Obama Has Narrow Lead In Today's Tracking Polls
Here's a wrap-up of the four major national tracking polls for today, with Barack Obama in a narrow lead over John McCain:
• Gallup: Tied Obama 46%, McCain 46%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 47%-44% Obama lead yesterday.
• Rasmussen: Obama 49%, McCain 46%, with a ±2% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 49%-47%.
• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 47%, McCain 43%, with a ±3.2% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 48%-42%.
• Research 2000: Obama 49%, McCain 43%, with a ±3% margin of error. Yesterday, Obama was up 48%-44%.
Adding these polls together and weighting them by sample sizes, Obama is ahead by a margin of 47.7%-45.3%, down just slightly from his lead yesterday of 48.0%-44.9%.
One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of the polling here was conducted before John McCain called for suspending the campaign and postponing Friday's debate. It'll be another day or two before we get any meaningful numbers that reflect the reactions to that event. And by that time, we'll be waiting on yet more polls to tell us about the impact of the presidential debate and the financial bailout negotiations.
For their part, Gallup's analysis said the polling on Wednesday night did not show a significant difference.
Off topic: I'm doing a rundown of some of Obama's best surrogates, both official and unofficial - anyone have any names to add?
September 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry. Best part of the convention.
September 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
co-sign.
His speech had me in tears for real. What an opportunity we missed there.
September 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"John McCain should finish the debate with John McCain"
what could've been.
September 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely.
September 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin and John McCain
September 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL That was good.
September 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claire McCaskill. But her convention speech wasn't good. Still, she's has been good surrogate on the sunday shows.
September 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great one. How do you guys feel about Debbie wasserman-schultz?
September 25, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely hated her during the primary (as most here probably did), but I think she doing great!
September 25, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree (except for hated, more like truly disliked). However she has become one of O's best surrogates and was more than a team player during the convention. I love her now.
September 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claire McCaskill has been the best Obama surrogate by far. You just know she's counting on him for a cabinet position if she loses her re-election bid in 12.
Also, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has transitioned nicely into an Obama supporter. Can't say the same for Bubba.
September 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney Smith.
September 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney Smith before Smith Barney!
September 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Susan Rice and Claire McCaskill(sp) are at the top of the list.
September 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to cast a vote for worst surrogate - Bill Clinton. I love the guy and think he's a fantastic politician, which is why I want him out there on a trail. But this senior stateman act is getting tired. He said he'd do anything they asked of him. My assumption is that they asked. Well, let's get to it. Hillary - who is a good surrogate but not the best - is far ahead of her husband in the "surrogacy" category this election.
September 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill's not a surrogate for anyone without the last name Clinton
September 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Bill seems to be going out of his way to say nice things about McCain and even Palin while going out of his way to avoid saying anything good about Barack.
Bill is still smarting from the ass-whupping Barack gave Team Clinton, and he won't be getting over it any time soon.
Go to Africa, Bill. Send us a post card.
September 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wish I could remember his name but Obama's economic advisor Goosebury? Gooseman? is pretty darn saavy.
September 25, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goolsbee.
September 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's him! Thanks!
September 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tell me that everyone's forgotten Brian Schweitzer from Montana! He's amazing.
September 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta include Hillary "I am not a talking point" Rosen. Loved her PUMA busting!
September 25, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I feel puzzled that the lead is not bigger than it is, I try to remember that Alan Keyes garnered 27% of the Illinois vote with this performance. It helps to put things in perspective. Also, there is the matter of 17% of the population thinking the country is currently on the right track.
September 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is also the enormous matter of 12,000,000 new Democratic voters and a corresponding loss of registered GOP voters -over 600,000 that they will admit to.
The polls are bogus.
September 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question regarding this polling that I can't seemed to get an answer anywhere. These are polling by phone I imagine, do they or are they allowed to call cell phones or people with no landline? Are younger people involved in these surveys? I would surmise that most people with no landline and cell phone only would lean Obama, and younger people also leaning toward Obama. Am I correct in that assumption?
September 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pollster.com had a discussion about that, as did Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.
Gallup says they're calling both land lines and cell phones. Rasmussen? Who knows.
In any event, if cell phone users were included, the estimate of their effect would be a couple of percentage points in favor of Obama. Not a huge effect.
