Ok, we have Obama and McCain. I've been hearing about Hispanic votes and New Mexico as a key State for Obama to win with Hispanics. Uhm, New Mexico only carries 5 electoral votes. Also, has anyone looked at the numbers of eligible black and Hispanic voters?
They're negligible.
Total eligible Hispanic voters in the US 17,315,000
Total eligible Black voters in the US 24,115,000
Total eligible White Voters in the US 151,110,000
52% of white eligible voters are women
48% of white eligible voters are men
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/34.pdf
I want to throw out the numbers and see what everyone thinks will be key to a victory for Obama or McCain.
Electoral votes by state.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm
Another good website for reference as we head to November is
Lots of good statistics. All of the best polls shown and most up to date. Not biased.
I'd like to see this thread as a reflection of what is happening in the following months and as a way to help us all make informed choices. So much happens, many of us simply cannot take the time we'd like to stay on top of everything and wade through the "mud" that will no doubt be slung. Feel free to post political speeches, articles and things of interest.
You are welcome to add your views, but please NO TRASH TALK. I WILL delete posts that are just venemous spewings or that have no merit.
Gokul43201
Jun5-08, 11:20 PM
More polling data, giving electoral vote predictions:
1. RCP Electoral College Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/)
To see the individual polls that go into the composite in all of the above, click within any state on the map.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun5-08, 11:32 PM
Ok, we have Obama and McCain. I've been hearing about Hispanic votes and New Mexico as a key State for Obama to win with Hispanics. Uhm, New Mexico only carries 5 electoral votes. Also, has anyone looked at the numbers of eligible black and Hispanic voters?
They're negligible.
Total eligible Hispanic voters in the US 17,315,000
Total eligible Black voters in the US 24,115,000
Total eligible White Voters in the US 151,110,000
52% of white eligible voters are women
48% of white eligible voters are men
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/34.pdf
The numbers for blacks will very likely go up and are probably already higher than when that data was gathered. Unfortunately blacks and latinos don't necessarily get along well. Unless Obama has a hispanic running mate or he starts taking on immigration policy (which would likely be a shot in the foot) I don't see him rallying the hispanic vote in any significant way.
Evo
Jun5-08, 11:37 PM
The numbers for blacks will very likely go up and are probably already higher than when that data was gathered. Unfortunately blacks and latinos don't necessarily get along well. Unless Obama has a hispanic running mate or he starts taking on immigration policy (which would likely be a shot in the foot) I don't see him rallying the hispanic vote in any significant way.But would it be worth it for Obama to take on a VP just for the Hispanic vote? How much would it gain him overall?
Evo
Jun5-08, 11:38 PM
More polling data, giving electoral vote predictions:
1. RCP Electoral College Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/)
To see the individual polls that go into the composite in all of the above, click within any state on the map.Thanks Gokul!
Poll added for Gokul.
TheStatutoryApe
Jun6-08, 12:32 AM
But would it be worth it for Obama to take on a VP just for the Hispanic vote? How much would it gain him overall?
I don't think it would really help. More than likely the rabid anti-illegal alien people will see a hispanic in the white house as a sure sign of impending open border policies and turn out in force to vote "against" Obama. It would possibly be even worse than if he had Hillary on the ticket with him. But it's one of the only ways I can see him rallying hispanics. I think he'll just have to settle for making them comfortable and not pissing them off. Maybe workers' rights would be a good platform?
Ivan Seeking
Jun6-08, 04:08 AM
Black demographics
http://www.blackdemographics.com/
Compare to toss-up and "weakly GOP" states.
Astronuc
Jun6-08, 05:52 AM
Don't know how reliable this is, but these articles have some maps and data on the primaries & caucuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Includes discussion of popular vote with various ways to compute it.
I think the VP candidates will be fairly, perhaps strong, influence on the election.
lisab
Jun6-08, 08:03 AM
Looks like McCain is continuing his shift to the right. He just switched positions on warrentless wiretapping, falling closer in line with the Bush administration's opinion of exectutive power.
I don't really know enough about the electoral college, or even how the US elections work, but I think it'll make a difference who Obama chooses as his VP won't it?
Astronuc
Jun6-08, 08:20 AM
Each state is assigned a certain number of electors to the Electoral College, based on representation in Congress (House + Senate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Although not originally the case in a majority of states, at present, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-takes-all popular vote rule–– . . . . Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote.
So a VP may affect the popular vote in any one state.
CA (55), TX (34), NY (31), FL (27) are the Big 4, followed by PA & IL (each 21), OH (20), MI (17), NC (15), . . . .
jimmysnyder
Jun6-08, 10:54 AM
I'll wait until November to vote. In my opinion, McCain's chances of winning are about 000000000000000.6
Evo
Jun6-08, 11:18 AM
I don't really know enough about the electoral college, or even how the US elections work, but I think it'll make a difference who Obama chooses as his VP won't it?Yes Obama's VP will be critical, not so much for McCain.
turbo-1
Jun6-08, 11:33 AM
But would it be worth it for Obama to take on a VP just for the Hispanic vote? How much would it gain him overall?That's too narrow a reason to pick a VP, but added to Bill Richardson's diplomatic credentials, his experience as secretary of energy, his record of bipartisan cooperation, and his popularity amongst governors, he would be a VERY good choice. He might pull some Hispanic votes that might otherwise have gone to McCain, but his heritage alone should not be the deciding factor. The guy is smart and experienced and would bring a lot to the table. He's no flashy extemporaneous speaker like Obama, but that's not a negative in my book because Obama has that covered and Richardson would add age and experience to the ticket. The fact that Richardson has negotiated the release of captured soldiers and political prisoners held by some of the very nations that Bush refuses to talk to would put some teeth in Obama's claim that he wants to beef up US diplomacy and pursue diplomatic channels to resolve problems instead of rattling swords and applying sanctions as first options, as the Bush administration tends to do.
lisab
Jun6-08, 12:23 PM
Yes Obama's VP will be critical, not so much for McCain.
I think McCain's choice will be equally as critical. Not to be morbid, but his age is a factor. From the Social Security actuarial tables, for men:
Chance of not dying in 4 years = (0.967)(0.964)(0.960)(0.957) = 0.856
Chance of a 72 year old man dying within 4 years = 14.4%
(I included the math because it's been a while since I've taken statistics - please check for accuracy.)
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
Of course, SS stats are based on the larger population, and include the infirm. He's a tough guy, no doubt about that, and his chances are likely better than what's calculated here.
Evo
Jun6-08, 12:53 PM
I think McCain's choice will be equally as critical. Not to be morbid, but his age is a factor.Good point.
lisab
Jun6-08, 01:05 PM
I think McCain's choice will be equally as critical. Not to be morbid, but his age is a factor. From the Social Security actuarial tables, for men:
Chance of not dying in 4 years = (0.967)(0.964)(0.960)(0.957) = 0.856
Chance of a 72 year old man dying within 4 years = 14.4%
(I included the math because it's been a while since I've taken statistics - please check for accuracy.)
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html
Of course, SS stats are based on the larger population, and include the infirm. He's a tough guy, no doubt about that, and his chances are likely better than what's calculated here.
DOH! Sorry, my post got sort of garbled! It looked fine in the edit window...
First column: age
Second column: chance of dying in one year
Third column: chance of not dying in one year
turbo-1
Jun6-08, 01:26 PM
I don't wish to be morbid, either, but both presidential candidates need to pick someone who can slide right into the top spot if needed. There are white-supremacist groups loaded with people who will bear an irrational hatred against Obama just because of his skin color, and that's got be giving his SS detail fits. Obama would be the ripest target since Lincoln.
Moonbear
Jun6-08, 03:40 PM
I don't wish to be morbid, either, but both presidential candidates need to pick someone who can slide right into the top spot if needed. There are white-supremacist groups loaded with people who will bear an irrational hatred against Obama just because of his skin color, and that's got be giving his SS detail fits. Obama would be the ripest target since Lincoln.
I agree. There is still enough of a racist undercurrent in this country that this is a valid concern. This is going to be an election where the VPs really are going to be a factor in the voting decisions.
Obama doesn't need to worry so much about the Hispanic vote in this election as he does the blue collar labor groups as a whole. He's ticked off a lot of them during his campaign, and those votes are ones he needs to win the swing states. While the media plays that off as a "white" population, I think that's an error too. The person working for housekeeping down at the Motel 6 can have any color skin and they're going to have trouble relating to someone who is worried about the price of arugula at the Whole Foods store. They're worried about the price of ordinary bread and milk at the Safeway.
I think Obama may run into the same problems Kerry ran into with those populations, and some of it may have nothing to do with his positions on issues, but just how he comes across in demeanor. He has that tall, thin, good posture, aristocratic look that will leave the working class distrusting him. McCain has more of the soft, rounded, jovial, let's listen to Grandpa talk about his war stories look.
I do think it's going to be a close election again, mainly because neither of them really inspires great confidence in a large enough segment of the population to stand ahead as a clear leader.
russ_watters
Jun6-08, 07:31 PM
But would it be worth it for Obama to take on a VP just for the Hispanic vote? How much would it gain him overall? The way I see it, close elections (assuming this will be one) are won on the margins. A few tens of thousands of votes gained or lost in key places is what swings them from one to the other.
Hispanic votes are key in a key state (Florida), so yes, they are important.
This is also why I see Obama's race as an electability problem. The democrats are virtually guaranteed 90+% of the black vote, regardless of who they put up for office, so there isn't much benefit to appealing to black votors unless they can increase black votor turnout. But if his race is a problem for some (and Hillary was right - lower class whites liked her a lot better than him), the democrats stand to lose a lot of votes in their core constituency.
This is also why a half-decent or better black republican would be virtually guaranteed a landslide victory against a white democrat.
russ_watters
Jun6-08, 07:35 PM
I'll wait until November to vote. In my opinion, McCain's chances of winning are about 000000000000000.6 So..... that's 60%, then? I think McCain's chances are even better than that. I think the laundry list of electability problems that Obama has are going to be a serious problem. The most important is the militant black nationalist image.
turbo-1
Jun6-08, 07:38 PM
McCain's ratings among Clinton's core constituency has fallen of late, though, and if he has to stand up to Obama in town-hall type discussions, he is likely to drop like a rock. His lack of understanding of the complexities of the societies, alliances, religions, and traditional rivalries in the middle east is going to make him look pretty flat-footed compared to Obama. He makes at least a gaffe a week on this one subject alone, and now that it's a general election race, the press may stop giving him free passes on these.
Edit by Evo: The Huffington Post is a biased blog and is not acceptable per the guidelines.
russ_watters
Jun6-08, 07:39 PM
While the media plays that off as a "white" population, I think that's an error too. The person working for housekeeping down at the Motel 6 can have any color skin and they're going to have trouble relating to someone who is worried about the price of arugula at the Whole Foods store. They're worried about the price of ordinary bread and milk at the Safeway.
I think Obama may run into the same problems Kerry ran into with those populations, and some of it may have nothing to do with his positions on issues, but just how he comes across in demeanor. He has that tall, thin, good posture, aristocratic look that will leave the working class distrusting him. McCain has more of the soft, rounded, jovial, let's listen to Grandpa talk about his war stories look. You may be right, but I don't know what would make Hillary seem more down-to-earth (if that's the right term) than Obama. That's the main reason I think there must be somewhat of a race issue there, but I'm really not sure - I tend to be a little more optomistic about the [lack of] pervasiveness of racism than that.
BobG
Jun7-08, 01:05 PM
So..... that's 60%, then? I think McCain's chances are even better than that. I think the laundry list of electability problems that Obama has are going to be a serious problem. The most important is the militant black nationalist image.
I think that's very optimistic. McCain has some advantages, but he's also following a Republican President that hasn't seen job approval ratings over 40% since Sep 2006. This should be a landslide for any Democratic candidate vs Republican candidate. I think McCain's individual advantages just make the election reasonably close (and not even close if things in Iraq go south).
If McCain does win, it's going to be a victory in another incredibly close election.
jimmysnyder
Jun7-08, 05:15 PM
So..... that's 60%, then? I think McCain's chances are even better than that. I think the laundry list of electability problems that Obama has are going to be a serious problem. The most important is the militant black nationalist image.
I hope the election will hinge on something more substantial than that.
Ivan Seeking
Jun7-08, 05:27 PM
I think Obama may run into the same problems Kerry ran into with those populations, and some of it may have nothing to do with his positions on issues, but just how he comes across in demeanor. He has that tall, thin, good posture, aristocratic look that will leave the working class distrusting him. McCain has more of the soft, rounded, jovial, let's listen to Grandpa talk about his war stories look.
I agree. And Obama has this funny lip thing going that makes him appear snooty in profile. But Obama has two things going for him as compared to Kerry: Firstly, he can excite a crowd to a lather in stump speaches. Unlike Kerry, Obama is inspirational. Kerry was completely uninspirational - a piece of stale bread. Also, Kerry was a dork, but Obama can be cool as long as he doesn't bowl. :biggrin:
Probably his strongest suit is his ability to get-out the vote. He has an army of youth that have probably already hit the streets.
And of course he is a Democrat who has among others, the Clintons campaigning for him.
Poor people generally don't vote for Republicans, and those that did have probably been transformed for life by Bush.
Ivan Seeking
Jun7-08, 05:35 PM
I never knew this until just the other day, but when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he predicted that he has just signed the South over to the Republicans for the rest of the lives of everyone present.
This may be the first election since not bound by LBJs prediction.
Another factor: Displaced Katrina victims may have shifted the demographic in Texas enough to throw the election there. But, likewise, it is argued that New Orleans could swing Republican.
Note: While Obama's numbers are pretty consistent across polls, there is large variance in McCains numbers.
Ivan Seeking
Jun7-08, 10:26 PM
I agree. And Obama has this funny lip thing going that makes him appear snooty in profile...
And, if we are to be completely honest about appearances, everytime McCain smiles and bears those yellow teeth for the camera, it puts a smile on my face. And although his posture results in part from the torture that he sustained while a POW, his hunched profile makes him look old.
Ivan Seeking
Jun8-08, 03:28 PM
I thought this quote from RFK was rather timely:
There's no question about it,' the attorney general said. `In the next 40 years a Negro can achieve the same position that my brother has.' ... Kennedy said that prejudice exists and probably will continue to ... `But we have tried to make progress and we are making progress. We are not going to accept the status quo.'"
- Robert F Kennedy, 1968
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25044937/page/6/
In spite of the apparent contradiction, it would seem that LBJ and RFK could both be proven right; almost down to the day.
Astronuc
Jun9-08, 07:47 AM
Evangelicals Are Still Wary Despite McCain’s Outreach
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html
By MICHAEL LUO, NY Times, June 9, 2008
Lori Viars, an evangelical activist in Warren County, Ohio, essentially put her life on hold in the fall of 2004 to run a phone bank for President Bush. Her efforts helped the president’s ambitious push to turn out evangelicals and win that critical swing state in a close election.
But Ms. Viars, who is among a cluster of socially conservative activists in Ohio being courted by Senator John McCain’s campaign through regular e-mail messages, is taking a wait-and-see attitude for now toward Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.
“I think a lot of us are in a holding pattern,” said Ms. Viars, who added that she wanted to see whom Mr. McCain picked for his running mate.
Ms. Viars’s hesitation illustrates what remains one of Mr. McCain’s biggest challenges as he faces a general election contest with Senator Barack Obama: a continued wariness toward him among evangelicals and other Christian conservatives, a critical voting bloc for Republicans that could stay home in the fall or at least be decidedly unenthusiastic in their efforts to get out the vote. Would McCain pick Huckabee?
And who will Obama pick?
Anyone catch Clinton's speech over the weekend?
Clinton Ends Campaign With Clear Call to Elect Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08dems.html
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MARK LEIBOVICH, NY Times
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made an emotional and unequivocal appeal for her voters to get behind Senator Barack Obama.
BobG
Jun9-08, 08:32 AM
The way I see it, close elections (assuming this will be one) are won on the margins. A few tens of thousands of votes gained or lost in key places is what swings them from one to the other.
Hispanic votes are key in a key state (Florida), so yes, they are important.
This is also why I see Obama's race as an electability problem. The democrats are virtually guaranteed 90+% of the black vote, regardless of who they put up for office, so there isn't much benefit to appealing to black votors unless they can increase black votor turnout. But if his race is a problem for some (and Hillary was right - lower class whites liked her a lot better than him), the democrats stand to lose a lot of votes in their core constituency.
This is also why a half-decent or better black republican would be virtually guaranteed a landslide victory against a white democrat.
Increasing black voter turnout could be a pretty significant factor. In 2004, turning out the evangelical base, especially in a few key swing states, was critical to Bush's victory. McCain's not going to be able to reproduce that kind of turnout. Obama could create the same effect, except with black voters.
Obama will turn out a larger than normal number of anti-black voters, as well, but I'd be surprised to see that segment be as significant as the increase in black turnout. Being strongly opposed to a given candidate rarely increases the likelihood of turning out to vote as being strongly for a given candidate.
Labeling Obama as a Muslim could be more damaging than his race. Muslims rank second (right behind atheists) as the greatest perceived threat to American society (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/04/27/9453). Part of that could be substituting "Muslim" for "non-white", but I doubt that's the most significant portion of the anti-Muslim crowd.
I admit that survey has to be suspect, but I found it amusing. I have to wonder if the sponsorship of the David Edelstein Family Foundation of Minneapolis affected how the survey was conducted. Three members of the Edelstein family are alumni of the university that conducted the survey and the Edelstein's experiences with anti-Jewish discrimination and intolerance promped the project.
It seems pretty hard to find an objective study of the relationship between religion and racism (wondering if racism could provide motivation to prop up the pro-evangelical vote). The studies seem to always be done by religious groups trying to show the positive side of religion or atheist groups trying to show the negative side of religion (studies like the Edelstein's aren't that atypical). It almost seems the issue of religion has replaced the issue of race as the most divisive force in US attitudes today, even if race surely has to follow close behind.
I still just don't see "anti-something" turning out the vote as effectively as "pro-something" does.
Gokul43201
Jun10-08, 10:07 AM
CNN has released their first Electoral projection:TOTAL R 194
safe R Total 125
lean R Total 69
Increasing black voter turnout could be a pretty significant factor.
Increasing the black vote could give a good part of the South to the Dems for the first time since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Gokul43201
Jun10-08, 03:42 PM
Increasing the black vote could give a good part of the South to the Dems for the first time since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.Do you foresee Obama taking any southern state other than MO, VA or NC (not counting FL as "Southern")?
Ivan Seeking
Jun10-08, 03:45 PM
I think the entire SE sector is in play. Look at the map of black demographics posted earlier.
Does anyone know the typical turnout for eligible black voters? I think it is something like 30%.
Ivan Seeking
Jun10-08, 03:53 PM
Also, McCain has limited resources and can only afford to work the swing States. Obama has the money to forge deep into classically Republican territory. There are quite a few red states that are in fact only pink.
And I for one will send Obama lots more money.
Ivan Seeking
Jun10-08, 03:58 PM
I had to laugh at McCains latest blooper: I will veto every beer...
lisab
Jun10-08, 04:12 PM
I had to laugh at McCains latest blooper: I will veto every beer...
Freudian slip...thinking ahead to the end of the day, probably!
turbo-1
Jun10-08, 04:18 PM
If he wants to veto every beer, Cindy is going to give him a swift kick in the crotch, cut him off financially and otherwise and banish him to commercial airlines.:rofl:
Ivan Seeking
Jun10-08, 05:34 PM
It is almost poetic that McCain would be so close to "Busch" beer. It allows for a punch and spin that I expect Move-On will exploit before long. This slip almost begs for it.
Gokul43201
Jun11-08, 07:19 AM
My prediction: This election will not be close (not like the last few we've had). If there's a huge Obama scandal that unfolds in the next 4 months then he'll lose, and lose big. Barring that, I expect him to beat McCain by at least 15 EVs and at least 5% of the popular vote.
vAin21
Jun12-08, 05:41 AM
well probably all of us wants to have a good leader right? but in this generation we cant find our ideal politicians...not just like one i saw in pollcalsh...in USA presidential election is fast approaching as i saw this video Obama v. McCain: Setting the Tone (http://pollclash.com) maybe one of them got my ideal politician.. try to check it out, what you think after you heard their speeches
Gokul43201
Jun12-08, 09:10 AM
Also, McCain has limited resources and can only afford to work the swing States. Obama has the money to forge deep into classically Republican territory. There are quite a few red states that are in fact only pink. This statement is not accurate, though, in the coming months this may change. For the month of April, McCain + RNC matched Obama + DNC. In May, McCain + RNC did even better and net about $45 mil. We don't have Obama's May numbers, but I don't think he did much better (the DNC managed only about $4mil). The Reps have more cash in the bank than the Dems, right now (probably twice as much).
I just set up a recurring monthly donation. You should too!
Ivan Seeking
Jun12-08, 01:44 PM
It may not be representive of the last month or two, but I think it is accurate if you take into account Obama's 1/2 billion dollars raised so far. He also has the ability to raise much more that McCain simply will not be able to match. But that does assume that supporters keep on giving.
I won't make recurring donations just because I don't like automatic charges, but I plan to send some more money shortly, and then again at critical points in the campaign. Part of me is tempted to max-out if needed.
Gokul43201
Jun15-08, 01:57 PM
An internal poll in Kansas conducted by a Democratic group (Cooper & Secrest (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_cooper_secrest_d_kansas.php)) puts Obama only 4 points behind McCain there. It may be a bad poll, or it may be an interesting indicator. We'll have to wait and see.
Timeline of electoral map/projections (Obama/McCain):
Do you foresee Obama taking any southern state other than MO, VA or NC (not counting FL as "Southern")?
As someone from Missouri, I am offended by the notion that it is a southern state.
Ivan Seeking
Jun15-08, 05:28 PM
Woohoo!!!
... According to the poll, Hispanic voters are backing Obama by a margin of 62 to 28 percent.[continued]
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1814676,00.html
...Obama now leads John McCain by six points nationwide, the new poll said, about twice the margin reported in May...
Gokul43201
Jun16-08, 03:32 PM
An internal poll in Kansas conducted by a Democratic group (Cooper & Secrest (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_cooper_secrest_d_kansas.php)) puts Obama only 4 points behind McCain there. It may be a bad poll, or it may be an interesting indicator. We'll have to wait and see.A new Rasmussen poll in KS gives McCain +10. So I'm not giving much weight to the previous C&S internal poll numbers.
A summary of the political make-up of likely swing states in the following format: State, Party affiliations of Gov., Sen1 and Sen2, Dems/Reps in the House.
NC D R R 7/6
VA R D R 3/8
IN R D R 5/4
IA D R D 3/2
MO R D R 4/5
OH D D R 7/11
PA D R D 11/8
NH D R R 2/0
FL R D R 9/16
NV R D R 1/2
NM D R D 2/1
CO D R D 4/3
I think GA, MS, KS and LA will also come into play this year but most pundits disagree.
Gokul43201
Jun18-08, 09:34 AM
Quinnipiac U has just released polling results of a swing state threefer:
While Democrats support the idea, independent voters in each state say Obama should not choose Sen. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Results are:
* Florida: Democrats want Clinton on the ticket 57 - 33 percent while Republicans are opposed 59 - 17 percent and independents oppose it 46 - 37 percent;
* Ohio: Democrats want Clinton for Vice President 58 - 31 percent, but Republicans say no 60 - 19 percent and independents turn thumbs down 47 - 31 percent;
* Pennsylvania: Democrats say yes to Clinton 60 - 31 percent, while Republicans say no 63 - 20 percent and independents nix the idea 49 - 36 percent.
https://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187
jimmysnyder
Jun19-08, 08:01 AM
Barack Obama faced a difficult choice. If he accepted public financing, he would lose the advantage he has in fund raising. On the other hand, if he opted out, he would be branded a liar. Today, Obama opted out. This is probably a wise choice. With enough money he can fool more ignorant people into voting for him than he will lose by disgusting any others. Perhaps it's true after all, that candidates for President can never be better than the people who vote for them. Ever the optimist, I'm holding out for better.
Gokul43201
Jun19-08, 10:31 AM
Some folks may not have noticed, but McCain has been running a privately funded general election campaign for the last 4 months, and probably an illegal one at that. And that's just one of many aspects to this story.
PS: Does anyone have links to the actual commitments that McCain and Obama signed?
lisab
Jun20-08, 06:49 PM
Whoa! Now I realize national polls don't translate into electoral college victory (Go ask Al about that), but a new poll puts Obama 15 points ahead of McCain:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465
With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.
I've just spent all week in North Carolina, and the people I met with tended to be very conservative - lively and friendly, but definately way-to-the-right politically. It's refreshing to come home to this sort of news!
Gokul43201
Jun21-08, 04:44 AM
There's a new poll out in GA, saying just what I had predicted a couple posts ago. Of course, it is only a single poll, and thus has the potential for a large error bar, but it will definitely make some GOP strategists worry.(6/20/08) A New InsiderAdvantage / PollPosition survey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote.
The telephone survey of 408 registered likely voters is weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 5%. It was conducted with InsiderAdvantage’s research partner Majority Opinion Research.
And in other news:MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.
MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.
By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.
To put this in perspective, MoveOn's 527 raised $20 million for the general election in 2004 -- and at least half of that came from donations over $5,000.
NOTE: Some pollsters (in the Aggregates column) do not count toss-up states
RCP1: does not include toss-up states
RCP2: includes toss-ups
Gokul43201
Jun21-08, 03:34 PM
Whoa! Now I realize national polls don't translate into electoral college victory (Go ask Al about that), but a new poll puts Obama 15 points ahead of McCain...That poll is a definite outlier, and I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
Meanwhile in the money race, McCain + RNC outraised Obama + DNC by a margin of nearly 2:1 in the month of May (about $45 mil to $26 mil, I think).
WarPhalange
Jun21-08, 04:02 PM
Whoa! Now I realize national polls don't translate into electoral college victory (Go ask Al about that), but a new poll puts Obama 15 points ahead of McCain:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465
Yeah, but Dukakis had the same kind of lead in polls (I think I remember hearing that it was actually the same Newsweek poll even) over Bush Sr. in '88.
Ivan Seeking
Jun21-08, 05:44 PM
That poll is a definite outlier, and I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
Meanwhile in the money race, McCain + RNC outraised Obama + DNC by a margin of nearly 2:1 in the month of May (about $45 mil to $26 mil, I think).
McCain can only spend $85 million. Obama is expected to raise another $200-300 million, and he still has something like $80 million onhand.
Correction to an earlier statement: It had been reported that Obama had already raised almost 1/2 billion, but now the bean counters put this at about $285 million.
Gokul43201
Jun21-08, 06:18 PM
McCain can only spend $85 million. That's between the convention in September and the election in November. He can raise and spend any amount until the convention.
Obama is expected to raise another $200-300 million, and he still has something like $80 million onhand.Obama has about $45 mil on hand as of the end of May. McCain has a similar amount.
Ivan Seeking
Jun21-08, 06:19 PM
That's between the convention in September and the election in November. He can raise and spend any amount until the convention.
All right all right, I'm sending more money! :biggrin:
Gokul43201
Jun23-08, 10:56 AM
Tracking Favorability Ratings:
Jun 07 Obama=11.8% McCain=6.5%
Jun 23 Obama=27.8% McCain=18.0%
The largest single day change in the RCP(2) electoral map happened today, after a handful of poll numbers came out. The electoral lead for Obama went up from +40 (289/249) to +96 (317/221 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10)).
I expect the bump came from flipping MI and IN (IN is way closer than MI, but Romney could easily flip MI back if he's on the ticket).
Gokul43201
Jun26-08, 11:45 AM
The political markets can be pretty good indicators near the end of a race, though less useful this early.
Intrade: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933
Obama = $64.1, up by $7 since the primaries ended
McCain = $32.4, down by $5 over the same period
Iowa Electronic Market - Winner takes all (IEM-WTA): http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres08_Quotes.html
Dem = 0.622
Rep = 0.378
Update: Timeline of electoral maps (Obama/McCain):
Based on the latest polls, CNN just changed Wi and Mn from red, to blue.
Gokul43201
Jun27-08, 09:01 PM
Based on the latest polls, CNN just changed Wi and Mn from red, to blue.Actually, they switch from yellow (toss-up) to blue. See post #56 and compare.
Ivan Seeking
Jun27-08, 09:05 PM
Actually, they switch from yellow (toss-up) to blue. See post #56 and compare.
Yes, I knew better. It was an unintentional misstatement on my part.
I am a bit dangerous right now. I went two days without sleep in order to meet a do or die deadline.
Gokul43201
Jun30-08, 03:11 AM
To win this election Obama will have to work hard to try and check the rumors against him. Polls repeatedly show about 10% of respondents saying Obama is Muslim. Here's an interesting article about a town not far from me:
On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor's house, at his son's auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate's background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998/
TheStatutoryApe
Jun30-08, 08:31 AM
To win this election Obama will have to work hard to try and check the rumors against him. Polls repeatedly show about 10% of respondents saying Obama is Muslim. Here's an interesting article about a town not far from me:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998/
I had been wondering if something would come out saying that he was not born in america, making him ineligible for the presidential office.
Gokul43201
Jul1-08, 12:50 AM
Not anyone but desperate rumor mongers...and maybe Fox, but I repeat myself.
Anyhow, if you want to get an idea for how people "think" politically, you go to a focus group. And if you want to look at a real, good one, you go to Hart-Annenberg (nothing like the pop-sci focus groups held by the cable news stations, though some exceptions exist).
The latest Hart-Annenberg focus group was telelcast on C-SPAN today and is available on their website. Here's a great write-up on Peter Hart, the vetran pollster that organizes the focus group: Peter Hart, a prominent Democratic pollster and focus group leader for three decades, was working for former vice president Walter F. Mondale, running that year for the Democratic presidential nomination against Sen. Gary Hart.
ad_icon
Hart thumped Mondale in the New Hampshire primary, producing "a tsunami that swept over the Mondale campaign," Peter Hart remembers. "Gary Hart appeared on the cover of all three newsweeklies. Everything was Hart." He was sent to Georgia, site of the next, suddenly crucial, primary to test a commercial attacking Hart before a focus group.
"I tested this negative ad and everybody in the focus group booed. I spent the whole session hearing how Hart was new and young and marvelous and Mondale was everything else. About 80 minutes into the session I realized I had nothing" to help Mondale.
"So I turned to them and said, 'Let me give you a situation. Imagine the country is in a terrible recession, unemployment is rising, it's very bad. Who do you want as president?' All 12 people wanted Hart. 'He's young, vibrant, he'll get the country moving again.' Mondale? 'Old, stale, tired, part of the old way of doing things . . .' Then I said, 'Imagine the country in an international crisis -- not a nuclear war but a serious crisis, when the red phone is being used. Who would you want as president? Twelve hands went up for Mondale. 'He's tested, he's stable, he's mature, he's seasoned, well versed, et cetera.' And Hart? 'Rash, new, untested . . .' "
Hart reported these reactions to the Mondale campaign, which quickly produced a new television commercial featuring a red telephone with a flashing orange light. A narrator intoned:
"The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issue of our times. On March 20, vote as if the future of the world is at stake. Mondale. This president will know what he's doing. And that's the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale."
Mondale won in Georgia, and kept this ad on the air in all the states that later held primaries. "The Hart people never had an answer to it," Peter Hart recalls.
C-SPAN has the video on their front page: http://www.c-span.org/
Gokul43201
Jul1-08, 06:21 PM
Favorability Ratings:
Jun 07 Obama=11.8% McCain=6.5%
Jun 23 Obama=27.8% McCain=18.0%
Jul 01 Obama=27.6% McCain=18.2% Numbers above represent the difference: % that rate X favorably - % that rate X unfavorably.
Rasmussen has a poll out today that should have McCain's new staff rethinking some of the states they've been taking for granted. According to the poll, Obama leads McCain by 5 points in Montana. That's a state that Bush won by 20% and 25%. But it's also a state that Clinton won narrowly in '92 and lost in '96.
Ridiculously early, and completely "out there" prediction #1: Among the states that close polls first (those in EST) McCain will need to win all of (FL, GA, NC, VA & IN) and one out of (MI, OH & PA) to have a reasonable chance of winning.
Among all these states currently, McCain seems to be strongest in GA (which is expected) followed by FL (not IN, or NC or VA)!!
BobG
Jul8-08, 08:39 AM
Obama doesn't own a pet. He says he's going to buy his daughters a dog after the campaign is over, but that may be too late. He needs to get one right away! Otherwise, some may feel buying a dog will be the first campaign promise he'll break!
Among pet owners, McCain leads Obama 42% to 37%. Obama leads McCain by 48% to 34% among people who don't own a pet. Unfortunately for Obama, 63% of Americans own a pet.
Among dog owners, McCain leads Obama by 43% to 34%. McCain leads 41% to 38% among cat owners, but cat owners are kind of eccentric anyway. McCain probably has a very sizable lead among ferret owners, being a ferret owner himself, but there doesn't appear to be enough ferret owners to actually compile a meaningful sample.
Pet owners prefer McCain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25581603/)
Gokul43201
Jul8-08, 10:56 AM
This may turn out to be a huge election season positive for Obama, if implemented correctly! :D
Vice President isn't the only high-level position that Barack Obama is currently trying to fill. It's been widely reported that – win or lose – the Obamas have promised their two daughters a dog after the presidential election. With 158 breeds registered by the American Kennel Club® (AKC®) – each with its own unique temperament, coat type, size, energy level and appearance – the search for a canine cabinet member is on.
...
In the true spirit of doggy democracy, the AKC is asking Americans to vote on the breed they think the Obama family should select. The short list of "canine candidates" chosen by the AKC are:
...
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3536
Ivan Seeking
Jul10-08, 02:53 AM
He should get a mixed breed.
WarPhalange
Jul10-08, 02:57 AM
Is that some sort of shot at him being mixed-race?
Ivan Seeking
Jul10-08, 03:03 AM
It's a joke, not a shot. And I thought it worked on several levels, including the idea that Obama is multicultural.
I thought it was funny, if not the definitive answer.
Gokul43201
Jul10-08, 04:08 PM
The Reps are rolling in money.
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain raised more than $22 million in June for his presidential bid, his best fundraising performance of the year, and he ended the month with nearly $27 million cash on hand, the campaign announced Thursday.
McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said McCain and the national Republican Party together entered July with about $95 million in the bank. The Republican National Committee, which has been raising money jointly with McCain, collected nearly $26 million in June and had nearly $69 million on hand, officials said.
The campaign's fundraising has given McCain the ability to outspend Democratic rival Barack Obama on television advertising in key battleground states.
...
Davis said McCain and the RNC expect to raise a combined $95 million by the end of August. After that, McCain will stop fundraising and accept about $84 million in public funds. The RNC, however, would be able to continue fundraising and spending money to help McCain's presidential run.So, McCain + RNC hope to get about $200 million plus possibly an extra $50 million from the RNC during Sep+Oct. And they get to claim the "high road" on public financing and McCain doesn't need to divert valuable campaigning time towards fundraising. I expect Obama is going to come out of this - his decision to skip public funds - looking like a fool.
In other news, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama tying McCain in North Dakota.
The Reps are rolling in money.
So, McCain + RNC hope to get about $200 million plus possibly an extra $50 million from the RNC during Sep+Oct. And they get to claim the "high road" on public financing and McCain doesn't need to divert valuable campaigning time towards fundraising. I expect Obama is going to come out of this - his decision to skip public funds - looking like a fool.
In other news, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama tying McCain in North Dakota.
I thought the point of public financing was that they are limited to spending 90 million, after the convention.
Gokul43201
Jul10-08, 10:58 PM
McCain can spend only 90 mil. But the RNC can spend any amount - as much as they can raise. There's only a cap on how much they can spend "in concert" with the McCain campaign. So, for instance, the last $3 million ad by the RNC said almost exactly the same things as the last McCain web ad, but since it was supposedly made without any co-ordination with the McCain campaign, it doesn't fall under the cap. The campaign finance system is still a huge mess.
In Obama's defense, he would have come under the cap about 10 days earlier, and his Primary ended about 3 months after McCain's. So if he accepted public financing, he'd have had a pretty stiff disadvantage anyway.
I've noticed the general election popular vote polls (Rasmussen, Gallup) tightening up over the last week or two. And today, for the first time since the end of May (when the head-to-heads were pretty close due to significant enthusiasm for Clinton), I saw a poll (Rasmussen) that reported a tie. This doesn't automatically point to a tightening of the electoral make-up, but it would be presumptuous to assume that it does not, without closer scrutiny (which is a complete waste of time, this early).
For a rough idea, see: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls
For long term polling trends, see: http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Despite this tightening, the political markets appear to be increasingly upbeat about Obama, though there may just be the slightest hint of reversal in the trend (see link below).
Markets:
INTRADE IOWA ELECTRONIC MARKET
Obama McCain Dem Rep
June 26 $64.1 $32.4 0.622 0.378
July 11 $65.0 $31.2 0.643 0.358
For the Iowa Market trend, see: http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm
The Reps are rolling in money.
So, McCain + RNC hope to get about $200 million plus possibly an extra $50 million from the RNC during Sep+Oct. And they get to claim the "high road" on public financing and McCain doesn't need to divert valuable campaigning time towards fundraising. I expect Obama is going to come out of this - his decision to skip public funds - looking like a fool....unless he raises over $60-$70 million a month from July through October.
And he's nearly getting there...
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama's campaign raised $52 million last month, more than twice the amount of funds brought in by his rival, John McCain, according to campaign officials for the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.
Obama's campaign now has $72 million cash on hand, the term used to describe how much money they currently have to spend, campaign officials said Thursday.
The average donation to Obama in June was $68, the officials said, bringing the monthly total to more than twice the $22 million raised in May.
...
McCain's campaign raised $22 million in June, its best month yet. The campaign said that combined with the Republican National Committee, they have about $95 million cash on hand.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Note: The RNC raised about $26 million in June, while the DNC probably raised about $5 million, at best.
WarPhalange
Jul17-08, 10:01 AM
The Reps are rolling in money.
So, McCain + RNC hope to get about $200 million plus possibly an extra $50 million from the RNC during Sep+Oct. And they get to claim the "high road" on public financing and McCain doesn't need to divert valuable campaigning time towards fundraising. I expect Obama is going to come out of this - his decision to skip public funds - looking like a fool.
Not if he can spin it right. If he can pull off calling McCain on his BS, i.e. taking public financing to be more "honest" and not accept money from lobbyists, while still getting backing from people that do, he can come out better.
The problem is that Obama has no spine and McCain for some reason can just smile to the camera and all his problems go away. And he's not even pretty or anything.
But, for Obama at least, fund raising time = campaigning time. Since most of his donors are individuals, it's a pretty good estimate of how much support he has. If he gets huge amounts of money and the news keeps reporting it like they have been, more people might want to find out why he's liked so much.
Note: pollster.com has released their first electoral map. I've added them to the mix.
mathwonk
Jul22-08, 08:16 AM
After watching helplessly for 8 years as George Bush, who I think is the worst president in memory, even worse than Nixon, trashed the country and the world in our names, I have finally begun to contribute money to a political campaign, as have apparently many others. Especially to Obama, but also to senate and congressional campaigns.
There is this awful feeling that if the republicans win again, I won't have done enough to help recover the pride and dignity and reputation, as well as the real soul of the USA.
edward
Jul22-08, 12:21 PM
McCain commercial blames Obama for the price of gasoline. I wonder how much of this type of crap we will have to see??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8
WarPhalange
Jul22-08, 12:24 PM
Next thing we'll see is a McCain ad saying it's Obama's fault we're in Iraq in the first place.
mathwonk
Jul22-08, 11:03 PM
now that obama is the odds on favorite to win, we will see everything possible used to attack him. there are billions of dollars riding on who becomes president. we have seen bush hand out such sums to his cronies over 8 years and they do not want to see it end. there is literally no limit to what the likes of karl rove, dick cheney, and their ilk will do to try to keep control of this power and wealth.
lisab
Jul22-08, 11:13 PM
now that obama is the odds on favorite to win, we will see everything possible used to attack him. there are billions of dollars riding on who becomes president. we have seen bush hand out such sums to his cronies over 8 years and they do not want to see it end. there is literally no limit to what the likes of karl rove, dick cheney, and their ilk will do to try to keep control of this power and wealth.
Let's all watch out for the inevitable October surprise.
WarPhalange
Jul22-08, 11:37 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Israel is a strong friend of Israel.
now that obama is the odds on favorite to win, we will see everything possible used to attack him. there are billions of dollars riding on who becomes president. we have seen bush hand out such sums to his cronies over 8 years and they do not want to see it end. there is literally no limit to what the likes of karl rove, dick cheney, and their ilk will do to try to keep control of this power and wealth.Oddly enough, with McCain's constant gaffes on ME politics, borders, etc, polls rate him as superior to Obama as a Commander in Chief. That's about the only metric in which he dominates, though, so the neo-cons' options are quite limited if they want to swing the election with a crisis. What will it be? An attack on Iran (initiated by a hawkish surrogate) or maybe an attack on Iran (initiated by a hawkish surrogate)?
mathwonk
Jul23-08, 10:19 PM
it is odd to me that mccain rates higher on anything, as he seems increasingly pitiful, a desperately sad old hack, trying only to please a constituency he once abhorred, having given up all his former quite laudable principles. it is really sad and disturbing to watch him, as he morphs further from the man he was. of course some others of us are not as young and vibrant as we used to be. but we are not running for president.
BobG
Jul25-08, 01:39 PM
McCain commercial blames Obama for the price of gasoline. I wonder how much of this type of crap we will have to see??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiTpS4MK3D8
This really is a mistake by McCain's campaign. Part of his appeal is being a candidate above that sort of ad.
I think his campaign has been pretty disjointed now that his opponent is someone like Obama instead of Romney. Romney made for an easy punching bag since he stood for nothing by time his handlers had repackaged him. Clinton really would have been a better opponent for McCain.
Meanwhile, Obama turned one attack (hasn't visited Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) into a huge plus when many felt making this trip was falling into a Republican trap.
The real campaign and the significant momentum shifts are still a month away from beginning, but, right now, I'd say the polls are more likley to swing in Obama's favor than McCain's.
Gokul43201
Jul25-08, 02:10 PM
This really is a mistake by McCain's campaign. Part of his appeal is being a candidate above that sort of ad.One normally expects that a campaign generally brings out the worst in a candidate. I think with McCain, his failure to win a campaign that was run cleanly (2000) has him overapplying the slime. It's a sad thing to watch - but to be fair to McCain, he is giving the people exactly what they seem to be asking for. When was the last time that dirty campaigning lost you more votes that it won?
BobG
Jul25-08, 02:38 PM
One normally expects that a campaign generally brings out the worst in a candidate. I think with McCain, his failure to win a campaign that was run cleanly (2000) has him overapplying the slime. It's a sad thing to watch - but to be fair to McCain, he is giving the people exactly what they seem to be asking for. When was the last time that dirty campaigning lost you more votes that it won?
Well, it didn't cost many votes, but dirty campaigning in 1972 had some consequences.
You could come up with some examples in primaries, since the opposing supporters don't usually hate each other, but I doubt you could come up with any examples in a general election.
In the general, you just need to come up with the better name for your opponent. Calling your opponent a "pimp" works better than calling your opponent the "son of a whore that married a mulatto man with whom she had several children" (John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson). Know your audience! The kind of voter that's swayed by those kind of slurs doesn't have the capability of remembering a fifteen word slur.
“John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan this week and has visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed numerous times. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it’s not worthy of Senator McCain or the ‘civil’ campaign he claimed he would run,” said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
FLASHBACK – Senator McCain in 2007: “How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all on our behalf-by playing politics with their service.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07]
And about other claims in the ad:
Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
Republican [Richard] Lugar’s spokesperson said criticism of Obama on not holding hearings on Afghanistan is unfair because NATO’s role in Afghanistan would be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee.
And incidentally, McCain has missed every single Armed Services Committee hearing in the last two years that discussed Afghanistan.
He voted against funding our troops.
AP Fact Check: “The ad’s most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate, a point Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton made during the primaries when questioning whether his anti-war rhetoric was reflected in his actions.” [AP, 7/18/08]
John McCain is always there for our troops.
In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against providing $360.8 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and $5 million to establish ballistics engineering research centers at two major research institutions.
-- HR 2863 --
In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against repealing the extension of capital gains tax cuts and use the savings to repair, rehabilitate or replace the equipment used by the Army and Marine Corps in Afghanistan & Iraq. A week later, prior to the issuance of a conference report regarding that measure, Obama voted for and McCain voted against a measure to “insist that conference report include funding to strengthen America’s military, as contained in Senate-passed amendment, instead of any extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends (which do not expire until 2009), as contained in House-passed bill.
-- HR 4297 --
For all that, and more, see: http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-mccain-ad-troops/
Gokul43201
Jul27-08, 12:16 AM
INTRADE IOWA ELECTRONIC MARKET
Obama McCain Dem Rep
June 26 $64.1 $32.4 0.622 0.378
July 11 $65.0 $31.2 0.643 0.358
July 26 $63.2 $32.2 0.688 0.355
Astronuc
Jul27-08, 10:43 AM
How Obama Became Acting President (and I guess - soon to be the real one).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html :biggrin:
IT almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind.
. . . .
The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”
. . . .
. . . First, on July 7, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dissed Bush dogma by raising the prospect of a withdrawal timetable for our troops. Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.
. . . .
“We have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party’s candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in “Chicago.” The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled.
. . . .
Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush’s de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. . . .
. . . . This is a great piece!
mathwonk
Jul27-08, 07:40 PM
the only thing that gives me some peace over fuming about the stupidity of the electorate, is the fact that bush actually did not win the popular election the first time. i.e. most people wanted an intelligent future nobel laureate over a mean spirited nitwit.
it appears as if obama will likely win this time, but even if he turns around every problem we face from the current admin, will the morons elect another george bush next time?
i mean what was so off putting abut the peace and prosperity of the clinton years that we got gwb?
i am getting discouraged, and fear celebrating too soon now. we could always wind up behind another republican, i.e. dishonest taxpayer gouging right wing, eight ball.
has anybody else noticed that we have less free press now than ever before in america? in the 60's we actually saw the carnage in vietnam, and then we put a stop to it. the ONLY lesson the repubs apparently learned from vietnam was that if you wanted to kill thousands of civilians in a foreign land unmolested, in the name of freedom, you should hide that fact from the public.
many americans today actually seem to care more that their gas prices are higher when they fill up their suv's, than that they are paying taxes to subsidise the deaths and dislocations of tens of thousands of innocent iraqis. where is the moral outrage to accompany the fiscal pain? we are doing something very evil and wrong, and the enemies we are making among ordinary citizens in arab countries are numerous and young.
WarPhalange
Jul28-08, 01:27 AM
i am getting discouraged, and fear celebrating too soon now. we could always wind up behind another republican, i.e. dishonest taxpayer gouging right wing, eight ball.
I'm more worried that Obama will end up being a huge let-down. He already F'ed up with the FISA bill and wanting to continue "faith based" garbage that Bush started.
Obama McCain Dem Rep
June 26 $64.1 $32.4 0.622 0.378
July 11 $65.0 $31.2 0.643 0.358
July 26 $63.2 $32.2 0.688 0.355
Aug 11 $59.2 $37.2 0.621 0.377
The markets have been shifting towards McCain over the last few weeks. What's causing it?
chemisttree
Aug11-08, 12:02 PM
The markets have been shifting towards McCain over the last few weeks. What's causing it?
I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up. It doesn't help that he downplays the importantance of offshore drilling by comparing the effect to that of properly inflating our tires and tuning up our cars. Over 2/3rds of the electorate now believe that drilling should be at least part of a plan to reduce oil prices.
WarPhalange
Aug11-08, 03:37 PM
I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up. It doesn't help that he downplays the importantance of offshore drilling by comparing the effect to that of properly inflating our tires and tuning up our cars. Over 2/3rds of the electorate now believe that drilling should be at least part of a plan to reduce oil prices.
I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.
How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping?
turbo-1
Aug11-08, 03:59 PM
I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.
How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping?Maybe never. The so-called "liberal" media give McCain a free pass whenever he changes positions, and when he confuses Iranian Shiites with al Qaeda in Iraq and talks about terrorists hiding in the border region between Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. The media are terrified of Rove's GOP attack machine and as a result, they are FAR tougher on Obama than McCain.
Gokul43201
Aug11-08, 05:52 PM
I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.No. The DoE says that drilling will have no noticeable effect on prices for a couple decades. On the other hand, AAA, NASCAR, McCain and others have said that maintaining correct tire pressure can make an immediate 2-3% reduction in your gasoline expenditure.
McCain likes to attribute unpopular stances that he agrees/d with to Obama, so he can run shamefully slimy ads.
WarPhalange
Aug11-08, 06:07 PM
That's what I meant. What offshore drilling will do over the next X years averaged out = inflating tires properly for that same amount of time.
chemisttree
Aug12-08, 05:11 PM
No. The DoE says that drilling will have no noticeable effect on prices for a couple decades. On the other hand, AAA, NASCAR, McCain and others have said that maintaining correct tire pressure can make an immediate 2-3% reduction in your gasoline expenditure. So what? Obama's comments were not directed at the price of gasoline... he was referring to the amount of oil available from offshore drilling. How many cars do you think are running at least 8 psi low on all 4 tires?
According to the US DOE, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml) fuel economy is adversely affected by 0.4% per psi below the recommended tire pressure for all four tires(they all have to be underinflated). The NHTSA considers a tire underinflated if the pressure is 8 psi less than that recommended by the automobile manufacturer. Multiply the 8 psi by 0.4% loss per psi and you get the 3.2% that Obama was referring to.
Unfortunately only about 3% of passenger vehicles, about 6% of pickup trucks, vans and SUV’s fall in to this category.(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-317.pdf) I'm sure you can do the math from this point.
Obama's statement was a wild exaggeration.
russ_watters
Aug12-08, 05:28 PM
I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up.
How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping? It's worse than just flipping, it is waffling, and that's why it is hurting Obama and not McCain. You can't say something like 'I don't like it but I might still agree to do it' like Obama is saying about drilling and nuclear power. That's not Presidential. People know compromises are part of politics, but this is a campaign and people want to hear where you stand and why, not which of your ideals are unimportant enough that you'll give them up when pressured.
That and, again, news: Obama's flipping is more recent - even if it is weeks for Obama vs just months for McCain, any effect of McCain's flip on offshore drilling is already manifested in the numbers. Obama's offshore drilling flip/waffle is only about two weeks old, so its effect is still being sorted out.
Gokul43201
Aug13-08, 08:27 AM
So what? Obama's comments were not directed at the price of gasoline... he was referring to the amount of oil available from offshore drilling. How many cars do you think are running at least 8 psi low on all 4 tires?
According to the US DOE, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml) fuel economy is adversely affected by 0.4% per psi below the recommended tire pressure for all four tires(they all have to be underinflated). The NHTSA considers a tire underinflated if the pressure is 8 psi less than that recommended by the automobile manufacturer. Multiply the 8 psi by 0.4% loss per psi and you get the 3.2% that Obama was referring to.
Unfortunately only about 3% of passenger vehicles, about 6% of pickup trucks, vans and SUV’s fall in to this category.(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-317.pdf) I'm sure you can do the math from this point.
Obama's statement was a wild exaggeration.Wrong.
“There are things that you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said in the July 30, 2008, appearance. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated — simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”
...
In April, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data, to extrapolate that 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires.
...
According to the latest assessment from the Minerals Management Service, the mean estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil in the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently under moratorium is about 18-billion barrels (see here.)
But it couldn’t all be extracted immediately. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That’s 200,000 more barrels per day.
After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that’s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.
...
And we didn’t even talk about tune-ups. (Repairing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test improves gas mileage by 4 percent on average, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Fixing a more serious problem, such as a bad oxygen sensor, can improve mileage by up to 40 percent, the agency says.)
...
For our purposes in evaluating Obama's claim, all the available evidence shows that he's on solid ground in saying that better car and tire maintenance would save as much gasoline as drilling would generate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/
Guess this is why McCain's numbers are improving!
Gokul43201
Aug13-08, 08:41 AM
And to see more on who's been lying the most on the campaign, take a look at this:
And speaking of exaggerations, try this on for size:
McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense
McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.
More Tax Deceptions
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
www.factcheck.org
The Factcheck.org front page has 7 postings of false claims in McCain ads to 2 in Obama ads.
It's pretty clear what McCain's strategy is...and it's working.
russ_watters
Aug13-08, 12:49 PM
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?
turbo-1
Aug13-08, 01:05 PM
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?The point that Obama was making is that the potential gains in oil production offered by more off-shore drilling are small and far-off, timewise. Saying that keeping tires properly inflated and keeping your vehicle properly tuned up would save more fuel NOW than could be added through offshore drilling in the 20-or-so years that it would take that production to get on-line is a handy way of putting the relative savings vs anticipated production in perspective. People who deride Obama and say that his energy plan consists of pumping up your tires are being disingenuous at best.
Giving away more oil leases to the oil companies will not increase production. They already have millions of acres of off-shore property under lease that are entirely undeveloped, and they have no incentive to develop those leases because 1) it would cost them money in the short-term to build rigs, drill and pump the oil and 2) the oil companies are already making record profits without having to spend the money to expand development. I think if Obama is elected, he should push Congress to eliminate subsidies for oil companies so that they will have to produce oil to make money and he should try to get the leases revised so that if the oil companies don't develop the fields they have leased, they lose them.
WarPhalange
Aug13-08, 01:06 PM
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?
I agree. Instead of voting for someone who tells us we can do something to help ourselves, we should vote for someone who wants to use the government to its fullest, even if it means expanding it.
chemisttree
Aug13-08, 04:14 PM
Wrong.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/
Guess this is why McCain's numbers are improving!
I'm rather surprised that you would refer to a piece of nonsense quoted by Takao Oishi (president of Yokohama Tire) and slavishly repeated ad nauseum by the likes of PolitiFiction.com. You do realize that 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline represents 2.1% of all gasoline used in the country per year? And to achieve this every vehicle would have to have all 4 tires low by 8 psi? NHTSA states that only about 25% drivers have as much as one tire this low! All of the models that correlate rolling resistance to gas mileage assume all 4 tires are equally low, btw. Even the (alleged) letter fired off to Politifiction.com states that only 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted due to tire inflation and that data comes from an GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07246r.html) that attributes it to DOE's unnamed "designated economist". This too is fantasy.
1.2 Billion gallons of gasoline per year represents about a percent of the total annual gasoline usage. This would mean that about a third of all drivers would have to be running around on 4 tires that were all underinflated by at least 8 psi. Total nonsense!!
Nice story but it just isn't reality. Reality is about 3% of passenger cars and 6% of light trucks, vans and SUV's are running with 4 tires at 8 psi too low.
This is in part why Obama's numbers are falling.
Gokul43201
Aug13-08, 05:19 PM
I'm rather surprised that you would refer to a piece of nonsense quoted by Takao Oishi (president of Yokohama Tire) and slavishly repeated ad nauseum by the likes of PolitiFiction.com. You do realize that 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline represents 2.1% of all gasoline used in the country per year? And to achieve this every vehicle would have to have all 4 tires low by 8 psi? NHTSA states that only about 25% drivers have as much as one tire this low! All of the models that correlate rolling resistance to gas mileage assume all 4 tires are equally low, btw. Even the (alleged) letter fired off to Politifiction.com states that only 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted due to tire inflation and that data comes from an GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07246r.html) that attributes it to DOE's unnamed "designated economist". This too is fantasy.
1.2 Billion gallons of gasoline per year represents about a percent of the total annual gasoline usage. This would mean that about a third of all drivers would have to be running around on 4 tires that were all underinflated by at least 8 psi. Total nonsense!!
Nice story but it just isn't reality. Reality is about 3% of passenger cars and 6% of light trucks, vans and SUV's are running with 4 tires at 8 psi too low.
This is in part why Obama's numbers are falling.1. We should not trust either the numbers from the Govt. Accountability Office or the numbers from RMA, Auto Club and the California Highway Patrol. We should instead just believe your own "calculation" based on a 0.4% per psi number and a number of unstated assumptions. Incidentally, AAA claims that number is closer to 2% per psi (see AAA Gas Watchers Guide). And we should ignore the fact that all these numbers are only linearizations for low values of underinflation since surely, you don't get 85% fuel efficiency with no pressure (0 psi) in your tires!
2. You have twice chosen to ignore the second part of the Obama's point, involving proper maintenance, which your own DoE link says can make a big difference. You can at least try to be honest in your argument.
3. All it takes to make Obama's claim true without recourse to any maintenance other than tire pressures is that the worst 4% of drivers lose 25% efficiency from underinflation. You can even give the remaining 96% of drivers perfect scores for tire pressure, and you still lose more gas from tires.
4. Even if everything you say is right (which isn't true), and Obama only talked about tire pressure and nothing else (which isn't true either)...even then, by your own words, Obama's big mistake here is in using a number that has been widely reported. Wow! Really? Compared to McCain's repeated nonsense?
turbo-1
Aug13-08, 06:06 PM
Gokul, what we are seeing here is right out of Rove's play-book. Take a very reasonable statement out of context (like conveniently ignoring the phrase about proper maintenance and tune-ups), assert that your opponent is ignorant and out-of touch, and create ads that ridicule him for statements that he either didn't make or were attributed to him for reasons that they know not to be true, then exaggerate and distort your opponent's position as much as your focus-groups tell you that the public will swallow. Rove et al know that it's easier to hammer on lies than to fight the truth, and that a substantial portion of the electorate will swallow their spin because it's easier to adopt cynical views about politicians than to think critically about their positions.
I have been maintaining my own Harleys for years, and I can attest that tiny adjustments in fuel atomization, rich/lean balance, ignition, breathing, exhaust, etc can have some pretty dramatic effects on fuel economy. Those that discount Obama's statements on maintenance and tuning and focus only on tire pressure are playing Rove's game.
chemisttree
Aug14-08, 04:21 PM
3. All it takes to make Obama's claim true without recourse to any maintenance other than tire pressures is that the worst 4% of drivers lose 25% efficiency from underinflation. You can even give the remaining 96% of drivers perfect scores for tire pressure, and you still lose more gas from tires. Do you have any source for this statement?
4. Even if everything you say is right (which isn't true), and Obama only talked about tire pressure and nothing else (which isn't true either)...even then, by your own words, Obama's big mistake here is in using a number that has been widely reported. Wow! Really? Compared to McCain's repeated nonsense?
You asked why are Obama's numbers falling in the market and I gave you two possible reasons. Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT. It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.
People are seeing him flip on his issues and he is making what many see are political gaffes like the air pressure thing. He set the bar high for himself and he just isn't living up to his hype like he could during the primaries. It is natural for him to be slipping in the polls... and if he continues his campaign along the lines he has this summer, I believe he will slip further after a short term positive bounce he gets from the Democrat Convention.
Oh and by the way... You do know that Obama referred to all drilling not just offshore drilling. You are questioning my honesty?
But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling — if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!
WarPhalange
Aug14-08, 04:47 PM
Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT.
Do you have any sources for this statement?
It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.
Do you have any sources for this statement?
chemisttree
Aug14-08, 05:01 PM
Do you have any sources for this statement? I'll just assume that you've been out of the country. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/64_now_support_offshore_drilling_42_see_it_as_best_way_to_reduce_oil_prices
Do you have any sources for this statement?
...and it's a country without radio, newspaper, internet and TV.
WarPhalange
Aug14-08, 05:43 PM
He's taking your claims and using math to back up his claims. What kind of sources do you want?
And then you claim things as fact, no wait, I mean FACT, and don't bother to give sources.
Very classy.
Gokul43201
Aug14-08, 08:01 PM
Do you have any source for this statement?What source do you want: a link to multiplication tables?
25% X 4% X 150 billion gallons per year (that's your number) = 1.5 billion gallons lost each year.
You asked why are Obama's numbers falling in the market and I gave you two possible reasons. Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT. You are now saying this for the first time. Yes, it's possibly true that most people are clueless.
It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.That's also probably true, though it is sad that the media has such a strong pro-McCain bias. He has flip-flopped by an order of magnitude more than Obama has.
People are seeing him flip on his issues and he is making what many see are political gaffes like the air pressure thing. Yes, it's true that telling the truth is a political gaffe, while pandering tricks (like the whole drilling nonsense and the idiotic gas tax holiday) are political winners. So too are ridiculously untruthful campaign ads.
He set the bar high for himself and he just isn't living up to his hype like he could during the primaries. It is natural for him to be slipping in the polls... and if he continues his campaign along the lines he has this summer, I believe he will slip further after a short term positive bounce he gets from the Democrat Convention.Guess he should take a page out of the Rove-McCain playbook and start playing sleazy too.
Oh and by the way... You do know that Obama referred to all drilling not just offshore drilling. No, he did not. And if you missed it after I quoted it, I'll quote it again:But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling...
They (the McCain Campaign) are talking about lifting the moratorium on drilling in the OCS.
You are questioning my honesty?I will happily take that back and apologize when you explain your repeatedly ignoring a part of Obama's statement (even after I quoted it specifically, so you wouldn't miss it the second time).
Gokul43201
Aug14-08, 08:12 PM
I'll just assume that you've been out of the country. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/64_now_support_offshore_drilling_42_see_it_as_best_way_to_reduce_oil_prices
I'll just assume you forgot that you mentioned flipping on many issues. Your link talks about Obama shifting position on one issue - an issue, incidentally, that McCain also flipped on. I know Obama has reversed on a few other issues as well, but McCain's list of reversals is tens and tens long.
chemisttree
Aug16-08, 12:54 PM
I'll just assume you forgot that you mentioned flipping on many issues. Your link talks about Obama shifting position on one issue - an issue, incidentally, that McCain also flipped on. I know Obama has reversed on a few other issues as well, but McCain's list of reversals is tens and tens long.
This illogic is fascinating... You asked about why Obama's numbers were falling and I gave you two reasons (with which you now agree)
You are now saying this for the first time. Yes, it's possibly true that most people are clueless.
That's also probably true, though it is sad that the media has such a strong pro-McCain bias. He has flip-flopped by an order of magnitude more than Obama has.
and yet you still persist in making this about McCain! Was your question really about how bad McCain is?
If he flips on his issues just like McCain, would you expect him to maintain a lead or to approach more or less an equal showing?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 43% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 46% and McCain 45%... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The race for Colorado’s Electoral College votes is about as close as it can be on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Colorado voters shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 45%. When “leaners” are included, it’s McCain by a single percentage point, 49% to 48%.http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election
Barack Obama still holds a solid 47% to 40% lead over John McCain in the key battleground state of Michigan, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters there.
Obama’s lead has dropped a statistically insignificant one-point since last month.
When “leaners” are factored in, Obama has a narrower 49% to 45% lead on his Republican rival. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election
John McCain leads Barack Obama by seven percentage points in the race for Missouri’s Electoral College votes.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows John McCain attracting 48% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 41%. This is the third time in the last four months that McCain’s support has been at 47% or 48%. The one exception came in early June—McCain’s support dipped as Obama was wrapping up the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Obama has been in the 41% to 43% range for four straight months.
Last month, McCain enjoyed a five-point lead in Missouri.
When leaners are included in the current survey, McCain leads Obama 50% to 44%, little changed from a month ago. Leaners are survey participants who initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate that they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election
It’s hard to imagine a closer political race than the battle for Virginia’s Electoral College votes.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 45%. When “leaners” are factored in, it’s McCain with a statistically insignificant one-point edge, 48% to 47%.
The difference between those two results can be found primarily among unaffiliated voters. Without leaners, McCain has a twelve point advantage among those not affiliated with either major party. When leaners are included, McCain’s advantage grows to seventeen points, 54% to 37%. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/el