yucca, which would change the meaning of what was said.

    Link

    Parent

    Exelon? Yeah right. (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST


    Funny - BO is winning NV in the district ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    ... that gave HRC her popular (caucus) vote lead, and losing NV in the districts that gave him his caucus delegate lead.

    HAHAH.. funny, but not suprising. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    "Democrats for a day", indeed!

    Parent
    Honestly, duh (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    Nevada outside of Clark county is Utah with a smattering of Hispanics.

    Parent
    Biden will change the toss ups (none / 0) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    to RED.

    Does this mean no veto proof majority? (none / 0) (#89)
    by lambert on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    Damn. I was expecting that.

    Kerry states + IA + NM + NV = 269 (none / 0) (#113)
    by magster on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    = President Obama

    He won't need Clinton on the ticket after all....

    So he's spending close to (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    a half Billion in hopes of a tie?

    Brilliant!

    Parent

    Gee (none / 0) (#119)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    I wonder how the SC will rule in the event of a tie. LOL. Okay if this IS the strategy we're doomed to 4 more years of GOP courtesy of the keep the powder dry contingency.

    Parent
    Tie in the Electoral College Gets Decided (none / 0) (#154)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    in Nancy Pelosi's House, not the Supreme Court.

    Intriguing thing is the VP is then chosen by the Senate according to the 12th amendment, if I understand that correctly.

    Parent

    That's how I read it, but -- (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    I never would put it past Republicans to find a way to take it back to the Supreme Court again.

    Let it not be in the hands of Pelosi then.  She'd fold fast.

    Parent

    Assuming (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    he can win MI, OH, and PA

    Parent
    That scenario (none / 0) (#131)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    Doesn't require Obama to win Ohio.  (It does require the coin to land heads in MI, PA, and MN, though.)

    Parent
    Or Gore states plus a wee one more? NH? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    Sorry for OT: USA Today Obama quote (none / 0) (#139)
    by eleanora on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    on VP sounds like Hillary to me.

    "In an interview in Chester, Va., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he's made up his mind, but he would not say whether he's informed that person yet. "I won't comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world," he said. "That's all you're going to get out of me."

    Obama said it was a difficult decision. "We had some great choices."

    Obama said he wanted somebody who is "prepared to be president" and who will be "a partner with me in strengthening this economy for the middle class and working families."

    He said he was looking for not just a partner but a sparring partner. "I want somebody who's independent, somebody who can push against my preconceived notions and challenge me so we have got a robust debate in the White House."

    Last two paragraphs sound like excellent walkback language if HRC is the veep.

    Sounds like Obama's conception of (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST
    Bayh to me.

    Parent
    Works for Biden, too. (none / 0) (#176)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    It does sound like her!! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    Trying not to get my hopes up. But who else fits that description?

    I'll be buying Capt. Howdy a beer I hope.

    Parent

    Another OT: New McCain humor Ad (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    Oh lordy

    I'm beginning to believe (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    that if Voters have a choice between McCain's humor and Obama's constant indignation, they're going to side with McCain's humor in the end.

    They may not agree with him and they may not even be rock solid Repubican, but no one doubts he has experience even if what he will do with that experience is debatable.  

    In view of Obama's inexperience -- and no VP can inoculate him from comparing resumes with McCain -- and his more-whiny-than-not responses and, as of yet, weak attacks, McCain will seem like the "safe choice".

    Or, as my niece put it the other day, even if you don't want to continue dating the person, you're going to remember the one who made you laugh rather than the one who spent the whole dinner complaining how mean people are to him, right?

    Parent

    I'm with your niece on that one (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    and may she marry as well as I did the second time around, when I went with the sense-of-humor-test.  But may she be smarter and use it the first time around, so she won't need a second time. :-)

    Parent
    she's pretty amazing (none / 0) (#197)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    for someone who is just 18.  And her BS Detector is impressively accurate.

    When I asked her her opinion of Barack the first time, she gave me that not quite rolling her eyes, but you get the message-type of look.  And that was it.

    But, really, after that, what else is there to say?

    And, according to her, if you like Obama and your her age, you're hopelessly uncool.  Like five steps behind and wearing acid-washed jeans with a baby-t uncool.  

    He's, like, so yesterday.  LOL

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    that ad is hysterical. If Kerry had done this kind of ad to Bush in 2004 he would have won.

    Parent
    I can't believe that his supporters (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    can't STFU and quit giving McCain material! Nancy, Nancy Nancy . . . . lol!~

    Thank dawg they didn't put Hillary in there!

    I do enjoy these ads. I suspect we'll get a stadium one before the start of the Repub convention. Friday perhaps so it can hit the weekend news cycle?

    Parent

    one thing that just (none / 0) (#157)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    occurred to me is that politicians, by nature, are suck-ups.  They have the ability to say exactly what you want to hear when you want to hear it.  Doesn't mean it's honest, of course.  But they can recognize what, exactly, you'll respond to and then, with a smile and a small note of sincerity in their voice, say it.

    So, with all the things being said about Obama by all these long-time politicians, what does this say about him?  What does this say about how he views himself and what he responds to?

    Just a thought.

    Parent

    We aaaaaaalmost got Kerry elected. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    So what are you b!tching about?  This close.  We were THIS close!

    let's try this (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    You have no idea. (none / 0) (#198)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:03:19 PM EST
    It's obvious from this sentence:
    You don't quit if you don't get your way.

    The way to motivate people to do what you want is not to invent or speculate on their motivation for doing otherwise.