The Independents

Independents, Gallup says today, swung big to McCain:

Gallup's finding are being confirmed by two other polls that came out yesterday.

CBS: McCain is ahead by 55-29 among Independents.

Hotline: McCain is ahead by 45-32, among Independents.

Neither ABC or CNN, in their polls, offered up the results broken down by partisan identification. Under this sort of scenario, the only possible way Obama could be ahead, or tied, is if party ID dramatically favors Democrats on election day. It hasn't in any of the recent election years.

Rasmussen, which weights by party ID and has shown a pre-convention Democratic lead, wrote yesterday about a correlative finding:

For a variety of reasons, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll is less volatile than some other polls and always shows a somewhat smaller convention bounce than reported by others. This is primarily because we weight our results by party identification. Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008.

Oh yea, I almost forgot... Sarah Palin.

Tags: 2008 (all tags)



Re: The Independents

its because no one wants to focus on McCain.

people vote for the top of the ticket, Palin is a distraction and people are falling for it.

it needs to be non-stop McCain=Bush, but nooooo the left wants to do this long drawn out, hey we show Palin is a terrible pick and that reflects bad on McCain and then we challenge his judgement and then we show that he can't bring change we need?

yeah good luck to get the media to go along with that.


we could do the thing that was working  McCain = Bush

by TruthMatters 2008-09-09 05:12AM | 0 recs
All these polls are post-GOP convention

so you have to take them with a grain of salt.

We shall see what happens to the polls as time and the debate continues.

The good news is that the swing states according to the Rasmussen/FOX News polls that came out show that all those states except Ohio is very tied.  This says to me that the election will be won on the ground.

by puma 2008-09-09 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

debates?   presidents are no longer elected on debates anymore ... the days of Richard Nixon vs Kennedy are long gone.   The same people whom you think debates will swing back over to Obama are the same people who saw Kerry and Gore destroy Bush on almost every debate.   The result, 8 years of GWB.

by Monkei 2008-09-09 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

Puma has been writing diaries here under that name since March 2006.  He/she also self-identified as an Obama supporter during the primary.  I take it from your post that you are mistakenly assumed that this noble feline name is serving as an acronym of some kind?

by tdub 2008-09-09 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

Sorry, that comment was meant to reply to Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner (just below).

by tdub 2008-09-09 06:27AM | 0 recs
PUMAs are extinct now no?

by activatedbybush 2008-09-09 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are extinct now no?

Wrong, also known as cougar, mountain lion they are making a come back except one sub species in FL is still quite endangered - the black panther.

by anya109 2008-09-09 07:55AM | 0 recs
Ah, not THAT kind of PUMA...

by activatedbybush 2008-09-09 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

Completely disagree.  The debates are hugely important.

Gore lost his lead after the first debate where he figeted, sighed and had a look of contempt towards Bush (I understand the feeling) when he was talking.  Gore rebounded in the other debates but the die was cast.

The debates actually helped Kerry close the gap after the pummeling he took at the RNC in 2004 but he couldn't quite get over the finish line.

by jmnyc 2008-09-09 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

Um actually that's not true...   Bush beat expectations and Gore did not.   Everyone expected an A out of gore who turned in a B+.  Everyone expected a D- out of Bush who turned in a C.  Yes Gore won the Debate, but Bush won the expectations game and more importantly the media spin.  That first debate was a point where some undecideds saw Bush and said, "He's not as stupid as I thought (and they were wrong)".  

The other issue out of there was the Gore sigh, which the media focused on.   It was a moment similiar to the Bush41 watch look and that hurt Gore.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-09 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: All these polls are post-GOP convention

You are quite right. None of the debates since Kennedy/Nixon has made any measurable impact on their respective elections.
Obama and McCain are both mediocre debaters, you can write the script now for the each of the debates - nothing material will come out of them.

Palin vs Biden?  That will be the one to watch! Expectations for Palin will be extremely low and she, of course, will easily exceed them and be declared the victor.

by oliver777 2008-09-09 07:49AM | 0 recs
yeah you also forgot

that Independents growth began as disguntled Republicans..... for a long time before Independents collected DEMS and others

so when pollsters talk about Independents it is misleading ... they should say former Republican Independents favor McCain....

or former Democratic Independents favor Obama

so on so forth

they are misleading on purpose anyway as you well know.................

by dearreader 2008-09-09 07:03AM | 0 recs
Polls taken after the Dem convention

probably showed that Obama had more indies but now polls taken after the GOP convention now show that McCain has more indies.

The GOP convention was all about biography and bashing Obama.  Once the election goes back to issues as it will with the debates, than I am sure that the Indies will swing back to the Dems for the Dems have the issues on their side.

by puma 2008-09-09 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Polls taken after the Dem convention

No, I think you mean to say that there's never been a set of polls like this, the bounce will never stop, the race is over, McCain will win 53 states, and we should never, ever, ever, ever, ever have nominated Obama.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-09-09 06:10AM | 0 recs
Just in case you're confused, puma is not a PUMA

(See my comment just above.)

by tdub 2008-09-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Just in case you're confused, puma is not a PU

No, I know was just a sarcastic remark about the chicken little-esque sentiment that others are expressing around the liberal blogosphere, having nothing to do specifically with him.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-09-09 06:40AM | 0 recs
57 States :)


by iohs2008 2008-09-09 07:40AM | 0 recs
Trying to have it both ways?

Rasmussen weights their poll based on party ID so that they can get a representative sample.

And yet they also make conclusions about party ID from the pre-weighted sample, which they've already decided is not representative.

That's pretty odd. has an exact tie at the moment, we'll see where it goes.

by BishopRook 2008-09-09 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Agree.  McCain/Palin=Bush.  DO NOT GET OFF MESSAGE!

The polls are essentially post convention results.  The news cycle has already ground up and spit out the bounce(s) from both conventions.  Any numbers coming out now, should be taken seriously.

Independents moving that hard can't stay, there will be a move back, however, I'm afraid it won't come back all the way.  Axelrod, better get back from vacation quickly from complacency-land or he will find himself down like Penn did before you can say polling results.  Someone over there needs to put their hands on the steering wheel and get the car back on the highway. NOW.

by TxDem08 2008-09-09 05:23AM | 0 recs

It's pretty easy; I'd imagine that a huge percentage of the "independants" were Republicans who voted for Bush and got disgusted, leaving the Republican party as a result.

McCain's tactics of choosing Palin made some folks more willing to vote for their old party.

When people realize that she's not much of a real reformer and has a poor grasp on issues, they may oscillate back to being up for grabs.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 05:25AM | 0 recs
Yep Nate Silver as assumed

that many of these "Indies" were really Repubs but were getting disgusted with their party so they said that they were "Indies".  Thus this increase in "Indies" just means that many Repubs are coming home.

by puma 2008-09-09 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Explanation

True independents are a pretty small group these days. While about 1/3rd of voters ID as independent, about 2/3rds of those are easily identified as Rs or Ds based on primary voting history and other indicators. So about 10% are hard to ID, and even many of those tend to prefer one party.

I suspect you're correct that the recent growth of independents is Republicans embarrassed by their party. But I doubt they will oscillate, they are more likely to return home.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 05:44AM | 0 recs
They may return and stay home

...but if there's one thing we know about this cycle, it's not to jump to conclusions.

If pushed for details about how they're going to reform government and they can't name anything beyond telling lobbyists to take a hike (bye Charlie Black!) and vetoing earmarks (for before against), people might get disgusted with the doubletalk again.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Explanation

Independents and undecideds are a farce. I think they just like the mystique behind it. Every election cycle, the media is obsessed with these voters, heaps massive attention on them and contorts itself to get "inside their minds."

It's human nature. Given a choice of being just one of millions of members of the two major parties, or being part of the EXTRA CRUCIAL SUPER-IMPORTANT fraction of voters who will DECIDE THIS HISTORICAL ELECTION, it's not hard to figure out which one they pick.

There's definitely a significant amount of cachet attached to being an independent/undecided voter. After all, you get to act all cerebral and above-the-fray ("I both like and dislike certain things about both parties. I'm no dogmatic identifier!")

But really, they probably vote for the same party the vast majority of the time. Just look at the Democratic primaries, where Hillary always had the majority of support among late-deciders. Those people KNEW they wanted to support her, but for whatever reason, just didn't want to be on the record until the very end.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-09-09 06:17AM | 0 recs
You're right.

I'm an unaffiliated voter who has voted for the Democrat in 8 of the last 9 presidential elections. After this year it will be 8 of the last 10, which will mean that I still vote for the Democrat the vast majority of the time.

by JimR 2008-09-09 06:34AM | 0 recs
OK, I'll stupidly bite.

Why ON EARTH would you vote for the Republican candidate (or lend support by not voting for the democrat) who so clearly is politically in line with the Republicans of the last 8 years who have wrecked our economy, sent us to eternal war, etc....particularly when there are 3 Supreme Court members likely to retire or pass on and McCain has been very clear about the ideology (anti-choice, anti-privacy, etc.) of his selections?  

I just don't get this.  Obama is a strong person, has a great bio, a grand history of fighting for the causes people on this board supposedly espouse...I really plain don't get why this is even remotely a choice.  Sorry, just had to rant.  

by thurst 2008-09-09 07:35AM | 0 recs
I agree..I've been saying this for a while

The pool of independents is contaminated by a large number of repugs who disavowed their support of the GOP but are still likely to vote for the GOP in the fall. I think Palin gave them the reason that they were going manufacture on Nov 4 if a good one was not given to them. I am curious to see how many of those independents were undecided before the GOP convention and after. If the undecided pool shrinked I think a lot of them may have been former repugs or more like repugs in waiting. Looking for a reason to say 'out loud' that they will vote for McCain.

I don't anyone has polled the demographic of the independent voters. ie prior registration, prior voting history that would give us a large insight.

If Sen Obama that's back the lead with while breaking even independents as they are polled now. I am inclined to think that a lot of those so called independents are repugs coming home and the true independents are leaning to Sen Obama.

We'll see

by FLS 2008-09-09 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

My suggestion.  The bridge to nowhere thing isn't gaining traction.  Why not try the McCain is a crazy mo-fo who wants to start news wars and bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.   How many times do I have to say it, Goldwater his ass.

We are let McCain hang around and McCain proved in 2000 and just recently in the 2008 primaries that he is dangerous if you let him hand around.  We need to take a page out of Bush's '00 playbook and get serious, and knock McCain down now.  

It should have been done 6 weeks ago.  It may too late now.  We may just have to ride it out and see what happens.  

by RichardFlatts 2008-09-09 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

It's sure gaining traction around here. I'm hearing it on the right-leaning morning show, where the right-leaning hosts (who still like Bush) are repeating the correct version of Bridge To Nowhere and questioning whether Palin was a good choice for VP. And I'm hearing it from Republicans who are really unhappy about it.

By itself it's something of an 'eh' story. Yeah, she took a bunch of money for Alaska. If she was up front about it, this would've been over.

But it ties into two things:

1) McCain/Palin are liars. The problem the Republicans have on this is that the lies are on tape and have pictures. It's awfully hard to defend this point. And people don't care much, most of the time, about pork -- but they care whether someone's a flat-out liar. And these are people who are worse at it than Bush is, which is saying something.

2) McCain/Palin aren't reformers, aren't mavericks, and don't represent change. Again, it's getting harder to argue the opposite. And the more the Bridge To Nowhere thing seeps out there, the more people hear that McCain's campaign is run by the lobbyists (people hate lobbyists, knee-jerk-fashion), the more that they hear that McCain is proud of voting for Bush over 90% of the time, the more they hear that Palin was a big supporter of corrupt Alaska politicians right up until they became liabilities, the more it destroys the reformer/maverick/change angle.

I completely disagree with the "warmonger" attack. I don't disagree that McCain is a warmonger. The problem is that, until you bash his credibility to a pulp with pointing out the lies, the contradictions, the poor judgment, and all the rest, all he's got to do is get on TV and say in a nice calm voice "I don't know where they get such an idea. All I want to do is keep America safe in a dangerous world. My opponents think defending America is the wrong thing to do, but I promise you, I'll always stand by America. America First!"

On the other hand, once McCain's credibility is blown, we can pile on with warmongering. But in the meantime it's a path to disaster.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 06:39AM | 0 recs
Replay of '00, '04


GOP hits us over the head day after day after day and we say "ouch, did you see that they just hit us over the head."   Like the geek getting pushed around at school who won't fight back.

Instead we explain to each other how much smarter we are then them and how much better we are because we don't act like them.  

Yeah.   Then we lose.

This election is a repeat the Gore and Kerry soft, wishy washy, overly verbose campaigns.  Obama has some advantages they did not, so he may actually win.   But I am not happy watching this again.

by RichardFlatts 2008-09-09 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Replay of '00, '04

I don't recall Gore or Kerry coming out and directly calling Bush a liar. I remember the occasional, hesitant, somewhat deferential observation that he might have been untruthful, or gotten his facts wrong, or exaggerated, or whatever.

I don't recall them slapping back at every negative attack that's landed a blow (with the potential exception to "Celebrity" -- ironically, the one working attack McCain has, he throws overboard in a panic).

I don't think this is at all the same soft, wishy-washy campaign. Is it as hard-hitting as we want? No. Obama's got the unique disadvantage of having to avoid being seen as Angry Black Man, even when the anger would be fully justified.

But I don't see overly verbose at all. Obama's willing to just go out there and say "liar", instead of dancing around it with a bunch of polite language. He talks directly and specifically about his plans.

Kerry was a bad candidate. Period. Gore should've been a better candidate than he was; if he'd just relaxed and run as himself he'd have been President.

Obama is a very strong candidate. McCain's painted himself into a corner; all he's got to run on are the exact same issues that Obama's defined for himself for almost two years. He gave up on experience, gave up on celebrity, gave up on empty-suit, all of that. He's running as a maverick reformer bringing change.

Again, remember the fundamentals. McCain has a much, much tougher route to victory than does Obama. He's got to hold a message together for two months that's fundamentally disconnected from reality, do it in spite of pretty solid attacks; he's got to go negative in the slime sense against Obama without it blowing up his own negatives or losing his maverick image; he's got to distance himself from Bush somehow; he's got to keep a lid on his temper; he's got to hope that no new major scandals of any kind come out; and if he manages to do all that perfectly the election comes down to a series of coin flips that are still not in his favor.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Replay of '00, '04

very well put . . . the dosiest dose of sanity in days

by vadasz 2008-09-09 08:22AM | 0 recs
More worried about the fundraising than the bounce

Article in the Tribune today about the Obama campaign lagging its targets set when it decided to get out of public financing.   This is forcing the ticket to spend more time fundraising than campaigning.   Wondering if the magical strategy of small donor-powered fundraising that worked so well for him in the primary was the wrong answer here in the general.  Did what was clearly superior tactical execution vs. Clinton in the primary fail to translate over to the main event?

It's possible.  Primary campaigns are powered by relatively small numbers of activist voters.  In the general, it's all about locking in the less energized and less committed votes to your side.   These are folks who are less inclined to put money in your pocket.

I've been ambivalent about the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket.  Honestly, I think Joe Biden is terrific, and not sure that a pairing would have been in either Clinton or Obama's best interest.  But there is one place where it would have been a home run -- fundraising.   It's clear that the Clinton dollar base is not going to go all in for Obama.   This is in part because of the hard feelings from the primary season, in part because of genuine lack of enthusiasm for Obama, in part because they are keeping powder dry for another Clinton run, and yes in part to the relatively poor job of outreach done by the Obama campaign.   Had there been a joint ticket, the party would be firing on all cylinders from a money front.

As an aside, it was interesting to see in Obama's interview last night on Countdown that he directly paid credit to the Clinton years.   This is a new tack - in the primaries, Obama reached back to JFK and Roosevelt only.  

by activatedbybush 2008-09-09 05:30AM | 0 recs
RE: Fundraising

"Article in the Tribune today about the Obama campaign lagging its targets set when it decided to get out of public financing."

This could be a fundraising ploy also. They leaked bad fundraising numbers a couple months ago, and then wowed everyone when they actually realeased them.

They rased close to $15 million just off the GOP convention.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:36AM | 0 recs
My guess is that is calculated

They come out and say they may be lagging and in the next 10 days Obama raises  35 million on the net as supporters rally.  

by RichardFlatts 2008-09-09 06:51AM | 0 recs

Why do I always read a background "I told you so! See? See? We're gonna lose!" in these posts? Oh, right... they're "just sayin'." No real analysis, no suggestions of how the trends could change or be changed, just the usual tossing of the polls and an implicit "nyahh, nyahh, nyahh."


by BobzCat 2008-09-09 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Lazy.

I've been here a while and for all the problems that the Democrats have, and Jerome does not shy away from announcing them all, why doesn't he ever offer solutions?   It seems he gets a rise out of this....If I didn't know him, there would be no way I would equate him to co-authoring Crashing the Gates...Oh well, maybe it's like the pundits are saying Dems don't like winning, we like hand wringing...

by hootie4170 2008-09-09 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Lazy.

This was my first thought, too.  I've been reading this blog since February, and the amount of navel gazing that goes on here is sickening.  You want to know why the Republicans win?  Because no matter how bad they thought Palin was three weeks ago, they all heart her now.  We're still bitching and moaning about the primaries.  I think for a lot of Dems the "I told you so" is worth losing the election.  God, I'm so disgusted right now.  Know what?  We used to have a saying, trite but true: lead, follow, or get the f*** out of the way.  We need to embrace that, NOW.

by trustno1 2008-09-09 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Lazy.

The amusing thing to me is that I read this post without looking to see who wrote it, and I knew it was Jerome before I checked.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-09-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Those "independants" are white women

So, what is Hillary going to do to help the ticket other than not say anything bad about Sarah Plain?

Appparently, Hillary is "above" that sort of thing.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:34AM | 0 recs
what exactly do you

want from Hillary?

She is campaigning in a state where Obama needs help and she is hugely popular.

She has stated multiple times that the McCain/Palin ticket is more of the same and she does not support their policies.

What the hell do you want her to do?

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 05:41AM | 0 recs
To take down Palin

which she won't do.

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 05:50AM | 0 recs
have you thought about

that thoroughly?

If Clinton comes in to completely destroy Palin, steamroll her and hang her up to dry, the backlash is simply that Obama is too weak to do it himself. He needs Clinton etc.

It also looks bad on Biden. Backlash - Biden doesnt bring anything to the ticket, Hillary should have been VP etc.

It amazes me that you people who have supported Obama for SOOOO LONG, and have always been patient with his strategy, and always saying "he is doing it his way and it will work" are now grasping at straws because things arent going exactly as you thought it should at this point.

What amazes me more is that I was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama after the primaries, and I now have more faith in his strategies than you guys do.

If Obama asks Hillary to come out and destroy Palin, I think she will. Until that point, I actually trust Obama to let things play out a little before having to bring out the big guns.

Right now Obama wants Hillary campaigning for him in Florida. That is what she is doing.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 05:55AM | 0 recs

If Hillary was willing, Obama would have asked her to nail Palin days ago. Why would Hillary avoid criticism of Palin?  Wouldn't it be typical for a surrogate to attack the whole ticket, not just McCain?  Why avoid Palin criticism?  It's obvious what the GOP is trying to do in re: Hillary voters.

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 06:00AM | 0 recs
you state that

as if you know it for a fact, when you dont.

You do not know what Obama has asked of Hillary.
You do not know what Hillary will or will not do.
You do not know how Obama's campaign is coordinating with Hillary and other surrogates.
You simply, do not know.

I dont know either, but at least i can see that there are cons to having hillary do all the dirty work

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:08AM | 0 recs
I think we just need a soundbyte from her

If Clinton can lay down something Lloyd Bensen-style that succinctly crushes Palin's glow, then I for one would be satisfied.

I agree that Clinton shouldn't go full-on attack, because A) it will be another huge distraction that will be covered like it was hot oil wrestling, and B) makes Biden look like he needs her help... which he really doesn't.

So... a witty riposte or two to shine a light on how much of a feminist Palin isn't; that should do the trick.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I think we just need a soundbyte from her

Hillary's not going to bash Palin.  Actually over the past year Palin has praised Hillary and her historic campaign more than Obama has.  Hillary ain't gonna touch Palin..i think she actually likes her.  

by karajan72 2008-09-09 06:22AM | 0 recs
Uh huh

Is that why Palin said during the primary that Clinton whines about sexism too much?

If Clinton has no stake in taking Palin down, I'll eat my shoe.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I think we just need a soundbyte from her

Like the part where she called Clinton a whiner?

by username 2008-09-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: have you thought about

at some point Hillary is going to have to destroy Palin, either for Obama this time, or for herself when she is running again in 2012 against her.

by Monkei 2008-09-09 06:23AM | 0 recs
I think she will

When things fall in line.

1. Obama's campaign asks Hillary

  1. When she is not campaigning in crucial swing states
  2. When the hooplah dies down from the convention
  3. After Palin actually goes on the Sunday morning shows
  4. After Biden and Obama throw in some jabs
  5. In a fashion that will have the greatest impact (possible full ginsburg on sunday morning shows?)

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: To take down Palin

And neither will Biden..he doesn't have the desire to tarnish his brand..a deal was made and yet you believe Hillary should go out there and do the dirty work...unbelievable..

by Liberty 2008-09-09 06:06AM | 0 recs
Biden's harshest

remark is that Palin will sooner or later have to defend her "extreme views."

Hillary's harshest remark: Voting for Republicans is like asking the iceberg to save the titanic. /2008/09/08/2008-09-08_barack_obama_joe_ biden_bite_back_at_sara-2.html

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:15AM | 0 recs
Oooh, good one

Nice shot, Hillary!

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: To take down Palin

Biden can't do that?

Is that above his paygrade?

by reggie44pride 2008-09-09 07:03AM | 0 recs
Go on TV and be an Obama surrogate.

Attack Palin relentlessly for being a rightwing extremist.

Ed rendell is doing it.

Where's Hillary?

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:51AM | 0 recs
Rendell is a gov

of a purple state that is more blue than red but can switch.

The Obama campaign is using Rendell as a surrogate on tv to hold on to any slippage in PA.

Obama's biggest asset is that he has Hillary on his side, and I am sure he knows that.

Hillary will be dispatched on TV when Obama's campaign thinks it is most necessary.

They are biding their time and holding on to release Hillary when they think it is most necessary.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Rendell is a gov

To any person who keeps asking "where's Hillary" when she is doing so much--more than any politician in the freaking history of the U.S. have done who is not on the ticket, I say the heck with you, trolls, and welcome to McCain.  

Where's your common sense--and dignity?

by Check077 2008-09-09 08:49AM | 0 recs
Hillary has done her part, move on.....

Obama did not vet her for VP.  Played the racist card against Bill.  YET- both Clintons have been more supportive of Obama than anyone could've imagined.  Hillary has basically begged her supporters to vote for Obama.  
What more do you want?  Blood?  Let Obama fight this on his own.  He lost most of the swing states in the primaries to Hillary Clinton by large margins- and won the nomination based on caucuses in red-states and the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan.  Sorry to rehash it-but it's true.  The basic fact that he was so underwhelming in so many of our most important battlegrounds- leads us to where we are today- a close, close race.  Add that to the enthusiasm brought in by Palin (a "middle class female" on the ticket- a'la Hillary, only a Right Wing version)- and you have McCain pulling into the lead.
Obama made his decisions, hopefully with a strategy in mind, and now we all will have to live with them.

Leave Hillary and Bill out of this.

by easyE 2008-09-09 06:06AM | 0 recs
If they don't want to be left out of it

Than why should we?

Quit your bitching.

K. Thnx. Bye.

by JDF 2008-09-09 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has done her part, move on.....

Why do people keep on about the vetting of Clinton?! She's easier to vet than Sarah Palin. In other words, on a word, if she had been the choice.

by Pottery 2008-09-09 08:46AM | 0 recs
Bridge to Nowhere

As an independent voter myself, the moment where I decided to swing to Obama came first when he stood for not attacking family members, which I think shows real leadership.

Then, when he ended up correctly identifying that Sarah Palin +supported+ the bridge to nowhere.
During her gubernatorial bid, they asked her if she supported the bridge to nowhere. She responded.

Would you continue state funding for the (bridge to nowhere) ?

 "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

by Trey Rentz 2008-09-09 05:35AM | 0 recs
We were right to oppose Hillary.

She is proving, every day, that she only cares about her own political ambitions. And I'm glad Barack Obama didn't reward her by putting her on the ticket.

Hillary may be hoisting herself on her own petard by her lackluster support for Barack anyway. Now that Palin is the new female political star in the country, Hillary is putting her own achievemnt and legacy at risk.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: We were right to oppose Hillary.

Agree or disagree, this comment didn't deserve a drive-by TR.  Uprated.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-09 05:45AM | 0 recs
2 comments slamming

Hillary within 5 minutes?

Sorry, sounds like a blame troll to me.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 05:49AM | 0 recs
Jerome's "concern" for Obama is noted

The unspoken point of Jerome's post is that Obama should have picked Hillary to be on the ticket.

Well...Hillary is proving why that was a bad idea.

Mitt Romney's ambitious too. Yet he's going all out for McCain.

Rudy Giuliani's ambitious, but he's campaigning hard for McCain.

Hillary stand out as being a sore loser who is only going through the motions.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:54AM | 0 recs
Surrogates being released

are coordinated by the campaign in charge.

I am sure they are releasing Romney and Giuliani because they need all the fire power they can.

Obama's campaign coordinates with their surrogates. They get briefed and use talking points the campaign gives them. Obama's campaign does not want to seem like they cant handle the game and need Hillary to fight all of their battles.

Trust in Obama, share your concerns, thats all fine and dandy, but dont blame someone else.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's "concern" for Obama

Incredible.  You have no real interest in seeing Hillary destroy Palin - what you really want is to be able to blame Hillary Clinton if Obama loses.

This is the same crap we've been hearing for moths from hand wringers like you - Hillary, will never release her delegates, she'll never endorse Obama, she'll try to steal the nomination at the convention, she's actually Emperor Palpatine in a pantsuit, blah blah blah.

Obama knows what he's doing much better than you do, thank goodness.  Hillary is out there campaigning for Obama, and if you think she isn't doing exactly what he wants her to do, you're just nuts.  Obama is smart enough to know that attacking Palin right now would likely have a disastrous backlash, and Hillary knows it too. Joe Biden will bury Palin in the debate, and she'll never recover.

Obama knows that he needs to keep the focus on McCain and his policies, and that's exactly what he's doing.

The problem here isn't Jerome's "concern", it yours.

by Denny Crane 2008-09-09 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: We were right to oppose Hillary.

And now I get a drive-by troll rate for... what, again?  Disagreeing?

Seriously, enough.  I'm going back to DKos, the purity trolls here make DKos look like an episode of Saved by the Bell.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-09 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: We were right to oppose Hillary.

Perhaps Hillary will debate McCain for Obama and Palin for Biden! Then we won't have to worry about either of them stumbling  or making any gaffes! How would that work for you? How about if Barack and Joe just stay at home and we let Hillary run only we keep their names on the ballot. That way if they loose we can blame it all on Hillary if they when we can say well people really voted for him since it was his name on the ballot. LOL! Why did we nominate a guy who cannot fight his own battle? You people are starting to make that SNL skit about the 3 am call seem like a reality. In case anyone doesn't remember: ideo/clips/3am-phone-call/227156/

by 2maddogs 2008-09-09 06:00AM | 0 recs
If Obama loses Hillary will rise as the leader of the party.  Sorry friend, this is true.  Obama will be chastised for not picking her for VP and this choice will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in modern political history.
Stop blaming the Clintons.  Place the blame where it's due- Obama/Biden.  Oh, and the DNC (they deserve a large helping of it too).
by easyE 2008-09-09 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: puuleeezzze

hey, don't you have a John McCain to vote for or something else to do?

by Monkei 2008-09-09 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: puuleeezzze

I hate to say it for the thousandth time, but if Obama loses, Hillary is going to get blamed by most of the left.  You will hear "divisive primary" more times than you can count.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-09-09 07:37AM | 0 recs
312 nights

And what do you think independents would think of a governor who charges the state for staying in her own house 312 times, including Thanksgiving Day? tent/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088. html?hpid=topnews

I wouldn't call that kind of person a reformer but rather someone whose trying to put government money in her own pocket.

by politicsmatters 2008-09-09 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: 312 nights

Unfortunately, one is never sure how much reality has to do with any of this.

by mady 2008-09-09 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: 312 nights

What are you talking about? If I charged my employer per diem for staying in my house, I would be fired. How dare she call herself a reformer.

by politicsmatters 2008-09-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: 312 nights

No, you misunderstand me.  Your post was correct.  I was just saying the reality of how bad these candidates are does not necessarily stick.  The image seems to.  It's the American way.

by mady 2008-09-09 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Rasmussen daily tracking is out now, back to being tied 48-48

by neko608 2008-09-09 05:46AM | 0 recs
Jerome, weak analysis

1) You're citing polls in the midst of McCain's bounce.  I noticed that you did not do a diary about independents in the midst of Obama's bounce.

2) How do you know that ABC and CNN do not show that Obama and McCain are even among independents?  Rasmussen does in today's poll(which contradicts the narrative you're trying to manufacture).

3) As you also should know, if you're keeping up, the GOP has lost brand popularity and party ID since 2006, thus suggesting our advantange could be back to the 39-35 breakdown in 2000 or worse.  Rasmussen's method, despite their hedging, accounts for this.

4) I have noticed that you like to only cite information that supports the "concern" about Obama that you're trying to push.  And you ignore contrary information.  That is neither a credible or journalistic approach to blogging. (Also, ARG's poll today shows Obama with a 1% advantage overall, with a 5% advantage among independents).

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, weak analysis

1) If you look at the chart, you can see there was no movement for Obama among independents during his bounce.

2) I looked at the poll's I linked too. As explained, Rasmussen weights their findings.

3) A 39-35 breakdown is plausible, but I'd go with a conservative breakdown that relies upon past results.

4) You want me to start quoting ARG, lol.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 05:59AM | 0 recs
For independents,

Ras has the race tied, and that's without weighting.  Why are you only relying on the breakdown from the 04 election and not that of the '00 election?  The 04 election was in a less favorable environment than either the 08 or 00 elections.  39-35 is based on past results.

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: For independents,

Like I said, a 39-35 ratio is plausible ('00), but I'd go off the most recent '04 result, or perhaps base it off the '06 result of a 2% difference.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:08AM | 0 recs
Again, what's your basis?

06 was a congressional election and is inherently not a good year off of which to base Presidential election turnout, which will attract a much larger slice of the occasional voter.  04 was a much less favorable political environment than 08.  Bush was much more popular, as was the GOP brand.  The economy was not in as bad of a shape.  The GOP controlled Congress.

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: For independents,

Assuming 04 turnout assumes we are in the same environment as 04 AND that none of the voter registration shift matters.

by JDF 2008-09-09 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: For independents,

Rasmussen does weight, that's what they explained above in the blockquote.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
You don't understand

Yes, they weight their overall poll for a certain percentage of independents, but within the independents subsample, McCain and Obama are tied today.  So much for your narrative.

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: For independents,

The question is who had a better track record in 2004 Rasmussen or Galluop?

Rasmussen had a far better track record in 2004

2004 turn out model for 2008 is ludicrous. The primaries proved record democrat turn out. Turn out for Obama's demographics will be far higher than in 2004, thus the poll's are under-estimating his support, which they did in the primaries.

Obama has a superior ground game and organization. This will net him between 2-1/2 to 3 pts.

by BDM 2008-09-09 06:42AM | 0 recs

4) You want me to start quoting ARG, lol.

To be fair, you were okay quoting them when it was good news for Clinton.

Not that you should use them for Obama.  They suck.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG!

Actually, I point out that I expected them to be wrong then, too, saying "Obama should do much better than the ARG polling."

For some unknown reason, they did get better in the final states, that's true.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG!

Not too many wild cards in West Virginia, to be sure.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:22AM | 0 recs
by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 05:58AM | 0 recs
This is baloney

If Independents really did skew to McCain by that much then the race would not be tied - especially in the CBS poll. I don't believe they control for party ID. But if they did, the number would actually be worse because the Indy percentage would remain artificially high and would actually drive the Obama number down more.

My guess is that these cross-tabs are just wrong, and that CNN and ABC found Independents roughly tied. Note also that the state polls in swing states show Independents actually favoring Obama; in Florida, Obama leads among Indies by a bunch.

So this is just a BS. The CBS poll has McCain up 2, I believe. If he really leads Indies by 30 points, then there would have to be about 3% Independents in the country, or Obama would have to be doing MUCH better among Dems than McCain is among Republicans.

by elrod 2008-09-09 06:00AM | 0 recs

I thought we determined that the internals on the last CBS poll were all screwed up.

Like, the one before they had party ID at 26% Republicans 32% Democrats, and on the next one it was 31% Republicans, 31% Democrats.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:19AM | 0 recs

If, as Jerome is saying, party ID is going to be pretty typical of what it's been this decade, then why is this supposed to be such a great environment for Democrats?

by Jordache 2008-09-09 08:07AM | 0 recs
Good question

I'm okay with the polls underestimating Obama all the way to Election Day.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 08:14AM | 0 recs

Because of our issue advantages and Bush's low ratings we have an opportunity to reach out to Republicans on issues. The door was open.

A character campaign closes it, it becomes we're better than you which hardens Republicans against our issue arguments.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 08:30AM | 0 recs
White women will come back to Obama...

...over time with a consistent push back on Sarah Palin by qualified surrogates.

Barack Obama should not have to do this. The most effective person to hit Palin is Hillary Clinton.

Why Hillary is not doing so is a big question. Howard Wolfson, who apparently is still acting as her unofficial spokesperson, claims she doesn't want to lower herself to that kind of stuff.

Which, as we all know, is a complete crock.

As I said on a previous diary -- Hillary should be topic numero uno at the Obama/Bill Clinton lunch.

Hillary should be out doing interviews with local media in key states, and on the cable talk shows blasting Palin for being a rightwing nut who shares none of her values.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:01AM | 0 recs
why wouldnt

the most practical person to hit back against the GOP VP pick not be the Democratic VP pick?

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: why wouldnt

Its interesting how so many Anti-Hillary primary bloggers are now DEMANDING that Hillary somehow save the party by taking on Palin & winning back White women.

Listen, Hillary may be as close to superwoman as you get but she is no way close to God.

Obama decided to go a different route for his VP, now his people have to figure out how to convince women to join him.

Talk Radio has been flooded with women excited about electing the 1st women VP & make history

Its a problem!

by latinomaker 2008-09-09 06:32AM | 0 recs
I thought Hillary cared about her country?

Isn;t taht what you all said back during the primary? She was worried Obama wouldn't win. She wanted to make sure Mccain lost.

And she was doing it all to helpo out her country and her party.

Well...where is she?

As I pointed out, Mitt Romney has no problem busting his hump for McCain -- even as he is already gearing up for 2012!

Why is Hillary so special? Why does Hillary get a free pass?

Why are her supporters not demanding that she prevent that wacko nutcase Sarah Palin from stealing Hillary's message and movement?

Does Hillary REALLY care about her country? Or only about herself?

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:35AM | 0 recs

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 06:38AM | 0 recs
I want to win the election.

Apparently, you don't.

Why is it OK to bash Obama, and criticize Obama here but no one can say boo about Hillary's half-assed support for Obama thus far?

This is a TEAM effort. And HIllary is not acting like a team player. And, of course, her whiny supporters here excuse her in3excusable behavior.

Thank God she wasn't the nominee.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
you dont seem like much

of a team player since you are taking every cheap shot imaginable right now against Hillary.

How can you decry Hillary, call her selfish and say she is only in it for herself, then demand that she do as you wish?

You think mighty highly of yourself, and you still have not answered any questions as to why Obama and Biden arent attacking more forcefully.

How can you say Hillary is the most effective person against Palin, yet in the same thread say it was a good thing she wasnt picked as VP?

You need to rethink your position, and dont give me this bullshit crap that I dont wan to win.

I think your attitude is disgusting. Where is your faith in Obama?

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 07:47AM | 0 recs
I know Hillary's people read this blog.

I am sending them a message. The rumblings are starting. She better decide which side she's on. And quick.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:08AM | 0 recs
i cant think of enough

synonyms for immature

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-09 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to win the election.

GET OVER IT! Enough!

Despite Obama throwing her off the TEAM, she has done everything she's been asked to do (unless you have inside info) including BEGGING her supporters to vote O/B.

YOU and his surrogates look like frigging wimps with your . . . "waaah boohoo ... but she's not doing enough go Nuclear on Palin".   By association you make the O/B ticket look like spineless weaklings.  

You didn't give a damn about Clinton during the primaries and you CERTAINLY don't give a DAMN about her NOW.  She's already SPENT a good part of her political capital with a fantastic speech seen by millions for a campaign that spurned her and you want her to BLOW the political capital she has remaining fighting this most formidable battle for Obama to what avail - it won't help,  SHE ISN'T ON THE TICKET.  Do you want her to take on Big Oil, Healthcare, and every other battle for Obama too?

Tell me and be intellectually honest, if the shoe were on the other foot don't deny that many of your type would be saying, Obama got left off the Dem ticket he paid his dues with the requisite lip service so screw 'em why run around the country as Clinton's attack dog.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-09 07:53AM | 0 recs
Stop lying.

Hillary has NOT done everything she's been asked to do. That is a fucking lie. The Obama people want her to go after Palin. She refuses to do it.

Hillary seems more interested in raising money to pay off her campaign debt.

We are not suckers here. We know what's going on.

Hillary wasn't "thrown off the team," any more than Bill Richardson or Kathleen Sebelius were.

That's a pile of horsehit.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop lying.

You are the sucker that needs to go back to the Evil Orange to spew your shit.

Let's have Hillary wipe Obama's ass too.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-09 08:09AM | 0 recs
Either you want to win or you don't

I want to win. You don't.

So, I don't pay much attention to folks who are more interested in defending Hillary's honor than winning the motherfucking election.

Get. Over. It.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought Hillary cared about her country?

Yeah, but for Romney it was just a simple firmware upgrade.  The McCain IT staff did it while he was recharging.

Clinton can do what she wants.  She's made her position clear, and the bitter dead-enders either will or won't get over themselves and move on.

by username 2008-09-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: why wouldnt
Talk Radio has been flooded with women excited about electing the 1st women VP & make history

I'm sorry, but these are just two symptoms (call-in and vote) of a much larger problem -- these people are mouth-breathing sexists.  They would probably just screw things up some other way if McCain had chosen a man, or Obama a woman.
by username 2008-09-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

I doubt white women will. In the WaPo poll McCain is a little below Bush's 2004 performance with white women, I think he has room to grow. Obama is under performing Kerry which I think is related to Obama's mis-handling of Palin.

Obama was on tricky ground with women coming out of the primaries. Then the Obama campaign came out of the gate with a counter-productive response to Palin, from which Obama distanced himself, blaming it on the campaign "getting these hair triggers." The problem is he then had his surrogate operation push the Eagleton argument, driving over-the-top media coverage reminiscent of the "why won't she quit" coverage Clinton got. Women naturally rallied to Palin's defense, as we see in the WaPo poll.

Once a segment of the voters has identified with a candidate it is pretty hard to peel them off.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

Most of the rest of the polling data suggests that Palin plays much better among men than women. In fact, it looks like Palin has cost McCain female voters but somewhat shored him up among white males.

This isn't an especially surprising result. White males can reassure themselves that they're not being racist or bigoted or anything, why just look, we're voting for the woman. Women, on the other hand (aside from the evangelical base), have to look twice at whether Palin actually represents the sort of feminism they believe in, whether her views on choice are acceptable, whether her social policies are theirs, etc.

I expect over time this dynamic is just going to intensify.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

Some of the initial polling on Palin suggested that she cost McCain women, after a week of what people widely perceive to be unfair media coverage that has changed.

I agree that Palin is to the right of moderate women, but most of the coverage of her, and the Obama campaign's focus, has not been on Palin's right-wing stances. It's been on how "unqualified" she is, and moderate women are reacting predictably to those attacks.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

A week? Huh? I see one bad day of media coverage, and a bunch of faux outrage. Then I've seen pretty much a non-stop series of fact-based coverage about things like Bridge To Nowhere, government ethics, etc. And if your argument is that she cost McCain women initially -- well, that says that it was precisely the "unfair" coverage that moved women. Makes no sense, and I suspect you know it.

Sorry -- I think these people who are "widely perceiving" the media coverage to be unfair are either 1) solid Republican base or 2) PUMAs.

The Obama campaign's focus has been on her lying. I haven't seen much at all of a focus on her qualifications (again, beyond the first bad day). The problem Palin has is that she is in fact, unarguably, a liar. There's audio and pictures. It's really impossible to spin that as unfair media coverage, try as they may. There are other strong negatives, but the liar issue is the one Obama's campaign is focused on, and it's completely the opposite of an unfair attack.

I don't think Palin has ever moved moderate women towards McCain, and I think she's increasingly going to move them away from McCain.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

If the people who think Palin coverage was unfair are Republican base or PUMAs then we have lost the election. Here is the CBS poll:

When asked about the media treatment of all four candidates (presidential and vice presidential), a majority of voters believe the news media have been harder on Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for Vice President. 54% think she has been treated harder compared to the other candidates; 31% say that about the man at the top of the Republican ticket. Voters are more likely to say the news media have been easier on both Democratic candidates, especially on Obama.

(Among registered voters)
                 McCain     Palin      Obama      Biden
  Harder on      31%        54%        18%         3%
  Easier on      11         10         36         23
  The same       55         29         44         64

Similar percentages (more than half) of men and women think Palin is treated more harshly by the media compared to the other candidates. Even 42% of Obama backers say the media has been harder on the Republican Vice Presidential nominee

Yeah, I am saying the coverage, which people perceive as unfair, moved them toward Palin. Same thing happened with Bill Clinton during impeachment, the hysterical coverage improved his favorability.

The "liar" attacks are just more character attacks, they don't work for Democrats and they allow Republicans to obscure their policy positions. The Obama campaign needs to tell people what Palin's policy positions are.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 07:58AM | 0 recs
This is McCain's high water mark with white women

It will go down when they find out more about who Sarah Palin is.

It would help (and I sound like a bbroen record I knw) if HILLARY went after Palin.

that would garner huge headlines and totally throw the McCain campaign off message and get Hillary and Palin into a war of words, etc.

The more Palin and Mccain are forced to attack Hillary, the more it helps Obama with that demographic.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: This is McCain's high water mark

You may be right, Hillary probably could effectively draw attention to Palin's extreme views. But in order for that message to get any traction Obama would have to change the tack his campaign is taking on Palin. Obama's current approach, exemplified by the campaign's flood of press emails, is to call Palin a liar. That politicians lie isn't news to most voters (except maybe to new ones), Palin's policy positions would be.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: This is McCain's high water mark

It's not news that politicians lie. People expect politicians to lie. People also expect politicians to be venal, corrupt, and unethical.

McCain and Palin are running as maverick reformers. Maverick reformers don't lie. Once you're identified as a liar, you are no longer a maverick reformer, you're a venal corrupt unethical typical more-of-the-same politician.

The one thing McCain and Palin absolutely cannot have happen is to be widely perceived as typical politicians. But if the liar charge holds, that's exactly how they get perceived. And that's game, set, and match. They've got nothing else to run on; they have no policies that are even remotely compelling, they're tied to the least popular President in modern history, and their social views, as they become known, are well out of the mainstream. The only thing they've got going is the maverick reformer outsider label, and 'liar' goes right to the core of that particular claim.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This is McCain's high water mark

No. Obama is saying McCain/Palin are lying. That is the correct way to go about it.

And, the Obama campaign should continue on that theme and point out other McCain lies in TV ads, on the stump, and with surrogates.

they are starting to do that.

But, of course, Obama has to have help. He cannot do this all by himself. Hillary Clinton is glaring in her half-assed support for Obama.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: This is McCain's high water mark

Hello Hillary, it's 3am and I got a call from the Pentagon  . . . uh em  . . .  what the hell should I do?



Yes, mam.

Thank You.

I let's you know right away.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-09 08:00AM | 0 recs
To continue with your dumb theme:

If Obama is facing an international crisis as President, and wants to send Hillary Clinton off to the location of this crisis to help mediate it -- is she going to decline and wine about hw she wasn't picked as his VP?

Or is she going to do what is in the best interests of her country?

I hope the latter.

You have a much lower opinion of Hillary than I do, apparently.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: To continue with your dumb theme:

God help us all, if a President Obama with the might and resources of the President of the United States needs to send a Senator to mediate an international crisis.

No by the looks of things you take the cake for low opinion of Hillary.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
What is Hillary is best suited to the task?

The President should be able to ask anyone he thinks will do the best job. Including a Senator.

The point is, if he asks her to d o it -- would she decline because she's a bitter sore loser?

Or would she serve her country?

I think the latter.

Moreover, if things were reversed and Hillary was down 20 points with African Americans and behind in the polls, I would EXPECT Barack Obama to be busting his tail to help her in that demographic.

If he half-assed it the way Hillary is doing now, I would call him out too in exactly the same way.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What is Hillary is best suited to the task?

To continue with your fanciful scenario, Of course she would help a President who evidently didn't select a Secretary of State or any other cabinet members with the necessary skills to handle the task.

Bullshit, she did more than any of you Obamabots would have dreamed at the convention and you know.  You are the ones who can't bury the hatchet from the primaries denigrating her at every step - she already has.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-09 08:15AM | 0 recs
You are delusional.

And if we lose, we know who to blame.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: White women will come back to Obama...

Maybe. But Obama is doing better than Gore or Kerry among non-whites, given that non-whites are a growing portion of the electorate Obama may have more cushion than I assume.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
I think this helps the Obama/Biden to sharpen
its focus on attacking back McCain/Palin campaign.
Too much effort had been expended on trying to peel off conservative evangelicals and not on uniting the base of the party. The Gallup poll shows the need to work on the 20% holdouts amongst the conservative and moderate Democrat ranks.
by louisprandtl 2008-09-09 06:02AM | 0 recs
GMA is reporting a 20 point swing

with white female voters towards McCain...

bottom line = Palin.

Biden needs to "take a dive" (ie become sick or something).

Obama needs to put Hillary on the ticket.

I think those here at my dd are underestimating the historic VP candidacy (for republican) of Sarah Palin.....

by nikkid 2008-09-09 06:02AM | 0 recs
Get lost Troll

by ttjackson1 2008-09-09 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: GMA is reporting a 20 point swing

If you know that, then you also note that many think those numbers are flawed, if you take their 35-40% of white women as survey base, 20 % swing should have equated to more than 2% swing in the overall poll.  

Tis time to stop fighting the primaries or the VP selection, we have our team.

by nextgen 2008-09-09 06:07AM | 0 recs

Leave the Clintons out of it.  They have done there part- bringing them into it as if they are some how "at fault" for something- only serves to really piss people off (me included).

by easyE 2008-09-09 06:11AM | 0 recs
Oh, that would end up well

Changing VPs mid-race worked pretty well for McGovern.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Hillary needs to get up off her butt...

...and start hammering Palin. That's what needs to happen.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary needs to get up off her butt...

Why? She's not the one running? Biden is Palin's counterpart, have him attack Palin. I simply don't understand why people want Clinton to save the Party now. She is doing her part and her part is to elect Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.

by RJEvans 2008-09-09 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: GMA is reporting a 20 point swing

And there's been other polling data showing that McCain's support went up 6-7% with men and dropped 4-5% with women, among independents and moderates. So you have to pick which one looks more credible.

You can have both, mind you. It's possible that McCain has a huge jump in women overall, but that almost all of them are formerly unenthusiastic members of the conservative base. I'm not convinced that anyone much outside of the conservative base sees Palin as "historic"; I think the word is "pandering".

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 06:52AM | 0 recs

I guess there is "concern" among the people!  

Come on, independents in the middle of post convention bounce?  

This was the republicans best week of the cycle and the best they could muster is a tie one week later.  

Unless McCain has a VP pick to roll out each of the next 7 weeks the general trajectory of the race has not changed.  

I'm surprised anyone who supported Clinton would see Palin as a legitimate proxy.

Palin is perfect today, I doubt she will be a week from now.  The WaPo, WSJ, NYTimes, ABC are already comfortable basically calling her a lier, what's next?

by nextgen 2008-09-09 06:05AM | 0 recs

Nate would be so proud of you.

by AntiStipes 2008-09-09 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Burp!

No, in order for Nate to be proud, I'd have to start devising a EV total that assigns the state EV's according to some byzantine allocation by percentages that are derived from who knows what.... when the reality is winner take all.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Burp!

Yeah, and I guess the fact that you cherry pick your polls wouldn't go down with him well either.

I stand corrected.  Thanks for clearing that up.

by AntiStipes 2008-09-09 07:39AM | 0 recs

Not in the numbers, but in the conclusion drawn.

Yes, this is the <u>pessimistic</u> conclusion. But there is an optimistic conclusion as well:

We are in the midts of McCain's bounce. Yet he never breaks 55% in independents. So there are still a lot of independents who have are uncommitted in the period of McCain's best performance to date.

Of course if the election were held today, we would probably lose. But elections aren't held the Tuesday after the convention. Sheesh.

I'me very disapointed you would fail to mention this other facet of the numbers. Wait two weeks before drawing any further conclusions on this.

by iohs2008 2008-09-09 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

How about a productive front page diary about how we can win the election? Mydd has become the site for negativity. Yeah, you have to acknowledge polls that are not positive, but, really, don't get stuck there. What a bore and how unproductive.

by politicsmatters 2008-09-09 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

More Sarah Palin?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:13AM | 0 recs
If it is information that can be propogated

to lower her appeal among swing voters?  Yes.  

If it is information that can be used to energize rather than demotivate the Democratic activists?  Yes.

Look, only fools want to stick their heads in the sand, but there is a difference between presenting information in an "I told you this candidate was no good" fashion and a "Here's the problem, get thee forth and let's win this thing!" fashion.

So, the Independents are lapping up the Palin Poison pervading the press, eh?  Time to take the truth about the GOP ticket and tell all your fence-sitting friends!

-sic 'em!



by chrisblask 2008-09-09 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Politicalmatters-m No more Rah Rah Rah


You are in a progressive site with 99% of people planning to vote for Obama in November.

We are preaching to the choir here!

There is No Need to PRETEND that things are okay. There is absolutely No benefit for Jerome or anybody here to IGNORE that facts & the state of this race.

The Rah, Rah, Rah does NOT work if you've lost two straight Presidential elections.

If you are a Republican, Yes, they needed the Rah Rah Rah because of the state of their party before the Convention.

We dont need that right now. We need Obama to step up.

People like you virtually preached, promised, guaranteed the democratic breathen that Barack Obama will would be a very strong GE candidate while many of us disagreed.

Right now, the Very Same things that 18 million democrats were so worried about if Obama was the nominee are slowly but surely shaping up.

Even white women in the state of Washington, a Obama bastion in the primary, are now flocking to McCain.

Stop the Rah Rah Rah. We want to win. We want to know the real score !

You got your historic nomination. Now what? You want us Pretend that everything is fine & dandy.

Sorry, we have to win this one or we will have close to a civil war in our democratic party if Obama does not.
You & I don't want to see that.

This race will ultimately be decided by White voters. Obama gets a certain % of white voters, he wins. If he doesn't , he will go down in defeat.

White voters will tip critical states like Michigan, PA, Ohio, Missour, Florida, Nevada & the next President of the U.S.

Obama better get his shit together.

"Hope" will not sell with millions of white seniors & the working class. He better go on the offensive now.

by latinomaker 2008-09-09 06:25AM | 0 recs
Hillary would have been a problem too.

And, instead of Sarah Palin -- John McCain would have picked Condoleeza Rice or JC Watts to be his running mate.

Then, because of all the hard feelings of Afrucan Americans during the primary, you would see a significant dip in tehir support for Hillary.

What would Barack Obama have done in that situation? Go out and make a tepid speech supporting Hillary abd hitting McCain a bit and saying NOTHING about Condi Rice?

Hillary is sending a signal that it is OK to dis Obama and vote for McCain/Palin.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary would have been a problem too.

"Hillary is sending a signal that it is OK to dis Obama and vote for McCain/Palin".

I don't see how you can say this. How is she sending a signal?

She is doing what she would do not matter WHO the repug VP was (ie mitt romney) - she is campaign FOR obama and pointing out the differences on the issues.

This is what she SHOULD do.

Attacking Palin works against the democrats and would certainly work against Hillary.

by nikkid 2008-09-09 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Deny Until November- Kerry part 2

The funny thing about the netroots dem community is the large segment of bloggers who are almost in denial as to how this race in rapidly developing.

Many are still stuck in the primary mode of thinking. Somehow these people think that some surge of voters will come & save Obama out of nowhere.

You see it in the responses. " Don't worry, its early. "Don't worry, we have millions of new registered voters", "Don't worry, once we finally focus on Issues, they will flock to Obama. " Don't worry, the millions of Youth Voters will overwhelming the electorate & give Obama a big win. "Don't worry, Black people will come out in huge numbers".

Someone has to knock some sense into these people. Not that it matters anyway.

Boys & Girls, Guys & Gals- the democratic liberal, black, youth, dominated primary has been over for several months !

There is No More Splitting of delegates in each state. ( Its the old Winner Take All ! )

No more extra delegates for urban black dominated areas.

There is No More 45% to 55% Black electorate dominating states like SC,GA,AL,MS ( You are back to reality ( 80% white voters, majority of them moderate mainstream voters! No more Liberal white  voters dominating caucus states like WA,OR,SD, KS )

There is No More " Need to Pacify Black voters out of fear that they will stay home on election day". Guess what, McCain & Palin don't need nor frankly don't give a damn if 95% or 98% of Black voters vote for Obama. That's already a given.
That's not part of the GOP winning coalition.

There is No More "Politically Correct" lets not offend Obama because Jesse, Sharpton & the Congressional Black Caucus might take offense & call us racists. You think the Republican party cares if you call them racists? They in fact love it! It energizes millions of white republicans!

The worse part of all this is the false perception by many of the liberal idealists among our party that this is like Gore vs. Bush  or Kerry vs. Bush where millions of indy voters are fluid voters who would keep going back & forth between Gore & Bush, Kerry & Bush until election day.

Folks, yes, these indy's may swing once or twice in big numbers. But make no mistake about, most mainstream american voters have a much clear distinction & choice between Obama vs. Mccain as compared to Gore, Kerry vs. Bush.

Its a Young Black man who speaks well named Barack Obama versus an old white man who happens to be a War Hero & a supposed Maverick to many.

Its a choice between electing a historic young 1st Women Vice President who happens to have 5 kids, one special child, church going mom versus
an older White man with 25 years of experience.

For some very strange reason, many Liberal whites Cannot Seem to Comprehend or Understand how Powerful Race Bias combined with Anti-Muslim bias is in America.

Somehow, they believe that one,two or three debates will somehow OVERCOME the Racism & Bias among millions of white seniors, white working class & women.

Somehow, 3 debates would cause millions of americans who saw McCain's War Hero maverick video
to suddenly abandon him for a young black liberal democrat.

Obama better attack McCain at a much louder & higher tone or this election will be over by October!

He has to shake up this race in a big way or he will do even worse than Kerry in '04.

Many Independent analyst & even Democratic analyst
agree that if battleground " racial politics" states like Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, PA are either Tied or Obama with very slight 1% or even 2% lead by November, McCain will be heavily favored to win these states.

Two Michigan democratic analyst have already stated that we may see the so called " Bradley effect" in Michigan come November. Its happened before in their states & there are very clear signs of it happening again.

Kerry got 41% of white General election voters & still lost. Gore got 42% of white voters & still lost.

Obama received 33% of white "democratic voters" .
( which are 10 times more liberal than GE white voters)

Obama needs around 40% of white voters just to be competitive.

one white voter equates to 4.5 black voters in the General election.

Senator Obama made the 1st critical mistake by not picking Clinton. He better act now & start hitting McCain hard & talking to the american people much more forecefully & direct.

Preaching " Hope" will NOT do it for most white indy voters. It did not work with millions of white Hillary Clinton supporters. It will definitely NOT work with white Non-Democratic voters.

by latinomaker 2008-09-09 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Deny Until November- Kerry part 2

This site is so filled with negativity.

If you want to win the election, do something. Stop the carping.

by politicsmatters 2008-09-09 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Deny Until November- Kerry part 2

This is great analysis.

by karajan72 2008-09-09 06:29AM | 0 recs
I largely agree with you.

I have pisted two diaries on Kos stringly urging Obama to go hard negative on McCain's character and brand -- or lose the election.

I am nervoius about the election, but I am not pessimistic. I think Obama can still win it.

A) He is focusing like a laser beam on the eceonmy, whichis his and our best issue. And the one taht will get the most traction with the voters he needs.

B) He is starting to attack McCain on character issues like his honest. That must not just be a bay step, though, It has to be a sustained foll-bore bombardment.

C) He needs some helop from surrogates. Ed Rendell was dong a great job going after Palin recently. Hillary Clinton (sorry Hillary apologists) has done the absolute bare minimum to help Barack. She should be helping to raise money, campaigning with him and becoming one of his top surrogates to attack Palin. She's not doing that. She's not on the ticket. Get over it. If she and her whiny supporters work tehir asses off for Barack and Obama still winds up losing, THEN you can gloat and say you told us so. But if you half-ass it like Hillary is doing -- there will be hell to pay and Hillary is going to take a large measure of the blame.

The Obama campaign and its surrogates needs to keep up the heat on Palin and puncture the myths about her. Over time, I think white women will gravitate back to Obama. But not all of them.

P.S. -- Obama could have dealt with this problem by putting Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket instead of Hillary. It has nothing to do with Hillary, per se. A lot of white women like Sarah Palin and support her because of that. They are not bitter Hillary supporters. Had Obama picked Sebelius, they wouldnot have defected to McCain. So stop perpetuating this bullshit that Hillary should have been on the ticket.

Obama has made some strategic miscalculations in this campaign, but none of them are fatal. John Kerry was down 10 points among registered voters at this time in 2004. Obama is only down a point or two. He's outperforming Kerry.

Kerry eventually recovered as he went into the Fall, and may have actually pulled out a win had that Bin aden video not surfaced right before the election.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I largely agree with you.

"C) He needs some helop from surrogates. Ed Rendell was dong a great job going after Palin recently. Hillary Clinton (sorry Hillary apologists) has done the absolute bare minimum to help Barack. She should be helping to raise money, campaigning with him and becoming one of his top surrogates to attack Palin. She's not doing that. She's not on the ticket. Get over it. If she and her whiny supporters work tehir asses off for Barack and Obama still winds up losing, THEN you can gloat and say you told us so. But if you half-ass it like Hillary is doing -- there will be hell to pay and Hillary is going to take a large measure of the blame."

If Obama loses this election, where the issues so heavily favor our party, the hell to pay will be among the idiots who gave Obama and not Hillary the nomination.

by leozh 2008-09-09 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I largely agree with you.

"If Obama loses this election, where the issues so heavily favor our party, the hell to pay will be among the idiots who gave Obama and not Hillary the nomination."

Only if Hillary doesn't half ass it like she's been doing. Then we will all blame her.

Like I said, if she works her butt off and does everything she's asked -- and Obama still loses -- then you can gloat and start the recriminations.

If she doesn't, then Hillary's chances to be Preisdent are done, finito, gone.

You can complain about taht all you want, but that is reality.

Obama lost support with White women. Hillary can help bring those women back to Obama. But she's not doing it.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I largely agree with you.

Oh, come on, be honest, you will blame Hillary if Obama loses, no matter what she does.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I largely agree with you.

I think this is the latest tactic of those with CDS. They will intimidate Hillary's supporters into doing, more giving more, by threatening that it will be Clinton who will "Suffer" if Obama loses. Next thing you know they will threaten riots in the streets! Oh wait! Obama ran as his own man, as his own man he wins or loses on his own merits. If he is not capable of winning this electon he should not have been nominated. He is the nominee and he has yet to show me that he has what it takes to win. His GE campaign has been tepid at best. It is time for Senator Obama to "man up" and fight for the job or fade away onto the growing list of "also rans", but he must do it for himself, he wants the job, he needs to earn it.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-09 08:43AM | 0 recs
You are WRONG....

Obama has to LIVE with his decision that he screwed hillary out of the VP job, this is Obama's fault and he has to own it.

Obama is denying all democratic women the opportunity to have the first female VP - that is OBAMA's fault - not Hillary's and not McCains for being stategic enough to figure out that a Sarah Palin would ignite the base of the party.

Hillary can never be blamed anymore for Obama's loss (if he loses) because only he can own the fact that he chose a washington insider, male, who garnered 70,000 votes in the primary as his running mate when he could have picked the first woman VP who garnered 18 million votes.

Just because hillary talks to a crowd of white women in FL (or wherever) and says "vote for obama" doesn't mean they will when, in fact, they wanted HER (hillary) as President (probably would have accepted her as VP) - and now McCain is offering them Palin.

These women are not looking at the issues - they are looking to advance WOMEN candidates and they see in Palin, themselves - a white mom with a bunch of kids bucking the system....."the fighter" that Hillary was.

The more the media trash Palin (just like with Hillary), the more these women will get on board the Palin-train and there is NOTHING hillary can do about it.


Had Obama given these women the opportunity to vote for a democratic woman VP - Hillary - they would have stayed with her and with the ticket....

So this is Obama's fault and he will have to live with his decision.

by nikkid 2008-09-09 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You are WRONG....

 You are generalizing in an extreme fashion. In doing so you are insulting women, who decide who to vote for in the same varied ways every citizen does. Your simplistic analysis of women and this election, which by the way is contrary to what I know from my own experience, is highly degrading. You are a sexist.

by QTG 2008-09-10 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I largely agree with you.

No. There will be hell to pay for everyone, in America and beyond. So stop being a selfish idiot and wishing McCain on the planet for an "I told you so".

by dtox 2008-09-09 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

I wonder how many of these "swing" independents believe:

McCain/Palin (MP) is pro choice
MP is pro working class
MP is pro family

etc etc etc.

In other words, I'm guessing that these independents are low info voters - who have swung (hopefully temporarily) to MP because -

Since Palin looks like a working mother, they must share the same values.

Yes, the answer is NOT, but swing independents don't believe it yet.

by tietack 2008-09-09 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

It does not matter if they are low, high, well informed voters.

The only thing that matters is what they think.

Right now, the war hero, maverick " we can trust" is working.

by latinomaker 2008-09-09 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Actually it does matter - once lower info voters understand how much MP disagree with them on the issues, they will come home.

Helping such voters understand is key - and difficult - in a pro-McCain media environment.

by tietack 2008-09-09 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Yes, it's working right now. It was working better yesterday, and better than that the day before.

It's obvious -- and not from watching the blogosphere, but from watching the non-blogosphere media -- that the maverick image is already being tarnished.

Frankly, this is as good as it gets, on the positive side, for McCain. He has no compelling policy position to drive support; over 60% of voters see him as essentially a third Bush term, and Bush has an approval rating in the 30% range. He's got no more VPs to announce. He's forfeited the experience argument. So he's running on character and maverick/reformer credentials. There's a non-stop drip-drip-drip of information eroding those characteristics -- and yes, it's out there, way beyond the blogosphere. It's everywhere.

McCain's still got room to win this thing because he can always smear Obama -- he can't get more people to vote FOR him, but he can get more people to vote AGAINST Obama. I'm expecting that to be the next big thing, as these numbers continue to revert to the mean. I don't expect the smears to work nearly as well as the doomsayers think they will. Wright was overplayed the first time around, and the extremely unusual nature of the Democratic primaries meant it got broad mainstream coverage; it's already moved the low-info voters it was going to move. Ayers sank like a stone when they tried it in August. Pfleger's going to move voters? Bittergate? Really? Compared to flat-out lying, poor judgment, unethical behavior, etc, on the other side?

I'm not advocating for a minute that we get complacent; I've written before (often) that running out the clock is not a viable strategy. We need to go on offense and we need to go on offense hard. However -- the fundamentals favor Obama. Strongly. The most recent polling indicates exactly what a lot of people thought was going to happen -- Palin swung Colorado and Florida towards Obama. If McCain loses Florida it's over. If he loses Colorado it's pretty much over.

At this point the race comes down to three states that are basically coin flips, or a combination of some other states that amount to one more coin flip (Florida, Ohio, Virginia; then Colorado/New Mexico/Nevada/Indiana/Missouri/North Carolina/etc). Pick up any of the first three, or nearly any combination of the others, and the race is over. All the handwringing in the world doesn't change the fundamentals: Florida is a flat-out tie. Palin's a disaster there. Ohio is essentially a tie. Virginia is a very slight McCain lean. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are Obama leans. Indiana and Missouri are McCain leans, but moveable. NC is a stronger McCain lean but also moveable.

Four coin flips. McCain needs all tails. He could get them. I don't want to sit and wait for the coins to flip, I want everyone doing everything they can to weight the coins so the flips favor Obama. But for all the drama and angst over the current polling, the fact remains that Obama's got a considerably stronger base of states than McCain does and is far better positioned to play offense and force McCain to play perfect defense to win.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 07:09AM | 0 recs
Yeah, we're all a bunch of idiots.

by JimR 2008-09-09 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, we're all a bunch of idiots.

Out of the denial stage... and into grieving?

by reggie44pride 2008-09-09 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, we're all a bunch of idiots.

Idiots and low info voters are very different things. I believe the great majority of low info voters simply don't have a great deal of time to listen to all of the arguments.

by tietack 2008-09-09 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, we're all a bunch of idiots.

And how, if all they hear on the news is that Obama thinks McCain and Palin are liars, are these low info voters going to learn that:

McCain/Palin (MP) is extremely anti-choice
MP won't help the working class
MP will make life harder for families

We are drowning out our own message by centering everything on a character attack.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, we're all a bunch of idiots.

Quite right.

by tietack 2008-09-09 09:52AM | 0 recs
CBS crosstabs don't add up

First of all, the CBS party ID is 36D-33R-31I, which is hardly out of whack. So the skewed party ID argument doesn't fly, and they did weight it for that ratio.

Secondly, they have Obama winning Dems 88-5 and McCain winning Republicans 87-7. That would be the first poll I've seen where Obama does better among Dems than McCai does among Republicans.  I still doubt that, even after the DNC.

Thirdly, even with the numbers they provide, an Indie ratio of 55-29 (not 55-25 as you cite) would give McCain a 48-43 lead (5 points) and not the 2 point lead CBS shows.

My guess is they listed their crosstab for Independents wrong and it should be 45-29 or 55-39. Lower the margin by 10 points among Indies and you get 2 point top line difference.

The problem for McCain is that Indies are fickle voters. They swing from one side to another. They were undoubtedly impressed by McCain's speech - almost as much as Republicans were. Palin helped only marginally with Independents, and seemed to turn off Hillary Democrats.

McCain's speech, however, is easily undermined by his behavior and his record. He reminded voters temporarily of the 2000 version. And that's why it is so important for Obama to destroy that connection again by hammering him for being Bush III and for being tight with lobbyists.

Obama's counterattack is already undermining McCain's convention bounce as Rasmussen has it tied again. Tomorrow Saturday's polling rolls off and Obama could take the lead again. I bet Independents will lead the move back away from McCain again.

by elrod 2008-09-09 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: CBS crosstabs don't add up

Thanks, fixed that number.

Look, three polls here, showing the same thing. And I'm supposed to believe its a typo...

Rasmussen already had it tied.

OK, I agree, it could move back. But lets not stick our head in the sand and claim its a typo. Gallup shows real movement, and its not happened before for either candidate, and its confirmed by at least two other polls. Favorable party weighting is all that keeps it close.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: CBS crosstabs don't add up

I challenge you Jerome!

In two weeks, do this same analysis after the bounce goes away.

I bet you a donut that you don't...especially if it doesn't fit the narrative that you like to push.

I would just like to see if you'll be intellectually honest about this topic.

BTW, how about some analysis from you, instead of these endless poll diaries.  Now that would be novel.

by AntiStipes 2008-09-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Shoot the messenger ?

Jerome didn't make up these numbers.

I know how comforting it is to hide in the echo chamber,  trying to convince each other that bad news really isn't bad news, and criticizing those who bring up such bad news as not sufficiently committed to  the cause.

Criticizing someone for simply reporting what is betrays a lack of confidence in the outcome.

I remember the simple calcualtion folks used in 2004 to convince themselves Bush could not possibly be reelected despite what the polls were saying. It went like this: No one who voted for Gore would possibly now vote for Bush, so given Gore actually won in 2000, all we needed were a few to switch the other way and the election would be ours. Well we all know how that turned out.

So rather than shut out bad news with bromides about how we would like things to be, perhaps using reality as a basis would yield a more effective strategy

by SaveElmer 2008-09-09 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Shoot the messenger ?

The question is who had a better track record in 2004 Rasmussen or Galluop?

Rasmussen had a far better track record in 2004

2004 turn out model for 2008 is ludicrous. The primaries proved record democrat turn out. Turn out for Obama's demographics will be far higher than in 2004, thus the poll's are under-estimating his support, which they did in the primaries.

Obama has a superior ground game and organization. This will net him between 2-1/2 to 3 pts.

by BDM 2008-09-09 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Shoot the messenger ?

Unless of course you devise long term tactics in response to short term conditions.  

Chess vs. Checkers

This whole Sarah Palin deal was a panic move by McCain and had the immediate, short term impact they desired.  

let's not return the favor and go all chicken little because McCain is tied the Tuesday after his convention.  

Count me among those who would have been happy  to see McCain basically tied at the height of his bounce if asked before either convention.  

I think people also forget McCain did a good job stepping on Obama's full bounce with the timing of his VP pick and choice.  I don't know comparing a stepped on bounce vs. a free bounce tells a accurate story, time will tell.

I would make one last note, Obama won yesterdays Rasmussen, that's a quick turnaround.  

by nextgen 2008-09-09 06:55AM | 0 recs
What.... reality?

The reality is that this poll was taken in the sweet spot of McCain bounce.  The poll is practically meaningless (unless you're really into analyzing ephemeral bounces).  Jerome - every so eager to bring down this Democratic ticket - completely fails to mention that.

This poll, if taken again today, would likely show drastic movement to Obama.  This poll, if taken a week from today, would show even greater movement to Obama.  

This is easy stuff people.  A poll taken over the 3 days following a convention is meaningless as to final election outcome. Geeeez.  

by JCPOK 2008-09-09 07:45AM | 0 recs

Sorry to offend anyone here who is an independent, but ... people are STUPID!

Anyone who can not make up their mind OR see the clear difference between mccain and palin to Obama and Biden is STUPID!

Anyone who can not see the difference between the Democrats and the repubs is STUPID!

Wake Up People or you will be getting just what you deserve... another reason to WHINE and cry about how horrible to government is, how bad our standing in the world is and how bad your life is!

The republicans and the corporate media are masters at getting people to vote AGAINST their own best interest. Then these people say... oops! What did I do? Then.... they FUCKING DO IT AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN!

lieberman anyone?

No... he is bad... we want to kick his ass out!

but wait... he just lied and said what we want to hear, he is change! He has changed! We love lieberman!

OOPS! Shit... what did we do AGAIN!?

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Independemts?

Can I get a "hell yeah"?

At this point, "undecided" means "stupid."  For people who have a clue, if you're practical-minded you're either a Republican or a Democrat.  If you're an idealist, you may be Green or Libertarian.  If you just can't decide between Obama and McCain, you need to wake the hell up and gather a bit of information.

by username 2008-09-09 07:09AM | 0 recs

Wake The Fuck Up People!

It is time to decide if you care more about People, the Environment and the world or about corporations, greed, power and money!

Democrats = People, Environment and the World.

Repugs = GREED and ME!

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Maybe I am misreading the tone, but am I the only one who feels that Jerome is getting some perverse joy out of this polling.  I'm not sure if its the fact he was right about this being a closer election than thought or about Palin's short term impact (we'll see long term)...  Either way, his tone in the message conveys happiness over the results.   Maybe I am misreading it and I certainly don't think he likes McCain or anything, but its really rather annoying.

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-09 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

That's been pretty obvious for a while. Anything that's bad for Obama seems to come with little flashes of happiness. It's been going on since at least March.

I agree, there's no question that Jerome wants Obama to win in the end, and he doesn't like McCain. Not saying otherwise. But anything that makes it look like Obama was a bad choice? All of those seem to come with a little bit of glee.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Clinton were the nominee, McCain had nominated some popular black running-mate to allow the Republicans to claim "history" on their side, the conservative base was doubly fired-up, and the 527's were spewing their 15 years of anti-Clinton slime, the very same articles would be appearing here, only the tone would be outrage instead of a bit of a smirk.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-09 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

I was kind of hoping he'd respond as I am honestly curious if he is happy when he sees these results.

During the primaries was fine... both were Dems, he just preferred one over the other.  But the Presidential GE is bothersome.  I'm not looking for outrage... just support for our side, harder analysis like Chris puts up, followed then by straight forward opinion (such as "I'm worried, etc." or just straight forward reporting.   If he does enjoy the polls and our being down, then fine... but I'd rather see someone upfront about it instead of the hidden little smirks.

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-09 08:59AM | 0 recs
This race is about

MCCAIN and his judgement! It is about the REPUBLICANS and their judgement! It is about how these two continue to FUCK US OVER!

palin is just a byproduct of their combined BAD DECISIONS!

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:00AM | 0 recs

what does this mean?

"Oh yea, I almost forgot... Sarah Palin."

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:01AM | 0 recs
McCain, ironically, is falling into the same trap

...that Obama did when he initially beat Hillary and got all this massive attention. He's losing focus on the underlying issues of the campaign, and trying to ride the Palin personality cult wave.

This came back to haunt Obama, and it will come back to haunt McCain. Hillary started focusing on bread and butter issues, which started to resonate with voters.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 07:02AM | 0 recs
I wrote about the solution
GO NEGATIVE in a big way. Swing hard and keep on at it. Frame your opponents as liars and question their credibility. Portray St. John as someone who will sell everything for his political ambition, energize the base. Only then Obama will be able to win. If Obama carries on with anymore of his high-minded unity crap he will lose. He does not have any 527s to do his dirty work for him and the Republican 527s have not even started yet.
So moral of the story, go negative in a big way or start drafting your concession speech.
by tarheel74 2008-09-09 07:04AM | 0 recs
I reluctantly agree

to a point.

Obama himself can not go negative in a big way and it must be based on the truth.

Also, we do not have the help of the media to push our point of view. the repugs have faux news 24/7 and rightie radio 24/7.

The rest of the media is suspect.

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I reluctantly agree

it depends on how you frame the truth. The first few ads about McCain and lobbyists were insipid, the new ad says the truth but it effectively portrays the Republican ticket as liars and questions their credibility. That is a good negative ad. More, many more, of the same please.

by tarheel74 2008-09-09 07:27AM | 0 recs
How about

posting that ad here?

Post Obama's good ads as much as possible!

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:28AM | 0 recs
But what you're suggesting doesn't make sense

Obama's "brand" is that he transcends politics as usual. We were asked to overlook a thin resume, and lack of experience, because he brought such a new and refreshing approach--hope and change--to politics.

If he becomes a grenade-thrower, and goes negative in a big way, what is the reason to vote for him? I mean, at that point, what does he bring to the table? You're suggesting he give away his only differentiator.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-09-09 07:49AM | 0 recs
There is an easy way to do both.

Attack McCain hard for lying and engaging in the "same old slash and burn divide and conquer politics," that fails to prevent your job from being shipped overseas, for helping you afford health care for your children, from putting your health care at risk, etc.

Obama can crusade against the LYING. He can go negative on McCain's character, while seeming to be righteously indignant at the dishonorable politics of Bush/McCain/Rove.

Frame it that way, and Obama stays on message while pummeling McCain on character.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: There is an easy way to do both.

You do appear to be accurately describing Obama's approach, leading with character.

This is the same approach Gore and Kerry tried, I expect it to have the same result.

by souvarine 2008-09-09 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: But what you're suggesting doesn't make sense

politics is dirty and the general election is the equivalent of a mud-fight. No candidate, I repeat, no candidate has ever won an election since the advent of TV age without framing his opponent in a negative light. Why? Because negative ads work. He does not have to make shit up and hurl ridiculous and patently false charges as the Republicans do, he just needs to frame the truth in such a way that it questions the credibility and truthfulness of his opponents. He has not done that till now and that's why he is running behind in the polls. He should have portrayed St. John as an unprincipled politician who puts his personal ambition above everything else the same day when the first Obama-celebrity ad came out. We are running slightly behind the curve but we can make up ground by some hard-hitting attack ads.

by tarheel74 2008-09-09 08:14AM | 0 recs
Jerome... a question for you

Why is it that lately the only diaries you post seem to be about how bad something is going for Obama and the Democrats?

Where are your work up the base (Democrats) diaries?

By the way... a little bad news in A state.

rossi now leads Gregoire by 1 point and the Obama mccain race has Obama up by only 4.

Jerome, WE Need Your Help To Rally The Base! We Need You!

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:09AM | 0 recs


"By the way... a little bad news in A state."

Should have said WA state.

by kevin22262 2008-09-09 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome... a question for you

Because he's acting like a 12 year old boy instead of a man in his 40's?

by yitbos96bb 2008-09-09 03:11PM | 0 recs
Why tolerate Jerome's senseless dribble...?

I stop by here every once in a while to see how far things have devolved for Jerome.  He is now certifiably pathological in his efforts to discount the Democratic ticket.  It's beyond transparent at this point, it's shiny and patent.  Why do you people continue to tolerate this crap?

This post by Jerome is perfectly illustrative - he fails to mention the fact that the poll is practically meaningless as it was taken in the sweet spot of McCain's bounce.

I think Jerome needs to take a sabbatical to process his angst over the Clinton loss.  

by JCPOK 2008-09-09 07:29AM | 0 recs
Don't shoot the messenger.....

The man is just summarizing the news. You can see the world as it is, or you can see it as you'd like it to be.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-09-09 07:44AM | 0 recs
Are you kidding?

Do you not think that the biggest qualifying factor of this poll is the fact that it was taken during the 3 days following the RNC?  If you don't, then you are delusional.  Moreover, any responsible analysis of this poll must disclaim loud and clear  that it is a convention bounce poll.  So, why does the messenger choose not to include this obvious disclaimer?    

by JCPOK 2008-09-09 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

This is very bad news this week, but it has nothing to do with Palin, who only gave one speech, which was more of a bio, which was not that extraordinary.

I think this is what happened:

The DNC was an excellent convention in its last two nights, particularly the final night. The one problem is the punditocracy was not managed, and so the message was not managed, and so the message that most people took away was more of a celebration of civil rights, than a coherent vision of the future. I'm not at all saying that wasn't there in the speeches and in the decorum, but the media siezed on the whole Clinton-women, Obama-blacks theme, and that's all that got through. Particularly in the first two nights, where no compelling message was coming from the floor anyway.

The final night was GOLD, but you literally had to be watching that night, because within twelve hours Obama was completely off the air because of the Palin announcement. So what the convention produced, for non-Dems and non-news junkies, was largely a civil rights message which is more of a targeted outreach message than anything else. So it didn't appeal to the average person on a gut level, although it did look like big change, and sort of the unknown change, with having the first black as President.

Then you have the RNC, which was dismal in its production, its portrayal of American (60-something rural whites), and self-contradicting in its beliefs and vision. It looked like conservatism in its death knell.

But one thing got through, both from the floor and the punditocracy: McCain has been in Washington forever, and has split with the Republicans to a degree where there's animosity.

To the average viewer at home, that completely reframes the election. It is no longer change vs. status quo, and its not even big change vs. the status quo.

It's now unknown change vs. a little change, and that's a whole different ball game.

Obama/Biden just have to keep plugging away at the themes of the last two nights, because that will sell...

by Zach in Phoenix 2008-09-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Folks like who Palin said she was.  The media is debunking (who'd have thunk?) her b.s. right now.  No really, they are!  

Obama/Biden can stay on message about the economy (it was working before this fleeting convention bounce) and see what happens with independents after the shine comes off of Palin.

Also, I don't see how the usual methods used by pollsters for determining who is a likely voter can possibly be effective this year.    Barack has been building an unprecedented GOTV machine in all 50 states.  One top of that, I defy anyone to find historical precedent for turn out among black voters when the top of the ticket (or any part of the ticket for that matter) for a major party in the GE is occupied by a black candidate.  Not that  any of this makes that much difference since national polling has very little in common with the way that a winner in presidential elections is determined.

We still have a lead in the state by state.  If McSame wins Utah by a 70 - 30 margin it doesn't garner any more EC votes than if he win Utah by a 49 - 51 margin, but it sure makes national polling look different.  

by lockewasright 2008-09-09 08:06AM | 0 recs
Ads Gone Wild

Jerome, et al-

I read a diary here today about how Hillary Clinton should be out there working even harder for Obama. I was going to reply that it's Obama's bed & his election to lose- which he is doing a spectacular job of, whether the lefty blogs want to admit it or not- then the lovely advert caught my eye as I went to type my response.

Is it really necessary for this blog to have the snorg t-shirts ad with the girl with the bare midriff almost going wild, in the act of lifting up her shirt?

Really, is it?

Oh, I must be bitter... nevermind.  

by bluemoon 2008-09-09 08:08AM | 0 recs
Thanks for helpiong out, Bluemoon.

We all appreciate your half-assed blame game and recriminations two months before the election. e appreciate that you care more about protecting Hillary;'s heinie than in electing a Democrat to the White House.

Just do not pretend you give a shit about this country.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-09-09 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ads Gone Wild

I don't control the msnbc ads, sorry.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-09 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

When I was a kid, I couldn't decide whether I liked Spider-Man's black costume or his red & blue one better.

One thing I noticed, whichever he wore in the last comic I read was always my favorite.  I'm thinking a lot of these low-information/independent voters is that sort of dynamic.

However, it is true that there is a new breed of ex-Republican independent out there now.  Even my most Republican friends would identify themselves as independent to a pollster.

by nintendofanboy 2008-09-09 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Wait, you mean... the RNC resulted in independents swinging their votes?  You don't say...

Yeah, it sucks... deal with it.  This is what conventions do.  McCain's gets to last a little longer because Obama doesn't get another convention to step on McCain's, as McCain's stepped on Obama.

This should come back down to earth at some point, but it may take a bit.  Just the way it is...

by leshrac55 2008-09-09 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

No movement in Gallup tracking today
McCain 49
Obama 44

McCain has still not hit 50% where as Obama HAS EXCEEDED THIS in their tracking poll.

by BDM 2008-09-09 09:30AM | 0 recs
armchair wariors

The best cure for panic attacks is action - check Bob Sacramento diary, check The field: d

So, make some call, do some GOVT...

by lolo08 2008-09-09 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

Everybody needs to get Gov Palin out of their system.  I say the more we talk about her right now the more people will get sick of her.  In a week or so her novelty will have worn off.  I think that we should start next week talking about George Bush again, and saying how bad he is.  The more people hear about him the more they don't want the same party in power.  Let's start seeing those diaries about George W. Bush and linking him to old man McBush.  What do y'all say?  I am getting sick already of Gov Palin.  She is just a politician like all other politicians.  She is very, very conservative and very, very scary.  Even the former Mayor Koch is scared of her.

by Spanky 2008-09-09 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Independents

She is unfortunately, but predictably a superstar among the base. I dont trust some of our "independent" voters. They tend to go l;ike sheep with whatever contingent is more passionate about their candidate. We need to dampen some of that base enthusiasm on the right wing side by attacking Palin's character without losing sight of attackign McCain's judgement. She has singehandedly put McCain back in front, for now. I can't stand that smug twit's face with that cocky grin and shameless lying and ignorant outlook.

by Pravin 2008-09-09 02:50PM | 0 recs
Dean to the rescue

Dr Dean needs to diagnose Biden as having some form of VP preventing disease....

And using the secret DNC call signal we need to send the SOS out to SUERBILL and WONDER WOMAN

Hillary at VP and a CLEAR "I Obama do swear to follow in fiscal discipline footsteps of Bill Clinton" would be all it would take.

But I am reminded of a piece of literature "I would prefer not to"

by dtaylor2 2008-09-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean to the rescue


by dtaylor2 2008-09-09 11:15AM | 0 recs
Wrong line of attack on Palin was used

Initially, the establishment democrats got distracted by Palin's small town experience. Instead they should be focusing on her character. Her lack of experience has no bearing on this race. We need to go after McCain for his judgement and for his catipulating to Bush when times got tough for him. THat would hurt him with independents. With Sarah Palin, you need to go after her character. That's all. She has nothing else going for her but her personality. It must be made clear how small minded she is, her pettiness would serve her bad at the national stage and that it could translate to the same kind of Gonzalez-Goodling fiascos. We also need to keep attacking her on her propensity to LIE about her achievements. No mincing words. just come up with a catchy moniker along the lines of  LIAR LIAR PALIN(well, something more visceral and creative that that).

by Pravin 2008-09-09 02:47PM | 0 recs
cherry picking

frankly, the fact that Obama and McCain are virtually tied despite the gap between independents is good news for Obama.  That's because McCain is hit his peak with independents, that number can only go down from here.  

And independents probably are more subject to convention bounces than dems or repubs.  

Here's another number that suggests that independents are still move-able.

In the Gallup cross-tabs, 53% of Obama's support is with enthusiasm, while ony 42% of McCain's support is with enthusiasm.

47% of McCain supporters have reservations, compared to 35% of Obama supporters.  

McCain's support, in other words, even after the convention, is still very soft.  As Palin starts to come down to earth, as she inevitably will, those independent numbers should shift fairly significantly.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-09-09 06:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads