USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

New LA Times/Bloomberg poll just out has Obama up by +12 nationally, echoing the +15 Newsweek had here a short while back. RCP lists a number of swing states in his favor, as well...

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

New LA Times/Bloomberg poll just out has Obama up by +12 nationally, echoing the +15 Newsweek had here a short while back. RCP lists a number of swing states in his favor, as well...

Steve

Here is the detail of the Oregon poll I cited. Sixty-two percent of men gave McCain the nod. That most likely means a proportion of Democratic men in Oregon said they would vote for McCain. Sixty percent of women gave Obama the nod in the poll.

On the swing states Steve mentioned, here is the link. In two of the states Obama is up by one percent or less - making the "real lead" 3 states to 2 states with two basically tied (well inside the margin of error).

I suspect it is tighter than the national polls indicate, particulary if we take into account the lead that previous liberal democratic candidates have had in the summer before the elections, however....

The table is set for the Democrats this year, absent any "event". Even though I occasionally get a sinking feeling in my gut, the Dems should be able to sweep it.

[ryberg]

Actually it looks like both sides are jumping on the Obama bandwagon in OR and that he's having to sort of fight them off:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds:

Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. But in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington.

Steve

[roni]

Short history of June polls and November results

from CNN

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes a substantial lead in June does not always lead to a decisive victory the following November.

“Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.

"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by roni

Here is the detail of the Oregon poll I cited. Sixty-two percent of men gave McCain the nod. That most likely means a proportion of Democratic men in Oregon said they would vote for McCain. Sixty percent of women gave Obama the nod in the poll.

On the swing states Steve mentioned, here is the link. In two of the states Obama is up by one percent or less - making the "real lead" 3 states to 2 states with two basically tied (well inside the margin of error).

I suspect it is tighter than the national polls indicate, particulary if we take into account the lead that previous liberal democratic candidates have had in the summer before the elections, however....

The table is set for the Democrats this year, absent any "event". Even though I occasionally get a sinking feeling in my gut, the Dems should be able to sweep it.

Interesting poll in Oregon, even though polls generally don't mean much in terms of how the election will turn out, some things are striking.

First, the choice of VP does not seem to have an appreciable effect on the numbers. My guess is two things are happening; the voters don't care that much about the VP choice, and/or they don't really know much about the VP choice. In every situation described, McCain lost votes when paired with a VP candidate, although not as many as Obama did.

The thing that would concern me if I were Obama was the fact that in a pretty liberal state, 62% of the men favored McCain. You would expect the margin Obama received from women in Oregon, but the male vote seemed a little more towards McCain than anticipated. Is that a function of the party affiliation of those polled; does anyone know if the breakdown of party identity in Oregon is 41% R, 42% D, and 15% I as listed in the poll?

[ryberg]

But TMC, OR is pretty white, you know (one source I looked up just now, for example, showed the black population there at under 2%), so that means that McCain is effectively winning about 60% of white men, there. And we keep seeing stats that show that no Democrat has won white men, or won more than about 35-40% of them, in decades. So I don't know that that is partiicular cause for concern...

Steve

[ryberg]

Getting back to the public financing point, I was suggesting with that graphic showing the RNC with a gigantic lead over the DNC in terms of funds -- over $53 million as opposed to just $4 million -- that the Obama camp might want to make use of that as partial cover on the withdrawal from public financing, or that McCain or conservative or media critics might be overlooking that point, seemingly one in Obama's defense.

And I know you said there were 500 contests this year, or something like that, TMC, but it seems safe to assume that Democrats face as many contests as Republicans, so still there's a large gap to be covered, there.

And lo, guess who is trying to cover part of it:

If Obama loses in November, the decision to spend widely may be seen as a distraction from the traditional battlegrounds like Ohio.
Photo: AP

Barack Obama will focus his resources largely in 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004, his chief field operative said Tuesday, hoping to score upsets in places such as Virginia, Indiana and Georgia.

But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”

Texas Democrats are five seats away in each chamber from control of the state Legislature, which will redraw congressional districts after the 2010 census.

In Wyoming, Democrat Gary Trauner, running for the state’s sole congressional seat, lost narrowly against an incumbent in 2006 and is now seeking an open seat.

“If we can register more Democrats, if we can increase the Democratic performance and turnout, maybe we can pick up a congressional seat,” Hildebrand said.

Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

They refer to some other activities in the same article, as well:

Obama has also sent out fundraising e-mails in the last week on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

A “new president alone isn't enough,” Obama wrote in a message sent to the DSCC’s e-mail list. “I've served long enough in the U.S. Senate to know that Washington must change, and I also know that big changes don't happen without big Senate majorities — and right now, Democrats occupy only 49 seats.”

“This November, we have a chance to create a Democratic Senate majority like we haven't seen in decades — but it won't happen on its own,” he wrote.

Wondering about your take on this in relation to the move not to take public financing, Melliedee. The whole article is here, if you want to take a look:

Obama's aim: 14 Bush states and local races

It would all seem to suggest that perhaps a more accurate and fair picture of the whole funding issue might be reached by comparing not Obama's and McCain's resources, but rather Obama + DNC funds to McCain + RNC funds...

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

....................It would all seem to suggest that perhaps a more accurate and fair picture of the whole funding issue might be reached by comparing not Obama's and McCain's resources, but rather Obama + DNC funds to McCain + RNC funds...

Steve

That would seem more accurate and fair to me.

(The difference being I like who is controlling my team's funds better!)

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Getting back to the public financing point, I was suggesting with that graphic showing the RNC with a gigantic lead over the DNC in terms of funds -- over $53 million as opposed to just $4 million -- that the Obama camp might want to make use of that as partial cover on the withdrawal from public financing, or that McCain or conservative or media critics might be overlooking that point, seemingly one in Obama's defense.

And I know you said there were 500 contests this year, or something like that, TMC, but it seems safe to assume that Democrats face as many contests as Republicans, so still there's a large gap to be covered, there.

And lo, guess who is trying to cover part of it:

They refer to some other activities in the same article, as well:

Wondering about your take on this in relation to the move not to take public financing, Melliedee. The whole article is here, if you want to take a look:

Obama's aim: 14 Bush states and local races

It would all seem to suggest that perhaps a more accurate and fair picture of the whole funding issue might be reached by comparing not Obama's and McCain's resources, but rather Obama + DNC funds to McCain + RNC funds...

Steve

It was a smart move not to take public financing; I've never had an issue with that. And it wasn't even that Obama changed his mind. Everyone should be allowed to rethink stratedy, perhaps change their views on certain issues. Going private only opens up the electoral map in new and exciting ways. He's thinking big and long term for the Dems.

It was the decision not to consult with McCain (when he said he would) which I find disappointing. Also, the RNC's lead will be nothing compared to the private donations, which will swell to a cool few hundred mil.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But TMC, OR is pretty white, you know (one source I looked up just now, for example, showed the black population there at under 2%), so that means that McCain is effectively winning about 60% of white men, there. And we keep seeing stats that show that no Democrat has won white men, or won more than about 35-40% of them, in decades. So I don't know that that is partiicular cause for concern...

Steve

Actually, in the state of Oregon Kerry won an estimated 43% of the male vote in 2004 (40% of white males), Gore about 45% of all males in 2000, according to CNN's snapshot of exit polling data, making Obama's current 33% showing significantly worse than expected, especially in this year where the "table is set" for a large Democrat win. It is true that across the country, Democrats are averaging 37% of the white male vote over the last two cycles, but the Oregon poll shows totals for all men, so that comparison is not germane to this poll.

There was no racial breakdown in the Oregon poll, so to compare apples -to-apples we should look at the total male vote in the state as it voted, not extrapolate what we think the white male vote might be; clearly, it would be about 30%, if past trends hold true, as Obama got but 33% of all males.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

It was a smart move not to take public financing; I've never had an issue with that. And it wasn't even that Obama changed his mind. Everyone should be allowed to rethink stratedy, perhaps change their views on certain issues. Going private only opens up the electoral map in new and exciting ways. He's thinking big and long term for the Dems.

It was the decision not to consult with McCain (when he said he would) which I find disappointing. Also, the RNC's lead will be nothing compared to the private donations, which will swell to a cool few hundred mil.

Your first point is precisely correct, and I abhor the idea of publicly financed political campaigns and any restriction on the amount of money a person can spend on behalf of his candidate. As for the second point, his failure to consult with McCain, I don't see that as a big deal as times and conditions change, so what you propose to do can change as well.

This brings up a point that drives me crazy, the charge that candidates "flip-flop" on issues. I believe that their are cases where you can take a candidate to task when it seems clear they are stating a position they don't really believe, and may very well have no intention on following through on if elected. But is it not human, and often desirable, to change your mind as circumstances change? Calling reasoned modifications to your former positions and opinions based upon new information, or a changing situation, "flip-flops" tends to cheapen discourse and force people into untenable, and sometimes ridiculous, policies. If a candidate is insincere, that's one thing, but it is possible to change your outlook on major points of contention (abortion, death penalty, etc.) without being characterized as a "flip-flopper"; I think most people can discern between the two.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

Your first point is precisely correct, and I abhor the idea of publicly financed political campaigns and any restriction on the amount of money a person can spend on behalf of his candidate. As for the second point, his failure to consult with McCain, I don't see that as a big deal as times and conditions change, so what you propose to do can change as well.

This brings up a point that drives me crazy, the charge that candidates "flip-flop" on issues. I believe that their are cases where you can take a candidate to task when it seems clear they are stating a position they don't really believe, and may very well have no intention on following through on if elected. But is it not human, and often desirable, to change your mind as circumstances change? Calling reasoned modifications to your former positions and opinions based upon new information, or a changing situation "flip-flops" tends to cheapen discourse and force people into untenable, and sometimes ridiculous, policies. If a candidate is insincere, that's one thing, but it is possible to change your outlook on major points of contention (abortion, death penalty, etc.) without being characterized as a "flip-flopper"; I think most people can discern between the two.

Exactly!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

It was a smart move not to take public financing; I've never had an issue with that. And it wasn't even that Obama changed his mind. Everyone should be allowed to rethink stratedy, perhaps change their views on certain issues. Going private only opens up the electoral map in new and exciting ways. He's thinking big and long term for the Dems.

It was the decision not to consult with McCain (when he said he would) which I find disappointing. Also, the RNC's lead will be nothing compared to the private donations, which will swell to a cool few hundred mil.

Fair enough. And I agree on the other points. Another argument I've heard that could provide cover for the decision in general is precisely that being limited to $85 million effectively prevents you from running the type of 50-state campaign that you might want to run. And I think a 50-state campaign has not only proven to be popular (in the Dem primary) but should also be good for the country (in the same way that many people were happy about the increased attention to many usually overlooked states in the primary campaign).

Originally Posted by tmc

the Oregon poll shows totals for all men, so that comparison is not germane to this poll.

There was no racial breakdown in the Oregon poll, so to compare apples -to-apples we should look at the total male vote in the state as it voted, not extrapolate what we think the white male vote might be; clearly, it would be about 30%, if past trends hold true, as Obama got but 33% of all males.

Right. In other words, in the case of OR, with its demographics, there ain't likely a world of difference between "males" and "white males" in terms of the overall numbers. That's all I was saying.

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Right. In other words, in the case of OR, with its demographics, there ain't likely a world of difference between "males" and "white males" in terms of the overall numbers. That's all I was saying.

Steve

And the reason that bodes ill for Obama is that he is 10% points behind both Gore and Kerry under circumstances where one would think he should be doing much better than that.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

And the reason that bodes ill for Obama is that he is 10% points behind both Gore and Kerry under circumstances where one would think he should be doing much better than that.

You remember where that "early" lead got Gore and Kerry, right? I like the "slow" start for the guy with weird name recognition issues (noone knows him...or they think he is someone he is not!)....I believe he grows on you more the more one listens to him.......others can tend to grow on you less the more you listen....

Obama is going to be just fine.