Lookin' good for Team McCainFollow

"While Obama leads in NBC’s electoral map, McCain has jumped ahead of the Illinois Democrat nationally, according to the post-convention USA Today/Gallup poll. In it, McCain leads Obama by four points among registered voters (50%-46%), after trailing Obama by seven after the Democratic convention (50%-43%) -- which is an 11-point swing. Among likely voters, moreover, the poll shows McCain leading by a whopping 10 points (54%-44%). McCain obviously seems to have gotten a bounce out of his convention. But is it really this big? And is it an ephemeral bounce? Or is it a political realignment after the conventions and the Palin pick? Or maybe is it just an outlier? The gold standard of national polling, the NBC/WSJ poll, comes out Wednesday." --First Read (MSNBC's political paps)

Notice the massive 10 point advantage Johnny has in likely voters? Notice the yellow wet stuff dribbling down your legs, Obamunists? Notice the sharp tang of urea in the air? That's your fear in liquified form.

Totem

I got that Sami.

It's looking like a real race right now, I'll give it that.

I don't put much stock in the Gallup/USA numbers. For one thing, they always vary widely (+10 vs +5) from the Gallup dailies for the same period which is peculiar. RCP threw out the last one (Obama +9) because it muddied the waters by re-using daily tracker data in the combined poll and, for whatever reason, they're including this one despite identicial methodology.

However, 'lest I sound like I'm blindly denying things, the three combined daily trackers (Rasmussen, Gallup & Hotline/FD) give McCain a +2 lead which is his best showing since May or so. Keeping the faith here but I'm also watching to see where it heads.

Edited, Sep 8th 2008 12:35pm by Jophiel

Sure, but John was the disciple Jesus loved mostest!

/agree

The Gallup polls are the "find good numbers" source this election season. For whatever reason they've been the ones swinging wildly, and both sides have used (and abused) them as a result.

They swung wildly toward McCain just before the DNC, and then swung wildly the other way afterwards, leading to claims of a 10+ point bounce for Obama (when it was more like 3-5). Same deal here. Swings wildly the other way, and the McCain camp's claiming a 10+ point bounce.

Reality is that both sides have had swings and bounces, but it's been within 3-4 points either way the entire time. We're pretty much at the same point after the conventions as we were before them polling-wise. Personally, I think that situation historically favors the Republican candidate, but that's my opinion of course... ;)

Interesting thing to note is that McCain has done something neither candidate has accomplished to date: polled above 50% even against the margin of error. The choice of Palin has completely altered this election.

Totem

Maybe; or it could be a meaningless bounce effect. Time'll tell.

Hmmmm... Double standard maybe?





Strange, don't you think? In what universe is Kaine qualified to be VP, but Palin is not? While I'll admit to a couple "Kain's kinda young" statements out there, it's been nothing like the attacks against Palin on this front.

If Kaine had been picked as Obama's VP, would you have held the same view of him based on his education and experience?

As Smash said, if you're mainly worried about Virginia, Kaine is your guy. Likewise, if you're trying to appeal to women, Palin makes sense. In neither case would I say that they're a good pick, mainly because my motivations aren't merely winning VA or females.

No, it definitely wasn't a bounce. Brady couldn't even stand on his own after he hit the turf.

/shrug

I kinda have to take your word on it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if Obama had picked Kaine no one on this forum would be talking about how he "only has a bachelors degree". I'm quite certain that subject would simply never have come up.



Sure. Because for an Obama running mate, some experience greater than his own is kinda important. It's vastly less so for a McCain running mate. Even then, I don't think anyone would have been talking about Kaine's education, and his lack of experience would only be mentioned in the context of failing to make up for Obama's own lack.




Again. I'll have to take your word on it. It is, afterall, your opinion. I'll toss out my sneaking suspicion that even if she had two doctorates in economics and political science, you'd just be using a different talking point to argue that she wasn't capable as VP. I suspect that in that case, you'd be making an impassioned argument about how no matter how much book learning she has, it doesn't make up for her lack of experience.

Look. I get it. You have to come up with reasons why the other side's pick isn't any good. I've just seen the shifting argument tactic so many times that it just doesn't impress me that much. It's terrifically easy to point out whatever "flaws" a candidate has and make like those things are the absolute most important thing *ever*. But it's amusing how that most important thing changes every single election. Watch enough elections and it's not hard to see the pattern...

We always have the satisfaction of not living in flyover country.

How does my statement make you think I'm saying Obama is inexperienced? Is it because that seems to be the natural conservative reaction to the thought of sarah palin? "Oh ****, they said Sarah Palin..make sure you say something bad about Obama"

I've never once come out and said Obama is some great presidential candidate and he can do no wrong, and he's like George Washington but black, etc.

The points I've brought up with regard to Sarah Palin are that she's obviously only on the ticket for image/superficial reasons, not for her record; how she's a creationist; and how her abstinence only education stance sure blew up in her face.

Can you really dispute any of that? The only thing I've said about Obama is that he has real foreign relations experience and palin does not.

Obviously her record is weak if your only reaction is to constantly bring up Obama. Again, all I've really said is that Palin would not be McCain's VP if she had the identical record, attitude, etc, but were a man, it's that simple. So talk about Obama's inexperience as much as you want, because if I were to agree with you that he's somehow even less experienced than Palin (which he's not), my opinion of her would not be any different.

So, you're telling me that in your heart of hearts, Palin would be VP if she weren't a woman?