Posted on 08/01/2008 9:58:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
Just when you think you've got the presidential race figured out, something comes along to upend your carefully wrought conclusions.
Mainstream media provided lavish coverage of Barack Obama's trip abroad the week of July 21-25 and predicted he would get a bounce in the polls. Some of his supporters believe he has put the election away. Other observers employ the hackneyed and meaningless phrase, "It's his to lose."
The poll numbers tell a different and more nuanced story. The two national tracking polls showed Obama getting a bounce while he was in Europe, especially after his speech before 200,000 or so Berliners in the Tiergarten. Gallup showed him rising from a 46 percent-42 percent lead on July 22 to a 49 percent-40 percent lead on July 26. The Rasmussen tracking poll showed him rising from a 47 percent-45 percent lead on July 23 (reflecting the previous days' polling) to 49 percent to 43 percent on July 26.
But over the next several days, Obama bounced back down. Gallup showed him leading by a statistically insignificant 45 percent to 44 percent as of July 31. That's the closest the race has been in Gallup all that month. Rasmussen had him down to 48 percent to 46 percent on the same day. The world tour bounce has begun to look like a bubble.
Obama may have gotten some lasting benefits from the trip. He can now say that he has been in Afghanistan and that he has visited Iraq for the first time since January 2006. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's seeming acceptance of Obama's withdrawal timetable may have undermined John McCain's argument that an Obama presidency could lead to disaster there. And there are a substantial number of American voters who will be attracted by a candidate who seems to pass what John Kerry in 2004 called a "global test."
Still, the basic dynamics of the race haven't changed. Obama appears to have a small lead. But he doesn't come close to maximizing the Democratic vote. And there is some evidence that the balance of enthusiasm has shifted and that young people -- who seemed to turn out and vote for Obama in unusually high numbers in the primaries and caucuses -- are no long so enthusiastic about him.
The first bit of evidence comes from the July 10-13 ABC/Washington Post poll. It asked registered voters if they were "certain" to vote. Only 46 percent of voters under 30 said they were -- substantially lower than the 66 percent who said so in the ABC/Washington Post poll taken Feb. 28-March 2, at a time when Obama was enjoying a string of primary and caucus victories and before the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were circulated on youtube.com on March 13. The 46 percent of young voters saying in July they were certain to vote was far lower than the 79 percent of 65 and over voters who said they were.
The second bit of evidence comes from the Gallup/USAToday poll taken July 25-27. This poll showed that when you narrowed the base of respondents down from registered voters to likely voters, John McCain was ahead 49 percent to 45 percent. That's a vivid contrast from the contemporaneous Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, and it was the first national poll since May showing McCain ahead.
The Gallup/USAT poll employs an unusual technique to decide who is a likely voter, and accordingly its results tend to vary more widely than other polls; political insiders tend to take its numbers seriously less as an indication of where the race is than as an indication of which candidate is benefiting, at least for a moment, from the balance of enthusiasm.
For most of this year, the balance of enthusiasm has been in favor of Democrats and Obama. Turnout in Democratic primaries was about 50 percent higher than in Republican primaries while both parties' nominations were seriously contested; Democrats generally and Obama in particular have raised far more money than Republicans; McCain voters have typically expressed less enthusiasm for their candidate than Obama voters have for theirs.
These poll results suggest that something -- the rantings of the Rev. Wright or Obama's skinbacks on issues like Iraq and terrorist surveillance -- has dampened enthusiasm for him, particularly among the young. The hope that his candidacy would benefit from a historically unprecedented turnout of young voters seems more audacious than it did a short time ago.
Nothing about an election is harder to predict than turnout, and experience shows that the balance of enthusiasm can change abruptly and in unpredicted ways. The poll numbers examined here are of course not the final word, or anything close to it, and this campaign could take many twists and turns before it is over. But you could do worse than expected the unexpected.
Maybe Obama has peaked. We’ll know in 3 months and a few days. I still think it will be a close election, whichever candidate wins.
All of the media attention hurt Obama. Basically all elections end up being a referndum on something. The ideal situation for the Democrats is a referendum on G.W. Bush with McCain represnting a third Bush term. The ideal for the Pubs is a referendum of Obama, complete with his empty recored and radical associations.
By focusing on the Big O, and ignoring McCain to an unprecedented degree, the media has already helped make Obama the issue. The election is now largely a question of whether Obama is suited for the presidency. If it stays that way, McCain wins.
I think the younger voters--who are always going to turn the tide of the election, and then never seem to show up as promised on election day--love the IDEA of Obama-as-rebel, change, revolution...but they came of age in post-9/11 America.
It's not cool for them to express it, but they really, really want to be safe from terrorists, and I do think this issue will be our salvation on election day.
We’ll know sooner than that. If he starts to tank, a way will be found to remove him from the race that does not offend his base... most likely blaming it on Republican machinations.
If he starts to tank, a way will be found to remove him (Obama) from the race.
Can a way be found to remove McCain from the race if he starts to tank?
Don't think that can happen without blood in the streets.
What do they care about Republican blood?
It would take the hand of G-d to remove McCain at this point. Something like 136 of his people would have to desert him on the first round and break their word/face legal sanctions for breaking a contract...
Well is he starts to tank before the Convention one could still try to get most of his delegates to switch their support to someone else perhaps Ron Paul if he is still running.
“I think the younger voters—who are always going to turn the tide of the election, and then never seem to show up as promised on election day—love the IDEA of Obama-as-rebel, change, revolution...but they came of age in post-9/11 America. “
Hannity played Ludacris’s rap song.
It was a very antagonistic in-your-face vengeance themed ditty.
He was basically saying - just try and stop it whitey! Obama is going to be our next president and then you’ll get yours!
I was wondering how Ludacris reconciles that message with the notion that Obama has to rely on white voters to get him to the White House.
I can see the bumper sticker
“up yours whitey! racists! Vote Obama, or else!”
Yesterday Obama said “Change We Can Believe In”, “End The War In Iraq”, “Bring The Troops Home”, and won the popularity contest over Hillary.
Today Obama is not campaigning against Hillary anymore, but now must relieve McCain of the Center cut of the meat, so he is campaigning “Centrist”. This means he must throw elements of the Hard Left he catered to yesterday to defeat Hillary under the bus as he doesn’t need those sorts anymore. They were useful idiots that accomplished what he wanted, Hillary is defeated, so they can now be discarded.
Obama is going to lose as he is now seen for what he is. A user and abuser. His job one is to win, and as he hasn’t any convictions other than to win, he will lose in a landslide.
Beware Obama. A big surprise awaits you at the Democrat Convention later this month.
btt
What color is the sky in your world?
Why?
Because everyone already knows everything there is to know about McCain.
Obama is the unknown.
And what a lot of unknown there is to know.
Corsi’s book came out today and he is being interviewed on the Mark Levin show, he was on Hannity’s show and he'll be all of the place talking about his book.
People are finally starting to pay attention. Who IS this guy, they're asking? What's all the PR circus about?
It only gets worse for Obama from now on.
Image is all he has. No accomplishments. No qualifications. No resume. Only image.
If that gets punctured, as it surely will once the light of truth is shone on him, what people will find is a very small, inexperienced, opportunistic, core-less radical Marxist and probably Muslim, junior senator from Illinois.
It isn't an argument. And it doesn't belong to McCain, any more than he owns the blueness of the sky. It is a mere fact. Everyone on the planet knows it. Many just dearly want that disaster and have been fighting for it with everything they have since 9-11, shortly before or shortly after.
You picked your side. Don't pretend anyone can't see which it is.
I would say this is a near-peak point. The stadium appearance might pump up the followers for another week or two...but as you travel to Michigan and Penn...things don’t look very good for his campaign. Those are two must-win states, and its very doubtful that he can carry the two.
I’d also suggest that the debate (I’m strongly suggesting that he does one debate only)...will also be a very negative trend...and start damaging his numbers. If I were McCain...I’d want a open session where real people off the street can ask questions...where McCain is at his strongest ability.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
These folks think they can talk like that and, as in some TV show, whitey will just bow his head and nod and say "OK, you deserve it" and vote for Obama.
I'm being completely serious. They really do believe they can talk that way and simply shame white people into voting for someone who calls them names.
Of course, when Ross Perot said "You people" he was ruined forever for blacks. But a certain segment of the black population, raised on BET shows in which black characters always pull one over on dumb white characters, and when black folks stand up to whitey the studio audience applauds wildly and whitey does the right thing because he can't deny the black man his respect, really do believe white people will take this tidal wave of verbal abuse and still vote Obama in the privacy of the booth.
As with racist whites in the past, racist blacks of the present feel they are righteous, so their opponents will vote against their self-interest just because it's the RIGHT THING to do.
Need I add that this is a mindset of the young and the youngish, and is not one common among black people who have lived life and know something of reality?
The Big 0
As Obama tries to make his insidious move to the ‘center’, his voters start drying up
Beware Obama. A big surprise awaits you at the Democrat Convention later this month.
*********************************
I read your personal page and the statement of your friend on why she’s voting for Obama.
How does she feel now? I’ve been reading the various anti-Obama blogs and am amazed at how many Democrats are turned off by Obama and by the way the DNC worked things so they could have Obama be their nominee. Selected, not elected, as they say.
I think you are right about the convention. I’m sure the DNC and Obama’s campaign will try and stifle any dissention as much as possible. I read somewhere in the blogosphere that only certain people are going to be allowed to come to BO’s nomination speech at Mile High Stadium.
It should be quite a show - but we probably won’t hear about it on the nightly news!
By the way, I live in California, too - Winters - 12 miles west of the little town that wants to be Berkeley (Davis).
Other observers employ the hackneyed and meaningless phrase, “It’s his to lose.”
Although hackneyed, it means he has a slight advantage, but with one small error he could lose.
I love it. Obama appears publicly to be a fool and loser before he even is formally nominated.
core-less radical Marxist and probably Muslim, junior senator from Illinois.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To whatever extent he is anything he is Muslim. The press may harp on his attendance at a “Christian church” for twenty years but he has apparently never attended an actual Christian church. Trinity United may call itself Christian but that is a smoke screen. Black liberation theology is NOT Christianity!
The 46 percent of young voters saying in July they were certain to vote was far lower than the 79 percent of 65 and over voters who said they were.
Leave it to Barone to glean where the truly important changes are occurring. I have disagreed with most here that McCain was "ok" or "in good shape." I don't think the state-by-state polls, esp. on realclearpolitics average, show that at all. However, this is indeed some good news.
Obama's great advantage was that he promised to bring out millions of people who usually don't vote. McCain can't compete with that, because he is going to turn off so many Republicans who normally do vote. However, if Obama's support among the young and their commitment to vote wanes, then we're at a level playing field.
However, the problem with McCain---even from someone looking at it as a "moderate" or "independent"---is that as soon as he says, "drill here, drill now" (good!), a reporter can say, "But what about cap and trade? Won't that just add costs back in?" (exactly right). McCain is pinned to his own positions, most of which are contradictory to other positions he holds.
Yep, they did it here in NJ when Toricelli started to tank big time and put the corpse Lautenberg in - - all with the blessings of the state Supreme Court.
I strongly disagree with the notion that Obama will not be the nominee. I don’t care what his poll numbers are, or what happens, the Dems will not commit permanent suicide (as opposed to just losing an election) by ticking off the abused black voters. And trust me, if they drop Obama, black support for Dems will drop to under 50%-—they absolutely can’t afford that.
Yesterday I wrote an editorial here called “Thinking the Unthinkable . . . Obama Loses.” If Obama loses, you are going to see rioting on the scale of the 60s.
He has painted himself into corners on virtually every issue. Lower taxes? Great! Restrain spending? YES. But . . . cap and trade will increase spending and increase taxes, badly. Win the WoT? Absolutely. But open borders undermine that.
The bottom line is that McCain can't win. Obama has to lose.
The ridiculous thing was that when Perot said “you people,” he was correctly addressing the race-group politics of those “people” in the NAALCP. They WANT to be “black people,” not just “people,” so I don’t get the issue. . . . except it’s PC snot, pure and simple.
That's probably true if he wins. His supporters are the same idiots who burn cars and buildings if their pro team wins championships.
would take the hand of G-d to remove McCain at this point.
The only way Obama might NOT get the Democratic nod is if it turns out he was really born in another country. Frankly, I doubt it. If that were the case, Billary (with their army of connected investigators) would have uncovered it long ago.
I think there are deep conflicts on the left.
Last week, we had friends visit. They are very comfortable Marin County Jewish liberals who were backing Hillary. While there was an attempt to conflate Obama’s inexperience with a weak comment about just what had W ever acomplished to make him eligible for the presidency (bad grades, etc), when I asked “Who is this guy?” (Obama), gazes went out to the horizon and the subject changed after a silence. There was a comment questioning Barbara Bush’s parenting, given that there were drug abuse problems among her children and grandchildren. I opined that those of us whose children turned out alright could only take a portion of the credit, with the rest ascribed to luck, since the culture rules and many great parents have had to deal with children subverted by that culture. There was agreement and anecdotal references to friends they knew with precisely that situation. Again, silence followed and the subject changed.
They want to vote for Obama, but have doubts. That is good, as these are very accomplished and secure self-employed people who have worked for all they have over 2 generations and who rarely, if ever, over more than 30 years of acquaintance, ever voiced a self doubt, let alone a doubt that life would continue on as it has been.
With folks like this, I tend to invoke Hubert Humphrey as the ultimate liberal who nevertheless was pro-American. I equated HH to McCain. No one said anything at all when I added that I could live with a President McCain. There were some slight nods of agreement, though.
I ws mostly struck by the fact that out of 5 people aged 24-60, not one even attempted a positive comment on Obama.
While it is irritating in the extreme to listen to McCain's equivocations, it is important that he doesn't totally ruin his media characterizations as a liberal Republican. We may hate it, but we are a minority in the body politic. As much as we are frightened for our country by the specter of progressives in total control, they are frightened for themselves and their own sense of power by the conservatives.
McCain has to walk that fine line in order to win. The Congressional donks, in their intransigence over drilling, may be helping us by getting some more Republicans in office, further diluting their narrow majority.We have seen that *conservative* donks are still controllable by their caucus. This is a lesser of two evils election, more so than ever in my lifetime. America will survive McCain and even a RINO Congress. I am certain it will have a difficult time surviving Obama and a stronger donk majority.
“Need I add that this is a mindset of the young and the youngish, and is not one common among black people who have lived life and know something of reality?”
It will be interesting to see the numbers when this is all over.
It seems every election promises to bring out the “youth”, but when push comes to shove they fail to materialize on election day.
I wonder if Ludacris would have written a similar song if JC Watts were running for president.
“They are very comfortable Marin County Jewish liberals who were backing Hillary”
I can’t for the life of me understand how jewish folks could ever consider voting Obama.
His racist “christian” background is extremely anti-semitic.
His vague foreign policy sounds very anti-Israel.
And when you consider that McCain is more of a democrat than he is a republican, why would they choose an anti-semite over a rino?
And why are they still muttering about Bush?
Bush will be gone!
And Obama’s “experience” cannot touch McCain’s.
The father is a chemical engineer with his own highly successful consulting business and many patents. They are very nice people. I think it is about proving to themselves that they are good and caring and compassionate and some belief that they must improve America since they themselves are so very fortunate.
Any feelings that Progressives are anti-semitic is obviated by the fact that all the Progressives they know are Jews. They attend a temple where Buddhist chants are part of the Sabbath service. These are the sorts of Jews who are humiliated by the fact that Israel has a successful military.
Hatred, embarrassment and disdain of Bush is going to last until every single person alive today is dead and gone and even then, he will go down in Progressive-written histories along side Caligula.
McCain isn't President yet. They have accepted that Obama is President. So, they have to compare him to Bush, not to McCain, who, in their minds, isn't a contender, along with this chance to prove once and for all that they are not racist.
Not only are these good folks, we spent the afternoon shooting all sorts of guns, including a military rifle and our local firearms guru even brought along exploding targets. Their favorite family past time is fishing. They are not bedwetters or losers in the accepted sense of these terms. They are perhaps not typical of most Progressives, so perhaps that would make them even more likely to try and prove their Progressive bona fides.
I gave up looking for logical explanations a long time ago. Even the best of the Left is just a mystery, to me.
“I think it is about proving to themselves that they are good and caring and compassionate and some belief that they must improve America since they themselves are so very fortunate.”
I noticed this attitude in a close family member who leans republican but likes to say he is more compassionate/progressive than republicans (he gets swayed by the “green” stuff and global warming stuff too)
But recently I noticed a change - he said something to the effect “you know - liberals only want to appear more compassionate, but their ideas, when implemented, only wind up hurting more people in the end...”
Which reminded me of the debate where Charlie Gibson asked Obama why he would increase capital gains tax when it has been proven to decrease eventual revenues.
Obama responded it is about what is “fair”
So - it really isn’t about “actually” helping people. It is about “appearing” to help people.
“These are the sorts of Jews who are humiliated by the fact that Israel has a successful military.”
hmmm....sad.
“Hatred, embarrassment and disdain of Bush is going to last until every single person alive today is dead and gone and even then, he will go down in Progressive-written histories along side Caligula”
I remember a similar hatred for Reagan - but history has been kind to Reagan.
I think if Iraq manages to become a success story, then history may be kind to Bush as well.
“They are not bedwetters or losers in the accepted sense of these terms.”
I don’t know any jewish people who are. Which is why I’m so befuddled with their voting patterns.
One freeper suggested speaking to them in their own language.
For ex:
“If we want more funding to aid us in social spending for the poor, we need to increase tax revenue.
Every time taxes are decreased, tax revenue increases.
It was the incredible genius of JFK that first discovered this!
or...
“the carbon footprint of foreign oil is very large.
We pay countries to produce - but their technology is not environmentally friendly - and then we use too much carbon based fuel just to transport it over land and sea.
It will be better for the environment if we produce on our own land using environmentally friendly technoloby and skip the long transport.
And, oh yeah - less money will go to those terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill every jew on earth.
an unstable presidential candidate, too.
Ron Paul? Get real.
If it takes the hand of G-d, I’d rather it was His still, small voice than alternatives. Of course, that’s harder for the voters to see.
Of which Michael Barone is one of the biggest cheerleaders. It's doubtful it matters to him who wins.
Wow! They are really trying to go along with the party line and choice, but there truly are deep doubts.
I am actually feeling some embarassment for Obama and for the Democrat party that this is all they can come up.
What about *Harold Ford from Tennessee? I don’t know much about him, but I’ve seen him on Fox giving his opinions and he seems well-spoken, good looking. See below - from Wikipedia. Oh ... he’s a “blue dog” democrat. Now I see why.
*”Harold Ford” redirects here. For his father, the congressman from Tennessee from 1975 to 1997, see Harold Ford, Sr.
Harold Ford, Jr.
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Tennessee’s 9th district
In office
January 7, 1997 – January 3, 2007
Preceded by Harold Ford, Sr.
Succeeded by Steve Cohen
Born May 11, 1970 (1970-05-11) (age 38)
Memphis, Tennessee
Political party Democratic
Spouse Emily Threlkeld
Residence Memphis, Tennessee
Alma mater University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan
Occupation attorney
Religion Baptist
Harold Eugene Ford, Jr. (born May 11, 1970) is the current chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and is a former member of the United States House of Representatives from Tennessee. Ford represented the state’s 9th congressional district, centered in Memphis, from 1997 to 2007. Ford did not seek reelection to his House seat in 2006 when he unsuccessfully sought the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Bill Frist. He is a member of the Democratic Party and was part of the Blue Dog Coalition.
I stopped paying attention to Harold a long time ago, but I'm sure there are TN Freepers who can fill us in on him.
he said something to the effect “you know - liberals only want to appear more compassionate, but their ideas, when implemented, only wind up hurting more people in the end...”
He is experiencing that “scales falling from the eyes” moment.
Pray it continues.
or...
“the carbon footprint of foreign oil is very large.
We pay countries to produce - but their technology is not environmentally friendly - and then we use too much carbon based fuel just to transport it over land and sea.
It will be better for the environment if we produce on our own land using environmentally friendly technoloby and skip the long transport.
These are excellant arguments! I will try them.
Thanks for the information. What politician isn’t corrupt? Eh? Maybe it’s just a matter of degree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.