home

AP Poll: McCain By 4

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Palinpalooza among the shrill Obama blogs and the Media continues and with predictable results, McCain leads by 4 in the AP poll:

[T]he survey — conducted after both parties staged their conventions and picked their vice presidential candidates — conforms with others that have shown the Republicans grabbing the momentum after a summer in which Obama had steadily maintained a slim lead. According to the AP-GfK Poll, McCain leads Obama 48 percent to 44 percent.

Obama needs a new Tier 2 operation.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin's Climate Change Flip-Flop | New FBI Rules Make It Easier to Spy on Innocent Americans >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AP Poll: McCain By 4 | 200 comments (200 topical)
    McCain also +3 in today's Rasmussen Daily Tracking (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    Link here.

    Perhaps that could change soon (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by indiependy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    Not quite sure how many people watch The View, but I'd venture to say it's a decent amount. And all of them saw this today.

    Between what many felt was a shaky start Palin had with Gibson, to the inability of McCain to get through an interview without stumbling or lying, it seems like the luster may be ready to fade a bit.

    Perhaps the convention bounce just lasted a day or two longer than others and now will begin to fade.

    Parent

    I don't think so (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by ks on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM EST
    There's a pretty big line between conducting a tough interview and being beligerent and the View crew certainly crossed that line.  Joy Behar certanly did and Whoopi's "slavery" question was nothing short of absurd. It might please hardcore Obama partisans but I suspect that's about it.  In fact some folks would probably give McCain credit for sitting through that nonsense.

    Parent
    Hotline/Diageo (none / 0) (#166)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    has Obama +1 in a bit of good news.  Lots of tough polling news for the Obama campaign though.    

    Parent
    It's the GOP, stupid (none / 0) (#182)
    by 1980Ford on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    McCain is trying to separate himself from the GOP. Bogus. All Obama needs to do is concentrate on two things:

    1. Palin strategy a lot like Schwarzenegger's.

    Bad news and Schwarzenegger is facing a recall. What does this say about McCain?

    2. The GOP sells laws to special interest lobbyists though American Legislative Exchange Council.

    Make the connections and drive it home over and over again.

    Parent

    But, but, but (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    didn't you know that John McCain doesn't know how to send email? How can anyone vote for someone so clueless about today's technology? /snark

    Obama's "email" ad is pretty sad (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    When Obama draws attention to McCain not being able to email, McCain's campaign can come back and say... Hey, look! Palin is ready on day 1 - she CAN email!

    Parent
    not only that... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    but I wonder how many of the senators use email.

    Sure...staffers use it all of the time. But most correspondence goes through the staffers to the senators.

    This reminds me of the West Wing debate between Bartlett and Mrs. Laningham about his learning how to use the new phone/voice mail system.

    Parent

    Tsk (none / 0) (#198)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    I PM'ed Robert Byrd just the other day!

    Note: not all Republicans are ignorant about email and online communication.  Mark Foley knows technology really well.

    Parent

    I think this is the way (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    that the fickle media will shift its darling status away from Obama and give it to McCain/Palin.

    Palin is just too juicy for them.  And since media-types read and keep up with some of the blogs, they see a reaction that they cannot resist.

    Keep churning the waters, issues be damned.  Obama needs a STRONG message about the bassackward policies of the GOP.

    Who gives a sh1t that McCain doesn't know how to use technology?  Does that lower the price of gas?  Make food more affordable? Address healthcare?

    Obama speaks of the "silly season" of politics.  He's becoming more silly by the day!

    McCain may have dodged the media. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    He's gone to war with it, and that's playing well in a certain segment of the population he needs to turn out big time.

    Indeed, the media hasn't been particularly friendly to him or Palin -- their response (as opposed to the left-o-sphere) to Palin is part of what his campaign has used to gin up Palin support.

    There's been plenty of media support for Obama: articles taking apart McCain's dishonest advertising, and I even heard Neal Cavuto defending Obama on Fox the other day over the lipstick affair.

    It just doesn't seem to be moving the polls -- or not moving them in the right direction, anyway.

    Parent

    McCain's handling of the NYT (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    article (the one including the speculation about the female telecom lobbyist and McCain) was masterful.  NYT pretty much backed off and other media were very critical of NYT.  Meanwhile, the article told me lots I didn't know about McCain, some of it pertinent to evaluating him as future President.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    whole 'media is cheering for obama' does nothing but hurt him. It hurts his chances with Hillary supporters too. It hurts him with working class whites who wonder what he's done to deserve such a status. If a media barrage and trashing would happen to Obama it might help though I don't think he would have a clue as how to handle such a thing.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#172)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    The media has been calling McCain a liar for 6 months.  Even conservatives have called him out. Sean Hannity called him a liar on the air when Hannity was defending Mitt.   Romney is still sitting on the side of the road wondering if anyone has called an ambulance.

    But lying seems to work.

    Parent

    I hope this isn't a stupid question (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by NJDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    But if there are millions more registered Dems than Repubs, how can Palin energizing the base result in such a surge in the polls?

    Also, someone has to tell Obama's camp to take down that 1982/Jmc is old commercial--it's worse than I thought!  He's bleeding support from women, does he really need to insult seniors?  (many of whom also don't know how to use a computer--though it is a bit crazy that Jmc can't even send an e-mail...)

    It's not the Reagan Democrats who are causing it (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    It is women aged 34-50 who are professionals and educated but still consider themselves working class.  They look at what the Dems did to Hillary and their votes in horror.  What every idiot in charge thought we'd just get in line after what we witnessed should  have something really fungal and nasty happen to him.  
    Palin might be our only hope to getting back to where we were before Obama's testosterone poisoned movement set back progress for women by 40 years.  
    Yeah, the Democratic leadership is in denial about it and believe me, it is purely a defensive move,  But if the Dems think we're going to let them get away with that crap, they've got another thing coming.  Our votes mattered, or they will on November 4, 2008.  That's one election Obama can't rig.  


    Parent
    You are consistent--I guess that's (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    good.  But I can't believe you will vote for McCain to discipline the Dems./DNC/Obama et al.  

    Parent
    I'll never (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by chrisvee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    vote McCain.  But I will stay home.

    Parent
    Think about it (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    It's more than just discipling the Democrats.  There is a huge opportunity here to put a woman in power, to finally break that barrier.  After it's broken, there's no going back.  The nexct woman wo runs has a much easier time of it.  Neither party can ever take us for granted again.  
    The temptation is very strong.  Don't underestimate it.  

    Parent
    It really is a huge temptation (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    I'm resisting so far, but you make a good case.

    Parent
    And I think it is an easier challenge (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    to take up in light of the treatment of Hillary and now Palin.

    Obviously I am a guy, and a guy who wasn't that enthused about Hillary, but I thought she got a raw deal from the press.  And now watching the treatment of Palin, I am not sure what is going on... but it is disturbing.

    I mean all these years of work to promote equality for women, and then to question whether a women should run because she has a family!?  You've got to be kidding me.  Is it just the fact that she is conservative?  And to be a feminist you have to be liberal?  Seriously, I don't get it.

    Just one guys opinion :)

    Parent

    I don't see it (none / 0) (#187)
    by elmey on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    How can putting a clearly unprepared woman in power clear the way for the next female candidate? If there is a McCain administration, and we survive it, it will be completely discredited in four years. Hillary's run was important, and that's what we should be building on, not Palin as a token.

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 9) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    is that Obama is giving us absolutely no reason to vote FOR him. We've seen how he operates--willing to compromise every thing away. He can't stand up.

    Obama had the entire summer to convince us to vote for him? What did he do? Go on vacation twice and trying to get support from europeans who can't even freakin' vote for him! View things within that prism and you can see why people feel the way they do. And you know who asked for our votes while Obama was out gallavanting? McCain. He's done it twice. First with citizens for McCain and again with Palin.

    Disclaimer: I voting for neither candidate.

    Parent

    You've hit my challenge... (none / 0) (#118)
    by DET103 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    ...on the head. I feel desperately they need discipline but it wouldn't even cross my mind to not for Obama, I am without question, but then what are those like me to do? Mad as hell but not PUMAs.

    Parent
    If you believe the Dem party that (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    you saw exposed this campaign season is in the long term best interests of the country, vote for Obama. If not, vote for someone else.

    I come out on the side of the Dems, but just barely. They will get my vote, but not my money or time.  I will do whatever I can to get n influential 3rd party going - I don't expect a 3rd party to win anytime soon, but an influential one on the left could make Dems think twice about moving towards the right on issue after issue.

    Parent

    It already is... (none / 0) (#142)
    by DET103 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    ...the first presidential election since I was in the 7th grade (Carter) that I haven't worked for the dem nominee in some capacity including handing over my money. So I can put a check mark beside that suggestion. I think I have us off topic though, sorry.

    Parent
    Vote Cynthia Mckinney (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by rennies on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    Arican American who voted against the Iraq war while in Congress.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#174)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    Vote for Obama and then hold his feet to the fire after he's elected.  There are several issues I have with him but I know which outcome is preferable and it doesnt involve more of the Bush years.

    Parent
    If you (5.00 / 8) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    can't get him to do things for you NOW when he needs your vote, you will never get him to pay attention to you once he gets in office.

    Parent
    The DNC doesn't count them (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nellre on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    The pollsters call us old folk with land-lines.
    We don't count, according to the DNC and Obama campaign.
    The new Democrat is a newly registered 20 something who has his cell permanently attached to his ear.

    Based on the people I've heard (5.00 / 17) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    talking about this election, the more the focus on Palin (who these people deem unqualified to be VP) the more the same people question whether Obama has the experience and judgment to be President.  Some of these people are now considering voting for McCain, although they previously supported Clinton, and then Obama, or Obama from the start.  

    Oculus (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    your comment speaks VOLUMES about a tactic that I never noticed until you wrote it out:

    the more the focus on Palin (who these people deem unqualified to be VP) the more the same people question whether Obama has the experience and judgment to be President.

    If that may have been the strategy ALL along from the R's, I would have to say that is nothing short of BRILLIANT.

    Man, those sneaky republicans.  You could knock me over with a feather right now!!!!

    Parent

    Actually I saw that comparison immediately (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    I always thought that Obama against McCain was going to be a tough sell, but once the secondary comparison of Palin became evident, I could see Obama losing it.  Such a shame. McCain may be different that Bush, but not that much!  The only good that might come of this is that the Democrats will clean house and change the dammed caucus system.

    Parent
    Isn't it so easy to understand (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    if one is only willing to get out the door and talk to people about what they are seeing and what they are experiencing and what they need?

    Parent
    I saw a new (none / 0) (#84)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    comment the other day. It may have been here or elsewhere. But, it went like this. If you are worried about whether McCain dies on day 1, what happens if Biden dies on day 1?

    Parent
    It's in the US Constitution (none / 0) (#111)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    The last amendment I think.  The president nominates a new VP, and the Senate approves the nominee. The amendment was a formalization of the route Nixon followed to replace Agnew with G. Ford.

    Parent
    I think it was rhetorical (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    who will help Obama if Biden dies because Obama can't do it alone.

    Parent
    Please don't let it be Harry Reid or (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi!

    Parent
    It was :) (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:59:20 PM EST


    Parent
    its the economy and health care, stupid (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    yeah, people don't like Bush, but that isn't g0ing t0 d0 it.  He needs t0 be with the cLint0ns taLking ab0ut heaLth care and the ec0n0my.

    Is it tacky to say (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    I think the 'class' war is even stronger than in the primary?  There seems to be two very different personalities perceived on the tickets?  Just a feeling I'm getting where it looks like McCain and Palin are coming across as 'typical'

    Only Fox was covering Obama live when he was speaking in NH.  CNN and MSNBC were covering the storm.

    McCain (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    Manages to come across as a "regular" guy that listens to your concerns. Obama tends to come across as someone who is lecturing you, not talking to you. (He's either in lecture mode or preacher mode). These are just perceptions, but then Bush won because he was the guy you'd sit down and have a beer with.

    I'm not feeling real good about the debates.

    Parent

    Listening vs talking (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    Obama talks and McCain listens perception.  Hillary also listened: "You are not invisible to me".

    Parent
    fair and balanced (none / 0) (#38)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    Fox WANTS Obama front and center.  They want to show their viewers all they can on him.

    Just gives Brett Hume and company more ammo. IMO.

    Parent

    What is worse knowing the person (none / 0) (#183)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    you oppose or looking like you're hiding from that person?  IMO, that is all the boycott of FOX has accomplished for the Democrats... they looks scared to talk to people who don't already agree with them.

    Parent
    I'm going to have to stop (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    reading today cuz it just ticks me off totally.

    The tier 2 attack might not work (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    It will be hard for the message to be heard over the background noise. Also having cried wolf already about Palin, the electorate may dismiss the new approach as more of the same.  I agree it is worth a try, however.  Palin has been blown up to a size where she can not be ignored.

    A new tier 2... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    no kidding...if even Biden is talking about Palin instead of about REPUBLICAN RULE.  Using the word 'extreme' is fine but good gawd...every word about John McCain from Biden could go in a McCain promo ad...compliments galore, sweetness and light.

    It's not just the country that's on the wrong track.

    And ummmm....where's Michelle?

    AWOL or MIA?

    Tier 2..."It's the Republicans, stupid!"

    Obama needs some Joe Friday ads...

    I know all the downsides, but I'll say it again (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    Is Obama's hail mary maybe to have Biden withdraw and get Clinton on the ticket?

    I know there are hundreds of real-life reasons this will not happen, but some would have said the same of McCain picking Palin (I wasn't one of them, I predicted it the day he picked Biden).

    It would be radical enough to shift the conversation again, and probably bring a lot of people back into his column.

    The problem is that he would have to admit that (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    he exercised poor judgment on Day ONE.  The pick of the VP is one of the most important decisions a candidate makes.  His poor decision to draw out the VP suspense was another bad decision because it just let people down.

    And with Republicans now saying that he should have picked Hillary, it will look like he is following Republican advice.

    There is no way that he will dump Biden for Hillary because it will undermine the main strength of his candidacy- Judgment from Day One.

    Parent

    I honestly don't buy the judgement argument (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    I think he will lose that badly anyway, specially in light of the experience argument. And right now he is losing the judgement argument on the VP pick anyway: he picked wrong and McCain picked very well.

    He can always argue he is not afraid to correct himself as needed, because a president will make mistakes. He can also point to Bush as someone who didn't correct his mistakes ever.

    Parent

    Joe Biden? WITHDRAW? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    Only under the guise, real or not, of a serious health issue...preventing him from continuing to run.  Or...only if it was his idea.  And really, he may be regretting having said yes to Obama now that he's inside the tent.  But quit?  Joe?  Before that happens, Michelle and Barack will have the Clintons over for dinner.  (They should).

    If anyone asked him to withdraw because 'he was a bad choice' (yeah, let's broadcast THAT to the world - Joe Biden/bad choice) he would never, ever forget it.

    He would still be the chair of a very powerful committee.

    To sum up...Joe Biden/bad choice and/or Joe Biden/quitter.

    Don't think so.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    Hillary would agree to it as this point.

    Parent
    At this point..... (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    ...you have to wonder if Hillary would accept. I think she made it pretty clear that she would have accepted if it had been offered at the appropriate time, but now? Nobody wanted Hillary to be the VP more than I did, but at this point even I don't think it would help. In fact, it might even make things worse.

    Parent
    I can just see it now, if she is offered at this (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    desperate time . . .

    "No Way, No How, No McCain, No VP"

    In a private meeting with Sen. Barack Obama after she conceded the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a request: that he consider her for his vice presidential running mate, but not put her through the charade of being vetted if he was not serious.  Obama told Clinton then it was unlikely he would choose her

    And up until the Biden announcement he was being coy and said that Hillary would be on anyone's short list.  And of course we now know that she was not even vetted.  No wonder Hillary seems annoyed when asked about the VP prospect and merely said "You have to ask Obama."  


    The fact that she even had to ask and was rejected back in June, is just appalling.      What a Democratic nightmare.  

    Parent

    Wow, I somehow missed that article.... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    ...you linked to. Could be because I was trying to ignore all the Clinton noise right before the convention because it was just making me angry.

    Anyway, what can I say. The portrait of Obama's judgment painted by that article doesn't hold up too well in light of recent developments.

    Parent

    I missed that too (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    So the fact that he did not even vet her means he never seriously considered asking her to be VP.

    Just letting that sink in for awhile.

    Parent

    Hillary did a great job turning the other cheek (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    so it was missed by many.  how she campaigned and continues to campaign for Obama is amazing.

    Parent
    I missed this too somehow... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    What a stunning article. Required (re-)reading for the left blogosphere from now until election day!

    Thanks for the link.

    Parent

    Anger Rising (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    Did Obama think he won the primary running away?  What compelled him to think that bruised feelings would simply go away without making amends and  reaching out to Clinton supporters?  

    Now look at what his hubris has led to.  I'm thinking that if he wins, this will be forgotten but if he loses, he'll be the next Dukakis.    

    Parent

    well... now he's just lost me for good. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by jeffhas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    I thought the Convention speech was heralding, it ALMOST won me over... then McCain picked Palin, and I sat on the sidelines... he really did lose me in the Primaries.

    Recently I thought about "what if Barack gets backed into a corner and really starts fighting for the job"... what then, maybe I could be turned around and support his ticket.

    I never saw this article, and now I cannot forget it.

    This just re-confirms every superhubrisegomaniacalelitistsnob thought I ever had about him.

    I'm out.

    Parent

    I respectfully disagree. I believe the Clintons (none / 0) (#177)
    by BronxFem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    knew that this election would end up being a debacle.  I don't think Hillary ever wanted to be VP.  Why would anyone want to be the Assistant-Commodore in the Titanic?

    Parent
    Cheney has set a precedent for a VP (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    actually doing something, setting the agenda, and getting the agenda through.

    I think back in June she thought that the only way she could push her Democratic agenda through was in the position of the VP.  Back in June, before Palin, Obama/Clinton would have won.  Now, I don't think that even she thinks that a Obama/Clinton will float the sinking Titanic.

    Parent

    Actually, the word around the campus is (none / 0) (#196)
    by BronxFem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    that Cheney is and has been the real president.

    Parent
    Exactly. What do you think the word around campus (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    would have been if Hillary was picked as Obama's VP and the ticket won?  

    I think that is what she was thinking back in June at the meeting at Feinstein's house.  But, now, that ship has sailed.

    Parent

    And I think it could hurt her if she wants to (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    make another run... if they win she has to wait 8 years and if they lose... she's Joe Lieberman or John Edwards.

    I can't see her making that kind of mistake.

    Parent

    Maybe Joe's health could intervene! (none / 0) (#62)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, gallup tracking has Obama down 3 (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    which, according to my spreadsheet and Gallup's own story indicates that last night's single polling was probably a 48-48 tie.

    They poll later in the evening than Ras, and they think it might have reflected the Palin interview.

    I think we just need a few more days to see if the trend goes back to a tie.

    I see Paul Hackett (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    has a diary up at Orange spelling out that Obama is losing Ohio and how he is losing Ohio.  I haven't read the comments.  I suppose it is best that a Marine delivers this news to Orange, they are harder messengers to kill than most.

    Oh No (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    I started reading the comments.  Some commenters didn't even know who he was while they were telling him how full of it he is and they actually had to look up his "Orange history".  Ummm, that was how they ran across his political history.  OMG, someone save us!  What do you do at this point?  Laugh?  Cry?  Clean closets?  Look for around for that Prozac again?  I know it's around here someplace.

    Parent
    Explains it all! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    And there lies the problem with the Obama campaign. When you refuse to take an objective look at what's going on around you, or accept constructive criticizm, how can you adjust?

    Parent
    It is a harsh diary (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Knowing military officers and reading in between the lines of the infidelities of McCain and Palin he is ranting about, he has really had it and he can't believe they aren't being called out on them yet they are representing the party that makes huge claims of championing those things.  I can read that he wants to fight.....he wants anyone to fight.....he wants Obama to fight.  He acknowledges in his diary that his points probably need some refinement and well, yes they really really do.  He just wants us to fight this time and I don't know if he's going to see that.  

    Parent
    C'mon, (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by JThomas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    Did you see Paul Hackett's strategy remedies?

    He actually suggested that Obama attack Sarah Palin for intentionally trying to get pregnant to garner sympathy,for having an affair with her husbands employee and  for allowing her daughter to get pregnant.

    You think that is the way to go? I do not.
    Either this was not Paul Hackett or he is not a smart strategist.
    Not to say Obama is winning in Ohio but making up unproven allegations about the Governor is beyond stupid.

    Parent

    He's frustrated (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    Have you served in Iraq and limped through this last eight years panting your own oaths of fidelity to yourself just to make it through it?  Did you live in a war zone telling yourself every single day you were there that this was a snapshot in time and not forever and you were going to do what you could to make that change?  He did.  I understand where he is coming from.  Imagine how all the rest of your quieter soldiers and quieter families feel right now......utterly betrayed by EVERYONE to include the Dems running Congress now.  Who on the left fought tooth and nail to end the Iraq Debacle however it needed to happen to include defunding?  Oh yeah, that super crazy out of his mind dude BTD.  Paul Hackett is at wits end and he has a right to be more than any of us right now.

    Parent
    you made me look (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Klio on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    curse you!  But the last paragraph is crazy talk.  

    I definitely don't think accusing her of adultery is a winning strategy.  Neither is labeling her youngest child a drain on the public treasury.  Ugh.  

    Parent

    If indeed, she (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    really were an adulteress it wouldn't be such a bad thing, politically, if it came out.  But if she's not an adulteress (and of course, in the absence of any actual, you know, evidence there's no hint of adultery) it would be terrible -- morally and politically -- if she were accused of it.

    Parent
    Look, I don't understand what issues (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    matter to Ohio but I understand what issues matter to the best military officers out there and fidelity in marriage is just one of their very serious serious oaths for many of them.  When Clinton was willing to send them to war and fiddle with Monica it devastated some officers and it took me awhile to get why. I know a lot liberals don't understand why but just for one moment attempt to understand what sort of person would pledge their lives NO MATTER WHAT to keep your democracy as safe as they could.  They are a different breed.  Much more courageous than I'll ever be.  You must understand the mindset I guess.  I'm willing to bet that Paul Hackett is like my husband and no matter what befalls him and his family he will BE at his wife's side till death do them part and no excuses for not doing so.

    Parent
    That reminded me that in the West Point motto (none / 0) (#125)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    HONOR comes before COUNTRY

    Parent
    I believe Hillary has (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    argued for universal healthcare since...I dunno...1992? Edwards was a non-issue. He served as Obama's attack dog most times and other times he was given hardly a question.  

    Remember 2004... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by BigElephant on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    I think a lot of us on the left may have to deal with the fact that we're in for another loss this year.  I think it will be disappointing, but maybe its good for McCain to have to clean up the mess that Bush made.

    With that said, he'll leave his own mess, and I think Palin will be THE frontrunner (Democrat or Republican) for 2012, as I think McCain will only do 4 years in office.  I think it's very reasonable to believe that we'll have 20 straight years of Republicans in the White House.  

    At least my tax rate will be lower  ;-)

    But, but the media loves Obama (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    and that's why he is a better candidate.

    Now, now. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:49:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I read comments like this. . . (5.00 / 11) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    and even I'm tempted to vote for the Republicans.

    It depresses me that their votes counts (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    as much as mine.  Truly scary.

    Parent
    This is better from Obama: (in NH) (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    John McCain likes to rail against the Washington herd, but the truth is...he's been running in that herd for 26 years, and they've run this economy into a ditch.

    I think his stump speeches are now so much better than his advertising.  Why can't they figure that out?

    His ads suck (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    for the most part.  They are not memorable.  There was one good ad here in Indiana.  And I sorta liked the Don't Know Much About History ad.  The Same ad was also good.  But there's so much to work with, so much bad news why can't they churn out better ads?

    Parent
    Gas jumped 20 cents this week. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    Probably because of Ike.  Passing by the station today I saw cars in long lines waiting for the pump.  Obama needs to incorporate this imagery into his campaign.  And hit his self-righteous opponents on their lies...etc.  

    It is astonishing that they are losing.  

    Gas prices are a wash in the perception war (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    Democrats are better on the economy generally, but McCain's for drilling (which most people approve of; you don't need to throw out all the arguments why it won't help because I already know them, but Americans don't care).

    Now with Palin on the ticket strenghtening the 'energy security' message, gas and oil prices are just a wash.  I'd actually give the edge to McCain now.

    Health care costs are a much better direction to go.

    Parent

    It's fine (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    to talk about the problems but he doesn't seem to offer solutions. At least the "drill, drill, drill" from McCain/Palin is offering a solution.

    Parent
    I don't know where u live (none / 0) (#101)
    by Monda on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    But upstate NY where I live it's 3.99 for super.  

    Parent
    Damn you. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    In Hyde Park, Chicago, it's 4.35 for REGULAR.

    I ride the bus a lot these days.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#121)
    by Monda on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    they keep them up on purpose to help Obama :D.  
    Ok, lol, I'm joking.  But seriously experts say that if it wasn't for hurricane season, oil prices per barrel would be below $100.  It has fallen by 30% from July, and it's a downward trend.  We might wish it weren't for political reasons, lol, but the truth is come next week it will keep on going down.  

    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#138)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    Just showed a gas station in NC and it was $5.35  And Ike hasn't even hit yet. After Katrina some of the refinery operations weren't back up for 6 months. Maybe they should take some of their profits and build a refinery out of the hurricane zones?

    Parent
    regular? (none / 0) (#192)
    by AlSmith on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:47:57 PM EST

    In NC it seems to be in the mid $3's.

    http://www.northcarolinagasprices.com/


    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#160)
    by Amiss on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    Here in little Wakulla County in the Big Bend of Florida, ours is $3.59.

    Parent
    I live in NC (none / 0) (#106)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    my local station, gas went from 3.59 for regular to 3.79.

    Parent
    I'm in western NC and (none / 0) (#117)
    by ap in avl on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    some of our local stations ran out of gas yesterday.  My sister-in-law went to 3 different stations before she found one with long lines (and gas).

    The economy and our energy crisis are issues that Democrats should be hammering non-stop from now until election day.  I don't know why we aren't hearing anything meaningful AND memorable about the issues.

    The average voter is unable to articulate what Obama would do on these issues because Obama has so far not been able to get a cogent message across.  And that is why he is down in the polls.

    Parent

    It did? (none / 0) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    It was down when I passed my regular station in New Jersey yesterday morning.

    Parent
    not sure... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    the jump appears be storm driven...not sure how that image will illustrate a point re: GOP is upping the gas price.

    And it could easily be spun as opportunism on the part of the campaign, which was my first thought when I though about the idea.

    Parent

    The Atlantic Hurricane season (none / 0) (#145)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    is officially from 1 June to 30 November.

    If the Republicans would like to argue that we shouldn't complain about gas prices, because they will certainly not be jumpy when hurrican season ends, they can be my guest.

    Parent

    no one can make that promise (none / 0) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    not even Dems.

    There are too many intangibles with regards to the storms. Some are light...some not so much. And there's the potential for a whole lot of port and platform damage with storms.

    Parent

    I know it's election year (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Monda on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    and things get touchy, but let's not get carried away here.  Flash news: Milloshevic was the leader of a country who committed atrocities.  McCain was a naval aviator following orders.  And of course, POW for five years.  

    And please don't bring up the Balkans and compare them with other regions in the world (geopolitically I'm talking about.)  We are (as I hail from there lol) in our own unique category when it comes to conflict and bloodshed.  

    Down Ticket Impact? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year."
    Talk about terrifying! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    I wasn't sure how I felt about a D-D white house and congress... but I know damn well that I don't want another R-R white house and congress.

    I'm old fashioned, I like it when it is split... the nuts from either part can't hold too much sway!

    Parent

    Well if you are an Obama supporter then... (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    ...you should know that he threw those of us who opposed the war in VietNam under the bus a long time ago. So maybe you'd care to join us?

    Obama has brought a knife to a gunfight, (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by HenryFTP on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    which seems painfully naïve in view of the Republican reliance on scorched earth tactics in every political contest Obama has seen since his college days.

    The contest with Hillary Clinton was a light-contact scrimmage compared to the championship match with the right-wing machine. I think he can still win this by running as a real Democrat, in the same way that Hillary revitalized her campaign in the battleground states by running a more Trumanesque campaign instead of running as the Establishment candidate. But he's always thought the soft middle was where he was going to win, not by energizing the traditional Democratic base.

    I suspect that neither the candidate nor his team could bring off this transformation. But then I've always thought the kumbaya vote he's been after is largely a Versailles-sur-Potomac illusion. For all of the ballyhoo about the Obama team's "ground game", of the eleven states with 15 or more electoral votes he won the primary in only three, Georgia, North Carolina and his home state of Illinois.

    If ever there was a time to jettison the smugness and complacency that has characterized the Obama campaign since February, it's certainly now.  

    It is a (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    pretty sorry state of affairs for Obama that he is such a weak candidate that he needs to bring in the Clintons to help carry him along - the very people he tried to distance himself from, and the very people he criticized.  

    It gets worse (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by mingus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    as far as the polls are concerned.  Real Clear Politics is reporting on a new Gallup poll "showing that on a generic congressional ballot, likely voters prefer a Republican to a Democrat 50-45. Among registered voters, Democrats enjoy a 48-45 advantage, yet that's still dramatically down from the double-digit advantage for most of this year." It is a generic poll and may have little to do with individual races, but still it is disquieting.
     

    It (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    seems to me that Goldberry has hit the nail on the head.

    I know a good many women who are pissed off at the past treatment of Hillary and the current treatment of Palin.  And it is by the media and so-called progressive left.

    They are debating what to do - but none of their choices involves voting for Obama.  In fact that is the one thing they say they won't do.

    I thought Obama was a "game changer" (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by OxyCon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    Look at this graph. Down ballet Dems are having panic attacks:

    Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive

    Almost all polls now agree (4.86 / 15) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    that McCain is ahead. Can we cut the cr@p about national polls not meaning anything?

    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    McCain is winning now.

    Something has to change.

    Parent

    I think you're right that Clinton campaigning (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    could help. My feeling is that Kerry won Pennsylvania in '04 largely because Bill brought forth a massive crowd in Philly the day before the election--and still gave a great little "talk."

    But if you're 4 points down, you can't win on turnout. And these new ads are beyond embarrassing.

    Parent

    I take the credit for Kerry's PA win. (4.75 / 4) (#88)
    by honora on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    My friend and I traveled up from Maryland and worked like crazy the two weekends before the election and on election day.  I really think that I turned things around for him.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    Bringing out the Clinton's at this point is the best shot he's got.

    IMO Kerry won PA b/c he was married to Theresa "HEINZ" Kerry.  Old money is about the only thing people in Pittsburgh got going for them, and they appreciate it.

    Parent

    Kerry ran worse (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    than Dems historically have in the Pittsburgh market. Philly and suburbs saved his behind.

    Parent
    Obama has got the debates (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by BigB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    The debates are the only major events Obama has (barring some scandal) to change minds. His convention and VP picks are lost opportunities.

    The first debate is on Sep 26. The next few days will be taken up by Sarah palin's interviews. Then everything will freeze until Sep 26.

    Parent

    I think lots of people will watch (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    the debates, at least the first Obama/McCain debate, and certainly the VP debate because of Palin.  But, voters make decisions based on who "won" the debate?  Maybe in the case of JFK/Nixon.  But now?  George W. Bush, in my opinion, "lost" the debates, although Kerry didn't deliver a stellar, decisive performance.  IMO, Clinton "won" the debates against Obama.  

    Parent
    Prediction on the debates (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    Obama was a poor performer in the primary debates. As such he will come out 'overly' aggressive against McCain. Compounding that over aggressiveness will be the fact that he is running behind with most of the key momentum indicators not going his way. So you can say he will probably be anything other than cool headed. This won't be some adoring scripted speech in a football stadium.

    McCain just needs to stay cool and low key as he has been being for the most part. If he can quietly swat away most of Obama's attacks and bait Obama enough to make him lose his composure then McCain will easily win the debates.

    In the end what may be the final death blow for Obama is if he starts to laugh and joke about what McCain says which doing so is part of Obama's DNA. That just won't play well to the millions watching but Obama is almost sure to revert to that out of habit and character. If he goes there it will be a self-inflicted mortal wound that he will never recover from.

    Parent

    Unless, of course (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    that Hurricane Ike does some substantial damage to Texas, the whole idea of Houston "hunkering down" and there is a terrible flood/surge of water, that will distract all things presidential until the debate.

    One has to agree that the hurricane season has played some havoc with the dialogue regarding this year's political debates.  Smart Dems would use it against the R's (climate change/Katrina), but NOOOOOOOO, we have to blab about LIPSTICK and EMAILS and crap like that.

    Parent

    Heh. Just to remind.... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cosbo on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    John Edwards won most of the debates this primary season.

    John Kerry beat George Bush in the debates

    Al Gore beat George Bush in the debates.

    Debates, like everything else is easily forgotten with the new talking point/scandal/ad.

    Obama gave a great speech at the convention. Where are we now? That's right. We're onto the: NEXT.

    Campaigns are fluid, like a river that just flows from one moment to the next and each moment flowing into the new, with a new thought, a new direction...a new person. They can't be really controlled, they just have to be ridden, like a giant wave.

    And when it comes to politics democrats suck at surfing.

    Parent

    Edwards? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    LOL.  

    Parent
    Cosbo (none / 0) (#143)
    by cpa1 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    Many people, including me and almost everyone I know don't like or trust Obama and the best thing that could have happened to him is Palin.  I have to vote for him now.  Imagine if McCain chose Richard Lugar or maybe even worse Kay Baily Hutchinson?

    George Bush made monkey faces during his first debate with Al Gore and because of Chris Matthews and his crew of Democrat haters like Peggy Noonan, Dick Morris and Democratic aholes like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Barnacle and Jerry Brown they mitigated any huge advantage Gore had.

    There are the racists who will never vote for a black person and there are also middle to upper class people who don't want to get f__k_d by paying more payroll taxes because Obama wants to raise FICA to $500,000 to make the middle and upper middle class burden for SS and Medicare all on them so that people like Warren Buffet and the Waltons who earn only dividends, pay no FICA on their billions and pay a 15% tax rather than a 35% tax.

    Then there are just those people who think Obama is less qualified than any of the 4 because he has done nothing and stood up for nothing.  So, the only chance Obama has is Sarah Palin, whose experience far exceeds his own.

    Things are real bad but they could have been worse.

    Parent

    aren't you aware (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    that Obama plans to raise the tax on dividends from the current 15% to somewhere between 20 - 28? This will be a tax increase on anyone who earns dividens even those who earn less than $250,000. So, Obama's pledge to only raise taxes on those earning over $250,000 doesn't tell the whole truth unless he plans to make the divident increase only kick in over $250,000.

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#161)
    by indiependy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    There's no problem with disagreeing with Obama's policies but please first understand them and do not put forward distortions or lies.

    Under Obama's tax plan "The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold."

    Parent

    isn't that EXACTLY (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    what I said as a disclaimer in my last sentence? I wasn't aware of whether he had gotten more specific or changed his original plan. When he talked about his dividend tax plan in a debate it was originally an increase to 28%, which is what is was be fore it was lowered to 15%. And, at at tat time he made no mention that the raise back to the original rate would only be for those making OVER $250,000. I do recall him saying he might only raise it to 20% instead of 28% because Hillary was only proposing a raise to 20%.

    Parent
    Maybe McCain will meltdown (none / 0) (#42)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    on the debates. If Obama can needle him into losing his temper live, that might do it.

    Parent
    The only person (5.00 / 11) (#53)
    by Emma on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    I see responding to needling is Obama.  If Dems are needing this to happen, they're doomed.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by chrisvee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    We have more reason to be worried about Obama's demeanor during the debates than McCain given what we saw in the primaries.

    Granted, on content, Obama wins hands down.

    Parent

    Content yes (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    but communication he utterly fails at.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#169)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    McCain just needs to miss a little sleep beforehand.  His NH victory speech had even the GOP pundits laughing. He acted like he was high on cough syrup.

    Parent
    I've got it! Let's change the nominee! (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    No, that'll nev er work.  Too many Democrats would like it.  Can't lose their grip on our throats now.  What would be the point of saddling us with Obama in the first place?  Well, give it another week and we'll chack back after the downticket Dems get a look at their numbers.  

    Parent
    You know the real irony? (5.00 / 9) (#128)
    by chrisvee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    Many of the folks who get their 'dem credentials' questioned on a regular basis have been right at every turn.

    Parent
    Well, Obama has "taken the gloves off" (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    AGAIN! I think this is the second time (the first time was back in August) that he has decided to get mad... Honestly, I can't remember the results of the first... which doesn't bode well for this attempt!

    Parent
    Well that change needed has nothing (none / 0) (#40)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    to do with what blogs are talking about as the blogs effect on this race is minuscule.

    But it does have a lot to do with what the MSM is talking about and that is Palin who you say ignore. Well keep ignoring her and you just give her free reign to say and do whatever she pleases unabated.

    I really think a way has to be found by Obama to counter Palin, and not to continue to let her walk up down and over him at will while sucking up the airwaves and print as she is.

    She is stealing the show! She is taking away valuable exposure from Obama. How does ignoring that equal Something Has To Change? A presidential campaign is all about Media. You can't say ignore the person who is stealing the media time from you and expect to even have a chance of winning can you?

    Parent

    Incredible (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    You really do not get it at all.

    Parent
    I don't get it? (none / 0) (#116)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    I explained my whys. If you insist on letting Palin dominate the media is a winning strategy that's fine. I don't. The polling metrics say it isn't a winning strategy because...

    He who wins the media battle wins the election.

    You wish to cede the media to Palin. Isn't that correct?

    Parent

    I'm going to get a t-shirt made that says..... (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    ....I'm with andgarden.

    Parent
    The (4.75 / 4) (#170)
    by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:09:45 PM EST
    media is a double - edged sword.

    Obama's rise was strongly media driven and reported - he was their darling.

    Now there is a new kid in town (Palin), a new story, and the focus has shifted.

    Barack is so old news...

    I don't get why... (none / 0) (#3)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    you think that left-wing blogs have that much power.  I don't see the possibility of a 4 percent backlash because DKos is attacking Palin.  Maybe you could argue that its Obama getting off message but even that's not entirely true.  He's been hitting issues over and over and he's been consistantly talking about change and defending his idea of change versus McCain's lack of change.  I just don't see the Palinapalooza as a problem.  This bounce is about the base getting excited about Palin.

    You don't? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    It's funny that you do not know what power the left blogs have.

    I have two words for you - Keith Olbermann.

    Parent

    But you think... (3.00 / 0) (#10)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    that people in southern Ohio really move to McCain because KO talks tough?  Why doesn't it work the other way?  KO is just like a left-leaning Bill-O or Hannity.  Why don't those two push people to Obama?

    I'm not necessarily arguing - you have a better feel for this stuff than me, but I don't know anybody here in small town Indiana that is favoring McCain/Palin because of Dkos or KO.  I've heard people get excited because of culture war stuff though.  They believe Palin will actually do what they hoped Bush would do.  Busting that belief seems important to me when talking with people here.

    Parent

    The thing is... (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    they may not read left blogs, arguably, most Americans do not. But what the blogs say carries over into the MSM...who then repeats the attacks by the left blogs.  Like the whole "Trig wasn't hers" rumor that started out on DK and became national media fodder. It's actually worse than them having influence.  What they say gets filtered by the GOP and then it becomes a "left attack." It's a winning strategy. For Republicans.

    Parent
    Even that idiotic (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    "Jesus was a community organizer" meme managed to get into the msm when some surrogate mentioned it.

    Parent
    I link to two web sites (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    at the top of my post.

    But beyond that, you really do not understand the herd mentality of the Media apparently.

    Parent

    In way, yes this is exactly what I think (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    It's not that people living in Toledo or the Cincinnati suburbs read DailyKos and say "my god, these people are idiots."  But the news media is clearly taking its talking points from lines of attack that first appear on the internet (TPM, DKos, etc.) and magnifying them.  It plays a marginal role at best, but this is an election that will be won or lost on the margins.

    Obama's campaign doesn't help by playing to the peanut gallery with ads like this most recent one.  It's like somebody let a howler monkey loose in a Daily Kos thread and had him compile the world's most ineffective late-game political ad.

    Parent

    Let me add (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    that while daily kos community is obviously a wasteland - it clearly has influence now with the Media.

    And that is bad for Obama.

    Parent

    LOL a wasteland (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    brings to mind when Simba came back to where Scar ran the pride and his home was this huge wasteland.

    Yes, DK is great fodder for the righties.  They constantly feature comments and diaries written by the "loony left."

    Parent

    Who cares! (none / 0) (#96)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    You are seriously worried that Michelle Malkin will call something hateful?!  She hates for a living.  You are just reinforcing the bogus idea that the hate-brigade at fox is main stream.  

    Parent
    Bogus? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    We may not like it but FOX trumps CNN and MSNBO in the ratings.  That's a big audience, tending to be 'mainstream'.

    Think, before you type.

    Parent

    and what about the big "H"? (none / 0) (#99)
    by prittfumes on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Guess what? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    The most outrageous attacks against Palin are being discussed on talk radio and emailed to people all over this country. It's not all about what you hear on the TV news networks.

    Parent
    I think change is not the issue (none / 0) (#56)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    for these people.  They want a replay of the Clinton years and a promise of it.  They don't want post partisan bs. But I am afraid the O campaign hasn't gone there for the same reasons that they didn't chose Hillary.  They knew what would unite the country and took a risk because of what...? ego? who knows but it may be what is holding them back.  Or maybe Obama really believed everything Jeremiah Wright said about Bill "riding dirty" and can't go there.  I'd love to know.  Maybe Joshua Green of the Atlantic.com will tell us after this is over.

    Parent
    Left blogs (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by justonevoice on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    are the fodder for the right-wing talk show hosts. The right uses the left bloggers as something of a barometer to use their "broad liberal brush" to paint us with.

    Bill O and Sean H disparage anything Kos related. Michelle Malkin goes after any left leaning blogger.  Heck she ridiculed PEREZ HILTON for his picture of Palin with a pig snout and lipstick photoshopped onto her face...with just a picture of him, NOT altered.

    (Guess if ur grossly overweight you shouldn't caricature someone as a pig because it can lead to open season.)

    And the R's LOVE open season.

    Parent

    Jeff Toobin told Jeralyn (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    he's checking the blogs while he is on TV!

    Parent
    Everybody calm down (none / 0) (#45)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    Jeez Louise, what a bunch of nervous Nellies!  Palin has already begun to fade; the bloom is certainly off after her Gibson interview.  The media have turned on McCain (to some degree) because of his blatant lies and smears.  The national polls, when you add them all up, are more or less even (the trend in the Gallup tracker shows McCain already fading - and recall he never hit 50%).  Important battleground states are either fairly solid for Obama (Iowa, NM) or show a slight but continuing lead (Ohio, Colorado).  McCain has no plausible path to win without Ohio; Obama does (not that it wouldn't be tricky).  In sum, McCain has had his major pop but hasn't really overtaken Obama; he's got nowhere to go but down.  Nothing much will move to the debates.  So stop worrying, complaining, fretting, send some money to Obama or the DNC, volunteer somewhere, and most of all, chill out!

    Everything's coming up roses? (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    This election was always going to be close; most US presidential elections are.  But the idea the Obama is somehow imploding is not borne out by the evidence.  There's no question McCain's gamble on Palin initially paid off, if for no other reason than changing the conversation.  But that cannot, will not last -- and as I said above, I think it's pretty clear the bloom is off.  When the conversation gets back to Obama v. McCain, McCain can't win, because he's got nothing to offer but the same old, same old.

    Not that I think an Obama victory is inevitable or underestimate the credulity of the American electorate; they are, after all, the same people who believed a decorated war hero like Kerry was really some kind of cowardly communist.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 15) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    I detest silly comments but I must respond to yours.

    It is Friday, September 12, and John McCain has the biggest lead he has had in the entire election.

    I suggest you get your head out of the clouds.

    Parent

    What did you expect? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    You never heard of a convention bounce before?  The whole Palin is a real phenomenon, and that obviously has moved the numbers in McCain's favor.  But that kind of phenomenon can't last.  It's already winding down.  What McCain has failed to do is break through.  He's reached a ceiling, and some of those who moved post-convention and -Palin will drift back.  Can Obama still lose?  Sure.  But all this hand-wringing is infantile.

    Parent
    I expected the bounce to fade (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    It did not.

    Parent
    why did you? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Klio on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    I'm asking entirely sincerely.  I join lots of readers here in finding you one of the most astute and honest observers of the political scene and a freakin' godsend right now (though I don't agree with you on the efficacy of "bush's 3rd term") but I don't get why you thought the Palin bounce would fade.

    Parent
    Because all bounces fade (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    They're supposed to, at least.  Even Clinton's historic megabounce in 1992 faded significantly with time (although he still kept a solid lead).  What's worrying BTD (and me) is that what we're seeing here in the polls with McCain is NOT a "bounce" at all, but a fundamental shift in the contours of the race that merely happened to coincide with the GOP Convention.  

    Do what do we attribute that fundamental shift?  Take a wild guess.

    The fact that Obama looks utterly helpless right now in parrying and deflecting the blows that McCain keeps landing via the media isn't helping either.  Hell, sometimes it seems like he's punching himself in the face, like with the silly "lipstick" gaffe and Biden's grimly funny Hillary remark.  I keep waiting for the Obama offensive to begin...and if this ad is supposed to be his idea of an offensive, then...no, I'm not going there yet.  We still have time.

    Parent

    all bounces fade (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Klio on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:45:02 PM EST
    I get that.  I guess I didn't think it was just a bounce and I didn't think BTD did either.  Or rather, I expected him to recognize earlier that it's what you're calling a "fundamental shift in the contours of the race."

    I couldn't agree more. I mentioned it on the open thread.  I live in one of the deepest of deep red states, although a goodly number of the conservatives I know are old school, i.e., reasonable people who have grown increasingly disgusted with their own party.  And they are invigorated!  Resuscitated, even.  It's the kiss of life.

    Parent

    Kiss Of Life (none / 0) (#158)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    That's a really good Peter Gabriel song.

    Other than that, it's depressing news.  Today is the first day that I really feel pessimistic about our prospects.  Not just alarmed, but outright dejected.  It was that Washington state poll that really did it for me, oddly enough.  We have to hope for some substantive gaffes by Palin or McCain, and for some solid wins in the debates, or some October Surprise.  Because right now it's all going to hell.  I'm this close to becoming Private Hudson in Aliens.

    F**k it, I'm still voting for Barack on Election Day, and I'm dragging everyone I know out to vote for him as well.  We may live in Chicago, but we're gonna be heard regardless.

    Parent

    Keep dreaming (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    and don't wake up until November, then it won't hurt so bad.  The changes we see in the polls are structural because all the polls are saying the same thing: Obama is tanking.  Let me saying it another way: Obama tanked after Wright.  Did you notice that he lost OH, PA, TX, and for good measure WV by a landslide?

    Parent
    Obama is not ahead in Ohio (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    except for in one poll.

    Let me give you a hint, oh soothing genius, it is virtually impossible to win in the electoral college without winning the popular vote. And it is almost certain that Obama is behind in that measure.  

    Parent

    Long term (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    Long term trends are what matter; Ohio has been leaning to O for a long time.  I would argue that now that Palin's bloom has faded and McCain has peaked, the long-term trend will reassert itself.  Not all polls have O down in Ohio; Quinnipiac has O up by 5.  

    Parent
    Are you living on another planet? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    Ohio has leaned McCain for months now.  Never by a significant margin, but always tilting towards that direction.  It's absolutely true that in statewide races there has been a significant Democratic trend, but that's due more to massive corruption within the state GOP (Taft et al.) and the 2006 landslide rather than any demographic shift in the makeup of OH voters.

    Parent
    Sssshhhhh don't inject reality into this N/T (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Harrumph (none / 0) (#59)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    Go read some political science textbooks if you want to know who's going to win the popular vote.

    Parent
    Oh yes, the vaunted "models" (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    I suppose I could also call Miss Cleo to tell me who's going to win.

    Parent
    John Kery was 65,000 votes away from (none / 0) (#66)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote by 3%, so it's not impossible.

    In fact Nate at 538's simulations show an 8% chance of that right now.  

    Maybe it has to do with the electoral votes being apportioned by the 2000 census while new population growth isn't being reflected yet.

    Still, that path is a 10-1 shot and not one to bet on.

    Parent

    wrong factoid (none / 0) (#188)
    by AlSmith on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    Yes you are right that a different result in Ohio could have resulted in Kerry having an EV win with the biggest popular vote gap in history.

    But this 'flipping vote' think bothers me. Bush won Ohio by a final tally of 120,000. Voters dont 'flip'. They go from strongly likely to vote for you, to somewhat likely, to not voting at all. It a huge leap to get an in-the-bank voter to actually change sides.

    Kerry really needed 120,000 more of his own voters.


    Parent

    But, but, but . . . she contradicted (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    herself on climate change and couldn't define the Bush doctrine."  McCain will lose bigtime.

    Parent
    Donate time and money? (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    LOL.  No thanks!   For what? They have earned none of my money and certainly none of my time. I'd be embarrassed to campaign for this currently clueless campaign.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    re Palin and the Gibson interview....

    You need to read other things besides the left blogs - she is being praised by more than a few people.

    Their view - she was not rattled, it was more of an interrogation that an interview, she came across as strong, sharp and well versed (coached), no ahs or uhs like Obama, concise, straight shooter....

    Parent

    and no one expected her to be a foreign policy (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    wonk so whatever supposed "gaffe" she made over that dumb question isn't really being held against her (as it shouldn't, to be honest).

    Personally, I think she did pretty darn well... people should be getting nervous right about now.

    Parent

    Let's face it, the continued (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    hysterical attacks against her are NOT helping.

    Parent
    Wrong (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    McCain is flat, Obama up a point.  McCain has no oomph.  He's gotten all the upward movement he's going to get; it's downhill from here.

    Parent
    Oh, good, a clown is in the house (none / 0) (#68)
    by Boia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    So stop worrying, complaining, fretting...

    Thank you.  It's gray here in New York, and I needed a good laugh.

    Parent

    Clearly Palin (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    has given McCain a surge.  

    I don't believe for a second this is a lasting effect.  

    She is more myth than reality.  And the reality will be come clearer and clearer as we go along.

    This won't help (none / 0) (#122)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    New ad out from Fredom Defense Fund playing in Macomb County, Michigan.

    Guess who is the star of this ad?  Hint:  a high ranking official of Obama's "former" church.

    WARNING:  conservative 527 site

    I was (none / 0) (#126)
    by Monda on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    waiting to see how long before the 527's bring him up post-convention :(


    Parent
    It's stupid because they almost don't have to.... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    ...he's kind of imploding on his own. I wonder if McCain can now have the luxury of disavowing his own parties' 527 ads? Wouldn't surprise me. It's a tactic he's used before.

    Parent
    What I don't (none / 0) (#134)
    by Monda on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:30:42 PM EST
    understand is do the republicans have the monopoly on 527's?  I mean, why don't the dems use the same tactics?  Obama and McCain can take the high road all they want, but the 527 can do their job.  

    PS: Not that I agree with all this bs and the garbage that comes out of 527's but hey, it's 50 days to elections day and nobody said it's going to be a cake walk.  

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    Didn't want the 527's. He wanted the money funneled into his campaign directly. Now that the money difference between the Dem's and Rep's has evenned out, he's changed strategy and is encouraging the 527's.

    Parent
    Playing on racial fears in MI... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    ...is part of the strategy.  And I think it can be effective (though it may backfire).  MI is one of the most racially polarized states in the nation (ever since the 12th Street Riot in '67) and the wacky adventures of Kwame Kilpatrick (currently residing in jail) are merely exacerbating it.  The 527s are thinking that, by tying Obama to these Scary Black Men they can bring in the blue collar Reagan Dems and white moderates who have fled Detroit in recent years.  They might be able to.  But I think there's a good chance of this kind of crap turning into blowback as well.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    as a born and raised citizen of Macomb County (until recently), it's not just "scary black men" (although that may be some of it).  It's about "how does this help the economy when all this other nonsense is going on?"  Macomb County is hurting. They will vote for whomever they think will help them - not look down on them or who will align themselves with the likes of Wright and Kilpatrick.

    Parent
    MI's facing a perfect storm of factors (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    ...that threaten to swing it GOP.  I'm not even all that comforted by polls showing Obama retaining a small lead because I think that the Bradley effect could really be a factor there if nowhere else in the nation.  

    Obama needs come in (and send Joe Biden! He'll play great!) and stump furiously about the economic problems, acknowledge the "one-state recession" MI has been in, and spell out how he's going to break from Granholm's policies.  Blaming John Engler for everything just isn't working anymore.  

    I worry about McCain hitting Obama about his desire to increase fuel-efficiency standards and reluctance to drill.  I think that angle could really play in the Detroit suburbs, especially to the blue collar voters.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by AlSmith on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    Despite the polls I would be surprised if MI didnt go GOP.

    Obama has no energy plan that will help the auto industry and all of those guys are in worse shape than ever.

    "Drill, drill , drill" helps the auto industry, and so does a gas tax Holiday. If gas were in the mid-$2's thing for Detroit would look much better.

    Add in the Kilpatrick thing, and Romney as a surrogate and I'd be surprised if MI wasnt razor tight.

    Parent

    I am concerned by also think things maybe okay (none / 0) (#147)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    a) Bounces take weeks, not days to reverse. It's only now in this cycle we are being told days.

    b) Bush's bounce over Kerry was significantly larger. Indeed, Kerry was where Obama now finds himself only after the debate, not as Obama finds himself before the debates.

    c) The time frame of this poll is during the height of the McCain bounce if you look at when the survey occured..

    d) The daily trackers (not a big fan of them) are showing the race tightening rather than McCain increasing his lead.

    e) Typically state polling lags behind national. If the nationals are tightening such as is being indicated now by Gallup, Diego, Kos,then I am less concerned.

    Obama needs to go on the attack. More so than the crappy ads he is running now which treat this as a rarified debate. Unfortunately when McCain is willing to lie, lying makes it easier to win if you aren't going to go on the attack before hand. Obama seems to be reactive. My concern is that his people don't seem to get that they don't have much time. That being said, the polls are actually okay, but not great given where we are - a week out from the GOP convention. My concern is going forward do Obama's people know how to kick into higher gear. If the ads today are representative- this concerns me more.

    What good does this hand-wringing do? (none / 0) (#149)
    by prose on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    You all are feeding in to the "Obama is sinking" narrative.  This is self-fulfilling prophecy.  Palin gave a LOUSY interview last night.  McCain lied plainly and shockingly on the view today, and the media are increasingly calling them on it.  They can only play the refs for so long.  We might not win this, but we shouldn't give up in September.  

    You give us too much power.... (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    ...at the very least I want to retain the right to express myself honestly. If Obama starts turns things around and starts surging in the polls, believe me I'll see the bright side.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    For example, BO gained a point back today on the Gallup tracker, suggesting he had a good night last night.  That gives me hope.

    Parent
    Shhhh.... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    if you pretend nothing is wrong then nothing is wrong.  That's the "new" kind of politics these days.

    Parent
    4 Tracking poll average today is McCain +1 (none / 0) (#151)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    Ras M+3
    Gal M+3
    Diageo O+1
    R2K O+1

    The tracking poll average 1 month ago today (only Ras and Gal) was tied.

    Please cancel all the finger pointing.  If you want Obama to win, please work for it.

    If you're rather indifferent about it, then, oh whatever.

    Poll gains (none / 0) (#156)
    by G Davis on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    It is amazing how the polls are swinging and I really agree with your take that this is about McCain -v- Obama and McCain can't keep hiding behind Palin if he wants to be prez.

    The sham is that she, and by extension, will remain popular or intriguing or attractive or however folks want to portray it until we get to know who she is, what she believes should be legislated as opposed to what she believes personally.

    If McCain keeps her cloistered, it will come down to turnout, if there are more of the hard right than there are the rest of us.

    It certainly will require all of us that don't want to see McCain/Palin or Palin/McCain elected to work together like we've never worked before.

    Here's hoping!

    If the evangelicals come out like they did in 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    We are going to have problems.  That's why Palin is so poisonous.  Dobson was telling his followers to stay home, fundies were grimacing about having to vote McCain, some of them were even looking our way with Obama making flattering gestures at them.  

    Parent
    Do you think there's no value (none / 0) (#157)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    in making the effort to define Sarah Palin in left terms as opposed to leaving the field of defining her completely to the right-wing message machine?

    AP Poll: McCain By 4 | 200 comments (200 topical)