McCain 45, Obama 43
Gov: Perdue (D) 47, McCrory (R) 46
Sen: Dole (R-i) 53, Hagen 39
Yikes, more bad news for McSame. What was that again about how Obama couldn't turn red states blue? Ooops....
With AA turnout sure to be astronomical, this is fast approaching game, set and match for McSame. He better have his 527s go make up more lies to spread about Obama....and fast. This thing may be over before it begins. And we haven't even had the stunning side by side visual of the two. Wait til the debates where any living person with half a brain will check out of McSame's camp.
November is shaping up to be an outright slaughter. The streets will run red with republicans blood.....
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:07 PM
Wow. Can we admit that North Carolina is a swing state this election yet?
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:15 PM
I don't really think that this state will go Blue in November. The high number of undecideds in this poll paired with the most recent Survey USA poll make me think that alot of these undecideds are leaning towards McCain but aren't sure yet. Still, if Obama can force McCain to defend a state like North Carolina, that's really, really bad news for McCain as he will have less money to spend in places like Ohio or Virginia.
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:35 PM
Ok so I am in shock (and I actually am an Obamacan) I thought NC was going to be lip service of the Obama campaign to force McCain to have to defend it... wow he actually may have to defend it. Where do I look for registration numbers in the state? It would be interesting to see if Obama gets the bounce from the newly registered AA's. While some of this if Hillary bounce... a win could come from increased voter registration. Let me know if any of you guys know
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:36 PM
I love how the McCain battleground plans list Washington and Oregon as toss ups (not even leaning Democrat) while they think North Carolina and Virginia are safely Republican. I sure hope they continue using past elections to decide where to fight this year.
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:37 PM
Does the 6% voting for a "3rd party option" mean Bob Barr?
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:45 PM
I'm not sure where you can find registration info, but if you want to help Obama's campaign, http://my.barackobama.com is a good place to start. He has campaign offices in every state, and a national phone network. I'm a fellow Obamacan in Georgia, and we head out to register new voters every weekend in my home town. Face to face contact with those who have been turned off by politics really does wonders.
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:48 PM
Guys, don't get carried away--the poll doesn't actually show Obama ahead. I admit, though, that if Obama loses NC by two he's probably going to get about 300 EV.
The funniest thing about the McCain strategy map is that they list KY and TN as merely 'lean R' while VA is 'safe.' They really haven't been paying attention at all.
Posted on June 12, 2008 4:50 PM
FYI -- I've added Senate and Gubernatorial numbers to the above post.
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:12 PM
I think the most hilarious aspect of the McCain 'strategy map' is the assertion that California will be a battleground state.
I can't wait for him to pour his millions into what is essentially a black hole for the GOP in '08.
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:23 PM
Something that is going to shock people is turnout. As dammerman said above, the movement to register new voters is already beginning and will pay huge dividends in the fall. Polls only show a snapshot of what is going on. How many of these people who actually come out and vote will be what stuns people.
I would hate to be a republican running for office right now......
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:28 PM
One poll? Doesn't mean that much, but man, this is the third poll that comes like this. 3 or 2 points behind McSame should not make Republicans feel comfortable at all.
"A survey of 500 likely voters Tuesday by polling firm Rasmussen Reports shows McCain has 45 percent of the vote and Obama has 43 percent. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
The results are similar to a WRAL News poll released days after the state's May 6 primary, when McCain topped Obama by a 48 to 45 percent margin."
In addition to the one from PPP which had McCain 43%, Obama 40% from 05/28 - 05/29.
If this continues McSame will be running around like a chicken without a head, not to mention the money he will spend because I think the media market in North Carolina is kind of expensive. Poor grampy McSame!!!
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:30 PM
That's a remarkable result, although as Pavo1313 said, you have to look at the undecideds. On the other hand, these polls do not adjust for what will surely be a huge increase in black turnout. So, being 2% behind in NC is actually being ahead.
I've been skeptical that Obama might win NC this year, but I'm not quite as skeptical now.
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:33 PM
This is heartening for a couple of reasons - none of which are that it means Obama will win NC, since, well, he probably won't.
1) It means McCain will have to defend NC. Every dollar he and the RNC spend in North Carolina is one that didn't get spent in a swing state that's a better chance for Obama.
2) It will grow the Democratic party in North Carolina if it's a competitive state. North Carolina is a flippable southern state. Increasing urban populations, high black population, and a developing wealthy urban population in the Research Triangle and Charlotte areas is good news for the Democrats. Even if they don't take it in 2008, a strong candidate in NC builds the party for 2012, where, if Obama wins in 2008, he'll be a strong contender for taking it in his re-election.
3) It speaks more broadly to the success of Dean's 50 state strategy and of Obama as a map-changing candidate. Even if the end electoral map is a small adjustment from the Gore/Kerry strategies, the fact of the matter is, the Democrats are evolving as a party in a genuinely promising way, and this is a sign of that.
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:37 PM
pluck - agreed. snow - it is winnable this year. hill and bill haven't even started campaigning for him yet. we'll see what effect that makes.....
Remember the turnout. only half of eligible people usually vote. if obama can increase that just a bit to his side, it is over.
Posted on June 12, 2008 5:57 PM
Yes, remember how far off they were in the primary? I wonder if poll error will be the same for the general? Obama's support was seriously misjudged against Clinton....will it be the same against McCain?
Posted on June 12, 2008 6:07 PM
Dear onelightonvoice: The problem with Obama support and the pollsters in the primaries was that Obama's candidacy put traditional voters vs. the non-traditional voters. For example, pollsters don't know what to expect from young voters or what to expect from AA's. These types of voters are for the most part non-traditional so it's pretty inaccurate to use historical data to project turnout. You have also got to take into account that Obama has proven to be an "unusual" candidate. I still don't understand why he is apealing to white people in states like Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Idaho, or South Dakota for that matter. You know, these are not latte-sipping states. But well, I just wonder.
Now, although I'm not sure whether Obama will win NC or Virginia, I think that he will give McCain a headache in these states, based on the combination of a good % of AA population and highly educated whites.
Posted on June 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Favorable Obama 49%...McCain 55%
And Margin of sampling error 4.5% ergo statistically tied.
FACT: Regarding the "McCain Strategy"... You should pay closer attention. The "battleground" states are based on HISTORICALLY what are Democrat states as opposed to Republican states. The "battleground" states are what are remaining. These states are not specifically "selected" by McCain as battleground but rather based on past statistics.
Posted on June 12, 2008 8:43 PM
A comment about the undecideds: what makes people on this forum think that they will break for McCain in a traditionally Republican state?
Though it makes sense given the history of the state's voting patterns, and Bush isn't running, elections are general referendums on the incumbent candidate (or in this case party). Isn't it reasonable to assume that the undecideds will break for the challenger?
Posted on June 12, 2008 10:21 PM
What you guys don't mention is that Kerry was down only 5% in June, 2004 (in a Research2000 poll, the only NC GE poll conducted that month), yet ended up losing by 12%.
Things will settle down.
Posted on June 12, 2008 10:41 PM
If you go to McCain's site and watch the 'strategy briefing', you'll notice that they specifically say that they'll have a great shot in winning California. So yes, they will be dumping a lot of cash into it.
Also, starting a sentence with "FACT:" may persuade small children, but it's not so convincing with poll-watchers/statisticians.
Posted on June 12, 2008 11:38 PM
"What you guys don't mention is that Kerry was down only 5% in June, 2004 (in a Research2000 poll, the only NC GE poll conducted that month), yet ended up losing by 12%.
Things will settle down."
The Democratic primary vote alone topped Kerry's total general election vote from 2004. Things will settle down indeed, but be careful what you wish for. ;)
Posted on June 12, 2008 11:41 PM
i'm willing to buy that obama supporters through sheer force of greater motivation could turn out in greater numbers and therefore affect this state in their favor, but i also believe this will be offset by conservatives fleeing from Barr at the last minute, just as liberals fled from nader in 2000 and 2004. in both elections, nader received far fewer votes than projected.
north carolina still looks to be well in hand for mccain in my opinion. honestly if he manages to lose NC, the election is over and done with anyway. that would signal a landslide for obama. if mccain can't win in NC, he won't win very many states at all.
Posted on June 13, 2008 12:32 AM
Remember the turnout. only half of eligible people usually vote. if obama can increase that just a bit to his side, it is over.
Thia is why the Republicans are desperate to do one or both of the following: Come up with some bizarre smear; re-invent him as nothing new -- just another politician.
Either one of those things would prevent Obama from energizing people who are usually outside of the system. I think the Republicans are well aware that they'll have a hard time portraying him as the same old stuff, especially when their own candidate is so old. So, as with the past five elections, they'll be going for the smear.
Posted on June 13, 2008 12:45 AM
It will certainly be tough to paint Obama as a typical politician. Considering the media firestorms he endured over the primary season, he seems to have a teflon coating that's not coming off. One must admit he's been remarkably resilient.
I agree with you on the impending smear strategy, and it's why Obama's reluctance to go negative could be his Achilles heal.
This is why Dems lose elections. Haven't they learned anything?
Posted on June 13, 2008 12:57 AM
The Democratic primary vote alone topped Kerry's total general election vote from 2004.
But you fail to mention that the Republican primaries broke the 2004 records as well. Indeed it broke ALL records for Republicans.
Needless to say, primary turnout has absolutely nothing to do with General Election outcome.
Posted on June 13, 2008 2:22 AM
this isn't good for obama.
he's lost florida and ohio.
and he can't carry a state with the highest portion of black voters?
he's in trouble.
Posted on June 13, 2008 7:51 AM
Are you just being sarcastic now? Or are you really that out there?
Posted on June 13, 2008 8:09 AM
For the first time in my adult life I am proud of North Carolina electorate.
It appears that a growing number of my fellow Tar-heels have decided to reject the old ways and try something new! For years, I hung my head at having to admit to friends from other states that, Yes, I come from the state that sent Jesse Helms to the senate five times. But now I have a chance to say that we have changed our red state blue. Whether it is Carolina or Duke blue I am not sure!
Posted on June 13, 2008 9:51 AM
Obama is losing the state with the highest percentage of black voters? I was unaware that there was recent polling out of Mississippi (37%). How's he doing in the next few - Louisiana (33%), Georgia (30%), Maryland (30%), South Carolina (30%), and Alabama (27%)?
I hear he's only 2 points down in the state with the 7th highest percentage of black voters, North Carolina.
Posted on June 13, 2008 9:54 AM
The Republican primary in NC was virtually uncontested this year and broke no records. Of course it had more participation than 2004 since 2004 was totally uncontested. Haha. Bush was running for re-election and nobody challenged him.
Think before you make such bold statements. Just because you say them doesn't mean they're true.
Posted on June 13, 2008 10:04 AM
Silly Mike, facts are for Dems.
Posted on June 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Again... josephj... I direct your attention to the concept of an "intelligent and civil comment." Personally belittling another poster with comments like "may persuade small children, but it's not so convincing with poll-watchers/statisticians" does NOT meet that criteria and is pretty darn condescending. So you are a "statistician?" Really?
I was in "fact" referring specifically to statistics. Maybe you should have addressed that "fact" instead of being RUDE.
But you now change the focus. California is NOT listed as a "battleground" state... but rather a "blue" state. Yes, the McCain strategy includes California since it is the neighboring state to Arizona, AND it has a high number of Independent voters (a "statistical" basis for McCain's strategy.)
Posted on June 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Nickberry - indeed, California is listed on this map as a solid Democrat state. On this one it is listed as a state McCain intends to contest.
We should note, both of these maps are deeply silly, and if they actually represent McCain's campaign strategy, his donors should cease donating immediately and start focusing on some House and Senate races - not only because the map has McCain spending in California, which he can't win, but because it has McCain spending to defend Arizona, which he can't possibly lose. It also seems to believe that Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington are outright toss-up states, as opposed to the Democrat leaning states they are. And it seems to think that McCain is in more danger in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee than he is in Virginia and North Carolina - which is clearly not the case.
In short, the strategy has McCain focusing on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania when in fact he should only focus on Michigan and Ohio, it has him wasting money in California and Connecticut on losing contests, and wasting money defending Arizona unnecessarily. It has him ignoring Kansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri - all states Obama will surely put non-trivial resources on the ground in and potentially flip, particularly if McCain is caught sleeping at the post there.
Now, whether those maps are really McCain's strategy is an open question. But if they are, the strategy is suicidal.
Posted on June 14, 2008 10:06 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