09/29-10/01,08; 2,747 RV 2%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 48, McCain 43
Gallup back up 1 from yesterday. Seems steady to me. Only 6% apparently undecided. 3% for 3d party or none of the above.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:15 PM
This is CLEARLY the slide that Boomshak spoke of by Sunday. FAIL.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:17 PM
Excellent. Maybe some stability in Gallup.
Hmm, if Obama can run the clock with a +5% average in the national polls that could mean good changes for him in the Electoral College.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:19 PM
Obama gained a point in rasmussen too. I haven't seen a poll showing Obama up less than 4 points all week. I think it's pretty clear that this race is no longer "tight."
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:20 PM
Ahhh lay of the boomer.. he's just doing his job. But let me go and make a boomshak-like prediction. After tonight's debate, the Gallup tightens to within 2/3 points.. until after Tuesday's debate. That will get him into a good lather.
Wow, is there any poll left with a lead under five?
In other news, the Intrade odds are now almost exactly 2-1.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:21 PM
Please boomshak, tell us how the race will be tied by Sunday?
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:22 PM
OBAMAS SUPPORT IS CRATERING!!!!!!! ... oh wait, just kidding.
the debate tonight will change nothing, save for the trajectory of Sarah Palin's political career. If she performs better than expected (i.e she puts together a coherent sentence) then she MAY have a future in national politics....
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:24 PM
Boomshak's a WINDBAG.
Today, Barack Obama has 269 electoral votes outside the battleground zone. That is, if you only give Obama the states he is projected to win by more than five points, that is enough to get him an Electoral College tie, which is essentially the same as a win.
This race is literally almost OVER for McCain.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:25 PM
Boomshak must be on his way to Israel to personally supervise the attack on Iran.
Trosen - I was just about to predict the same thing! If Palin so much as says her name correctly she's won the debate (or rather, not lost it) - that's how low her expectations have fallen. Things will tighten until, as you say, Tuesday's debate - after which we'll see another burst for Obama....
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:26 PM
where has boomstupid been the last few days?? his silence is deafening(sp?)
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:27 PM
He was in the Marist Poll forum just now trying to say that if Palin does well tonight it changes everything.
He then cited 5 national polls showing Obama with a 5 pt lead or less (while ignoring the 6 that show a 6 pt lead or more) as a case to why a good Palin debate could tie this all up.
He's a joke.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:30 PM
Stay on message.
Stay on message.
Stay on message.
Stay on message.
Stay on message.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:32 PM
Obama back to 5% lead. Doesn't it have something to do with Palin's interview? She is really the gift that keeps on giving :-)
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:33 PM
In today's national polls, McCain is now 0 for 6; in yesterday's national polls, he went 0 for 12.
The smallest Obama lead in today's national polls is 5%.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:37 PM
Hey guys a 5 point lead with 33 days before election is pretty significant. only one candidate was able to overcome such a lead, and that was ronald regan. i have to say i have been so surprised with florida, i never thought it would start trending obama!
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:39 PM
I am LAUGHING at this argument that if Palin does well it could swing back 2-3%. FOR A VP? Are you NUTS? LOL She could do NO BETTER than a slight loss tonight. Biden will get equal time to talk. He will sound articulate. She will sound, well, no offense, like a soccer Mom. Even if she does well it's advantage BIDEN on substance. SOME of you guys are putting WAY too much into this.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:42 PM
I think Obama's national lead now may be bigger than it's ever been.
I hope Palin talks and talks and talks in tonight's debate. The more she talks the worse people think of her. How many times do you think that she will say the words:Maverick(s), Reform, Liberal? If you want to get drunk tonight, there is a good game: Every time she says those words, you have a shot. Get ready for the hangover tomorrow :-)
*Unfortunately, I don't like alcohol, so no game for me. I will try soda or something like that, but it is not as fun.
change great point. AND KEEP IN MIND, Reagan had 1 debate that year. He blew it out of the water once they debated and people were "comfortable" with him. Sound familiar?
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:44 PM
I miss Boomshack.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:46 PM
It has to be Palin's interview. Note obama's support hasnt increased, McSame's has dropped
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:48 PM
Did Reagan really overcome the deficit you're describing?
I'm looking at Mark's posting here:
While some of the points on the 1980 graph show polls indicating a Carter lead, but the "trendlines" show a clear Reagan lead from about June onwards.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:49 PM
Portland.. whether you like her or hate her, people are interested. Yes, in a typical election year, this would be fairly meanignless (like the Cheney/Edwards debate, which was as interesting as watching paint dry, and even made ME dislike Edwards). But so many people are tuning in to watch her stumble and flail and do a reverse impression of Tina Fey doing an impression of Palin, she could actually "win over" (at least temporarily) some people by holding her own tonight. And if she does, the McCain camp can the sieze on that and say "see, see, when it's not 'gotcha' journalism, she's not that bad after all." And that I believe can boost them a little bit. But doubtfully enough to really make it that close. But, you never know.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:51 PM
New Mason-Dixon VA poll:
9/29-10/1, 625 RV, MOE 4%
No demographics appear to be available, but some selected crosstab results are in the article:
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:54 PM
What about the theory that many people are tuning in to watch her stumble and flail and, if she doesn;t, they'll be disappointed and take it out on her campaign.
lol, I know it sounds ridiculous, but is it a possibility?
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:55 PM
there are pollster with higher rankings that have constantly shown obama ahead significantly such survey usa. i'm gonna wait and see the next VA poll
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:57 PM
"I am LAUGHING at this argument that if Palin does well it could swing back 2-3%. FOR A VP?"
She probably cannot help much, but she could definitely hurt the ticket. McCain could be at 38% if she completely bombs.
If this was late October it would be a landslide. McCain can't talk his way back into this, he needs a game changer.
Posted on October 2, 2008 1:58 PM
I definitely think Palin has the potential to hurt the ticket much more than help.
However, I think that with the bar set so low for her, she'll probably helping the ticket slightly.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:00 PM
Palio is the best thing that ever happened to Dan Quayle. I just talked to one of my redneck, racist friends in Louisiana. She's thinking about voting for Obama b/c of McCane's erratic behavior.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:01 PM
If Plain wins the debate handily, bringing white women back to McCain, the election will be tied on Gallup by Sunday.
If she doesn't hit a home run tonight, it's over.
The sad thing is that it's the f*cking idiot consultants on McCain's team that have over-coached and ruined Palin. No wonder, dumb-ass Mccain picked a bunch of former Bush advisors who helped Bush perfect his "croouch and defend" style.
A shame really. If they had just let "Sarah Be Sarah" this would be a whole different race right now.
Political Consultants are like a "prevent defense" in football. All it ever prevents is you from winning. If you got the lead by being on offense, stay the f*ck on offense. dance with the one that brought ya.
*Lord I wish Romney was the nominee. We can thank ole sh*thead Huckabee for screwing that pooch. Romney/Jindal would be very formidable right here (or maybe even Romney/Bloomberg?).
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:02 PM
"If Plain wins the debate handily"
"If Palin wins the debate handily"
lol, can't type worth sh*t.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:03 PM
Halprin claims McCain's pulling his people out of Michigan:
He must really think Sarah's going to do great tonight.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:04 PM
That VA poll is the first good news for McCain in a while.. but it doesn't jibe with like the last 10 we've seen.. so we'll see if there are more that are favorable.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:05 PM
Halprin claims Obama raised the dead.
Dan Quail? Remember he was on the winning team?
Boom:"The sad thing is that it's the f*cking idiot consultants on McCain's team that have over-coached and ruined Palin. No wonder, dumb-ass Mccain picked a bunch of former Bush advisors who helped Bush perfect his "croouch and defend" style."
No, the sad thing is McCain picked a completely unqualified person for political reasons.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Or he realizes that he won't win Michigan and doesn't need to.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:07 PM
Romney/Bloomberg - now THAT would have been a ticket to deal with!
Virginia is a toss-up state no matter which poll Obamanation is awaiting for.
I'm sorry Boom - "Let Sarah be Sarah"? What is she exactly? Frighteningly ignorant, dim, arrogant. One of those people who revel in ignorance and try to distill it into a virtue.
For the record, I'm of thorough working class stock and was brought up to value education and have a curiosity about the broader world. In Ireland, (where I originally come from) we call people like Sarah Palin "culchies"....
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:09 PM
jamesugw: "In Ireland, (where I originally come from) we call people like Sarah Palin "culchies"...."
In this country, we call them "morons."
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:10 PM
I have to agree with you about Romney. Back during the primaries when it looked like Iraq was going to be the major issue of the election again, I was hoping that we'd be running against Romney, because he would be weak on foreign policy - this would hopefully offset the Republicans' built-in perception advantage in foreign policy (plus there's the being-Mormon thing, which would somewhat offset Obama's being-black thing).
Instead, the economy is taking center stage and the Republicans are running a foreign policy candidate in a domestic policy election (where Democrats have the built-in perception advantage). Aside from McCain's mis-management of his campaign, this I think is the number one reason why Obama is creaming him right now.
In retrospect I'm very glad that we aren't running against Romney, because that would negate some of the built-in economy advantage that Obama holds (plus Romney would never have been so stupid as to pick Palin for VP).
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:11 PM
yeah, 'moron' pretty much does the trick
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:12 PM
lol McCain has gave up on Michigan.
boom: I think Huckabee would have been a better nominee. I don't know what it is about Huckabee, but he really draws people to him. I am NOT a conservative or a republican (I actually consider myself more Green than anything), but I found myself wanting to vote for Huckabee in the primary for absolutely no good reason.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:13 PM
Romney definitely would have been the best GOP candidate for this political environment. Heck I'm pretty solid Obama, but I would consider a Romney/Jindal ticket if they could really show they would be true "competent leadership."
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:14 PM
Has it been overcoaching.. or lack of coaching? She seemed totally blindsided by questions that should have been obviously expected. I mean.. not able to name ANY Supreme Court cases besides Roe v Wade? I mean hell, throw out Brown vs the Board of Education for an example of a controversial Supreme Court ruling. Not able to name one McCain cost-cutting plan? It seems like "no" coaching to me.
I agree Romney would have been a better pick, but Bloomberg is a social liberal, unabashed. Romney used to be too, but not anymore. Besides, a Mormon and a Jewish is a ticket with too much novelty at once. Same with Obama and a woman. Guiliani and Romney would have been a nice team, though they'd have a hell of an ego battle to see who's on top... I think McCain should have just picked the Connecticut governor.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:16 PM
She was asked for one that she disagreed with... saying that she disagreed with Brown v. BOE would have been, uh, substantially worse.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:18 PM
Apparently many Canadians said they are more interested in Palin and will be tuning in instead of watching their own election debate tonight.
If Palin were not one of the participants, then this VP debate would be worse than ho-hum.
Palin is performing well for the GOP ticket. She gets attention away from Obama, she draws big crowds, she energizes the base, and she is a great fundraiser. McCain can thus focus on the campaign and is free to be McCain.
Even though Obama is up in the polls because of economic events, there are still over 4 weeks to go. And he still has to raise funds. He fell short of his $100 million goal in August and needs to make that up plus another $100 million for September. Did he do it? And then another $100 million for October. He is spending money fast. I mean who in their right mind buys national time for a 2-minute talking head commercial? Especially, when 30-second ads work best. Please tell me again how Obama's so-called money advantage will help him beat McCain.
Boomshak your evangelical friends that brought us George Bush WOULD HAVE NEVER been excited about Romney.
In other news from Politico.com
McCain pulling out of Michigan
John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.
McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.
McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans had been bullish on Michigan, hopeful that McCain's past success in the state in the 2000 primary combined with voter dissatisfaction with Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and skepticism among blue-collar voters about Barack Obama could make it competitive.
McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin spent the night after the GOP convention at a large rally in Macomb County, just outside Detroit. The two returned later last month for another sizable event in Grand Rapids.
But recent polls there have shown Obama extending what had been a small lead, with the economic crisis damaging an already sagging GOP brand in a state whose economy is in tatters.
A McCain event planned for next week in Plymouth, Michiigan, has been canceled.
"If Palin wins the debate handily"
Yep and IF my aunt had been born with a male appendage she'd be my uncle!
OBAMA-BIDEN ALL THE WAY!!!
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:19 PM
McCain disappoints me and Obama scares me. The main reason Obama scares me is that i know the reasonable center/right moderate he is presenting himself as is a complete lie.
You don't just go from being a black activist and most liberal member of Congress to being a center/right moderate overnight.
He may have a fresh coat of paint for the general election, but if you check under the hood, he's still all liberal I promise you.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:20 PM
Guys help me out please. My father insists that no matter what Obama's lead may be in the polls he won't win on election day because in his words, "People just won't pull the lever for a black guy". He says it's not a bubba vote but just white people in blue states that won't vote for him even though they tell the pollsters they will. I know this is a pretty standard argument we hear these days, but can someone tell me how to explain to him that's not true? I'm not smart enough to form the articulate response I need.
I'm dead serious about this, I'm not just trying to start a new topic of discussion. I would really be able to have a good answer to push back on him about this.
If a Democrat gets withing three on a Mason-Dixon (Mad-Dog) poll, he's in the lead. MD has always been one of the most consistently Republican-leaning of all of the major polls.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:22 PM
The election's in a month ... we'll find out then.
Please...Obamanation... listen to your argument against Palin about the Supreme Court cases. This is not a constitutional law quiz, nor vetting for Supreme Court Justice appointment.
Remember Obama at the Saddleback Civic Forum? He was specifically given the question ahead of time asking upon which THREE advisors he would rely on as President and he responded with his grandmother and his wife. TWO advisors and not very impressive in context of Presidential advisers.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:23 PM
McCain's leaving MI... He can't possibly think he's going to get Iowa or NM... So what Kerry state does he think he can win?
It will take more than New Hampshire.
I hope you're right because a number of his stated positions aren't liberal _enough_ for me.
Although I still strongly support him, because his positions are about as left as you can be and still have a shot at the presidency, which is a pretty sad commentary on the country, in my opinion.
Tyler I know, but it would have been easy to spin that into "controvesial" SC cases, which was kind of more of the tone she actually set with her rambling response, and then at least shown some knowledge. I mean there have been a bunch of rulings just in the past few years against the Bush Administration. She couldn't even come up with one of those?
As for other VP choices, Tom ridge could have helped tremendously in PA and OH and other rust-belt states. Romney could have very well helped carry MI (but McCain hates Romney's guts). Lieberman would have carried nothing, zip, nada, and GOP braintrust was right to nix that brilliant idea. Pawlenty could have helped in WI and MN. Hell, even Giuliani would have been a similar hailmary newsmaker, and he can actually do an interview. This Palin deal is backfiring badly.. but.. it was what it was.. desperation.
I don't think McCain is abandoning Michigan, I think the people of Michigan have abandoned the McLame/Barbie Titanic.
I spoke to my sister this afternoon. She was all set to vote McLame. Then came Palin. Now, my sister is so horrified by Palin that she's casting a protest vote for Bob Barr. Her quote was "I don't want to take ANY chance that that Bimbo might end up in the Oval Office."
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:24 PM
Tell your pops three words: HE BEAT HILLARY.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:25 PM
Giuliani would have presented the same problem for McCain as his true preferred VP, Joe Lieberman. That is, the evangelicals would have revolted at the convention.
Obama doesn't even need to campaign anymore. The media is "swift boating" McCain-Palin.
"unqualified person". please.
she is the most qualified of the four. she's ran a business, a city, and a state. Obama has never had a job or made an executive decision in his life.
"moron"?? you mean like twice elected W?
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:26 PM
You're referring to the Bradley Effect which was documented in the 1980s. All recent studies on the phenomenon, however, have indicated that it does not really exist anymore or, at most, will have a negligible influence on the polling before an election.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:27 PM
How do you know that Mason-Dixon is consistently GOP-leaning? Is it your political bias, or based on factual findings?
By the way, there are several Democrat-leaning polls, too. Right? Let's ferret them all out and divvy them up as Dem or GOP, while we forget that these are just polls with sampling errors (for many good reasons other than political ID)... and then ignore also that in the case of Virginia that it is a toss-up state no matter what polls are leaning which direction.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Have your father explain to you how he won states like Iowa and Oregon.
nick-socal. I have an example of why the Bradley effect argument may be bogus.
Proof? THE PRIMARY.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:29 PM
I love this account of how the old man is losing it:
nick - Not that this is awe inspiring, but tell him white people have changed. The younger generations are different. We weren't around during the civil rights movement. We never had our supposed 'differences' drilled into our brains. In fact, we've had a lot of strong, positive black role models. And ensure him that the the less than 30 year olds are out in force this year. More than ever, and they are putting their all into getting Barack Obama elected because we want and need this man to lead us. He is representative of the plurality of America. Half Kenyan, half Kansan, all American.
Wow, marctx, you're right, we've been picking our presidents wrong all along. We've been electing senators, generals, secretaries of state, and long-term governors when all this time we should have been looking for folksy small-town mayors who have the _real_ experience.
Sarah Palin is the most qualified of the 4? That qualifies as most absurd statement of the day.
Just ask him those following questions:
1- Obama won the primaries in the whitest states over Hillary Clinton, Edwards etc
I am talking about CO, MAINE, UT, IA, CT, VT, IN(lost by only a couple of thousands votes), WA, MONTANA and so on ...
2- Tell him if he's the nominee now it's because white independents along with Republicans favored him over Hillary
3- Tell your father to stop being an ...
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:30 PM
Are Boomshak and Portland Rocks the same person?
I still can't believe McCain is pulling out of Michigan...
That's the whole friggin ballgame for him! How much money has he spent there?!! How else is he possibly going to win without ANY OFFENSE AT ALL?
I'm for Obama, but seeing a major-ticket candidate just wave the white flag like this seems kind of ...bad for Democracy somehow.
Has everyone printed out your PALIN BINGO cards for the entertainment tonight?
Grab your popcorn!
no, the Bradley effect still does exist.. but it exists in states that are already well in McCain's camp to begin with, or in some Northeastern states where it's not going to make a difference. The places I'd worry about it coming to fruition would be OH, VA, IN, NC. but he can still win without these states.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:31 PM
Hmmm. Your sister calling Palin a "bimbo." Unfortunately, reveals something about your sister that ain't pretty.
Very well said.
She will sound, well, no offense, like a soccer Mom.
This is offensive to soccer moms everywhere.
Please define "home run."
Bloomberg is a social liberal, unabashed
Bloomberg was a Democrat his whole life until he decided to run for mayor and realized that he'd never win a Democratic primary in NYC.
My father insists that no matter what Obama's lead may be in the polls he won't win on election day because in his words, "People just won't pull the lever for a black guy". He says it's not a bubba vote but just white people in blue states that won't vote for him even though they tell the pollsters they will. I know this is a pretty standard argument we hear these days, but can someone tell me how to explain to him that's not true?
This phenomenon is know as the Bradley effect, or the Bradley/Wilder effect. Named for black gubernatorial candidate(s) who performed much worse in actual elections than in pre-election polling. There have been studies that show that this phenomenon was very real, but has largely disappeared in more recent elections. Here's one (pdf):
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:32 PM
"Hmmm. Your sister calling Palin a "bimbo." Unfortunately, reveals something about your sister that ain't pretty."
It beats what I've heard some anti-Obama people call him.
"Who knows" why, but the Gallup tracking poll has developed a predictable bias slightly favoring McCain on weekend calls and slightly favoring Obama on weekday calls. Even if no real numbers change, McCain looks best on Monday and Tuesday's releases, and Obama on Friday and Saturday's releases. If you adjust this odd weekend/weekday factor out, then you will find a more consistent (but shallower) upward trend for Obama. I'm pretty sure that Obama will widen the apparent gap in the 10/3 and 10/4 Gallup tracker. If he doesn't lose any ground by 10/6, then we can all start making book on Obama's cabinet selections.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:34 PM
"Apparently many Canadians said they are more interested in Palin and will be tuning in instead of watching their own election debate tonight."
Actually, the Canadians watching the debate are doing so for a good laugh. Everybody knows it's going to be a slaughter. I think it's actually being aired on The Comedy Network. In reality, I've talked to many MANY people in Canada about this, and the ONE person that likes McCain admits that Palin is a complete moron that doesn't stand a chance.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:35 PM
FYI... Iowa and Washington State were not primaries, but rather caucuses.
And Washington State's population ain't one of the whitest states. It has significant Asian, Hispanic (including long-time citizens), and Native American populations.
Apparently, Obamanation (including Spike Lee) think that only African Americans count as non-white.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:36 PM
there are several Democrat-leaning polls, too. Right? Let's ferret them all out and divvy them up as Dem or GOP
Or how about we just average them all? Maybe even a weighted average based on sample sizes.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:38 PM
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have applied some of these when discussing it with my father. Mainly, that the people who would vote that way are already in Red states, but then he says that's bubba votes and not the white educated voters he's talking about in blue states. I brought up that he beat Hillary and he said that was a primary and general election is different. I also told him that AA vote would probably cancel out or be more than the voters he's talking about and he says that AAs won't vote like they never do. I guess he just wants to believe something and he's not going to listen to reason. But it's frustrating to hear him say it and was trying different angles to talk about it with him but maybe I should just let it go.
Anyway thanks for the feedback.
@marctx, You said Obama's never had a job? Are you kidding? He was a professor at the University of Chicago and he worked his way through college at various jobs and if I'm not mistaken he has a job right now.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:40 PM
MAKE BELIEVE MAVERICK. And the truth comes out.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:41 PM
KipTin FAIL. WA State had a primary popular vote in ADDITION to the Caucus. It was landslide Obama. NEXT.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:42 PM
Looks like I was right on ym first assumption.. should make it interesting tonight:
The Washington State primary vote DID NOT count... and it was not a landslide: Obama 51%, Hillary 46%, Edwards 2%.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:48 PM
@Trosen, RE that article you posted... I wonder if the McCain campaign realizes the election isn't Friday. Ok so she wows to epic proportions tonight (according to them). Then what? She goes back out on the trail and starts talking like she did in the Couric and Gibson interviews? I mean do they suddenly think she's not that person we all have been seeing for a month?
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:49 PM
They have to do something to stop the bleeding. They can't worry about next week until they stem the flow here and now. Then they'll cross that bridge (to nowhere - ha!) when they get to it.
Posted on October 2, 2008 2:58 PM
You're the big loser on this blog ...
Even boomShak is changing a little bit his/her speech by stating that if Palin doesn't do well in tonight's debate it could be the beginning of the end for McPain
Seemingly you weight in on every single word I use, I said primaries and forgot to mention caucus. In this specific case I don't see any big differences between them
It's funny, while you're trying to look well-informed you look misinformed and foolish
check the record, WA wasn't only a caucus it was also a primary, in other words it was both as well as TX
Furthermore, astonishingly you don't even try to do some researches before spewing your insanities and slamming other people
Yes WA is one of the whitest state in the country see below (depending if your threshold is 90%)
Year White Black Indian Hispanics
2000 79.4 3.2 1.5 7.5
2008 76.2 3.4 2.8 9.3
If you think Obama won WA because of those 3.2% AA you're really losing your bearings
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:03 PM
"I hope you're right because a number of his stated positions aren't liberal _enough_ for me."
Heh, I was going to post the same :)
@Carl29: I love your drinking game idea. Now if only the Veep debate didn't start at 2am my time... (I'm from the UK).
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:29 PM
Did you hear Palin's replies to Katie Couric? It doesn't get much worse than that. To claim she's the most qualified is to ignore her complete utter inability to think and talk at the same time.
She's perfectly qualified to be a small-market TV anchorwoman--looks nice, reads at a 10th grade level, doesn't have to understand what she's reading. The movie "To Die For" comes to mind.
The Palin you're seeing is a figment of the GOP imagination.
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:44 PM
Sorry, that should be "complete and utter". Redundancy in the defense of literacy is no vice.
McCain is "on tilt" lately, to use a poker term. I'm guessing he wishes his slimy caretakers had allowed him to be his own man. Does he feel more comfortable having Sarah Palin there to check his bearings, or does he prefer Joe Lieberman?
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:56 PM
"If she doesn't hit a home run tonight, it's over."
Wow... I can't believe I'm about to say this, but... I think you are too pessimistic.
As long as Palin doesn't wet herself and / or endorse Obama tonight, McCain's campaign will be relatively unaffected. That said, relatively unaffected at this point is nearly dead, but an October surprise can turn it around.
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:57 PM
Finally we get to a constructive conversation…boomshak kudos to you, I agree wholeheartedly. I have had that conversation regarding Romney with my Repub friends that are crossover voters and guess what they each have a difficult time saying that they would vote for Obama over Romney (though they are currently firmly in Obama’s corner right now).
Maybe if McCain had chosen the very disciplined, gaffe-proof Romney, the public would not be
1. Questioning his judgment (Palingate & Fundementals of the economy are strong-gate)
2. Worried about him kicking the bucket (Palin-gate)
3. Questioning his stability and sanity (Campaign suspension-gate)
Romney would have been an excellent pick and he probably would not be withdrawing from Michigan about now. Oh well… too bad so sad.
Posted on October 2, 2008 3:59 PM
You cannot judge her by a couple gaffes. Biden was called the "gaffe machine" in the primaries before the last ten recent gaffes. He doesn't know who or when the president was during the depression? So he's not qualified? Stupid argument. She is essentially as qualified as Bush, Clinton, and Reagan. Just like Bush, you liberals don't like her accent and folksy style. That automatically must mean she is dumb. Please. On paper she has the most leadership experience. Liberals used the "moron" argument on Bush and lost both times.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:02 PM
McCain pulled out of Michigan because he is hemorrhaging in Florida and he needs to bring all the resources he can to bear there. I would not be surprised if he pulled out of Pennsylvania as well, or at the very least the expensive Philadelphia media market. Obama has already committed $39 million to Florida and he can always go back to his donor base for more if he needs to.
Florida is McCain's firewall. He can still win without Michigan, but he can't without Florida.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:10 PM
Just released debate questions for tonight:
Ifill: Honorable Sen. Biden can you ask Obama to sign my book "Age of Obama"?
Ifill: Mayor Palin, can you name all the presidents in order backwards while standing on your head?
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:14 PM
"Liberals used the "moron" argument on Bush and lost both times."
Actually, the country lost as we found out that the "moron" evaluation was pretty accurate.
Look, marc, you want to go after Biden's gaffes, fine. He makes them, no doubt about it. But he also makes up for them because he has decades of Washington experience, has incredible foreign policy credentials and has been doing speeches, interviews and debates as a politician for years. We know his stances, we know he is intelligent, we know he knows what he's talking about even if he has a bad habit of sticking his foot in his mouth.
Palin has to be treated differently because no one knows WHO she is. And to make matters worse, the fact that mcCain is shielding her from the press and from questions and interviews just reinforces the belief that she is unqualified. If Palin is such a strong, qualified candidate, McCain should be having her do as many interviews and press conferences as possible.
And don't use the excuse that, because the press bullied her, he's keeping her away. How harsh the press was on her gave the McCain campaign a GREAT BOOST. He should be hoping that they pick on her as much as possible and be giving them every opportunity to do so with how well voters sympathized with Palin's treatment.
So, to put it frankly, when you look at what the campaign has done with shielding her coupled with the fact that, when she HAS done interviews, she has appeared to be a disaster that has no idea what she is talking about.
And that coupled with the fact that she could be a 72 year old's heartbeat away from the white house, is scary as hell.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:15 PM
Ifill: Sen. Biden, when Obama stated his "if you need me call me" economic plan did you get his phone number?
Ifill: PTA member Palin, why do you talk funny?
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:17 PM
The Couric answers fall way outside the definition of gaffes.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:23 PM
Thats right marctx, they did use the "moron" or inept argument in 2000 and 2004. And we showed them we can win any election. Appeal to a fear, a meaningless issue, and we can pull this whole thing off. Nothing a little ideaology wont solve and we still have many days left. WE like our "morons". Everybody should to. The last eight years are perfect evidence of great "moron" leadership that the libs so detest. We have a chance and we will do it with Palin as VP. I was in Key West last year and looked south across the water, and I think I saw Cuba. I can relate.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:24 PM
Below is the URL to an academic article that did the statistical research on the Bradley Effect. The basic conclusion is that there used to be a Bradley Effect--but there is not one any more.
Also--keep in mind what the Bradley Effect is. It is not the theory that some people will not vote for a black candidate. That is still true. The theory is that people LIE to pollsters and tell them they will vote for the black candidate but once in the voting booth, they vote the other way.
The evidence is that people are more comfortable admitting their true preferences today. It seems that would be especially true in the Pres election where no one would think voting for McCain means you are a racist, together with the fact that "robo polls" (like Rasmussen) should avoid this effect because there is no "human being" to try to "impress" with your non-racist views. The "robo polls" have not been consistently anti-Obama (as a matter of fact, today Rasmussen was one of Obama's best polls).
So we may or may not be more racist than before (I think we are less racist, but that is really beside the point), but we are less likely to lie to a pollster for fear of seeming racist.
URL for article below:
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:27 PM
"She is essentially as qualified as Bush, Clinton, and Reagan."
So wrong. Reagan was Governor of California for 8 years, Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for 12 years and Bush was Governor of Texas for 6 years.
She is not qualified and she is a moron. Now Bush was a moron and we see where that has gotten us. Thankfully, it looks like after 8 years the country has had enough of the stupid in office and is now going to put the smart guys back in charge again.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:29 PM
There wasn't much of a Bradley effect observable in the States that held primaries. Obama did just about what his survey numbers showed amongst white voters in mainly white states. There was some depression in the numbers of white voter response for Obama in states with large black populations...but that was an artifact of the fact that black turnouts were much heavier than expected. So proportionately the total % of white voters dropped, as did the % of white Obama voters contributing to his results.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:31 PM
more debate questions releases:
Ifill: Sen. Biden, did you remember to bring my coat I left in my office at the campaign headquarters?
Ifill: Miss. Wasilla Palin, is it true you shot innocent animals in cold blood?
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:37 PM
I think the reason the Virginia and North Carolina polls are all over the place is because Obama performed way better than his Primary polling numbers in those States. Pollsters are trying to quantify that effect.
Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and even in lily white Wisconsin, we saw Obama significantly outperform his Primary polling numbers. I think right there is the reason why Gallup, Rasmussen and others are looking at Democrats holding a 6 - 8% ID advantage, when this usually is like 3%. The likely voter models are trying to account for greater enthusiasm by Obama supporters.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:42 PM
The reason that I believe that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President has nothing to do with her length of service. I could easily imagine a person who has served only as mayor of a town and then governor for 2 years who would be qualified to be President. Being qualified is not principally a question of paper resume.
Sarah Palin in not qualified because she has never been part of the national discussion about national issues, and she has demonstrated no depth of knowledge or ability to articulate positions relevant to the major national issues of the day. She is a "light-weight" in the truest sense of that term.
Until she demonstrates some depth of knowledge or ability to analyze important issues, she will be accurately evaluated as unqualified to be President. It is a mistake to talk about her not having enough "experience" to be President. That formulation of the questions misses the point. She could have been governor for 10 years and senator for 20 years, and if she demonstrated the shallowness of understanding that she has demonstrated so far, I think it would be fair to conclude she was not qualifed to be President.
McCain chose her without any evidence that she knew anything meaninful, had been involved in anything meaningful or was capable of handing anything relating to national issues. She may be steeped in Alaska issues, but she has shown no depth beyond that. Until she does, she remains UNQUALIFIED to be President.
Posted on October 2, 2008 4:44 PM
more debate questions released:
Ifill: Sen. Biden, how do you find the generosity in your heart to contribute thousands (3k) of dollars to charity in the last ten years?
Ifill: HS Basketball Player Palin, do you know what is the difference between a flower and a hockey mom?
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:02 PM
Why McCain was in Mi isn't as big a mystery as why he was in Iowa of all places. Why he is still in Wi is even a bigger mystery. Right now he should be rotating between FL and Oh. But he's definitely got problems in Va and NC so I'm not sure how he save the patient. It's like an episode of ER. Remember when the pundits questioned why Obama was spending time in some GOP stronghold in NV. Now NV is blue. This guy is scary smart. Maybe he is the......
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:13 PM
There can be no doubt that this ECONOMY GIVEN TO US BY THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS is a mess.
ECONOMIC NUMBERS IN JANUARY OF 2006:
Gas Prices: $2.33/gallon
ECONOMIC NUMBERS IN OCTOBER OF 2008:
Gas Prices: $4.15/gallon
Gee, thanks Democrat Congress! Great job there! Way to lead!
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:15 PM
WHAT DID THE DEMS PROMISE US IN 2006?
1. Growing the GDP - FAIL!
2. More and better jobs - FAIL!
3. A common-sense approach to lowering gas prices - FAIL!
And what is Barack Obama promising us now?
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:19 PM
If you are trying to start a debate over who is responsible for the mess we are in, it won't work and it does not really matter.
The American people are blaming Bush and the Republican--whether this is fair or not (as McCain just said, "Life is not fair."). That is the political reality--deal with it.
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:37 PM
So a 36 vote majority in the house and a 2 vote majority (sometimes) in the Senate was produce a Domestic & Foreign policy renaissance. Come on. Those majorities aren't anywhere close to veto proof and with waving the flag about Iraq every 5 minutes what could have possibly been accomplished. Most of the 4 trillion dollar deficit that Bush ran up came during the 6 years that Bush had his majority in both houses. I think you will find Obama to more pragmatic than you think and he will careful not to squander the majorities he gets in Congress on stupid stuff.
Posted on October 2, 2008 5:45 PM
UT-OH. THIS HEADLINE FROM DRUDGE:
"UK ambassador delivers frank assessment of 'decidedly liberal' Obama in secret letter to British PM Gordon Brown... LONDON TELEGRAPH to reveal all in leaked letter... Developing..."
This one might sting a bit.
Posted on October 2, 2008 6:52 PM
Thanks for the link to the RollingStone magazine article on McCain ... I have always asked myself why does John McCain keep on wanting to be a president? I mean, most people have a run at it and if they do not make it they go on to other things ... I mean, what was he running on in 2000 ... there was no Iraq war (unless someone in the GOP knew one was coming) ... there was no terrorists attack ... although National Security is always an issue, 2000 was a relatively peaceful year ...
It is fascinating to see that my suspicions about this guy are revealed in this article ...
Posted on October 2, 2008 7:11 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