I find it hard to imagine it will get any but the most perfunctory media coverage. Jesus, it’s like trying to follow Hendrix at Woodstock.
[QUOTE=Frank]
At this time last election, the Democratic convention was three weeks ago, and the Republican convention had not yet taken place.
I’m not going to worry about any numbers until November. Really, I’m not. I’m extremely worried about the latent racist vote, and I believe that polls are going to be extremely unreliable this year.
Which is not to say that I believe Obama will necessarily lose - there is a long time to go, and perhaps the latent racist vote will be pleasantly in line with what I expect, i.e., very small.
[/QUOTE]
I’m concerned about that, too. Figure that whatever the polls say, Obama’s actual vote tally will be less by x%, where x = the “latent racist vote”. If that’s even 2 or 3%, that could make some swing states go the other way even if the polls say Obama has a small lead. Time was, you could count on “x” being 5 - 10, and while we’ve come a long way since those days, I find it hard to believe that x = 0 now. If Obama isn’t comfortably in the lead going into election day, there should be some serious concern about his chances of winning.
Hasn’t it played out differently than that in the primaries, though? Obama seems to have outperformed his poll numbers in the race against Clinton, where much was made of race as a factor, and where racism would tend to be more covert IMO (note- not his exit poll numbers- which did average too high- but his pre-election poll numbers).
An interesting article from FiveThirtyEight on this topic is here.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m concerned about that, too. Figure that whatever the polls say, Obama’s actual vote tally will be less by x%, where x = the “latent racist vote”. If that’s even 2 or 3%, that could make some swing states go the other way even if the polls say Obama has a small lead. Time was, you could count on “x” being 5 - 10, and while we’ve come a long way since those days, I find it hard to believe that x = 0 now. If Obama isn’t comfortably in the lead going into election day, there should be some serious concern about his chances of winning.
[/QUOTE]
If he’s up 4 points the day before, he loses.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
If he’s up 4 points the day before, he loses.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s be careful, though. The national numbers won’t tell us that-- it has to be a state-by-state analysis, with an emphasis on the swing states. He could be up 10% nationally, but if it’s tight in crucial swing states, he could still lose. He’s going to to have a large lead in some very big states, like CA and NY, and they could easily skew the results.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Let’s be careful, though. The national numbers won’t tell us that-- it has to be a state-by-state analysis, with an emphasis on the swing states. He could be up 10% nationally, but if it’s tight in crucial swing states, he could still lose. He’s going to to have a large lead in some very big states, like CA and NY, and they could easily skew the results.
[/QUOTE]
This may also be true. In that case, let’s limit it to where I have to most experience. If he’s up 4 points in Michigan the day of, he loses.
I think the racist vote is more than canceled out by how low a priority newly registered voters get in most polls “likely voter” calculations. Plus theres a whole lot more excitement for Obama than there is for McCain. Personally i think he’d win even if he was a few points behind in the polls.
I can’t believe Politico is trying to call that an “Exclusive.” I haven’t heard anyone not speculate that that’s the date McCain will name his VEEP choice.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Arizona, let’s have some more fun with overanalysis. Go to that July 18 you link to and add up the strong plus weak Dem (not the “barely”) and you get 246, same GOP and you get 178.
Go to the most recent and you get 255 Dem vs 165. An Obama improvement over that time period of 22! In the same tracker that you claim shows his support weakening so much. Which I also do not take too seriously.
Slice and dice. Barelies and tieds were 114 then and 123 now. Then Obama needed to win 24 of 114 in that group; now 15 of 123 in that group. Honestly, I’d say the current numbers are better than they were. If I’d say anything other than boringly stable.
[/QUOTE]
Why overanalyze? I was saying, according to the website tracker that more than one poster pointed to as the end-all of website trackers, as the only poll that mattered, as proof that it will be a landslide victory for Obama, now reads (checks site - Oh my) Obama 264, McCain 261, down from an over 100-point difference. That’s not, as someone pointed out, an “old fashioned spankin’”.
But when desperation sets in, the overanalysis must begin.
I’d say all this means the answer to the OP is: definitely, absolutely not right now. Obama’s gonna have to work hard for this. Hopefully/assumably, he’s learned this lesson from Clinton.
Heck, having to put in some effort might result in a better President.
I’ll completely admit that it’s a closer race than it was but the Zogby poll, despite getting all the news, wasn’t the only poll released today. Also out today (and all taken later than the Zogby or Time Battleground polls):
Rasmussen Daily Tracker: Obama +1
Gallup Daily Tracker: Obama +2
CBS/NYT: Obama +3
NBC/WSJ: Obama +3
LA times/Bloomberg: Obama +2
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
I think the racist vote is more than canceled out by how low a priority newly registered voters get in most polls “likely voter” calculations. Plus theres a whole lot more excitement for Obama than there is for McCain. Personally i think he’d win even if he was a few points behind in the polls.
[/QUOTE]
I hope you’re right, but I think most folks are stealthy with any race problems. They simply don’t voice them.
[QUOTE=Leaper]
Obama’s gonna have to work hard for this. Hopefully/assumably, he’s learned this lesson from Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, it appears that McCain’s campaign learned some lessons from Clinton.
I like how the answer is “at least four” - the Gotcha people don’t even know!
Well, they’re trying to spin it the best they can (bolding mine):
The house story is “more personal” than challenging Obama’s patriotism? Gotcha. And I’m sure none of the McCain estates are a “frickin’ mansion” the way that hoighty-toity Obama has! :dubious:
Giuliani was rightly mocked (by Biden) that every sentence out of his mouth was “Subject - Verb - 9/11”.
I think we can officially now say that McCain’s mantra is “Subject - Verb - POW”. :rolleyes:
“pointy headed”? Jesus H. Christ. And these people want to run the country?
Apparently, McCain is running for POWOTUS*.
[SUB]*Prisoner of War of the United States[/SUB]
Arugula-eating? Now the truth about Obama comes out!
Can someone point me in the direction of a source to this “arugula eating” claim? I suspect it’s merely Coulterian hyperbole that the wierdos in the McCain camp are running around with to paint Obama as an elite, but I’d like to know for sure.