something's off with your North Dakota numbers (0.00 / 0)

John McCain is afraid of Canada!

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:33:53 PM CDT

 

fixed (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:59:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

best subtitle ever (0.00 / 0)

I have no qualms with tempting fate.  

“Don’t hate the media, become the media” -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:41:26 PM CDT

 

And (0.00 / 0)

“Also, the electoral map is starting to look very similar to 2000 and 2004.”

Yep, and we know what happened then. With the extreme right-wing in love with Palin, I just don’t see how things end up differently than in 2004. And this time, Bush isn’t even on the ticket!

---

by: Semblance @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:46:54 PM CDT

 

Colorado (4.00 / 2)

As I noted, that is how things end up different. Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico (maybe Nevada).

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:48:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

538 said florida is tightening up (0.00 / 0)

and palin isn’t helping.

so don’t panic yet 🙂

Insert clever quote

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:58:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I might suggest (4.00 / 1)

there’s a very different ground game going on in all states than ever before.  One reason the hard right was so influential previously is they are very organized and can quickly mobilize for whatever cause they choose.  Obama has at least matched their numbers, if not the long time organization herd instinct.

Obama does need to worry about racism though so to feel good about any state he would have to have his good ground game to match evangelicals PLUS new voters to match whatever hidden racism is out there.

Time will tell if those two things are true, but it is undeniable that the game has changed since Gore and Kerry with the ground game alone.  

---

by: GrDavis @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:29:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Chris- how long did it take Bush's bounce in 2004 (0.00 / 0)

to end?

I know we are online, but I have to be honest- this is kind of crazy that you who are supposed to be well versed in this want to react like this a week out from the GOP marketing week.

Just an observationa bout tone. It’s fine to want better strategy, but quite another to seemingly be prepared for a funeral. Is this some kind of emotional preparedness so that you don’t get your hopes up?

I would ask that of Stoller, but i imagine I would ignored or banned.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:48:16 PM CDT

 

react like what? (0.00 / 0)

I really don’t get it when people accuse me of being panicked or jumpy or something. I don’t feel that way. And I don’t think my writing comes off that way.

Where am I “react[ing] like this?” How am I reacting, exactly? I’m reporting numbers, I thought.  

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:50:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

As I said- it's tone (0.00 / 0)

here youa re better, but overall when reporting numbers- why aren’t you providing contextualization of those numbers. You do try to with the convo about Colorado and path to victories, but you need to also explain whether Mccain’s post convention bounce is really all that impressive, etc.

I suppose what I find disconcerting isn’t your reporting of the numbers, but alongwith you the posts by Stoller, Paul and Sirota — without the contextualization from 2004. Where was kerry a week out from the GOP national convention. or better yet- likes talk about also where bush was- did he crest with his bounce less than a week after the finish of his speech? Was his crest so small (assuming the Gallup poll is an outlier)? For that matter when you speak of path to victories- it might be good for you to have done what Daily Kos did- but more indepth- ie, how again provide some measure by which we are to judge Obama on the state level compared to say Kerry and Bush in 2004. What ere the state numbers for Kerry before and after the GOP convention- how long did they take to recover from the bounce?

That would go along way to make your tone more about the numbers. At least for me.

I also continue to be amazed that no one is shocked as I am that a black guy is doing this well considering the US being the US.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:58:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I sound troubling (0.00 / 0)

Because I don’t provide reassuring context?

Look–2008 will not go exactly like 2004. I can’t predict the future. McCain’s “bounce” could fade. But it is also possible it won’t. There are not natural laws. There are no guarantees.

That is the truth. Imagine me saying it in an even toned voice, because that is how I feel right now. I am doing my best to report the truth on the horserace. An inaccurate forecast isn’t useful to anyone.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:03:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

No because you don't provide context at all (0.00 / 0)

ANd you know context isn’t about proving the future.

For example the reason why I ask about a comparator to where Kerry was versus Obama with regard to the GOP is not as you say to predict the future, but to provide a sense of the elasticity of what’s happening now.  If the numbers are shifting faster now than in 2004, that tells us something about the impact of the GOP’s ability to shape 2008 like they did 2004. It may not tell you about Obama specifically but about the elasticity of the American public? Then I believe yes.

That’s what comparators are for. To give us a benchmark, however imperfect, for what’s happening.  To not leave it to the imagination about what things mean. No one said such comparisions are perfect, but they are necessary to separate out what is feeling and what is reality..

Just as you provided the benchmark of 2006 about the Congressional Democrats, which was less comparable to Presidential politics, since the GOP convention is about Presidential politics, not Congressional politics. At least with such a comparison I would have an idea as would your other audience of how this is playing out in better since than just present numbers alone. Again this is about benchmarks.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:18:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

You've Misinterpreted. (0.00 / 0)

All Chris is saying is that the state polls haven’t caught up to the national polls yet and he questions whether they ever well, which is actually a optimistic question to ask at this point in time.  I think the tone is right on and that you’ve somehow misinterpreted his tone.

bruhrabbit, I often read and agree with your comments, but not this time.    

John McCain wants to privatize social security.

---

by: gunnar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:27:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Maybe I am overstating my caseq (0.00 / 0)

My main point is that by pegging the impact of the convention against outcomes in 2004 we have a since of the ability of the GOP to reach the public a little better. For instances the fact it took only a week for the McCain bounce to level out and start to decline is to me a sign that it’s not as robust as Bush’s and tells me more about the numbers than just posting the numbers themselves.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:20:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Here's what happened in 2000 and 2004 (0.00 / 0)

Courtesy of inimitable Charles Franklin.

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Thanks- I am starting to check out new sites (0.00 / 0)

because I find this one to be less and less about actual analysis and more about narratives. The problem with the later is whereas it’s needed, it doesn’t always give a picture of what’s really happening.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 19:49:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Suggestion… (0.00 / 0)

Chris, I know that you’re only posting the “Swing States” that are within +-5, but could you also maybe also put in the summary (in a different color perhaps) the states that we know Obama is still targeting with advertising and personnel?  To my knowledge, that would include the following:

Missouri
Virginia
North Carolina
Montana
West Virginia (new!)

It’d just be nice to get a sense of all the states that Obama is still going for, and as he starts pulling resources you can pull them off of the swing state summary.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:49:56 PM CDT

 

Err, sorry… (0.00 / 0)

Just NC, MT and WV (I see the others, including SD which I don’t think Obama is targeting, on the list already).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:50:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

A different color wouldn't work (0.00 / 0)

But I think I will start marking those states in some fashion. That sounds like a good idea, actually.

But maybe tomorrow.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:10:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

in 2004 there was a lag of a few weeks (4.00 / 2)

between when the Swift Boat stuff started hurting Kerry in national polls and when he started falling in state polls.

We could be seeing McCain gains in state polls for the next week or two.

However, I am relieved that even at the height of his bounce, McCain has not been shown to be leading in Michigan.

For what it’s worth, a politically active friend in Colorado thinks Obama has a much better chance there than in Nevada. I don’t know why, because Nevada seems like a better bet to me–there are a lot of Libertarians there as well as a lot of Mormons who may be pissed off that Romney was passed over for someone totally unqualified.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:19:02 PM CDT

 

On nevada (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone have any anecdotes to relate from the Nevada primary in terms of how effective the unions out there were for getting people to the caucus?

Will they be better for a general election than they were in the caucus?

John McCain is afraid of Canada!

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:59:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

CO has consistently been polling better… (0.00 / 0)

I don’t have a sense of the demographics and such that are driving the numbers, but CO has consistently been polling better for Obama.

It’s actually one of the most disappointing closer states now… for awhile it looked like he was gonna win by 6-8 points or more… I guess that’s probably out the window now.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:36:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

not really — the election is nearly 2 months away. (0.00 / 0)

obama could lose the national vote by 8 points, or he could win it by 10.  historically speaking, things change over these final two months.  

my biggest pet peeve when it comes to election commentary is the tendency that we all have to collapse time.  

---

by: seabrook @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 00:10:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

The lag in state polls is an excellent point (4.00 / 1)

but only insofar as the daily tracking polls were actually reflective of voter movement.  Considering some of the methodological concerns raised by HuffPost and others I am a bit skeptical as to some of the conclusions drawn from them.

And while there are also some concerns regarding state polling, particularly in the variance between methodologies and frequency, not to mention inherent biases between the disparate agencies producing them, they provide a much more accurate, albeit potentially belated, picture of the state of the race.

On a side note: bruhrabbit’s remarks earlier regarding the tone of the discussion since the newest wave of daily polls showing a McCain bounce/surge/artifact are, in my opinion, not too far off base.  His (her?) assertions directed at Chris may not have been wholly accurate, particularly in regards this article, but among many in the liberal blogisphere there has been a tone of anxiety, if not outright concern, that the wheels are coming off this campaign.

Criticism of Obama’s campaign is fine, but come on, we haven’t even had a debate yet.  Heck, we haven’t even had an interview (Charlie Gibson?  Come on!) with McCain’s VP pick.  Panic is best saved for the week before the election.  

I know when that’s when I’ll be in sweat-factor 10!!!!

---

by: alffy @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:54:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Obama won't reverse the trend with his current campaign tactics (0.00 / 0)

he needs to hit back now and hard.  He should run an ad critical of McCain for being against protecting children from abusers.  His campaign needs to call McCain’s camp liars.  He needs to go on the offensive.  Right now McCain is setting the terms of the debate every single day.  That needs to end and soon.

---

by: Marylander @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:50:07 PM CDT

 

I Hear This A Lot (0.00 / 0)

I don’t really believe that you know what you think you know.

Please describe to me in detail how it is that you know what it is that Obama must do.

---

by: ergotist @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:52:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

When I work on campaigns (0.00 / 0)

I go on the attack so as to control what the campaigns are talking about and responding to.  The only time the Obama campaign did this was about the house flap.  But they let it drop.  For most of the campaign, they are just responding to everything McCain is doing.

Why haven’t we put McCain on the defensive about him being against the new GI Bill.  Why haven’t we attacked him on the Children’s Health Care Bill.  We talk about all his lobbyists here, but the campaign rarely stays on message about that.  We need to control the debate and we haven’t done so in months.

---

by: Marylander @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:50:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Little Stories (0.00 / 0)

It’s easy to get caught up in these little stories about lipstick and whatnot, but I think that McCain actually is on the defensive where it matters.

McCain has been running ads with pictures of big windmills in them, exactly the kind of thing he’s voted against for his entire life. But because we have a candidate who is clearly for alternative energy, McCain has to imitate him. It’s a defensive move.

John McCain is now presenting himself as the change candidate — again, a cheap imitation of Barack.

I think on the big stories, MaCain is defensive because Obama has established himself well. And on the little stories, Barack is trying to stay above it.

---

by: ergotist @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I think these numbers (0.00 / 0)

tell us something.  McCain’s national numbers have shot up primarily because he’s expanded his advantage or wiped away Obama’s in red states.  Look at Montana, North Dakota, North Carolina.  His numbers are also probably up throughout most of the South.  But despite McCain consolidating his Republican base and gaining some independents, Obama has held his electoral advantage even in the face of lipsitck’s bounce.  Look, McCain had a big advantage going last in the conventions.  He could not only take away Obama’s weekend with a Friday VP announcement, but he could get the past week’s coverage mostly to himself.  That is now over and Obama remains ahead in the electoral race.  Matt, Sirota, Lux and many, many others have called on Obama to be more of a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners type of campaigner from before the Iowa primary.  It ain’t gonna happen.  Has anyone ever considered that his style may wear better with voters in the long run?  Maybe, maybe not, but after watching him campaign for almost two years, I think I can accurately predict that he isn’t suddenly going to become something he’s never been, and what he’s been as a campaigner and fund-raiser has been pretty damn good.

---

by: historyrocks @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 00:57:53 AM CDT

 

Wisconsin (0.00 / 0)

Palin was good counterrprogramming not only on gender, but al;so to the idiots who pout the Assault Weapons Ban in the Dem Platform.

I’m hearing ground noise of a shift from Barr to McCain as a result.



Democrat for US Senate, WI 2012

---

by: Ben Masel @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:10:20 AM CDT

 

Considering is bounce is receding, probably not (0.00 / 0)

For what it’s worth, Markos has been one of the only ones keeping a level head about all this.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Even though the data is sparse, what we have suggests that McCain made big gains in what are traditional red states (Montana and North Dakota), while just incremental gains (or losses) in the other battleground states. Actually, those “incremental” gains or losses look more like statistical noise than actual movement. So other than solidify the numbers in already-Red states, there’s been very little movement where it actually matters.

Expect an avalanche of polling in the next couple of weeks (much of it from us here at Daily Kos) that will allow us to paint a clearer picture of where the race actually stands at the moment. But for now, assume it’s pretty much tied. Given this has all been taken during McCain’s high-water mark (to date), that’s pretty encouraging for our team.

---

by: BCdem @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:36:27 AM CDT

 

Indeed (0.00 / 0)

Swing states are really close. The national gain for McCain looks like its all coming from the South and West. Also bear in mind Obama stopped his ads during the GOP convention.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:10:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Thanks for the link… (0.00 / 0)

I had read that post for the numbers, but I guess I missed his conclusion.  

This has been my consistent discontent with daily tracking polls and those that read too deeply into them.

Kos makes the point I have been pushing, but of course does so more succinctly.  Gains and losses from daily trackers don’t tell us anything useful regarding the true state of the race, the Electoral College breakdown.

If those gains/losses are even real, where are they occurring?  Montana and North Dakota gains for McCain, even though we had high hopes there, are less important than Florida, Ohio or Michigan gains.  So what if he locked up Georgia where we had vague hopes Barr would sway it Dem (and drives up his daily numbers in the process) if he has lost a bit of support in Florida?

Daily trackers can be worse than confusing, they can be downright misleading.

---

by: alffy @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:50:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

uncertainty in the polls=more toss ups? (0.00 / 0)

I’m wondering if +/-2.5% is too narrow a range for toss ups. There seems to be a lot of disagreement in coming up with likely voter models and adjusting by party id among the various pollsters. Then there the unknown factors of how the ground game, Democratic enthusiasm, or Obama’s race will factor in (or McCain’s age and Palin’s celebrity too). You might consider expanding toss ups to say 4%.

---

by: redwards95 @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:55:48 AM CDT