8/19-21/08; 500 LV, 4.5%
McCain 49, Obama 43
This will shut the virgin seekers up.
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:06 PM
I'm not a big fan of Rasmussen polling, but this one sounds right. McCain is pretty much up by 5 in Indiana.
Does anyone know how Rasmussen does their polls in Indiana? Robo-calling isn't allowed there.
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:23 PM
Obama is seen favorably by 52%... But McCain has a 65% favorable rating!!!
If it was not for the Chicago suburbs (e.g. Gary, IN) then Obama would be burnt toast.
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:28 PM
Fox News (Google News) reported "Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has put the brakes on ads that were running in seven states carried by the GOP in the 2004 presidential election, FOX News has learned... The seven states are: Alaska, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida and Virginia."
Hmmm. What does that mean?
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:37 PM
Maybe the Obama campaign is trying to keep the VP thing hyped (as if the MSM needed more hype) but here is another news gem from 15 minutes ago: "Three days before the party gathers in Denver to nominate Obama for the fall campaign, several officials said Rep. Chet Edwards, whose district includes President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, had made the roster of potential running mates."
Who is Chet Edwards? It's Nancy Pelosi's choice who she has been promoting on the talk shows. Would Obama really choose someone who has no national identification (as well as the last name "Edwards?")
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:44 PM
KipTin, interesting report by fox news, so far only they have said it, so its unconfirmed, but if its true, then it may mean one of a few things, either Obama is altering his attack plan and removing certain states, unlikely, since there is no reason to cede florida or Virginia, as he's running neck and neck with McCain there, or more likely he's going to alter the ads that he plays due to the convention, so he's pulling the old ads and will put up new ads for the convention, This is more likely as he'll want to maximize the effect of the convention themes.
Posted on August 22, 2008 3:50 PM
The reason Obama is pulling ads in those 7 red states is that they're FINALLY facing reality (not to mention overwhelming historical data) that despite early indications that he might, he just won't win in those states. Like Kerry, and Dukakis, he's just too liberal to carry them. At this point, the Democrats will need all their muscle and money just to carry the blue states from 2000/2004 PLUS ONE to pull off a narrow victory. Obama basically wasted July and August (while McCain used it wisely to get more people questioning Obama's experience and substance). If he picks a VP as lackluster as Biden or Kaine and the story that he didn't even consider Clinton gets a lot of play, he won't be able to unite the party any time soon. And McCain will be ahead in the polls by 3-5 pts by early Sept.
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:01 PM
Ptrick, I think you need to recheck your facts, Obama is trending ahead in Florida and Alaska and Montanaand only slightly behind in Florida, its extremely unlikely he would pull back in those states unless he was out of money, which he isn't no, a restructuring of his ad campaign due to the convention is much more likely, pushing ads that will expand on the convention themes and include his veep pick will probably be the result
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:09 PM
Can anybody provide any crosstabs on this?
Don't you just love these LV polls. like to see the AA and 18-29 comparables.
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:23 PM
I'm pretty certain Obama doesn't really think he can win Montana, Florida or Ohio. He has a real shot in Colorado and Virgina, both of which have had strong left trends in recent years.
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Trust me the campaign thinks it can and the internal polling figures are looking fairly good fro what I hear - Ohio and Florida, but then I;ve been told Indiana was well in play.
pollsters playing games with their weighting, LV and we know goodness know how many soft and don't knows there are. I like polls of the committed and layers thereafter. there are more "leaners" in reality than this poll shows!
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:37 PM
Obama will outspent McCain after the conventions. McCain needs to spend all of his money within two weeks. I think Obama's last move (putting brakes in certain states) should be related with this and also the convention. Obama will get a lot of coverage and will be able to deliver his messages during the convention. So, why spend money?
As for Indiana.. I don't think LV polls are good. LV polls are based on LV models that are subjectionable. I think Indiana is in play, although it leans McCain. Obama will push McCain to spend money (his limited money) in IN, MT, NC, FL. Sounds like a good strategy. We'll see if it will work.
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:44 PM
Sorry Stillow, i'm pretty certain they think they have reasonable chances in places like Virginia and Florida and Ohio, among others, also why has it been hours and only Fox is still the only place to report this news? I've looked at Politico, CNN, First Read, TPM, HuffPO, nothing, so where are they getting the information?
Posted on August 22, 2008 4:51 PM
In case you guys plan on trusting Fox News, just remember that they had the breaking story that the Saddam was moving chemical weapons to be used against American troops.
Obama rightly despises Fox News and I would guarantee that any news report about stopping ads in Ohio and Florida are deliberate misinformation from the Obama campaign to the "fair-and-balanced-as-long-as-you're-GOP" network.
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:11 PM
I can't speak for Indiana, but I'm smack in the middle of Ohio, and I can tell you that both national parties have been competitive here since the first Clinton campaign. Al Gore would have won it had he not pulled all funding away from the state because of poll results. John Kerry was, I believe only 60,000 votes short. That's not much in a state of seven major urban areas and millions in population.
Also, we finally have a Democratic Secretary of State here, and I think that because of this there will be no convenient "shortage" of voting machines and long waits to vote in heavily Democratic districts as there was in 2004.
This one fact alone should improve the competitiveness of the race quite markedly.
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:17 PM
I can almost not contain myself at the delusions of the Republicans on this site.
One report comes across Faux News about Obama putting the brakes on ads and that means he's giving up those states? Pullleeeeez people get real. I'm so sure Obama is going to just give up Florida, which has one of the highest black populations of any U.S. state.
And BTW, just fyi, Bush won Indiana by over 20 points in 2004 and Obama's is trailing by single digits.
Why isn't McCain doing better in Indiana?
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:23 PM
Without leaners, this poll has McCain up just four points--which means Indiana is in play. Obama is the underdog there, to be sure; but he's not likely to be discouraged by a poll from a right-leaning pollster that finds him only four down in a red state. Picking Evan Bayh as his running mate (though this choice seems increasingly unlikely) would make Indiana even tighter.
The Fox report is likely incorrect (unless it simply means that Obama is pulling old adds in the states named and replacing them with new ads--perhaps ads that feature his running mate). After Obama introduces his running mate at noon tomorrow in Illinois, he is scheduled to tour battleground states (presumably with his VP) through Wednesday, ending up in Colorado. One of these states is said to be Montana. See:
Why would Obama not think he can win Montana, Florida, or Ohio?
Obama performed well in Montana during the primaries, and he has continued to poll well there (the most recent poll of Montana--from right-leaning Rasmussen, no less--has the state tied). Montana has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. Obama will be making his fifth visit to the state on Wednesday (to Billings--anecdotally, two relatives who live in Billings tell me that there is more enthusiasm on the ground there for Obama than for McCain). McCain has not visited Montana. Part of politics is showing up. Undecided Montana voters may break heavily for Obama if they feel McCain has ignored them.
In Florida, the race is also close. The most recent poll of Florida has Obama down just 1 point. August polls of Florida have shown a trend toward Obama, with McCain's lead dropping from 6 to 4 to 2 to 1. McCain has mostly ignored Florida, which may cost him undecideds (see above).
As for Ohio, since May only one pollster has shown McCain ahead of Obama there--that's right, Rasmussen. Rasmussen has a disproportionate influence on poll averages because he puts out the most polls. Take his polls out of the Ohio mix and Obama has a healthy lead there. Now, Rasmussen may be dead-on currently; but if he's not, then the current poll averages are off by quite a bit.
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:31 PM
I gave up trying to respond to the Republi-trolls.
Just keep asking them how many houses they own. They either a) won't remember, or b) will get really mad and defensive. You know what that means? We finally hit them where it hurt. They are supposed to be the party of the "common folk" not the rich, pampered, condescending, dare I say it--elite. Shucks.
Better luck next time guys :)
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:34 PM
It makes one wonder. Here all of the Obama young'uns on this blog are clamoring about how they are going to win in NC,Fla, GA, Va and the like. It is reported in Real Clear Politics this morning that the Obama campaign has stopped running ads in those aforementioned states and three other red states. One wonders why? I mean its not like he doesn't have the money to run ads right? His campaign has mega bucks. He must feel that it is useless. I guess he is going to take the Kerry route after all.
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:35 PM
I have serious doubts at times about Politico's and Realclear's site integrity, as they both seem to feed into Fox's different polemical leads of the day.
Why spend money on advertising when you've got the convention etc wall to wall.
This is a non-story
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:44 PM
You do make a point. I give credit where credit is due.
Posted on August 22, 2008 5:50 PM
Well, this is from the Boston Globe:
"Barack Obama has pulled his TV ads from seven states that voted Republican in 2004, including the perennial swing state of Florida and two others -- North Carolina and Virginia -- he had been agressively targeting as part of his 50-state strategy.
The move could suggest that Obama is returning to a more traditional game plan of focusing on key battleground states to reach the 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency.
Obama's campaign told Fox News Network, which first reported the shift, that it is a temporary suspension during the Democratic convention. The other states are Alaska, Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota."
Boston Globe called it "switching gears." I have two ideas:
1. These are very NEGATIVE ads and Obama does not want his POSITIVE message at the convention to be set in a split screen with any of these ads.
2. Some Democrats (donors) complained that in some of these states it was a waste of money and they wanted more focus for their bucks.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Why is not McCain doing better? Because of unhappiness with George Bush. That McCain is doing as well as he is (or that Obama is not doing better in a year made for Democrats) is the real question. Interestingly, Dems are way ahead on a generic ballot poll, but Obama falls way short of that benchmark.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:23 PM
I don't buy into this Rick Generic trip at all. The democratic Congress is held in as much or more contempt as Bush. McCain is stalled and some unexpected red states are very much in play.
As regards the ads, please be aware of where obama and running mate are visiting in the next few days.
There is absolutely no need to advertise when you are getting a mountain of free editorial, is there?
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:31 PM
The Straight Talk Express is now officially the Dark Side Limited, and the presidential election has turned into a referendum on cynicism. It no longer matters to McCain's handlers whether their charge is telling the truth or not, so they have him making goofy statements suggesting that calling Obama a cheese-eating surrender monkey isn't questioning his patriotism, just his judgement. So much for rationality, and thanks for the memories, Karl.
McCain may get all the way to the White House with this sort of BS, and thus prove P.T.Barnum's quip that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, but McCain's recent bump could still be just that.
I'm waiting for the push poll where undecided voters (maybe not in South Carolina, this time) are asked "How would you feel if you knew that Barack Obama had two black children?" Think Rove can talk McCain's handlers into it? They just want everybody to "lighten up" right?
I bring up Rove for obvious reasons. He's the ultimate cynic, and if anyone thinks he's uninvolved, I think they're naive.
"Obama young'uns"... funny. Spoken like a true McCane raiser.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:34 PM
KipTin,even Fox's story is saying its only temporary, until after the convention. And since everyone including the Boston Globe seems to be parroting fox, I think we need someone to independently confirm with the Obama campaign before determining what theis means if anything
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:35 PM
This number of "houses" back and forth is stupid. Until the Clintons left the White House they owned ZERO houses. As I recall at the time that was used AGAINST them. Now they apparently own too many (and that is used AGAINST them). The number of houses one owns or wealth does not describe an "out-of-touch" elitist in the context of politics. Rather it is the attitude. Hint: POWs are NOT considered to be elitist... especially those that occupied the Hanoi Hilton for several years.
FYI: I am not GOP... I voted for Bill, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern. This is the first year I am NOT voting for the Democratic nominee and for several reasons. Top of the list is Obama has not enought experience and his Chicago politics past makes me consider him RISKY. Not all those against Obama are GOP and/or trolls.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:36 PM
If it's more than a "temporary suspension," then why did Obama just spend three days in North Carolina and Virginia? And why is he planning to visit Montana on Wednesday?
It's possible that he's ignoring the most recent polls (showing him ahead in Alaska and Montana, and tied in Virginia). Red states where he will apparently continue to advertise include Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. His new strategy may be to focus on flipping these 46 electoral votes (29 more than he needs).
More likely, though, he is not running ads in the states named because McCain is not running ads in these states. Obama will get plenty of free media next week, meaning he will still be on the air in these states more than McCain.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:41 PM
I can recommend you a good psychotherapist as you seem to be living in a Walter Mitty world and quite delusional.
OK... ALL of Fox News are lies (FYI: I never watch their TV news) and ALL of MSNBC is truth and therefore does not need to be "independently" confirmed. Why get so hot and bothered about Obama ads in or not in red states? I do not get it.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:42 PM
Running ads (very expensive) and campaigning in person are NOT the same thing.
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:50 PM
KipTin, welcome to politics if you don't get it.
Also yes houses by themselves don't represent being out of touch, no more than being well loved and able to draw a crowd, represents you as out of touch, yet having so many houses you can't remember the number does mean you're out of touch, trying to use your years as a POW as an excuse for your bad policies and gaffes is out of touch, not knowing the price of Milk or gas is out of touch
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:52 PM
Yes KipTin ads are different than campaigning, but why run expensive ads in expensive markets when you are getting free advertising for a week?
Posted on August 22, 2008 6:53 PM
the media is waiting for obama to pick his running mate so they can tear him apart because it wont be hillary,who is they fooling,as soon as we find out i bet the first thing the media do is talk about the hillary clinton supporters,there wont be a bounce,obama polls number might even go back because of this love mccain media
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:07 PM
Sorry KipTin, but I just don't believe your voting record. If it's true, I apologize.
You know your name is niTpiK spelled backwards. Maybe you lost your broad-mindedness along the way.
FYI I actually campaigned for Goldwater in '64, but that was back when I believed everything I was told.
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:09 PM
As you can tell, I have been voting for some time so maybe I should welcome you to politics... and investments. Do you realize that many many people actually invest in houses for long term gain? Unless they are involved in the everyday management they may not know how many houses, apartments, condos they own. Do you also understand that McCain is not party to Cindy McCain's trust investments and that he indeed would not know off hand how many houses were investments. I really do believe that McCain just wanted to be as accurate as possible. Anyway is till think this "number of houses" attack is really stupid. Obama is trying to paint a former POW as elitist. All Obama is doing is playing to his base. He is not getting any new votes from this.
BTW... Has the Obamanation considered that Obama still has to go around the country doing fundraising after the convention and McCain does not? More chances for Obama to make "bitter" (aka elitist) comments at SF-like fundraisers while McCain campaigns full time.
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:17 PM
The fact that Obama will need to continue fundraising after his convention is a downside to his strategy. However, if he continues to raise money at his current pace, he will have about 100 million dollars at the end of September (assuming he spends all of the money he currently has by the end of this month). He could choose to stop fund-raising with a month to go before the election and still have 15-20 million more to spend on the stretch-run than McCain (who will be limited to 84 million).
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:26 PM
Why would you not believe my voting record? You are in fact implying I am a liar because I decided to not vote for Obama? Obama is the least experienced presidential candidate in recent history. Obama is a Chicago wheeler-dealer and that is not a compliment. I really question his judgement on many issues... including his long term associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko who are all involved in Chicago politics. Well, the rest of the nation are not so impressed with the characters in Chicago politics and their often radical ideas. Evoking the names of the Mayors Daley (Sr. and Jr.) usually is used in the context of power and corruption rather than clean politics and ethics.
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:28 PM
You forget that the RNC will be supplementing McCain's campaign expenditures and already has a nice campaign fund balance. And that Bush will be the primary fundraiser of which he is pretty good. The DNC is far behind the RNC. Too bad Obama labeled Bill Clinton as a racist because he could be out their helping to raise funds big time. Instead he is focusing on funding his nonprofit global initiative... which is a much better use of money anyway.
Posted on August 22, 2008 7:34 PM
wow kiptin, when did you get out of the asylum?
Posted on August 22, 2008 8:23 PM
Once Barack is president, he's not in Chicago any more. I have no love for Chicago politics, but everybody has to come from somewhere. Is Barack a typical Chicago pol? Hardly. He's not typical in any sense. That's why he's DIFFERENT.
How about Texas politics? Or Florida? Or Ohio?
The Ayers thing is really a ridiculous point. Was he doing good work when Obama knew him? Yes. Did Obama sign off on Ayers' well-known 60's misdeeds? No.
If Obama acted improperly vis a vis Rezko, why wasn't he called on it?
Rev. Wright? Please. Is he Obama's foreign policy advisor? Do you disagree that 9/11 was completely unrelated to U.S. foreign policy since god knows when--even in the twisted minds of the terrorists?
OK, let's say I believe your voting record. I think you're picking nits with Obama's qualifications and ignoring the full-grown lice surrounding McCain. When so much depends on change now, McCain may not be Bush 3, but he's looking more and more like Bush2.5.
I'll risk it with Obama any day.
Posted on August 22, 2008 8:26 PM
@ Mike_in_CA, I agree. Hey what part of California are you in?
Posted on August 22, 2008 8:45 PM
obama never once called bill clinton a racist. no one called bill clinton a rascist. it was the the comment he made that was called into question. and even then it was not obama who did the questioning.the media did. rascist is when you call someone a little man black child or a halfrican like rush limbaugh. things that are intended to get a reaction. what bill clinton did was not intentionally done. but it was said and people did have the right to question the statement.
Posted on August 22, 2008 9:29 PM
Obama would bring his Chicago crew with him to the White House because that is who helped get him elected.
If you compare to Texas politics, etc. than you have NO clue what I am talking about. You need to do more research if you think Obama differs from other Chicago politicians. A quick search of the Chicago Tribune will bring up many stories. For example, when Obama ran for the state legislature he used the standard procedure for eliminating ALL of his competition. He ran unopposed.
Obama associated with Wright (his mentor), Ayers (his colleague and board member), and Rezko (also his mentor and fundraiser) over a long period of time...from Obama's beginnings in Chicago. You are cavalierly dismissing Obama's BAD judgement for CLOSELY associating with these people over a couple of decades... and continued to associate when Obama had already decided he wanted to run for president.
Really stupid lice metaphor. Yes, I know what nitpick means, but the lice around McCain is nonsensical analogy. It is Obama who associated with a non-repetent terrorist bomber (and founder of Weather Underground) as well as a Chicago fund-raiser who is now a convicted felon.... People he called FRIENDS... and thus requires "nitpicking."
Posted on August 22, 2008 9:39 PM
Well, tell that to Bill. Obama said that Bill was "dismissive" of him and considered Obama a "fairy tale" (of course taken out of context). Obama (and his campaign) also directly stated that several of Bill's and Hillary's comments were to be considered in the context of Obama being a black man (aka "race). Obama tried the same with McCain and got called on it.
Being a minority, I know "race-speak" when I hear it... and so do the Clintons.
Posted on August 22, 2008 9:48 PM
Oh my, I haven't heard or read one original idea from a conservative in ages. It's all slogans and repetitions from Fox News and Talk Radio. You guys blindly adopt their rhetoric and are becoming automatons. Vote for McCain if you'd like but, by all means, learn to think for yourselves.
Posted on August 22, 2008 10:18 PM
so you assume i do not know what race speak is. fyi i am black. how is the dismissive and fairy tale comment considered to be racespeak sounds like hes saying that the clintons didnt take him seriously. was not the south carolina comments in the context of obama being black. i think it was. and just because one of mccains advisers said that obama was playing the race card does nto mean it it true. he said they would try to seize on the fact that obama is different. never one did he say black. if you are gonna say that obama is using race speak than i could say the same about mccains campaign. saying obama is arrogant and presumptive. i could say that is race speak for him being uppity.doesnt mean its true but i can read it that way.
Posted on August 22, 2008 11:00 PM
Interestingly, Obama is not pulling ads from Indiana (this thread originally started in response to a poll of Indiana). He clearly believes he can win there. This poll has McCain up there by 4 (without leaners); a Survey USA poll released earlier in the week had McCain up 6--but with McCain receiving 19% of the African-American vote (unlikely). So, McCain is ahead in Indiana by about 4 points.
Biden should help Obama in this state. Indiana is largely white, and the Roman Catholic church is the largest denomination there. A white male Roman Catholic whose expertise is in foreign policy should be able to connect with many Indiana voters.
Posted on August 23, 2008 12:05 AM
It was hectic the past 24 hours, two friends and I getting down heavily on the GOP to win Indiana. Once it obviously wasn't going to be Bayh at VP, giving 3/2 on McCain is a bargain. I'll take my chances at those odds in a state with 42% conservatives.
Actually I wish a poll like this had been delayed. There were others competing against us today, grabbing GOP contracts in Indiana, plus playing the number at the one fixed odds site that was available. It's now up to 65/35 and that will climb.
Posted on August 23, 2008 5:58 AM
well it looks like north carolina is now a tossup state on here
Posted on August 23, 2008 7:22 AM
Obama will outspent McCain after the conventions. "
obama outspent Mccain, 55 mil to 32 mil in july
Posted on August 23, 2008 9:34 AM
The trading price on the GOP to win Indiana has soared 11% today. Don't say I didn't warn about that. I mentioned a few weeks ago that sharp guys were getting ready to pounce on that absurd price if Bayh was not the VP.
My friends and I beat the rush yesterday. Something like that fit right in with my sports wagering background, anticipation and getting there early. It's not always the result. Get the right price and you have incredibly favorable options.
Posted on August 23, 2008 2:35 PM
"obama outspent Mccain, 55 mil to 32 mil in july"
This is July numbers and Obama's lead in July was much higher than in August. McCain and RNC outspent Obama and DNC by a large margins in August (for example Olympic ads 8M McCain to 6M Obama).
"The trading price on the GOP to win Indiana has soared 11% today."
Obama is up 3.7% and McCain is down 1.3%. So, it is a 5% jump in InterTrade. Obama leads 62.1% to 39%. It is difficult to BS when you really put money on what you say.
Posted on August 23, 2008 5:19 PM
Final EV range for Obama-Biden: 341 to 378. They will win FL, OH, and PA.
McCain comes in under 200.
Posted on August 24, 2008 12:56 AM
Numbers like that would amount to a mandate for change which would go a long way to closing the door on the most shameful administration in American history.
Here's hoping you're right.
Posted on August 24, 2008 3:00 PM
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