Obama's Bounce

Rasmussen Reports sees a bounce for Barack Obama over John McCain since clinching the Democratic nomination Tuesday night.

CandidateJune 8June 4

Those results do not reflect leaners. The results with leaners are similar and get Obama to the magic 50%.

CandidateJune 8June 4

Rasmussen breaks down the reason for Obama's bounce:

Obama's bounce is the result of growing unity among the Democratic Party. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they will vote for Obama over McCain. That's the highest level of party support ever enjoyed by Obama.

He's also seeing an uptick in his favorability.

Obama's bounce can be seen in his favorability ratings as well. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters now give the Illinois Senator positive reviews. Just 41% have an unfavorable opinion. Those totals include 36% with a Very Favorable opinion and 27% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. Today's results are the highest ratings yet recorded for Obama.

As for McCain, he is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 45%. Opinions about the presumptive Republican nominee are less firmly established. Just 16% have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain and 21% have a Very Unfavorable view (see daily results).

Interestingly, while the Gallup daily tracking poll does not see such dramatic movement toward Obama (yesterday's result shows Obama up just 1 point over McCain since Tuesday), Gallup's analysis reveals that it's likely just a matter of time.

Within the current five-day rolling average, Obama has exceeded McCain by a fair margin in each of the last three individual nights of Gallup polling, all conducted since Hillary Clinton announced she would be ending her bid for the Democratic nomination. It appears that her exit decision had the immediate effect of releasing some of her supporters to back Obama in the general election. If this continues in interviews conducted Sunday, Obama should have a clear lead over McCain in Monday's release.

It makes sense that Gallup would be less sensitive to day to day events since it is based on a 5-day rolling average versus 4 days for Rasmussen. Look for the next couple of Gallup releases to reflect a dramatic Obama bounce of its own.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, bounce, John McCain (all tags)



The Clinton Effect

Is yet to show in these numbers.  Her strong endorement of Obama just yesterday will take a few days to show in tracking polls.  Nice to see there's already a bounce because once the Clinton Effect kicks in, this could build to something impressive.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

The Clinton wing of democratic voters will never be more pro-McCain than they are now.  The fact that with the anti-Obama backlash at its height he is STILL beating John McCain is a very good sign.

by Jess81 2008-06-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

All this before the general election debate between Obama and McCain is even joined. Once it is, and the very real difference on the issues becomes more apparent, I suspect more than a few of the remaining Clinton holdouts will move to Obama.

by animated 2008-06-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Indeed. Polling's very clear...

Americans are much more positive about "John McCain" than about his policies.  As much as there's crowing about how "nobody knows what Obama stands for" there's actual evidence that people are unclear on McCain, and as that gets rectified, things should improve.

by Rorgg 2008-06-09 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Once again I must heartily thank Sen. Clinton for her efforts on this.

by rfahey22 2008-06-08 09:54AM | 0 recs
No looking back now.

McSame offers nothing and the American people already have had plenty of that.

by notme54 2008-06-08 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for your strong endorsement of Barack Obama.

Together we can take back the White House and promote policies that are good for our planet and its people.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-08 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

It looks like most of Clinton's supporters are more pragmatic than some of the diehard posters here.  Good thing too.  

by Drummond 2008-06-08 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I worked an event yesterday with some Clinton supporters.  There were no issues and the subject most discussed were how we were going to beat McCain.

by parahammer 2008-06-08 10:16AM | 0 recs
Oh yeah, they're in

The reality on the ground is so different from the hand-wringing going on here.  Look at something like Hillaryis44 where it turns out the whole thing was barely a couple hundred people spread out over the country.  There's a niche for everything but that doesn't necessarily make a movement.  

I talked to so many Clinton people in the leadup to the caucuses and the thought of any of them not being on board with the nominee is a joke.  They know the issues at stake.  They aren't petty people.  Their dissapointment for their candidate is genuine and sometimes intense.  But it doesn't make them bad citizens who would knowingly screw over millions of people.  The platform does matter.  

by Sun Dog 2008-06-08 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Of course we are and it would have been largely the same had the reverse happened.

by ottovbvs 2008-06-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Agreed.  In fact most polls showed Obama supporters more willing to back her.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:30AM | 0 recs

It seems like a few of us predicted this happening.  And yet we were told that Clinton supporters would never come around to voting for Obama...

Clinton's excellent speech may have helped, but I think overall it's just people realizing that, much as they might not have been super-excited about Obama, he's a hundred times better than McCain.

by BishopRook 2008-06-08 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Odd...

Most Clinton supporters are true Democrats who share the values of Hillary, who shares the values of Obama and the Party.  They know that supporting McCain is a slap in the face to Hillary and that they were never true Hillary supporters just fair weather band wagon riders who spit on Democratic values.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Odd...

Yep.  I vividly remember the 2004 nomination fight, and though it didn't last nearly as long as this one, the passion was the same...  People started out saying "I will NEVER vote for your candidate!" but once the fervor of the primary season had died down, there was unity.

by BishopRook 2008-06-08 02:17PM | 0 recs
Poll responders vs. Voters

I think there is another factor to consider.  Based on enthusiasm for the parties in general - and the candidates in specific - I forecast that there will be something like this in Nov:

o  Poll responders who indicate a vote for Obama who go on to vote - 95%

o  Poll responders who indicate a vote for McCain who go on to vote - 80%

Even that second number may be overstated.  The number of can't-be-bothered Republicans this fall could be huge.  McCain does not inspire a great turnout among Big C Conservatives, nor among those who get out and vote purely on how busy they are that day.


by chrisblask 2008-06-08 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

I think I heard there were hundreds of thousands of unregistered AA voters in Georgia.  In a close race, all that needs to happen is for those folks to get out there and vote.  Wham!  Georgia is BLUE.  So, those polls don't even reflect "likely voters" at this point because there are lots of places voter registration drives can still make a huge difference.  And the Barr impact is still unknown, as well.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-08 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

The bulk of the Obama machine is now engaged in Voter registration. We are doing drives every day in NC. I was out yesterday.

by parahammer 2008-06-08 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

There aren't enough AA's in GA to make it blue for Obama. They only amount to 25% if iirc in a general election. And as far as people who aren't registered they might not be eligibile to vote. We also have a new voter law too.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 10:45AM | 0 recs
Why so pessimistic?

It's not like ONLY African Americans are going to vote for Obama in GA.  The fact that they will come out so strong definitely helps but just like with the rest of the country, it has been a diverse mix of people voting for Obama.  

The fact is, we've always had the potential to redraw the electoral map.  Because if every state that we think of as being stable for one party or another, there are millions of people eligible to vote who usually just don't.  We keep trying to wrestle back and forth with the same voting blocs election after election.  This time we nominated someone who actually inspires people who used to sit it out to get up and vote.  How do you think he won the nomination?  

I understand being skeptical about VA or GA.  But we definitely can win.  We can win just about anywhere.  This is our country and there are good people in every corner of it.  Let's just work on reaching them.

by Sun Dog 2008-06-08 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

VA is the likeliest with Obama already leading in some polls. NC in a sweep. GA in a major sweep.

by animated 2008-06-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Even coming out strongly ISNT GOING TO BE ENOUGH. This is what you need to realize. Obama is going to have to do better with white voters to even think about carrying GA. It's not going to happen.

The problem is that while Obama may inspire YOU and YOUR demographic there are many others that he doesn't inspire. It's a fact you need to face.

Remember this statement: Demographics are destiny. Where the demographics don't favor Obama he is unlikely to win. The demographics do not favor Obama in GA. Not enough AA and latte drinkers to to win. Okay?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Here's a quick lesson on math for you.  If 25% of the electorate is AA in Georgia and they go 90-95 for Obama and he gets JUST 40% of the white vote (which is less than what he gets in GE polling) he would win the state.  I am not saying this would happen, but you need to realize that this is the first time in decades where we could even discuss states like Georgia being in play.

