Are we in trouble?

From real Clear politics:

Colorado 45.3 45.8 McCain +0.5
Virginia 45.7 46.3 McCain +0.6
Missouri 45.0 47.3 McCain +2.3
Michigan 46.0 42.8 Obama +3.2
Ohio 46.0 45.5 Obama +0.5
Florida 45.4 47.2 McCain +1.8

Gallup Poll:

Gallup Daily: Obama 45%, McCain 44%August 16, 2008
Nationwide voter preferences for president remain closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain, with Obama favored by 45% to McCain's 44%.

RCP electoral:

Electoral College Obama McCain Toss Ups
RCP Electoral Count 228 163 147
No Toss Up States 295 243

I feel good about the electoral map but the polls give me the willies. Why is Sen. Obama not leading by a bigger margin? I feel our nominee needs some real help.

Shedding all your biases could you give some advice to Sen. Obama?
We all would like him to  bring back Gold in November, Don't we?

Tags: mccain, obama (all tags)



Re: Are we in trouble?

Trouble?  That is optimistic my fried.  This race is  over.  We lost. Whoever has the lead in Colorado, Virginia & Missouri on August 17th polling always wins.  Look it up.  

/snark (It is a sad day on MyDD when I need to tell everyone this comment is snark)

by Blue Neponset 2008-08-17 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?




seriously though how often will someone have to say that this far out the polling is not going to tell us who will win yet? and if it did I love this whole Obama is leading but not by enough.

either wait till after the october surprise and then start watching polls or ignore them.

I have decided to just ignore polls till late october,

the fact that you listed 4 red states, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, Virgina and Obama is within 2.5 in ALL of them

is enough Obama needs to flip 1 of them, he is doing fine, no one said it would be a walk in the park for him to win.

and if its not going to be a walk in the park, that means yes the polls will be close and they will go back and forth.

so can we STOP freaking out each time they do exactly that, this is a 50/50 country is not like all the republicans just died, its about ethusiasm, sure when they are called they say they will vote McCain, but its all about in november when its cold or rainy or whatever who is more driven to get out and vote no matter what.

by TruthMatters 2008-08-17 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

A 50/50 country?  What happened to the droves of Obamacans, the post-partisan drift, the strength to attract independents and disaffected Republicans?

Just curious.

by Sieglinde 2008-08-17 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

What happened to "he can't win"?

by Jess81 2008-08-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Yeah, what happened to that?  It's gone from he can't win to why isn't he winning by more.  Count me in the 50 plus 1 crowd.  

Also, of the states listed, only Michigan was won by Kerry last time.  If Obama flips one, just one, of the states, he is likely to win.  A win in Colorado would also need wins in New Mexico and Iowa.

by niksder 2008-08-17 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

What happened to "he can't win"?

Sadly, it's still alive and well, even among liberal circles.

by Sieglinde 2008-08-18 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Since it's a Sunday morning, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your concern is legit.

Now, your question: Are we in trouble? The polls you included in your diary answer your question. Obama is behind, but within the margin of error, in five states that have gone red the last two presidential elections.

Also, according to your diary, Obama is ahead electorally, which, as we all know, is what matters.

How far ahead would you like him to be in the polls? Does anyone out there expect Obama to win by double digits? It's not going to happen. But he certainly can win by 5 to 7 points, and that's an electoral rout.

I watched a good chunk of the Saddleback forum last night and kept thinking one thing: Obama is really good at this. He's not as good as Bill Clinton would have been (but, really, who would be?), but he's a million times better than John Kerry or Al Gore would have been.

And McCain spent his time rehashing his stump speech and sucking up to evangelicals. It was pathetic and painful to watch.

Bottom line: Put your worries aside. Our candidate is light years better than what the GOP is serving up.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-08-17 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

"Put your worries aside" ... famous last words?

I think it's instructive to ask why Obama isn't leading by a wider margin than we're seeing currently.

Not everyone who asks this question is a Hillary holdout, by the way.  If "our candidate is light years better than what the GOP is serving up", then why the hell aren't winning more???????

by Sieglinde 2008-08-17 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I think it's instructive for the Obama team to ask, "How do we get 270 electoral votes?"  A lead in the polls of 10 percentage points and no plan to win the electoral votes would mean absolutely nothing.

by niksder 2008-08-17 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Krugman has his finger on it, yet again: n/18krugman.html

This is why it's instructive to ask why we're not leading by more.  To diagnose the problem, so that it can be addressed in the remaining months of the campaign.

To simply sit back and say that we got the better candidate, and the goal is to win 270 electoral votes, is playing DEFENSE, when Obama ought to be more aggressive and passionate about WINNING.

by Sieglinde 2008-08-18 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Another concern troll.  How much are you getting paid to swill you so false concern?????????????????????????

by Spanky 2008-08-17 04:09AM | 0 recs
Another concern troll?

Dood, I will have you know that IndyDem has been THE Concern Troll around here for weeks now.

(My computer is going wiggy for some reason... hence the blank post).

by BlueinColorado 2008-08-17 01:35PM | 0 recs
we can always toss hims some xtra cash

or volunteer, if only for weekends, in a targeted state.

every bit helps

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-17 04:10AM | 0 recs
For the trolls

that takes all the fun out of it.

by parahammer 2008-08-17 04:53AM | 0 recs
I would be more pessimistic

if I wasn't so burned out from pessimists telling me that the end of the world is nigh. They are the proverbial broken clock.  Someday, we may really  be in deep shit, but nobody will care what they say because it's always the same message.

by Dumbo 2008-08-17 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Got the feeling McCain saying something really stupid the other day here in Colorado gonna be reflected in upcoming polls...

Don't fuck with our water John..;jse ssionid=D98A03A4BBD860B061DE01FE78E0BBBF ?diaryId=7052

by nogo postal 2008-08-17 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

PPP has an interesting diary on its blog as to why it feels that its poll results differ from Rasmussen's.

Here's the key takeaway:

We did 500 interviews last Tuesday night in Colorado, and based on those McCain was up by a point as well. But we also called everyone in the sample who we didn't reach Tuesday night again Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, Wednesday night, and Thursday afternoon. We got almost another 500 respondents and they went for Obama by a good amount, pushing him to a four point lead.

As far as I can tell Rasmussen just makes calls until they get 500 respondents. When we buy a sample we attempt to reach every number in it at least four times over a period of several days and go with whatever number of respondents we get based on that. And we almost always find that the further into conducting the poll we go, the better Obama does. I don't know if it's that his supporters are harder to get on the line or what, but we're finding that trend in nearly every state we poll.

by rfahey22 2008-08-17 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?
oh yeah indydem..ya wanna do something?
It's really easy if you know your State and zip code.. rch_simple
by nogo postal 2008-08-17 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Know what I hate? I hate when the "talking heads" tease us with this line, "why can't Obama break 50%"?

Why don't they ask the same thing about McCain? Why can't the senior senator (McCain) seal this thing up before Labor Day with poll numbers above 60%.

In reality that is what the poll numbers should be for a senator with 24-plus years experience, war hero, son of an admiral, husband of a rich lady, and protege of the beloved Ronald Reagan.

It's because there are 10-20% of the voters who won't decide until two weeks before the election.

by mtndewrob 2008-08-17 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

We are 80 days from the election.  The convention's will be over in the next couple of weeks.

I wouldn't start hitting the panic button until after the conventions and the public has a chance to see McCain against Obama in a direct debate on Sept. 26.  If the polling doesn't open after that, I would start looking for a life preserver...

Until then, don't worry.  People aren't that focused in on the race yet.  They are generalizing, and a direct comparison will shock them into reality.

by TxDem08 2008-08-17 05:37AM | 0 recs
Advice? Sure

pick hillary, she's the only game changer.
All other choices are space fillers....
by TaiChiMaster 2008-08-17 06:05AM | 0 recs

by chrisblask 2008-08-17 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?


Obama's campaign is purposely keeping it close... they don't want to peak too early...

Axelrod is very happy here they are at the moment, you should be, too...

I'm not worried... when Obama steps it up, he gets big gains will little effort (like he did a couple of weeks ago)...

by LordMike 2008-08-17 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

This comment is laughable to say the least; it's a ridiculous statement.

by soyousay 2008-08-17 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Didn't think I'd ever agree with soyousay, but the idea that Obama is artificially depressing his numbers is pretty ridiculous.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-17 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Yeah seriously, the mentality is he must be doing better then this because it doesn't fit into my world view, so it MUST be a strategy, rather then the actuality.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-17 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I didn't say that...  What I said was that he's not blowing his wad early... just making sure to keep things close at the moment without depleting his arsenal...

There was an article wit Axelrod in the Chicago Sun Times that outlined his strategy....

They are very happy to keep it close at the moment...

by LordMike 2008-08-17 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

It's not as silly as it sounds; I was in a waiting room last week and read  an article from last October in New York magazine.  The subject was "where is the Obama of the 2004 convention?  Is it over for him?  Why is he so far behind?"

The answer from the campaign was "we're keeping a low profile at the moment.  We don't want to peak too early.  We'll probably be ramping things up around the New Year."

Make of that what you will because that's exactly what happened.

by Jess81 2008-08-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
For what it's worth

Obama gained a point in Rasmussen today, both McCain and Obama favorables dropped one point as well.

Obama is a 55/45 favorite in my opinion as long as Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado remain pure toss-up states and do not lean McCain's direction at all.  Now, if one of those states get away from him in terms of leaning McCain, then it's a 50/50 election.

Nevada is probably leaning McCain right now though I'll withhold judgment until the next Mason-Dixon poll.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-17 07:08AM | 0 recs
The more pure toss-up

states that were formerly Bush states, the greater Obama's chances because McCain has to win each and every one if you operate on the assumption that Iowa and New Mexico go to Obama while every blue state stays with Obama (which is what the polls show right now, McCain is not within three points of Obama on average in Michigan and New Hampshire).

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-17 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The more pure toss-up

And BTW Cindy McCain has been spending quite alot of time in the typically blue but ready to go red NJ & the headlines have been repeatedly positive on the front page of various papers for at least a week now, concerning her visits.  

by jrsygrl 2008-08-17 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The more pure toss-up

I can't even conceive of anything that she does that could be 'positive' coverage.

She is the embodiment of Barbie goes to Washington.

Paris, Brittany and a smattering of Anne Heche all rolled into one.  Who could possibly see that as positive?

by emsprater 2008-08-17 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The more pure toss-up

Well when the front page headline is about her frequenting a local diner & talking to all of these people who just love her & then another headline about a place she is visiting the following day with similar anecdotes etc. etc. - well that is how. I didn't say I liked her - but the press can skew anything however they want -look at the coverage of W compared to Kerry; Edwards' affair compared to Giuliani's coverage etc etc.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-17 11:24AM | 0 recs
Local diners...

Well when the front page headline is about her frequenting a local diner & talking to all of these people who just love her & then another headline about a place she is visiting the following day with similar anecdotes etc. etc.

Yeah, those local diners.  Frequent hangouts for dealers.  You can usually find them hanging out around the pay-phones.  No wonder they love ol' Cindy.  

Especially if she flashes those Miss Buffalo Chip winning hooters at them.

by Dumbo 2008-08-17 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Local diners...
I get it but the bottom line is McCain has had very positive press in a typically blue state that is vulnerable to going red.  Look at the moniker I live here!
by jrsygrl 2008-08-19 04:06PM | 0 recs
Cindy McCain

Snopes says the following mailer about Cindy McCain is true ndy.asp

which means that it is possible to write a positive article about Cindy McCain without lying.

Frankly, she's impressive in a number of ways, not the least that she was smart enough to insist on a prenup that keeps John out of her money.

Like so many presidential candidate's wives, (and especially the Republican ones), I prefer her to her husband.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-17 02:40PM | 0 recs
my advice

Stop talking big picture all the time "change, hope" etc- and start talking specifics.  Start proposing some really bold ideas- STOP trying to be everything to everybody (like specifically calling out "marriage is between man and woman" at the Right Wing religious nut-festival yesterday).  I think he's pissing off Dems (me included)- while looking like a poseur to the Right.  Stand up for progressive ideals- don't just try and make everyone happy.  

Also, choose Clinton as VP- which would probably give him a 5% bump. (Had to throw that one in there just to piss people off...)

by easyE 2008-08-17 08:07AM | 0 recs

Stop talking big picture all the time "change, hope" etc- and start talking specifics.

Wow.  That's the exact opposite of the advice I would give him.  Reagan and Bush 2 rarely gave specifics.  Mondale and Dukakis, lots of specifics.  Let's not confuse our own personal tastes with what is actually good strategy.

by Dumbo 2008-08-17 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem with this

I think the most important thing a candidate has to do is connect on an emotional level with the electorate. Do issues matter - yes but there has to be a connection- a trust.

by msw4477 2008-08-17 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Our candidates this year

And I think people wanted to believe Obama could connect & were afraid that Hillary's perceived divisiveness was an issue. Why do you think the Republicans spent so many decades focused on smearing her - it is because she is a real threat. She knows how to connect politically and even get people who hate her to admit she is intelligent.  Hell I know people this year, born died in the wool pro-life Bush/Reagan voting Republicans who were impacted so bad with the current situation; that they would actually cast the vote for Clinton. They hated her personally; it made them shudder but deep down inside they confessed that they knew intellectually she could get the job done & at the end of the day that meant they would be better off.  They didn't like what she stood for, but this mess was horrible & hate her or fear her but she's fierce and smart, so why the hell not at this point? But Obama? They have just sneered & laughed at the idea of voting for him even back in the primaries. At best, they'll stay home; which, knowing them, is not likely.

Look the GOP has never been afraid of launching a divisive candidate (ala Bush or Cheney as VP) b/c they are marketing geniuses.  Clinton et al has learned a little bit about how to fight against them & was the best prepared to take them on & win the minds of Americans b/c even if they didn't like "the bitch." at the end of the day they know they can respect her abilities. Face it we fell right into the GOP's plan by nominating Obama.  Now I'll still vote for him b/c he is my only hope but it has frustrated me to no end that people haven't seen this.  

by jrsygrl 2008-08-19 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

How is it trolling to make the very logical point that such a close margin between the two candidates, especially given the current state of affairs in this country, might be a problem we need to deal with? I know let's just bury our head in the sand, pretend the issue doesn't exist & just bemoan a loss, if that should occur, rather then analyzing a problem that may exist and proactively DOING something about it.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-17 08:23AM | 0 recs
Because neither you nor Indydem

are OFFERING anything to do.  you are, simply, bemoaning, and that is rather boring.

I have lots of suggestions to make, but I would not make them on MyDD, where the rec list is reglarly filled with this kind of over-the-top "OMG WE ARE SO DOOMED!" shit.  It contaminates any hope for a real adult discussion of things that might improve strategy.

by Dumbo 2008-08-17 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Because neither you nor Indydem

I have offered a few suggestions which were met with sneers, sarcasm or denial as to the existence of the issue, b/c the majority of the time people are too busy insisting the problem doesn't exist, such as now.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-19 04:19PM | 0 recs
Trouble my friends...

With a capital T that rhymes with B that stands for BORING.

by Cincinnatus 2008-08-17 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

All your polls are belong to us....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I'm going to give Obama PA, MI, NH, and Montana In order for McCain to win, he has the win a lot of the traditional red states plus Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana,as well as Florida and Ohio.  I believe it will come down to 3 states because I believe McCain will win Florida--Colorado, Indiana and Ohio. It's a daunting task for McCain but it certainly looks more doable than 2 months ago.

by handsomegent 2008-08-17 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

You do something like two of these "I'm worried" diaries per week.  It's awfully old.

by fogiv 2008-08-17 10:50AM | 0 recs

This is reclisted with one - 1 - rec....

by chrisblask 2008-08-17 11:48AM | 0 recs

How embarrassing.  Picture me, a MyDD community member, with a paper bag over my head.

by fogiv 2008-08-17 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I thought a diary on Firedog Lake this morning the best I've read on this

"We, all of us with conscience and some modicum of intelligence hafta be Obama's "attack dog(s)" om-barack-john-sound-hearts-deformed-con sciencies/

by wrb 2008-08-17 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I don't see the point of these diaries: it's not like the Obama campaign is checking the internet for some good ideas.  

Donate your time and/or money.

by Jess81 2008-08-17 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?
Thanks! Great Diary.
Highly rec'd
by QTG 2008-08-17 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Great comment!  Mojo'd!

by Jess81 2008-08-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Indeed. Great comment, great diary.

I'm shocked and worried that we don't have more diaries like this.  In fact, we should double the size of the rec list...  NAY!  Triple it.  Make it bigger than Mitt wants to make Gitmo.

The less we worry, the more we lose.  And the more we lose, the more we must worry.  And it's all the fault of the people who didn't worry!  They didn't care that we were losing!  

The ever-increasing Worry-Gap is very troubling to me.

by Dumbo 2008-08-17 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed. Great comment, great diary.

Your seeming lack of worry and disrespect for those of us who have been doing the heavy lifting in the worry department really worries me.

by QTG 2008-08-18 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

I touched on this type of concern today, in /15985

It seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000. Obama's average lead of three to four points is marginally larger than both John Kerry's and Al Gore's leads then (each was winning by one point in Gallup surveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter's 46). At, which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election.

From Frank Rich's essential column in today's Times: n/17rich.html?ref=opinion

by January 20 2008-08-17 01:38PM | 0 recs
AreYou in Trouble? Pick One!

How can you fell good about the EC and get the willies about the national polls? The EC is all that counts. You should know it is theoretically possible, not good for pushing an agenda, to win the EC without the national popular vote. So National daily tracking polls are bunk.

Obama won the primary pledged delegate race which is what mattered, because that is what he contested. He built his campaign around understanding the CD delegate allocation, and winning each hand in the poker game to have the biggest pot at the end of the game. This is translated to the EC ground game.

And besides, take your own temperature after Labor Day. Two seventy one plus is the goal for November. This is all exhibition games now.

by ttmiskovsky 2008-08-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: AreYou in Trouble? Pick One!

Not to nitpick but it's 269 + 1.  And theoretically 269 is enough, because then it goes to the house (although the rules for that are sort of weird).

by Jess81 2008-08-17 01:54PM | 0 recs
Then we are in Trouble!

Which would set up having delegations that are Democratic looking at voting against the popular vote in their state? Now that's the willies!

by ttmiskovsky 2008-08-17 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: AreYou in Trouble? Pick One!

We actually got more than two choices.

There's the popular vote.

And the Electoral College (delegate count)

And then the person who wins all the big states.

Or the person who wins the Blue States.

Or the person who wins the battleground states.

If nothing else works we can also get the election deciden by the superdelegates.

Ooops, sorry, I mean the Supreme Court.


by benjaminsp 2008-08-17 02:31PM | 0 recs
I can do without the Supremes

I don't watch my 401K everyday. It would drive me nuts.

by ttmiskovsky 2008-08-17 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

Yes, we are in trouble.

As Missouri and Ohio go, so goes the nation.  And right now, those places are trending towards McCain.  And like it or not, McCain has every reason to expect as big a bounce from the Republican convention as the Dems will get from Denver.

Obama needs to run this race like he is the underdog.  Regardless of what the polls say, I say a black man running for president IS the underdog until the day he has won.

by mikes101 2008-08-17 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Are we in trouble?

No, I think he is in a good spot.  He's ahead but not so much that "overconfidence" will come in and he will rest on his laurels.  I think he knows what he is doing.

by reasonwarrior 2008-08-17 02:55PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads