« Yet Another Dem-Aligned Outside Group Closes Up Shop | Home | Rendell On Bill Clinton's Alleged Hard Feelings Towards Obama: "Get Over It," "Shake It Off" »
Polls: Obama Ahead In Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota And Wisconsin
Barack Obama is well-positioned to win a set of key swing states, a new round of Quinnipiac polls suggests -- and some of these aren't even close. The numbers:
Colorado
Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 44%
Margin of error: ±2.7%.Michigan
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 42%
Margin of error: ±2.6%.Minnesota
Obama (D) 54%, McCain (R) 37%
Margin of error: ±2.5%.Wisconsin
Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 39%
Margin of error: ±2.5%.
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin all voted narrowly for John Kerry and Al Gore, while Colorado gave its nine electoral votes to George W. Bush twice. So it's definitely a good sign for Obama that he's way ahead in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and has decent-sized leads in both Colorado and Michigan.
Advertisement
These are solid Obama states and I see very little chance that McCain recovers. Throw in the Kerry 2004 states and Ioawa and it;s all over....
And he;s also going to win NM, OH, VA as well.
I am thinking 350 to 375 electoral votes for Obama.
June 26, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite. Kerry collected 252 EV. Adding in CO and IA gets him only to 268. He needs at least one more state.
June 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Colley's meta-poll has Obama currently leading McCain 355 to 183 EV.
For some caveats and a short explanation of his method, check out this post.
June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to RealClearPolitics, Bush was up by a sliver in Wisconsin at this point in 2004, SUSA had Kerry up by 11 in Michigan, Kerry up by 4 in Minnesota, and Mason-Dixon had Bush up by 5 in Colorado....
I admit it. I'm addicted to polls.
June 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
First step on the road to recovery.
June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
How Obama does in Michigan will depend in large part on turnout in Detroit.
June 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just goes to show how riveted the American people are by the FISA bill debate.
June 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting read on FISA:
Sound and Fury About FISA is misplaced.
For what it's worth.
Short version: FISA isn't the issue. Fourth Amendment is already shredded, whether this bill passes or not. The real issue is the USAP.
June 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link - another appellate criminal defense lawyer agrees with me about all this.
June 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a very informative piece, and made me appreciate that the problem isn't with immunity, or FISA, but the abomination known as the Patriot Act.
It also makes everyone keening over how Obama has betrayed us look a bit worked up over not very much.
Flame away, people!
June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but some of us were right in there writing and calling about the Patriot Act before this. We just keep giving ground in one direction over and over. And sure the next one will be it doesn't matter because FISA already... This isn't a slippery slope anymore, it's a jump off the cliff.
June 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We just keep giving ground in one direction over and over
I agree
June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I was pointing out the hooting and hollering from the Left about Obama's position on the FISA bill is overblown.
Thanks for the link.
June 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those things are already the law the whole point about the new FISA law is that we are trying to to prevent things from getting worse. Letting things get worse because they are already bad is no solution to anything.
June 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good point. I care terribly about FISA and so do most of the rest of us on this blog, but we are the exception, not the rule. I have canvassed a lot of neighborhoods in Metro St Louis, both in the city and the suburbs - no one has mentioned FISA to me. I have not read any letters to the editor about Obama's FISA stance in our local papers. I have not heard anyone call into any of local talk radio programs to talk about Obama's FISA stance. It just is not an issue.
With that in mind, it is hard to know why he is taking this stance. It would not cost him any votes to oppose the FISA renewal. The idea that to vote for it will spare him the television commercials claiming that he is soft on terror is nonsense. He voted against the last FISA renewal bill in the Senate, so the Republicans already have a vote which they can run in commercials if they wanted. He has nothing to gain from taking this stance, which makes the betrayl of his supporter base all the more painful.
That said, those concern trolls suggesting that Obama has just doomed our democratic chances are off their meds. You will be able to count on your fingers the number of real live voters who will actually vote differently on account of Obama's stance on this issue. Not one electoral vote will be lost because of this. This just is not a pressing enough issue to enough voters to matter to outcome of the election.
June 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go read the piece that I linked to. Maybe that's why he took the stance that he did.
Doesn't make it any easier to take, of course.
June 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very informative read.
June 26, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very informative read.
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone makes a post about how the original FISA legislation was flawed, and no great protection, so that makes FISA's "Update" being flawed all the better, and no big deal, whew I don't have to care? The Patriot Act is worse, so whatever, I don't have to care about this one.
-I don't get it.
Admit it, you guys are just looking for any reason to ignore the implications of the "new" Obama, who puts the "security" of the people over sound legislation and the constitution. Now the family link to Cheny makes more sense.
That post is a good argument against all what is wrong, and then says that the FISA fight isn't worth it. I disagree. Her update to that post:
I'm less concerned about whether we agree on the specific FISA bill pending - I think it's trivia regardless - than that we all come to understand how tenuous our Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights are since USAPA. This is a small part of a huge and very dangerous problem, and it should rightly be the critical issue in the 2008 election. Because there is nothing more sacred, more fundamental, than our Constitution. Without that, we cease to be who we are.
I think her picking and choosing which parts of the 4th to fight for is trivial.
I can't imagine any lawyer, worth a damn, saying it is appropriate for Congress to pass a law granting retro-immunity, when there has been no trial, and how inappropriate for the Congress to pretend to be the judicial branch.
The whole deal stinks to high heaven. retro-immunity. yeah, that's available to the average citizen.
AS I've stated before, it ain't a deal breaker for me, but I'm not gonna pretend that it isn't a big deal, whether the average joe cares or not. Whether the election hangs in the balance or not.
June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not looking to ignore anything. I found the post interesting because I didn't understand the implications of the Patriot Act.
I want a Democrat in the White House. The Supreme Court is, at this point, more important than FISA and the Patriot Act, both of which, I believe, could be changed.
You can't so easily change the Supreme Court.
Call me a "traitor" for having this opinion, and call me ignorant for not getting just how bad FISA is, if you must, but what I consider the highest priority is getting a Democrat in the White House because of the Supreme Court.
June 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call you a traitor, I was defending myself against your "flame away" comment, and other comments like it.
In the words of Barak Obama, but Obama in the Primaries, so I guess it doesn't count:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "flame away" part was teasing. Really. I expected to get criticized, and I'm fine with that.
June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in this you are definitely right. I am disappointed in Obama's FISA stance, but I am getting over it as I realize that what was true last week is still true this week - the country will be much worse off with McCain at the helm than with Obama. Perhaps it will not be as much better with Obama as I had once hoped, but that does not change the fact that it will be better with Obama.
June 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree
but the more I hear about how the democratic party really doesn't like or need it's activist, liberal, progressive base, the more I think I'm really just being used. Love people like me in the primary, but when it comes to the general, distance yourself.
I guess they are lucky there's a republican party, and not some real alternative.
June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are being used, but usually they aren't quite so over confident that they make it so clear so early.
I just heard the SC has reinforced 2nd amendment again. I guess that's what you get when your activist base has an influence on the party in power.
Can't you just see the Republicans telling their people that 2nd amendment rights are irrelevant and it's time to move the party to the center? Can't hear it??
June 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two brief responses:
1) I had read the piece. I agree with HyperRevue that it is an informative piece, but if it is meant to "soften the blow," as it were, I find it an unpersuasive argument. To say that there is already a larger assault to the IV amendment on the books is a strong argument for tackling that assault but a poor argument for making another, smaller assault.
2) The author's conclusion here hinges on a sort of "trust me" approach to Obama. Obama, we are given to understand, is really against the abuses of the Patriot Act and just needs to get into office in order to undo the rot. Great; from his lips to God's own ears. That said, I think that you can appreciate that after 8 years of living under Bush, calls to trust a would-be president will meet with a certain instinctive skepticism, even when these calls come from a democrat.
More to the point, even if we go out on a limb and accept this "trust me" approach, the argument still strikes me as somewhat implausible because it is premised on the idea that supporting FISA is something that Obama "needs" to do in order to get elected and begin repairing the rot wrought by the USAPA. I am still, however, unconvinced that Obama faces any likely electoral penalty for opposing the FISA "compromise." As I already noted, he voted against the last Senate FISA bill earlier this year, so if the GOP wants to cut an ad saying that Obama opposes giving American intelligence agencies the tools necessary to keep us safe, they already have the congressional vote in the record to make that charge. Meanwhile, there are no polls to suggest that warrantless wiretapping or retroactive telecom immunity are wildly popular measures, so it is hard to see why we are supposed to believe that this is something that he needs to do in order to get elected. The argument rings rather hollow.
June 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make an excellent argument about the "Trust me" approach we've been held hostage to for the last 7+ years.
A second negative vote would result in "Obama voted multiple times to handicap our intelligence agencies from keeping us safe."
That can't be said right now.
Well, no, if you phrase it as "warrantless wiretapping" and "retroactive telecom immunity". But my bet is that most Americans would have no problem with "warrantless wiretapping", misguided as this might be, because most Americans would say "what's the big deal? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of...." I think a misleading and very damaging ad could be made exploiting this belief.
June 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard a judge argue against that point on C-SPAN. He said it isn't that you have something to hide. It's that you have something to keep, your freedom.
Americans have been made to understand this about the 2nd amendment. It's as if we have this logical hole where people believe the government has the right to break into your house and take everything in it (including you) as long as they leave your gun behind.
June 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! That's a great description.
And your earlier comment about the right tracking to the left, and the NRA allowing them to do so was excellent as well.
Progressives, as of now, do not have the same heft as the NRA and evangelicals. Wonder why that continues to be the case?
June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a bit of a defensive move by Obama on FISA....and that's unsettling. But the more shrill the far left and the "netroots" sound over this, the more Obama will be forced to tack away from them to win the election in November.
These polls show that Obama's message is resonating in middle America, and that's a very good thing.
June 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, no argument there (at least not from me).
June 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me it's sort of a sistah soldier moment as was his view that he disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision that rapists of children cannot be executed.
June 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's his throw the left under the bus moment. You have to hand it to the guy though, he's pretty effectively closing down the messengers on the left like moveon. It's a wonder.
June 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still early, but I like the trend.
June 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. One does not want to appear too giddy, but the trends are looking very good.
June 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama will get a post convention bounce in CO, and McCain will get one in MN. That is why it is important for Obama to open a 7+ point lead in MN before the democratic convention in September.
June 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even with Pawlenty on the ticket and the GOP Convention there McCain has very little chance at MN.
June 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The jokes about the airport bathrooms will probably deflate any bounce McCain might have achieved.
The double entendres are almost impossible to avoid.
June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has Michigan. I worried that too many would be snookered by McCain's maverickishness (like truthiness, but covered in leather and BBQ sauce), and there'd be damage from the primary fracas.
I ran into an Obama worker from Chicago here in southwest Michigan. She was a walking zombie because of lack of sleep. Had been registering voters at a big music festival (I think she said her people got almost 500), organizing meetings, organizing period. People like her are going to win this thing.
I suspect that the Republicans of Portage and Holland and Grand Rapids will put out plenty of McCain signs. But the signs won't work.
June 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
How Obama does in Michigan will depend in large part on turnout in everywhere but Grand Rapids, maybe parts of the SW around Kalamazoo and Detroit suburbs like Grosse Point. Otherwise the state is ours.
June 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I would not be surprised if Obama does much better than your average democrat in western MI. McCain is not an evangelical Protestant voter's ideal candidate. Meanwhile, Rick Warren and other influential evangelical leaders have taken something of a shine to Obama. A strong showing for Obama in pinky finger area of the mitten could be one of the big surprise stories of this year's election.
June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
since mccain praised nafta in canada i wont be surprised if mi,oh and pa numbers go higher.....
June 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Poll: Obama Leads in Four Key Swing States"
Query for Headline Writer: Which "Swing States" are not "Key"?
Just saying . . .
June 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Nobama? This is a perfect opportunity for her to explain how we "Obama cultists" are "living in delusionville" because we predicted a post-primary bounce.
June 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
These have always been Obama favorable states- by always I mean ever since he won the primaries by big margins in three of them and MI always seemed Obama strong-hold once the delegate mess was settled.
June 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink