The Post seems to think so, as does (by interpretation) this poll.
What the heck is going on?
Not in my lifetime.
Pipe dreams and irresponsible journalism.
The Post? Cummon.
There is no money by either campaign being spent for ads in NY. They both know that the “swing states” are where the battle is. NY is not a swing state. Even the lawn signs in upstate NY are heavily Obama. After what’s happened in the last 3 days the entire Bush administration may be seeking asylum in the Bahamas.
A huge benefit to living in a state that is not a swing state is being saved from all of the political advertising.
Ordinarily, I’d be skeptical—but this is the New York Post, that fabled bastion of journalistic excellence and unsullied equanimity…
Okay, fine - what’s wrong with the polling/analysis of the numbers?
This is the only section of the poll that matters:
Those numbers show that while both sets of numbers have fluctuated, generally both Obama’s level of support and McCain’s has remained fairly consistent. And that’s with the lowest rating for Obama being 39 way back in late 2006. Unless he commits a major gaffe, it’s unlikely he’ll go back down to that level.
Right now, opinions have largely solidified and, as with 2004, the only hearts and minds still up for grabs are the undecideds. According to the NY poll, they fluctuate around 13-15 percent. The debates and who knows what else will likely push them in one direction or another, but of the undecideds who will actually vote, Obama and McCain will probably split them roughly down the middle. In NY at least. So, with the poll numbers being what they are, Obama will likely win NY.
McSame will not get within 20 points of Obama in New York. But I hope he decides that it is in play and decides to spend millions trying to turn NY red. Thank you, Rupert Murdoch!
No, it couldn’t. People asked on this board if Giuliani could do it and I think every NY Doper agreed that even that wasn’t going to happen.
You would think so, wouldn’t you? But here in the greater Boston media market, comfortably ensconced in safe-for-Obama Massachusetts, we’re getting hammered with presidential political ads, at least on the cable channels. Why? Because New Hampshire is in play, and the southern part of the state, where a goodly chunk of the electorate lives, is within that market.
Obama is up 15 points according to RealClearPolitics. It’s just not going to happen. Which makes me wish I was a resident of a swing state, so that I could do more that just give Obama money.
New York will not turn red in my lifetime.
Maeglin, 30, New Yorker
Dear god I just read the article. I’m typing this after recovering from a brain seizure.
Did I miss the story where most women voters have suddenly become retarded?
Check the Obama website and click on the link at the top that says “Contact Voters”. I’d link directly to it, but mine is cookied to give me calls to make from California to either other Californians or to voters in Nevada, and I’m sure yours would give you a list of voters to call in some other swing state.
Thanks for your help and support!
FYI, the New York Sun is saying the same thing, though I assume that’s the case of another tabloid trying not to get left behind by its fellow tabloid.
I doubt that New York will go for McCain, but I think it’s more likely than people realize that places like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota will go for him. There’s just a huge amount of anti-black and anti-Muslim sentiment out there.
Consider the source. This is a paper that made the lipstick thing cover fodder for not one but TWO issues.
I caught the tail end of Scott Rasmussen & John Zogby talking to Sean Hannity on the radio tonight and, despite the recent state numbers, Rasmussen dismissed a McCain victory in Minnesota out of hand saying that it probably represented the height of McCain’s bounce and that “Minnesota teases the Republicans every election”. I missed any conversation about Pennsylvania, although neither seemed to think McCain would take Michigan and both agreed that Virginia could definately go blue this election.
The thing is, this is not “every election.” My best guess is that Obama’s race will be a signficant hindrance to him among non-blacks. And further, the concentration of his support among young people and black people will result in an overstatement of the number of votes he can expect. Admittedly, these are just guesses.
Actually, if the rumor mill is to be believed, Murdoch is not anti-Obama. He may even be pro-Obama. Apparently he was involved with some fundraising for Obama. The problem is Roger Ailes who runs Fox News. Murdoch can’t tell him to back off or fire him or there will be a shitstorm about editorial interference. I don’t watch Fox but I’ve heard that O’Reilly has toned it down.
Being the cynic that I am I suspect Rupert has bet that Obama very well may win and he doesn’t want the President of the U.S. to be his sworn enemy. That wouldn’t be good for business.