Pollster.com

I posted this on the other thread, but it really belongs here. (You never know if there will be a daily tracking blog post.)

I expect that tomorrow we'll see an even larger Obama margin in the Gallup daily tracking poll. The trailing end of the current three-day average was a particularly good day of polling for McCain. If today's polling is simply in-line with the last two-month average, the Obama margin should increase tomorrow.

Is this a convention bounce or a consequence of a statistical outlier from two days ago? We'll never really know, but I am sure that the Gallup writeup and the punditry world will frame it as a bounce since that is the storyline they expect.

Does anyone know why the Gallup poll has been more mercurial than Rasmussen in recent weeks?

Even though it's a republican pollster, Ras had pretty much the same results for a while now, shifting maybe a percentage or two a day.

Gallup, on the other hand, keeps jumping around.

Could this be due to the RV/LV difference?

Does anyone know if the convention had increased the proportion of LVs among RVs? (e.g., Hillary dissenters?)

By the way, I'm not impressed by the number of "unified democrats". First, I don't understand the use of past tense for an event that was halfway through when they were done polling. Second, 74% would seem to be the same margin that Obama had among democrats prior to the convention.

BTW: I'm wondering how affected Obama's ratings are going to be by the last round of NFL preseason games that are taking place tonight. I think I can guess the impact here in Pittsburgh.

The 2% MoE has failed at least one of these two polls. Anyone have any questions about which one? I don't have any doubts.

I have a hard time thinking the preseason games will have much of an impact. I think his speech is scheduled to start right about the time most of those games are ending (when the third stringers are in).

I think that 74% number is misleading, as it represents the percentage of Dems who think the convention has unified them (only 14% said it hasn't, so 12% undecided?), rather than the percentage who say they will vote for Obama. And 86% of Dems said Hillary Clinton's speech helped Obama.

But without more data, hard to say from this what the actual Dem support for Obama is right now.

@ Michael

No doubt about it that it will go up even more. The trackers won't include a full representation of the full convention until Sunday's results are released. What Gallup showed today included one day before the convention, the first day with Michelle Obama's speech, and then the second day with Hillary Clinton's speech. The call-backs also haven't had a chance to catch up fully with the later two days, so even if the landscape stayed even, the results would likely still surge more.

I'm surprised at how much movement these last two days have shown, but that's likely because I underestimated how pivotal it was for Hillary to strongly endorse Obama, and how good of a job that she did. It was a great speech, and I doubt she could have done any more at this point than she did.

The Republicans have been playing the game of over-expectations again claiming that they expected a 15 point bounce, just so they could claim he underperformed later, but I'm starting to think that it is within the realm of possibilities, and that would be startling if it did happen.

Brambster:

Read the rteporting on the Ras site, they're seeing the same trend as Gallup is per the write up. Apparently, their McCain numbers at the beginning of the three-day period must have been a larger spread than Gallup, which is holding their 3-day average to a tie for now. From the write up, I would expect their data to be mirroring Gallup, just lagging a day.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I wouldn't worry too much about the preseason games and viewing the speech. Its the 4th game for every team, when 90% of the starters will not play and most of the game will be played by camp fodder guys who will be cut before Sunday.

If anything, I'd worry about the kickoff of the college football season, which is tonight, with multiple games scheduled for the same time slot. Then again, anyone who really wants to see the speech will see it. I know my picture-in-picture function will be in use.

Continuing on the football issue, I think that the Republican convention might take a much bigger hit from the start of football season as the first regular season NFL game is next Thursday night (Washington at NY Giants.) While NY is obviously not in play there might be some effect on the viewership in the Virginia area (though as sjt22 said, anyone who really wants to see it will.)

Concerning the speech tonight, it brings up a catch phrase from the 80s used by democrat candidate Walter Mondale on Gary Hart. "Wheres the Beef". This is what Obama has to answer. Of course, Gary Hart was the John Edwards of that time, extra martial affair and all. As I recall Jessie Jackson came up with " where is the grits and gravy?"

Any data yet on Obama improving his support among Democrats? If he can improve from his current 75-78% to 85-88% then he wins the election.

> Does anyone know why the Gallup poll has been more mercurial than Rasmussen in recent weeks?

Rasmussen weights by party id, which tends to filter out statistical noise, but can also mask real changes in opinion. According to Nate at 538, weighting by party id can mask a convention bounce since it removes the short term effect of everyone who changes their responses from independent or republican to democrat (or vice-versa)

It could be that Gallup is showing an actual convention bounce, while Rasmussen has erased the bounce due to their weighting by party id.

Do you actually think that people are watching these conventions? It ain't the Olympics or football. Normal people do not have the time and energy nor patience for SOS political speeches. So far I have only tuned in for Hillary's and Bill's speeches because those speeches counted. Otherwise... BORING.

@KipTin

The ratings show that 22 million watched on Monday, and another 26 million watched Hillary on Tuesday. Thats a roughly 20% increase from the DNC in 2004. I'd expect a huge number to tune in for Obama's speech tonight. Not to mention all the internet and media coverage of the events which trickles out to people who don't actually watch.

Anyway this poll is a big one day bounce for Obama, if we look at the last three days average of 44%, Obama must have had a 56% polling yesterday, and if it stays, tomorrow, the poll might finally cross 50% by going up to 52% or more. That will be a great cushion before the RNC assaults starts next week.

I called today the Michelle bounce, tomorrow we should see a bigger Hillary bounce, an even bigger Bill bounce at the weekend.

I warned my Republican friends to be careful with what they wished for when they came up with the 15% Rick Generic number.

The critical stat is the McCain to Obama - Democrat switches and then the Indies. Particularly women!

Obama could wrap the whole thing up to-night subject to not screwing up in the debates.
There are a lot of undecided very open to persuasion.

It might just get extremely vitriolic from next week and even desperate.

And McCain gives his speech the same night as the NFL season opener. LOL. Way to plan ahead, Mr. In-Touch with the Average American Voter.

echoing what some have already posted on, I've been keeping track of what each individual day's polling must have been, roughly, based on the actual 3-day rolling averages.

Based on this, yesterday, in Gallup the poll was likely 53-40, and in Rasmussen (w/ leaners) it was likely 51-45, both of which seem reasonable. Rasmussen is a little less fluid with Party ID, and pressing leaners.

Either way, as some posters have commented, tomorrow's results will exhibit the big bounce, 10 pts in Gallup and 5 pts in Rasmussen, as long as tonight's numbers keep with yesterdays....

I'd say the NFL is less of a problem for McCain and the RNC. I think a bigger problem could be if Hurricane Gustav hits land along the Gulf Coast early next week. (It's now a tropical storm but predicted to strengthen to a hurricane.) Fox News is reporting that President Bush may not speak on Monday and instead focus on the federal response to Gustav. I'm sure the cable nets are gonna go bonkers with this one because of the timing. Could dilute coverage of the first couple of nights of the RNC.

@mirrorball: Except that for the Republicans it is EXTREMELY convenient if Bush has a reason not to be at the convention.

Agree with Uri. The one place Democrats want Bush to be next week is smack dab in the middle of the RNC.

@sjt22: I would say that 26mil viewers in real time is not that much considering that 36mil dems voted in the elections, and a lot of indeps and republicans are supposed to tune in.

...And away we go to the land of OZ. Step right up folks for the one and only...hurry,hurry,hurry get your tickets here.

More BS from the Obama camp... they said we dont not expect ANY bounce from this convention.... does ANYONE really believe that??

6 points/ Big deal... 12? big deal

Obama cant hold it b/c he can be roleld bullied and slammed. Just ask the clintons

@ Michael McDonald

I just read the Rasmussen write up and it seemed to fall short of suggesting a bounce as big as Gallup, though they are clearly expecting some form of a bounce to show.

Seems that Nate of 538 beat me to the conventional wisdom argument that Rasmussen's party ID weighting will likely under-poll the bounce as effective conventions, and especially one with a dissatisfied runner up candidate that moved to strongly and effectively support the nominee, will surely result in an immediate change in party identity. The contra argument might be that this will level out over time, but polls aren't meant to predict the future, just the present, and Rasmussen will surely under poll even worse than their house effects bias suggests.

I don't think things could be going any better for the Democrats right now. I wonder if the Republicans want to spend their own convention and the days leading up to it just simply trying to talk down it's effectiveness because they need to sell their own agenda too, and it won't look good, and the media won't be buying it (as much as they typically do).

It's been pretty flat 45% for almost a week until the McCain slight shift upward. At that time some analysts suggested it meant the last day of polling in the 44%O - 46% Mc was much larger.

But now what?

Lemme see

45+44+x/3 =48 x=55% Obama on final day
(Day 1 of the Convention)
45+46+y = 42 y =35%McCain on final day of poll.

And if it's true that McCain actually had higher and Obama lower results in the last day of the three day polling period...that means it's a huge "bounce".

What are the odd?

OBAMA - BIDEN

Very close words to

OSAMA - BINLADEN

Obama's bounce should be much larger than the McCain counter-bounce simply because he will be doing better with his base in future polls. Plus, I think this GOP strategy of painting Obama as a witless celebrity will ultimately fail. McCain only wishes he could get 20,000 in Berlin and 75,000 in any American stadium. He's simply not as popular and I can't see him winning over people with ideas that have been around since Reagan.

If Obama goes up 10-12% after this week, McCain will need to knock it down to 3 after Minneapolis.

@ Uri

The convention ratings are up 20% from 2004. Seems like a good result for the Democrats to me. Remember that there are about 100 million voters. About half would never vote for Obama, and of the rest probably 80% are locked up, so its just the remainder that they are trying to appeal to. Thats less than 26 million.

@Buch

What are the odds?

Buch- Bush

Very close to complete moron

LOL DocnTN!!!

Another funny thing. I just visited my neighbor for a moment and the convention came up. Her friend was over visiting too and she indicated that she might have voted for Hillary...then she said that Obama's problem was that he was an "Islam". She kept looking to my neighbor and I for confirmation and I said that she was mistaken, that it was just one of those Internet rumors. She asked me if I was positive, then if I was 100% positive...then she got going, picked up her keys and stumbled outside to drive home drunk.

What a shame it is to see such people have a say in who we elect.

Apparently, brambster believes in "means" testing for voting. Again, anyone who believes that Obama is Muslim was probably not going to vote for him anyway. (So if this lady was that drunk, why did you let her drive away?)

Ok, it's my fault that this drunk bigot drove her car...

I passed quite a few hints, but as someone that I didn't know, and someone that lacked so much common sense, what do you think would happen if I stood in front of the door?

It's great that everyone can vote. It's sad that bigots like this all vote Republican.

Obama and Britney Spears put on a good show tonight. Why did he whine about the Britney ad then hire Britney's crew to create the "Temple of Obama"?

I give up. I have to concede to all the doubters. Anyone that says Obama is not a "rock star". you are wrong. Obama is the biggist "rock star" on the planet.

Damn........it could not have been any better than that. It sets a new standard, and I truly hope it sticks.

It was so incredibly fascistic. One could almost hear "Wir gehoeren dir!".

marctx you seem to be doubleposting across different threads. I hope you're not an AIMbot :p

When you have Fox and MSM commentators knocked out with Obama you know something special is happening.

Could be 20 point lead by Monday's trackers, My feel is that he will run AHEAD of the generic Democratic vote.

History guys,

Sorry Andy. I double posted cuz I don't want anyone to miss my support for Obama. The pundits set the bar at Obama's rockstar status. He exceeded that, he achieved messiah status with this speech.

it is sad that someone so blinded by hate(marctx) wouls not give credit where credit is due. i would do that for john mccain if he gives a great speech.

And Goodwin's law makes it to Pollster. Thanks, Uri!

It was a great speech. I will be shocked if there is not a large bounce out of this convention. It was the same liberal speech I've heard since 1984, but the delivery was masterful and for the first time a liberal executed this speech perfectly. I only wish he governed the way he talks. Much of it was just words, no specifics. If my employer doesn't give me health care, the g'ment will, the same that Congress gets? Well the first thing that will happen is all comapnies will drop there health coverage and we'll all end up on the g'ment system, which of cours ethere's no possible way of paying for it without massive taxation on "everyone" not just 5% of us. All he is proposing is replacing my premium with a tax....
So from my perspective it was all words, no meat to it, the same speech we've heard for 25 years. But politcally very effective. People who are easily taken by delivery will be swayed.
Again I will say, the Dems defiantely have the momentum. McCain certainly has his work cut out for him.
All in all, great speech, great delivery. But for me, its the same thing I've heard for 25 years, but you guys finally found someone who can deliver the speech in a beleivable way. The guy is defaintely up htere with Reagan when it comes to communicating.

@mirrorball:

Heh :) Good to see someone remembers that one.

Though in my case I would say it is more of a genetic memory... There's a very famous imagery that I've been exposed to many times over the years of Hitler speaking in huge stadiums. Somehow that connection is imbued in me, and the first time I heard about the Invesco field idea, that image popped to my head.

Now to clarify again: Obama is not Hitler, etc. etc., obviously.

However, I do believe that this kind of huge insane crowd, a huge stage with two huge screens with a very prominent symbol on them, the person speaking in the middle... Leni Riefenstahl could not have orchestrated that better.

I connect American politics with those big speeches in those closed off "Cube Gardens" with the confetti and state flags and all, that is the imagery. This just didn't connect. It's just the wrong imagery for the wrong nation.

Actually, it was a very good speech. After all, that's what he's known for. What I don't understand was why he looked so underwhelmed when it was over. It's like as soon as he stopped speaking he looked tired, turned off almost. I can't imagine how giving the speech of a lifetime would affect me, so maybe it is the feeling that you've achieved the greatest moment of your life.

Either way, it's not like McCain ever had a chance.

Another striking thing was seeing the contrast in speech delivery skills between Obama and Gore. I *adore* Al Gore, but like me, he's more the Powerpoint presentation guy than the class president.

@Uri: yeah, I hear ya. But on some level I don't get it. Honestly -- and I'm not a big idealouge, seriously -- even though I'm nowhere near old enough to have seen it or remember it, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about the Mile High Stadium idea was Kennedy's speech at the Los Angeles Coliseum.
But maybe stadium speeches are yet another thing Hitler ruined for the rest of us, along with short mustaches and Volkswagens.

You know Uri, I just don't get how you think!

You don't engage the general population to be more involved in their country, community and their family, and practice individual responsibility by preaching Fascism. You don't strive to improve America's standing and cooperation in the world by exercising your military might. You don't preach unity among Americans by questioning the patriotism of your opponents. In fact, you do just the opposite!

I've always hoped that we were too smart to fall for that as a country, and finally I do believe we are.

Wake up and wash that garbage out of your head!

@brambster: I don't recall preaching fascism, military might, or questioning Obama's patriotism. I certainly don't say Obama's a Muslim and I honestly don't think anybody does; that part is a media and a left fiction.

(Though admittedly, he's endorsed by Jimmy Carter, that's a lot worse... :)

All I expressed was distaste for the style of delivery and venue. Like mirrorball said, his first image was JFK, which is probably one of the greatest things about growing in the US. I'm from across the ocean, so my first image was slightly different.

In the end, this was still speechmaking, and I call BS on certain things he said.

For example, eliminate "capital gains tax on startups". When a startup sells for billions, it's the venture capitalists that gain the most, not us programmers in the trenches who get 1% of 1%. That sounds a lot like McCain's top-down economics.

what sense does it make trying to make having a large crow seem scccaaaarrrry. wooooo. it doesnt. this is another weak excuse. just as weak as the celebrity issue. he is well liked by many people so thats a bad thing. yeah like it was a bad thing for bush when americans said that one reason they voted for him was because he was a guy i d like to hang out and have a beer with. yeah beware the evil scary large crowd.

Uri et al.,

Make no mistake about it, this was a political speech, and one at the Democratic convention, but I think it was clear that this isn't about parsing words or dwelling on divisive single issues, it's about realigning not just our leadership, but our entire direction as a country. This was historic not for how it was presented or who presented it, but for what it will become.

And since this is Pollster...this won't be a bounce, it will be a trounce. It's over. No one's even going to be paying attention to colorful maps any more.

@Stillow:
I thought the speech was poorly written and he had a horrible time trying to deliver it. There wasn't really any connection with the audience. Perhaps the audience was too large. He was way too critical of McCain. He mentioned McCain's name more than anyone. It was like free advertising for McCain. This wasn't a night to go on the attack against McCain. This was a historic night. He was suppose to be positive and give the troops some marching energy. He failed in that category. Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just use to hearing him on a different frequency that he didn't use tonight. I thought that is was more like a plain Jane Biden speech than anything else. Perhaps there will be more speeches like this in the future. If so,the Hollywood crowds will drift away.

@brambster

Be careful, don't confuse a great speech with actionale ideas. There was nothing new in this speech, its the same exact liberal talking points that have been brought to the population for decades. Only this time it was delivered in a acceptable way. What your side needs to do now is not get arrogant and cocky or McCain will sneak it right away from you. By default people resist larger g'ment control over their lives....Obama needs to keep the sales pitch going. Words can get you to the door, but you still have to walk thru it. But if you guys get arrogant most will beging to just say "Same ole' liberal stuff, just in a new suit"

@player

"Perhaps I'm wrong."

Perhaps you are...

@player

Well it definatley was a lberal talking points speech, there's no question about that. He brought up every victim group you can think of. But it was really the first tie I have seen liberalism put forth in a acceptable fashion to your novice viewer.
I do agree though, he was to negative on McCain, that should have been done out on the stump....we'll just have to wait and see. I liked ht edelivery, the content however was just the same old stuff.

@brambster: I don't think this makes a difference. Obama was going to win and he is going to win. Just like it was obvious he was going to win the primaries on Super Tuesday and we all kept at it for the next three months.

Face it, we're political junkies and poll junkies, and we only get our fix every four years.

After this, it's four years (and practically eight) of humdrum congressional approval ratings and reactions to state of the unions address. So let's enjoy our colorful maps while we still can.

@saywhat90: I didn't say it wasn't effective. I just said that to me, coming from a different culture, it was scary because it comes together with things like the symbolic fake roll call that rewrites history (where states that HRC won voted for Obama), and the attacks on WGN for daring to mention Ayers. Look up "Soviet elections".

You have to agree with me that if Dick Cheney was running for president and was doing these three things above, you would be crying murder.

@Stillow:
I would almost guess that he will start sounding more like Joe Biden on the trail. College students won't like this much. I'll bet that they didn't care for his speech tonight. So he might appeal to more blue collar voters, but he will probably lose the campus classroom voters. I don't see him going back up to the mountain anytime soon.

@Uri

"I just said that to me, coming from a different culture, it was scary because it comes together with things like the symbolic fake roll call that rewrites history (where states that HRC won voted for Obama), and the attacks on WGN for daring to mention Ayers. Look up "Soviet elections"."

Again, this is really just the opposite. It used to be that both women and African-Americans couldn't vote, and now they campaigned for votes against one another and both could have won. It used to be that nominees were decided by an exclusive group of delegates, and now those delegates are chosen based on the votes of people in caucuses and primaries (some of them are even open to non-party members). It used to be, and not that long ago, than the president of this country was effectively determined by a perfect ideological split of a group of just 9 men and women where the majority of which substituted their own judgment instead of attempting to determine the intent of millions of voters in a state.

I really fail to see how just 40 years after the civil rights act, a man of mixed race could possibly represent Fascism. It is EXACTLY the opposite.

Maybe what you are not used to seeing is how things swing back from the brink for the good without a bloody revolution or military invasion. I'm pretty sure this is what that looks like. No doubt it isn't all good, but it will surely be better.

@brambster: Once again, I raised fascism because of the style of presentation, the thuggish tactics, the rewriting of history, and the stifling of dissent. I don't see why you are bringing race into it.

Look, let's not argue about it. I can be cynical and say that I know you guys are in love with the idea that after 250 years your country finally gets right what the countries you guys came from got much faster... Heck, look how many European and Asian countries already had female PMs in a shorter timespan.

Since you brought up race, let me say that I think that it is great that an african american can get elected president. I do think that it is very sad that this is actually an issue.

It is also sad that because of this the election becomes not about electing a good president, but about demonstrating the breaking of the "race ceiling". Everything (and in particular the media with it's historic narrative) focuses on Nov 4 and not on the eight years that follow.

Many people will vote against him because he's black, and even more people will vote for him because he is black. His color should not be an issue. I have to agree with Ferraro that what got the attention for him was his race and his background, but that with his limited credentials he may not have made it to where he did had he been a white Harvard graduate like everyone else in the Senate.

Come November 5, you can be proud of your country, but you're still going to be stuck with an African American version of John Edwards.

@uri
wrong iwould be saying uh oh looks like the dems are in trouble. i would say if he can draw a crowd like that then what will the elections be like. that s what i would say if cheney drew crowd sizes like that. unlike you i would give credit where credit is due. if i have a problem with something it usually issued. no matter who does it the celebrity large crowd thing is childish and silly. even john mccain has celebrity status.because all celebrity means is u are well known. it is the one of the reason why this election is close. there is nothing wrong with being popular. because the truth is it does win elections. as far as the ayers issue. are you saying that he doesnt have the right to counter any thing that may be a smear on his character.

@brambster: Just to clarify, I do not come from a country where one needs bloody revolutions or military invasions for change. We have had significant changes of power occurring frequently (maybe too frequently) in the old democratic way.

I could also argue, that the biggest change in your country (which is admittedly my country now) didn't come from an orderly democratic process of unity but rather from a fairly bloody civil war, and that having visited the South, I'm not even sure things really have changed this much.

@uri

but if he was a white yale graduate i think he would have made it in. oh wait someone did that already.

@saywhat90

Bringing up Ayers is not a smear of Obama's character, its a fact that he hung out with this guy. An eexplanation to the american people is required when you hang ut with a known terrorist who has bombed american bildings. I assure you that if McCain was hanging out with a KKK members, goign to his house, etc, you guys on the left would make a "huge" deal about it and demand an explantion. So its not a smear to point out who ones associates with...who you hang around with gives an inside view of who you are as a person too....he will need to address the Ayers issue before this election is over. Words mean nothing if your actions go against what you say.

@saywhat90: You're right, he gave a great speech yesterday and his wife gave a great speech the day before ;) Or did you mean someone else?

@Stillow: I don't think the Ayers thing has any benefit for the republicans by itself. If the Republicans are smart, they will try to frame Obama as extremely liberal and pro-islamic (which is easy considering his strongest supporters), and then create some sort of "Obama's ties to extreme leftists and other commie traitors" through the ages. In that context, Ayers can be used to show a pattern.

Without some more consistent context, I doubt that the vast majority of voters have any understanding of who Ayers is, what the context was, etc. Ok, so it's some guy that bombed the pentagon or somthing. But isn't the pentagon still there? etc. I know who Ayers is and the swiftboating bored me to hell. At least they should run some speeches by Ayers or something. Some Wright-style soundbytes.

Speaking of which, was Wright in the audience yesterday?

@player

how would you come to that conclusion? there was nothing in his speech that would turn off college voters. first defended himself from attacks on his character. he main questioned mccain on issues.never once did he question mccains love for country nor did he say that mccain wasnt a good man or that he didnt serve this great country of ours. he was more gracious to mccain then mccain has ever been to him.

@saywhat90

Again, Obama's actions are what spawned questions about his character. His associations with Ayers and Wright for example. Two people who clearly hate this country, yet he chose freely to hang out with these people. So naturally, one's gut reflex is to ask, why would you do that? Its legit to bring up those points until Obama clearly answers the question why. Its easy to say I love this country, but then when you walk out the door to hang out with anti-american radicals, then the question of why becomes legit. I don't see McCain hanging out with anti americans, so its much more difficult to question his character on that front. I don't see how logically you can disagree.

@saywhat90:
This is a catchy name. Did you pattern it after Charles Barkley? Anyhow, there was no intellectual stimulus in this speech. It was basically plain and ordinary prose. The news people report that it was planned that way.

@stillow

was again you are mistaken. if mccain hung out with a former kkk member i wouldnt care. the key here is former terrorist. meaning the past.and lets see wasnt robert byrd a former member of the kkk. yet he was welcome to the democratic party without judgement. because once again that was his past. he s not that person. so no i would not begrudge someone of their past. i mean i m not running wondering what really happened about the keating 5. i mean mccain was friend with mr.keating. so i should be concerned they might make mccain a crook too. so maybe i should questions mccains judgement. oh wait that was in the past . oh then nevermind. past things dont concern me. but current issues and policies do. the guilty by association thing is so over the top.

@Uri

As I said before, this was historic not for how it was presented or who presented it, but for what it will become. Obama's race is not a net advantage in any way. His advantage is his ability to communicate his message and provide encouragement and optimism to those that would support him. He just happens to be mixed race (or Black, whatever you prefer).

What I am most encouraged by is his ability to communicate the inequity of trickle-down economics. He doesn't present it as class warfare, he presents it as it should be. Money breeds power, and there's nothing wrong with awarding those that work hard and contribute back to the country and the country's economy in the place of what we have been doing.

Surely he could squander this, and events might not be so kind to the types of changes he wants to bring. He will surely make some mistakes, but hopefully not too many. Change can be scary, but what's scarier to me is not even trying.

Bill Clinton had unbelievable political skills, but in a very different way. Clinton was so incredibly calculated that he could out maneuver his opponents. Obama on the other hand has shown incredible restraint, confidence and persistence. Obama sets his message, his style, and he doesn't let others dictate his timing. He believes that if you do the right thing, things will work out, not by chance but with strength of message and the ability to deliver that message effectively. When supporters last year started warning him that he had to go on the attack, he resisted and stayed primarily on message running as the best agent of change while Hillary was merely running against Republicans. When the Hillary campaign focused on big delegate/big name states, Obama got the ground game running and exploited his strengths with enthusiastic Democrats and other voters by picking up virtually all of the caucuses. When Obama then won 13 contests in a row and Hillary's campaign not only failed to recognize their destiny, but also turned semi-nuclear, Obama just let it play out knowing that it was a fight that wasn't worth fighting. He gave Hillary all the space she needed, and she took advantage of every bit of slack she got. Now when Republicans attack, and attack and attack, and people again mock him and call him Obambi, he waits for the appropriate time instead of changing his regular message with drivel, then turns it back at them, not by throwing his own mud, but by showing the hypocrisy of what they claim, and ends up coming out the bigger man. Every step of the way it amazes me how good things turn out for him, and it's not luck. He just gets it. I believe this is a good sign for how he would govern too. Consensus is a better way to go, and it's better to convince than to trick for force your way there. If he fails, it will be his fault because he has the skill to get things done.

@saywhat90

That's a pretty weak respone. Ayers has never repented, in fact he still says he didn't do enough damage. Wrights insane anti american comments are within the last couple years. And Obama hangs out with these people and considers them freinds. I think that says a lot about his character. McCains keating association is also valid. The dems plan ot bring up keating after the conventions.
If I tell you I hate ice cream, then go to baskin robins, soemthing doesn't add up. Obama will need to address his associations. The issue will resinate with very patriotic americans, a lot of whom are blue collar workers in the midwest and rust belt. Your actions have to backup your words. I agree with you that if someone has aplogized for previous actions in there life and clai to be a changed man, you should give himthe benefit fo the doubt, but ayers still to this day wishes he could do more damage and wright's comments are all recent. Obama has been freinds with both men in very reent times. So the criticism is valid.

@stillow

the ayers issue is a non-issue period.is that a strong enough response for you. ayers behaviour in the past is not obamas fault. just because someone is associated to someone it doesnt mean he will be like that person. my best friend is a republican. known him for 10 years. im not a republican. beside you dont know what kind of friendship obama and ayers have.friendly can mean alot of things. as far as wright is concerned. you dotn know what kind of person wright was in those 20 years. he may have just become a angry bitter black man in the past few years. is that obamas fault.

the argument is pointless anyway because noone has proof that barack has done or said anything radical or anti-american.and before anyones tries to use them the bitter comments were never radical and what michelle obama is not a radical comment neither.

@Stillow

As far as Wright goes, do you really think that this one radical nut is any worse than the right wing radical evangelical nuts that blame hurricanes on gays? McCain unapologetically went out of his way to court these nuts, and Obama went out of his way to avoid them as soon as it became an issue.

Do you really think that Ayres is an issue this election? You have to be at least 60 years old to remember that stuff. When I heard about Weather Underground, I was truly dumbfounded.

If you want to hear about real scary stuff, research G. W. Bush's associations with Adnan Khashoggi. Not only was Khashoggi a Saudi arms dealer with deep connections to the bin Laden family, he's the guy who's ponzi-scheme bank was used by Oliver North to move funds for Iran-Contra. He was also charged in association with the Marcos money laundering in the Philippines. He's the guy that was manipulating the stock price of a worthless Internet company for over a year until he cut and ran just one week after 9/11 and caused the biggest brokerage failure since the Great Depression by failing to deliver on $70 million in loaned stock. Then just 2 years later Richard Perl while still chairing a Pentagon advisory group was caught meeting with Khashoggi to discuss investments in defense companies. How does dubbya fit in to all of this? Well, Adnan Khashoggi's former American money guy was not just a fellow National Guard absentee flier in Bush's unit, he was Bush's partner in his first failed oil company. Bush Sr. also goes way back with this guy, and I barely touched the surface of the international fraud that this guy has been involved with.

Now if that isn't mainstream enough to make it to the media at large, what makes you think that Obama sharing a coffee with Ayres is newsworthy?

This Ayers business has definitely got legs. I certainly remember them. They are from my generation. You also had the bank robbing, cop killing SLA group that kidnapped Patty Hearst. The black panthers were also a dangerous cop killing group at that time. Some of them are still around. I got drafted and went to war in Asia, and Ayers and company got drafted and declared war on the US instead. Carter's blanket pardon actually covered these criminals. This guy Ayers has got nine lives. People that never grew up in the 60s cannot really understand my generation. It is very scary and very complex. Obama's connection to Ayers seems to be academic. However, there could be more to it. The Daley machine has blocked inquires into the Ayers, Obama connection.

if the ayers thing has legs it is severly limping

@player

My goodness you are selective.

We are the same generation.But our memories are a little different.

With regards to last night: What we have had over the first 3 days was a game changer. What we had last night was a generational event of profound historic proportions.

@Stillow Last night Barrack Obama made a truly historic political speech, not liberal, not conservative but essentially an American speech.

The issue can be put simply as the renewal of the American Dream.

But within that renewal is the politics - how (Bush/Cheney)we as a nation got into the mess, that John McCain, paying great respect to his bravery and service, has nothing to offer except bluster and the politics of the past, McCain does not relate to the challenges that we have to overcome. Then, specifically what President Obama would do in socio-economic and foreign policy terms to make the renewal happen - a Neo-liberal agenda through adding the burden of social responsibility onto the individual. Happy Stillow!

This is where the game changing bounce becomes irreversible: Obama has laid claim as the protector, the guardian, the renewer of the American Dream and it is going to be impossible to budge his brand positioning. They have made the Obama family narrative the embodiment of that dream.

@player - forget about Ayres and Wright. Obama has got his brand positon - right on, pardon the intended 60's spun - pun!

He runs ahead of Rick Generic Democrat through to polling day.

Just shows how desperate Fox news and friends are that they are hammering at the round-about connection with Ayers. If associations mattered, then the Bush family would never have been elected to office for all the shadowy connections they have.
Certainly, the convention could not have gone better. Now all Obama has to do is hold strong during the debates, which with his superior intellect should not present a problem. After that, its all in God's hands and our willingness to accept someone different.

thoughtful..
" Last night Barrack Obama made a truly historic political speech, not liberal, not conservative but essentially an American speech."

translation: "I'll give you everything you could possibly want, don't worry about paying for it! The other (rich) guy will"

I am shocked by McCain's VP choice. Maybe Obama was right and he really "doesn't get it". The elections really are officially over.

Instead of picking Hutchinson, a pro-choice moderate, he went for the "hot hardcore republican" type that would not get him a single independent or democratic female voter. He gave up on former HRC supporters, etc.

Motivating the republican core was good enough in previous cycles, but not in this election.

@thoughtful

I just disagree. The speech was the same liberal content we always here, he just said it in a way that isn't such a turn off. Great speech, boring content.

I love the Palin pick....strategically, McCain really took the steam...everyone is talking about it.

2008 is truly a historic year. We will have the first AA nominee and the first female vice president.

McCain/Palin 08 - Advance the woman's movement, Yes We Can

Write a poem about that Chris Matthews. Your Obama speech coverage was stupid.

@Uri

You are way off. Palin is a great choice. Not all women support killing babies, just to let you know.
I love the choice, I think women in general will like the choice, it stealing the spotlight away from Obama's speech. Friday belonged to obama, Saturday belongs to McCain.
It was a wildcard pick, a fresh face....a solid conservative woman.....

Are we ready for this 44 year old person whom noone knows with 2 years of being a Governor to be president given McCain's age?

hahah, if the expereince argument is the ebst your side has, it will flop on your face. Since she has more expereince then the top of your ticket.

@Stillow: How is Palin a great choice?

If you consider die-hard Hillary supporters as a target demographics for McCain (and a lot of them did not buy the Clinton's forced speeches), the main thing that the Obama people have been scaring them with is Roe vs. Wade.

I've stated my belief here before that I don't think McCain really is pro-life; he lacks the religious conviction to truly give a damn.

However, picking Palin is a deal-breaker to these women. Nothing pisses a real feminist more than a so-called "feminist for life".

Don't confuse the fact that we have people like Casey in the Senate for a battleground state like PA. He was elected as the "anyone but Santorum" vote.

It also looks really transparent that he just picked a woman. My personal guess is that he already gave up the elections and figured that he would make a historic statement with the second woman to ever be on a ticket (and the first Republican).