home

NBC - WSJ Poll: Good News for Both Candidates

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:44:39 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's the actual results from the NBC/WSJ poll (pdf) that had good news for both candidates. Here's the article describing the results.

With eight weeks until Election Day, the Journal survey found a dead heat: 46% of registered voters favor Sens. Obama and Joe Biden, and 45% favor McCain-Palin.

...The survey had good news for Sen. Obama as well, showing that he improved his standing with the electorate in areas where he had been seen as weak. More voters found said they were comfortable with him as president that they did in a Journal poll three weeks ago, as did the portion who said they were confident in his ability to be commander in chief.

More...

Chuck Todd says on NBC Nightly News it's down to four states: Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire.

This is still a novelty bounce in my view. Men under 50 are heading to Obama. I suspect undecided non-Republican women will as well as more about Palin's views on issues and distortion of her record comes out.

< Open Thread: Bridges to Babylon | McCain Camp's Phony Lipstick Charge Won't Fly >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NBC - WSJ Poll: Good News for Both Candidates | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm relieved that its not worse. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    How many of those four states does Obama have to win?

    McCain needs a perfect storm (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST
    whereas Obama has several options to win.

    Obama can win with Kerry states (which he has been polling in well) plus NM (he polls in double digit leads in several state polls).

    Essentially, that leaves him needing NH (he currently leads there) plus any one of the following:

    FL (close race)
    OH (fairly close depending on the pollster)
    CO
    VA
    MT + ANother state (forgetting the break down of which state)

    There are other scenarios as well.

    If you visit sites like 538, pollster.com, and RCP you start to realize that in some bizzare ways 2008 is the inverse of 2004. In 2004, Kerry needed a perfect storm to win against Bush. In 2008, McCain needs a perfect electoral storm to beat Obama.

    The only way people are suggesting that this isn't true is to claim that Obama will lose MI and PA. Both are unlikely.

    One of the reasons I am not as panicked as some liberals and/or bothered by the hype of some who post here is that I read the numbers daily. I know where this race is right now versus where Kerry was in 2004. Obama is outperforming Kerry in several red states that McCain will have to defend.

    I also know having read various blogs such as 538 that Obama has an organizational advantage of 3 to 1 compared to McCain in terms of field offices. Obama has had these offices operational since the summer. McCain is only now trying to get his operational. Indeed, he is relying on lists that are from 2004.

    If you want to understand what this means, compared that to 2004 where Kerry was again doing what McCain is doing this cyle- relying on list that are 4 years old.

    There are other structural advantages the Democrats have this time. For example, in Ohio the SoS (which in 2006 the Dems took over) ended rules that were meant to suppress at least 35,000 Dem voters. Kerry lost the state by 120,000 votes. There is an early voter/absentee drive going on in Va and Oh etc. If you want to know why that matters- in Va- it was the Dems focusing on absentee ballots that lead to the Webb win.

    There is more, but I think you get hte picture.

    I am not saying that its not going to be a hard fought race or that it will be easy. I am simply trying to place everything in perspective.

    Finally, there is this note- Bush's bounce in 2004 lasted for weeks until the first debate. There are signs that McCain's is cresting less than a week later. That's simply not a good sign for him despite how people spin the bounce.

    Parent

    McCain hardly needs a (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    "perfect storm." If he wins the bush states- he's in. He could lose one or two or three of those, but pick up any combination of Kerry states including Wis, Minn, Mich, or Penn. There are dozens of scenarios that could get mccain to 270. I wish I had your overconfidence. The republicans have not even unleashed their most vicious attacks yet- and they are coming.

    Parent
    thank you for that excellent (none / 0) (#18)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:45:05 PM EST
    analysis

    Parent
    RCP, Pollster, 538 (none / 0) (#31)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    Which electoral college polling site is best?  If you only had time to read one?  Are there biases of these sites?  Other sites worth mentioning?

    Thanks for the info!

    Parent

    I tend to read them all (none / 0) (#42)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:08:13 PM EST
    because I don't like being spun or being subject to people's emotions regarding the state of the race. Not every day the same site. but every few days each of the sites. They each have their strengths and weaknesses based on their assumptions. A lot of this is guess work- for example below someone mentions Obamd down by 20 in NC, but I will bet its more like down by 5 to 7 because the cross tabs are odd with the poll in question. I only know this by glancing at what the pollsters are saying. I can;t think of any others off top my head.

    Parent
    538 (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fultron on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:18:27 AM EST
    I really like 538, but the pro-Obama bias in the forums has got me worried about overconfidence. Maybe I'm just a concern troll, but when you create a model to dismiss a solidified M+2 as meaningless, and claim the ECV total still looks good when state-by-state polling of any reliable amount hasn't been updated in more then three weeks, it's a tough sell.

    Parent
    Incidentally (none / 0) (#5)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    there are some points of concern- ie, the money race. I am not sure whether Obama will meet his numbers or whether the recent report by the Ny Times is in fact a head fake. He did that before in the summer to manage expectations. But we will see by the 15th. other than that, the media war is favoring Obama over the next 60 days because Mccain has choosen to ceed that free media war to Obama by taking an anagonistic stance to the media. It may win some voters, but it also costs him the media darling position that obama can also hold.

    Parent
    Money may not be a problem (none / 0) (#15)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    Saw a report earlier that the Obama campaign was expected to announce a record month in August.

    Parent
    527's (none / 0) (#57)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    I also read that Obama has changed his position on the 527's. They'll be up and running for him soon.

    Parent
    Media (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM EST
    darling is worthless if the best it can get you is a tie.

    Parent
    because if the limitations on comments (none / 0) (#26)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    here I find talking to some of you exhausting. I can't possible think of all the permutations your arguments will take.

    For the record, when I am discussing image before the media I am referencing over the next 2 months. It should be obvious I am not referencing McCain's bounce which was about a week of free marketing that they press was required to give versus the benefit fo the doubt when it comes to questioning McCain on the campaign trail- which they aren't required to give. I am sure there is some other permutation that you will somehow try to deflect my point- but I think given the limitation of the site i will leave it at what I have written this time.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    are ignoring the fact that Obama was doing poorly in the polls previous to McCain picking Palin and before the Dem convention.

    Parent
    Actualy Obama was up by (none / 0) (#32)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    2 or 3 points in the polls when averaged before the conventions. He has consistently at electoral-vote.com, pollster.com, 538.com, talk left, rcp.com - just to name a few lead significantly until the convention and the gop bounce from the convention in the electoral collge. like I said, I can't keep refuting everything here so I will stop posting now.

    Parent
    hope you come back. I'm interested. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lil on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:04:09 PM EST


    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:04:48 PM EST
    using averages that went back a while. I'm talking about the daily trackers that were trending down.

    Parent
    dailygrind (none / 0) (#99)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    is correct.  RCP knocks out older polls and Obama held a slight lead if you combine all the polls (not just the tracking polls) right before his VP pick and the Dem convention.  

    Parent
    well, you have my attention. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lil on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    I'm interested in more.

    Parent
    It's hard to say who the media darling really is. (none / 0) (#50)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:24:25 PM EST
    On one hand, Obama has definitely enjoyed the media darling status, but on the other hand, McCain has been lying his face off with impunity.

    Re: McCain, it would be very interesting to see what happened if the media did their job and reported the truth.

    Re: Obama, I'd hate to see what would happen if he lost the media darling status.  And as I have extreme distrust of the media, and I believe that when push comes to shove, they'll always tilt the field for the Republican, I'm afraid that at some point before November, that is going to happen.  I worry that it's part of the McCain game plan.  I hope I'm wrong.


    Parent

    how they vote doesn' reflect (none / 0) (#93)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    how they work. no more than how most american vote determinse how they work. the work place and its rules does that.

    Parent
    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:01:49 PM EST
    Strategic Vsion Poll:

    In Michigan, Obama edges McCain, 45% to 44%.

    In Wisconsin, Obama leads McCain, 46% to 43%.

    I thought Obama had a much bigger edge in WI

    Same here. Remember, WI was the closest (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    state in 2004, when Kerry won by less than half of one percent.  And one of the closest states in 2000.  A very red state outside of Milwaukee (south to Kenosha Rick's home area) and Madison -- and along our Mississippi "coast" in the southwestern corner of the state.  Gore and Kerry turned that area blue and won the state by working hard there.

    But Obama and Biden haven't been to the Great River Trail area, from La Crosse to Prairie du Chien, at all.  I would worry about that.

    We here have been saying since February 19 to NOT be taken in by the primary results.  Huge Republican crossover, the favorite game here.  But darn it, I wanted to just make it easy this time by not voting the top of the ticket.  Plus, now I have to survive the onslaught of political ads again.  And pollsters, nonstop pollsters.  

    It ain't easy being a swing state.  Worst will be having to read all the Eastern press cutesy coverage of us.  Ugh.

    Parent

    PA was closer than people seem to recall, too (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kempis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:29:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Some of (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:07:53 PM EST
    the people here who live in WI have said that it might turn red this year.

    Parent
    I have been saying for weeks (none / 0) (#55)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    now that my home state of Wis. was going to be VERY close and been told I was nuts. I still think it could go either way, and it will be won by less than 2-3 points.

    Parent
    this is appalling... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by S on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    frankly, if Obama keeps saying things like this, he is going to drive people away...this is inappropriate language coming from someone seeking the Presidency

    "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years.".........

    from AP

    Well he just lost a few thousand more women (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by mogal on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST


    Parent
    oh, come on (2.33 / 3) (#47)
    by wreck on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    Give me a break, concern troll. Everybody on this site wants Obama to be a fighting Dem and then when he does it, it's unbecoming of Presidential material. After all the gross lies and hate coming out of the Republicans at the convention, the nasty curses and foul hand gestures by the Republican executive branch the last two terms, and the, you know, thousands of dead Iraqis and American service people, Obama honestly calling a spade a spade is NOT A PROBLEM. We need more of this, not less.

    The Republicans are vicious, in speech and in policy. Obamas on the right track here with this line of talk.  He's right, and you know what, you can't blow sunshine up everybody's behind all the time. Sometimes you gotta say what everybody is thinking.

    Parent

    He didn't say what I was thinking (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ap in avl on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:29:15 PM EST
    and I've never voted for anyone other than a Democrat.

    Ever.

    For someone who twisted the words of others to suit his advantage to not understand (or give a dog whistle with) these words is beyond my understanding.

    I want a Dem in the White House.

    If I could take these words back from him I would.

    And if I could take the words of outrage from those who would defend him......I would.

    Think about how this sounds to the voters our party would like to attract.  Then dial it back.  
    A little humility would go a long way.

    Parent

    Two alternatives (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:33:47 PM EST
    To me, lipstick on a pig is a clear reference to Palin, because of the lipstick joke Palin told in her convention speech. So, Obama called Palin a pig? Not exactly the kind of question you want to raise in the general, given what was done to Hillary in the primary. YOU may call that concern trolling; I'd call it reality therapy.

    Two alternatives present themselves:

    1. Obama knew exactly what he was saying ("words matter") or

    2. Obama didn't think through the "common expression" he was using (Bill Clinton would never have made that mistake).

    So, which'd you rather? Sexist and insulting, or elitist?

    Parent
    Lipstick on a pig (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    is the same phrase that mccain used to describe clinton's healthcare plan. i await your spin.

    Parent
    but when McCain (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:55:57 PM EST
    said it it wassn't just a wek after his oppinent had just used the same "lipstick" term to describe herself. if youdidn't get the reference, Obama's audience certainly did. It got a HUGE laugh reaction. It was similar to the reaction Obama got when he was brushing Hillary off his shoulders and "scratching" his nose with his middle finger. His audience understood that one too.

    Parent
    awful to be reminded (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:02:52 PM EST
    Yup, it's not pleasant to be reminded of his gestures during the primary ...
    I guess it's hard to combine coolness and dignity ...
    Where are the grown-ups in all this?  
    Given McCain's gutter language, he surely isn't one either.


    Parent
    So Obama's gestures were cool? (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    Revolting, would be a better word.

    Parent
    not cool at all (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:37:57 PM EST
    No, I didn't think his gestures were cool at all.  I was referring to his apparent self-perception and the perception of his supporters during the primary that he was cool. Sorry, I should have used quotation marks "cool" or snark marks.  My own view was that his gestures were revolting and immature.  It's unpleasant to be reminded of that now that he's the Democratic candidate.  IMO, these are aspects of his behavior that are not "likeable enough" but in the big picture, Republican policies are far worse.

    Parent
    So you are saying (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    She would prefer to be referenced as a dog? Or that if Obama had called her a dog it would be ok?

    Insanity. Stop trying to find things that aren't there.

    Parent

    i'm saying (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    it would have been fine for Obama to use the common phrase lipstick on a pig ONLY IF Palin hadn't just used a lipstick analogy to describe herself last week. Because she did, now anyone using lipstick analogies will be assumed to be referencing Palin.

    Parent
    look the american people are stupid, but (none / 0) (#73)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    if mccain thinks using a common phrase like this is going to win him any votes  when in fact he used it in the past- well, all power to him. It's making him look bad.

    Parent
    But when the 'pig' (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:16:23 PM EST
    is understood to mean Sarah Palin by the audience and meant that way (words matter), the reference is horrible. Sexist and out of line. More women voting R.

    Parent
    if your argument must rely on (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    a) assuming people don't know what this phrase means b) not finding otu the context c) that the press will do the lying for you and d) obama acting like kerry by actually playing along to the political theatre mccain is playing here- then you already lost. but as i say above please, please continue to try this argument because it pivots into gender issues , and that's not something mccain really wants to discuss.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:38:06 PM EST
    Obama said it, and it was assumed to be referencing Palin. So I haven't any idea what you are talking about.

    Parent
    See here (none / 0) (#101)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    his supporters disagree with you. But that's OK, really.

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 8) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    that Obama has is that when he decides to "attack" he does it so ineffectively. It comes off as petty, petulant and condescending. It's passive agresssive instead of clear and concise.

    Parent
    You GObama (1.25 / 4) (#67)
    by dead dancer on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    Go Obama!

    Someone who expenses 300+ days of per diem while staying at home is a Pig (with the capital p).


    Parent

    Refreshingly populist (none / 0) (#48)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah common phrase (none / 0) (#62)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    Used by McCain in describing Hillary's healthcare plan.

    Was he calling Hillary a pig?

    No.

    Is Obama calling Palin a pig?

    Obviously not.

    Parent

    Periodically, when ... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM EST
    I'm feeling down, I want to believe stuff like that.

    Parent
    He was talking about. . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    McCain, not Palin, and the absurd (although predictable) Republican attempt to coopt the change mantel.

    Parent
    SURE he was. (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary supporters including me (none / 0) (#100)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    should not use the tactics we decried back in the primary.  It was wrong when Obama did it and its wrong when McCain does it now.  

    I know Obama is finally feeling the "what goes around comes around" effect, but I disapproved of this character assassination tactic in the primary and I disappove of it now.  

    Parent

    The Obama campaign seems to have lost its (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    footing. If they don't adjust their strategy, the probability that Obama will lose will increase.

    I admit to lack of knowledge about Obama's campaign structure and the power dynamics involved, but it appears that something significant has changed. I don't know what that 'something' is, but their message isn't focused and their talking points seem erratic.

    As BTD and others have pointed out, the choice of a running mate was a major political blunder by his campaign, imo. Historically, winning presidents have had to chose VPs with whom they weren't necessarily personally compatible, but individuals whom they thought gave them an edge in the election.

    Since that's in the past and cannot be changed, I do think that it is imperative to sincerely make an effort to win over the people who voted for Senator Clinton. Of course, they aren't a homogeneous group of people, but some concessions could be made on policy issues that would indicate a willingness to be flexible and inclusive. He is, after all, attempting to win over Republican voters.

    If I notice this inconsistency in reaching out to groups other than his base, then more than a few other voters will too.

    Four more years of a "Bush-like" presidency would be disastrous for our country, but it could certainly happen in a year that was supposed to be ours to lose.

    well. (none / 0) (#91)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    I voted for Clinton and I was won over on day one. The results here are important and it's too important to be bitter.  

    Parent
    I'm uncertain as to why you would presume that I (none / 0) (#103)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 03:10:04 AM EST
    am bitter, since I was addressing the issue of Obama's campaign strategies, as were many others. I'm definitely not an embittered person, but my reference to Senator Clinton must have caused some of your personal and lingering resentment from the primaries to surface; you made an inaccurate and gigantic leap in reasoning to interpret my remarks as those of a person harboring bitterness.

    I do think that something fundamentally different has changed within his campaign, because I think he is a shrewd politician; but recently, his delivery and ability to focus and bring home a point has not been as strong.

    Furthermore, political observers with sharper political instincts than I possess have commented extensively and robustly on what they perceive as a mistake in judgment about his VP choice. Many think, as do I, that it could only have enhanced his candidacy by potentially bringing in a more comprehensive group of Democrats.

    Congratulations on your vote for Senator Clinton. I don't know what to say about your swift decision to support Obama. I suppose I require a bit more deliberation over big decisions. I do think however, that Obama/Biden would be a better choice than McCain/Palin.


    Parent

    a nation of infants? (1.40 / 5) (#60)
    by wreck on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    Concern trolls, you sounds just like Republicans with your politics of resentment and grievance. Hold on to them and your personality politics, because that's all you'll have left when McCain & Palin, whose policies actually are demonstrably misogynistic get elected. Obama didn't lose any "women's votes" because he used a piece of American vernacular that McCain himself used against Hillary Clinton and her healthcare plan. In fact, he just gained my vote, that's for sure. I'm tired of Democrats who just sit back and take it. I love a populist Obama!

    Nobody not half stupid is going to care now. In fact, if you read the news, the picture Obama is painting of McCain/Palin/Bush being liars, as well as whiny babies is beginning to stick.

    ya (none / 0) (#92)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:32:36 PM EST
    Yeah, its a good charge. Blunt, easily understood.  You can make the case in a few sentences and the evidence is easy to get at.

    Parent
    If Obama and Biden can't make a (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by WillBFair on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:52:10 PM EST
    convincing case against McSame and Ms. Fluff, I'm turning in my membership and joining the Whigs.  

    Don't forget Florida! (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:02:53 PM EST
    I don't see FL as out of reach yet.  One thing about the elderly is that they kind of know they aren't able to do the things they did when they were younger.  If McCain shows his age in the debates, that could help there.

    NH--Despite His Maverickness, I have a hard time seeing how "Live Free or Die" mixes well with the Religious Right.

    OH-- I'm afraid there might be more Bradley Effect voters there than I thought.

    CO--Jeralyn knows better than me, boy boy will that one be interesting.

    I don't think you meant (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ap in avl on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:20:26 PM EST
    to insult older people (and voters) but just think about how it sounds.  I have tremendous respect for many individuals much older (and smarter/wiser) than me.  Many of them can run circles around me (and could even run this country).

    I don't believe McCain would be a good president but it's not because of his age.  

    And if one wants to generalize about what "the elderly think", I would think it would be just as valid to assume that many of them would think they've learned over the years that life teaches us many valuable lessons.  And that experience counts.

    I want to see a Dem in the White House.

    Just saying....check your assumptions.

    Parent

    I'm not making a generalization about the elderly (none / 0) (#38)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:03:59 PM EST
    What I'm trying to get at is that younger people might bend over backwards to not seem ageist.

    I sense that the elderly, based on their experiences, would be more sensitive to McCain "showing his age".  I have no idea if he will though.  Hasn't so far (except maybe the Sunni/Shia, Iran/Pakistan border thing).

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#94)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:34:58 PM EST
    My father is 68 and lives in FL for what it's worth. He thinks McCain is too old.

    My dad likes his naps. heh.

    Parent

    I'm almost positive McCain will win 3 out of 4 (none / 0) (#6)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    of those states. Large percentage of rural voters, more affectionately referred to as Appalachians, or hillbillies on kos, and large military bases in VA.

    OH and Virginia are locks for McCain.

    NH and Colorado could go either way. If I had to choose right now, I'd give NH to McCain.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:50:24 PM EST
    looks to be gone. McCain has reached 50% there. FL is also unlikely. Maybe CO and NH but MI is really iffy right now. It's game over if he loses MI.

    Parent
    I'd toss Michigan in there ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    troubling movement in that state in recent polls.

    The four states I'm focusing on are CO, NV, MI, and OH.

    I don't think VA will go blue.  I'll keep watching it, but think it will fall solid red fairly soon.  

    And I'm watching FL, but the most recent poll had McCain back up by 5. Need to see more polls, and check local coverage.

    So I'm sticking with my top four for to watch for now.

    it is very likely that if (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    va didn't turn deep red after the gop convention- it will remain a toss up. there is just no way after the democratic wins there in the last 3 years that anyone can credibily argue that its a solidly repubican given the demographics of the state (NoVa for example). the polls also consistently, by the way, underestimate the AA turn out both this year and in 2004, and it consistently seem to suggest a higher AA vote for McCain than is likely. This is also not including quite often the growing Latino vote in the state.

    Parent
    VA is a lot like N. Carolina (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    Statewide they will elect dems, but not for President. I predict there is no way VA will go blue this year.

    Parent
    I grew up in Southern Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    on the North Carolina/Virginia border. The only thing the two states have in common is the border. I don't care what you predict. I do, however, care what the demographics of the state are and how Democrats have been winning there. The biggest reason is again those demographic shifts that are a long the lines of the following: big wins in NoVa, Richmond and the Tidewater, Charlottesville/Albermale County and holding down loses in other parts of the state. Unlike other Dems before him Obama has smartly openned up offices in the red sections of the state. It's what also helped Webb win in 2006. THere were a plenty of people saying he didn't have a shot and why is he bothering to go to red areas of the sstate on the Virginia blogs. They said it was a waste of time because he couldn't win. They were wrong then. You are now.

    NC on the other hand have a lot of old school Dixiecrats, and despite the triangle area doesn't have anywhere near the demographic shifts occuring in VA.

    Shaller discussed VA and other upper south states in his book on the South. If you are interested, check it out. Most people misunderstood what he was saying. He is essentially arguing what I am arguing- VA is slowly but surely becoming a mid-Atlantic rather than strictly Southern state.

    I once again repeat- after the GOP convention Obama should not be within a point of McCain. That's just understanding the dynamics of the state. And if you are curious I grew up in an area that in 2004 voted 60 percent or more for Bush.

    Parent

    Democrats (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    have been winning on the state level. Dems HAVE NOT been winning on the national level there in decades.

    If state elections were indicative of national elections, GA would have voted for the Dems in a number of presidential elections. Lots of voters will vote for the Dem for Gov. but won't vote for the presidential candidate.

    Parent

    I have no idea how you think what (none / 0) (#28)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    you write answers my specific arguments, but it doesn't. The demographics used to win in Virginia in the last decade are very different from GA and even NC. Indeed, George Allen was the last person to my knowledge truly win the state under the older paradigm. Do you k now much about Virginia politics?

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    I'm saying is that you are talking about how Dems have been winning there as indicative of Obama's chances. It is not. I never claimed that the demographics were the same in VA as GA did I? I used the facts that Dems have won statewide here in GA numerous times yet the GOP wins on the presidential level. Statewide wins don't mean anything when it comes to Presidential politics. If that was true, Dems wouldn't be carrying CA this election would they?

    Parent
    Alot has changed (none / 0) (#96)
    by onemanrules on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:14:14 AM EST
    over the past few years. I just can't wait until the press destroys Palin (on her record /actions). All she does is get up on the stump and lie constantly. Bridge to nowhere, selling the jet on ebay, firing the cook, being anti-lobbiest. She will soon be brought out for the liar she is and I think the polls will shift back to Obama in a large way. By the way, whats up with being less than 60 days from possibly being voted vice-president and she can't even talk to the press? Sorry Gov. Palin, the honeymoon is about to end.

    Parent
    McCain won't lose VA (none / 0) (#102)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    or any other Southern state.

    Parent
    National Variance (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    I agree. Bear in mind that the Republican Party in Alabama is not the Republican Party in California. In liberal states, Republicans tend to be more moderate - Giuliani, Schwarzenegger. Likewise, in conservative states, Democrats tend to be more moderate - Bill Clinton, Brian Schweitzer.

    It might be the same party on state and federal ballots, but it could be very different philosophies.

    Parent

    Incidentally (none / 0) (#24)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:54:42 PM EST
    I am not even factoring into this Obama's successful registration drive. There have been reports about them if you are truly interested in understanding why your argument isn't exactly true of Virginia, but may be true of NC. While NC has increased its voter registration by 150k vote or so, the reality is again that these numbers do not appear to me to be backed up by winning races based on those new demographics, whereas Virginia has proven successful at turning out those new numbers in two cycles.

    Here's an article about Obama's efforts to get out the vote:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/06/obama_helps_register_49k_new_v.html

    Contrast this to Kerry's effort.

    Parent

    Michigan? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    Really? You're not the first person I've seen drop 'MI' in there. What's happening?

    Parent
    Kerry only won Michigan by 3 (none / 0) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    so while the polls there are too close for comfort, they're not terribly out of line .

    Parent
    Several news articles (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    I read have said that union bosses are having trouble persuading their members to support the dem. ticket this year.

    Plus dems aren't very popular in Michigan right now. I still don't think McCain will win it.


    Parent

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    read that the Mayor of Detroit is causing lots of problems and ads are running that are identifying Obama with him. And the fact that Obama has no one to deliver the Detroit vote could spell trouble.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by sallywally on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM EST
    also nixed a revote of Michigan's primary, did he not?

    Parent
    Yep, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    I forgot about that one. I'm sure it will come up though.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#14)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    I don't think McCain will win it but I do see the state getting extremely close to a toss up.  No question there is an unrest against the Dems in this state.

    Parent
    I think the most recent poll was dead even (none / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    Susa on 9/7. You seem to be referring to Gallup 9/6.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, a Colorado question.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:38:15 PM EST
    I thought McCain made some comments a few weeks ago about re-negotiating Western water rights that were supposed to be a big negative for him in CO.  

    I havn't heard anything about that recently though.  Is ther no issue there or has Obama just not exploited it?

    Water rights in Colorado (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:48:06 PM EST
    McCain almost did step in it over language suggesting a renegotiation of the Colorado River pact (allocation.) As soon as the first clouds arose, however, he and his people moved fast to clarify, write an explanation and all that jazz. McCain himself--I recall--penned a letter to the media here saying that he was not considering any such renegotiation. (Although I'm not Jeralyn, since I live in Colorado and follow some water rights litigation, I jumped in here too.) As for Colorado, I truly believe that the Presidential electoral votes are anybody's guess. Denver suburbs should play a big role. I'm optimistic.

    Parent
    How many recounts, how many lawsuits (none / 0) (#23)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    this year?

    WOW more polls SUSA NC McCain up by 20 yes 20 (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salt on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:25 PM EST


    That was a real eye opener... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by skuld1 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST
    Was NC one of the states the Obama campaign thought was flippable?  If it was, they may think that over again after that poll...

    Parent
    Elizabeth Dole (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:13:18 PM EST
    Has benefitted from this too. I thought she was on her way out. Now it looks like she has a comfortable lead. That poll showed independant's going over to NcCain.

    Parent
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    so Obama is dragging the ticket down in NC is what you are saying.

    Parent
    No, I would say that. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    NC was never a reality for Obama and McCain's bump helped push the whole ticket. Some of independant's that have pushed McCain to +25 must have spilled over for Dole. But I did think the Dem's had a chance to unseat her.

    Parent
    I never bought into (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:35:41 PM EST
    the Obama's going to turn NC blue argument either but I thought perhaps the senate candidate would have a chance.

    This election is becoming more depressing by the day.

    Parent

    I thought we had a very good chance to unseat (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    Liddy this year! But, I never thought NC would turn blue. Not this year anyway.

    Furthermore, Liddy is a very poor senator!

    Parent

    I am very upset by this (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ap in avl on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    because I thought that we really had a chance to unseat Liddy Dole this year.  As someone who worked hard for Harvey Gant in his attempt to unseat Jesse Helms I have been looking forward to at least a successful Democratic Senatorial campaign this year.

    I never thought that Obama would win here but did hope that the Democratic brand would help to carry us to down ticket success.

    I still hope that is true and will work my heart out to see that happen.  But I think that Palin's addition to the ticket has energized the base to come out in droves and that it will translate to a "less than" pick up for down ticket Dems.

    I know, I know it's water under the bridge.  But I do think that HRC on our ticket would have translated to more coat tails here.

    Parent

    3 polls in the last month (none / 0) (#66)
    by dailygrind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:58:17 PM EST
     including one in the last week and half showed Dole losing. One poll, which based on the cross tabs is probably an outlier, shows she's not. Perspective is important.

    Parent
    Dole being up 8 in NC is actually pretty in (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
    line with most of the other polls over the past few months. I don't think Obama can be blamed for anyting there.

    Parent
    but before thye Palin pick (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    Dole was DOWN by a few points.

    Parent
    I wouldn't be surprised (none / 0) (#64)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM EST
    if it all came down to Ohio again. Whoever wins it takes the WH.

    geez (none / 0) (#90)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    I guess if I was a responsible citizen I'd go state and by state and figure the odds. But I'm too lazy so I'll let someone else clue me in as we go.

    It's getting pretty damn ugly though.  I can't believe that McCain ad implying Obama is some kind of pervert for trying to prevent the abuse of children.

    I can't believe I used to like McCain.

    What is McCain Doing, (none / 0) (#97)
    by bob h on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:09:39 AM EST
    running ads in New Jersey/NYC market (Channel 4 national TV news Tuesday night)?  Just more evidence of his incompetence?

    NBC - WSJ Poll: Good News for Both Candidates | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment