USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[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.

Steve

Originally Posted by Jacko

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.

So, are you asserting, my good friend Jacko, that a 12-15 point lead in national polls is a slow start?

What kind of lead did Gore and Kerry have in mid to late June?

[roni]

This article from the Times Online (United Kingdom), indicates that Obama is not a slow start kind of guy - in fact, he is ahead of where Gore and Kerry both were, if we take the national poll numbers that Ryberg posted

US Elections - Times Online - WBLG: June Polls Don't Hold Up

This week's polls showing Barack Obama with small, but significant, single-digit leads among likely voters are certainly welcomed by Democrats, but recent history hasn't been kind to early frontrunners.

In fact, only one of the last five June election-year polling averages has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in November - Bill Clinton in 1996. Even then, the polls missed his win-margin by more than 9 percent.

As hard as it may be to believe, Michael Dukakis was leading the first George Bush by an average of 8.2 percent in June of 1988. Bush went on to win the general election by 7.8 points.

Mr Bush led the relatively unknown Bill Clinton by 4.9 percent In June of '92, but managed to lose in November by 5.6 percent.

June 1996 polls showed the incumbent President Clinton leading by a whopping 17 points, but even Bob Dole managed to close the gap to a more respectable 8.5 percent.

2000 was different only in that George W. Bush led by 4.7 percent in June, won the election, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percent.

And finally, John Kerry led in the June 2004 polls by an average of 0.9 percent, but lost the popular vote, and the election, to the incumbent Bush by 2.4 points.

So, while Mr Obama's leads are certainly signs for Democrats to be optimistic, history points to caution. A lot can happen between June and November.

[ryberg]

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.

I don't know. This line of thinking reminds me of the... strangeness during the primary campaign, in cases where people seemed to have no problem skipping right past the fact that Obama was winning a healthy percentage not only of women but even just of white women, yet the much bigger news was where he wasn't doing as well. There the question was more like, why isn't Clinton getting more women, or even just white women?. Here the question might be, if J. Sidney McCain is such hot stuff, how come he can't pull down much more than 60% of the white male vote, even against a party not known to take very much of it recently and a guy who's supposed to be so liberal that he'll scare people off?

And just like when this sort of thing came up during the primary, the focus seemed to be "Obama's _____ vote problem" (where the blank was filled in by whites, white men, women, Latinos, whatever). All without much attention being paid to how much of his opponent's sort of logical demographic he was busy picking off.

Then again, he's the one that came through the primary season as the winner after being rather roundly underestimated, so maybe it would be better to just let people keep doing this and not worry about it.

Anyway, is OR so liberal, across the board? I guess maybe it was WA and not OR that I'm remembering, here, but I do remember discussions during the primaries with John King at the CNN magic map, pointing out that this was another state where the urban areas trended much more one way while rural or less densely populated areas of the state tended to go in a much more conservative direction...

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

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.

Well I also applaud you on this point.

Are you sure you're conservative? Sometimes (we'll leave the Electoral College out of this!) you seem a bit too... you know... reasonable to be a conservative.



But seriously, I think I have just been thinking, as I learn more about the situation, that even if it wouldn't have addressed the point Mel brings up about not talking to McCain first, it might indeed address the overall point of why he decided not to follow through on that previous position if he had taken the pains to point out some of these new conditions or ideas (I mean the great lead of the RNC over the DNC in funding, his campaign's plan to work for down-ticket wins, as well, the question of whether you can follow through on the very positive idea of a 50-state campaign in today's setting when you're limited to $85 million total...). Bringing out some of these points... well I don't know, it might have sounded like merely trying to rationalize or dress up the breaking of a promise, but I think it might also be a reasonable way to explain what you're doing (or more reasonable than just saying "we're declaring our independence from public financing" or whatever he actually did say). So I think just as critics might take these things into account in considering how harshly to criticize him, he might also have taken these things into account in presenting the decision.

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Anyway, is OR so liberal, across the board? I guess maybe it was WA and not OR that I'm remembering, here, but I do remember discussions during the primaries with John King at the CNN magic map, pointing out that this was another state where the urban areas trended much more one way while rural or less densely populated areas of the state tended to go in a much more conservative direction...

Steve

Here is a map of Oregon's Congressional Districts. Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 are held by Democrats.



* 1st district: David Wu (D)
* 2nd district: Greg Walden (R)
* 3rd district: Earl Blumenauer (D)
* 4th district: Peter DeFazio (D)
* 5th district: Darlene Hooley (D)

Wu, DeFazio and Blumenauer are liberal. Hooley a little less so, and her district is a bit more conservative. She is retiring, I expect the moderate Democratic state senator will win the election over the jerk Republican businessman . Note that it takes all of Eastern Oregon to make up Walden's, the sole Republican, district.

This is the usual case in many states, though. It certainly was in Missouri and Illinois when I lived there. It is that way pretty much in Colorado as well, isn't it Steve?

[SunKneeMarie]

You think you have just been thinking?

Now seriously, Steve, those are just words to make more words...

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

You think you have just been thinking?

Now seriously, Steve, those are just words to make more words...

Sheesh!

Give a guy a break!

But you get a LOT of leeway with me, Char. Always have. And as long as you occasionally say something like the other day, that you "get me," always will.

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

So, are you asserting, my good friend Jacko, that a 12-15 point lead in national polls is a slow start?
What kind of lead did Gore and Kerry have in mid to late June?

Why no my good friend roni.....I am, with tongue firmly in cheek, while still believing this to be entirely true, asserting that what tmc says here below that I was responding to, does not much matter relative to predicting the eventual outcome of the race...I believe I have said similar things to you, have I not? Perhaps I have not been clear....

As I have clearly said here previously (see below)..."I think Obama will be just fine".

(did you not notice the quotations around the "slow" in my quote?..It's not that slow)

Originally Posted by Jacko

.......................
the good news? I heard on the Lehrer NewsHour tonight that new polls have him up some 15 points overall over McCain....<shrug> its still early...and they are just polls......

Originally Posted by Jacko

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.

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.

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sheesh!

Give a guy a break!

But you get a LOT of leeway with me, Char. Always have. And as long as you occasionally say something like the other day, that you "get me," always will.

Steve

Oh, good... glad you "got" that I was just giving you a hard time...

And now back to politics as usual....

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

Oh, good... glad you "got" that I was just giving you a hard time...

And now back to politics as usual....

I'm just glad you are here.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

And now back to politics as usual....

and she's off to start a baby shower/recipe thread

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I'm just glad you are here.

oh, I'm always here...

Originally Posted by sctx

and she's off to start a baby shower/recipe thread

I believe the last baby picture I saw on here was at your regatta, duuude... right after the bbq and fajita commentary... looks like I've been unseated...

[roni]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

oh, I'm always here...



I believe the last baby picture I saw on here was at your regatta, duuude... right after the bbq and fajita commentary... looks like I've been unseated...

Sheesh, didn't nobody notice my nice non-baby map of Oregon

[sctx]

Originally Posted by SunKneeMarie

I believe the last baby picture I saw on here was at your regatta, duuude...

hay !!!....... that doesn't count.....that was my pseudo grand niece !!! ..... she's so cool with her shades on !!!

[SunKneeMarie]

Originally Posted by roni

Sheesh, didn't nobody notice my nice non-baby map of Oregon

I thought it looked a little like an unfolded diaper...

Originally Posted by sctx

hay !!!....... that doesn't count.....that was my pseudo grand niece !!! ..... she's so cool with her shades on !!!

OH... WELL... qualifiers... hmmmph!

(and what the hell is a pseudo grand niece anyway?)