Starting Gate: Not As Close As You Think
After a flurry of polls this week, it’s tempting to sum up the presidential race this way: Barack Obama holds a small, but clear lead while John McCain, defying the odds, trends and landscape, remains within striking distance. The CBS/New York Times poll has Obama with a 6-point lead. It’s three points in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, three points from Newsweek and the Gallup tracking poll has it at 3 points also.
The seeming tightness of the race though has spurred question about why Obama isn’t further ahead in the current environment which appears to be tailor-made for his candidacy and his party in November. Before you go down that “what’s wrong with Obama” road though, there’s evidence out there that suggests Obama may be in much better shape than he looks to be in the national polls.
Presidents, of course, are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and a quick look at the state-by-state polls shows the kind of advantages Obama holds at the moment. Glancing at the averages compiled by Real Clear Politics, a picture emerges suggesting that Obama has a much better chance of enlarging his map than McCain.
In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota.
When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat.
Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up.
In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio. It’s early. All polls are snapshots in time and the practice of “averaging” poll results from different polling organizations with different methodologies is not close to being scientific. But it’s instructive to look at both the broader and state-by state information to get a true sense of the race. And at this point, it’s hard to argue that Obama does not have a clear lead. (Caveat: The Real Clear Politics polling averages include data from many polls, including some note used or recognized by CBS News).
Around The Track
Obama’s campaign says it raised $52 million in June and has $72 million in the bank. The DNC has $20 million cash-on-hand, CBS News reports, which puts the total amount at $92 million. For all the success of Obama’s fundraising, that puts him just short of the nearly $95 million the McCain campaign and RNC reports having. Still, it’s as competitive as Democrats have been on the fundraising front in a long time.
Al Gore stayed mum during the Democratic primary but he bursts back onto the stage with a major speech in Washington today on climate change and the energy crisis. Gore will challenge the nation to produce all of its energy through wind, sun and other “Earth-friendly” means, according to the AP.
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove says both candidates may be missing an opportunity to lead on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae front: “Elections are often reshaped by unexpected and fast-moving events, and when this happens a candidate who quickly takes the lead on the new issue can bolster his chances to win,” Rove writes in his Wall Street Journal column. “An opportunity awaits Messrs. McCain and Obama. Will either man seize it?”
Obama’s trip overseas will be covered intensely by some of the media heavyweights, reports the New York Times. That provides him an opportunity but also poses the risk that any missteps on the world stage could be amplified greatly.
The seeming tightness of the race though has spurred question about why Obama isn’t further ahead in the current environment which appears to be tailor-made for his candidacy and his party in November. Before you go down that “what’s wrong with Obama” road though, there’s evidence out there that suggests Obama may be in much better shape than he looks to be in the national polls.
Presidents, of course, are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and a quick look at the state-by-state polls shows the kind of advantages Obama holds at the moment. Glancing at the averages compiled by Real Clear Politics, a picture emerges suggesting that Obama has a much better chance of enlarging his map than McCain.
In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota.
When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat.
Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up.
In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio. It’s early. All polls are snapshots in time and the practice of “averaging” poll results from different polling organizations with different methodologies is not close to being scientific. But it’s instructive to look at both the broader and state-by state information to get a true sense of the race. And at this point, it’s hard to argue that Obama does not have a clear lead. (Caveat: The Real Clear Politics polling averages include data from many polls, including some note used or recognized by CBS News).
Around The Track
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 CommentsIt was hilarious. He stood like a deer in the headlights for about 30 seconds, then wimpered that he didn''t know enough about it to comment.
It is a must see!
It was hilarious. He stood like a deer in the headlights for about 30 seconds, then wimpered that he didn''''t know enough about it to comment.
It is a must see!
Posted by briannorwood at 11:19 AM : Jul 17, 2008
Yeah I saw that a couple of days ago... can''t say where. Yeah it''s funny but kinda scary too. The image of Bush when he was told about the attack on this nation keeps coming to mind. Right then and there we should have all realized we didn''t have a President.
They all want a tight race, and will do everything to make one. The blatant imbalance in how each candidate is covered, is pretty amazing. Very simply, McCain is not being scrutinized - - everything he says/does, is just acceoted as the gospel. Flip-flops ignored... brainlocks ignored... lies ignored... all very sad, what''s become of the media.
As far as ccfsdca ''s post goes, Hillary had an 11 pt lead in the MO primary the weekend before the election. Obama made one campaign stop in STL and won the state narrowly; your premise is false.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
The difference is that Afghanistan is a war we must win against those who are still plotting to attack us and Iraq is a war of occupation that we''ve never needed to win for our own security.
He is hungry for the world''s biggest photo op, and anchors Brian Williams of NBC, Katie Couric of CBS and Charles Gibson of ABC will be going with him as tour guides. So nice of the networks to send their media stars for the 2nd coming.
I wouldn''t worry about that. Obama is a pretty cool character and I would be very surprised if he makes any serious gaffes.
On the flip side, America is about to see how one man can go very far in repairing America''s image in the world.
Not since JFK has Europe so anxiously awaited a visit from an American politician!
If Obama''s swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.
These people need to know that some of us cherish free expression. They also need to know that if Obama needs to be protected from the satirist''s rapier, he doesn''t deserve to be the president of the United States of America.
The are tied and this is very bad for Obama, he can only go down from here.
Or with Lieberman instructing McCain on the difference between Shia and Sunni.
OBAMA''S AHEAD BY 20 POINTS.
STOP WASTING OUR TIME!!
The difference is that Afghanistan is a war we must win against those who are still plotting to attack us and Iraq is a war of occupation that we''''ve never needed to win for our own security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by realpatriot1 at 12:11 PM : Jul 17, 2008
And WHAT makes Afghanistan so SPECIAL, PRAY TELL??? And don''t say Osama bin Laden, one because he''s dead, and the other is that he''s a Saudi!!!
So come on, lay it on us...why is Afghanistan so special?
lol, Exactly!
Geezus...poll away, and then fix them to say what you want!
Posted by paris1969 at 01:49 PM : Jul 17, 2008
**************************************
That''s right, like Hillary told us, only the states that she won were important, the others didn''t matter.
Or will the media treat it like they usually do, setting the benchmark for Obama at perfect, so that no matter what he does, it gets reported in a negative light. While the benchmark for McCain is on the ground, so no matter what he does gets reported as neutral or positive.
HE HE HE
Posted by fedupwithit1
***************************************
Same as before, the RepubliCONS would fill hundreds of church buses filled with Christian fundamentalist extremists to pound on the Obama family door and threaten the entire family like they did with Al Gores family.
Then they would fly in and limosine in hundreds of ReTHUGlicans into the voter precints to intimidate and threaton the election officials.
Then they would find a couple of ambitious Secretaries of State, like Katherine Harris (Florida) or Kenneth Blackwell (Ohio), that believe the end justifies the means and there you have it.
posted by RowdyWicca at 01:21 PM
**************************************
I know it, they don''t even have any oil in Afghanistan, for crying out loud!
I mean really, just because Afghanistan is where the Saudi Terrorists were trained that destroyed the WTC on 9/11, what''s the big deal?
HE HE HE
Posted by fedupwithit1 at 01:45 PM : Jul 17, 2008
I don''t care if Obama wins the popular vote, as long as he wins the electoral college. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 so how does that make him look? I just want Obama to be the next president so that I can finally get a pay raise and kick the rich people''s interests out of Washington! The republicans had the last 8 years to prove they wouldn''t support just rich people, and what did Bush do? Gave the upper wealthy the biggest tax cuts ever! It will be so great to have rich people paying their fair share of taxes again! And I would much rather have the first black president, rather than the first hispanic president(Mccain)
Posted by paris1969 at 01:49 PM : Jul 17, 2008
**********************************
****
That''''s right, like Hillary told us, only the states that she won were important, the others didn''''t matter.
Posted by truthmatterz at 02:24 PM : Jul 17, 2008
*** Yeah, the Iowa Caucus should have been won by Edwards, but Obama had all his friends from Illinois drive over to Iowa and vote for him! They should have better rules for the cauces. People with Illinois plates shouldn''t be allowed to vote in the Iowa caucuses. I really wanted Edwards to be the next president! But i''ll still vote for Obama over Mccain. I really hate mccain! That whole amnesty *** that Mccain supported! I hate him too much for that to every consider voting for him. I hope Obama wins in a landslide, just to show that we won''t support Mccain with that amnesty ***!
Posted by ccfsdca at 12:23
*************************************
Obama certainly does have a very large amount of young supporters and a very recent survey surprised a lot of the talking heads, when they discovered that the young folks who are involved in the campaign had a better understanding of the issues facing this country as well as the specific plans that Obama has laid out, much better than many of the older folks (like me who happen to be one of the millions of middle aged white females who are strong supporters as well)
What did the State polls show for John Kerry and Michael Dukakis when they were in the leads?
Posted by truthmatterz at 02:52 PM : Jul 17, 2008
*** I kinda think that is the position he is aiming for too! I think as AG, he will clean up the mess from Al Gonzolas, mr. I don''t recall! Plus, as AG, he can fly back and forth to North Carolina. I just think that has VP, he would be able to help with the white democrats in Georgia, VA, PA, and NC from what alot of polls suggested. I want anyone other than Bill Richardson to be VP. I don''t hate Richardson because he is hispanic, I hate him because as Governor of New Mexico, he lets all illegals have free college, while poor blacks and poor white like me had to pay the same amount as rich kids! Trust me, Richardson is an empty shirt! As much as I hate Bush/Mccain, I won''t vote for Obama if he takes Richardson as vp, I won''t vote for Mccain either then, i''d probably vote for Barr then! I hope Obama choses anyone other than Richardson!
What did the State polls show for John Kerry and Michael Dukakis when they were in the leads?
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:01 PM : Jul 17, 2008
*** Exactly! I don''t care what polls show now. I will not except mccain becoming president. I swallowed alot staying in this country while bush was president, even though I voted for the other guy. HOwever, I will not tolerate Mccain because of that amnesty ***! If mccain become president, i''m leaving the country before illegal mexicans take everything over in our country. I''ll move overseas and help any country that defies the United States of Mexico, which is what the USA will become under Mccain with his over 12 million illegals that would get amnesty!
Posted by truthmatterz at 02:52 PM : Jul 17, 2008
** As AG, would Edwards have a good chance to run for President again? Say 2012 or 2016?
answer: iraq is easier to spell than afghanistan.
the only change obama is talking about after securing the nomination is a change in the theater of operations. meanwhile, he''''ll keep his promise to bring the troops home - to afghani homes, not their own.
Posted by ccfsdca at 03:56 PM : Jul 17, 2008
*** I hate mccain! Mccain will let over 12 million illegals get amnesty and take away american jobs! I''d rather have Obama, than amnesty mccain!
At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name had given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of *** it can no longer fly.
If you want to compare this election to one of the past, compare it to 1996, hence "Mc Dole".
An elderly senator from a staunchly GOP western state, who never did well nationally before; who beat out a weak, divided GOP field'' who ran a dull, inspiriing campaign; getting creamed by a vastly more charismatic Dem.
All McDole has to do is fall of a stage and it is game-set-match.
These lies are aimed at getting the few remaining complete imbeciles to be afraid of Obama and, therefore, to vote for McSame, or not vote at all. This whole election will be determined by the answer to the following question: just how many American voters are completely retar.ded and parnoid, and have a strong authoritarian complex?
By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted July 17, 2008.
The Beltway press has become dysfunctional, failing to see news when it happens and hyping non-stories that require no real reporting.
News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important.
During the slow summer months of a presidential campaign, that judgment and that common sense is usually even easier to put into practice because, traditionally, so little happens on the campaign trail with the candidates that what ought to be covered becomes self-evident.
Two events in recent days reaffirmed that sad conclusion, when entire news organizations opted to throw all sorts of time and attention at what was essentially a pointless campaign-related sideshow, while simultaneously displaying blanket indifference to what should have been the campaign story of the week, if not the month or possibly the entire summer.
By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.
By contrast, more than 50 major U.S. dailies published a total of 126 articles and columns about the Jackson story. Several influential newspapers went back to the story ad nauseam. Combined, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Los Angeles Times published 39 different articles and columns that referenced the Jackson-Obama controversy.
By contrast, the combined number of stories and columns those three newspapers published that made reference to the McCain "disgrace" controversy? One.
On those same news outlets there had been less than 24 references to McCain''s "disgrace" comment. And not a single network newscast reported on the Social Security story. For reporters and pundits, "nuts" reigned over the "disgrace." Even days after the Jackson story faded, I was still left scratching my head trying to figure out exactly what significance, if any, the episode represented. Yes, it was embarrassing for Jackson. Yes, Jackson is famous. Yes, it''s mildly amusing to hear what famous people like Jackson really think when they assume they cannot be overheard. But that doesn''t explain why Jackson grabbed approximately 900 television mentions last week, or why reporters spent an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" the repercussions from the "nuts" swipe.
But Jackson is a civil rights leader who often speaks for African-Americans -- who, according to the polls, are among Obama''s most stalwart, unwavering supporters. I just didn''t understand how Jackson''s comments could be interpreted as representing a larger, widespread problem for the Obama campaign (i.e., actual news). Jackson, obviously speaking only for himself, said something nasty under his breath about the Democratic candidate whom he supports. That''s blockbuster news that has to be mentioned on TV 900 times in the span of just a few days?
Note that the exact opposite requirements were needed to address the McCain story: Some actual reporting had to be undertaken, the topic at hand was Social Security, no blue language was involved, and the Drudge Report completely ignored the "disgrace" episode.
It''s hard to downplay just how shocking McCain''s Social Security comments were. In fact, they were likely unprecedented for a modern American presidential campaign. It wasn''t just the stock GOP misinformation McCain spread in Denver about how Social Security was going bankrupt soon. (It''s not.) It was the proclamation by McCain that our pay-as-you-go Social Security itself was an "absolute disgrace." Period.
Does McCain think Medicare is a "disgrace" too? Our postal system, national parks, highways? What other landmark government-funded initiatives does McCain dismiss as a "disgrace"?
The campaign spin of his July 7 remarks was that McCain was referring to the fact that it''s a "disgrace" that Congress has not been able to solve future funding issues for Social Security. That represented an interesting and plausible take. But it matched virtually none of what McCain said in Denver. Or what he said on CNN that week: "[Younger people] pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That''s why it''s broken, that''s why we can fix it."
What was so revealing was that not a single member of the campaign press caravan that heard McCain''s shocking swipe at Social Security immediately thought it was newsworthy.
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
What was so revealing was that not a single member of the campaign press caravan that heard McCain''s shocking swipe at Social Security immediately thought it was newsworthy.
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
* The Washington Times
* Los Angeles Times
* The Baltimore Sun
* The Miami Herald
* St. Louis Post-Dispatch
* New York Post
* Associated Press
The Washington Post was also among the newspapers that sent a reporter to cover McCain''s Denver event and then ignored the "disgrace" story.
But how''s this for embarrassing? The day after McCain''s "disgrace" comment, the Post
published a lengthy, A1 piece detailing the Social Security positions of Obama and McCain, but the newspaper did not include McCain''s shocking remarks. The Post did include a snippet of the Republican''s remarks from Denver the day before, but in an article about the candidates'' view of Social Security, not the fact that McCain thinks the whole system is a "disgrace."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 57 Comments