Public Policy Polling (D)
10/18-19/08; 1,411 LV, 2.6%
Obama 48, McCain 46
Gov: Daniels (R-i) 57, Thompson (D) 36
The number of true swing states is shrinking, and McCain is running out of places to win.
McCain needs to sweep all of the swing states, and take at least two of the Obama leaning states as well. He'll need to close the gap in the National polls by about 5% for that to be remotely likely.
Posted on October 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Ask and I shall receive! If Obama is really competitive here McCain is done. Big poll too 1,411 voters.
Posted on October 21, 2008 10:45 AM
Oh snap!! Party ID is nearly dead even, 50/50 M/F split..
Ehh.. not gonna get too excited until I see several more IN polls. Nice, big sample size though.
Posted on October 21, 2008 10:49 AM
I'd like to see a couple more polls, but this looks interesting.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:02 AM
By the way, today's Gallup is not going to be very exciting for the trolls..
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:03 AM
Do you have some insider information ;)
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Do you McCain supporters feel good about giving up on CO, NM, and IA and putting your entire campaign into a state where you are down 8-15 points depending on the pollster? ROFL. WE ARE LOVING THIS! Desperation is setting in!
Good luck in PA:)
RCP Average 10/11 - 10/20 -- -- 51.7 40.7 Obama +11.0
Morning Call 10/16 - 10/20 600 LV 4.0 52 42 Obama +10
Susquehanna 10/16 - 10/18 700 LV 3.7 48 40 Obama +8
SurveyUSA 10/11 - 10/13 516 LV 4.4 55 40 Obama +15
Marist 10/05 - 10/08 757 LV 3.5 53 41 Obama +12
Strategic Vision (R) 10/05 - 10/07 1200 LV 3.0 54 40 Obama +14
Rasmussen 10/06 - 10/06 700 LV 4.0 54 41 Obama +13
SurveyUSA 10/05 - 10/06 653 LV 3.9 55 40 Obama +15
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:06 AM
Spill it! Do you have the gallup?
FASCINATING TRACKING POLL PRIMER FROM 538:
A good read for polling junkies.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:09 AM
What do you think of the rest of 538 boom? and the less than 10% chance McCain has of winning?
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:12 AM
This Hoosier continues to be shocked by the Obama poll numbers here. We are so used to seeing Indiana light up red at the networks within five minutes of the polls closing. This just rocks!!
Im still giving Indiana to McSlime, but by a razor. The whole southern part of the state (except the college towns) is essentially "Northern Alabama" in terms of politics. If Obama can pull off Indiana, we'll be seeing a national landslide.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:13 AM
I wouldn't be too quick to write off McCain's efforts in PA. Go to the PA chart on this site and look at the trend on the Muhlenberg poll. Of the 11 polls logged during the month of October for PA, 4 of them are from Muhlenberg, so that is the best way to see a trend using an apples to apples comparisson of poll numbers. McCain is down by 10 in the most recent poll, but when you look at the trend line for that pollster you see a significant tightening of the race. If that trend continues then the state will be a toss up by election day.
I suspect that Obama is going to need to play defense in the state.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:15 AM
Bad news for McCain when Obama is polling ahead in IN, NC, MO, and is significantly ahead in CO and VA.
I, too, think the race will tighten, as there is probably more soft McCain support out there, but many of these polls are in states where Kerry had absolutely no shot in 2004.
I don't think O should lose any sleep over getting IN, but the numbers should put another chill up M's spine and demoralize a few more ground troops.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:17 AM
Obama's 30-minute speech before election day will definitely persuade some of the PA voters that seem to be moving back to McCain. As for IN, this is really surprising, but I'd like to see more polls to conclude IN is really a tossup or trending to Obama.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:19 AM
You guys should stream the live Obama event in Fl; he's holding an economic panel with a smattering of Governors and economic big wigs. He's also discouraging people from booing McCain, saying "we don't need that, we just need you to vote."
The only drag is PPP teased this morning that the IN result is better for Obama than their FL poll due out later today.
Something else mildly interesting (to me, that is): I contributed to McCain back in 2000 and his FL campaign HQ has been sending me updates to my old email acct most every day. They stopped around the 11th of this month.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:20 AM
The trolls should be worried. This is the largest sample size of ANY Indiana poll this month by DOUBLE. I can't wait to see Selzer's update. She is #1 rated for accuracy and her last poll showed Obama up 3 in IN.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:21 AM
I'm not sure I buy this poll result for Indiana. PPP had Obama up in the PA primary and he lost by 9 points. I'd like to see more polls saying something similar (like we're seeing with Virginia) to believe that he is truly ahead in Indiana.
However, what do people think Obama should do to stop any traction from Biden's crisis comment?
Should he just ignore it and focus on the economy? Or, since he's got enough money, should he turn it around on McCain and create an ad hitting McCain on temperament in times of crises?
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:23 AM
Poll Ohio dammit.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:24 AM
As a previous poster said, if Obama is doing better in this poll then the Florida one out later today, he is either tied or behind in Florida which is not great, but not horrible either. Throw out the Battleground Poll and this has been a decent day for Obama so far.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:26 AM
OH and FL aren't even necessary for a victory, and I'm not betting on more than one or the other of them to go blue. VA, CO, NC, and NV all close the deal quite nicely. With IN and MO quite possible as well.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:29 AM
"I wouldn't be too quick to write off McCain's efforts in PA. Go to the PA chart on this site and look at the trend on the Muhlenberg poll. Of the 11 polls logged during the month of October for PA, 4 of them are from Muhlenberg, so that is the best way to see a trend using an apples to apples comparisson of poll numbers. McCain is down by 10 in the most recent poll, but when you look at the trend line for that pollster you see a significant tightening of the race. If that trend continues then the state will be a toss up by election day.
I suspect that Obama is going to need to play defense in the state."
This isn't true--I just did that and only the last poll is any tighter, while the trend, at any sensitivity and with any reasonable date range, still points Obama's way.
However, I do agree that defense in PA is warranted--he's got the money; why let McCain have a free hand? Hold PA and it's over.
Any early voting numbers from IN?
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:31 AM
Not sure what he should do about Biden's gaffe. I think it was another silly screw-up by Biden especially this late in the game. Don't know what he was thinking with that one.
I wouldn't get too excited just yet. This is the first poll since mid-September and only the second since June to show an Obama lead, so it could well be statistical noise.
@solo and WhereisMitt
Bad gaffe, but I don't see much discussion of it around the Net. This doesn't seem to get too much traction.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Albright Agrees with Biden: Terrorists Will Test Obama...
Biden's comments really shed light on the problem with Obama. If Biden & Albright are right (Biden guarantees it) then Americans should be afraid. JFK was tested with the missile crisis that almost caused WW3.
Obama trolls need to be afraid of what you wish for...
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:34 AM
You're right. I went and looked again, and it is only one poll that shows a tightening of the race. We would need another data point to confirm or deny the trend.
I just saw the blue line going down and the red line going up and it freaked me out at.
This transplanted hoosier is less surprised to see the 'Crossroads of America' slip away from Captain and Tennile.
I drive from a college town to the styx to work, and more Obama/Biden signs are popping up everyday. I would not be surprised if IN switches this year, but I would be surprised if McNugget holds the state with greater than +5%.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:36 AM
I agree about defense being warranted in PA. If McCain can't flip PA, he's pretty much done. I'd like to see Obama continue to push in PA/VA/FL/CO/NC.
Yeah, I agree with that. I've been playing with my personal charts for FL and OH, pretty interesting if you filter some polls you don't trust.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:40 AM
We discussed the PA tracker down below. To summarize, to me it looks like first some undecideds broke to Obama the week before last, and then a roughly equal number of undecideds broke to McCain last week. That is what cause a brief spike in the margin (when Obama had gotten his undecideds, but McCain was still waiting for his).
The big problem for McCain is that now there are fewer undecideds left, and so far little sign of people actually switching away from Obama and to McCain. And with Obama now polling over 50, that is what McCain really needs.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:41 AM
marctx could you be a bigger idiot?
Sen. Barack Obama has made new gains in two key counties that could tip the balance in the swing states of Nevada and North Carolina, according to the results of a new Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll.
Voters in Reno, Nevada’s Washoe County prefer Obama over Sen. John McCain by a double-digit margin, 50 percent to 40 percent. A previous Politico/Insider Advantage survey, taken October 9, showed the race deadlocked in Washoe with Obama ahead of McCain, 46 percent to 45 percent.
In Wake County, N.C., home to Raleigh and its suburbs, Obama leads McCain by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent. As in Washoe, this new result represents a turn toward the Democratic nominee: Politico’s last survey of Wake County Oct. 9 had Obama on top by 6 points, 50 percent to 44 percent.
President George W. Bush won both these counties in 2000 and 2004. In his second presidential bid, Bush won Wake by a thin, 51 percent to 49 percent margin, and bested Sen. John F. Kerry in Washoe, 51 percent to 47 percent. As the second-most populous counties in their respective states, Wake and Washoe are critical to McCain’s chances.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:42 AM
McCain in PA is a sign that this race is OVER. Desperation has set in. They have to GO SOMEWHERE FOLKS LOL
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:43 AM
Making Obama POTUS is like placing a lifetime .183 hitter in to bat cleanup in the 7th game of the World Series just because he gave a rousing clubhouse speech and looks good in the uniform.
MY GREATEST QUESTION FOR OBAMA:
"Senator Obama, if in fact, you are such a transformational figure, someone with the ability to change the unchangeable and work across the aisle, how is it that in 12 years in the Senate you:
1) Have no record of creating any memorable change,
2) Voted with liberal Democratic leadership 97% of the time?
Did Beethoven write his 9th Symphony the first time he sat down to the piano? Was the Cistine Chapel Michaelangelo's first work? Did Michael Phelps set a world record his first time in the pool?
No, all of these men had years and years of track record leading up to the great achievements.
But you Senator Obama, not so much.
So my question is, not why you have so few accomplishments, but HOW is it possible that someone of your proclaimed abilities has managed ot avoid having accomplishments for so long?
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:46 AM
Why is Indiana competitive?
In a lot of states Barack Obama is competitive in this year where he doesn't seem to have any business doing as well as he is, there are one or two things you can point to and say 'that's why.'
It's not that simple in Indiana though, because Obama has made significant gains relative to 2004 with pretty much every group of the electorate.
First let's look at folks who did vote in 2004:
-Independents who answered our poll said they went 46-36 for Bush in 2004, now they say they're 49-39 for Obama. That's a 20 point swing.
-But Obama is also peeling off a lot more Republicans than John Kerry did. Bush won them 92-4, but McCain is only up 86-10 in his own party. That's a 12 point gain for Obama even with GOP'ers.
-Obama is leaking a lot fewer Democratic voters here than Kerry did. Kerry won them 73-17, but Obama is taking them 84-11. A 17 point gain there means that Obama is doing double digits better with Democrats, Republicans, and independents relative to 2004 Democratic performance.
-Obama has significantly increased the Democratic performance with urban voters, as the conventional wisdom suggests and you might expect. A 51-38 lead from 2004 is now a 63-32 one. What you might not hear about as much is the fact that is making strong in roads with rural and small town voters as well. Bush won rural voters by 32 points last time, now Obama has halved that and trails McCain by just 16. Bush dominated in the small towns, winning 53-35 last time. Now Obama has the race with those voters in the margin of error, down just 47-44.
And of course the new voters don't hurt:
-Among poll respondents who said they did not cast a ballot in 2004, Obama is up 68-24. Part of that's because there's a lot of new Democratic voters, but among independents who didn't vote in 2004 Obama has a remarkable 65-24 advantage as well.
So why is Obama doing so well in Indiana? Because he's doing comparatively well with every kind of voter in every part of the state. It's an across the board movement.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:47 AM
"12 years in the Senate"
Wow, you really are clueless
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:48 AM
i saw the data, and the "tightening" you note is a drop from a +16 average to a +10 average.
This is in fact not a "tightening" of the race, but rather a statistical phenomenon called "regression to the mean"... simply put, +16 is an extreme score, and extreme scores tend to become less extreme over time, in the long run. In other words, the apparent "drop" in Obama's lead is nothing more than a statistical artifact, as the number stabilize to something that reflects a more realistic estimate, such as +8 or +10
Surely marctx cannot hope to compete with you. You have taken IDIOT to SUPERHUMAN STATUS.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:49 AM
PA is not in play for McCain! It has tightened! But look he has relentlessly campaigned in Penn and he is still down by 10. Look if I was McCain I would be concerned about IN. Look for Biden to be back in Scranton in the days to come. And Hillary! By the way I think Mo is Going blue this yr.
As far as I can tell Biden's supposed "gaffe" isn't getting much play outside of Republican circles. Personally, I don't find that surprising: the fact that Obama would likely have to deal with an international crisis of some sort early in his term is not exactly a controversial proposition, and obviously the key question is whether or not he would handle it well. So if Biden had claimed Obama was going to mishandle an international crisis, that would be a gaffe. But merely saying he will face one isn't particlarly newsworthy.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:50 AM
@marctx, you said "JFK was tested with the missile crisis that almost caused WW3.Obama trolls need to be afraid of what you wish for..."
Yes, JFK was tested and came out in flying colors during the Cuban Missile Crisis, all due to his diplomatic efforts and communicating directly with Kruschev (not hiding from him!)....In fact it is due to him we did not have a WWIII, a nuclear war at that.
So what exactly is your point. Every President will be tested (Bush was tested with 9/11 by Al-Qaeda and he went to war with Iraq!) and what he/she does then (or does not do) will prove their capabilities.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Re: the supposed trend in PA. McCain needs much more than a trend to overcome 8-12 points with two weeks left. Poll tightenining due to undecideds and weak supporters firming up won't do it. He simply has to move hundreds of thousands of Obama leaners and the vast majority of remaining undecideds to pull it off. He needs something major to do that - not a trend.
If you think Obama will be tested, think what might happen with Palin as president which would be likely considering McShame's age and health. We should really be afraid of that scenario.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:53 AM
boomshak how come every time you see a bad poll you break out into your TAX argument. This is so ****ing tired. Seriously. Didn't we just have 8 years of Republican tax policy? WHAT HAPPENED MORON. ****ING MORON. WHAT HAPPENED? Hmm? Waiting....
Given that a blue PA means Obama wins, it's worth considering what Obama would need to do if McCain manages to flip PA, however unlikely that may be.
So let's give Obama the Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado, NM, NH, but minus Pennsylvania. That puts him at 252. He needs 17 for a tie, 18 for a win. Some scenarios (not all are included):
OH or FL obviously win
NC + any other state, even MT or ND
VA + any state but MT or ND
MO + IN (Can't think he does this w/o winning elsewhere also)
So one possible plan, after defending PA, (and when you have $150m you can have a lot more than one front) would be to lock down VA, which is looking bluer by the day, and then hit NV. It's going to be tough for McCain to campaign in both PA and NV, since the old man can't be left alone for too long without his headliner Palin.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:56 AM
Obama has accomplished a significant number of things as both an Illinois Senator and now a U.S. Senator, often working closely with Republicans. But from personal experience, as soon as people start wanting to talk about specific measures like Coburn-Obama and Lugar-Obama, or the process by which Obama built a bipartisan consensus to pass a law requiring the videotaping of police interrogations in Illinois, his critics' eyes glaze over and they simply change the subject.
Posted on October 21, 2008 11:58 AM
It's "Sistine" - but point taken. However, the electorate has had a guts full of the thousand-year Reich brigade - those who made it their life's passion to create a permanent Republican majority. McCain's campaign contains a large number of them, and the electorate is rightly suspicious. Having said that, the GOP is excellent at vote suppression through legal and procedural manoeuvering, and I expect that this will play a significant part both immediately before, and immediately after the election. Whether it's enough to beat the polls, only time will tell.
Obama - 46.7%
McCain - 41.4%
Undecided - 11.9%
The continued vagaries of this poll include McCain and Obama being tied among the 18-24 age group at 46 each and a whopping 12% undecideds including 22% of the Independents
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:00 PM
Why do you keep talking about tax policy like you know anything about it. From what I can tell you haven't even taken a basic accounting or economics course. We are supposed to believe you because you cut & paste from Drudge or some similarly ignorant source. You have never showed even the slightest hint of analysis on what you are posting.
Are you also an astronaut because you've been to www.nasa.gov? Are you an engineer because you can see MIT from you car as you drive to work at the convenience store? What is it that makes you think you know something about economics?
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:01 PM
Early voting numbers in Geogia must be giving a headache to the McCain campaign. 22.8% already voted. 35.7 AA and 56.1% women.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:02 PM
If boom wants a tax policy argument, I'll give him this one from GaMeS at FiveThirtyEight.
"To keep the actual discussion going, here's a point a non-troll made earlier:
The lower income earner pays far more of their income, as a percentage, towards the essentials of life, however you may want to define them (typically food, shelter, clothing, health), than the higher income earner. This means that while their tax rate may be lower, it is actually a higher percentage of their income after essentials.
Nicely stated -- this is something the Repugs refuse to acknowledge in their specious flat-tax arguments.
Here's another way I would illustrate it: Imagine that a person has absolutely no possessions and no income, and there is no social network to provide aid. As long as this state persists, every waking hour will be spent on subsistence, i.e. acquiring basic sustenance and shelter.
Now, let's say that person finds a nice stash of food that provides more than necessary for survival, allowing some to be stored. He can now spend some time investing in himself -- building a better shelter, sharpening a new spear -- to make it easier to subsist. (You can also invest in yourself in the form of downtime, relaxing and recuperating both physically and mentally, making it easier to operate at peak capacity when needed -- ultimately, this is the origin of entertainment.)
This investment grows geometrically, making it easier and easier to survive while allowing a greater and greater share of his time to be spent on further investment. Put another way, investment is not directly proportional to income or wealth. A hunter-gatherer might spend 10% of his time on investment; a pastoralist might spend 20%; a farmer might spend 50%.
Now, it's pretty clear how this translates to modern life: The more money you have (in income and wealth), the greater percentage you're able to invest rather than simply spend on consumption (rent, food, car, etc.).
And where do taxes fit in? Well, by now it should be obvious: Taxes are investment in the nation. They pay for improvements in infrastructure, police, rescue, and so forth, making it easier to earn dividends in other pursuits. (For example, it's very hard to earn money in transportation if there are no good roads, and it's hard to keep your investments safe if there are no police.)
And before any of the right-wingers make a "free market" argument, even the dimmest free marketeer knows about economies of scale. It's not feasible to build just one lane of an interstate highway, or just enough military to protect your own house. (You either defend all the borders, or you're effectively defending none of them.)
* We have the need to invest in public goods (i.e. nonexcludable, or nearly so) that are subject to economies of scale that make private ownership woefully inefficient.
* Individuals with greater resources spend a greater percentage on investment.
* Ergo, progressive taxation is the best way to handle these common needs. Since investment is nonlinear, so too must taxation be nonlinear.
And that's why the rich get larger tax bills. Any proposal for "flat taxes" is ultimately a case of either woeful lack of understanding or gross intellectual dishonesty.
Related note: This is also why the Reaganomics trickle-down concept doesn't work. Dollar-for-dollar, tax cuts given to the rich will be spent on things other than consumption. (Remember that my broad definition of "investment," in this context, includes luxuries and such.)
Since consumption drives demand, and demand is what makes suppliers willing to invest in greater capacity, tax cuts to the wealthy will have far less effect in a slow economy than tax cuts to the middle class and working class.
Now, why is it best not to give tax cuts to the wealthy in addition tax cuts for the middle and working classes? Well, you still need to pay the bills -- if you keep running up deficits, you devalue your currency (compare the US dollar to the Canadian dollar over the past few decades), and that is effectively a tax hike on everyone (and it disproportionately affects those who spend most of their income on consumption rather than interest-bearing investments).
Ah, but why not simply reduce spending and cut taxes for the rich? Well, that government spending creates jobs, closing a recessionary gap to reach full employment and efficiency in the economy. If you were to cut spending just to give a tax cut to the rich, unemployment would skyrocket, and now you have a real depression.
Let's say that Y is the point at which you're in equilibrium (full employment, no recessionary gap from unemployment and no inflationary gap from overspending and scarcity). If you have an economy with, say, $2.5 trillion in fixed spending (essentially subsistence) and that spends 80% of discretionary income on consumption (the other 20% on savings), then you can solve for the point of equilibrium:
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y)
Y = $12.5T
Now, let's add government -- let's say you take out $3 trillion in taxes and spend the whole thing (balanced budget):
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $3T) + $3T
Y = $15.5T
See that? Even though you have a balanced budget, you're increasing the equilibrium income for the economy. If you're in a recessionary gap, this spending provides jobs and reduces structural unemployment.
Now, you don't want to overshoot or you create an inflationary gap, devaluing your currency. In fact, this is one reason that it's such a bad idea to run a really large deficit for a long period. Let's see what would happen if you only taxed $2.5 trillion instead of $3 trillion:
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $2.5T) + $3T
Y = $17.5T
See how that works? If your "full employment" level is less than $17.5 trillion, then your currency will devalue due to inflation; worse, you racked up $500 billion in debt, which will increase your necessary spending next year, accelerating the problem.
After a while, you have runaway debt -- which is pretty much where Bush & Co. have left us.
Now, it doesn't hurt to carry some debt, just as it doesn't hurt to have a mortgage ... if you can afford the payments. In fact, the best reason for deficit spending is to help pull out of a recession or depression -- but it has to be done carefully to avoid overshooting and wrecking your currency, and thus it's best not to cut taxes on the wealthy during such times. And if your debt is truly out of control, you must bring it back in line, even if it means raising taxes on the rich.
One last point that the Repugs love to overlook: Obama's budget costs $1.5 trillion less than McCain's, according to the Tax Policy Center. (Giving away $300 billion in tax cuts to the rich is essentially a massive earmark that provides welfare for the rich as the expense of a giant tax hike -- inflation -- on everyone else.) Therefore, Obama's plan results in smaller deficits (and thus less inflation) while simultaneously generating more jobs and higher employment rates with pay-as-you-go spending. Obama's plan is exactly what you should do during an economic downturn, and McCain's is a guaranteed trainwreck.
So, the next time some idiot right-winger starts spewing his talking points without having ever taken a class in economics, feel free to copy and paste this. =)"
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:03 PM
First: Cuban Missile Crises: Who do you want at the desk? Uncertain, irratic Sydney? - or worse - Palin heaven forbid.
Kennedy was calm, stoic, fought back against the neo-cons in the cabinet and kept the nukes from flying. BO is in that mold and that is why hundreds of conservatives, bush appointees and the like have endorsed BO.
For Boomy: I posted this for you in particular at least a dozen times. Instead of licking at Matt's ______, spend a minute to acquaint yourself with the facts on Obama's record of accomplishment:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
* Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
* Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
* Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
* The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
* Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
* Foreign Policy (10 bills)
* Voting and Elections (9 bills)
* Education (7 bills)
* Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
* The Environment (5 bills)
* Homeland Security (4 bills)
* Discrimination (4 bills)
And the full details including bill numbers? See http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/obamas-senate-accomplishments/#more-6370
Not to mention one of the most startlingly successful careers as an IL legislator at both crossing the aisle and getting others to cross the aisle. Ever wonder why you don’t hear a single Republican IL legislator EVER bad mouth him? For that matter what about Republican US Senators? More likely to attack McCain, until recently than Obama. In fact, you here more negative attacks from (I) Lieberman than any other member of congress except McCain.
And, don't forget that he is the first black man to be the President of the Harvard Law Review, turned down million dollar offers to litigate for big firms or lobby for corporate giants and returned to the Chicago inner city as he promised, and became one of the most successful community organizers in IL history. Obama is a Constitutional scholar. He taught the Constitution for 12 years at Chicago Law, and knows it inside out and backwards. Obama has written two best selling books.
Much has been made by Senator McCain's supporters of his history as a survivor of a Viet Cong prison camp, of the broken bones and psychological onslaughts that he withstood for five long years. They argue that such an experience builds character. They should also take note of the challenges faced by a black man in America, challenges that have built Senator Obama's character. These may be harder to quantify than imprisonment and torture, but they are onerous in a different and inescapable way.
Obama has served his country well. So has McCain. If Obama was the son and grandson of Admirals and was born 40 years earlier he may have had a similar military biography. But he was born to a poor mother in Kansas and a father who left them, and he grew up in a time of relative peace. His bottom up economic policy, focus on foreign diplomacy, and push for universal health care may not be your cup of tea, and therefore you will not vote for him as POTUS; but what he’s done is more than remarkable - only the ignorant (that's you boomy woomy)can not see or appreciate that.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:04 PM
I noticed McCain has not been ahead in NC for 2 weeks now. Interesting.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:05 PM
Excellent, thank you for posting that. My money is on boomdork not reading or understanding it but hey, I'm glad you put it out there.
Finally intelligent discourse backed up by facts and analysis.
I think I feel faint...
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:06 PM
Rush in breaking down the polls right now ......tune in quick
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:09 PM
I'd love to take credit for it, but the credit goes to GaMeS at FiveThirtyEight. Of course boom**** can just ignore it like he does this http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:11 PM
SurveyUSA - Wisconsin
Obama - 51
McCain - 43
RE: Biden gaffe.
McCain will be tested as well. All first-term presidents are tested...because they've never been president before. It's not like McCain has significant foreign policy experience. I mean, seriously, his two signature "achievements" as Senator were campaign finance reform and an immigration bill that didn't pass.
Given that his foreign policy staff is filled with many of the same neo-con wackos who brought us the Iraq war and given that folks like Al Qaeda like the Iraq war, they'd probably be more likely to test him than Obama - more bang for their buck.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:14 PM
Whoops, link didn't work, I'll try again http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:15 PM
How transformational had Lincoln been before he became President?
In answer to your numbered questions
1) Truman didn't do anything meaningful until he became president (Marshall Plan, integration of the Armed Forces, etc.)
2) Obama voted so much of the time with the rest of his party because, frankly, the Bush administation and Republican Congress ran the country as if we were a parlimentary democracy, and weren't willing to compromise on much of anything.
Lastly for every Beethoven and Michaelangelo, there's a Mozart and a Pushkin, a Thoreau or a Thomas Paine, or more appropos, a Lincoln and a Truman.
McCain better get to VA, Nc, MO, CO, NV! If he is smart he will defend these states. I took a look at his calender. He is only concentrating on Fl, Oh, and Pa! The map is expanded this Yr. Obama is so far ahead now that he could win the white house without PA,Ohio,and Florida. By the way the ground game of OBama in Fl are driving long lines of Obama supporters to the polls now. I think Fl is going Blue!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:16 PM
Yeah I saw it over there too. I just wanted to thank you for grabbing it and throwing it in here to silence the tax troll.
Do you post at 538?
McCain conceding Coloradoa and New Mexico? Is Michael Dukakis advising McCain? This is probably one of the worse campaigns I ever seen. I'm not looking at what they are looking at internally I know, but from the outside this looks dumb. If you can't win two states out in the West, your neighboring states, how in the hell do you expect to win Pa???
There internals must be horrible for those states.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:17 PM
boom, please let me know what McCain said in response to your "single question that will sink Obama". inquiring minds need to know.
you keep avoiding me, and I know you are busy with stuff, but can't you make time for an old friend? I am making time for you.
The rest I am re-posting from an earlier thread.
Look, assume whatever you want about PA and VA, folks. Disregard the polls. Fine. Your grandma's second uncle's husband had a dream about McCain winning VA. Irrefutable evidence. Whatever.
None of that really matters, even if true.
McCain's got WAY too many holes in his dikes. GOP walls are crumbling all over: MO, NC, VA, OH and FL. And that's ON TOP of IA, NM and CO where even McCain himself woke up and smelled the coffee.
Now McCampaign is appearing to put all their eggs into PA basket. Let them. Let they try to flip a double digit lead in two weeks and prove us all wrong. What about the rest of the aforementioned states meanwhile?
Obama's got game in ALL of THEM. Despite what "morning" Joe Scarborough says, Obama does not need to focus on FL and OH and forget the rest. He's got enough money, ground game and surrogates to do EVERYTHING.
GAME ON, McCain. Oh yeah, the GAME IS ON
@Boomshak and the other conservatives
Check out the cnn video of the Obama rally with governors. Their current discussion of energy policy is so much more constructive and meatier and hopeful and directed at a great American future and in utter contrast to the hokum we've been fed by the Texas hucksters and their conservative mouthpieces. Watching that discussion tells you why the Obama presidency will be transformational. Boomshak, you demonstrate that a little knowledge (very little, apparently) is a dangerous thing indeed.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:18 PM
Good point about Truman, hadn't thought of that before, and he's one of my favorite Presidents. He was only picked as Vice President for Roosevelt's last term because everyone knew Roosevelt would probably die and the current VP was too pro-Soviet.
Dwarf: On occasion. Usually I just lurk.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:20 PM
Ouch, 1Angry, that "homegirl" comment is really below the belt. LOL.
As recently as two years ago, Bachmann was still using "Internet boom" as one of her talking points during the debates. Nobody called her on it...Sad. She is hopelessly out of touch, and the folks who are running against her have been too kindhearted and soft. imho.
I believe El is now over a million in new money since last Friday. I am hoping for his sakes he is busy filming TV ads, splicing what Bachmann said and superimposing that with Colin Powell's comments.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:21 PM
That's a good observation.
Boomshak is more than concerned about what is happening in NC in his more lucid moments.
I think that a lot of Libs should try to bring guys like him along, the country is going to have to unite if we are going to get out of the mess we are in.
There is going to be no more powerful supporter for obama than the boom wants he sees that Obama will create better conditons for the country including boomshak and the small business community to thrive again.
Batony, do you sing in choir by any chance?
Your voice in unison with boomshack would sound angelic. Simply angelic.
Btw, I have NPR in the background during lunch (as any good liberal should *G*), and they just announced that they are going to rebroadcast Bachmann on Hardball during the lunch hour and open up the phones. Too bad I have to run to a meeting.
Life is good.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:23 PM
Yeah there was an article out today that said that O has like $133M in the bank right now. 2 weeks to go that is a lot of scratch to advertise with.
The McCain's campaign is claiming that he (o) is running more negative ads than they are. Hilarious if you ask me but it might actually be true at this point. While McCain's ads are 100% negative only about 30% of Obama's are. The problem comes in that O is outspending McCain 4 or 5 to 1.
Look for that trend to continue. I wonder where he'll put his ad money since he's probably already saturated the airwaves. What about those poster signs in front of the urinals at bars, maybe on benches at bus stops? How about an Obama postage stamp?
He's going to go into a lot of places and I hope that he can pull Senate and House races up in GA, MN, MS and KY. Make the most of the big bucks not just to win the presidency but to get a majority so he can make the changes that need to be made.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:25 PM
I've got a lunch meeting today or I'd be on the line waiting now. I'm going to phone a friend of mine and see if he's got time to ask some questions. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:27 PM
I totally don't get your last comment to me. Apparently you have me mistaken for a McCain supporter. I am on here talking strategy...that's it. I will leave the partisan bickering up to you partisans.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:29 PM
I'm actually with Batony on that one, he didn't say anything ridiculous.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:34 PM
The key to winning Indiana for Obama will be Lake County in Northwest Indiana near the Illinois border. There is a lot of Obama support up there, just like there was in the primary. I hope CNN.com has their live vote counter like they had for the primary then people can watch the live vote tallies from each county and state as they come in on election night.
I am tired of these polls. It reminds me of when I played football. The pre-game warm up was too long and I was always anxious for the game to start. This election is going to be about voter turnout. Just as with a football game, the most motivated, fundamentally sound, and hardest working team is going to win. Get to the polls and lets get a Democrat win!
VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND LETS GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:54 PM
Obama has more money than he can effectively spend on advertising, even if he keeps it up in states that he has already 'won' (like PA and WI).
I understand that what he IS doing is lining up a legal team to keep an eye out for any voting hanky panky on Nov 4. If the Repubs try any of that crap like they did in 2000 and 2004, the response will be quick and merciless.
Just another example of what a keen mind Obama has - assume nothing, plan for everything, no surprises.
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:00 PM
gallup + 7 O traditional
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:06 PM
My belief is that how one runs the campaign mirrors the way one will govern. Bush used Rove...and that mirrored tghe lies and deceptions they used to get us into Iraq.
McCain and his surrogates (and recall the Bush Administration used a lot of those as well...including the so-called "liberal" MSM) are now pushing out all sorts of BS (Ayers, Wright, "socialism", "terrorism", Muslim, etc.) This is the same stuff that Bush-Rove used. Same old, same old.
Expect the same thing if McCain-Palin gets elected.
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:08 PM
If McCain is depending on PA he is in truly desperate shape.
McCain's polls in PA look downright terrible. His pollster.com composite is a horrendous 53.8-38.5, so Obama is up 15 points. How much worse could that get?
McCain is much closer in CO and NM (and even IA). If I were McCain I would put all my resources into defending the Bush 2004 states, with a sidetrip into NH. But if McCain wants to play offense in PA, more power to him.
Personally, I think this campaign's performance over the last three weeks has been downright incoherent.
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:24 PM
Is this real? Obama winning Indy? It does not get any better for Obama. McCain needs to retreat to Arizona and defend it before Obama sees an opportunity.
Posted on October 21, 2008 4:48 PM
Watch McShame love for PA
Posted on October 21, 2008 9:13 PM
Bush beat Kerry in Indiana by 21 points in 2004. If the state is a toss up, these results alone tell you where the election is heading.
Bush won by 27 points in North Dakota in 2004. The state is a toss up now.
Posted on October 22, 2008 8:27 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR