The only bright spot for McCain in recent poll results is that only 30% of white voters have a favorable opinion of Obama. (Moe than 80% of black voters do.)
I’m not sure what to make of that CBS/NYT poll. For one thing, its favorabilities for both candidates is considerably lower than those from previous polls. Heck, they have McCain at -1 despite his previous average being +21. That’s one hell of a swing. Obama does better with +8 when his average was +25. Either the mood in the nation suddenly swung against both candidates and didn’t show up in the Rasmussen & Quinnipac favorability polls from the same period, CBS/NYT managed to find some of the angriest people in America to poll or else something is wonky in their methodology.
I can’t disagree much with the rest of your post, but this provokes a nit to pick, thanks to some education provided by 538 on proper polling terminology (538 is quoting the National Council On Public Polls here).
FWIW.
Pretty understandable, I think.
On Obama’s side, you have the nearly inevitable realization that the candidate is not the second coming of JFK (a wildly exaggerated figure in our political mythology, IMHO) but a human being. That he has firmly sentrist views ought not to surprise anyone, he is and always was just a whisper to the left of Hillary. The major source of their disappointment is simply that they didn’t bother to find out what his views were, a populist firebrand he is not.
The disappointment in McCain is centered around his laughable incapacity as a candidate. He may not be too bad a President, perhaps, but as a candidate seeking to be President he is woefully inept. His popularity was built around the myth of him as a “maverick”. As it becomes increasingly obvious that he is no such thing, some loss of popularity is inevitable.
It’s simply the “cold light of dawn” effect, she looked awful good at closing time.
Interesting points. I bought into McCain years ago based on public appearances and interviews. Obama I went into skeptical and did not decide he was my choice until I did much reading about him and his policies. So to me McCain has fallen but Obama still appears to be who I though he was.
Edwards was the populist Liberal in this batch, not Obama. I thought that was obvious or were people just assuming black = liberal?
If stuff like this new ad from Planned Parenthood sticks, he’s butter-side-down toast.
You are right of course that some of the leftwards disappointment is that they didn’t really bother to research it out (or just assumed that since he was apparently left of Sen Clinton he must agree with them), but some is indeed due to the political skill of Team Obama. He didn’t exactly spend the primaries advertising how centrist he was either. Part of Obama’s popularity with the netroots Left is that many have assumed that his views are the same as theirs. Still he’s a hair closer than Sen Clinton to those perspectives and compared to McCain? Obama’s leftwards votes are safe even if really did lurch to the right.
But hey that was long part of McCain’s popularity with the middle (and the media) as well: having bought into a conclusion that he was independent minded and intelligent they could not wrap their brains around the fact that he was also a pretty far right conservative on most issues at the same time. So they assumed that he was really more moderate than he was.
And in that regard luci’s “cold light of dawn … she looked awful good at closing time” comment reminds me of this thread from Nov '05 in which I had opined very similarly to the question of why the Hell do so many Liberals seem to like McCain (Actually the question was “whence the lefty hardon” for him):
A “margin of error” of 3% is a reference to “standard error of the mean” - it means that, for any given sample size, there is a very simple relationship to the probability of the sample’s mean being within a certain range from the total population’s mean. Like it or not, the convention in the world of stats is that 95% confidence is the default. “A margin of error of 3%” means merely that there is a 95% probability that the total population’s mean is within 3% of what the poll says.
And, no matter how much the 538 guy wants to appear extra-credible, if a random sample of about 1300 people shows their preferences for 2 candidates within 6%, that is, by convention, “statistically tied”.
To the left? On health care, he’s a corporatist, and unwilling to demand universality of coverage even as an opening position. On getting out of Iraq, even his own people were handing out the things-could-change line even during the primaries. On what issue of importance is he to the *left * of Clinton at all?
Which is hardly *his * fault.
As long as he spouts centrist views too, it won’t matter much.
Take heart. At least you don’t have to find a way to force yourselves to support Clinton, right? That was a narrow escape indeed.
Again, for the reading impaired, 538 was just quoting those who define what is “by convention”, The National Council on Public Polling. Here is his source in context:
And as to using 6% as the cut-off for “statistical tie” (with a 3% MOE) well that is just an ignorant statement. That is the cut-off for clearly ahead, twice the MOE. Calculating it out, 6% means that there is a 99.775% chance that the one leading is really in the lead.
I would have, wthout a moment’s hesitation. Said so many times. That what a progressive has to do, fight for every scrap, and then try and hold on to it. Had my druthers, it would have been Pretty Johnny, but that ain’t the way it rolled.
Get over it. Get on with it. We got shit to do, and times a-wastin’. As for Obama being too “corporate”, please: Hillary and Bill are the very embodiment of DNC “cenrtrism”, i.e., Republican Lite. We are not going to wrest this cash cow out of the hands of the insurance industry by snatching it away, thats a brutal and bloody fight we might very well lose. We’ll have to pry it loose one grubby finger at a time. What do you want? Win slower than you’d like, or lose?
Great minds think alike. And so do ours, as well.
I would have voted for Hillary too and always said so. I don’t get why so many Clinton supporters think Obama supporters were picking that horse out of personal animosity towards Hillary. To me, it was always about electability. I thought Obama would have a better chance. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have voted for Hillary if she was the nominee. As a matter of fact, I’m not even convinced she wouldn’t be a better President. I just never thought she’d ever be able to overcome that segment of voters which is implacably set against her.
And Obama is different? How? That was the question.
Of course not. What I want is universal guaranteed coverage. That has been off Obama’s table even before we’ve started. Yes, I do think a second round of Harry and Louise from the Lobbyists Against Clinton would have failed, but now it won’t even be necessary for them. Just who is it who has “chosen to lose” here?
DSeid, the subject of statistics is not hard to learn if you choose to learn from a knowledgeable source, not one quite so dismissive of those fancy-pants “mathematicians” with their fancy-pants “college degrees” and their elitist “objectivity”.
“Standard error of the mean” is exactly what I said it is, nothing more or less, okay? “An ignorant statement” indeed. 
Tactics, Elvish, tactics! We need to get the handwriting on the wall where it can be clearly read. Dear insurance industry: sooner or later, this shit is going to happen. We will give you time enough to change, to find other business, or even find a way to fit within our model at a modest but sustainable profit (emphasis on “modest”). We won’t drive you out of business with one monster bill, you will have time to adjust BUT! if you fail to adjust, you can’t say we didn’t warn you.
And this is going to happen … how? By nominating candidates who’ve already ceded the central purpose and got nothing in return? Is that it? Or will singing a few more verses of “Won’t Get Fooled Again” get it done instead?
What do you really expect the Obama approach to health care coverage to provide, in the real world? What is going to be tangibly improved, and how? Spare us the quaint Sixties sloganeering for once and apply “the cold light of the morning” instead - what is really going to happen, and how can we citizens at this point help make it happen? We’ve squandered our best chance at a transformation, but can we still salvage something real and useful?
. . .
No firing squads?!
Nope. He’d have to come much, much, farther to the center… and then I’d have to believe that he’s being honest about it, not just posturing.
Not much of a McCain fan either FWTW.
Bob, please clarify…did he have your vote until he moved centward (it should be a word if it isn’t).
Did I miss it or has no one else jumped off the Obama train?
I’m afraid your only other options are gonna be Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney.
I know, right? Why would the Democratic Party want war or authoritarianism or wish to advance the interests of big business. They have such a long and noble history of, er, fighting that? You can clearly review the history of the 20th century and…er…yeah.