- ‹ previous
- 2339 of 2823
- next ›
Obama's Lead
OBAMA'S LEAD....I notice that a number of liberal pundits are starting to worry in public that maybe John McCain is making up some ground and that maybe, just maybe, he could end up pulling ahead by election day. And sure, anything is possible. But I suspect that this growing fear is due in large part to the fact that, even now, a lot of people really aren't quite sure why Obama is winning.
That includes plenty of conservatives, too, who are practically insane with frustration over what's going on. After all, they've pulled out all the usual stops. They've called Obama a traitor, a radical, an appeaser, a terrorist lover, an Israel hater, and a socialist. And that stuff usually does the trick. So what's wrong this time?
Obama himself is part of it. He's been pretty unflappable and, like FDR, uses humor and mockery effectively to deflect a lot of the fever swamp stuff. His campaign is part of it too. It helps a lot when your response includes not just humor and mockery, but four TV ads to every one of McCain's.
And then there's the X factor: for some reason, the public just isn't buying the old swill this year. Is it because of the economy? Because they're tired of Republicans? Because they think Obama is The One? Who knows? And because we don't really, truly know, we're afraid that maybe if McCain finds just the right pitch, just the right attack line, just the right dodge, the whole thing could come crashing down and the public will, once again, start buying the old swill after all.
But I think that's exactly the wrong way to look at it. If it were just personality, maybe picking Sarah Palin as his running mate really would have turned things around. If it were just ads, maybe a better ad from McCain might do the trick. But if the real problem is that public opinion has turned against modern, GOP-style conservatism in a big way — and that really does seem to be the case — then Obama has the strongest possible kind of lead. Like Adam Smith's invisible hand, it may seem mysterious, but it's no less powerful for all that.
Kevin seems like a great and honest guy, but sometimes his partisanship overcomes his brain. Consider the fact that 538 has Obama projected at 52%, which represents about 3% more than Kerry got in 2004, and then read Kevin's statement:
"But if the real problem is that public opinion has turned against modern, GOP-style conservatism in a big way ? and that really does seem to be the case ? then Obama has the strongest possible kind of lead."
A 3% move hardly can be a move "against modern GOP style conservatism in a big way."
McCain still may win, but if he does not, it will be the economy and the lasting damage from the Iraq War, plus an electorate tired of Republicans after 8 years of President Bush.
There is no philosophical move this election, although the dems will have a chance to try to engineer one with large majorities in the Congress. They will either get lucky with an improving economy and accomplish such a move or, if the economy is bad two years from now, they will crash and burn in 2010.
It's discouraging, isn't it, that the public tunes in only when the news is an overwhelming financial disaster.
But they were asleep when Bush trashed the Constitution; lied about the necessity of invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands for no reason whatsoever; instituted a spying program allowing the feds to rummage through email, bank statements, phone conversations, and god knows what else; left fellow citizens to die on rooftops; instituted torture in violation of the Geneva Accords; and much, much more.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy?they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
--from The Great Gatsby
Kevin,
The performance of the futures markets?both Intrade and the usually more stable Iowa Electronic Markets?convinces me that a much bigger change than that has taken place. But I also think it would be a mistake for Obama supporters to get complacent. As unlikely as it seems that McCain/Palin will start running a better campaign (I actually expect JM to melt down at some point, effectively dooming him for once and for all), anything is possible this year. I think Obama's people (including myself among them) need to keep working.
They were careless people, Tom and Daisy?they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
~~The American people are many things, collectively I believe almost too complex to summarize, but one thing they are not as a group are Tom and Daisy. So many tens of millions of Americans have trouble keeping up with the mortgage or the rent, are one car breakdown from a domestic financial calamity. They are besieged, not careless and thoughtless.
> The performance of the futures
> markets?both Intrade and the
> usually more stable Iowa
> Electronic Markets?convinces
> me that a much bigger change
> than that has taken place.
Here come InTrade and the IEM "futures" "markets" charging in with devastating accuracy and predictive value... after all the polling data has been digested. Wow! What a crowd. What wisdom.
Cranky
That is: what wisdom?
So, um, if A VP candidate were found to be a "pathological liar" - would that be something that the American people should be informed about? Maybe I'm too rational or not partisan or something ? but I say 'yes' - people should know this.
http://washingtonindependent.com/15614/palin-elaborates-on-joes-resume
Kevin seems like a great and honest guy, but sometimes his partisanship overcomes his brain. Consider the fact that 538 has Obama projected at 52%, which represents about 3% more than Kerry got in 2004, and then read Kevin's statement:
"But if the real problem is that public opinion has turned against modern, GOP-style conservatism in a big way ? and that really does seem to be the case ? then Obama has the strongest possible kind of lead."
A 3% move hardly can be a move "against modern GOP style conservatism in a big way."
McCain still may win, but if he does not, it will be the economy and the lasting damage from the Iraq War, plus an electorate tired of Republicans after 8 years of President Bush.
There is no philosophical move this election, although the dems will have a chance to try to engineer one with large majorities in the Congress. They will either get lucky with an improving economy and accomplish such a move or, if the economy is bad two years from now, they will crash and burn in 2010.
So, um, if A VP candidate were found to be a "pathological liar" - would that be something that the American people should be informed about? Maybe I'm too rational or not partisan or something ? but I say 'yes' - people should know this.
http://washingtonindependent.com/15614/palin-elaborates-on-joes-resume
Well, because Obama is now more like 6-10 points ahead. That's double 3-5. That's why.
Party Pooper!
Exactly DiNY, it doubled his lead and he now leads outside the Bradley Effect margins.
Doggone it, David beat me to it. I think this race will settle back to your 3-5 point margin, Kevin. But as for now, Obama is holds the biggest lead we've seen thus far.
Does it have to be any one thing? Can't we all just agree that McCain is a terrible candidate who has run a miserable campaign in virtually every regard?
Also, Obama now is at almost 90% likely to win (according to 538) This is much better than he was pre-convention (where it was 60-40)
So, yes, I think that this is different from before the convention (though it may settle back)
the difference is that obama has significant leads in most of the swing states which was not the case even after his convention bump.
No, you have it exactly backwards! The increasing probability of an Obama presidency is causing our financial systems to collapse. At least that's what I read at the Corner.
I think the popping of the Palin bubble after the interviews she gave is probably also a contributing factor.
We're in a volatile atmosphere now, with the nerves of many jangled by cascading financial losses and worries about the present and future. Singular, isolated events have great power to transform our national mood. McCain could benefit greatly from a variety of unforseen such events. A terrorism strike on our soil would scramble the election beyond anyone's ability to predict the outcome. Killing or capturing bin Laden would likewise disrupt Obama's momentum. Even a careless gaffe might sway 2-3% points and even the score. This all could easily flip in a matter of hours.
About three weeks ago I found myself in shock and disbelief that McCain managed to gain a lead over Obama on the basis of his veep pick. That trend was strong and convincing. The trend reversed ONLY when the big bank failures started. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, and then the mega bailout.
The public wasn't paying attention to the economy until these bank failures started making big news and destroyed the public's denial shield. I say this because the stock market has been holding up remarkably well (relatively speaking, compared to the bad news in the banks and finance sector) until main street started paying attention to their financial security. Then the markets as well as McCain started tanking. McCain clearly hurt himself by demonstrating he was out of touch and with yet another hail mary pass during bailout talks.
It is sad that it took a once in a century financial crisis to move the needle in favor of sanity away from the prince of deregulation whose policies, individually and collectively with the party, destroyed the world's strongest financial system.
The settling down of the bounce does not explain Obama's lead in Virginia by double digits, or the fact that NC is now in his favor. This shift is much more in line with Pollster's claims.
Can't we all just agree that McCain is a terrible candidate who has run a miserable campaign in virtually every regard?
I don't want to jinx the man with premature praise, but it seems to me that Obama has run an exceptionaly cool, level-headed campaign, and that the McCain campaign hasn't been all that much worse than the last two Bush runs, although circumstances favored Bush in '00 and '04 more than they do McCain today. Obama is showing us how patience can make a difference in a presidential run (and in doing so, convincing me, at least, that he will be competent while in office).
The fact that roughly 4 in 10 Americans support McCain for president is still a very discouraging figure.
Rea, I agree with your general assessment that McCain hasn't run a much worse campaign than Bush - at least in some context-free measure (as you suggest when you speak of circumstances). But context is everything and any assessment of the McCain campaign must take into account his ability to measure and calibrate for the moment. People just aren't in the mood for more of the same crap that got us to this point and McCain is seemingly incapable of doing anything except acting even more unhinged and deranged.
One thing to keep in mind: If people are right about the "Bradley Effect" (people who will not admit they wouldn't vote for a Black candidate) being around 4%, Obama has to go in up at least 5% for a narrow lead. And I've read claims that racism may account for about 6% of votes. So I'm not celebrating yet.
Don't underestimate the effect of Obama's debate performance. It was very powerful, and a chance for many voters to really see Obama and for him to reassure them of his "presidentness". He buried it, nothing but net.
As to VA and NC, I lived in Williamsburg for six yesrs, well away from the beltway. I think Obama's coolness and good manners under fire count for a great deal in those states.
Manners are very important to voters in these states, and displays of temper and rudeness are strongly looked down upon. So McCain's first debate performance cut strongly against him with these voters. I can well imagine that the Main Street Republicans of VA are just shaking their heads sadly at him now, and the "Obama is a terrorist" junk is just going to alienate them further.
It's discouraging, isn't it, that the public tunes in only when the news is an overwhelming financial disaster.
But they were asleep when Bush trashed the Constitution; lied about the necessity of invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands for no reason whatsoever; instituted a spying program allowing the feds to rummage through email, bank statements, phone conversations, and god knows what else; left fellow citizens to die on rooftops; instituted torture in violation of the Geneva Accords; and much, much more.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisythey smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
--from The Great Gatsby
Kevin,
The performance of the futures marketsboth Intrade and the usually more stable Iowa Electronic Marketsconvinces me that a much bigger change than that has taken place. But I also think it would be a mistake for Obama supporters to get complacent. As unlikely as it seems that McCain/Palin will start running a better campaign (I actually expect JM to melt down at some point, effectively dooming him for once and for all), anything is possible this year. I think Obama's people (including myself among them) need to keep working.
Truer words, Peter Alexander, were never spoken. Now is not the time to crack open the champagne.
They were careless people, Tom and Daisythey smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
~~The American people are many things, collectively I believe almost too complex to summarize, but one thing they are not as a group are Tom and Daisy. So many tens of millions of Americans have trouble keeping up with the mortgage or the rent, are one car breakdown from a domestic financial calamity. They are besieged, not careless and thoughtless.
Hmm. I read it that he was comparing the Bush presidencies to Tom and Daisy, in which case the comparison is relatively apt.
Yes, Nate, a perfectly apt quote applied to a man like Bush, which was the commenter's clear intent.
Time to read Gatsby again, with current situation in mind.
"~~The American people are many things, collectively I believe almost too complex to summarize, but one thing they are not as a group are Tom and Daisy. So many tens of millions of Americans have trouble keeping up with the mortgage or the rent, are one car breakdown from a domestic financial calamity. They are besieged, not careless and thoughtless."
Of course, I agree.
What I had in mind was the oligarchy that runs things. Your owners. My owners.
Just to rub in my initial comment. Gallup has Obama at his highest point of the campaign, a nine point lead, 51-42. (He was once ahead by this in July when he went to Europe, but the TV then was all Obama). This lead has been steadily growing of late. Gallup may have the actual numbers wrong, but it's trend is perfectly clear. Obama has doubled his lead in the last few weeks.
The other factor is that the election is that much closer, the numbers tend to swing less wildly, and Obama has survived months of hateful, racist smears with a lead intact. I think this lead is robust.
This lead has been steadily growing of late
Exactly, and the angrier and nastier McCain gets, the more the lead will grow. If McCain wants to reverse the trend, he should do just the opposite of what he did last time: He should show calmness and restraint -- and respect for Obama.
I can't believe his people don't understand this. It's one thing for the nastiness to continue below the radar; it's another for the candidate to be spewing it himself before 50 million viewers.
I am very suspicious of the telegraphing by his campaign that "the gloves will be off" in the debate. If McCain is smart, he will do the exact opposite.
If he goes negative and angry tonight, it will trigger an electoral landslide against him. They just have to know this, don't they?
"If he (McCain) goes negative and angry tonight, it will trigger an electoral landslide against him. They just have to know this, don't they?"
No, they don't. Republicans have been winning elections since Nixon appealing to anger and resentment.
It is no longer working so well, so they are turning up the volume until it starts working again.
Remember Britney/Paris? That was 'obviously' going too far, yet it worked... Temporarily.
No one knows whether going further over the top will work. Each election the Republicans go further, and so far they usually pull it out. They won't know when they have taken it to farr until they lose.
As has been noted, Obama's lead over McCain is bigger.
Also, the media narrative has changed.
A few months ago McCain wasn't getting much traction with the BS attacks Republicans usually use, but the media would play along and there was some tension about would the attacks start to work in the future.
Now the GOP/McCain attacks are derided if they're covered at all. Nobody expects them to work except with the 25-38% of the people who will believe almost anything the Republicans tell them.
I was asked to predict the race back in December and I said I thought Obama would win the primary and win the general by 6 points, 53-47. I was asked to put in writing my prediction in May when Obama wrapped up the nomination and I said he would beat McCain 53-47. Today, I now believe Obama will win 53-47 -- which is pretty close to what it's going to be.
Am I a political genius? No. This is what historians who specalize in presidential politics have been saying for months based on previous electoral results, economic conditions in times past, etc. What is sobering about that is to recall that McCain and Obama combined will spend something like a half-billion dollars on their presidential campaigns -- and yet all those ads and all the other hoo-ha probably won't change the final vote tally by much more than a few thousand votes. The needle is moved by events and a general public attitude -- not Bill Ayers or bear DNA or much else. In a very close election, tactics might matter; but this is not going to be close.
About three weeks ago I found myself in shock and disbelief that McCain managed to gain a lead over Obama on the basis of his veep pick. That trend was strong and convincing. The trend reversed ONLY when the big bank failures started. Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, and then the mega bailout.
I think that's mostly a coincidence. Look at this post from 538:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/what-convention-bounce-looks-like...
Look at that chart at the bottom and tell me that isn't virtually exactly what actually happened. Obama shot up right at the end of his convention, McCain's convention reversed that and he took a 2-3 point lead, which withered away over the next week or two.
Now, I think the financial collapse may have accelerated things, and I think that Obama's growing lead can be attributed to both that and the glaring contrast in the quality of the campaigns.
But I don't think it's accurate to assume that McCain would have kept his lead this whole time absent the crisis.
I could be wrong of course, but the evidence I'm seeing to the contrary isn't convincing me.
I am very suspicious of the telegraphing by his campaign that "the gloves will be off" in the debate. If McCain is smart, he will do the exact opposite.
Uh, Econobuzz, McCain is no George Costanza.
> The performance of the futures
> marketsboth Intrade and the
> usually more stable Iowa
> Electronic Marketsconvinces
> me that a much bigger change
> than that has taken place.
Here come InTrade and the IEM "futures" "markets" charging in with devastating accuracy and predictive value... after all the polling data has been digested. Wow! What a crowd. What wisdom.
Cranky
That is: what wisdom?
So why make up stories based on daily events to explain it?
Because the narrative surrounding an Obama victory will have a significant effect on what he can do once he takes office. An Obama who ran away with things, steadily increasing his lead in response to economic anxiety, will have a clear mandate to make sweeping regulatory reforms to "save" the country.
An Obama who took home a safe, predictable, partisan win, on the other hand, will be much more vulnerable to the sniping in the press from conservatives and other moneyed interests, and his power to enact real change would thus be curtailed.
That's why.
Not according to the state-by-state. He's ahead double figures in many states, has decent leads in others, and is either leading or tied in all the so-called battle ground states. If the election were tomorrow, Obama would win by one of the largest popular and, accursed, EC victories ever.
Even if he slips a few points overall by Tuesday, he's still going to win.
The danger is not that voters might turn en-masse against Obama. The danger is a combination of factors: the polls are overstating Obama's lead; undecideds break predominantly for McCain; some Obama voters get cold feet and switch to McCain; the historic turnout, especially in young voters, does not materialize; problems at the polls turn a significant number of voters away, or votes are otherwise "lost". A combination of some or all of these factors could swing the election to McCain. I don't think its likely, but now is no time to rest.
Neiman Marcus
I agree with Alan. The Obama coalition (blacks, academics, etc.) includes some elements who are historically unproven as large-turnout voters (notably young adults). Until they actually deliver at the polls, there will be skepticism.
enough people realize they were duped in 04, and see that the country is really thoroughly in the toilet.
But Kevin, I thought most pundits were thinking in opposite terms: considering all the technical metrics, why was the race even this close? Then they get into race, newness of Obama, etc. Well, the polls showing McCain closer to Obama are based on modeling this election like previous ones, and not taking likely higher black etc. turnout into effect. You'd think the updating adjustment would have to be more accurate, but don't assume (it makes an ASS out of U and ME.) Some poll watchers think it could be close or even a McCain squeaker if those groups don't come out in force and drown out all the fake plumbers who hate socialism. Really, again, no time to be a bit complacent and it will take hard-core charging up to the very end (and maybe beyond!) to pull this thing through.
Don't forget stealing the vote, either. The following clip is chilling:
www dot brasschecktv.com/page/145 dot html
BTW this is great, Olbermann hoisting up Sarah Palin as a hypocritical fraud about Alaskan-style socialism. Put this link everywhere please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t59WT9D9_8
The usual crap isn't sticking for two reasons:
First, not even a nuclear attack can distract voters from the economy this year; we're going to vote for whoever we think can save our jobs and our houses. If that person is a socialist, communist, terrorist, child molester - who cares if he fixes the fucking economy.
Second, Obama's brilliant and flawless campaign made that sale a year ago. Long before the Wall Street meltdown, he'd already convinced people that he was serious about stopping the wealthy thieves and making them give their stolen booty back to the workers who created it.
I keep telling the panicky types around here to calm down. Nothing McCain tries is going to work because nothing he can try will change those two facts.
I think it has more to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections - both of which we expected to win, 2000 narrowly, and 2004 less so. And then we lost. And the comprehensive studies of why, which show some pretty scary shenanigans in Ohio and Florida, have been ignored and even jeered. We're left with this little worm of doubt wiggling around under the surface: this election could be lost the same way those others were...however that was...