home

The Polls - 9/24

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I posted on the WaPo poll that has Obama up 52-43. The trackers also have Obama ahead. Ras has Obama up 2, 49-47. Hotline has Obama up 6. Dkos/R2000 has Obama up 4. Ipsos/McClatchey has Obama up 1. CNN/Opinion Research has Obama up 4. Gallup has Obama by 3. Only Battleground has McCain up 2.

It seems safe to say that Obama has a solid lead and it is because of the economy.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Yes To The Dem Plan, No To The Paulson Plan | Good News: Bush Considering Prime Time Address On Economic Crisis >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Polls - 9/24 | 199 comments (199 topical)
    The race is clearly closer than WaPo says (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    And I think we have to consider that Mason-Dixon says McCain is ahead in Virginia.

    Still, the numbers out of Colorado go a long way toward explaining why McCain is spending so much money in Pennsylvania: with Michigan fading as a prospect for him, it's PA or bust.

    McCain is to Pennsylvania as Democrats have recently been to Ohio or Florida.

    I say it is Obama by 6 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    right now.

    Parent
    I think it's +3 or +4 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    Well, I think it will end up 3 or 4 on Election Day, but right now it is 6. And I am the final word on the subject . . .

    Parent
    heh, indeed (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    If you're right, Florida is Obama country, if I'm right, it's still barely McCain.

    Parent
    Ohio (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    not Florida.

    Watch.

    Parent

    Honestly, I don't think Obama can win Ohio (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    in such a close race. He really would need +9, it seems to me.

    And you know I'm worried and Pennsylvania for the same reasons.

    Parent

    Pennsylvania is solid (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    As is Michigan now.

    I'm telling you, with Kerry, who was a mediocre candidate at best, when 9/11 was still a front piece of the scene, we still won Michigan and PA.

    Right now, with current events? No way we lose MI or PA or MN, or WI or IA, or NM. Those are safe imo.

    What IS in play is  FL, OH, NH, NV, CO, VA.

    We have the Kerry map - but with wins in Iowa and NM looking assured, Colorado looking pretty and Ohio and Virginia looking doable. To me If we get Florida, we get Ohio, VA, CO, NH and NV and Obama wins a landslide.

    BTW, you read all those 50 state folks talking about how much Obama expanded the map (and he did a bit in the West)? I wish they would care to explain the Clinton maps then in 1992 and 1996 (Louisiana, Arkansas GA, Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Montana, etc.)  BTW, people forget that BEFORE Clinton, California was a GOP state.

    I wish people would understand how important he Big Dog was to the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    Oh sure (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    PA is frankly only viable for Obama because Clinton made it acceptable for the Philly burbs to vote Democratic. Otherwise, Pennsylvania would look like Kentucky to him.

    Speaking of which, those Obama supporters really don't want to talk about places like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In an economy like this, the Democrat should clearly be winning in those places. At least, he would be on the old map.

    The point, I think, is that the map changed throughout the 90s because of changes that had nothing to do with Obama.

    Parent

    I'd like to see another poll of WV (none / 0) (#142)
    by magster on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    the last 2 polls were within 5% before the  economy crisis.

    Parent
    don't be holding your breath (none / 0) (#148)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    the dog whistle still works fine in Appalachia. and that whistle's been a-blowin' plenty over the last few days. that's the walk-back seen in the polls.

    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#166)
    by magster on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    But if he gets within 2 or 3%, it might be worth sending Hillary accross the Ohio border into WV a time or two when she's campaigning for him in Ohio.

    Parent
    Before Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    Most of the USA was red.

    He really did good, and I will never forgive the GOP for taking him down for a personal matter, or NAder for saying there is no difference (ie, agreeing with Bush).

    Parent

    Problem with that (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bluesage on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    I know Clinton as most everyone in Arkansas does and believe me, Obama is no Clinton - either of them.  It's an insult to even compare him to the Big Dog.

    Parent
    ahh the good old days (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    when men were men and women were women and...

    sorry, I just fell asleep for a moment.

    Parent

    The Big Dog (none / 0) (#177)
    by Claw on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    Was/is important.  But Obama ain't white.  Plus he's a democrat.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw an extremely intelligent democratic candidate with great oratorical abilities?  Pretty sure it was the Big Dog.  And the Big Dog had the advantage of being a white male governor of a Southern state.
    By the way, I was born and raised in GA and was one of those map-changer morons (I still stand by my assertion that Obama may have begun to put certain states back into play for us), so I'm eating crow here.  Just had a little too much faith in my fellow Southerners, I guess.  


    Parent
    Clinton effects (none / 0) (#183)
    by Amiss on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    I wish people would understand how important he Big Dog was to the Democratic Party.

    I Imagine that is why he said on Letterman the other nite that he, Hillary and Biden are all headed to Pennylvania.


    Parent

    Personally, I would like to (none / 0) (#186)
    by Radix on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    know what the heck is going on in NH. I would have thought it would be solid for the Dems.

    Parent
    On Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#197)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    I have not checked the local PA papers to see how Biden's coal gaffe has been playing.... The point: While I believe that Pennsylvania comes through in the long run, there are some additional issues facing us in PA (& some of my relatives there who nearly always vote everything Democratic, but this time aren't so sure.) To start with: Biden perceived as taking on the Bishop of Scranton (a Catholic issue), the ole' "clinging to guns" remark in a state that has as strong a hunting tradition as Montana, the rural areas that resemble southern Ohio and Indiana in demographic make-up, the push for "clean coal technology" by Gov. Rendell as recently as the DNC here in Denver (contrary to Biden's remarks.) The Pennsylvania ? is not yet really answered, IMO.

    Parent
    Do you know of any (none / 0) (#38)
    by gtesta on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    PA polls broken down by county?
    If the western counties (other than Allegheny) start showing McCain leads, this could get really dicey.

    Parent
    You are probably right (none / 0) (#19)
    by bluegal on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    McCain campaign just held a conference call to call the WaPo poll an outlier.

    Sounds like someone is panicked.

    Parent

    Definitely was an outlier (none / 0) (#3)
    by TheRizzo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    Just like Newsweek had a couple months ago.

    But no question the trend is back to Obama and if he can get by unscathed in the debate Friday, then I think he is home free barring a major October surprise.

    Parent

    I don't think either statement is safe. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    His lead is pretty slim and over the last day or two some of those polls have reversed direction (eg, the R2K / dKos is down from 7 to 4 points).  Furthermore, he rarely exceeds 50% in the polling and even then, not by much.  He has a lead but I'd hardly call it solid.

    As for the economy being responsible, that's simply interpretation.  Obama's most recent rise started before the crisis hit last Monday and now that the crisis is in full swing his rise in the polls seems to have stopped, or reversed.

    The problem with trying to figure out what exactly is responsible for Obama's recent rise is that a number of things have gone right for him recently -- from the economy, to McCain's numerous mistakes (economic and not) on the stump, to Palin's poor public performance and decline in the polls, to the media's aggressive attacks on McCain's dishonesty.

    Trying to tease out exactly what is contributing  to the current numbers and to what degree is untestable speculation.  Which, of course, makes it perfect fodder for blogging!

    Rarely exceeds 50 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    You do realize that almost every candidate failed to exceed 50 until the last week of the election.

    The facvt is Obama exceeded 50 in 2 regular polls, WaPo's and CNN's, exceeded it in the DKos poll, the Gallup poll and the Hotline poll.

    This election is pretty close to wrapped up imo, barring a major disaster for Obama on Friday night.

    In fact. Obama can KO McCain clean on Friday and end the election for all practical purposes.

    On the economy. The first question out of the box will be on it. I would spend 50% of my prep time with Obama getting ready for that question - which will decide the debate.

    Parent

    huh?? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    I thought Friday's debate was on foreign policy.

    Parent
    It is (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    But Lehrer can not ignore the economy this week. He has to ask that first.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:34:19 AM EST
    I can already hear the clowns at the Corner screaming bloody murder.  How dare Lehrer sandbag McCain by bringing up the economy!

    Maybe there will be a question on how the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq impact the economy.  Obama has drawn that connection repeatedly, even before the current crisis, by talking about how the money we'll save by ending the war in Iraq will free up more funds for other priorities.  On the other hand, if we bring the troops home, we'll need to find them jobs!

    Parent

    Didn't Obama say he'd send the (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    troops removed from Iraq directly to Afghanistan?  

    Parent
    I assume (none / 0) (#92)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    that only some of those troops would be redeployed to Afghanistan, but I could be wrong.

    In ordinary times, it probably wouldn't be that hard to re-integrate the number of soldiers that will be returning to private life after the Iraq war, but in the current situation, it's not a great time to be looking for a private sector job.  At least we gave them solid educational benefits in the new GI bill, the one McCain opposed.

    Parent

    slam. (none / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    I hope Obama is reading this.

    Parent
    I can't believe it's not Basra (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:16:28 AM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:11:33 AM EST


    Parent
    It will be interesting to see who goes first (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    in the answer. Do they know already?

    McCain will definitely attack Obama and if he goes first Obama should fire back hard with all the negative stuff - Gramm, Davis, Timmons, etc and then pivot to his vision for what to do.

    If Obama goes first, he should just talk about what he wants to do and wait to fire back on MCCain in a rebuttal.

    The first 10 minutes of the debate will be a battle on the economy and the current crisis.

    Parent

    Probably by coin toss (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    You know, my honest opinion is that Obama has been an atrocious debater. I am fully prepared for him to "um" and "uh" his way through this thing.

    Parent
    If Obama had laryngitis, (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    could Hillary be his back-up Friday night?  

    Parent
    oh ha ha. (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM EST
    /snark

    Parent
    Watch for a bulge. . . (none / 0) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    in the back of Obama's suit coat.

    Parent
    Here's the beautiful thing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    The top of the debate should have his canned answers on the economy and the financial crisis and his attacks on McCain. A set piece if ever there was one.

    No ummms and awws in that part at all.

    He should dominate the first 10 minutes.

    Parent

    Hope you're right (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM EST


    Parent
    Nobody but nobody tells it like (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    it is but you......the ummms and awwwws.

    Parent
    That doesn't bother me... (none / 0) (#124)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    ...anymore than Palin's nails on a chalkboard voice/fake Minnesota accent or McCain's boring monotone that puts me to sleep within two minutes.
    My friends zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


    Parent
    It is problem during debating though (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    ummmer and awwwers do not become master debaters :)

    Parent
    Setting low expectations (none / 0) (#102)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    I like that. You aren't working for the Obama campaign are you?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#165)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    re: the ums and ahs andgarden.  Though Obama has been at his most concise recently IMO, and on the economy.

    McCain's problem is that he is a bold-faced liar and he doesn't even really dance around that.  Maybe Obama will call him out?  If The View can get McCain, someone else should be able to.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#210)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    Obama's gotten some coaching on lowering the um and ah ratio.

    I also hope Obama can explain things in simple, hard-hitting terms, ala Perot '92.  I, for one, would love to see a graph of our national debt, GDP, and inflation during the Bush Admin.  

    Imagine those steep ass slopes!  And to think, I'm stoked about calculus slopes, not ski slopes!!

    It's simple: Obama should then tie McCain to Bush via their associates and policies.  Bring out a map that carries the trend lines forward 4 years.  Now put that map on McCain's side of the stage and say, "Total economic breakdown.  Is that what you want to vote for?"

    Parent

    He must. . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    attack McCain mercilessly.  His best line of argument, in my opinion, is McCain's continuing association with, and staffing of his campaign by, people who are players in the current crisis.  I think he needs to hammer that repeatedly to make clear the reasons why McCain represents the Bush / Wall Street status quo and Obama represents new, clean, populist government.

    He needs to attack in calm, measured tones -- but directly and personally.  If he's really effective McCain might even lose his temper on national TV.

    Parent

    he also should (none / 0) (#75)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    tout Democratic economic principles. Sell them. Most people have no clue what they are because the GOP are defining them more than the Dems.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    if McCain loses it...I would love to see that.

    Parent
    Obama probably won't touch it, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    the revelation Paulson increased Goldman-Sachs debt so tremendously such a short time ago would be a powerful point in the debate.  

    Parent
    Of the current polls. . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    two have Obama above 50% -- by one and two percent respectively.  The others all have him below -- some as far down as 44%.  Lead?  Yes.  Solid?  I don't think so.  Look at the Gallup (best graphic) to see that the campaign so far has been two lines oscillating with a very low amplitude and that Obama is, this week, on a downward trajectory.

    Last week it looked like Obama was moving into "pretty close to wrapped up" territory but with his momentum stopped he's not there yet.

    Obama can KO McCain if he slaughters him in the debate -- but Obama is notably a disappointing debater as even his most ardent supporters were forced to admit during the primary.  It's no less true that McCain could revive his campaign with a good showing in the debate.

    How the debate turns out will be partly determined, of course, by the candidates.  But in large measure it will depend on whether the moderator treats it as a conduit for the candidates' messages or as a journalistic exercise.

    In a sense, the debate offers McCain a "do over" to roll out new policies -- which he's shown himself shamelessly willing to do based on whatever polling his campaign has.  So if the moderator doesn't keep him honest viewers may see a new, improved McCain designed solely to appeal in the current economic climate.

    Parent

    What do you think makes for a solid lead? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    Reagan by 20? Nixon by 20?

    I think you all live in some alternate political reality where a 10 point is possible.

    Parent

    IMO, Hillary would win by 10 pts this year (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST


    Parent
    worthless hypothesis. (3.00 / 2) (#61)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    and pointless to boot.

    Parent
    Maybe, but it's my opinon (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST


    Parent
    asdf (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    the mythical grass is always greener.

    Parent
    10 points should have been a reality (none / 0) (#119)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    Considering the disgust the American public has with the Bushe administration and the Republican brand, I would have thought the Dem's would have had a 10 pt lead regardless of who they put up. I still think Obama did major damage by ignoring the base of the party for so long.

    I think he'll win but I'm worried that he going to be a weak president. By continually graying the area between Dem's and Rep's he won't satisfy either group.

    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#125)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    People prefer the GOP in the presidency as a rule.

    Real Clear Politics has electoral maps from the last 10 elections. Most of them have only a couple of blue states.

    Parent

    not so much that (none / 0) (#147)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    the electoral college overweights the small states (with the two senators added to the rep total). it favors a candidacy strategy targeting the small states, since their electors represent a smaller number of people.

    Parent
    Oh OK. (none / 0) (#159)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    an alternate explanation for the trend. I like your answer better.

    Parent
    Heh... (none / 0) (#191)
    by phatpay on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    if he had selected Hillary as veep I'm sure we'd be crushing. I dunno about 10 points, but firmly in control of the election. Huge misstep on his part. I don't hate Biden and was not a Hill supporter, she was just clearly the best choice.

    Graying the area between Dem's and Rep's? Ummm... you mean the vast majority of America? The center?
    Like it or not most of our country is in the center. Granted the centrist pragmatic at this time needs a serious progressive kick in it's behind. But I think that Obama has been shrewd to play the center blatantly. The Repugs have had tremendous success dividing this country when the reality is that we are more alike than different.

    I think he has a chance at being a good president. I'm not sure how you define weak but obviously our current prez is weak. He's the closest thing to a figurehead as we've ever had. I don't think he'll ever satisfy the fringes. I do think he'll work hard, and succeed, in improving the center. He has a knack as an arbiter. He's very smart. I think his cabinet selections will be crucial.

    On the polling, how is all the new voter registration factored in? Polls make my head hurt.

    Parent

    I certainly believe. . . (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    a ten point lead is possible -- but even if it isn't, a four point lead with negative momentum simply can't be called a "solid" lead.  Even if it's the best possible lead, it isn't solid.

    Look at the Gallup graph (link it in here if you know how -- I don't) and tell me that the election is pretty much wrapped up.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    if you want to call some blips in R200 and others negative momentum fine.

    What if I call the rise in the CNN. WaPo and Ras polls positive momentum?

    Look, if gameplaying is the order of the day, then fine.

    But if you are dreaming of a 10 point win. then there is no reason to discuss this with you.

    Parent

    If some of the polls. . . (none / 0) (#143)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    are showing positive momentum and some negative, I'd call the results either unclear in terms of the race's direction, or the polling (on average) stable at about 3.5 percent in favor of Obama.

    I'd rather have a lead than no lead, but I'd rather not push the current small lead as a "solid" lead and the race as all but over.

    Parent

    What is a solid lead? (none / 0) (#205)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    Is it a myth or is it my faulty memory, but I recall that Democrats need to poll a few points ahead in the final weeks (2 to 3?) to account for percentage turnout? That is, in the past, Republicans were decidedly better at getting their voters to actually vote. Now...given the unusual nature of this extended campaign (and, especially the demonstrated interest of the under-30 group) that may change. Then again, it may not; in which case I feel less jittery with a good, continous--read: solid--2 to 3 point lead.

    Parent
    You should alter that line. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:07:36 AM EST
    It's becuase the economy collapsed right when people are voting or getting ready to vote.

    It's almost supernatural good timing, and I might add it's not like he was a critic of the economic system before to any greta extent. Now he gets to be the angry populist if he likes.  

    it's kinda cool. he'll get to act like a New Deal Dem even if he doesn't mean it.

    Well sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    But Obama has improved his message and communication on the issue since the Dem Convention. He was ready to take advantage of it.

    Parent
    I'm seeing Sen. Dodd as the (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    counterpart to the Paulson plan.  Shouldn't Obama be in the Senate exhibiting that leadership?

    Parent
    What on earth (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Bluesage on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    Would give anyone the confidence that Obama can handle this economic mess better than McCain or anyone else?  Isn't he the one who always holds back on an opinion or position until everyone else lays out theirs and then he just adopts one of those as his own?  Always worked that way in the State House for him and always worked that way in the primaries against Clinton.  Even considering most of these polls you are citing is an exercise in delusion.  Most polls are as corrupt and unreliable as the media at this stage. My goodness, BTD, have you been sneaking Jeralyn's kool-aid?

    That's right. . . (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    Even considering most of these polls you are citing is an exercise in delusion.  Most polls are as corrupt and unreliable as the media at this stage

    The truth is out there!

    Parent

    I don't trust all this so-called (4.00 / 1) (#137)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    "data".

    My gut says we lost this thing when we declined to choose Hillary.

    Parent

    Are you clueless? (3.50 / 6) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    John McCain is a blithering idiot and if you have not figured that out by now, then there is nothing left to say to you.

    Hate Obama all you want, but if you can not see what a disgrace idiotiuc  piece of crap McCain is, then do not tell me you have a clue. Because I will deny it with conclusive evidence.

    Stupid people who think highly of McCain are what I call idiots. You seem to fit the bill.

    Parent

    If McCain somehow wins, I give us a 90% (none / 0) (#81)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    chance of a shooting war with Iran within 2 years.

    The neo-cons and religious right are just itching for it.

    Parent

    Even George Will (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    doesn't think McCain can run the country.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#70)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    The WSJ said McCain looked unpresidential last week. He tends to get reflexive and reactionary in a crisis if last week is any indication.

    George Will repeated the criticism and questioned McCain's suitablility for the presidency.  Coming on the heels of him questioning Palin's readiness, its bad press for McCain.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but... (none / 0) (#208)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    As a loyal Democrat all my life, I find it hard not to laugh when I see George Will and/or the Wall Street Journal quoted favorably about economics. Even when it ends up dissing the guy I diss. Actually, both Will & WSJ have long opposed campaign finance reform, limitations on capital (e.g., caps on $ paid or extra controls by the SEC), etc. Sum: If I weren't a Democrat, that twosome being taken aback by McCain's statements--especially, the cry of horror that we would actually attempt to hold an SEC chair accountable for failures during his watch--would make me want to reconsider McCain. (Well, I really am sorry, but for me it is counterproductive to quote certain sources so close to the classic Republican center with approval.)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#215)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:18:59 PM EST
    I seldom agree with George Will, but to me he embodies the Republican Party I grew up with - the Bankers' Party, not the Terri Schiavo Party that we have now.

    So when George Will condemns McCain, I take it not as a sign that George Will suddenly got smarter, but simply as a sign of how unmoored the Republican Party has become.

    Besides, the old-school Republican Party wasn't that bad.  I mean sure, they took the country in exactly the wrong direction, but at least they weren't CRAZY.  These days there's just way too much crazy.

    Parent

    Ummm perhaps his advisor lineup (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    on the economy right now!

    Parent
    Most polls that I have seen of late (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    seem to have an awfully high percentage of voters who say they could change their minds between now and November - which says to me that things are still very fluid.

    I've started to look at polls the way I do the stock market - it can be up all day and in the last half hour of trading drop like a rock, or vice-versa - so I'm just not willing to take much meaning from these up- and downticks in the polls.  And I try to keep in mind that, just like the market, where up or down movement in the DOW doesn't always mean a corresponding movement in your individual holdings, these changes in the national polls are not always reflective of corresponding changes at the state level.  

    Maybe as we get closer to the election, and we see a corresponding hardening of support, I'll put more stock (sorry about the pun!) in these national polls, but now, before any debates, I just take a "that's interesting" approach.

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    What do you call "an awfully high percentage?"

    8 percent? 5? 3?  The undecideds are narrowing and the certain votes are rising.

    Please folks, hate on Obama all you want, but deal with the facts please.

    Parent

    Maybe some of us are just nervous (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    Although I'm happier than I was 2 weeks ago, I'd still be biting my nails, even if he had a 20 point lead, but you're right, some of this is Obama hate.

    Parent
    Yeah, really (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    Check out the Q-poll Jeralyn linked to yesterday:

    In Colorado, a total of 12% said they could change their minds - 11% of Obama supporters, and 13% of McCain.

    In Michigan, a total of 19% said they could change their minds - 17% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain.

    In Minnesota, a total of 15% said they could change their minds - 15% of Obama supporters and 14% of McCain.

    In Wisconsin, a total of 15% said they could change their minds - 12% of Obama supporters and 19% of McCain.

    I think percentages that range from 12% to 19% is a fairly high number of people whose minds could change between now and November.

    Parent

    Amazing how (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    they split down the middle of each candidate.

    Don't you see? Forget the "change your mind" numbers.

    Menaingless.

    Some event could change EVERYONE's mind. But other thsan that, those numbers mean nothing.

    Parent

    If they really were undecided (none / 0) (#133)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:14:35 AM EST
    they would have chosen neither.

    Parent
    Some are just not telling what they will do (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    sure.  Maybe especially in the Midwest.  It really is not "Midwestern nice" to push people to tell for whom they will vote.  In the crossroads of the country that always has been so complex, in states split so closely, that's why we talk about the weather or football, not politics.

    But I just was talking to a Dem pol upstate here in Wisconsin, one who has been out and about talking to voters who know the poll so are willing to talk about politics as they may not to a poll.  And apparently there really are a lot of undecideds, a lot of sometime-Dem voters who are not happy.  In part, they're not happy with Congress, and both candidates are seen as not taking leadership on the crucial issues.

    The pol says to watch Green Bay -- as both campaigns are doing, with both McCain (and Palin) and Obama there within the last week.  And with turnout way higher for McCain and Palin.  Btw, it is a gun-loving and God-clinging part of the country.  Remember, even Feingold is against gun control to be able to keep winning here. . . .

    Parent

    Dubya is a terrible thorn in McCains side (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    I thought certainly McCain was going to be the nominee for 2000 but Dubya sold his soul for big dollars and snatched that brass ring.  That greed has now destroyed our economy, most of our savings,the Republican party, and once again John McCain has no chance of being President.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    The republicans are spinning hard that its all the dems fault. Theyve gone so far as to put out false stories about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act in the WSJ and if you check wiki, youll see the gop version rather than say, the truth, is in place.

    That it was a republican bill, sponsored by Gramm and pushed through by republicans is being replaced with the idea that Biden and the dems voted for it  (he/they didnt).   Ive seen it pushed on comment boards that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a liberal bill, pushed by liberal republicans and democrats.

    LOL!

    Parent

    No one ever mentions (none / 0) (#121)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    the party-line vote on the first iteration of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act.

    It was only the subsequent compromise that ended up passing in bipartisan fashion.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#171)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    No it didnt pass in a bipartisan fashion. It was 55-44 in the senate on May 6, 1999. One democrat voted for it. From SC.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio n=1&vote=00105

    The WSJ has succesfully spread the lie that it was bipartisan by claiming that the vote on the compromise language was the final vote. It wasnt. Wiki is also pushing the lie.

    And unlike the WSJ claims, Biden didnt vote for it. Hollings from SC was the only dem. Also unlike the WSJ claimed, McCain did vote for it, which is why he was on 60 minutes defending his vote.

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#172)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    nevermind you said the same thing. oops. heh

    Parent
    Perhaps you underestimate the (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    sophistication of the electorate on the ecconomy.  For example, I have a two "advanced" degrees but zip understanding of what is happening at present, the need for the bailout, what conditions should be attached to any bailout, etc.  Plenty of time before the election for either candidate to seize the day re the economy. Which is why I think Obama needs to get his but to the Senate and be on camera with Sen. Dodd as much as possible.  Otherwise, we have the Paulson plan and the Dodd plan.  

    Cue certain commenters to (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by JoeA on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    start putting all their faith in the Battleground poll as the other pollsters are in the tank for Obama.

    From what I recall (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    the Battleground poll is particularly reliable because it is a joint venture between one R pollster and one D pollster, and it nailed the 2004 results better than anyone.

    That said, obviously it's silly for people to cherry-pick one poll to watch just because it happens to show their preferred result on a given day.

    Parent

    There's the distinct possibility (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    that they're right. We can't be sure.

    Parent
    That does not make it particuallry reliable (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    Indeed, it was pretty crappy in 2004. I am no fan of Celinda Lake myself.

    Parent
    You could be right (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    I don't remember where I read that about the Battleground poll.  I make no independent claims as to their accuracy in 2004, in fact I don't have a clue.

    Also, my impression, and you know more about this stuff than I do, is that the accuracy of various pollsters tends to swing quite a bit from cycle to cycle.  In modern times, there's not a polling outfit that gets reliably cited as the gold standard year in and year out.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    Believe it or not, over the years, Gary Langer of the WaPo poll has been the best.

    Gallup AT THE END, is pretty good.

    NBC AT THE END, is good.

    SUSA is good state by state.

    Ras is way up and down.

    Zogby is an utter clown.

    I do not trust PPP, Marist, or Q for that matter.

    But watch Wapo in the last week - I think that is the one to watch for the national numbers.

    Parent

    NPR Poll? (none / 0) (#206)
    by vector on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM EST
    I just heard someone on the radio mention an "NPR Poll" that apparently just came out.  It apparently shows McCain leading or tied in sll of the so-called "swing states".

    Anyone know anything about this?

    Parent

    The snake-oil salesman can talk the talk (1.00 / 2) (#213)
    by chopper on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    But, he cannot walk the walk.

    OBAMA'S GREED AND CORRUPTION HELPED CREATE THIS CRISIS.

    But, the media and voters just accept what Obama pushes and refuse to take the time to seek the truth.  It will be the downfall of this country.

    Obama is trying to blame McCain and the Republicans for the current problems in the economy and the failings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    He is also saying that John McCain is too close with lobbyists. Obama's main man, Axelrod, is a super lobbyist. With more facts about Obama's acceptance of lobbyist money coming out each day, this line of attack seems more and more ridiculous.

    Franklin Raines (ousted due to 6.3 billion dollar accounting scandal in 2004) is a former CEO of Fannie Mae and economic advisor for Senator Obama. He made $90 Million with Obama's help.

    Fannie Mae lobbyists have given Barack Obama $123,000 since 2004 -only 4 years. In Contrast John McCain has received only $19,000 in the past 20 years.

    If Obama and McCain started in the senate at the same time this would equate to Barack Obama taking 32 times more lobbyist money than McCain. If anyone should be criticized on lobbyist ties, it is Obama himself.

    Not only did McCain recognize a problem with Freddie and Fannie 3 years ago and predict this would happen, he put his name on the line and Co-Sponsored a bill attempting to reform regulation of these two companies.

    Obama received so much more lobbyist money  because Obama did what he was asked.  Obama was told to block McCain's reform bills, and he did.

    You can thank Obama for your losses.

    Parent

    Rick Davis' firm was getting $15K per month (none / 0) (#217)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    from Fannie from 2005 through LAST MONTH for NOTHInG other than the fact that Davis had McCain's ear. NYT says so, not Obama.

    Obama DID recieve $$ from Fannie and Freddie, McCain recieved 10x more than Obama...that we know of.

    You are deluded and the facts do not back you up.

    Parent

    Java City Pal is banned from my threads (3.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    including ratings.

    AP article on polling (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    says 19 percent of those polled are "persuadable." AP

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#62)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    ...just about equal to the % who still support one George W. Bush.  Coinsidence or something more telling?  

    Parent
    Coincidence (none / 0) (#79)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    I'm "persuadable" and I don't support GWB. Never have. I believe BTD calls it "tepidly supporting".

    Parent
    persuadable does not mean (none / 0) (#127)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    that McCain will be able to persuade them in actuality.

    Parent
    The Debate (none / 0) (#23)
    by jb64 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    Friday could decide the race. All Obama has to do is show up and look Presidential. He's not expected to win the debate, but if he comes across cool and commanding (much like he has in the last 8 or so days) i think this race, is over.

    The Obama lead in (none / 0) (#24)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    these polls averages out to less than 4 points- within most polls MOE. I would call this a near deadheat with Obama slightly ahead. Nothing like a solid lead yet.

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    You call it what you want. I can read numbers.

    It is a solid lead.

    Parent

    please explain (none / 0) (#76)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    one outlier has obama up by 9, most are in the 2-4 point range. one has Obama by 1 point and another mccain by 2 points. These are the numbers you posted. Are you discounting all of these and only counting the 9 point lead? Sorry if I do not consider 3-4 points a solid lead- these numbers bounce around by that much almost day to day.

    Parent
    Ah the throw the high and low out is (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    your approach ay?

    Fine. Then we have 5 polls to consider - Hotline - Obama by 6, CNN - Obama by 4, R2000 - Obama by 4, Ras - Obama by 2, Ipsos - Obama by 1.

    The average is Obama by 3.4

    But if you play that game, then you have to act as if that is a solid number. Do not play MOEs then.

    Obama leading by 3.4 is a terrific place to be.

    Parent

    So, you consider (none / 0) (#104)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    3.4 points a solid lead? I guess we disagree on that. I get nervous at less then 7-8 points. I also like a football game where my team lead by 3 touchdowns through the whole game.

    Parent
    Damn straight it is a solid lead (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    If Obama wins by 3.5 percent on election day, that will be huge.

    Parent
    Ever consider the possibility... (none / 0) (#175)
    by callmecassandra on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    that undecideds and independents - who are not enthused by either candidate obviously - just might decide on a divided gov't instead of a WH ran by an "Unknown" Democrat and a Congress (led by Democrats) with the lowest poll numbers in history, even lower than Bush's? I mean, if the voters hate Bush, surely they despise Congress. Why elect a Democrat to "compound" the problem?

    Btw...these are voter-oriented questions, not Obama-oriented questions.

    Parent

    The thing I don't get (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    About this argument is why do people think it will be any better than the last 2 years with a Dem congress and repub. president?

    Also, one of the main complaints is that congress hasn't been able to get anything done.  So no, a dem president wouldn't compound the problem it would fix the problem.

    Finally, if people have a problem with the dem. congress and the repub president wouldn't it make more sense to elect a dem president and a repub congress?

    Parent

    I didn't say voters were always logical. (none / 0) (#185)
    by callmecassandra on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    If voters were logical, Obama would be up by double-digits and it wouldn't be an outlier. Also, mostly partisans see McCain as Bush. The opportunity to link the two passed with the Palin pick and the many distractions Obama fell for over the last couple of months. McCain is a different kind of republican with a record of working with Democrats.

    So no, a dem president wouldn't compound the problem it would fix the problem.

    Note that I said an "Unknown" Democrat. Yeah, Obama is relatively unknown next to McCain. Undecideds and Independents don't know how Obama will run his administration. And you can claim that Obama will oppose his party and fix the problems, but you don't have much to back that up...

    Finally, if people have a problem with the dem. congress and the repub president wouldn't it make more sense to elect a dem president and a repub congress?

    If there is a sense of urgency with voters, then why wait 2 to 4 years for a Republican majority in Congress to get a divided gov't when they can have one in January 2009? Besides, Obama's young they'll reason. He can try again in 4 years...or 8.

    Parent

    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#196)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    By "fix the problem" I didn't mean oppose his party.  I meant end the deadlock by not opposing his party.  The biggest complaint I have heard about the Dem congress is not that they have terrible ideas, just that they are unable to get anything passed.

    Parent
    "Fix the problem" (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by callmecassandra on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    for voters (Independents & Undecideds) does include opposing one's party once in a while. And opposing the party in power if it's perceived to be weak, excessive and corrupt. No offense, but I wasn't refering to your defining of "fixing the problem".

    As for the complaints, I've heard them too...

    The biggest complaint I have heard about the Dem congress is not that they have terrible ideas, just that they are unable to get anything passed.

    but mostly from Democrats and Democrat partisans. In truth, Democrats aren't really trying to get anything passed. Actually, our Democratic Congress has been in partnership with the Bush administration on more than a few occasions on very real and very big issues.

    Parent

    Is that really within most polls MOE? (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    4 points?

    Parent
    sometimes more than 4 (none / 0) (#78)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST


    Parent
    Hmmm. Just a quick look (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    Rasmussen 2% MOE
    Hotline 3.3%
    WaPo/ABC 3%

    The highest I remember seeing is 3.7, actually, and I question whether you can take the average Obama lead and use the maxximum MOE on it to invalidate the results.

    Add that to the consistency of Obama's lead. There have been a few McCain bumps attached to specific events, but mostly, O has been ahead.

    Parent

    i'm not a mathmatician- whatever (none / 0) (#109)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    you proved your point by 0.3% Yippee!!!

    Parent
    not a mathematician-an understatement (none / 0) (#113)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    my point was that you cannot compare the highest found MOE with an average of polls.

    You take each MOE and use it with it's corresponding poll.

    The comparison you made was not valid.

    Parent

    I just looked this up and (none / 0) (#126)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    a small poll with a sample of only 600 would have a MOE= 4%. Maybe I do not understand, but I thought if a poll had a MOE =3, that it was + or -
    meaning in reality the results could swing by 6. That is why I never get too excited when my candidate is up by 3 or 4, I have seen them lose races like this too many times.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#155)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    but, first of all, the pollsters themselves report their MOE usually (and most of the polls are at least 1000 respondents).

    And second, when you are talking about similar results from multiple polls, it becomes increasingly less likely that Obama is tied, because almost all the polls agree that he is ahead. What was that statistical property....the probability that you get two false results is the product of the probablities that each is false, or something.

    Parent

    Hotline 6 (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST


    Parent
    We were speaking of the MOE (none / 0) (#167)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    Today's poll, conducted 9/21-23 by FD, surveyed 903 RVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3%.


    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#111)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    Better to go into the debates up by 4 than down by 4-5 like Kerry (gallup).

    Parent
    no sh*t. (1.00 / 2) (#114)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama has a solid lead this week (none / 0) (#26)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    but that's this week.  We'll see what happens after the debate on Friday.  I think too many Dems are too ahead of themselves for November.

    Again, I really believe we are going to see the Bradley Effect in November.  I'm not as confident as others on an Obama win.

    By the way, if Obama becomes president, Hillary Clinton will never become President and Palin will be the first female President of the United States.

    You read it here first..

    so...we should try to lose? (3.66 / 3) (#46)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    Good idea!!!!

    /snark

    Parent

    No, we should try to understand that (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    we can still lose.

    Too many Obama followers think this election is a shoe-in and they shouldn't.  Don't watch the polls, read the blogs on newspapers and magazines (on both sides).  Read people's real opinions.

    It's very interesting out there.

    Parent

    Must be the first time voters. (4.00 / 1) (#161)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    Cause anyone who remembers the last two elections is biting their nails right now.

    Parent
    No, Dems should try to think (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    long-term, too.  The long-term thinking was the 50-state strategy, which was . . . well, silly, as has been evident.  And if with a candidate not able to reap such huge sums, Dems would be well behind by now -- as Obama is again have to outspend by as much as 8 to 1 in some states.

    The GOP has their next candidate in the VP pick.  But if the current Dem leadership remains in power, they would not back Clinton next time, either.  And how old will Biden be?

    Parent

    If the current Dem leadership (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    Loses with Obama, they won't be the "current Dem leadership" anymore.

    The Congress is about to get several new Senators, all of the moderates and not Obamaites unless Franken pulls it out in Minnesota.  The House will see a dozen or more new members, again mostly moderates.  Added to the current roster of moderates, I suspect you'll see a quick and ugly purge of the "liberal leadership" before the 111th Congress convenes.  Bye=bye, Pelosi and Reid.  Hello, Hoyer/ Emanuel and Schumer.  Bye-bye, Kos.  Hello, competence.

    Parent

    fair enough (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    who is our next rising star.

    However, I think it's difficult for someone who LOST on a ticket to come back and successfully run in a subsequent election (see example of Edwards)

    Parent

    The current Governor of... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    ...Montana for one.  At least in the Western part of the country.  

    Andrew Romanoff (from Colorado) can basically write his own ticket to go as far as he cares to as well.  

    Parent

    I think Clinton's stock (none / 0) (#131)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    Has risen considerably due to this election.  And women live longer than men.  Personally I think she's got a great shot in 2016 - Biden certainly won't run.

    Parent
    Unless the Dem leadership changes (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    they won't allow a Clinton to win.  That is clear.  And if Obama wins, it will be more of the same sort of Dem leadership.  So I don't see it.

    Parent
    Won't allow? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    I agree that they worked against her this time, and probably would again next time.  But the fact is, she almost won anyway.  Next time, I think she would have greater support in the primary votes, win more primaries, and it's a done deal.  Doesn't matter what Dem leadership thinks unless it is a really close primary like we saw this year.  The superdelegates would never risk their job by throwing away the primaries unless the primary was close enough to provide cover.

    If she had won the primaries in a convincing fashion this year she would be the nominee regardless what Dean and Pelosi think.

    Parent

    She did win the primaries (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    after Obama won the caucuses for all of six weeks.  I watched the RBC meetings in their entirety in August and in May.  I talked to super-d's about what was pulled at the convention.  And much more . . . all convincing me that the Dem party will just pull different dirty tricks next time, if that's what it takes to keep Clinton out.  

    Why?  Because there is need for, and she now would bring, real internal reform in the party.  So this will remain a problem for the party -- and so it remains interesting to watch . . . and to anticipate how it will be written in the history books.  (And then rewritten and eventually erased from the record, as has happened before, so we do not learn from the past as prologue.)

    Parent

    I'm not gonna argue (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Who won the primaries or not - becuase it won't get us anywhere.  My point was, if she had won CONVINCINGLY the dem leadership would have no choice in the matter.

    Regardless of how you feel about the primary this year, you have to admit it was a very close race.  It's the same thing with Gore, if he had won Florida by 100,000 votes, the supreme court wouldn't have had the chance to step in.  It would've been a done deal.

    Shenanigans happen, people pull strings, I get that, but if enough people vote for you, they can make up that margin.

    I think Clinton's popularity today is much higher than it was at the beginning of the primary.  Enough to make up that margin.

    Parent

    Oh, agreed. The main point is that (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    the party leadership appears to be quite disconnected from the ranks -- or at least, a sizeable number of the ranks think so.  Now, Dems are herds of cats, of course.  But the base comes together at the convention.  Instead, I'm hearing from super-d's, the hardest-working ones in the ranks, that they were disgusted by it.

    That is a bad sign, no matter what the millions do and no matter whether they do so in Iowa rec rooms or at the polls.

    Parent

    Yeah baby. (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    I'd work for that.

    Parent
    The 50-State strategy, properly understood, (none / 0) (#192)
    by Don in Seattle on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    far from being debunked, is a proven winner.

    It was responsible for the Democrats' impressive gains in the 2006 off-year Congressional elections. It was responsible for recent House pick-ups in unlikely places like Louisiana and Mississippi, and in Denny Hastert's old seat.

    The strategy of running hard everywhere, even in states where you expect to lose, was thoroughly vindicated in the primary season -- mostly by the disastrous results of the alternative strategy. Early during the primaries, the Clinton campaign essentially wrote off the Red states and the caucus states -- and this proved to be her fatal tactical error.

    Later on, Obama made a similar blunder by failing to campaign hard in West Virginia and Kentucky. The result was unnecessarily large delegate sweeps for Clinton in those states. Worse than that, it fed into perceptions of him as 'elitist' and 'not a fighter' that are continuing to hurt him in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    If you want concrete proof that "running hard only where you expect to win" is a strategy for losing, I give you the stillborn candidacy of former front-runner Rudy Giuliani.

    In the context of a Presidential election -- essentially 51 winner-take-all elections held on the same day -- the 50-State strategy does NOT say you should devote equal resources to each state. Obviously, you need to identify potential swing states, on offense and defense, and concentrate your efforts there.

    Obama has consistently done this, quickly and correctly identifying Virginia and Colorado as potential pick-ups, against what I remember was an early tide of Democratic naysayers.

    I'm not entirely deluded. Obama will not win any of the solid red states: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, or Georgia; nor in McCain/Palin's home states of Arizona and Alaska. In those states, this year, the 50-State strategy consists of token symbolic support, morale-boosting, and driving turnout for swingable down-ticket elections.

    He probably won't win Texas, either. (Although with a big Hispanic turnout, who knows?) But I am optimistic. I think Obama will end up winning not only Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, not only Colorado and Virginia, but also Indiana and North Carolina (both states where, if you recall, he exceeded expectations in the primaries).

    In short, an electoral vote landslide is possible, which would not be possible if we were still refighting 2000 and 2004, by concentrating all our attention on Florida and Ohio.

    Parent

    Agreed re last sentence (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    and it could happen in only four years.  GOP always thinks ahead.  

    Parent
    That's a tough prediction (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    If McCain wins I can't see the Republicans winning again in 4 or 8 years...that would be 12 to 16 years of bad, bad gov't. Maybe the people would finally hit bottom. Palin will not be President in my opinion either way (Unless McCain didn't survive his term).  I love Hillary, but I am now praying daily that Obama wins; this is bigger than one person.

    Parent
    we keep saying that (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM EST
    "people will see that we finally hit bottom"

    Dems have to win this election for the party, because we have lost so many, it's just demoralizing. It will become increasingly harder to win each time.

    4 more years of crappy education, people dying of lack of health care, discretionary wars, anoth few trillion in debt.

    No thanks. Not even for a Hillary presidency.

    Parent

    And if Obama wins the debate (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    How do you imagine McCain winning this election?

    I am curious how the Obama skeptics will explain away such a result.

    Parent

    Kerrey won the debates in 2004 (none / 0) (#88)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    and I think that Gore won them in 2000 (of course he DID win the election)

    Parent
    Kerry and Edwards crushed Bush and Cheney (2.00 / 1) (#150)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    in the debates and look what happened???  The press was boosting Bush's sucky performance while being harsh to  Kerry.  Edward was far superior to Cheney and Cheney even lied about never meeting Edwards (a total dis) and yet no one NO ONE in the MSM called out Cheney.

    And Bush won.  Will we see the same thing with McCain?  I don't know, but this will not be easy.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    Bush was way ahead going into the debates.  So it's not a legitimate comparison.  The debates helped Kerry close the gap a little, just not enough.

    Parent
    Seems to me the "winner" label (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    depends on which candidate the viewer supported before the debate.  Example:  imo, Hillary Clinton clearly won each debate against Barack Obama.  But, . . .  The debates don't seem to influence voters' decisions all that much.

    Parent
    I think when things are going smoothly for (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    the U.S. voter the debates can be very low impact.  The economy though affects us all and wow has it kicked the bucket.  I think this election the debates have a better chance of making a very real impact.

    Parent
    Dumb questions (none / 0) (#170)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    Only if they're asked the right questions and made to give an answer!

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#115)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:03:20 AM EST
    Hillary is only 60 and Biden is 68.  Biden wont run in 2012 as a 76 year old man.  So that's hillary's next shot if Obama wins.

    Or Biden could get swapped out at some point to prep another candidate.  That's another shot for Hillary.

    Parent

    As much as many of her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:19:38 AM EST
    hope that Hillary will make another run for the presidency, I highly doubt she will. Unless the controlling interests at the head of the DNC (Dean, Brazille, Pelosi, Reid, etc) lose their influence, HRC will be back to fighting the same battles she did this time. If Obama has two successful terms, HRC will be 72 years old and facing ageism along with sexism. If Obama has one unsuccessful term, the WH returns to the Republicans unless Obama steps down himself and admits the failure. (He'd do that, right?) The only way that HRC has a run at the WH again is if Obama loses by a large amount, and the DNC changes its leadership. It's looking less likely that will happen as time goes on. Hillary will complete her term in the senate, and either run again or join Bill in his foundation work. Cream City is right - no matter how this election turns out, Palin is the odds on favorite for the next woman to try for the prize.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#141)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    Hillary will be 68, but that's still "old".

    Parent
    I think your (none / 0) (#152)
    by WS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    wrong.  See my response although Palin may run in the future but that doesn't mean Hillary won't.  

    Parent
    correction (none / 0) (#117)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    Sorry, 2016.  Jeez, 2016.  Wheres my jet pack?

    Parent
    That's assuming Obama keeps Biden (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    for a second term.  That's assuming Obama could win a second term, since he hasn't won the first one yet.

    Although I read an article that they are already minting the Barack Obama Presidential coin.  Yep, it's true.

    Parent

    Locked in a closet... (none / 0) (#151)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    ...with our flying cars?

    Parent
    Is this where (none / 0) (#118)
    by WS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    the Obama hate comes from, by preventing an Obama win we can get a Hillary Presidency?  Hillary can run again in 2016 after Obama's (hopefully) 2 terms.  What's going to stop her?  There's this belief that the powers that be decided who will be the 2008 nominee and they sort of did by manipulating the rules but its also because it was close enough to be manipulated.  Hillary will have a much better plan in 2016 knowing that it will be her last chance at the Presidency.  

    Oh and if you think the electorate will want to switch to a Republican in 8 years, thats not really a given.  McCain is close even after 8 years of Bush's crappy Presidency and hopefully Obama will have a Clinton record of success for Hillary to tout the necessity of continued Democratic government.  Plus, Hillary is enough of a personality to be distinguished from Obama.

    She'll be 68 while campaigning and 69 in the October before Election day 2016.  There are ways to get around that and I'm sure she'll have as much energy as she does now.  

    Believe in Hillary.  She breaks glass ceilings and she'll be the first female President.  But right now, its Obama's time and if he wins, he'll provide good Democratic leadership so that people can get used to a Democrat in power.    

    Parent

    Bill has said that this (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    is the last presidential campaign that he will participate in. Unless he has a terminal illness, my guess is that Hillary does not plan another run. The Democrats made their choice. I don't think they're going to be able to have their cake and eat it, too. I hope that HRC will look for another rising star in the Democratic Party and mentor her.

    Parent
    Bull, Bill will always be active (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    with Hillary's career.  If this is the last presidential campaign Bill will be involved, that's okay.  That leaves room for Chelsea to step forward.  She was a great asset to her mother.

    Bill Clinton lives for this crap.  He can't leave.  Politics is his heroin.

    Parent

    Completely agree with stefy (none / 0) (#178)
    by WS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    Politics is in Bill Clinton's blood.  

    Parent
    Like to add (none / 0) (#181)
    by WS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    that Bill and Hill work as a team. As long as Hillary needs him, he'll be there just like when she was always there when Bill needed her.  They always have each other's back.    

    Parent
    That's why I don't think she's running again. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    He sounded very sincere when he said this was his last presidential campaign. He says that he has moved on to his foundation work, which he finds very exciting and fulfilling. He says he only joined this campaign to support her, and after Nov. 4th, he's done with presidential politics. Maybe he'll change his mind, but right now I think he means what he says, and I don't think he'd be saying it if Hillary was planning another run. I'd love to be wrong.

    Parent
    I think Bill (none / 0) (#218)
    by WS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:49:28 PM EST
    said this was perhaps or maybe his last Presidential run.  He left an opening there.  

    Bill was the one most adamant about pressing on with Hillary's Presidential run during the primary.  He is not a quitter.  He'll be there when Hillary decides to run again.  

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#28)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    the biggest reason of all is that Obama is righter on all the issues than McCain is. For once the voters seem to know that...I hope?

    WaPo poll is NOT an outlier (none / 0) (#54)
    by bluegal on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    I just checked the internals.

    They have exactly the same party id breakdown as they did last month with the exception that the dems increased +2. The difference is the independent vote has swung towards Obama by whopping numbers.

    Last month, McCain was ahead by two points with the same party id breakdown. He just lost independents.

    Barring an Obama meltdown, this election is over.

    Clearly the bounce is b/c of Palin Punching (none / 0) (#55)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    As goes Palin, goes the election, as they say.

    Snark obviously (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    Right?

    Parent
    Hotline is not a newbie dude (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:40:38 AM EST
    They did a tracker in 2004.

    Diageo has been doing polls for a while.

    And sure it is an"outlier" but poutliers" can be right. Battleground is an outlier and it could be right too.

    The difference is Langer of WaPo has a hell of a track record.

    What's important at (none / 0) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    this stage is not the poll numbers -- unless Obama builds a far larger lead than he has now -- but the question of how favorable economic and other news will be when election day rolls around.

    It may be that the current crisis is effectively put on the back burner by election day -- or not. I don't think anyone can pretend to know the answer to that question. Certainly while the crisis is front page news, it profits Obama -- though not nearly so much as it should (I mean, according to one poll, Republicans are considered more responsible for the current crisis than Democrats by a 2-1 margin, and all Obama -- perennial underperformer -- can scratch out is a 3-5% lead over McCain?).

    For any other Democrat, I think one would be able say that the election is just over; they'd have all the good news they'd ever need. Obama manages to keep it an open question.

    40 days to the election (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    How much time is left?

    Parent
    Enough time to shift the conversation (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by cosbo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    back to foreign policy, with some crisis in another part of the world...thereby...strengthening McCain.

    Peoples memory's are very very short these days.

    4 weeks ago it was the convention with the best speech eva.

    3 weeks ago it was the Palin frenzy

    2 weeks ago it was more Palin frenzy and lipstickona piggate

    1 week ago it was the economic collapse

    each week the election switches to a new channel with a new topic.

    By next week people will be bored of the economy talk. Not because they're not worried about it, but because they can't really do anything about it themselves. It'll be another shrug and then getting up and going to work as usual.

    40 days is a long time. The NRA just started running ads yesterday. There are more 527s to come. And Obama has Biden as VP.


    Parent

    I'd guess probably enough (none / 0) (#128)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    for things to turn if the approach to the current crisis is regarded as "resolved".

    I don't think a ten point lead would erode if such a "resolution" comes soon. But the smaller the lead, the less time it needs to decay to nothing.

    Parent

    "Resolved" isn't quite the word (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    All that is needed is for a little bit of normality to return-  no bank runs, no Dow jumping or sinking 400 points every day.  A little bit of peace and quiet.

    Obama supporters should be more than a bit worried-  for all the media darling status, for all the open hatred of Bush, for the threat of a second Great Depression, he's still up by only three (on average).  Can you imagine FDR only leadng Hoover by three in October 1932?

    Parent

    Free Fall (none / 0) (#96)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    I do think the McCain camp is in free fall right now. The economy tankin was a game changer. My only fear is what McCain-Bush-Cheney might cook up to change it yet again.

    IMO, the Palin gambit has failed. She was a shiny new car that people took out for a road test that ended up on the side of the highway with flat tires.

    A twofer for Obama... (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    ...lunch with Bill (it's still the economy, stupid) Clinton and this past week's near panic at Paulson's threats of a Wall Street/banking implosion.

    No campaign ever received a bigger gift in the closing days of a campaign.

    Ordinarily, both frightened and angry gives Republicans the edge.

    Not this time.

    Obama needs a much larger poll lead... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:54:41 AM EST
    ...for me to buy that he has any lead at all.  When election fraud (sure to occur on a larger scale than ever before) and racism (sure to be a voting factor as never before) are factored in, any "lead" Obama has in polls is, to me, illusory.  It's nice to hope fraud or prejudice won't play huge roles in this election, but I can't get myself to believe it.  The closer it gets, the more cynical I become.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong.  

    It's all on Obama, frankly (none / 0) (#106)
    by votermom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    This is his election to lose. Unless he blows the debates.
    I hope the media won't be too transparent though. The way they'd fawn over him after the Dem debates was awful (said as an Edwards supporter). And KO is doing a special post-debate countdown. Ugh. A lot of people will be watching for themselves; it's possible for backlash if the media seems too slanted.

    MSNBC is an Obama news network (none / 0) (#130)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    but they do have facts there as well.

    Parent
    So New Hampshire is a worry too (none / 0) (#140)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    If you believe Ras McCain by 2, but if you believe Marist, Obama by 6.

    I think Obama will win NH in the end.

    Does it matter though? (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    If he loses NH?  It's only 4 e.c. votes.  It's like everyone who says "he'll win Iowa though".

    Parent
    It matters (none / 0) (#174)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    Consider a Kerry map with the following modifications: Win Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, but loose New Hampshire.

    269/269.

    I don't want to be in that position, though it's better than losing. . .

    Parent

    Other scenarios (none / 0) (#179)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    That look likely, in which NH matters:

    Obama:  Kerry + IA, NM, CO, NV, VA - PA

    Obama wins NH and wins 270-268.
    McCain wins NH and wins 272-266.

    Obama:  Kerry + IA, NM, CO, VA - MI

    Obama wins NH and ties 269-269.
    McCain wins NH and wins 273-265.

    Obama:  Kerry + IA, NM, NV

    Obama wins NH and ties 269-269.
    McCain wins NH and wins 273-265.

    Parent

    Here's the deal, though (none / 0) (#182)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    I can't conceive of winning Nevada and not Colorado.

    Parent
    yes. It matters. (none / 0) (#200)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    If Gore won NH in 2000, Gore would have won the election. And if Obama loses NH, there is a chance of a 269-269 tie.

    UGH!

    Parent

    In this particular year, a tie wouldn't (none / 0) (#214)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    surprise me one bit. It's been that kind of crazy year.

    Parent
    please god no! (none / 0) (#216)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST


    Parent
    40 Days is a long time...... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kefa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    a lot can happen. So the lead we have is still not safe. It is still a close race IMHO. Not a done deal.

    Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    40 days is not a long time.

    Parent
    Some voters will decide (none / 0) (#195)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    on the night of November 3.  The question is, how many?

    And, of course, how many in same-day states are counting on registering on November 4 -- and not standing in long lines to do so.  I think it will be a problem in my city, which could decide my state.  And that's 10 EC votes.

    Parent

    Java City Pal (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    You are banned from my threads. And do not rate in my threads either.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:24:20 PM EST
    I see you noticed before I did, he gave me, like 5 "1" ratings. I dunno what I did to offend? Insulted his dog in a late night drunken posting? If so, I have no recollection, hic!

    Parent
    Chuckie Tomato (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    You are also banned from my threads and do not rate in them either.

    I am telling all you Obama haters right now, I have no patience for idiotic Obama hate. Go to No Quarter if you that is where you are at.

    Do not post or rate in my threads.

    You are not wanted in my threads in any form.

    Parent

    fercryinoutloud is also banned from my threads (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    Anyone else want out?

    Let us know now.

    I will not tolerate idiotic kool aid drinking Obama Hate that leads so called Dems to tell me how great John McCain is.

    John McCain is a lying, unprincipled, idiotic  piece of sh*t.

    That is not an opinion. that is a fact.

    So who else want out of my threads? Speak up now.

    Parent

    Agree with BTD (none / 0) (#219)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    That Obama has a lead.  I generally follow the Gallup poll most closely because they've been in the business the longest and they're the Gold Standard, IMHO.

    What then is Obama tracking down a point or two in the past few days.  He bumped up to 50% in the first days of the crisis, but has been in slight retreat.  He now leads by only 3.  What's up with that?

    The Polls - 9/24 | 199 comments (199 topical)