« Obama Camp: We Opted Out Of Public Financing Because McCain Won't Discuss Reining In 527s | Home | Election Central Morning Roundup »
Poll: Presidential Race A Dead Heat -- In Georgia
In a further sign of just how wide the political playing field is set to be this fall, a new poll finds that Barack Obama may well be able to win Georgia, a state that voted twice for George W. Bush and by healthy margins.
The numbers from InsiderAdvantage: McCain 44%, Obama 43%, within the ±5% margin of error. Some key numbers: Bob Barr, the former right-wing Georgia Congressman turned Libertarian nominee, is getting six-percent support, which otherwise would have probably gone to McCain. Also, InsiderAdvantage estimates that blacks will make up 29% of the electorate, up from 25% in 2004 exit polling.
Advertisement
Given the voter demographics in Georgia with Bob Barr on the ballot we could pull off the big surprise!
June 19, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think the telecom immunity bill could get some right wingers to vote libertarian?
Maybe I should contribute a bit to Barr's campaign. I do support some libtertarian values anyways...
June 19, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the last thing I want is to make McCain look like a centrist.
June 19, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, because the bill actually help investigate terrorists, we're for that.
June 20, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
June 20, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It protects the Telecom companies from frivilous law suits brought against them for granting the NSA access to their systems.
June 20, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so it protects against frivolous lawsuits....does it allow for legitimate lawsuits? Not that the Bush administration would ever dream of spying on the wrong people or anything but, you know, just theoretically speaking.
June 20, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(3) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.--Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)."
Which states: (1) AUTHORITY.--With respect to an acquisition authorized under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to--
(A) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in a manner that will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such electronic communication service provider is providing to the target; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such electronic communication service provider wishes to maintain.
So if you felt you were harmed your cause of action would be against the government not the telecom provider.
June 20, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the problem with your analysis:
So if you felt you were harmed your cause of action would be against the government not the telecom provider.
The point is to have the telecoms police the government. Obviously, when you have a rogue administration, like this one, you don't want telecoms spying on americans without a warrant. If they do, they pay the price. Suing the government is pointless.
June 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...it's not the job of the Telecoms to police the government. Just because you consider this a "rogue administration" doesn't make it so.
June 20, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the purpose of the law requiring a warrant for telecoms to get immunity. Why else would the law be on the books?
June 20, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also not the telecoms' job to break the law on behalf of the government simply because it asks them to, and then have the government absolve them of liability for those criminal acts.
You're a fascist troll. If you want the government monitring your every utterance, then give them access to all of your communications. Otherwise, you don't speak for people who actually think the government should have a reason to violate one's privacy before it's allowed to do so, so shut the hell up.
June 20, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because you consider this a "rogue administration" doesn't make it so.
Just because you don't consider this a rogue administration doesn't rule out the fact that adminstrations which even you agree to be of the rogue variety could and would misuse the power to wiretap American citizens.
June 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? What's so frivilous about the lawsuits? They violated the law. All the king had to do was get a rubber stamped warrant and the telecoms would have had immunity. The fisa court virtually never denies a request for a warrant. It's a piece of cake to get so I really don't understand why the king didn't bother to get warrants, other than to play games. The telecoms have an army of lawyers and knew the law that they violated. Sounds like good lawsuits to me. What am I missing?
June 20, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...because there is no one actually claiming to be harmed. Just a bunch of class action lawyers saying everyone in the country was harmed because the goverment evesdropped on their conversations, which by the way is also false.
June 20, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? The government and the telecoms violated the law by eavesdropping without warrants. Case closed.
By the way, they aren't a "bunch of class action lawyers." They are civil rights lawyers defending our civil rights against illegal government intrusion. Ever hear of the constitution? It's that quaint document that has been lost for 7 years. Luckily some civil rights groups have located copies. Maybe someone should send you and the king a copy.
June 20, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true, they didn't "evesdrop," data mining to locate calling patters to targeted numbers (i.e. terrorists outside this country), then got warrants based on the call patterns before tapping any conversation.
June 20, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Data mining was only one aspect of what they were doing. That still doesn't excuse them not getting a warrant first. Sorry, try again.
June 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is...all you, and the class action lawyers have is speculation. That is not a legitimate basis for a tort claim.
June 20, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you come back legal eagle it's called discovery.
June 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
because there is no one actually claiming to be harmed
Wrong.
June 20, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...they had a 'well founded belief' of having been targeted by the TSP..." i.e. frivolous...no actual harm or damage.
June 20, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, isn't that the purpose of the lawsuit--to determine that?
Duh.
June 20, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bill doesn't give them immunity from criminal activity, it grants immunity from tort claims arising out of any complience with requests for information from the NSA.
June 20, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
A law suit isn't a witch hunt for information, it's to request compensation for damages recieved...or as you so eloquently put it...Duh!
June 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is what they're doing.
But if you insist on getting the last word in, by all means, go right ahead.
June 20, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you understand what the word frivilous means. They didn't get warrants, so they violated the law. How on earth can you claim that the lawsuits are frivilous?
June 20, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because in order to sue you need to show damages, that you were harmed. A "well founded belief" doesn't cut it, there are people out there who have a "well founded belief" that we never really landed on the moon, should they be able to sue NASA? If they violated the law, that's a case for the criminal courts.
June 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand what frivolous means, I'm not sure you understand the court system of the country.
June 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I probably know more about the court system than you do. How many cases have you tried? How many appeals have you done?
June 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't believe it.
obviously i think obama should play hard in GA--and everywhere--but i've got to think this poll is an anomaly of some sort.
if we get a few more polls saying this i'll begin to believe.
June 20, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Georgia was in today's ad buy, too. It will be fun to see what effect that has.
June 19, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only polls that mean anything to me are after Labor Day weekend. That said, the ones so far have been interesting and get me excited for after Labor Day!
June 19, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better to be up now than down now...
June 19, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Landslide?
OK, too early. But one can hope.
I was thinking about posting the right-wing "values" email I got today from a misguided friend. It's funny how they all voted for him twice and can all now say "Well, I don't like Dubya, but ... look how well we're doing in the face of all this GLOBAL strife." There's literally a comparison to Darfur in there. Having had Darfur on my short list for a long time now, I'd love to ask 10 righties where on earth Darfur is and throw up when it winds up looking like a six year old birthday party pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey situation. Take that, Jay Leno!
Points, of course would go to whomever landed closest, 'cause I can guarantee they wouldn't be able to point it out.
June 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually called an Obama landslide the day before Hillary's suspension. I really think this election will prove a people's revolution in America and I'm convinced we've backed the right vehicle. We've already seen Obama revolutionize fundraising and, to a certain extent, the entire political game. As an example, he's stated quite firmly that any demonization of the ripe-for-demonization Cindy McCain will not come from him and that anyone in his campaign who demonizes her will feel his wrath. And he said this while his wife was being attacked by a number of Republican forces, most notably a number of right-wing bloggers To my mind, that's quite revolutionary for American politics.
June 19, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blacks are 30% of the population of Georgia. At 25% of the vote, they actually undervoted in 2004. Expect them to make up 32%+ of the vote in November, particularly after the campaign signs up the 500K unregistered African American voters in the state!
June 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really interesting stuff. I didn't expect Obama to be this competitive in GA. Although I thought he'd be within ten points.
I like the way things are trending.
June 19, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeedy. Truly, truly amazing.
June 20, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Competitive enough to force McCain to spend resources fighting for it. Which is funny, because McCains camp argued that they're happy to see Obama wasting money in a State they're confident they'll win. Projection - the strategy of losers. From Poblano's www.fivethirtyeight.com:
June 20, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I could not figure out the campaign's insistance on GA as a competitive state - it is one of the 17 states listed as a priority for the Organizing Fellows. That it had GA and not IN was always puzzling to me...but I guess they knew what they were doing.
I take this with a grain of salt given that we are more than 4 months away from the election and it is only one poll but - still this poll is quite the shocker and good news.
On the otherhand the more good news for Obama, expect the MSM to get more biased (they do love a horserace) and the GOP dirty tricks to get worse and worse.
June 20, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia has a huge black population and also has an educated white population around Atlanta and Savannah. Indiana does not. so I think georgia would swing dem before Indiana does, as would a state like NC and even Tennessee. after all clinton won Georgia but never came close to winning Indiana. thanks to the black population
June 20, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a few educated folks outside Fulton and Chatham counties...
June 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should all contribute to Bob Barr's campaign. Obama has plenty of money and we need to make sure that Babbling Bob gets up and running.
I'm think of calling this "Operation Chaos Part Deux"
June 20, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
See, I'm not the only one who listens to Rush...
June 20, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is encouraging, but I suspect that GA will still be an uphill battle for Obama. 13% undecided - quite a few former R voters on the fence, and I think like most partisans, they'll revert to form. Certainly, what's good about this is that McCain has to defend yet another chunk of territory.
June 20, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
A big chunk of that 13% are just waiting to see his VP selection; they may not vote but they won't vote for Obama.
June 20, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is good because it will force McCain to campaign everywhere, and maybe with not so much money...
Obama 08
June 20, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
With about $80 million against Obama's $272 million currently, if I recall correctly.
June 20, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Obama pulled together close to $1 Billion (with a b) by November...
June 20, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perot siphoned off enough conservative votes to give GA to Clinton in 1992 but Perot was unable to take enough votes to give GA to Clinton in 1996, when Dole got it.
GA could well be close given historical Dem leanings.
However, Bob Barr will fade as people in GA are reminded of why they threw that creepy hypocrite out of office in his congessional district.
Barr has always railed against Roe v. Wade but it was revealed that he drove his second wife to a clinic to get an abortion he paid for so he would not have to pay child support when he married his mistress who became his third wife.
Barr also spoke to a white supremacy group even though his own racial background is a matter of dispute.
June 20, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have him confused with Robert Byrd.
June 20, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, who touched off the brouhaha by delivering a keynote speech at the CCC's national convention in June 1998, said he had "no idea" what the organization stood for.
June 20, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hang him and the rest of the racists that ever attened their funtions!
"Former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt also attended event of the organization's St. Louis predecessor the "Metro-South Citizens Council" shortly before the name change in the mid-1980s an event he has repeatedly referred to as a mistake." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens
June 20, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
There wouldn't be much left of the Republican party, then.
June 20, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This gives me an iota of faith in my fellow Georgians. I'll consider an extra iota if they can do the right thing in the General Election - even if Bob Barr helps them.
One thing: Georgia isn't traditionally "Democrat" in the modern sense. It's more Dixiecrat - unreconstructed idiots.
June 20, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
...so just because someone doesn't have the same political leanings as you they are an "unreconstructed idiot?"
June 20, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this .pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf
It has a very pretty map showing the percentage of AA population as well as charts.
I think NC, GA and MS may well me in play for Obama. Just as his people figured out the quirky caucus system months before and caught Penn & Hiller offguard, I think they figured this out a long time ago too. In fact, there's a quote from Obama from mid 2007 that's telling where he hints at it.
You just get a bunch of well-trained staffers and volunteers and send them door to door in areas of concentrated AA population and voilà - new Obama voters as fast as you can sign 'em up.
I wonder if McCain even sees this coming yet.
June 20, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk of racial make up of the electorate has brought up a question in my mind...If a white guy doesn't vote for Obama simply because he's black, that's a racist. If a black guy votes for him simply because he's black, is he?
June 20, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whites aren't traditionally held to prejudiced preconceptions. It's a question of starting positions.
Thought experiment:
Imagine I show you a video of a large man punching a small child.
Next I show you another video. A small child throwing a large man with Judo or somesuch.
Clearly the first you would cringe at, and the second you might cheer at or at least be willing to learn more context information. The perception of who already holds the power before a conflict alters your view of the conflict.
June 20, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats a grossly simplified comparison. First of all a person not voting for Obama because he is black is not the same as a person voting for Obama because he is black. The point is that race should not be a disqualifier. The voter who won't vote for Obama simply because he is black, is by definition racist. On the other hand, blacks, who are still effected by hundreds of years of marginalization in this country, voting for Obama because he is black is completely understandable.
June 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean ... I think I speak for most of the people posting here when I say don't even think about Obama being black except when I worry about racist morons in Appalachia voting against him, but to African-Americans who have lived their whole lives in segrated parts of the deep south, it's a mind-boggling moment that they never dreamed they'd live to see. I bet a lot of blacks didn't bother to register for the primaries because they couldn't believe Obama would ever beat Clinton. But now it's down to Obama and McCain and Obama is even slightly ahead. It's real now and there's just no way you don't register and vote. Hell, even Colin Powell is talking about voting for Obama. Without being black - I don't think it's even possible to get your head around what this means.
I think we're going to see a turnout that dwarfs what we saw in the primarie and I think it's going to be extremely easy for the well-trained Obama machine to get out the vote and I think they've been figuring out exactly how to do it for a very long time.
June 20, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
When will "wide playing field" become "wipeout", "emerging electoral landslide"?
June 20, 2008 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 4
June 20, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think the black vote had alot to do with the supers siding with obama. if they chose clinton, they risked alienating the loyal and quasi total support. if they backed obama they signed that support on for another generation and increased it's strength.
June 20, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, McCain is going to have to spend all of his money defending places like Georgia and Texas, while Obama is turning places that haven't voted for a Democrat in 40 years blue.
June 20, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Timba: "I think I speak for most of the people posting here when I say don't even think about Obama being black except when I worry about racist[s] in Appalachia voting against him,"
You indeed do speak for me in saying that.
Timba: "but to African-Americans who have lived their whole lives in segregated parts of the deep south, it's a mind-boggling moment that they never dreamed they'd live to see. [...] It's real now and there's just no way you don't register and vote."
African Americans have long been relied on not to really turn out on election day. It is a long history, and the trend is voter turnout about 10%-20% lower than white turnout, maybe lower. See, http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2007/07/closing_black_voter_gap_dems_o.php
Jesse Jackson is said to have increased the turnout in 1984 (and in targeted operations since, reportedly), though I don't know by how much. Black voters have a real chance here -- we'll see in November.
June 20, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post Eric - long campaign season and we need the good news as well as the bad. Appreciate you.
June 20, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who lives in Georgia (but is not from here) and doesn't get to say this very often....
GO GEORGIA!!!!!!
June 20, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got to say it during the College World Series! (if you were watching).
June 20, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really....I'm a Tech graduate.
June 20, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check, that explains why you never say "Go Georgia!"
June 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose this explains why Nunn keeps getting mentioned for veep.
June 20, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Sam's only a year younger than McCain, I don't think he'll be the pick.
June 20, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither do I. The name keeps popping up, though.
June 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Nunn's mummified boringness would suck some of Obama's charisma off the ticket. He'd be a bad choice, though he would shore up the defense flank.
June 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Nunn's mummified boringness would suck some of Obama's charisma off the ticket. He'd be a bad choice, though he would shore up the defense flank.
June 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from (as in 'ex-') Georgia, with almost all of my time in Chatham and Fulton counties.
You forgot to emphasize "few".
June 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink