Battling for Michigan
July 20th, 2008 at 09:06pm Mark Noonan
The news story:
The presidential campaigns seemed like they were everywhere but Michigan a few months ago.
Democrats were avoiding the state, and the Republicans had come and gone. An early primary strategy adopted by leaders of both parties had backfired.
What a difference the passing of time makes.
Michigan television stations have aired at least $5.6 million in dueling TV ads in the last 2 1/2 months; the candidates, their wives and surrogates have the state on their itinerary for rallies, town halls and fund-raisers on an almost weekly basis; and the presumptive nominees are firing off waves of e-mail reactions every time Detroit’s automakers hiccup.
Michigan has morphed from political wilderness to campaign battleground central.
Need more proof? While Republican Sen. John McCain headed to Warren on Friday to talk to GM employees, the Democrats responded with no fewer than three countermoves: a letter from Sen. Barack Obama to UAW members, a news conference attacking McCain’s plan and an e-mail questioning the Republican’s record on incentives that might aid the industry.
“Michigan is going to be in play all the way, I think,” said Evan Tracey, the founder of Campaign Media Analysis Group, an Arlington, Va.-based company that tracks political advertising.
Charlie Cook, one of the most respected political analysts in Washington, has Michigan as a toss-up on his latest electoral college map; so does the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato and others.
Rasmussen shows Obama with a good lead in Michigan, but I’m with those who say that Michigan is a swing State…and, I’ll add, it is a State Obama cannot afford to lose. Without those 17 electoral votes, I believe that Obama’s challenge to getting 270 electoral votes becomes - not impossible - but very, very hard. There just aren’t that many Bush 2004 States which Obama really has a shot in…Colorado? Sure, it has 9 electoral votes. New Mexico? Yeah, Obama could win that, it has five electoral votes. See where I’m heading? Kerry got 252 electoral votes in 2004, 18 short of what he needed…Obama already has to take away Bush States in order to win. Lose Michigan and the need to increase by 18 becomes a need to increase by 35…even if McCain were to lose Ohio, Colorado and New Mexico, he’d still win it with an electoral vote to spare if he wins Michigan.
Will McCain win Michigan? I don’t know - we have to rate it a “leans Democrat” based on the fact that it hasn’t gone GOP at the Presidential level in 20 years…but the political gurus rate it a toss up, and that tells us something: forget any talk you might have heard of a coming Democratic blow out. If the GOP were about to get scorched, then McCain would be trying desperately to hold on to places like Georgia and Florida, not making a serious play for Michigan. Obama still has to be rated the favorite to win, but only because the GOP is still unpopular amongst the general voting population. If the GOP brand were just doing as usual in 2008, we’d probably have this thing close to sewed up. But, we’re not - so its off to the battle we go.
Since the start of this campaign season (ie, the day after the 2006 midterms) Democrats have consistently done everything they can to lose in 2008 - from refusing to end the corruption they allegedly ran against to being a defeatist on the war to being unable to pass any meaningful bills since they took over Congress, the Democrats have damaged their own brand…and then they went and nominated a good looking non-entity for President, who turns out to have a lot of skeletons in his closet. If we win this year, we GOPers will have to give a vote of thanks to the Democrats for helping us out along the way.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
30 Comments
1. Stretchrun | July 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Not sure this is a good bell weather. Obama has a sizable lead 47% to 38% and the lead appears to be widening. I think one of the more interesting battles is in Arizona, where the native son could soon find himself the underdog. McSame 43% Obama 40% Pollster.com
2. Casper | July 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mark,
Right now Virgina, North Carolina, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico are trending more towards Obama. Even North Dakota and Nevada are in play this year. If McCain loses all of those Michigan isn’t goiong to mean much.
3. Kahn | July 21st, 2008 at 12:02 am
those labor union guys, they know that the liberal elite HATES cars, right? Part of the algore plan to “save theplanet” is an end to gas powered vehicles (for the common people, not for algore personally).
DISTRICT conceded
4. Kahn | July 21st, 2008 at 12:03 am
Oh, that weird part of my last post was me typing my keywords in the wrong place. I’m tired…
5. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 12:12 am
Why you would single out MI when the polling there really isn’t that close? - Obama is up by an average of 8 points in MI (via realclearpolitics.com). It is doubtful, considering the dem ground game in MI, that McCain has a realistic opportunity there to close the gap. So why even mention it?
Well, here’s why: although McCain has only a very slim chance of winning MI, the state is pretty much a must win for the very slim overall chances McCain has in Nov.
See, it’s not just that Obama looks likely to pick off Colorado and NM. Sure, those are good pick-ups, worth 14 EV’s. But you conveniently fail to mention that most polls show Obama with leads in VA and OH, together worth 33 EV’s. Again, check out realclearpolitics, where the average of polls shows Obama up by 1 in VA, and up by 5 in OH. He is also ahead in NV and IN, two more solid Bush states, worth another 15 EV’s.
And while you wishfully ponder unrealistic possibilities to close an 8 point gap in MI, there are a slew of what were once solidly Republican states where Obama trails by much less than McCain’s deficit in MI. Missouri, NC, Montana, Florida, and ND are all former Bush states where Obama trails by 4 points or less. That is a gap that Obama’s ground game can definitely close - especially considering the enthusiasm advantage he enjoys over McCain, and the networking infrastructure he has in place in those states resulting from the long primary process (not to mention the $$ advantage). And depending on how well Bob Barr does, even Georgia’s 15 EV’s may be up for grabs.
To sum up, it doesn’t look realistic to think McCain could win MI - but even if he did, it is very likely that he would still lose the election. Much can happen of course between now and Nov - but as it stands now, if you’re looking to MI to save McCain, you’re really reaching.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
6. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 12:23 am
While we’re at it, anybody care to make some (worthless) predictions for November’s electoral vote tally?
Here’s mine: Obama 354, McCain 184
7. cam | July 21st, 2008 at 12:55 am
Kahn,
The problem is not cars but cars running on terrorist oil. Back in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s there was a great deal of screaming when states like California lead with new smog regulations. At one point you could buy a car for sale in CA or one for the rest of the country. Now all cars have the same smog reducing equipment that was once only available in CA all to the benefit of every breathing life. In addition CAFE standards in conjunction with these smog regulations required automakers to improve engine designs. And because America can regardless of the challenge, we are all better off.
So ultimately moving from transportation that runs almost exclusively on oil based fuels to alternatives will not mean the end of Detroit unless we as a country fail to take the lead. But what this will likely require is govenment involvement in a massive research and development effort. The problem is that the free market does not undertake these kinds of efforts well. We have seen the same pendulum swing from keen interest in alternatives back to a lack of interest as prices on oil drop and the incentive to change goes away. We are doomed to ride this manic deprsive’s pendulum until a govenment sponsored progam is started that continues forward with alternative research and development regardless of the price of oil.
8. Kurt | July 21st, 2008 at 1:22 am
Every election the Dems think they are going to pick off these red states and in the end they end up folding up shop a month before election day and move those resourses elsewhere.
Remember Kerry targeting Arkansas? How about Arizona? Colorado? Yes he did, and he lost them all. The Dems fall into this trap everytime. Obama will also end up pulling out of these states because they will be out of reach for him in October.
Also, if the primaries are any guide, we need to consider the “Bradley factor”. Look at the polling in many of the states in the primaries and you will see the Bradley factor has legs. Obama’s double didgit lead in NH? He lost. His 12% lead in California? Hillary beat him by 10%. His run at Hillary in NJ? He was crushed,NJ is pretty close between Obama and McCain, by the way. I know the Bradley factor is not a comfortable thing to talk about but as the primaries PROVED, it is real.
We also need to consider the fact that Obama’s money advantage did not help him in the swing states in the primaries. He outspent Hillary 4-1 in Ohio and got crushed. PA was the same. I firmly believe that Obama has a 47% ceiling and no money is going to buy him out of that. For all the talk about a Dem year, Obama is tied with McCain right now. He should be poling at least 55% right now. Another Dem would be.
It is getting closer to November, we shall see what happens.
9. Mark Noonan | July 21st, 2008 at 1:28 am
got,
You conveniently forget that only three polls have been done in VA, one of which was done by the Democrats, and the most recent poll shows McCain with a slight lead.
In Ohio you fail to mention that Obama’s lead has been slipping since mid-June and the most recent poll has him up by a mere 2 points, and if you were to kick out the oldest poll - done by the Democrats and which gave Obama an absurd 11 point lead - then they’d be tied in Ohio…given how weak the GOP brand is in Ohio, to be tied with McCain means that McCain has the advantage.
Then you also ignore New Jersey, where a recent Rasmussen poll had Obama up by 3 points in a State Kerry won by 7.
You also fail to mention Pennsylvania, where a recent Rasmussen poll had Obama up by only 4 points over McCain in a State which went very strongly Democratic in 2006.
You can call NV a strong Bush State if you like, but you’d also be ignoring that tiresome little things known as facts - Bush won the State by 2 points in 2004, and that works out to 21,000 more votes than Kerry…hardly a State solid for Bush. The most recent polling is split - with one poll showing a 2 point Obama lead, another showing a 2 point McCain lead.
In New Mexico, which Bush won by 6,000 votes in 2004, Obama had a 9 point lead at one point, but that has shrunk to 3.
Of course, you should also really pay attention to what I say - I note that Obama has a comfortable lead in recent Michigan polling…but I’m also the first to tell you that polling right now is the weakest reed to hang your hat on. Polling only really gets serious after Labor Day, and we only get a very solid indication starting about half way through October.
The plain fact of the matter is that the smartest observers out there rate Michigan a toss up…I do, too, but I don’t expect you to consider me one of the smart observers…and the fact that Obama will have to fight to retain Michigan, which Kerry won by 165,000 votes, shows that things aren’t as rosy as you might believe.
Of course, you just go on believing that you’re all set for a landslide victory…
10. Mark Noonan | July 21st, 2008 at 1:33 am
Kurt,
That is about it - at this point in Presidential elections, the Democrat usually crushes the GOPer in polling (in June of 1976 Carter opened up a 30 point lead over Ford…he won by less than a percentage point; in June of 1988 Dukakis opened up a 15 point lead over the elder Bush, he lost by 10 percentage points). Given al the adverse factors hammering the GOP in 2008, Obama should be cruising to an easy win…and in my view, if the Democrats had nominated anyone other than Obama or Hillary, we GOPers would be expending all our efforts to lower our House and Senate losses and work towards a rebuild with 2010 in mind…in other words, while Obama might win, the Democrats have conveniently gone and nominated one of the two Democratic contenders we can beat.
11. jayhay | July 21st, 2008 at 1:53 am
McCain will announce Romney as running mate this week to try to find some reason for the media to pay attention to him, other than to focus on his flip-flops on Afghanistan, his nonsensical economic fantasies (we’ll pay for domestic programs by winning the war!), his lack of foreign policy positions (Have you looked at his website? There IS no foreign policy section! Just Iraq…). Once the media gets over their love affair with the war hero and start digging in, it will be over.
This ship is sailing boys, and you’re all here in this echo chamber trying to decide what color to paint your dingy…
12. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Noonan -
“You conveniently forget that only three polls have been done in VA, one of which was done by the Democrats, and the most recent poll shows McCain with a slight lead”.
You’re disinformed, misinformed, or spreading disinforming misinformation. Only 3 polls done in VA? Maybe you think people won’t look that up? Per realclearpolitics.com (which is decidely Right wing) there have been over a dozen head-to-head polls done in VA between Obama and McCain, none of them “done by Democrats”. Here are the results of the last 7 since April, and the trend is definitely towards Obama:
Obama ran a strong primary campaign here, where McCain had already bothered since he’d already sewn up the Republican nomination. In a state that has been so reliably Republican, the fact that polls consistently show it so close has got to be a shocker for Repubs.
“Then you also ignore New Jersey, where a recent Rasmussen poll had Obama up by 3 points in a State Kerry won by 7.”
The average of polls at realclearpolitics has Obama up in the state by almost 9 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html In any case, it is well known that NJ ALWAYS polls stronger for the Republican, but on election day always ends up with the Democratic candidate winning easily. NJ polls in 2004 also showed Kerry up by a 2 or 3 point margin, and then he won comfortably. NJ is a reliably Democratic state, and will especially be so this cycle given the enormous unpopularity of Mr Bush and Republicans overall.
“You also fail to mention Pennsylvania, where a recent Rasmussen poll had Obama up by only 4 points over McCain in a State which went very strongly Democratic in 2006.”
There too, the polling average has Obama comfortably up by nearly 8. Like NJ, PA always seems to vote more strongly democratic than it polls. In a year that looks rough for being a Republican, something extraordinary would have to happen for McCain to have a realistic shot at PA.
Regarding NV and NM - yes, they were close in 2004, and look like they will be again (certainly much closer than PA, NJ, and MI will be - you’re really reaching on those). But Bush did in fact win them in 2004, so they represent very realistic pick-up opportunities for the Democratic candidate this time around. Conversely, there do not seem to be any states narrowly won by Kerry last time that look like they might be good pick-up opportunities for McCain this time. The fact that you’re pointing to MI, PA, and NJ as your best pick-up bets shows that you really don’t have any good opportunities.
“…but I’m also the first to tell you that polling right now is the weakest reed to hang your hat on. Polling only really gets serious after Labor Day, and we only get a very solid indication starting about half way through October.”
On that we agree.
“… and the fact that Obama will have to fight to retain Michigan, which Kerry won by 165,000 votes, shows that things aren’t as rosy as you might believe.”
The number of places McCain will have to fight to retain is far more extensive. To have a shot at Bush’s fairly narrow electoral win in 2004, he’ll have to play defense in all of the following states that Bush won: OH, VA, NC, GA, FL, MO, MT, ND, CO, NV, NM, and AK. Bush also won Iowa last cycle, and it appears McCain will not even be able to contest it this time around. That’s an astounding 13 Bush states where McCain is fighting for his life, currently polling behind in most of them. And even his home state of AZ seems in play - far more than MI is. Basically, McCain is having to play this game almost entirely on his side of the field.
13. jayhay | July 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
If Noonan wants to actually get serious about polling, this is the place - baseball statistician turning his skills on political polling.
14. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Kurt -
“Also, if the primaries are any guide, we need to consider the “Bradley factor”. Look at the polling in many of the states in the primaries and you will see the Bradley factor has legs. Obama’s double didgit lead in NH? He lost… I know the Bradley factor is not a comfortable thing to talk about but as the primaries PROVED, it is real.”
Actually, the primaries quite conclusively did not prove the Bradley factor. Quite the opposite in fact.
In almost every single state though the primary season, Obama either met or exceeded what he was polling on election eve. The notable exceptions are CA, where Zogby was the lone farcical outlier showing Obama substantially ahead there, and the Appalachian states.
Everywhere else, Obama met or exceeded his polling - often greatly. This was true even in very white states. You mention NH - although a late surge of undecided women gave the victory to Clinton after she was unfairly ridiculed for tearing up, Obama polled about 39% on election eve, and ended up with about 39% of the votes in the ballot box.
In most states, Obama handily exceeded what he was polling. Even in states where he lost, he got a higher pecentage of votes than he was polling. In NY, he won 8% more than he polled. In OK, 15% more. In NJ, 6% more.
Other states (all election eve averages via realclearpolitics.com):
- In Indiana, Obama was polling 42%, with a Clinton lead of 5%. He ended up getting 49.3% of the votes, and lost by only 1%.
- In Iowa, Obama polled 30% and held a 1% polling lead. He ended up with 38%, and won by a margin of 8.
- In Wisconsin, Obama polled 46%, and held a lead of 4.3 points. He ended up with 58%, and won by 17.4.
- In NC, Obama polled at 56% and held a 12 point lead. He got 57%, and won by 15.
- In SC, Obama polled 38%, and held a lead of 11. He got 55% and won by 29.
- In CT, Obama polled an average of 38% on election eve, and trailed Clinton by 4. He ended up getting 51%, and won by 3.
- In VA, Obama polled 55% and held a lead of 18 points. He got 64% and won by 28.
- In Missouri, Obama polled 42%, and trailed Clinton by 6. He got 49%, and won by 1.
- In Oregon, Obama polled 52%, and led by 12. He got 58% and won by 18.
I could go on. In state after state after state during the primaries, in all parts of the country, Obama pretty consistently met or did better than what he was polling. And again, these weren’t polls taken months out, or based on just one poll - these were polls on the eve of the election, and averaged over several polls (again, all via realclearpolitics.com).
So no, the Bradley factor was resoundingly NOT proved during the primaries.
Next?
15. Kurt | July 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Got,
Sorry kid but you ignored a few polls relating to the Bradley factor.
NH: Obama up 8.3%…lost by 3%
CA: Obama by 1.2% …lost by 10%
PA: Obama by 3%….lost by 9%
MA: Obama up by 2%…lost by 15%
It is true that Obama did outpreform the polls in some states where African -Americans make up almost half of the primary electorate. It is also true that he outpreformed the polls in states where the Dem electrorate is far more liberal than the electorate in general. The WI primary voters more resemble Nader voters that Typical Dem voters. But Obama’s problem is that elections are won in the center with independents and Obama isnt exactly winning independents over as the polls have proven.
So, study before you post. NEXT?
16. Kurt | July 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Another thing rerguarding the Real Clear Politics averages. Using the average is risky because 1 bad poll can throw the whole average for a loop. For example, remember the Newsweek poll that gave Obama a 15% lead? Is there anybody with a brain cell that now thinks that was true given the polls released afterward? Rasmussen and Gallup have the best national tracking polls. Though sometimes Rasmussen gets it wrong in state polls, they are a good place to start.
17. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Kurt -
First, I guess you didn’t actually read my post. I already talked about NH, where Obama got the same percentage of votes as he polled, even though Clinton ended up winning. I also said there were a few exceptions to the rule - most notably CA and Appalachian states (of which PA is one). But overall, in the vast majority of contests, Obama outperfomed his polling. The few number of exceptions only prove the rule.
You then go on to claim, “It is true that Obama did outpreform the polls in some states where African -Americans make up almost half of the primary electorate.” Actually, most of the states where Obama did significantly better than the polls were very white states. (And yes, he also outperformed his polling numbers in most southern states with high AA populations). So whether the state had high AA or low AA population, he almost always outperformed polling.
Then you go on to say “It is also true that he outpreformed the polls in states where the Dem electrorate is far more liberal than the electorate in general.” Uh, that’s not even remotely the case. First off, Obama overwhelmingly won most of the red states in the primaries, and in almost all of those he did much better at the ballot box than what his polling predicted. I already mentioned in my post that he strongly outperformed the polls in the states of Indiana, Virginia, and Missouri - states which can hardly be considered super liberal states. But he also did much better than polling in states like UT, OK, ID, WY, CO, NE, ND - all very conservative places. And in states that are moderately liberal compared to the rest of the democratic electorate (like say Maine, Oregon, or Minnesota) Obama also outperformed his polling averages.
Finally, you state, “Another thing rerguarding the Real Clear Politics averages. Using the average is risky because 1 bad poll can throw the whole average for a loop.”
That’s a pretty lame response from you (but then again, you didn’t have a leg to stand on anyway - so what are you going to do?).
Yes, of course there can be outliers - I already mentioned that the CA polling was screwed up by Zogby’s atrociously bad poll on election eve showing Obama way ahead there. But the fact that some polls might be way off is why you do averages of polls instead of looking at just one. And, more importantly, it is equally likely that a bad poll could affect the averages in the opposite way that would prove the Bradley effect rather than disprove it.
In any case, the Bradley factor states that on average, a black candidate will do better at polls than at the secrecy of the ballot box, because people supposedly don’t want to appear racially biased to a pollster. That simply was not born out by the primary results, as you mistakenly claimed.
It would be one thing if there were only one or two examples of Obama doing better than he polled - that could be explained away by something like you were saying regarding a single bad poll that might have skewed the averages. But Obama over and over again, with very few exceptions, consistently outperformed his polling numbers.
Next?
18. ho-hum | July 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Below are a list of states which were won by George Bush in 2004 but which Obama is either ahead in or within the margin of polling error.
The fact is McCain needs to retain just about every one of these in order to win his election. That just isn’t going to happen. McCain better hope that Obama gets caught with a dead girl or a live boy between now and November because it’s virtually impossible to see how he can win this election as things stand at present.
And by the way, the idea that Obama only won states which are “far more liberal” or have larger African American populations has been demonstrated time and time again to be nonsense. He won by a 35 point margin in Colorado. Is it a liberal or a heavily black state? What about Minnesota? Is that a bastion of latte drinking socialists, does it have any meaningful black population? He won Minnesota by 34 POINTS. He also scooped Montana by 15 points. Montana, ultra liberal or black? Which is it, I’m curious to know. Another great liberal state full of black people is North Dakota where he captured 67% of the vote. I can go on, and I will. He won the Idaho caucus by 80% to Clinton’s 17%. He won ultraliberal Alaska (where, remarkably, he is competitive in the presidential election) by a factor of 75% to 25%. He also won pino Utah by 17 points.
Etc.
So, Kurt, I guess you’ll have to admit that your little thesis is just another republican wish-dream.
Now it’s time to check out something known as reality. Take a look a the below compendiums of polling data from pollster.com if you dare. McCain better be sure to retain just about every one of them or his ass is toast:
Ohio (R in 2004, 20 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Virginina (R in 2004, 13 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-VA-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Missouri (R in 2004, 11 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Florida (R in 2004, 17 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Nevada (R in 2004, 5 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Colorado (R in 2004, 9 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-CO-Pres-GE-MvO.php
New Mexico (R in 2004, 5 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-NM-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Indiana (R in 2004, 11 delegates)
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Pres-GE-MvO.php
It must totally suck to be a pro-Bush republican this year. The party’s base are lukewarm about McCain while democrats are phenominally enthused about Obama:
http://people-press.org/report/436/obama-mccain-july
19. gotbrains? | July 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
And Kurt, you also fudged the numbers on 2 or the 4 lone exceptions you listed.
You stated:
PA: Obama by 3%….lost by 9%
MA: Obama up by 2%…lost by 15%
The actual numbers were:
PA: Clinton up by 6… Clinton won by 9
MA: Clinton by 7.. Clinton won by 15
btw, regarding MA, didn’t you say that the few places where Obama might have done better than his polling (except heavily black states) were states “where the Dem electrorate is far more liberal than the electorate in general”? ooops
20. ho-hum | July 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
By the way, why are my comments “awaiting moderation”? What transgression did I commit? Can’t right wing republicans deal with my points? It’s pathetic that you have to censor in order maintain your world view.
21. Mark Noonan | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 am
gotbrains,
Last night when I checked over at RCP, I found three - perhaps there were more, but I didn’t see them.
Meanwhile, the latest poll from MI shows Obama with a mere two point lead.
Now, if you really think that McCain is battling desperately for OH, VA, NC, GA, FL, MO, MT, ND, CO, NV, NM, and AK, then you can take comfort in your delusions…but the fact of the matter is that Obama has zero chance in NC, GA, FL, MO, MT, ND and AK. You’re not alone in this, I’ve even seen some people figuring Obama has a shot at Indian - only if all the GOPers in Indiana conveniently die just before the election would Obama have a shot at Indiana.
OH, VA, MO, CO, NV and NM are engaged in the battle…but they were also engaged, except for VA, in 2004 (there was some thought early on that Kerry had a shot at VA, but that faded pretty quickly). Meanwhile, MI, PA and NH are in play, and that is 42 of Kerry’s electoral votes against 63 of Bush’s…advantage Obama, but not by any great margin…and always keep in mind that GOPers always poll weaker the farther you are out from the vote - no one is able to really explain this, but its so common that all pollsters and careful observers know it. Essentially, if a battleground State doesn’t have at least a 10 point lead for Obama, throw it in the tossup column.
22. Kurt | July 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 am
Mark,
Exactly, the Dems always figure they have a shot at these states. They will never win them. The ranchers in MT are not ever going to vote for a typical Cook County politician, which is what little boy Barack is. Got has many dreams, but he is nowhere near grounded in reality. I hope that Obama will waste his money in these solidly red states.
The Obama supporters have a higher opinion of Obama than Obama has of himself. Oh wait, that is impossible, the only thing that Obama has ever written about is his favorite subjuct, himself.
Obama as a legislator is unaccomplished, basic, and chickens out of debates.
Obama vs McCain in a townhall? McCain says, “Bring it on” Barackj says, “NO WAY”!! Obama is a coward.
23. Kurt | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 am
GOT,
Just checked RCP, looks loke little kid Barack’s lead in MI has just shrunk to 2%.
24. gotbrains? | July 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Noonan -
“Meanwhile, the latest poll from MI shows Obama with a mere two point lead.”
Yes, a poll from the Detroit News. Local newspapers don’t have nearly as much expertise in polling methods as the big polling outfits. Meanwhile, both you and Kurt have been touting Rasmussen as one of the better polling firms. In fact, Rasmussen seems to be the favorite poll among righties in general, as it seems to usually tilt a bit towards Republican candidates. Well, Rasmussen’s latest MI poll shows Obama ahead there by 8.
Again, is it reasonable to think that states that voted for Kerry over Bush in 2004 would then switch now, in a year that is particularly unfavorable for Republicans, to voting Republican? I agree with ho-hum: it would take something extraordinary for this to happen, something on the level of a dead woman, a live boy, or some other cataclysm.
Truth be told, I really have no idea how many states might switch from Red to Blue this year. But with an historically unpopular Republican president residing over a recession, and the Republican nominee being 71 years old during an election cycle dominated by the theme of change… why would any Kerry states pick this year to decide to switch to Republican? Don’t really see it.
I tell you what - if any of the larger polling outfits (Rasmussen, SUSA, etc) show McCain less than 5 points behind in MI next week, I’ll concede that this is a legit “battleground” state. But instead I think we’ll see the Obama lead expanding there, perhaps to double digits by mid-August. Write it down.
“…but the fact of the matter is that Obama has zero chance in NC, GA, FL, MO, MT, ND and AK.”
Zero chance? In NC, Obama is currently running just 4 points behind in the polling averages. Considering the huge voting drive and network infrastructure Obama put there during the primary, overcoming 4 points is definitely achievable, and maybe even probable. In any case, McCain will have to spend lots of resources there defending it fairly sizable 15 EV’s, which is not where he wants to be… especially if he has any pretences to overcoming an 8 point gap in heavily democratic Michigan.
Same can be said for the rest of those states. In most of them, McCain didn’t compete in the primary, and so will have to play catch-up as far as GOTV efforts. In MO, McCain is up only 2.5 in the average of polls, and in FL he’s up only 2.2.
Zero chance in MT? The last poll done in MT was Rasmussen in July, which has Obama up by 5 - and that is the only poll there since May. McCain didn’t have to campaign in MT during the primaries, while Obama has opened lots of field offices in the state. And while McCain was toodling around down in Colombia, Obama was doing campaign stops there. MT is very much in play, and right now you’d have to give the edge to Obama.
GA is a real wild card - it could end up going heavily for McCain, or narrowly for Obama, depending how on well local son Bob Barr does, and how many African Americans can be registered and brought out to vote.
The only poll out of ND shows it tied (Rasmussen on Jul 8). Considering that, and considering Obama’s regional appeal in the upper midwest, how can you say Obama has ZERO chance there? This is another defend for McCain, in a long list of “home turf” states where he’ll have to fight.
“I’ve even seen some people figuring Obama has a shot at Indian - only if all the GOPers in Indiana conveniently die just before the election would Obama have a shot at Indiana.”
There is good reason why people are talking about Obama’s chances in Indiana. This is another state where Obama campaigned heavily during the primary, long after the Republican contest was over. Currently, he is polling ahead of McCain in this usually very red state. The Chicago suburbs extend well into NW Indiana, encompassing Gary, the second largest metro area. Indianapolis and the college town of South Bend are also Obama strongholds. Together, these areas almost won the state for Obama against heavily favored Hillary. Finally, with neighboring WI and IL already firmly in the bag, Obama’s considerable Chicago operation will move into next door Indiana during the final weeks. So no - there’s really no need for all GOPers in the state to die just before the election…unless they insist ;)
“OH, VA, MO, CO, NV and NM are engaged in the battle…”
Wait - MO is a battle ground state? In the previous paragraph, I thought you said Obama had zero chance there.
25. Kurt | July 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Oh lookie, Rassmussen has McCain by 10% in Ohio.
26. gotbrains? | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Kurt -
“Oh lookie, Rassmussen has McCain by 10% in Ohio.”
Congratulations - McCain has a lead in a 2004 battleground state won by Bush.
27. Mark Noonan | July 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Got,
Watch and learn in November - even if Obama wins, you’ll learn some solid lessons about American politics.
28. Ricorun | July 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
Watch and learn in November - even if Obama wins, you’ll learn some solid lessons about American politics.
That’s particularly funny considering the source. Be that as it may, I suspect the predominant lesson likely to be learned is… no poll, nor no series of polls taken in July, mean diddly come November. But it’s been fun watching Kurt and brains? tear it up.
29. Kurt | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
Yep…and a state won by Bush that Obama cant win without
30. dedosinuna | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Kurt -
“Yep…and a state won by Bush that Obama cant win without.”
Oh really?
Kerry states + Iowa (a given) + CO + NM = 273 EV’s = game over
Kerry states + Iowa + VA = 272 EV’s = game over
Anything else is just more frosting on the victory cake pal.