September 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree with the end of your post. The average is 2-3 percentage points. In an election of 130 million people 2-3 percentage points is ENORMOUS. Nate has said O would goo from 300 electoral votes to 330 because of it. It IS a significant difference.
September 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One analysis has it that a 5 point difference between candidates according to polls translates to a win in the electoral college for whoever is on top.
September 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
AP had an article about this today:
September 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polling is an inexact non-science, to say the least. Only about 28% of the original pre-determined sampling actually ends up being sampled - not available, get lost, refuse to participate are some of the answers given pollsters.
So what criteria are used to make up the remaining 72% of people finally polled? It's a crap-shoot and polling results should therefore be treated like crap-shoots. I have noticed that Gallup's numbers consistently lean Republican... if further proof is needed that questions asked, people asked reveal anything but what the pollster sets them up to reveal.
September 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just heard yesterday that voter registration in my county is up 70%.
September 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow
September 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is baffling that Obama's lead isn't bigger. This country is full people who are totally crazy, or just wholly divorced from reality.
September 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or just plain ignorant/uninformed.
September 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a Winner!
September 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever my mind wanders to that, I think about how it's a wonder Obama is even where he is.
->He's a junior Senator from IL named Barack Hussein Obama, and he's black.
->His father was a Muslim from Africa.
->He fought the Clinton political machine... and won.
->He's currently fighting the Republican smear machine... and winning.
->He has been able to weather questions about his inexperience, and successfully shift the narrative of the campaign from one of experience to one of change, which was precisely what he originally ran on.
->He's running against a man who has for years been portrayed as a maverick war hero, and had garnered support across the political spectrum, from Democrat to Republican to Independent. And... he's winning.
In my opinion, in the United States, with our history of racism, of bigotry, and of utter idiocy, it is amazing that Obama is even where he is, let alone WINNING the race. We should not be questioning why he's not doing better. We should be reveling that he's doing as well as he is.
September 25, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
September 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for putting this down -- it drives me nuts when I hear dismay at Obama's not being more ahead, when he would have had a fire hose turned on him 45 years ago if he'd even attempted to run. I think if you are not a minority, you truly cannot fathom what it is still like to be one in this country. Add to that the shadow campaigns and push polls still linking him to fundamental Islamic groups.
September 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is not that Obama's campaign needs to do a better job, it's that our country is really fucked up if his lead is so small despite everything that's happened so far and the composition of the two campaigns. In fact, I think his campaign has been run brilliantly. If anything, that seems to support the claims you guys are making.
September 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your're right. But, baby, I'm gonna revel a whole helluva lot harder after he's elected.
September 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So will I. But right now, I see no reason why that won't happen.
September 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
September 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. If you don't mind, I'm going to save this for future use (crediting you of course).
September 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine with me, haha.
September 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
September 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Work harder,
2. donate more (time and $)
3. Repeat
or
hope other people do it for you
September 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls moving by tiny amounts in both directions within the margin of error suggests no real change.
September 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, along with some other people, keep saying the same... Eric is just stubborn :p
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not stubbornness. It's intentional.
September 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fucking give up. The single worst trait liberals have in general is this damned elitism that causes them to believe that the country is stupid.
It's fucking demeaning to the people you live with. No, the country isn't stupid. Look at Bush's approvals.
jesus christ on cod cakes!
September 25, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign (except for the cod-cakes).
September 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elitist!
September 25, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean really! What you got against cod cakes?
September 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codcakes may be good for a kitty like you. Just not for human consumption.
September 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it's elitist to think so, and yes it doesn't serve the liberal cause well, but that doesn't mean that a big chunk of the populace isn't too stupid for self-government in a complex time.
You don't think the almost immediate, uncritical enthusiasm for Sarah Palin shows that there are a disturbingly massive number of people who, if not stupid, aren't exactly leading with their brains?
You don't think the historical effectiveness of negative ads shows that a large number of people are at least too suggestible?
September 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Too stupid for self-governance?"
Fuck you and your dictatorships, buddy. Just fuck that right now - this is a Democratic Republic and you fuck right off.
September 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for insulting me rather than addressing my points.
C'mon, I'm a Democrat, I just think the question of public stupidity is not exactly an open-and-shut case.
September 25, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIght - which would logicallly lead to this: that means that some people in the country shouldn't be allowed to vote. I know - let's go back to literacy exams and poll taxes.
You don't know shit about democracy, obviously.
September 25, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that civil discussion is a pretty important part of a healthy democracy, and it doesn't seem like you're capable of it.
Listen, I'm just making an argument -- I'm not interested in taking away anybody's right to vote. I hate unthinking, hysterical sentimentalism when it's at the expense of the truth or any kind of civil, rational discussion.
As for the "persuasion" argument for why negative ads work -- I tend to think it underestimates some of the darker aspects of negative ads. What does that McCain ad that visually suggests Obama is some kind of sexual predator on Kindergartners have to do with persuasion?
September 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would help if you wouldn't lecture me. The way I talk is the way I talk - if you can't deal with the logical structure of my argument any other way then I win. And so far you haven't. You claim you don't want to take people's voting rights away but that they are simultaneously too stupid to govern themselves.
Ok, what your alternative?
September 25, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are not mutually exclusive thoughts or statements Tena. Take a deep breath and relax a little.
As Churchill famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
September 25, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let me just interject something that I have wanted to say for a long time - telling a woman to calm down, not get so emotional, relax, smile cause it looks better, is a bullshit argument coming from a man.
I'm not 4 years old. Do not tell me to calm down.
I made a rational fucking argument and asked for an alternative, so far I'm hearing bullshit back -
September 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shove the gender card bullshit Tena. I will tell you to calm down when you are sounding like an hysterical lunatic attacking others making valid points about the general ignorance and apathy of the electorate regardless of your gender. Just as I would tell a male to take a deep breath and calm down.
You are veering into making yourself look like an idiot attacking people who are your allies.
September 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
a smarter, more civil public culture:
more responsible and courageous media, better schools, more of a cultural taboo against being apathetic, disengaged, or ignorant.
none of that is easy to accomplish, obviously, but it sure beats pretending that our democracy doesn't have some major ills.
September 25, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
a smarter, more civil public culture:
more responsible and courageous media, better schools, more of a cultural taboo against being apathetic, disengaged, or ignorant.
none of that is easy to accomplish, obviously, but it sure beats pretending that our democracy doesn't have some major ills.
September 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
a smarter, more civil public culture:
more responsible and courageous media, better schools, more of a cultural taboo against being apathetic, disengaged, or ignorant.
none of that is easy to accomplish, obviously, but it sure beats pretending that our democracy doesn't have some major ills.
September 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I needed better schools obviously so I could have avoided triple-posting.
September 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can say that again... and again... and...
;-)
September 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I should have used the word "ignorant" instead of "stupid" all along. It may have avoided the ugliness.
I guess I think of "stupid" as a catch-all term, not necessarily referring to innate, inherited intelligence, if there is such a thing.
September 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm glad that you'll be voting democratic, reflexive profanity and hostility, as well as a dislike for rational discourse are not good qualities or anything you should be proud of.
September 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Negative ads work, not because people are stupid, but because people respond to them. Stupidity and lack of information aren't going to change those responses. It's an issue of persuasion, and negative ads can be more persuasive.
People are busy with their own lives. They don't see that they are meaningfully connected to the government. It's not stupidity.
September 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
wrong! this country IS full of idiots - see results in 2000 & 2004.
September 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I initially thought it was stupidity too. I've learned over the years that it isn't stupidity that runs amok in this country, it's ignorance. Why on earth would someone vote directly against their economic interest? Because they don't know the issues and where their candidate stands on them.
Many folks in this country were brought up Republican or Democrat. They don't bother looking at the issues and just hit the voting booths to vote for their party, totally oblivious to the candidate's stances on issues that directly affect them. That isn't stupid (although it could be argued as much) as it is ignorant.
I have a faith in that you can fix ignorant, you can't fix stupid.
September 25, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's ignorance mostly. If you don't know the actual facts you will be voting on hearsay, hearsay usually means you are getting some bad info.
September 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a thought - move.
September 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta disagree, Tena. Yes, Bush's approval rating blows ... but why is he even there to HAVE an approval rating? Al Gore ... John Kerry ... George W. Bush. Bush wins twice. I think we're safe calling half the country stupid beyond belief. I'm just praying we can cut that to 49 percent in five weeks.
September 25, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the debate will be happening tomorrow so all these polls won't matter.
What will be important is the debate tomorrow night and see if that effects the polls.
September 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
538 says debates dont move polls much (2004 where Bush dropped 2% support overnight and of course 1980 being the exception).
September 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get the feeling these debates will be more influential than most debates have been. So many people are going to be watching them. So many people have numerous questions about both candidates that they want answered, and the debates are a way for some of that to happen. I think these debates could, in essence, either shift the race back to a statistical tie, or push Obama into a healthy lead.
September 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially if McCain's left eye pops out of his head and reveals a rundown clockwork mechanism inside.
September 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I have to LOL here. ;-D
September 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah -
There was another exception - the first one: Kennedy vs Nixon. That debate is legendary. I know it's ancient history to some of you, but that debate is still talked about. Nixon sweated his balls off visibly during that debate. He had a constant sweat mustache. It was the most epic fail of all time during a debate, IMO.
September 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And many people agree that Kennedy won because he "understood" television--the new political communications medium of the day. Nixon eschewed wearing make-up for the cameras. Looked like a sweaty, pale ghost.
Today, it's apparent to me that Obama's campaign "understands" the Internet--the new political communications media of the day--far better than McCain does.
September 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it depends a lot on what you mean by "much." In a race as close as this, 2% is a big deal. Plus, this seems to be a pretty volatile campaign
September 25, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we forget that no one is calling someone's cell phone to poll them. but then again, maybe these polls need more cowbell!!!
September 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's being reported that an agreement has been reached wrt bailout plan, and McCain wasn't part of the process.
So yesterday, he offers this big dramatic gesture to "suspend" his campaign, rush back to WAshington, and hunker down until a deal is reached. Less than 24 hours after this big dramatic self-sacrificing country first gesture, a deal has been reached, and he had no part to play.
How's this going to play? I imagine something like this: WTF is McCain doing, anyway?
September 25, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyday he reminds me more and more of Lord Farquaad (Shrek).
September 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tucker Bounds: "Obviously, they knew the Maverick was coming to town and this fear alone motivated them to put together the deal."
September 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh "The Maverick". If they haven't done so already, they should be pitching this as a show to the majors a la "The Rifleman", but, you know, with politics. In many ways McCain's campaign seems to be like watching a really bad western where the "hero" has no self-awareness; where his "help" only exacerbates the situation.
September 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not an actual quote, right?
September 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me he did not say that.
Oh wait, wasn't this the same guy that happily repeated the "she can see Russia from her house" meme?
My shock nerve has been stomped flat.
September 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can be sure that if a deal IS reached today or tomorrow, the Repukes will circle the wagons to heap all sorts of undeserved praise and credit on McShame for "making the deal happen."
September 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think McLame is showing his age in a big way, CT. I think McLame is trying really hard to look all Mavericky and because he's, well, old, he is over doing it because if you haven't noticed, the elderly don't tend to underdo much of anything. You lose your sense of proportion as you age -
September 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
bbc reporting bailout deal is done!
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it looks there is a deal in place. Does that mean that McCain can un-suspend, his not suspended campaign?
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the umpteenth time, the daily Gallup poll doesn't mean anything. Why not hourly polls? Why not every 60 seconds? It doesn't reflect anything but the sampling they happened to pick on that day. If it's a few opints up or down day-to-day it has no meaning. Besides which, it's not a national election, it's 50 elections for electoral votes.
If, as the current polls show, Obama has the states Kerry won plus NM, CO & IA - then he's got the 270 electoral votes to win. Even without FL or OH.
Which may be why McCain pulled his big stunt yesterday.
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's an average of the last three days, which is a little better. But I agree with your sentiment.
September 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I think a different person added up the same fucking numbers from the day before and got a slightly different result and that's what they post.
I really think the polls are worthless in this particular election - there are too many newly registered voters to get any kind of sample that is representative of anything at all.
These are 2004 polls.
September 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legislators on both sides are announcing that agreement has been reached on the bailout plan.
The big question is how were they possibly able to do so without McCain there?
September 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
and why does bush need obama?
September 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'm with you. My first thought yesterday was: they're sandbagging Obama here -
I wonder now if this whole stunt was just a way to try to throw Obama off before the debate? Surely not - surely...
September 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans pulling dirty stunts to kneecap their opponents? Why surely you can't be serious, Tena!
September 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry. Unlike a certain presidential candidate, Obama can deal with more than one thing at a time.
September 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone tell McDuck that he can pull his head out of the ground now. It's over.
September 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain's suspension announcement must have pushed them to get it done.
And yes, that's snark.
September 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it gave everyone the sense of urgency they were obviously lacking.
Also snark.
September 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only it was. I just saw a GOP guy tell Andrea Mitchell just that.
He said yesterday all reports were that the deal was stalling, then McCain made his announcement and now we have a deal in principle.
She pushed back saying that the only people who were saying that a deal was stalling was the McCain camp while all their reports from those involved said progress was being made.
The guy didn't waver.
He was actually crediting McCain's announcement with the deal.
September 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deal was stalling last night, and I ate some chicken soup, and now we have a deal. Bring me chicken soup and all your problems will be solved.
September 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems the GOP leadership is saying there is no consensus yet, and it seems they are waiting until after the photo op at the white house to say there is consensus. Doing what they can to help McCain claim victory.
September 25, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone got details on the agreement yet?
September 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
yup, its all what obama wanted and alaska gets some bridge, not to sure what that means
September 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever these public polls are showing, this stunt by McCain is clear evidence that his internal polling is showing him in big trouble. I mean, if you have Ras showing Obama up 2 in NC, what are McCain's internals showing for that state...or VA....or FL...or CO...or MI.
Question for y'all about Gallup. I think I know the answer but I wanted to check. They don't weight by party, correct? They simply take what they get each night, regardless of party ID, and give the three-day rolling average. That has to be the case because Ras, which has for weeks been decreasing the party ID gap (probably correctly - these gaps always close the closer you get to an election), has shown Obama gaining each of the last two days. And he does weight for party ID.
September 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but has anyone started running a clock from the last time Sarah Palin had an open press conference? Has she actually had one since becoming the VP nominee?
Geez, even Katy Holmes isn't this sheltered from the press. I wonder, if and when Palin finally meets the press, will the RNC send a minder with her?
September 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
she's never held a press conference. Ever.
She's had three interviews with network anchors (and that blob, Hannity). She was actually asked questions today (See The Page for details). Asked about Iraq and Afganistan, here is part of her answer:
Get that? "We can never again let them onto our soil".
You can understand why the McCain campaign is desperately trying to figure out a way to avoid next week's Veep debate. What a farce.
September 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can understand why the McCain campaign is desperately trying to figure out a way to avoid next week's Veep debate. What a farce.
Considering that McCain has already cancelled part of the Republican Convention due to a hurricane in the Gulf, and "suspended" his campaign and bailed out of the debate due to an on-going financial downturn, it makes you wonder what excuse they'll use next. Wildfires in California? The resignation of South Africa's president? The weather forecast calls for rain? Heavy traffic on the Beltway?
September 25, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to cancel the VP debate and all remaining Presidential debates due to large fiery orb appearing in sky on cloudless day.
September 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's "them"? Terrists? Muslims? Afghanis? Iraqis? C'mon Sarah, inquiring minds want to know...
September 25, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more you see of Miss Sarah, the more you begin to understand why McLame has kept her under wraps and why he wants the election cancelled.
He knows - he looks like the world's biggest fool every time she opens her mouth.
September 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin on Russia. Must see TV:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n
September 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
KInd of off topic, but in McCain announcement yesterday, didn't you notice that his left eye was smaller than his right eye, like he had diminished control of his eyelid? I thought it was just me, but then a commenter in an article of W.Post noticed the same.
September 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that, too. It's pretty jarring.
September 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What scared me more was the knowledge that Palin is waiting in the wings....
September 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A drooping eyelid can also be the sign of a stroke. The Stroke Association advises using the "Face, Arm, Speech Test" (FAST) to help you recognize whether someone has had a stroke.
http://www.thirdage.com/long-life-tips/is-illness-staring-you-in-the-face
September 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that. It looked different and smaller.
September 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-bushs-kabuki-theatre-mccain.html
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Credit Where Credit Isn't Due: McCain and Bush's Kabuki Theatre
Now we know why McCain hired the Bush contingent.
It emerged in the White House briefing today that McCain called Bush and asked him to initiate a meeting today at 4 pm at the White House, putatively for him to "deal with" the crisis.
That is, McCain asked Bush to help him create an avoidant trifecta: To try ti\o lend some credence to McCain's desperate assertion that a suspension of his campaign is necessary, in effect avoiding a debate in which he would face critical questions about his stance on the economy; attempting to co opt the financial crisis thereby trying to put an end to his plummeting in the polls created by his flailing positions on the economy--perhaps best reflected by his statement days ago that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong"; and, while avoiding his own debate, also buying more time for Sarah Palin after her embarrassing photo op at the UN yesterday, by moving her debate forward as well.
Here's how it happened, according to Q and A at the WHB:
McCain emailed Bush asking for the 4 P.M. meeting. Now, one reasonably might ask, why is today such a necessity for McCain, if his interest is solely the national good?
Because it is before the debate. McCain hopes to stage a meeting at the White House, thereby, with Bush's cooperation, lending plausibility to his claim to need to suspend his campaign. Then, if Republicans, in their own electoral interest, can be persuaded to come to agreement, before the debate, he would claim--in an act of utter stage management--to have "resolved" the crisis. Thereby hoping to take the heat off on his past careening stances and sliding polls and staunch the bleeding on the polls--before the debate.
This is Kabuki Theatre masquerading as substance--no different than what we saw at the U.N. yesterday.
It is utterly stage managed, utterly cynical, and utterly unrelated to the substantive deliberation necessary to actually resolve these matters on the merits and for our nation's future, rather than for short-term and desperate political advantage.
These occurrences are equally important for what they indicate about McCain's governing style as they are for their impact upon democratic process: impulsive acts that rely on drama and theatrical posture rather than substantive reasoning and long-term deliberation; a strong willingness to sacrifice substantive reasoning, deliberative process, and even prior structures and agreements to immediate political need; an attempt to reach outcomes through last minute stage management rather than substantive argument.
These should create deep concern for anyone who wishes for a change in governmental process from the past eight years.
We have an economy, rather than a campaign, to rescue. Putting nation before politics means putting all attempts to resolve it before political attempts to co opt it--and to move towards one's commitments, rather than towards a more immediate and short-term salvation.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-bushs-kabuki-theatre-mccain.html
September 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you RobertHewson
September 25, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of words.
September 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ban Robert Hewson.
September 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy moley... Rassumusen has Obama up by 2 in North Carolina, a 5 point swing in 3 days.
September 25, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emphasis to Rasmussen. Their Republican lean is quite evident, especially these days. So, if they're showing Obama with a 2-point lead it wouldn't surprise me if his actual lead was 3 or 4 points.
September 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called not willing to vote for the black man. Sick and simple.
September 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Susan Eisenhower - Why I'm Backing Obama - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html
September 25, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Individual polls are next to worthless, minor day to day shifts in a given tracking poll are meaningless, but the direction of the polls in aggregate is indicative of the race as it stands. Obama has reverted to the slight lead he has maintained largely since June.
While Obama could still end up with a lopsided electoral vote, and even a 5 point+ margin in the popular vote by election day, I think the era of the 10 point margin of victory is over for now in presidential politics. At least 80% of the electorate is partisan enough to not vote for the other major party at the presidential level no matter what, and probably half the "undecideds" think it sounds better to say they "need to hear more from the candidates" than to admit they don't give a shit, and if they vote at all it will be based on personality not politics.
September 25, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the primaries (NH in particular), I have some doubts about polls. But, that aside, I think it unlikely that Obama wins. I hail from middle America (or true America, or racist/ignorant America, depending on your perspective). And the Muslim/racist stuff plays so well there. More of that will surface before the election. Couple that with Bradley problems as well as mass voter disenfranchisement, and I don't see how Obama wins.
I hope I'm wrong, but I really have no faith that the American people are going to stop screwing themselves anytime soon.
Then again, I was shocked by the victories in 2006, so hopefully I'm wrong.
September 25, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink