A slip in favorables can be a harbinger of preference polls down the road.
The Obama campaign seems to playing a strategy of attrition: I suspect they believe McCain's reputation and history make it difficult if not impossible to land a knockout blow: they know they're not going to take him out with one punch on one issue. It's not that easy, especially given some of the other obstacles Obama is up against.
But every day, McCain further tarnishes that reputation and causes people to question that history, and people are coming around to recognize that he's not who they thought he is. Obama's approach seems to be to simply reinforce what the public is already realizing about the McCain/Palin ticket, building on the public's shifting perception rather than trying to push it real hard on their own.
Meanwhile, an ad in which he directly and seriously addresses the country offers a clear contrast with McCain's sad muckery.
But I'm going to reserve judgment until I read Jerome's analysis of these polling trends. His understanding of polls is without peer in the blogosphere, his observations tend to be the most perceptive, and he always has effective recommendations for how to help Obama win.
I read your diary, and it's all very passive... why not turn it into a call to action? Why not use this to motivate people? Not out of concern, but out of determination?
What do you suggest Obama supporters on the ground in NY do to keep the state with a healthy lead? Any ideas? Any particular parts of the state that need more attention? Is Obama losing some support upstate? What issues are important to voters there? How do we get Obama's policy information to them? What kinds of ads are playing in the state? Can they be better targeted?
Sorry, but "ZOMG!! Look at these polls! OMG!" diaries, besides being mostly cut and paste affairs, usually have little to no analysis, ideas, or direction. As such, the ensuing comment threads tend to turn into tepic bickering instead of constructive action.
Consider the diary you could have written, if you really wanted to change things.
I'd love to get some independent confirmation that this was indeed the "biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state." That kind of info may be anecdotal at best, though. Still, this was a major event, and seems to have received the appropriate coverage on KTTU and hopefully other outlets.
The Palinapologists are fond of quoting that "80% approval" poll from long ago, so it's important that there are images, especially of women, presenting the view of the vocal opposition.
Earlier today I linked the current rec list diary to the dkos one from this morning, which had a ton of pics along with the video and more information about the rally. Those interested in more images and info should head over there. It looks like it was a tremendously successful event, despite the best efforts of rightwingers to derail it.
On the stump, during his economic speeches, Obama has been consistently raising health care as a vital issue, one related not merely to household economies but also to the national economy. It's been clear for many months that making health care accessible and affordable will be a central aspect of his administration, and part of his broader economic strategy to make American business more competitive in the international marketplace.
We know for a fact that meaningful health care reform is a central plank in the Democratic platform and a clear priority for Obama, whose proposals have been public for over a year. We can be sure that Clinton and others in the House and Senate will be busy from day one working with the Obama White House to craft a budget and legislation to make sure health care is not only accessible to everyone, but that the costs be a burden to neither individuals nor businesses.
However, you may have noticed that he's currently in the late stages of a general election campaign.
It would be the height of folly to suddenly announce that he's going to set Hillary Clinton to work tomorrow crafting a universal health care plan. Talk about throwing your campaign off-message and handing your opponent an issue and a target that only gets his base even more energized. If you require that the last six weeks of the campaign be dominated by this issue, and that it be underscored by a stunt like appointing a member of the Senate to start working on your administration's proposals before you've even won the election (not to mention someone who the opposition will happily point out was unsuccessful in her first attempt), I dare say you'll have to resign yourself to being disappointed.
But if health care is important to you, and you're still wondering which candidate will move the country closer to the goal of universal coverage, I suggest you take a look at each of their proposals, and make your decision after careful review. I believe the choice is clear.
A whole evening dedicated to speculation over what will happen when our candidate loses the election. Eagerly, almost excitedly, participated in by the site owner, one of the few times he's shown enthusiasm for a discussion recently. It's only September, and they're already discussing what to do after we lose.
I guess nobody's heard of self-fulfilling prophecy. Or has a freaking clue about how to maintain discipline and energy during a political campaign.
I guess masturbation has become the hobby of choice among the MyDD elite.
Oh, you mean this is "analysis?" This is an open discussion of political trends? This is what politically astute internet pundits do with their energy at the height of a campaign?
Bullshit. What it is is unfuckingbelievable. It's people putting their own damn egos ahead of what's needed right now. And what's needed right now is to put our candidate in the White House. What will happen in four years, beyond this lame theorizing over this and that and who and what, is that untold lives will be adversely affected by a very dangerous administration, should Obama lose.
Criticism? Sure. Constructive advice? OK. But post-mortems six weeks out?
That's something I've thought about. For too many, it's not lying or cheating that's wrong, it's getting caught. Achieving a goal (a grade, a job, a foreign policy objective) by any means necessary, including a lie, is seen as a virtue. As long as you're successful. As long as you don't get caught.
The thing is, Palin and McCain are being caught. Not only are they liars, but they fail at being good liars. Not much to respect there.
Republicans are circling the wagons, and the race will remain tight. But I have to think that even among the morally compromised, McCain's inability to lie well enough to get away with it is going to start looking bad.
Apparently, she'd never left the country before, or at least, not in a long time:
"In July 2007, she had to get a passport before she visited members of the Alaska National Guard stationed in Kuwait..." (NYT, 8/29)
To quote Matt Damon, "it's like a bad Disney movie."
When the trolls gang up on you like that, just keep commenting and you'll get your TU back soon enough. Calling attention to it only gives them satisfaction, and contributes to their sad little delusions of power.
The NYT put it this way: "the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home." (Today's editorial page)
The thing is, those among the conservative punditocracy who are still defending the Palin choice are doing so not because they believe, on an intellectual level, that she's the right person for the job (see: Noonan, Peggy). They're just doing their job: which is to manipulate those members of the republican base to support the republican ticket, and to try to reach as many others as they can rope in with their dubious rhetoric.
They're comfortable doing it because they're probably less worried than the rest of us about a President Palin: in fact, they're probably thrilled with the idea of an extreme right-wing puppet whose gender they could exploit in order to ward off criticism, who'd be controlled by a set of advisors determined to advance a hard-right agenda, while the government (including the justice and interior departments as well as the judiciary) could be stacked with conservative true-believers who will continue to disable and cripple the very concept of democratic government.
This really is a watershed year. We must defeat these people.