On the "intriguing and worrisome stat for Democrats" this cannot be serious. This is a new standard for what?

"says what voters want to hear" vs"says what he believes" is such a dumb way to phrase the question. I'm guessing there's something else pollsters were trying to glean from that other than the obvious. "speaks honestly" vs "speaks dishonestly" would be better, no?

This is unrelated but it's so funny and so dead on at the same time. Enjoy it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/6/173618/7788/717/563736

PD: Mark Halperin and Ben Smith, you suck!

Good night, strangers.

Whatev. National polls mean as much as the popular vote: broad trends, nothing more.

Broad trend: Obama is up around 5 pts, give or take, nationally. He holds all Kerry states, plus IA, NM, and NH. Only have to win OH, VI, or CO to seal the deal, and it sure looks like that is the case now.

Personally, I like the notes Ambinder had on this reference past Undecided voters from that June poll.. Looks like more are slipping Obama's way than not.

Now these trend lines to my right from Pollster seem imminently more important.

Have we seen the big attack yet? I cannot see how "world's biggest celebrity" is anywhere near the Swift Boaters. Obama is just too squeaky clean. I guess that's what relative inexperience gets you.

Man, if anyone questioned my military record, I'd be looking for scalps. That's what I could never understand about Kerry....

One more thing. Criticism of celebrity always seemed to be a thing I and my liberal friends were into. Is this, then, actually aimed as an attack at Obama's base? if so, this is a rather magnificent failure. My demo (young urban professionals) aren't the types to constantly dig into People, Nat'l Enquirer, etc.

Obama or his people need to hammer McCain on his descent from pseudo-maverick to Falwell supplicant and Bush rubber stamp. As Obama did in his town hall today. Just can't let guy get away for the casual observer of politics -- ie, most of the electorate -- thinking McCain is a Man of Principle.

Sorry about the cut and paste here, but I am wondering if anyone can confirm or deny the facts in the following. if this is true, the tinkering in this CBS poll actually suggests quite an impressive Obama showing. Anyone?

Guys, did you notice that this poll has less Democrats than the poll in June? In this poll democrats lost 3% party ID gap. Republicans moved up 1% and Democrats lost 2%. Another point, this poll has Hispanics at 4% which is not accurate since Hispanics were 8% of the voters in 2004, the double of this. Remember that Obama is the favorite of Hispanics. On the one hand, white are well represented compared with 2004; however, AA and Hispanics, especially Hispanics, are underestimated.

Furthermore, the 18-29 age group is 9% of this poll, when in 2004 they were 17% of voters. Remember that Obama is the favorite among this age group. However, those over the age of 45 are the 63% of this poll, when in 2004 they were 54% of the voters. Remember that the older the voter, the better McCain does.

Bottom line: This poll not only underestimates the groups that strongly support Barack, minorities and younger voters, compared with turnout in 2004, but it overestimate those groups that back McCain especially people over 45. I am not saying that young people will turnout in unprecedented numbers; however bringing the number down in half doesn’t seem right to me. No way AA and younger voters will turnout in smaller numbers this time than they did in 2004. If you have read my posts, you should know by now that I am not a big supporter of the theory of young people turning out in record numbers; however, I don't think they will turnout in smaller numbers for Obama than they did for Kerry in 2004.

Taking into account that the groups that strongly support Obama are underepresented and still he has a 5% edge, his numbers won't be worst on election day when turnout among Obama's strongest backers will at least be at the same level it was in 2004. Don't buy for a minute that Hispanic turnout will be 50% than it was in 2004. That's plain crazy. Actually, beware that Hispanics most probable will turnout in greater numbers than they did in 2004, make that 8% a 10%. Don't buy that youth turnout will be cut 50% than it was in 2004.

I too really only listen to Chuck Todd. The other pundits are squawking about why isn't Obama ahead by double digits. But Chuck Todd said that if Obama wins the election by 5% which is his average right now in the non-tracking polls, than it will be a LANDSLIDE on election day.

This is true because Obama just isn't going to win states such as Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, etc where in a general election poll those voters account for McCain's low 40%'s.

Chuck Todd said that Presidential elections are typically won by 1-2% ie just by one state (Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). Thus if Obama holds a lead of 5%, that's a landslide victory.

Obama does have a sincerity issue as he has begun triangulating since winning the primary. Reversing himself on telecom immunity and bad-mouthing MoveOn.org for an ad they ran 10 months ago cause my respect for his consistency of values to drop off significantly.

He's still got my vote, and there is no way I will vote for McCain. But if he backs down in a couple more areas I may consider Bob Barr or just not vote for Pres...

I think McCain is sincere. Sincerely wrong, my friends, but sincere.

Pollster: Do you think McCain sincerely believes the crap he's spouting?
Poll Respondent: Yes, I think McCain is dumb enough to believe that crap.

Pollster: Do you think McCain sincerely doesn't know the difference bewteen Sunni & Shia?
Respondent: Yes.