Obama Leading Solidly in Polls.

Obama has a 5-point lead in the Gallup Tracking Poll [in Saturday's release and an 8-point lead in Sunday afternoon's release] and a 6-point lead in the Rasmussen Tracking Poll [in Sunday's release]:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday — including the first day of post-debate polling — is unchanged. Barack Obama once again attracts 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running. Obama is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters, McCain by 55%.

As the economic crunch continues, just 11% of Americans now say the nation is heading in the right direction. That’s down dramatically from 24% two weeks ago when the failure of Lehman Brothers first brought the Wall Street debacle to the world’s attention. Since then, consumer and investor confidence have plummeted and nearly 80% of the nation’s adults now believe the economy is getting worse. Adding to the frustration is growing opposition to the proposed rescue plan and doubts about the motives of those promoting it.

UPDATE: Gallup's move from 5% to 8% in Sunday's release indicates that Saturday's polling was 8-10% stronger for Obama than Wednesday's.

Gallup Has Obama up 50-42 today:
They release new results at 1pm
9.28.2008 2:26pm
Eric Muller (www):
Why do our pollsters hate America?
9.28.2008 2:29pm
Eric Muller (www):
9.28.2008 2:38pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'm sure Palin will turn things around for the McCain campaign on Thursday with a stellar performance in the VP debate. Just as long as no one asks her tough, unfair questions like "what are the pros and cons?"
9.28.2008 2:47pm
Justin (mail):
Eric, it just goes to show you that Obama is unqualified to be President. After all, Sarah Palin is a Republican and by definition a better choice to be Vice President than Obama is to be President, and if Palin is that bad of a candidate, it just means McCain is that much better than Obama. Any other explanation is simply an ACORN-based conspiracy.
9.28.2008 2:48pm
Obvious (mail):
The polls simply show that Americans, given the choice of two extremely bad candidates, will eventually make a bad choice.
9.28.2008 2:51pm
Franklin Drackman:
So assuming a 5% Bradley effect,its even. Or do you subtract 5% from Obamas total and add it to McCains? I'm predicting McCain wins with 285 EVs, but what do I know? I picked Notre Dame over Purdue.
9.28.2008 2:58pm
sbron:
Progress through Racial Marxism.
9.28.2008 3:07pm
loki13 (mail):
sbron-

So the Bush administration was progress through Kleptocratic Marxism? I think at this point the GOP has no right to call the Democratic Party anything but paragons of virtuous capitalism . . . you pinkos.
9.28.2008 3:16pm
TCO:
McCain did the wrong thing for the country AND POLITICALLY. Had he come out anti-bailout, it would have been a clear compelling position that resonated with the public AND the base. It would have also positioned him against Bush. Instead, McCain ran scared. So he loses. Oh...and blathering about Acorn or 2005 efforts to regulate is a LOSER position.

McCain is losing BECAUSE he ran to the center.
9.28.2008 3:18pm
Asher (mail):
I'm not sure that McCain would've won if he came out against the bailout, but it's the only way (sans ditching Palin, or a terrorist attack on American soil) that he could've made up the difference. How is he going to make up 8 points otherwise? Run Jeremiah Wright ads? Crush Obama in the next two debates? That's just not happening. He delivered a hell of a performance Friday and still lost.
9.28.2008 3:25pm
nicestrategy (mail):

McCain is losing BECAUSE he ran to the center.


Delusional. He wasn't given a chance to run to the center with a VP pick he really wanted, and he lost any chance of winning the election when he made a reckless, political pick for VP without vetting her. He's losing because he chose a right-wing hack for VP pick and flailed badly during the economic crisis. The more people get to know John McCain, the more they can see a prickly temper that is ill-suited for the Presidency. The more people get to know Obama, the more they can see that he isn't running a racial victim trip, isn't a Marxist, and isn't a pacifist just because the right wing says he is (see above).

Coming out against the bailout might have worked politically, unless the markets tank before an alternative plan could be implemented, at which point the GOP would suffer the worst election defeat in US history. McCain chose not to risk the country or the party so the House Republicans could position themselves to be the minority party.

McCain is another Dole, and that's about the best you could do this year, sorry. Hopefully he can use this last month to go down gracefully and in a way that leaves the country less divisive than it is presently.
9.28.2008 3:31pm
Anon21:
Franklin Drackman:
So assuming a 5% Bradley effect,its even. Or do you subtract 5% from Obamas total and add it to McCains?

You do neither. Sorry, the Bradley Effect Fairy is not coming to give McCain free votes. Unless he makes up significant ground everywhere, he's going to lose. At this point, I think the only gimmick he hasn't tried is a one-term pledge. Maybe it's time to trot that one out.
9.28.2008 3:35pm
Federal Dog:
This is exactly what happened in 2004. Even exit polling on voting day claimed that Kerry would win handily.

Given double-digit differences from week to week, and God knows what questions and polling samples involved, let me know when the actual vote comes in. Everything else is just psyching out the opposition.
9.28.2008 3:45pm
Constantin:
If the media reversed its treatment of the two candidates, McCain, lousy as he is, would be up by twenty points right now.

The predictions of the MSM's demise have been proven remarkably wrong since the day after the GOP convention.
9.28.2008 3:46pm
smitty1e:
Hey, if common sense is that far out the window, I may safely vote my conscience in November.
So, that's a left-handed feature.
9.28.2008 3:50pm
Asher (mail):
If the media reversed its treatment of the two candidates, McCain, lousy as he is, would be up by twenty points right now.

The predictions of the MSM's demise have been proven remarkably wrong since the day after the GOP convention.


Look, most media figures said the debate was a draw, but all the polls say it was a crushing defeat. I think for the most part they go out of their way to appear unbiased, even though certain media organs (MSNBC, NY Times) show their cards pretty clearly.
9.28.2008 3:55pm
Angus:

This is exactly what happened in 2004.
Except for all the polls leading up to the election saying that Bush was going to win. And then Bush won.

But other than that, this is just like 2004.
9.28.2008 4:01pm
Federal Dog:
"Except for all the polls leading up to the election saying that Bush was going to win."

False.
9.28.2008 4:05pm
Davebo (mail):
This guy really appreciates all your concern Conspirators!
9.28.2008 4:06pm
Angus:
Federal Dog, your claim is easily proven false. It's a common conservative blog talking point to try and discredit polls, but that doesn't make it real.
Actual Poll Numbers from 2004
9.28.2008 4:08pm
KWC (mail):
If you don't care about the content of the speech offered during the debate, then you could say that it was close. That is, if you aren't the kind of person who finds it annoying when a person smirks childishly while their opposition is talking (it reminds me of the number one no-no in court).

BUT if you actually listened to the nonsense that McCain was spewing and were sickened by his constant retreat to canned phrases as if he was saying them for the first time(see, e.g., "I will veto every new spending bill. I will make them famous. You will know their names"; "I looked in Putin's eyes and say a "K", a "G", and a "B"; etc.), you would say there was a clear Obama victory.
9.28.2008 4:12pm
Cornellian (mail):
At this point, I think the only gimmick he hasn't tried is a one-term pledge. Maybe it's time to trot that one out.

Let's hope he makes that pledge on television, with Sarah Palin standing next to him.
9.28.2008 4:12pm
Snaphappy Fishsuit M.:
Well Here's CNN/USA Today/Gallup from Oct. 30, 2004: Bush 49, Kerry 47. The same poll shows that at about this time (Sept. 24-26), Bush was winning by 8 points (52-44), but losing ground. There was a dead heat during the first week of October, but then Bush pulled ahead. Kerry started to narrow the lead, but was still behind by Oct. 30.

So yes, this is exactly like 2004 in that the democratic candidate is gaining ground. The only difference is that he's gaining ground while ahead instead of behind. If the same trends happen until the election, expect the Democrat to gain three points and the republican to lose three. So that would make it about 53% to 41% by the end of October.
9.28.2008 4:16pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):
The most telling thing will be to see if the RNC decides to "invest more in gubernatorial and senate races" and quietly cut off McCain. If that happens, then it will be clear that McCain's moose...err goose is cooked.
9.28.2008 4:17pm
Cornellian (mail):
Good for Jim Lehrer by the way. That poll says a huge majority of the people who watched the debate felt that he conducted it in a neutral, impartial manner.
9.28.2008 4:17pm
Bad English:
It would be more informative if we knew what these numbers meant. Who is being asked what and how?
9.28.2008 4:20pm
byomtov (mail):
I think it might be that McCain's performance on the financial crisis hurt him more than the debate.

Those who oppose the bailout probably hoped he would take a firm stand against it, and are unhappy he didn't. Those who support it think he jumped in and messed the deal up just as things were about to be settled.

Taking a firm stand either way, or just not getting in the middle of things, would have helped him more than what he did.
9.28.2008 4:23pm
A.W. (mail):
I said it before, and i will say it again. Rasmussen is more accurate national poll. Hate to say it, but there you go.

I don't trust Gallup at all.
9.28.2008 4:23pm
loki13 (mail):
Federal Dog,

I have seen you, on post after post, claim that the polls were against Bush in 2004. Over and over again you have been refuted with evidence. The best you do is to write that you're correct, and everyone else is apparently wrong (along with every credible source).

So, please, either post some evidence or drop some support already. Otherwise, your posts can be presumptively labeled, "False" right?
9.28.2008 4:26pm
Asher (mail):

BUT if you actually listened to the nonsense that McCain was spewing and were sickened by his constant retreat to canned phrases as if he was saying them for the first time(see, e.g., "I will veto every new spending bill. I will make them famous. You will know their names"; "I looked in Putin's eyes and say a "K", a "G", and a "B"; etc.), you would say there was a clear Obama victory.

I think McCain did a decent job in arguing for his positions - it's just that the positions don't make a great deal of sense. He was fulsome on earmarks, but do earmarks matter? How can you claim to be a fiscal conservative when your proposed tax cuts vastly exceed your proposed spending cuts? He was eloquent on Iran, but would we really give them legitimacy simply by sitting down with them? I don't think that our sitting down with Mao and Deng sent some sort of message to the world that we didn't object to the Cultural Revolution or Tiananmen. He was forceful on Iraq, but Obama was equally forceful. McCain's right about the surge, Obama's probably right when he says we never should have gone. He sounded good when he talked about Russia, but do you really buy this "Russia seeks to be the Russian Empire again" line? They tried to take a couple breakaway provinces from a tiny nation, and we're supposed to infer that they plan on gobbling up about fifteen countries, including Ukraine? McCain's an articulate spokesman for his positions, but his positions are little more than "cut earmarks, and Obama's wrong about everything." No real positive program.
9.28.2008 4:28pm
Federal Dog:
"I have seen you, on post after post, claim that the polls were against Bush in 2004. Over and over again you have been refuted with evidence."

Actually, I posted exactly twice, and another poster posted an RCP page exactly one time (not "over and over again," as you claim).

That page shows that several polls predicted a Bush win, several did not, and several polls were tied. It is not clear what MOE was involved in each one. The page did not mention anything about media coverage of those polls, or any information about exit polling.
9.28.2008 4:35pm
loki13 (mail):
Federal Dog,

Fair enough. But since you know the evidence, why do you keep writing that the early exit polls indicated a Bush loss? Wouldn't it be more accurate (if less rhetorically useful) to simply make the point that the polls were mixed?
9.28.2008 4:39pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
fed dog possibly referring to exit polls from 2004, which did point to Kerry? (and pave way for 2 years of conspiratorial stories on the left about how bush stole the 2004 election)
9.28.2008 4:41pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
McCain keeps dropping the ball.

To people who buy in to the liberal narrative about the bailout being necessary and on the verge of happening, McCain was interfering with a deal getting done. Nevermind that there wasn't a deal getting done, he still gets blamed.

To people who buy in to the conservative narrative about the bailout being completely unfair and unnecessary, McCain made the wrong choice and chickened out. His support for the republican holdouts was way too lukewarm.

Unless a miracle happens in the next couple of weeks, McCain is going to lose.
9.28.2008 4:51pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Palin had nothing to do with this. Neither did McCain's comments/actions on the bailout.


just 11% of Americans now say the nation is heading in the right direction. That’s down dramatically from 24% two weeks ago


It is the economy stupid. Not tactics or press statements or even debates.

If the economy fades into the background, then McCain has a chance.

If not, no chance.
9.28.2008 4:52pm
Al (mail):

Why do our pollsters hate America?


Why do otherwise-respected law professors feel the need to beclown themselves with snarky, childish comments on message boards?
9.28.2008 4:53pm
CB55 (mail):
Eric Muller:

LOL. They do not hate all Americans, just people like you and take my word for it they think you should have a bad hair day every day until you die.
9.28.2008 4:56pm
Cornellian (mail):
LOL. They do not hate all Americans, just people like you and take my word for it they think you should have a bad hair day every day until you die.

Does bald count?
9.28.2008 5:00pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
Also, I don't predict the debates will help McCain.

So long as the debates remain an opportunity to regurgitate well-rehearsed talking points, Obama will continue to turn adequate performances. At this point, adequate is enough for him to win.

Unless it becomes an opportunity to hit the candidates with surprise questions (like during the disastrous Obama/Hillary debate), the ball is going to stay in Obama's court.

Anything can happen in the next month, but it is increasingly looking like McCain is tapped out and Obama is coasting towards victory.
9.28.2008 5:02pm
Nate in Alice:
Federal Dog,

The point is that Bush led Kerry for MOST of the summer and most of the fall. Looking back, it's quite obvious he was the front-runner. Just as today, it's quite obvious that Obama is the front-runner.

If the polls tighten up right before election, then yes, it'll be like 2004 except Obama will be in Bush's position, not Kerry's.
9.28.2008 5:05pm
CB55 (mail):
Justin:

Turns out Sarah Palin is way more qualified than we thought. In addition to her experience in foreign policy, national security, and space, she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain put together, and she can can shoot better than McCain, turn a moose into burgers faster than Obama, and balance a check book better than Biden with out using her life line to Cheney or Karl Rove. Anybody that can see Russia from their front yard must know more about Putin than Condi Rice and she did not know that Osama Bin Laden was capable of the 9/11 disaster.

Why I love Saint Sarah:

What Makes Her Great!

* she's white
* she's a chick
* she knows her place
* she dresses proper for a workin' gal
* she knows how to pretend to fight corruption
* she has a gun
* she speaks English
* she feels science is overrated
* she's the right religion
* she was in the freakin' PTA!
* she was in the city council
* she was 1 of 30,000 mayors in America
* she was a governor
* she's been governor since Obama started running for presidency
* she speaks to God just like The Greatest President Ever
* she loves The Baby Jesus
* she can see Russia from her house
* she enjoys a good hacking
* She think big government should be drowned in the toilet and let the free market run things and rent out the government to the Fortune 500
9.28.2008 5:11pm
CB55 (mail):
Some things you might know about Saint Sarah:


# She was voted the sexiest, hottest mother and governor in America by Diebold voting machines.
# Ted Stevens endorsed her for Governor in 2006.
# Hobbies include:

* killing bears
* killing wolves
* feeding old people
* feeding microwaved bears and wolves to old people
* firing people who don't fire the men who divorce her sister
* fishing for barracuda by shooting them from a helicopter

# She's a member of the NRA and likes to hunt and fish.
# Gives off a naughty librarian vibe.
# Hates books.
# Supports maximum tube usage.
# Is under investigation for abuse of power.
# not one to waste time doing God's work, Mrs. Todd Palin was able to miraculously reduce seven months of the miracle of birth overnight!

* she also humbly waited six weeks before announcing the blessed birth!

# Even Mooslims thinks she is a Western icon and most have never seen snow or know what color it is but they love this white woman
9.28.2008 5:18pm
CB55 (mail):
McCain is for real Americans only. All others are either Democrats or none voting Muslims.
9.28.2008 5:22pm
SirBillsalot (mail):
The reality is, it was always probable that Obama would win. McCain is the only Republican who has a chance, but no Republican is going to do well in this climate. Bush gave up arguing his positions just after 2004, the media is solidly against any Republican, the economy is weak and has been talked down to the point of crisis, Republicans in Congress are brain dead and utterly without ideas, and after two terms, the pendulum has naturally swung to the left. Compounding this, Obama is a gifted campaigner, has the cathartic factor of being a "historic" candidate, and Democrats, furious since Al Gore lost so narrowly in 2000, are fired up while Republicans are dispirited. It's a wonder the election is close at all.

But let's be optimistic. If he wins, Obama and the Democrats will have both elected branches. They will have to take responsibility when they have been used in the last 8 years to doing nothing but snipe. So let them govern and let's hope they do so well. Meanwhile, Republicans need to concentrate on developing ideas and promoting a new generation of leaders. The worst thing that Republicans can do is spend the next 4 years pouting, or even worse still, retreating into "Obama Deragement Syndrome." We have to prove that country first means something, even if the country doesn't always make the choice we might like. There will be other elections.
9.28.2008 5:24pm
The Editors, American Federalist Journal (www):
And now, for compare and contrast, the Obama record of accomplishment:
9.28.2008 5:27pm
justanotherguy (mail):
It's too bad that several of the latest polls (last week) were debunked when the data came out. It is hard to get a good poll with reasonable numbers that reflect realistic estimates of who will vote. The polls that end up with too large a % of democrats polled based on questionable assumptions- it is too hard to tell if the pollsters have gone into the bag for the Messiah as have the main stream media.

I guess the real poll will be in November- but based on the fraud and other problems reported- maybe not.
9.28.2008 5:30pm
CB55 (mail):
The Editors, American Federalist Journal:

And now, for compare and contrast, the McCain record of accomplishment:

Well, he did suffer for his country, and that was worse than the 5 labor pains of Saint Sarah Palin
9.28.2008 5:35pm
just me (mail):
Is there anyone who didn't think this was Obama's race to lose? While I am voting for McCain and do not at all support Obama's positions or ideas, it has been pretty obvious that Obama has consistently and persistently had the advantage in this race. If Obama loses I think it will be more about what Obama did to give it away than anything McCain did right.

That said I suspect Obama's improvement in this poll has nothing to do with anything McCain did, and it has everything to do with the economy. When the economy goes sour the party in the WH generally takes the hit-and I think that is what we are seeing. Not to mention I think Obama has been pretty effective in trying to tie McCain to Bush and promote the idea that McCain will be Bush's third term-even if it is more an Obama creation than reality.

My prediction is that Obama will win. It will be close. The democrats will keep the house and the senate, and pass a bunch of crap we can't afford-and my biggest concern is some heavy healt care entitlement program that will gut the budget, but like any other entitlement program won't ever go away once created.
9.28.2008 5:37pm
Eric Muller (www):
Cornellian: "Does bald count?"

Now hold on just one second. I've still got most of my hair.
9.28.2008 5:40pm
loki13 (mail):
I was going to address the main part of the nonsense in the post, supra, but this stood out:


I guess the real poll will be in November- but based on the fraud and other problems reported- maybe not.


This is a huge problem- legitimacy. As long as a certain element keeps screaming about the integrity of elections when there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and almost no evidence of any voter fraud, despite repeated attempts to find it, the worse off this country will be. Whoever wins needs a mandate. If we continue this BS sour-grapes discourse so that it spreads from the tin-foils to the general population, we'll be no better than a banana republic. Winner crowing, and losers bitterly entertaining conspiracy theories. Once that is ingrained, it is a small step for someone to think, "Heck, since they think it anyway, might as well do it!"

Of the many loser arguments advanced, this is the most loser-ish, because it hurts the whole country. Trust, but verify. If anyone is actually committing voter fraud/tampering with the Diebolt machines/voting from their graves, I will be the first to complain. But this kind of crazy not only hurts how people perceive you, it weakens the civic fabric of our society. Good job on that.
9.28.2008 5:41pm
CB55 (mail):
SirBillsalot:

I think the GOP has 4 good years (if Obama wins) to teach folks that the Free Market means something. They can teach them that there is an alternative to Public TV and radio, that hedge funds are a good buy and the best education money can buy is with school couchers, and that no government should tell me I can not not own and operate a car that only gets 6 miles to the gallon.
9.28.2008 5:45pm
DanO29 (mail) (www):
Obama needs to tell us what he thinks are things that need changing. He's about B.S'ed me to death. So far nothing but empty suit rhetoric. The man is not going to get one second of any kind of a Honeymoon. The days of comity are long over. The stakes for him are way way to high for even a single screw up.

Way to many angry old White Folks out there that are clinging to religion and civilian knock-offs of military assault weapons in semiautomatic configuration. Not being one to read tea leafs, nor am I wishing any harm, but I can see another Spring Holiday, being signed into law by President Biden next year if he even looks like he's going to drop the ball.

The guy has built up way to much expectation about himself being the Golden Child. He better figure out how to part the Red Sea and feed fishes to the multitude from a single wicker basket on Inauguration Day, Because that's what people are expecting. I got a feeling that this is going to be one hell of a bumpy next 4 years.
9.28.2008 5:45pm
CB55 (mail):
DanO29:

What's more honest than McCain and Bomb!, Bomb!, Iran! I wanna hear Obama sing like that. McCain has more soul than Obama and Mccain does not have a tan
9.28.2008 5:50pm
Michael J.Z. Mannheimer (mail):
This day in 2004: Bush 317, Kerry 207. Look it up.
9.28.2008 5:55pm
CB55 (mail):
Michael J.Z. Mannheimer:

Reality and rules does not apply to the GOP, if it does not fit our model we just make things up as we go along - reality always fits our own reality.
9.28.2008 6:01pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
JAG: don't be so sure the polls are using too many Democrats (unless they're using 50%). The Democratic edge has been growing the last couple of years and it's likely they'll have a big turnout advantage. A poll that used equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats would be unrealistic in this election.
9.28.2008 6:05pm
Eric Muller (www):
Al (alczervikjr@yahoo.com) asked: "Why do otherwise-respected law professors feel the need to beclown themselves with snarky, childish comments on message boards?"

So that commenters with doofus names from Caddyshack can engage in ad hominem from behind their veil of anonymity. Why else?
9.28.2008 6:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
federal:

This is exactly what happened in 2004.


(I'll add to what Angus and others have said.) Really? Take a look at Gallup, for the period 7/19/04 through 10/30/04. Bush led most of the time. Kerry was never ahead by more than 1%.

Bush repeatedly broke through the 48% level. Look at this list and count how many times McCain has ever done better then 48%. Answer: almost never.

A helpful chart is here. Kerry did well in July and August, but Bush dominated September and October.

In the list that Angus cited, Bush had leads of at least 5% in this many September polls: 20. The comparable figure for McCain: 2. In both cases, the number of polls listed for September is about 35. In other words, Bush showed a significant lead in most September polls, and he was 10 times more likely than McCain to show a significant lead, in any given September poll.

That page shows that several polls predicted a Bush win, several did not, and several polls were tied.


Gosh, it sounds like you're describing a dead heat. "That page" is here. It lists 85 polls. Bush led in this many: 66. Kerry led in this many: 7. This many were tied: 12.

You do a lot for your credibility when you indicate that 66 and 7 are numbers that should be treated as roughly equal, under the rubric of "several."

Looking only at the month of September 2004, the list shows this many polls: 33. Bush led in this many: 30. Kerry led in this many: 1. This many were tied: 2.

If we look again at September 2008, we see this many polls: 37. Obama led in this many: 21. McCain led in this many: 9 (7 of those 9 were concentrated in a six-day period of Palin-mania). This many were tied: 7.

Keep hope alive. I imagine you will try hard to do so, even though it requires you to invent your own facts.
9.28.2008 6:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Rasmussen is more accurate national poll. … I don't trust Gallup at all.


Did you not notice that Lindgren was quoting the former when he said "this six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet and marks the first time he has held such a lead for two-days running?"
9.28.2008 6:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bob:

Palin had nothing to do with this.


The facts seem to indicate otherwise. By around 9/15, when Lehman Bros went under, her ratings were already in a nosedive, and national polls were showing McCain losing his Palin-bump. People didn't start talking about the $700 billion bailout until 9/20. Palin was already quite stale by then, thanks to the Bush Doctrine and various other obvious things.

So I think Palin was already enough to kill McCain, even before Wall St came along.
9.28.2008 6:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
What Makes Her Great!


You posted a good list, but a truly indispensable list is here. Example:

Sarah Palin doesn't need a gun to hunt, because she can throw a bullet through an adult bull elk.


Chuck Norris said that's one of his favorites.
9.28.2008 6:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
it's a wonder the election is close at all.


A black man with a foreign name who no one ever heard of a few years ago is running against a bona fide war hero who has been a popular figure with independents and Democrats for many years. It's a wonder that the former is winning.
9.28.2008 6:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dan:

Way to many angry old White Folks out there that are clinging to religion and civilian knock-offs of military assault weapons in semiautomatic configuration. Not being one to read tea leafs, nor am I wishing any harm, but I can see another Spring Holiday, being signed into law by President Biden next year if he even looks like he's going to drop the ball.


If an old folk song can be construed as a death threat, I think what you said can be too. Maybe it would be better if you didn't publish your fantasies.
9.28.2008 6:12pm
Angus:
Unfortunately, the "we have guns and will use them against the government if Obama becomes president" meme is very commmon nowadays on the typical lineup of right-wing sites. If Obama loses the election, I certainly will be upset. However, you'd be hard pressed to find many Obama supporters talking about an armed coup.
9.28.2008 6:27pm
CB55 (mail):
Eric Muller:

Our schools have been taken over by the Liberal Establishment. The Internet is one of the few places where other wise Liberal looking professionals can express their true feelings, opinions and thoughts that are in opposition to Liberals in a private and anonymous manner and not face any career or public pressure. Campus Cons are mostly a small army of guerrillas that like to throw bombs while Liberal others are eating brie cheese and diet coke on a Sunday afternoon
9.28.2008 6:27pm
Eric Muller (www):
Eric chokes on his brie as the diet coke splashes out his nose...
9.28.2008 6:30pm
SirBillsalot (mail):

A black man with a foreign name who no one ever heard of a few years ago is running against a bona fide war hero who has been a popular figure with independents and Democrats for many years. It's a wonder that the former is winning.


Actually, one of the real plusses I see to Obama winning (even though I'm voting for the experienced candidate, who also happens to be a war hero) is that Democrats will be forced to admit that this country isn't nearly as racist as they believe. Long term, I think that will have positive ramifications in debates over such things as affirmative action.

Another benefit is that you can expect reporting on the economy to change overnight in January. It will be a miraculous recovery!
9.28.2008 6:32pm
loki13 (mail):
CB55-

Real members of the liberal establishment are drinking (imported) beer and eating (goat cheese) pizza while watching their fantasy football players take a nose dive on Sunday afternoons. Get your stereotypes right!

(Oh yeah- campus cons being an army of bomb throwers and guerillas???? HA! How about frat boys that want to feel feel all rebellious and political when they're making fun of other other people. I exempt Campus Christ members from the above comment.)
9.28.2008 6:34pm
just me (mail):
Obama needs to tell us what he thinks are things that need changing. He's about B.S'ed me to death.

Actually as long as he leaves the definition of what he is going to change to the voter, he wins-at least until he gets into office and his version of change isn't what they were expecting.

Although I do think Obama knows how to ride the B.S. train to victory. I also think he has had very soft media coverage. The media tore Hillary to shreds and have been doing so with McCain for the last couple of months (they laid off McCain during the general though, when it was still Obama and Hillary going at it).

The media has dug deep into every nook and cranny of Palin's life, but won't even do a decent investigation of the Obama relationship with Ayers and Rezko.

But Obama probably has this one in the bag unless he manages a major misstep between now and election day-he has been in the lead the whole time, he has presented himself as the bringer of all that is good-and I think he is going to have a hard time delivering it, because it is undefined. My hope and change isn't somebody else's hope and change and they my just be diametrically opposed.

A black man with a foreign name who no one ever heard of a few years ago is running against a bona fide war hero who has been a popular figure with independents and Democrats for many years. It's a wonder that the former is winning.

Not when the war hero is old and his party base doesn't really like him in a year when his party is the one in the WH and the WH has horrible approval.
9.28.2008 6:39pm
CB55 (mail):
Obama is just too perfect for us good Christian White folks to believe, if he were more like us we might vote for some one like him in 500 years if he can earn it. We like folks like Obama as Cliff Huxtable on TV and telling jokes and not in the White House. In the White House one can not go wrong by being an underachiever and mediocre. Sure we can forgive McCain for being a flop, but we will not tolerate that in anyone like Obama
9.28.2008 6:44pm
KWC (mail):
CB55:

Your random capitalization is distracting. You are writing in English, not German (or Middle English). Please stop it.
9.28.2008 6:49pm
Al (mail):
Eric Muller:

Why do Republicans hate America?

9.28.2008 7:00pm
Al (mail):
Not sure why link didn't work:

Pelosi
9.28.2008 7:02pm
Loophole1998 (mail):
Pre-Palin, McCain was an experienced, serious candidate who cared about the most important issue a president deals with: foreign policy.

Post-Palin, McCain has become a joke. Everything he does is now seen through the lens of a win-at-all-costs mentality--exactly the wrong message for his brand.

Next desperate McCain move should be to drop Palin (frame it like a maverick move--she didn't live up to my expectations, so I need to put country first) and pick Tom Ridge (for Pennsylvania and country-frist narrative). Status quo = loss.
9.28.2008 7:10pm
Cornellian (mail):

Your random capitalization is distracting. You are writing in English, not German (or Middle English). Please stop it.


I for one would welcome posts written in Middle English.
9.28.2008 7:14pm
Lily (mail):
Wow, we really ARE two Americas - and it doesn't have a thing to do with income or wealth. We have such different ideals with respect to government - I don't know how much longer we can go on.
9.28.2008 7:20pm
CB55 (mail):
loki13:

LOL. We fellow Republicans have no problem the scandals, lies and crimes of Bush/McCain, we just put Bush in a box and went on the Convention and got McCain and the same beer. With out Sarah Mccain would be down and out with White women
9.28.2008 7:27pm
dr:

Wow, we really ARE two Americas - and it doesn't have a thing to do with income or wealth. We have such different ideals with respect to government - I don't know how much longer we can go on.



Lily, sorry for not knowing, but which of these Americas do you claim as your own? (Not snarky -- just haven't seen your posts.)
9.28.2008 7:32pm
SirBillsalot (mail):

Wow, we really ARE two Americas - and it doesn't have a thing to do with income or wealth. We have such different ideals with respect to government - I don't know how much longer we can go on.


Hamilton and Jefferson would disagree that this is new.
9.28.2008 7:33pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Angus:
If Obama loses the election, I certainly will be upset. However, you'd be hard pressed to find many Obama supporters talking about an armed coup.
How about
If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!
Fartimah Ali--Philadelphia Inquirer
9.28.2008 7:48pm
Dan O (mail) (www):

...Obama probably has this one in the bag...


At best Jimmy Carter II.
9.28.2008 8:02pm
loki13 (mail):

Wow, we really ARE two Americas - and it doesn't have a thing to do with income or wealth. We have such different ideals with respect to government - I don't know how much longer we can go on.



Hamilton and Jefferson would disagree that this is new.


Hamilton was right. Why did Jefferson hate America? Why did Jefferson give aid and support to the terrorists?

Hamilton- greatest American to never be President. All you Jefferson-lovers should either get educated or GIT ON OUT!
9.28.2008 8:21pm
Jerry F:
There are two kinds of people who support Obama: (1) People who are not well-informed about the candidates' backgrounds and/or records, and (2) people who are well-informed but whose political views place them in the 90th percentile on the right-left scale (i.e., people who are farther left than at least 90% of Americans). Unfortunately, people in category (2) control the news to ensure that people in category (1) remain in category (1). This is why Obama is leading, and I don't see any easy way out of this for the rest of us.
9.28.2008 8:27pm
Bill McGonigle (www):
CB55: When do you start calling Palin an evil genius? So far your replay of the 'Bush Strategy' is right on.
9.28.2008 8:33pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
(3) People who are well-informed and think McCain is far too likely to seek military solutions to diplomatic problems.
9.28.2008 8:38pm
loki13 (mail):
Jerry F.,

I think that there are two kinds of statistics you are using:

85% of the time, you pull numbers out of your rear.

The other 42% of the time, you just make this stuff up.

How's this:

I think that there are two types of McCain voters:
1. People who succumb to messages of fear and no longer believe in America.

2. People who are Further to the right than 98% of the population and like to talk on Fox news, influencing group one, and . . .

3. People who don't understand numbers.
9.28.2008 8:45pm
Uncle Creamy:
@loki

Please. All that Hamilton's gonna do is raise your taxes and expand your government. And all Hamilton's ghost is gonna do is take your guns and ban your dueling. BOOOOOO!
9.28.2008 9:07pm
loki13 (mail):
Uncle Creamy-

Jefferson's just going to increase his collection of French Wines, increase agricultural subsidies, whine about secession whenever he doesn't get his way, AND SLEEP WITH YOUR WOMEN.

Thomas Jefferson. Bad for the founding fathers. Bad for America.
9.28.2008 9:35pm
Franklin Drackman:
Oh Yeah? Well Lincoln's gonna take your Slaves.
9.28.2008 9:50pm
Randy R. (mail):
sirbillsalot: "{ Bush gave up arguing his positions just after 2004, the media is solidly against any Republican, the economy is weak and has been talked down to the point of crisis, Republicans in Congress are brain dead and utterly without ideas, and after two terms, the pendulum has naturally swung to the left. Compounding this, Obama is a gifted campaigner, has the cathartic factor of being a "historic" candidate, and Democrats, furious since Al Gore lost so narrowly in 2000, are fired up while Republicans are dispirited. It's a wonder the election is close at all."

Of course, the fact that the Republicans have run this country into the ground and have no further ideas beyond drilling, has nothing to do with the election.....
9.28.2008 9:51pm
SirBillsalot (mail):
Randy:

As I said, I think the Republicans are out of ideas. Saying that "they have no ideas beyond drilling" is hardly a trump. Drilling, of course, happens to be one rather good idea, which is why the Democrats just caved on it.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid, on the other hand, have many ideas. Most of them bad ones that failed long enough ago that the pain has dimmed. I hope we don't find out again what being "run into the ground" really means.

Anyway, triumphalism quickly turns to hubris, and hubris to disappointment, which is why this moment won't last.
9.28.2008 10:12pm
Uncle Creamy:
Loki,

It's time to stop the lies and deceptions. Jefferson might sleep with your help, but Hamilton will sleep with your wife AND tax your whiskey.

More importantly, was Hamilton even born in America? No. Hamilton's a secret Englishman who seeks to impose English laws and customs on America. Check Hamilton's birth certificate. If he'll disclose it.

Jefferson. A real American who won't sleep with your wife.
9.28.2008 10:25pm
Pug (mail):

This is exactly what happened in 2004


Wishful thinking does indeed make us feel better. The fact is Bush lead in the polls most of the 2004 campaign.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Sep29.html
9.28.2008 10:32pm
Nate in Alice:
Please, SirBillsalot, Republicans have no strategy to face the 21st century problems.

If they come up with (other than putting their fingers in their ears), then I'll be the first to consider it, because Dems tend to be so ineffective.

But for those of us who don't think the return of Jesus is imminent, we're looking for long-term sustainable solutions. Oil will run out, sooner than most expect. That is the biggest national security threat facing us. If we don't solve it soon, we're going to be in a world of hurt.

(Drilling is fine, but everyone knows it's a band-aid on the artery-wound).
9.28.2008 10:38pm
Uncle Creamy:
And Hamilton has no strategy to face 19th century problems!

Jefferson: Hope! Change! And Manifesting Destiny...For America!
9.28.2008 10:42pm
The upside . ..:
Republicans deserve to lose the election for doing a lousy job in the White House, just as they deserved to lose in 2006 for doing a lousy job of running Congress. You can't run as the party of small government and lower taxes while running up huge deficits and growing the government larger than it's ever been before.

The sad part is that the Left will be rewarded for its behavior over the last eight years. The unabashed hatred, which is pretty evident just from reading the posts on this site, have really poisoned the political atmosphere in this country. Not that Republicans are free of blame. Republicans engaged in much of the same behavior during the Clinton years. But the prevalence of blogging sites like this have created a Tourette effect where people just say whatever happens to be on the tip of their brain when it comes to political issues, and the party out of power probably feels that impulse a little more strongly because of their present inability to change policy.

At some point, you hope that a lot of voters become fed up with it and start punishing the sides that engage in that behavior. In any event, I hope Republicans do a better job with President Obama than the Left has with President Bush. There was a time when you could disagree without being disagreeable, but judging from a lot of the comments on this site, that's not the case anymore.
9.28.2008 10:44pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
jukeboxgrad: The Lehman Bros collapse started the Obama surge It has been 2 weeks of bad economic news.

Conventional wisdom is that Palin's numbers have "tanked" or "plunged" but its not true. Palin's approval numbers fell but still are ok. Per Opinion Dynamics poll of September 24 (latest I could find):


Palin's favorable rating has dropped a bit and now stands at 47 percent, down from 54 percent two weeks ago. Nearly half of voters -- 48 percent -- have a favorable view of Biden, down from 51 percent (September 8-9).


Is Biden hurting Obama?
9.28.2008 10:56pm
loki13 (mail):
Thomas Jefferson doesn't think like the rest of us. Thomas Jefferson is an out-of-touch elitist who doesn't know about the concerns of regular people.

While we work hard to protect our streets, Jefferson wants to coddle criminals and eliminate the death penalty.

While we fought to protect our Nation from foreign invaders, Jefferson gave up Virginia to the British as governor.

While we live in a life of quiet normalcy, Jefferson is a celebrity exchanging notes with French celebrities.

While we supported George Washington, Jefferson cravenly left our first President to further his own ambitions.

While our brave soldiers were preparing to battle Robespierre, Jefferson was preparing to cut and run.

Thomas Jefferson. Wrong for the 18th Century. Wrong for the 19th Century. Wrong now.

Vote Hamilton. Only Hamilton can help build the modern country that the American People deserve. Hamilton will make us American better than it was before- Better, Stronger, Faster.

This message approved by the Monarchist for Hamilton Campaign.
9.28.2008 10:59pm
Mark Parsons (mail):
This is all going to be academic when the Whitey tape is released at the end of October.

All McCain has to do to win is make sure he is within ten points of Obama going in to the last week.
9.28.2008 11:04pm
LM (mail):

Anyway, triumphalism quickly turns to hubris, and hubris to disappointment, which is why this moment won't last.

Nor will what follows, which is where we are now.
9.28.2008 11:05pm
J. (mail):
"You do neither. Sorry, the Bradley Effect Fairy is not coming to give McCain free votes"

The Hopkins paper is interesting, but he makes two fundamental errors in my view:

1. Bradley effect is not a phenomenon that occurs anytime a black candidate runs against a white candidate. It occurs when a black democrat runs aganst a white republican, and only in that specific situation.

2. Hopkins assumes Bradley effect is solely due to racism. It may be partly due to racism, but there are lots of situations where something other than racism could account for a false answer to a pollster - a black voter who is voting against a black candidate, for example, or other people such as third party voters or centrist democrats who simply think the other candidate is better, who don't want to deal with the social hassle of having the fact that they support another candidate become known to their peers. Given the obsession of many Obama voters, I'd bet even many Nader or McKinney voters are uncomfortable about admitting their preference within earshot of their Obama supporting friends.
9.28.2008 11:17pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
I posted this on another website, but it fits here too.

McCain's tanking because:

(1) The convention and Palin bounces are gone. Palin's probably hurting now more than she's helping because her inexperience is glaring. McCain should have remembered what happened to James Stockdale under similar conditions, and Admiral Stockdale was a very intelligent man. And having Tina Fey doing dead-on impersonations of her is not helping Palin at all.

(2) McCain keeps making a fool of himself, like talking about the fundamentals of the economy being sound at the exact moment of a stock market crash, "suspending" his campaign and wanting to postpone the debate and doing neither, showing up in Washington like a savior after the announcement of a temporary deal but before it tanks, which makes him look like the opposite of a deal-maker, trying to get Palin out of the VP debate for no reason at all. And he's even pissed off David Letterman, who's been deservedly raking him over the coals ever since. Jon Stewart calls McCain the only person who could overreact to something that happened ten days earlier.

(3) The economy is looking really shaky and McCain has admitted that he knows nothing about economics.

(4) Bush appeared on television promising to do something about the economy and America collectively said, "Oh, shit!"

I thought Obama did slightly better than McCain in the debate, but repeatedly saying Obama didn't understand things that Obama clearly understands perfectly well made McCain look silly and arrogant. Still, it wasn't a knockout, and McCain is certainly better in a debate than either Bush, Dole, Kerry or Gore. The real problem for McCain here is that his trump card is his experience, and if Obama comes across as intelligent and well-informed, that cuts into McCain's advantage.
9.28.2008 11:30pm
Bored 3L:

The real problem for McCain here is that his trump card is his experience, and if Obama comes across as intelligent and well-informed, that cuts into McCain's advantage.


Campaigning on experience and choosing someone at least as inexperienced, if not more inexperienced, as the opponent also hurts.
9.28.2008 11:38pm
Mikey (mail):
For all of you who didn't think Kerry was ahead of Bush in the polls, I send you here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct08.html
9.28.2008 11:48pm
Reggie1971:
We've got about five weeks to go. Let's all take a deep breath and realize that without an operable crystal ball, we don't know what events, domestic or foreign, are going to take place. The bailout may improve McCains standing a couple or more points, putting him within plausible reach. The bradley effect (not being racist, just a realist) is likely to shave another two to five points off the lead, and then...well you might have a nailbiter.

If not, well we have Bobby Jindal four years from now. I've seen him in interviews with liberal media elites, and he is sharp as a tack and tough as nails.

Keep the faith. Don't get an ulcer until at least a couple weeks out.
9.28.2008 11:50pm
Asian Pollster (mail):

Folks, I would make the turnout argument... Is OBama over estimating his turnout, and are we under estimating McCain/Palins turnout.

2004, Bush gained the highest percentage and number increase in voters in history.. Does Palin fire them up..
9.28.2008 11:51pm
Uncle Creamy:
It's morning again in America.

Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history. With America twice the size it was in 1800, nearly 2,000 plantation owners today will buy new slaves, more than at any time in the past four years.

This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with today's deflation, they can look forward with confidence to paying less for everything the future.

It's morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Jefferson, our country is larger and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?
9.28.2008 11:53pm
bbbeard (mail):
Polling is as polling does. I would think that after the last two presidential election-day polling fiascos, people would learn not to put any stock whatsoever in daily tracking polls. I guess some of the posters here are too young or too stupid to remember that far back.

If anything -- and it may not be anything -- Obama is seeing a winner-take-all bounce from his media-conjured "victory" in the debate.

From an MSM standpoint, the stories wrote themselves. The debate accomplished nothing for either side, but the media pushed hard the story line that Obama held his own, tied, and therefore "won". They obviously didn't see the sweaty, stammering, uninformed, and unintelligent "I've got a bracelet, too!" guy that some of us noticed. Nor did they care that Obama said virtually nothing that he had not memorized from his stump speeches. They had to come up with an "Obama wins" storyline and somehow -- somehow! -- they managed.

So, when the pollster calls, the soft-headed "undecided" voter remembers seeing a news story that "Obama won" and decides he'll go with that. This is a pretty well-known effect in polling, and this far ahead of an election it means virtually nothing -- ask Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis.

This is the first Presidential election where one of the major candidates is younger than me. And boy, does it show! Obama seems not to have learned any history in his short life, and seems completely ignorant of the Cold War -- the defining conflict of my generation -- and indeed of the other wars that we have lived through, up to and including Iraq! Believe me, anyone who tries to tell you the sixties were a time when the world loved America is smoking crack. Try googling "Yankee Go Home!" And don't get me started on his ignorance of geography, arithmetic, and basic civics. Talk about an affirmative-action candidate! Well, we get what we deserve, I guess....

I am not a McCain fan. In fact, prior to naming Sarah Palin as VP, I was thinking I'd be casting my ballot for either Paris Hilton or Rick and Bubba. Now it's "McCain '08, Palin '09" in my household. Palin is the true reformer in this race. Don't bother bombarding me with the loony left version of reality -- I've already read all the slimy Kossack drivel I'm going to this season.
9.28.2008 11:59pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Reggie: When I say McCain's tanking, I mean tanking now. Events might happen in the next five weeks that turn it around for him. For example, Obama might make a huge gaffe in one of the upcoming debates.

Barring something like that, I'm expecting Obama to win by 8-11% of the popular vote, and win the electoral college by 120-150 electoral votes. If McCain keeps going like he has since September 1, he could lose some states I expect him to carry, like North Carolina and Florida.
9.29.2008 12:01am
RPT (mail):
If McCain is unable to look Obama in the eye, either because he is intimidated or cannot control his anger, how is he ever going to look at Putin? This is a sign of personal weakness however you spin.
9.29.2008 12:02am
Reggie1971:
Syd:


The reason why McCain is behind in the polls has nothing to do with McCain or Obama. It's obviously the financial crisis. If that appears to be quelled somewhat after the bailout, I believe we still have a race. I agree though, it's still an uphill climb for McCain. If a half-way centrist mainstream Democrat were running, his wife would be out right now picking curtains for the White House.
9.29.2008 12:15am
The Snob (mail) (www):
Syd: McCain lose North Carolina? Isn't that about as likely as Obama losing Connecticut?
9.29.2008 12:30am
loki13 (mail):
Thomas Jefferson told the American People that he was for limited governmet.

What could be more of a Big Government monstrosity than his Louisiana folly?

Thomas Jefferson told the American People that he was for strictly interpreting our Constitution.

Where is the power to acquire vast tracts of land from sneaky French hands enumerated in our Constituion?

Thomas Jefferson told the American People "crush the power of moneyed corporations."

Will Jefferson let you sip his fine French Wines with him at his country estate when he forces your employer out of business?

Jefferson told the American People that he does not believe in judicial review.

Who will protect your rights when Jefferson's Big Government comes to take them away?

Jefferson told the American People that we need no navy.

Who will protect you when Jefferson's French Friends come to visit?

Send your manservants to Monticello to get Thomas Jefferson to answer these questions.

Paid for by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Hamilton.
9.29.2008 12:30am
MS (mail):
Reggie1971,

We don't have to run with a half-way centrist. We get to win with a far-left liberal That's what happens when your incumbent is a disaster. Do better next time.
9.29.2008 1:04am
Reggie1971:
MS:

If Obama gets in, four years from now we will. I have little doubt that Jindal would eat his lunch. Our incumbent was a non-conservative domestically....LBJ on steriods. That's the cause of misfortune the Republican party is experiencing.
9.29.2008 1:15am
Nate in Alice:
The Snob,

CT and NC are not analogous. Check 538 (and all the polls showing the NC dead heat and CT blow-out) for more information.

(Though NC is a moot point. If Obama wins there, he has won VA, and the election is already won.)
9.29.2008 1:21am
SS:
After watching the debates, a thought crossed my mind.. Considering the 50/50 division of the "Two Americas," the closeness of the Presidential race, and the limitations of all four candidates we have to choose from.. (Gee, thanks, Democrats &Republicans, you sure did us proud, huh!)

How about this: Mc Cain for President, Obama for VP. Get rid of Joe The Gaffe Machine and Palin the Pathetic. Neither of them bring anything to the game.

Both Mc Cain &Obama talk about "bringing the country together."

Well, show us! Team up. Between the two of you, you might do a good job.

One is stronger on history and military matters, the other a hell of a lot better with details and much more patient. Time for bipartisan work to be done.

Time to stop hating each other, and love America more than a "party."

Yeah, I am an Independent, and I am tired of all the childish bullshit on both sides.. it is ignorant, disgusting, and non-productive. Time to get serious!
9.29.2008 1:23am
Syd Henderson (mail):

The Snob (mail) (www):
Syd: McCain lose North Carolina? Isn't that about as likely as Obama losing Connecticut?


Remember the conditions I posed. If Obama wins the popular vote by more than 8-11% (in other words close to a landslide) he will start flipping states like North Carolina and Florida, which are rather close at the moment. It's hard to have that kind of popular vote margin and have the Electoral College be close.

I don't see Obama carrying deep south states like Alabama or Mississippi, or conservative mountain states like Idaho and Utah. It looks like Kentucky and Tennessee are out of range. He actually looks like he stands a chance in Indiana, which Democrats generally don't. For a while, Montana and North Dakota were in play, but Palin seems to be going over well there.
9.29.2008 1:29am
Brian G (mail) (www):
The way I see it, if one person in states like California, Texas, Kentucky, Utah, Illinois, and all others that are solidly blue or red, then polls have no value. It doesn't matter which one of these guys you support, you should keep your eye on the 9 or so battleground states and ignore all the rest.
9.29.2008 1:35am
Syd Henderson (mail):
It should be obvious early on election night. If Obama carries Virginia, he'll win. If he carries Florida, Indiana or Florida, it won't be close. If he carries two of those, he's going for about 370 electoral votes. If he carries all of those, it's an electoral landslide.
9.29.2008 1:46am
Syd Henderson (mail):

Florida, Indiana or Florida



I need an edit button, or I sound like Joe Biden. Make that Florida, Indiana or North Carolina.
9.29.2008 1:48am
VictoriaB (www):
Loophole wrote:

Next desperate McCain move should be to drop Palin (frame it like a maverick move--she didn't live up to my expectations, so I need to put country first) and pick Tom Ridge (for Pennsylvania and country-frist narrative). Status quo = loss.

You wish. If it weren't for Palin, a full 50% of Republicans today wouldn't even be energised to vote at all in this election, with a clump of Democrats thrown in.

I'm also sick and tired of this Stockdaling of Sarah Palin. The woman gives 2 badly edited interviews to self-appointed public watchdogs like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, who hate her guts and anyone who resembles her, and suddenly she's an ignoramus.

That rhetoric of "oh well, we gave it the old college try" by some commenters on Volokh here is also absolutely ridiculous. Get a hold of yourselves, goodness' sakes.

Senator Obama's camp came out with an ad that painted the devil on the wall -- it showed a post-McCain victory as reported by MSNBC. It was a shoutout to the more paranoid of his electorate.

It reeked of loser. In a million years I couldn't imagine Bush having done so the same in 2004.

The more people see Obama, the more they will see his flailing incompetence and beta male reactions real-time.

Cheers,
Victoria
9.29.2008 2:10am
bc (mail):
For some odd reason McCain seems to give a crap what the big city elites and the policy wonks in D.C. think of him. If he would just join Palin in the rural areas and let her do the talking he could still win big. He must soon choose between love and respect from people who will always love Obama more, and second fiddle status to Palin combined with victory driven by rural Palin lovers(like me). Choose John. Victory or defeat. It's up to you big guy.
9.29.2008 2:12am
LN (mail):
beta male reactions real-time

Absolutely. That guy in the debate who couldn't make eye contact with his opponent? LOSER.
9.29.2008 2:32am
Doubting Thomas:
For those of you interested in election number cruncher, this site has been doing it since the primaries. The blog’s primary author, Nate Silver, has been a contributor to baseball prospectus for some time and has imported the statistical analysis that is all the range in baseball to the political arena. He himself is a democrat and Obama supporter, but his number crunching is “objective.” He analyzes lots of different polls (weighting them for how accurate they have been in the past) to come up with pretty good projections on things. It’s interesting to compare the site’s historical research with some of the misinformation that is prevalent in this thread.

Nate currently projects that there is an 80% chance of an Obama victory, which is the highest it has ever been. The key numbers that are feeding that are Obama’s strong polling (for the past two weeks) in states like Virginia, Nevada, Indiana, and Colorado. Obama is also slightly ahead in Florida and Ohio. McCain must win each of those states to win the presidency. (As an aside, one thing Nate’s research has turned up is that debates rarely make much of a difference in polling. There are a few notable exceptions, but for the most part, people’s minds don’t seem to change based on the debates.)

At the end of the day, as Nate has been showing with past statistical support for a while now, it is very difficult to make up 3 or 4 points in polling this late in the game. The number of true undecided voters keeps diminishing. At this point, short of some true game changing event, McCain will not win.
9.29.2008 2:56am
peter jackson (mail) (www):
Wow, I wonder what it would be like to have the mainstream media totally in the tank for my side for once. Being a conservative libertarian, it'll never happen, but a girl can dream.

Do you realize that in, what? Four weeks? Even when you set aside the input from the Democrats' Oppo Lawyer Army that air-dropped into Alaska a millisecond after McCain's VP announcement, the mainstream media has managed to scrutinize Todd Palin's life and history more than they've managed to scrutinize Obama in a year and a half. And Todd Palin isn't even running for office. If Obama wins, as is most likely, the precedent will be set for jumping into candidates' lives with both jackboots, which means future presidential elections are going to be awesome. Yay.

Five weeks, let's see. Considering that the current financial crisis is a crisis in confidence, specifically the confidence of bankers worried that other banks will stay in business long enough to repay their loans. If any bailout happens that restores bankers' confidence in each other, this whole crisis will go *poof* overnight, the price of gas will come down, and McCain will have a real shot. If not, then McCain is toast, and we'll all get to hear President Obama's first "malaise" speech within six months.

yours/
peter.
9.29.2008 3:05am
Visitor Again:
William Safire has an On Language piece on the alleged Bradley Effect in the New York Times Magazine.
9.29.2008 4:12am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
just:

The media has dug deep into every nook and cranny of Palin's life


They've been looking, but they've still missed some important things.

Let me know if you can find anyone, anywhere, who has mentioned the stellar character reference that Palin wrote for Wooten, where she called him "a fine role model for my own children." Or that Bristol admitted to police that they reported the Taser incident two years late "because of the divorce." Or that the alleged death threat wasn't reported to the police until two months later.

Or that Palin repeatedly describes Wooten as "violent and abusive" even though Molly told police that Wooten never abused her. Or that Palin repeatedly points to the restraining order as proof that Wooten was violent, even though a judge dissolved the order because no evidence was presented that Wooten was violent.

Or that Palin repeatedly claims that Wooten issued threats, even though there is no corroboration outside the family that Wooten ever threatened anyone.

Or that Palin claims her family didn't know until 7/08 that Wooten had ever been suspended, even though Palin also claims that his personnel file was in the "public domain" (and therefore it was OK for Todd to give Bailey details from that file).

Or that Palin accuses French of rigging the witness list, even though the idea of striking Tibbles came from Ramras, a Republican. And even though the absence of a subpoena for Tibbles couldn't possibly disadvantage Palin in any way.

I bet you didn't know any of those things, and I bet you can't find a single MSM source that mentions any of those things.

I also bet you can't find more than a tiny handful of MSM sources that mention that McCain cheated on his crippled wife, and finally left her and his kids behind so he could run off with someone barely half his age. And he was in such a hurry that he got the marriage license for Cindy while he was still married to Carol. And he lied about this in his book, claiming that his affair with Cindy didn't start until he separated from Carol; his divorce records prove that he was living with Carol while conducting the affair with Cindy.

I think most voters don't know these things. That darn liberal media.
9.29.2008 4:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
norman:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war


You were responding to this:

you'd be hard pressed to find many Obama supporters talking about an armed coup


Congratulations. You found one. If you can find many more, then you'll be able to claim you found many.
9.29.2008 4:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
jerry:

people in category (2) control the news


Thank goodness Soros developed that mind-control machine that forces Foxnews to say exactly what he wants them to say. Likewise for about a zillion righty blogs like this one. Likewise for Rush and his ilk. I just wish Soros had done it sooner, like about 8 years ago.
9.29.2008 4:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bob:

Conventional wisdom is that Palin's numbers have "tanked" or "plunged" but its not true. Palin's approval numbers fell but still are ok.


Link are good. You didn't provide any. The article you cited is here. That article is describing a study here (pdf). Let's put aside your paraphrase of the spin in the article and look at the actual numbers in the study. See p. 5. On 9/9, Palin's favorable/unfavorable was 54/27. On 9/23, Palin's favorable/unfavorable was 47/36. That's a 16-point swing in 2 weeks. Yikes.

On 9/9, she had the lowest unfavorables, out of the four candidates. On 9/23, she had higher unfavorables than Biden and Obama. Her unfavorables were almost as high as McCain's. Her unfavorables would probably have been higher than McCain's, except for the fact that his went up. Probably because he picked her.

The poll I cited earlier was done earlier, and demonstrated clearly that Palin's numbers were sinking before the Wall St news hit. And so were McCain's numbers.

A lot of people are going to try to claim, as you did, that Wall St, not Palin, is what killed McCain. But a careful look at the chronology shows that Palin was dragging him down before we heard anything about a $700 billion bailout.

Is Biden hurting Obama?


No. In the study you cited, his current unfavorables are lower than the other three. 16% of independents say they would be "not at all" comfortable with Biden as VP. The same figure for Palin: 29%.

Similar question: would you be comfortable with the VP becoming president. 14% of independents say they are "not at all" comfortable with Biden doing that. The same figure for Palin: 35%.
9.29.2008 4:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Bradley effect


No one has mentioned the cell-phone effect.
9.29.2008 4:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mikey:

For all of you who didn't think Kerry was ahead of Bush in the polls, I send you here:


For all of you who like to indulge in transparent cherry-picking, I send you here.

That graph shows the same data you're showing. Except it shows several months, instead of just one day. The graph shows that Kerry did well until roughly Labor Day. After that, Bush led on most days. In the data on this site, Kerry had the lead on 5 days in September, and on 11 days in October.

By comparison, the same site shows that McCain was ahead for 8 days in September. In other words, this site shows that McCain's September performance was very much like Kerry's.

Feel better now?
9.29.2008 4:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
snob:

McCain lose North Carolina? Isn't that about as likely as Obama losing Connecticut?


No. Rasmussen is now showing Obama ahead by 2 in NC.

And take a look at the current polling in VA.
9.29.2008 4:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
victoria:

The woman gives 2 badly edited interviews to self-appointed public watchdogs like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric


Gibson and Couric (and Hannity) weren't "self-appointed." On the contrary. They were hand-picked by the McCain campaign.

Palin was picked 30 days ago, and she's still given this many real press conferences: zero. She's in protective custody. McCain figures that the only thing more damaging than muzzling her is letting her speak.
9.29.2008 4:59am
just me (mail):
Barring something like that, I'm expecting Obama to win by 8-11% of the popular vote, and win the electoral college by 120-150 electoral votes.

While I agree with you that Obama is likely to win, it is very doubtful he will win the popular vote by 10%-even in land slide electoral victory years the popular vote margins weren't that high.

I actually think the popular vote margin is going to be very close, but if the election were held right now I think we would see an electoral landslide victory-I am not so convinced that will be the case come November.

In the end I suspect the popular vote results in a win by no more than 3% points, but I think your electoral prediction is probably close.

I have said this for a while, and believe it still-if Obama loses it is going to be due to something really stupid Obama does between now and then-I really don't think there is anything McCain can do himself to win-his victory depends on Obama's gaffes.

I predict Obama wins handily. I also predict Jimmy Carter II and more than likely a 4 year term in office for Obama.

The DNC will keep the house and the senate-probably picking up several seats in both. They will probably lose one of those houses come 2010, after an all dem controlled government proves just how quickly they can screw the economy up even more.
9.29.2008 7:46am
SirBillsalot (mail):

The DNC will keep the house and the senate-probably picking up several seats in both. They will probably lose one of those houses come 2010, after an all dem controlled government proves just how quickly they can screw the economy up even more.


Maybe true. But let's not hope for bad news for America just so our political side benefits. The Dems have done that for the last 8 years, and it's ugly.

Better to start thinking ahead for new ways forward. We could start by getting new leadership in Congress, particularly the house. We need people able to articulate a positive vision for how to get the country moving again. McCain's suggestion about cutting the size of government is a good place to start. Obama and the dems think all growth comes from government programs. We need to school them on reality and offer an alternative that will resonate and show that the way forward isn't a dumb call for re-regulation, it is smarter and more responsive regulation that lets the private sector do its job.

My suggestion would be to focus on energy and the legislation that prevents energy independence and growth. I'm thinking about things like NEPA and how it is going to hurt our ability to develop nuclear power, as well as the transmission infrastructure Obama spoke of. In terms of generation, Obama only talks about renewables like wind and solar. All very nice, but those aren't going to replace coal and natural gas. The markets are looking at nuclear, but the permitting process is absurd. We should shock everyone and say our national model should be France, which is 90% nuclear. Imagine Obama arguing the French are dangerous to the environment.
9.29.2008 8:36am
Uncle Creamy:
Flip: Alexander Hamilton claims to oppose Thomas Jefferson.

Flop: In 1800, Alexander Hamilton supported Thomas Jefferson for President.

Flip: Alexander Hamilton claims to oppose monarchy.

Flop: But in 1787, Alexander Hamilton supported legislation that would have made the president a king.

Flip: Alexander Hamilton claims that agriculture "is the most beneficial and productive object of human industry."

Flop: But Alexander Hamilton supports tax cuts for wealthy industrialists and higher taxes on middle class farmers.

Flip: Alexander Hamilton claims to support traditional Christian values.

Flop: Alexander Hamilton was educated in a radical synagogue by hebrew extremists.

Alexander Hamilton. Inexperienced. Indecisive. Inappropriate for America.

I'm Thomas Jefferson and I have no middle name.
9.29.2008 10:39am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
it is very doubtful he will win the popular vote by 10%-even in land slide electoral victory years the popular vote margins weren't that high


Correct. A popular-vote margin that high is rare. In the last 50 years it's only happened 3 times: '84, '72 and '64. And in all three instances, the person who achieved that margin was an incumbent.
==================================
We should shock everyone and say our national model should be France, which is 90% nuclear.


It might shock you to know that the nuclear industry in France is highly subsidized.
9.29.2008 10:59am
loki13 (mail):
Myth: Thomas Jefferson gave his library collection to the American People.

Fact: Jefferson sold his collection and made the American Taxpayer clear his debts incurred importing French Wine.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson was for the separation of church and state.

Fact: Jefferson doesn't believe in God, and only wants religion separate so his Big Government can destroy it.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson believes in the equality of all human beings, and in their inalienable rights to liberty.

Fact: Jefferson believes that He is more equal than others. He is regularly attended to by his slaves, amongst them a Ms. Sally Hemmings.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson believes in American Exceptionalism.

Fact: Jefferson regularly subordinated American interests to those of his French masters to further his wanton epicurean desires.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson is a founding father.

Fact: How can you be a founding father to our country when you cannot even be a father to your children with Ms. Hemmings?

Myth: Thomas Jefferson is a deep thinker about our Constitution.

Fact: Jefferson leaned on Benjamin Franklin for the Declaration of Independence, and no one knows the Constitution better than Alexander Hamilton, author of the most important of The Federalist Papers and George Washington's consigliere.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson is ready to be Commander in Chief.

Fact: Jefferson surrendered Virginia, and Jefferson certainly couldn't protect our whole nation like Hamilton the war hero.

Myth: Thomas Jefferson has the answers for our country.

Fact: Alexander Hamilton is the only person who can lead our country through these perilous times.

Alexander Hamilton, a man ahead of his time, a man for these times.

I am Alexander Hamilton, and I approve this message. I approve it so much, I am willing to duel over it.

Oh, wait, let me reconsider . . .
9.29.2008 11:35am
Uncle Creamy:
Friends,

John Adams is well-mannered and hygienic as far as Yankees go, and an honorable statesman to boot. Now, John Adams and I have certainly had our differences over the years. But my respect and admiration for John Adams have never wavered. John Adams is a loyal patriot and a defender of freedom. Above all, John Adams is as honest as the day is long. So when John Adams says that Alexander Hamilton is a malodorous bastard brat of no less than a Scotsman, well gentlemen, you can set your watch to that.

Jefferson. Right for America.
9.29.2008 12:17pm
loki13 (mail):
My friends,

When the great statesman John Adams was dealing with the perfidious Frenchmen and bribes in the XYZ affair, what nefarious ne'er do well gave aid and comfort to our enemies?

Thomas Jefferson.

When John Adams sought to enable a robust debate amongst the right-thinking members of our United States by penalizing treasonous French-loving speech, what spectral malign influence worked to hinder him by advocating the very dissolution of our grand Union?

Thomas Jefferson.

When John Adams lawfully appointed Judges to protect the very rights we most hold dear, who wreathed themselves in shadows and refused to seat Adams' most perspicacious picks?

Thomas Jefferson.

When John Adams worked as our second President to protect our vital interests, what subordinate engaged in skullduggery to undermie Adams' administration?

Thomas Jefferson.

Friends, fellow Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears- I know Adams. I worked with Adams to advance our nation's policies. Thomass Jefferson is no John Adams.

Send your best men to Sally Hemmings' bed chambers that the American People will no longer stand for Thomas Jefferson's deceit and lying. An American Patriot like John Adams deserves no less.

Paid for by the Alexander Hamilton Friends of Nevis Committee.
9.29.2008 12:38pm
SirBillsalot (mail):

It might shock you to know that the nuclear industry in France is highly subsidized.


You mean unlike our development of wind and solar energy.
9.29.2008 12:47pm