I know that polls and projections are useless right now ...

slightofjeff

But McCain is ahead on http://www.intrade.com/ for the first time this election.

And FiveThirtyEight.com has him winning the electoral vote

RealClearPolitics has him within one electoral vote.

What do I think this means? Well, nothing, except for the election is damn close ... and damn closer than it was three weeks ago.

I do think people on both sides are overreacting right now. McCain folks think he's going to win now, despite a pretty stiff political wind blowing in his face. It would be almost unprecedented for a party to hold onto the White House in this economic climate.

On the other side, I think Obama folks are too busy poo-pooh'ing the polls as meaningless, and leaning on these scores of young voters they've registered to carry them over the top, forgetting that's pretty much been the recipe for disaster in every election to date. I think they're counting on the Palin hysteria to wear off, and that's not going to happen. I think they're waiting for their side to "mop the floor" with the McCain ticket during the debates, and that's not going to happen.

It ought to be an interesting next 54 days. I don't see how either side can be too cocky.

catch22

i think mccain is riding high now. palin has given him buzz he never could have achieved, buzz that obama used to have but has long worn off. if it can hold until election time, we're in trouble.

but i think it will fade. i think the debates will change things dramatically. and mccain is getting drunk on the success and getting ugly. it may backfire. he has rallied the base, but it's all about the middle. palin will hurt him there, so when he and obama debate, it's all going to be about who comes off better. and obama is one hell of a speaker. mccain is a long way off yet.

slightofjeff

See, people keep saying "it's about the middle" but I don't know if that's true.

What segment of "the middle" did George W. Bush appeal to in 2004? He won because his base -- led by the eveangelical bloc -- was bigger than Kerry's, and he got the vast majority of that base to the polls.

This is where the Palin effect is huge. She's got the base whipped up, maybe even moreso the GWB did in '04 ... and that, alone, might be enough to win, judging by recent history.

As for the debates ... Obama is a good speaker when he has a teleprompter ... He's pretty horrible without one. "Ummm .... Uh .... Uh ..." not to mention the fact the he can occasionally say stupid stuff, like the United States has 57 states.

This is not to say that McCain is captain of the debate team ... I just think the difference between them is going to be somewhat negligible.

What Obama must do, some how, some way, is seize the narrative in this election again and get the public to believe McCain would change nothing, that he'd be the second coming of George W.

If we're still talking about Palin as the second-coming of Ronald Reagan into mid-October, Obama might be fucked.

blackredyellow

As an Obama supporter, I could care less about the national polls right now, but what does worry me is that Obama is relying a lot on the younger vote. The young vote has never turned out in any past presidential election.

However, I think polling these days is flawed because of the rising number of people who don't have a home phone line, or answer unknown calls. The number of people that pollsters can reach is shrinking and shrinking (and getting older).

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

See, people keep saying "it's about the middle" but I don't know if that's true.

What segment of "the middle" did George W. Bush appeal to in 2004? He won because his base -- led by the eveangelical bloc -- was bigger than Kerry's, and he got the vast majority of that base to the polls.

that's true. my post may have been half wishful thinking. part of the problem though was the democrats didn't have a candidate who could bring out dems or moderates. this time they do. i think it's enough to cut into the impact of the right-wing base. though you're correct that it may not be enough.

i do think obama could change the game in the debates though. it carried kennedy over nixon, and not much has changed in that game. of course, left-leaning candidates almost always get stomped by arch-conservatives.

you're right that relying on young voters is suicide. that demo is so apathetic it's not even funny.

meistereder

Sell!

homeratbat

slightofjeff wrote:

See, people keep saying "it's about the middle" but I don't know if that's true.

What segment of "the middle" did George W. Bush appeal to in 2004? He won because his base -- led by the eveangelical bloc -- was bigger than Kerry's, and he got the vast majority of that base to the polls.

This is where the Palin effect is huge. She's got the base whipped up, maybe even moreso the GWB did in '04 ... and that, alone, might be enough to win, judging by recent history.

As for the debates ... Obama is a good speaker when he has a teleprompter ... He's pretty horrible without one. "Ummm .... Uh .... Uh ..." not to mention the fact the he can occasionally say stupid stuff, like the United States has 57 states.

This is not to say that McCain is captain of the debate team ... I just think the difference between them is going to be somewhat negligible.

What Obama must do, some how, some way, is seize the narrative in this election again and get the public to believe McCain would change nothing, that he'd be the second coming of George W.

If we're still talking about Palin as the second-coming of Ronald Reagan into mid-October, Obama might be fucked.

its early and there is the post convention wave...with that being said the obama camp needs to get the ship back on course. the debates will be huge...also poll numbers normally don't take into account first time voters. its normally voters who voted in the last election. new voters should fall for obama in big numbers. the question will be if its enough in some states. if not i can see mccain winning 270-268...and it being that close!!

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

See, people keep saying "it's about the middle" but I don't know if that's true.

What segment of "the middle" did George W. Bush appeal to in 2004? He won because his base -- led by the eveangelical bloc -- was bigger than Kerry's, and he got the vast majority of that base to the polls.

Winning is ALL about moving beyond the base; you cannot win without taking the middle. Bush won in 2004 because he did exactly that; he had a rock-solid base and moderates and independents also moved into his corner as well. Of course you have to get your base to the polls, but your base is always the most reliable people to show up, because it's the base. This is going to be especially true this year, when everyone is predicting a record turnout. The more people who show up to the polls the more important it is to reach that so-called independent voter; after all, if more people are voting that means that people who do not regularly vote are showing up at the polls, and they belong to no base. Neither of these candidates will win without having appeal beyond their base. And so far it seems like both of them do.

What I find interesting to think about is what if Obama wins the popular vote and loses the election, and I'm not talking about a miniscule margin. It was noted during the Democratic primaries who many new voters Obama brought into the Democratic fold; hard to dispute that. But as we all know elections are determined on a state by state basis and not nationally. What if the majority of these new voters reside in urban areas, for example; what if these voters can primarily be found in the places Obama is most likely to win anyway? If that's the case, we may end up in a situation where McCain loses handily to Obama in the popular vote (I'm talking far more than Gore/Bush numbers here) but due to the structure of the Electoral College wins the election. Again, I'm not talking about hundreds of thousands, as happened in 2000, but millions. Think there will be any fallout?

weenie

blackredyellow wrote:

As an Obama supporter, I could care less about the national polls right now, but what does worry me is that Obama is relying a lot on the younger vote. The young vote has never turned out in any past presidential election.

However, I think polling these days is flawed because of the rising number of people who don't have a home phone line, or answer unknown calls. The number of people that pollsters can reach is shrinking and shrinking (and getting older).

That's a GREAT point - the lack of home phone lines and people refusing to answer unidentified calls. Definitely makes a difference.

slightofjeff

catch22 wrote:

that's true. my post may have been half wishful thinking. part of the problem though was the democrats didn't have a candidate who could bring out dems or moderates. this time they do. i think it's enough to cut into the impact of the right-wing base. though you're correct that it may not be enough.

i do think obama could change the game in the debates though. it carried kennedy over nixon, and not much has changed in that game. of course, left-leaning candidates almost always get stomped by arch-conservatives.

you're right that relying on young voters is suicide. that demo is so apathetic it's not even funny.

It's interesting you mentioned Kennedy and Nixon. When this race began, that was the parallel I was drawing, too. Either that, or Clinton-Dole -- although Clinton had the advantage of being a popular incumbent.

Obama could still shine through in the debates, and that would certainly change the game. It's definitely within the realm of possibility. The race is so close -- and will likely remain close -- that it won't take much to cause a sea-change.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

Winning is ALL about moving beyond the base; you cannot win without taking the middle. Bush won in 2004 because he did exactly that; he had a rock-solid base and moderates and independents also moved into his corner as well.

I won't dispute you on this. I have no numbers to back up my belief. I just don't know anybody other than "Mr. Gung-Ho Republican" who voted for Bush in '04.

I will leave open the possibility that I am wrong, of course.

What I find interesting to think about is what if Obama wins the popular vote and loses the election, and I'm not talking about a miniscule margin. It was noted during the Democratic primaries who many new voters Obama brought into the Democratic fold; hard to dispute that. But as we all know elections are determined on a state by state basis and not nationally. What if the majority of these new voters reside in urban areas, for example; what if these voters can primarily be found in the places Obama is most likely to win anyway? If that's the case, we may end up in a situation where McCain loses handily to Obama in the popular vote (I'm talking far more than Gore/Bush numbers here) but due to the structure of the Electoral College wins the election. Again, I'm not talking about hundreds of thousands, as happened in 2000, but millions. Think there will be any fallout?

Just looking at the national polls, I don't see anyway Obama blows McCain out in the popular vote. He's much more likely to blow him out in the electoral vote, to be honest.

In fact, if you look at most polls and maps now it's McCain winning the popular vote and Obama carrying the electoral college. Maybe the Republicans deserve that outcome, for karma's sake.

slightofjeff

homeratbat wrote:

its early and there is the post convention wave...with that being said the obama camp needs to get the ship back on course. the debates will be huge...also poll numbers normally don't take into account first time voters. its normally voters who voted in the last election. new voters should fall for obama in big numbers. the question will be if its enough in some states. if not i can see mccain winning 270-268...and it being that close!!

The new voters angle is an important one. I read an article recently -- and damned if I can't locate a link now -- about how polling companies are working to better factor them into the polls.

After all, they have a steep financial incentive to do. If your poll routinely sucks, nobody is going to use it anymore.

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

Just looking at the national polls, I don't see anyway Obama blows McCain out in the popular vote. He's much more likely to blow him out in the electoral vote, to be honest.

In fact, if you look at most polls and maps now it's McCain winning the popular vote and Obama carrying the electoral college. Maybe the Republicans deserve that outcome, for karma's sake.

I think this is all predicated on the notion that Obama will bring it a lot more support to the polls than is currently being registered in these polls. Obviously, the race will be close if this surge in the polls does not occur. I am hypothesizing that Obama can get a large block of new voters to the polls. If that is the case, I can forsee the situation I wrote about.

Anyone see the National Service Forum tonight? I was very impressed with both candidates tonight; it's hard to connect them with the way their campaigns have been conducting themselves lately.

Commy

If Americans are stupid enough to vote in Mccain they deserve the next 8 years of war and no health care. Say goodbye to healthcare, social security, hello to a police state, to a war with IRan, to more corporate welfare.

Its absurd. The majority of republicans are the ones most adversly affected by their policies.

Uncle Leo

It's over.

The GOP is the "Presidential Party"

McCain '09-'13
Palin '13-21

Commy

Uncle Leo wrote:

It's over.

The GOP is the "Presidential Party"

McCain '09-'13
Palin '13-21

Mccain won't last 2 years.

catch22

slightofjeff wrote:

It's interesting you mentioned Kennedy and Nixon. When this race began, that was the parallel I was drawing, too. Either that, or Clinton-Dole -- although Clinton had the advantage of being a popular incumbent.

Obama could still shine through in the debates, and that would certainly change the game. It's definitely within the realm of possibility. The race is so close -- and will likely remain close -- that it won't take much to cause a sea-change.

don't forget clinton also had the advantage of ross perot

i think this one could come down to the debates. if obama stands and delivers and biden can hold his own against one-man-springer-show-palin, they win this. if obama-mccain is a draw and palin creates as many waves as she did at the convention, they're sunk.

the kennedy-nixon comparison has been in my mind for a long time too. actually, obama in general brought it to mind even during the primaries when LIBERALS were assaulting him for being some sort of war-mongering neocon in disguise. people seem to forget that kennedy talked pretty dam tough and his stated policies were not particularly leftist. but it was all given with a message of hope and optimism and once he reached office, he started drifting to the left. i see the same thing happening with obama, even down to the space shuttle/renewable energy thing.

plus, he's from chicago and we all know that chicago really stood and delivered for kennedy in that election... maybe obama isnt worried for good reason

freindlyfired

I dont know how accurate this is but I read somewhere the all the telephone polls are skewed because 1. they dont poll college kids 2. they dont poll minorities. I guess with people moving alot or being in college the phone numbers change and with the inclusion of cell phones some dont even have landlines.
Make sense but I wouldnt know if its true or not.

blackredyellow

freindlyfired wrote:

I dont know how accurate this is but I read somewhere the all the telephone polls are skewed because 1. they dont poll college kids 2. they dont poll minorities. I guess with people moving alot or being in college the phone numbers change and with the inclusion of cell phones some dont even have landlines.
Make sense but I wouldnt know if its true or not.

I'm sure statistically the good pollsters take that into consideration somehow, but still, you are only getting answers from people that you can reach, AND who want to talk to you.

I would guess that is an older demographic to begin with.

I don't have a landline, and have never been reached by a poll, and my parents live in PA so they get a ton of campaign robocalls and some polling calls, and never answer any of them.

Solat13

weenie wrote:

That's a GREAT point - the lack of home phone lines and people refusing to answer unidentified calls. Definitely makes a difference.

Wasn't that the same argument being made in 2004 when Kerry wasn't blowing Bush away in the polls?

blackredyellow

Solat13 wrote:

Wasn't that the same argument being made in 2004 when Kerry wasn't blowing Bush away in the polls?

Yes, and we saw how accurate those polls were... a lot of those polls towards the end, plus the exit polls had Kerry winning.