Oh and the latte drinker comment, grow up and re-read the current polling that was listed in this diary.  Unless you think the vast majority of that 81% of Democrats for Obama are latte drinkers, then you are gonna have to admit that your attempt to marginalize his broad support is intellectually dishonest.

by Xris 2008-06-08 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

His ignorance knows no bounds.  But what does he care... he has already left the party, there is no need for him to post on a Democratic Blog.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Yeah I am not sure why I even tried.  As I went to hit the post button I thought "Wow I just wasted five minutes of my life trying to argue with a troll".  

by Xris 2008-06-08 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

 Anyone leaving the party instead of staying and trying to make it better is a judas, pure and simple to me.  Their opinion of our party and how it operates isn't important or welcome.  When you are a member of the party, you have a right to speak your mind.  If not, then Democratic affairs are none of your concern.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

You don't stay when the nominee says you aren't wanted do you? What if Hillary said that she didn't want people like you in the party? What would you do? Something to think about.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Obama never said he didn't want anyone in the party.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

His surrogates sure did.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

No they didn't. Give me a link to an Obama surrogate saying they don't want anyone in the party.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Donna Brazille. She's toxic. The night of the NC primary.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?
BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Nowhere in that quote did she say she didn't want anyone in the party. She said we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. The key word there is "just."

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-from- cnns-election-center/

BRAZILE: First of all, Paul, you didn't hear me right. Maybe I should come and cook you something because you've got a little hearing problem.

I was one of the first Democrats who were going to the white working-class neighborhoods, encouraging white Democrats not to forget their roots. I have drank more beers with "Joe Six Pack," "Jane Six Pack" and everybody else than most white Democrats that you're talking about.

In terms of Hispanics, you know Paul, I know the math. I know Colorado; I know Nevada; I know New Mexico. So that's not the issue. I'm saying that we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party as if the Democratic Party will rely simply on white, blue collar male- you insult every black blue collar Democrat by saying that.

So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know both know we have been in more campaigns. We know how Democrats win and to simply suggest that Hillary's coalition is better than Obama's, Obama's is better than Hillary's -- no. We have
a big party, Paul.

So we're back to my earlier question - which Obama surrogate said they didn't want anyone in the party? Who told you that you weren't welcome?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

I watched it. The just didn't come through when she was talking. The message was loud and clear. Obama's campaign manager has said pretty much the same thing. It's been said numerous times and the voters have been called racists repeatedly by his surrogates. Is this what he's going to do all the way to Nov? Say vote for me or you're a racist?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Well, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word on this, since I just showed you that Donna Brazile didn't say what you claimed she said. If you want me to believe the things you're claiming, you'll need to provide some links.

Give me a link to a quote of Obama's campaign manager saying they don't want people in the party.

Give me links to Obama's surrogates repeatedly calling voters racists.

I say it never happened. You say it did - so show me the proof.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Still waiting.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-08 07:03PM | 0 recs

I take your silence as an admission that Obama's campaign manager and surrogates never said the things you claimed they said. Thanks for clearing that up.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-06-09 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

what exactly do you want again?

i understand you're heart broken that Obama beat Clinton. I understand that you think Obama is a weak candidate. I understand a lot of your issues.

But you never cared about "obamabots" who disagreed with you or with their beliefs that Obama was the better candidate to go up against McCain in the GE. You've always known it all so let's not start playing victim.

by alex100 2008-06-08 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Let's use the words "traitor" or "betrayer" instead of "Judas"... Too many usages of the word Judas and someone will end up using this to attack us as supposedly antisemetic. :-)

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-08 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Kerry got 25% of the white vote. It's unlikely that Obama would do any better.

25%+ (.25 x 75%)=18%

25% + 18% +43% in a general election. There's your math.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Kerry got 25% of the white vote. It's unlikely that Obama would do any better.

Well, since we're talking numbers...  Whites made up only 70% of the electorate in 2004, not 75% like you're claiming.  Kerry took the non-white vote by a huge margin, and Obama's margin will best even that.

But I wonder why you think Obama won't do any better than Kerry among white voters?  That's not what polling so far has suggested.

by BishopRook 2008-06-08 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

Actually polling has shown that he does worse than kerry with white voters.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

actually he does exactly the same based on current polls.  

by Xris 2008-06-08 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

SurveyUSA begs to differ.  I'd cite the recent Rasmussen poll as well, but its cross-tabs are restricted to premium members.

Compare to CNN's 2004 exit polling.

And if we're talking just in Georgia...  Here's one (though it includes Bob Barr in the running).  Shows the white vote splitting 56-22 in McCain's favor, while CNN's 2004 exit poll shows Bush getting the white vote 76-24.  That's an 18-point improvement over Kerry's numbers, with a lot of undecideds that could potentially break for Obama.

by BishopRook 2008-06-08 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

he'll probably lose GA but there's no reason to think he can't do better then Kerry with whites and vastly outperform Kerry.

the race (not racial) dynamics have changed since 2004 and the GOP base isn't as excited about McCain as they were about Bush.

The minority vote will be up. Not just the AA vote but GA's relatively large Latino population should be more politically active this coming election.

by alex100 2008-06-08 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why so pessimistic?

your on the wrong site dude

go to redstate

by wellinformed 2008-06-08 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

30% actually, which seems to be to be a very large voting block.  If all the AAs in Georgia vote for Obama, then you're already 2/3s of the way to getting 50% of the overall vote. Heck, Kerry got 41% in 2004 and Clinton got 46% in '96.  There's a very good chance that Obama's ground game can make up that difference.

But I'm arguing with a concern troll here.

by Gene In PA 2008-06-08 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Nope. The ground game CAN NOT be a subsitute for demographic problems. There are not enough AA's and latte drinkers in GA for Obama to win here. He can't get enough of the white vote to win. In order to win he must get at least 40% of the white vote. You are ignoring the fact too that there may be many who are motivated to come out and vote against him.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

You're right, it would be foolish of Obama to count on winning GA in any shape or form. There could be tangible benefits to increasing turnout there, and in a real landslide he could win. But I doubt that's on their radar as a top pick up.

by animated 2008-06-08 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Thank you for looking at it realistically.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

"Latte Drinkers?"  What an ignorant comment.   GO away Troll, you bring nothing to this site.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Do you not realize that's short hand for Obama's demographics? I guess not.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

I realize ignorant people with little concept of reality call them that.... as an insult.  Mostly people too clueless on national politics who are tucked into their own tiny corner of the world and have NOT A CLUE about Obama or Democratic politics at all despite their BS CLAIMS...Using the ignorany term Latte Drinkers is  Kind of like someone from the North using the term Racist Southerners.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Racist southerners? Isn't that the new party shorthand for anyone who doesn't agree with Obama?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Not shorthand for everybody, though from your comments, it seems to be quite accurate for you.

by jadegirl 2008-06-08 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Eh, typical. Everybody is a racist according to Obama and his supporters. It's why the public is probably going to give him a shellacking in the fall. Everybody loves being called a racist because they disagree with him right?

This is pathetic.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

eh, typical. Everyone is a sexist according to Hillary and her supporters. It's why the public would have probably given her a shellacking in the fall. Everybody loves being called a mysogynist because they disagree with her right?

this is pathetic.

by alex100 2008-06-08 06:14PM | 0 recs

I'm an extremely liberal New York City Democrat, and I never drink latte.

Regular coffee, a little half and half or milk.

In fact, I don't know anyone here on the Upper West Side of Manhattan who drinks latte, and I don't even recall seeing anyone ordering it in a restaurant.  

Not that there's anything wrong with people who drink latte.

Perhaps you could come up with a better insulting one word stereotype to characterize a national political movement.

Maybe you could just call us progressives.

Or Democrats.  

by DaveG 2008-06-08 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Latte?

It's not a national political movement not matter how much you might like it to be.

What is wrong with latte drinkers? It's really just short hand for college educated upper income whites. Would you rather I use the long hand version?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Latte?

yeah. use the longhand version.

I'm a lower income grad student whom is Latino. I drink lattes as it's how I began drinking coffee (café con leche).

the general profile you use for "latte drinker" sucks.

by alex100 2008-06-08 06:19PM | 0 recs
Too much troll calling

I think maybe some care needs to be taken in flinging "troll" around at posters one strongly disagrees with.  Don't engage if you really believe that, but mostly it's just a strong difference of opinion going on.  It's been troll this and troll that for the last few days.  Sort of pointless.

by mady 2008-06-08 04:50PM | 0 recs
His organization is far better than McCain's

and thus more efficient. The point in a GA is to force McCain to work to keep it. Spend $5 to make McCain spend $10. Spend 2 hours to make McCain spend 4.

I agree about the demographics, but give the man's strategic skills some credit.

by Neef 2008-06-08 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: His organization is far better than McCain's

I doubt that Obama's organization is better than mcCains here in GA. McCain has the support of the entire GOP here. When Obama had people here for the primary he basically just targeted a few areas.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

There is one ultra-wild card when it comes to Georgia: Bob Barr.  If he starts picking off conservatives who already distrust McCain, he'd force McCain to invest in a state he should never have to work for.  Remember, we don't need to win Georgia.  We just need to keep it close and force McCain to stretch his already thin resources.  And should Barr do better than expect, say he gets just 7% of the vote in his home state, Obama COULD eek out a win.

by jkfp2004 2008-06-08 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

Do you realize that many Dems could vote for Barr too? If whites abandon Obama for Barr in the general he could do even worse than Kerry did down here. You really shouldn't denpend on those kinds of things to carry a state for you. They are highly unreliable and can blow up in your face.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

While Barr might pull away some Democrats I think he's a much bigger threat to McCain.  Barr was a Republican congressman and led the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  He's also pretty far right on immigration and could hit McCain hard there.

by jkfp2004 2008-06-08 03:47PM | 0 recs

600,000 unregistered African Americans

by Destiny 2008-06-08 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

Are they eligible to vote? There are some new stricter voter registration laws in effect. And why didn't Obama's campaign register them before?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

The new law requires photo identification. Sadly, for you, we no longer have a poll tax down here.

by jadegirl 2008-06-08 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

Really, you are doing Obama a lot of good aren't you? And in case you didn't realize it, the poll tax has been gone for decades. And you think Obama has a chance in the south with your kind of elitist whining?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

I live here. I know it's been gone for decades. It's just people like you who find that fact disappointing.

He has no chance in Alabama and Tennessee. But he does have a chance in North Carolina and Georgia. Is it likely? Of course not, just possible.

And sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a latte drinker either.

Now, go on back to red state where your rants will be appreciated and applauded.

by jadegirl 2008-06-08 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

he lives in GA too. And if his user name is right, he's from the 6th cong. of GA, he's from Newt Gingrich's district, which is a pretty good flavor of what Georgia and much of the south is largely like. I have family in Georgia as well. He's got a point. I really see Obama getting swamped there. it is FAR too racist for him to get close, being who he is. NC has been closer recently than GA, so we'll see what happens there.

Also, I see no reason for you to cut him down. Some people don't see a need to harken about old opression, as we live in today.

by Lakrosse 2008-06-08 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Georgia

elitist whining?

O'Reily? is that you?

by alex100 2008-06-08 06:23PM | 0 recs
could have a sam nunn effect

by ab03 2008-06-08 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: could have a sam nunn effect

Sam Nunn has been out of politics here for 12 years and it's unlikely that he would make much of a difference.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll responders vs. Voters

I'm a white voter in Georgia, actively working to register new voters, white and African American. there are a lot of white voters in GA who support Obama. Would he have a chance without Barr on the ballot? Probably not. But it will make a difference.

by jadegirl 2008-06-08 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Given that McCain has really been flying below the radar for the past three months while Obama/Clinton(sounds good!) have been sucking all the oxygen these numbers are really bad news for McSame. The spotlight is now going to be on him as a Bush clone and h'e going to tank over the next month.

by ottovbvs 2008-06-08 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I'm waiting to see what the 527's start throwing at Obama after the convention to make any predictions.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Obama is teflon, like Reagan. Nothing will stick.

by Cheebs 2008-06-08 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Are you kidding? Did you see how many voters in exit polls thought he shared Rev. Wright's value system?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

IF YOU aren't supporting the nominee, then please leave.  You are a fair weather political supporter and your betrayal of the party and its ideas is unwelcome.  You directly spit on Democrats and Hillary's values and since you aren't a Democrat, you have no reason to post on a Democratic Blog.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I refuse to be a cheerleader/ostrich. If you want to call people "trolls" who deal in facts then perhaps you should wake up now instead of later.

Spit on Hillary? Hardly. That's been the job of Obama supporters for months now.

Betrayal of the party? Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Obama supporters like you worked at deliberately driving away life long democrats? I know, I know. It's the new party. We've all been told by people like Donna Brazille that the party doesn't need anyone outside of creative class voters and AA's. Good luck with that.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Do you have an actual link to a quote of Ms. Brazille saying that or are you just another NoQuarter/Hillaryis44 troll?

by Gene In PA 2008-06-08 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

just ignore him.  He is just here to try and piss people off.  

by Xris 2008-06-08 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Google for it. It was on CNN the night of the NC Primary where Brazille said that Obama was building a new democratic party where they didn't need white working class voters, hispanics nor women. I saw it and was shocked. However, it told me everything I needed to know.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

wow. do you even believe the things you say?

you're going to read this stuff a week/month/year from now and realize just how silly you sound.

by falseintellect 2008-06-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There you go. Brazille talking about the "new party." Whatever.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Adapt or die.

If you believe the party could survive based on what it has been forever then you're sorely mistaken.

Parties, like everything else in culture evolves. It's up to you to decide if you still fit in with the values of the party. It seems as though you have already decided that you don't fit in the party anymore.

So that begs the question: why are you still here?

by PSUdan 2008-06-09 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Troll Alert:

Sign of a Troll #43323: Complete distortion of someone's statements.

Here, we see the troll Ga6thDem clearly saying that Brazille said we don't need the votes of white working class voters, when in REALITY, what Brazille actually said was that we no longer need to solely rely on those voters. Meaning we have brought new coalitions of voters into the mix.

Big difference. But don't let silly things like facts get in the way of your trolling.

by John in Chicago 2008-06-09 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

But did you see how he won anyway? Teflon.

by Becky G 2008-06-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Um has the general election been held already? Or do you not realize that it's in Nov?

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:31AM | 0 recs
They're ready for it

Look at the video of Barack talking to his staff in Chicago last week.  That's a crack team of campaigners ready to hit back on any smear the GOP comes up with.  And they're gonna smear big time.  It's going to be about fear.  Xenophobia.  I guarantee there are Republicans who think they struck gold when we nominated Obama because they think the country is shit.  They think it's just too racist and they're going to try to play up the fear, indirectly mostly, directly when they can get away with it.

Let's prove them wrong.  

by Sun Dog 2008-06-08 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: They're ready for it

They haven't been very impressive so far when it comes to handling the GOP. Besides, Obama has said that he wants to hold hands with these guys so it's going to make it hard for him to attack them.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: They're ready for it

Go away little troll.  Fly fly fly.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I hear a rumor he fathered, not just one, but TWO, black children.

by jkfp2004 2008-06-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Head in the sand.

by Ga6thDem 2008-06-08 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Head in the...uh, nevermind...:D

by animated 2008-06-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
I'm sure they're waiting, too

Wright didn't work too well in MI. Even Gingrich thinks a swiftboat campaign won't work this year.

This is a change year. Watch McCain, he knows this.

by Neef 2008-06-08 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sure they're waiting, too

What I think is funny, is to assume there won't be a big scandal to hit McCain.  Something regarding his ex-wife (whom he cheated on with his current wife), is bound to pop up.

http://digg.com/politics/The_wife_John_M cCain_callously_left_behind

by jkfp2004 2008-06-08 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

With his bounce Obama isn't even up to Hillary's previous lead over McCain.  Imagine where we'd be if a bounce had been added to her already decisive lead.  What idiots we have in the Democratic elite.

by moevaughn 2008-06-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

What jackasses we have posting on mydd.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Re-read the diary.

by Juno 2008-06-08 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Ah... if only it was this easy to maintain the lead.  Still great news... If he can keep a 5 Point lead through the convention, this could be headed to big victory.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

great post todd

by jedreport 2008-06-08 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I had a thought on Obama's numbers...how often is it that a primary candidate is under attack from both the opposing party, and a strong primary challenger, without the support of his or her party establishment?

I think Obama will also benefit from having the full support of not just Hillary Clinton but the whole party behind him.

by animated 2008-06-08 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I'm glad that only a handful have had the temerity to post here as if this was bad news.

Shit.  What more do you guys want?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-08 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

They want exactly what they got, which was to successfully troll all the responders in these threads.

by dkm201 2008-06-08 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

Can we ignore Ga6th?  He has no purpose to be here other than to disrupt conversation.

by Jess81 2008-06-08 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Bounce

I understand that you think Obama is a weak candidate.

by anasky123 2008-06-26 01:33AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads