comment #1

JBrooks says ...

Registered Voters aren't "Likely voters" so I wouldn't put too much faith in the poll. Newsweek is even more in the tank for Obama than you are, Wells.

comment #2

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Well, all except for David Brooks, obviously...

comment #3

royalonemn says ...

Also, 13% of voters in the poll are undecided. That means they aren't totally taken by Obama or McCain and since Obama has had a higher profile than McCain for the past 18 months, that is too good for him either.
Also, these national, popular vote tallies are not important. You need to be looking at state-by-state match ups, since the electoral college is what really decides the presidency.

comment #4

K. Bowen says ...

Yeah, Newsweek last time around had Kerry up on Bush by about the same margin using the same polling tactics. Obama definitely is ahead at this time, but I wouldn't be using Newsweek polls as the evidence. If it's not Rasmussen or maybe Gallup, it doesn't count.

comment #5

raygo says ...

I saw Cindy McCain on CNN ... what a mess. She can't possibly be an asset to the campaign. Old white people need to step aside. This coming from an almost old white person.

comment #6

CinemaPhreek says ...

Deja vu, here we go again (long time readers will recall the months of breathless polls posts that Wells did back in 2004 predicting a Kerry win)

Obama's my guy, but those numbers are whack. If he does win (and a recent disturbing call with my dad who still lives back home in the south about "secret muslim" has me wondering just how many others feel the same) it ain't going to be any 15 point landslide.

This will be a very close election and you are building castles in the sky if you think the gap will be more than 7.5% if that. I'd almost be willing to bet cash money it will be under 5%.

comment #7

EOTW says ...

raygo: "Old white people need to step aside. This coming from an almost old white person."

Ahhh, yes. The old time tested white, liberal self loathing. A classic. More lib BS to feed the crazies.

comment #8

Richardson says ...

"You need to be looking at state-by-state match ups, since the electoral college is what really decides the presidency."

electoral-vote.com has it at 317 - 194 for Obama as of today. It's been around that number for a while, slowly moving toward Obama (Florida was all McCain, but is a tie now).

comment #9

CinemaPhreek says ...

electoral-vote.com also got the 2004 vote wrong and I know because I went to them religiously back then. Otherwise, we'd be debating if McCain is actually going to unseat President Kerry...

comment #10

Richardson says ...

"electoral-vote.com also got the 2004 vote wrong"

I don't know that I was there before September of '04, but I don't remember it ever being for Kerry. I'm sure you're right, though. I don't think it's so much that electoral-vote got it wrong as it is that you can't accurately predict an election this for in advance. I mean, obviously, it's 50/50 anyway, so people might guess accurate, but there's no real data yet from which to form a logical conclusion.

That said, electoral-vote is a nice security blanket to check in on from time to time.

comment #11

CinemaPhreek says ...

No, right up until the election electoral-vote.com had it going to Kerry with only a few swings to Bush. That was why there was such an uproar afterwards, because most polls showed Kerry winning.

comment #12

Arizona Joe says ...

It's going to be a landslide come November. Talk about Kerry is wholly irrelevant.

Even Ma & Pa Kettle in Kansas and all their friends are going to realize the world has changed, and we need a guy to rally the country.

The world has become Malthusian overnight. McCain and the Republicans are ill-equipped to chart a new course.

Oh by the way, Cindy McCain is a prescription drug-addled silly and will screw up a lot more than Michelle Obama this fall.

comment #13

Chicago48 says ...

Only Zagat and Gallup count. Zagat is the best from what I've read....and it's way too early....anything can happen...and it wouldn't be surprising if there was a sabotage in the making....you know, those Generals are not going to let a colored boy in the White house and tell them what to do!

comment #14

EOTW says ...

"Even Ma & Pa Kettle in Kansas and all their friends are going to realize the world has changed, and we need a guy to rally the country"

Um, I take it you've never, ever been to Kansas? If you did, you'd realize that these folks don't fall for the flavor of the month simply because it is something new. Obama is actually gonig to have to show he is made of stronger stuff and he hasn't even begun to do that yet. Something new doesn't mean a damn thing when there is no substance to it. Hopefully, he somehow finds it and finds a way to connect with regular, middle of the road, working class Americans. He has yet to do so and time is running out.

comment #15

dangovich says ...

Only Zagat and Gallup count.

For what, restaurant reviews?

comment #16

gruver1 says ...

Some of you guys make me sick with your pissy neghead ill-informed attitudes. That said, I agree it's going to be pretty close. Obama will win, possibly by 3 or 4 points, but not by a landslide. Where, I wonder, are the snarly sourpuss pissheads who've been saying he does't have a chance and that McCain has it in the bag? Come out, come out, whereever you are! Cowards.

comment #17

James Leer says ...

K. Bowen: "Yeah, Newsweek last time around had Kerry up on Bush by about the same margin using the same polling tactics."

K. Bowen, if you read the actual article Wells linked to, you would know this is NOT ACTUALLY TRUE -- Obama far, far outpaces Kerry. But your ability to make up a fact and assert it with all evidence to the contrary makes you, K. Bowen, a poster I will most assuredly never have to read again. Kudos, K. Bowen. Let's all give K. Bowen a round of applause.

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

I know you meant Zogby and I dont mean to make fun, but the Zagat thing is the funniest shit I've read in awhile. I just imagine Chris Farley and Adam Sandler reading the latest Zagat presidential polls.

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

From Clusterfuck Nation. I don't know if this is true, but it sure is funny:

"One thing the pundits of the mainstream media seem to miss is how much more room for economic carnage there is in the months remaining. They seem to be laying their current odds on the idea that McCain and Obama are starting on a "level playing field." In fact, McCain is already up to his hips in trouble from his sheer association with the Republican establishment, which will be so badly discredited by the shattered economy that it may actually go the same route as the 19th century whig party and dissolve in a putrid vapor of fecklessness."

comment #20

supertaster says ...

neg heads? Because they tell you to read these bullshit polls with a grain of salt? If you're so confident in your 3 point prediction, then stop talking about it, you just look like you're trying to convince yourself. You're doing the same thing you did 4 years ago, have you learned nothing?? -- then again, each week during the primary you were either singing from the mountain tops or tying a noose to your ceiling fan, so I guess you'er not really a "big picture" kinda guy, as I'd say most liberals tend not to be (tax the rich and corporations, economy be damned, because that's what's fair!!)...

You can really be a sap, and that's what Repubs are counting on ...

"warfare is the way of deception, thus although you are capable, display incapability."

It's easier to lull democrats such as yourself into a warm, cozy place of complacency, thus drawing fewer of you out on election day. It worked in 2004 (remember how betrayed everyone was by the young crowd who showed up in polls but not on Tuesday? They were so confident they didn't bother going out) and if democrats don't wise up, it'll work again. These 15-pt ealry leads only hurt Obama's turnout 4 months from now. As an Obama supporter, I find these numbers troubling, not occasion for arrogance and boasting.

comment #21

bents75 says ...

Supertaster - if you really are an Obama supporter, then just stop, you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

And I have a newsflash for you, the economy is already dammed for the majority of people in this country. Obviously filling corporate coffers really isn't doing anything to help the rest of us. These trickle down economics are an absolute joke.

And the miniscule percentage of super rich who possess the better part of this country's wealth might as well be brought down to the same level as the rest of us because it was their priorities, and only their priorities, which have guided this country's actions over the last 8 years.

When you're going in the wrong direction, you turn and go the other way. It's simple.

P.S. Eli Manning is a no talent ass clown.

comment #22

supertaster says ...

Oh, am I not welcome to the Obama party? Because I point out not all is perfect in la-la-land where Wells and many other BO supporters dwell? Or because I'm a free-thinking individual who doesn't willingly label or confine himself to the rigid terms of liberalism or convservatism? Blah blah...on to the good stuff...

Really bentsy? Supply side is a joke?

I'm going to provide you with some links that should end the debate for just about any layman...before reading the articles I want you to promise to go in with an open mind, throwing away all of negative pre-conceived notions you have of the theory because of its association with Reagan ... in other words, put aside your prejudices for one moment and pretend, like 99% of people who argue about it, you don't know know anything about economics .. shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400327981993375.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upside-of-income-inequality/

And the icing on the cake:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357899416776129.html

As for Eli -- he may be a no-talent ass clown, and a goofy looking one to boot, but I guarantee you Donovan McSlob would trade spots with him any day. Twenty years from now your children or grandchildren will know who Eli Manning is, while McNabb will be a footnote (daddy, how come a no-talent assclown in NY took down an 18-0 team while our team has never won a superbowl?)...

...I just wan to point out how silly this is, these aren't my accomplishments, but still, it's so much fun being a NYer in Philadelphia ... one, I don't have to deal with other NYers, and two, well that should be obvious...

comment #23

supertaster says ...

...ugh, not happy with the tone of that last one -- all in good fun, bentsy

btw, if's it any consolation, I'm an avid Phillies fan ...

comment #24

K. Bowen says ...

"K. Bowen, if you read the actual article Wells linked to, you would know this is NOT ACTUALLY TRUE -- Obama far, far outpaces Kerry. But your ability to make up a fact and assert it with all evidence to the contrary makes you, K. Bowen, a poster I will most assuredly never have to read again. Kudos, K. Bowen. Let's all give K. Bowen a round of applause."

Why, because I noticed that last time around the Newsweek poll was always an outlier in favor of Kerry? Rasmussen has the lead at about four. Gallup has it at six. Although I haven't checked every poll, reportedly no one else has it above six, except for the notoriously inaccurate Newsweek poll.

As for the Zagat's poll, I'm thinking it will describe this as a "tasty" lead for Obama with a "fun and friendly" atmosphere.

comment #25

bents75 says ...

Supertaster, I just don't see why you're in the Obama camp when almost every point you bring up attempts to contradict his positions. I'd like to hear why you are voting for him, because I haven't seen any reason yet.

Having said that, I read your articles, and while they do make some arguably good points on the statistics side, I think they leave quite a few aspects out altogether, and in all honesty, I'm still not convinced.

To start, I don't personally complain too much about the oil/gas price, and I've seen you say that we should elminiate our dependence on foreign oil, so we're in agreement there - but by Mundell's own logic, the prices are where they are supposed to be 12 years from now, and contrary to what he says, I don't see any reason why they will settle to $40 less a barrel from what they are now.

I think the idea of giving oil companies tax breaks so they can allegedly invest the money in alternative resources is a fantasy. They're not going to make any progress there no matter how much they claim they're spending because they don't really have a motive to. If they were to make any breakthroughs, they'd put themselves out of business. It's a conflict of interest similar to expecting drug companies to in invest in a cure for cancer, or heart disease, or anything that would eliminate their excuse to sell more drugs. You could argue the oil companies need to shift gears at some point unless they want to become obsolete, but they have at least a half century before that happens, their is no motivation for them to do so until the last drop of oil is sucked from the earth.

I don't expect a drug dealer to volunatary offer a less addictive drug, so I don't expect an oil company to suggest they sell us something other than oil, especially something any cheaper.

Chevron says they put $22 billion into investment last year? Ha, bullshit, I say. What exactly did they pay for with it?

If you want any accomplishments there, its going to have to be done by objective parties who actually have an interest in doing so (which unfortunately doesn't include this administration either, since their hand is in big oil's back pocket) - and I don't think "more" money is even necessarily the answer. You need people who are motivated and passionate.

To give one government funded program a litlte credit - just look at NASA. They're a bunch of passionate nerds who get their funding cut damn near every year. They recieve a fraction of the money they recieved in the 60's and 70's and they still manage to arguably accomplish more now with less money than they had back then. Simply because they want to. Where there is a will, there is a way.

I don't believe modern day corporations have the will do anything but increase their bottom line. If you're pouring money into innovation, and nothing comes out of it, then you're wasting your money.

To move onto the next article, the education statistics are interesting - but I know a lot of people who have graduated recently and almost all of them either have trouble finding jobs they couldn't have gotten without going to college, and those who do find them, don't make nearly as much as they want to or should. And it probably wouldn't matter if they did because they're also thousands of dollars in debt anyway, so it takes you years to dig out from the hole you start in. I'm certainly not saying people shouldn't go to college one way or the other, but people shouldn't have to starve becuase they don't, and many aren't far off from that in this country.

And the third link is just funny. How can you seriously say our country is in the right mode by comparing it to places like Latvia, Estonia and the Slovak Republic? Don't you think a country with less than 2 million people might skew the statistics just a little bit when combined with one with 315 million?

Look, I don't claim to be an expert on the economy, but I look around and I see things getting progressively worse while the government that doesn't believe in government claims they will get progressively better. I'm still waiting....

If the administration doesn't believe in big government, then they should stop reading my emails, stop listening in on my phone calls, and step aside so an administration that is actually going to put my money to good use can step in and do what they're 'designed' to do - govern. Not deregulate everything.

Sorry if i've rambled on here, and thanks for the links, but I still think people with more money should pay more taxes. And I don't think many people really have a problem with paying taxes if it actually goes towards something that might possibly be in their interest for a change, and not towads the infrastructure and security of Iraq's oil.

comment #26

bents75 says ...

Oh, and an avid Phillies fan? Really?

The losingest team in sports history?

Hey, I love 'em, but you won't find me defending them. I've seen too many games lost in the 9th inning.

But in all fairness, they are good this year.

I'll tell you what, if they make it to the World Series I'll buy you a beer. Assuming that doesn't cost $135 a barrel by then too.

comment #27

supertaster says ...

bentsy, I've gotta tell you, I haven;t engaged in such a civil debate in a long time, espcially at this site -- I'm not used to this.

I'm not defending the Bush admin. in any way whatsoever...they have pissed all over the conservative ethos, so much so that I now only loosely associate myself with the term "conservative". I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal guy, and I don't think the two should mingle. If one is going to be consistent then there must be a commitment to a government that stays out of my personal life AND my wallet...Unfortunately, liberals do not feel this way, believing the fiscal should feed the social (o when it comes to certain things, like guns, suddenly the government should intervene). I deeply believe, after years of study, that low taxes improve life at EVERY level of the social ladder ... corporations and rich people spending money spurs economic growth, not government. I know this is not intuitive and it doesn't appeal to our touchy, feely sides, but it has been born out over the last twenty five years. The "divide" shouldn't matter so long as the quality of life improves for everyone.

As for Obama, I forget what thread it was in, but I mentioned I'm really starting to worry about some of his policies, so you're not the only one questioning my support. I was behind him originally because throughout primary season, even when I disagreed with him, there was sound logic behind his ideas and he demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the topics about which he spoke. However in just the past week he has come out with some deeply disturbing ideas, hamstringing any effort for energy relief for the next twenty years and talking about turning social security into a welfare-like system, bastardizing what was carefully set up to avoid being such a mechanism by the most iconic liberal president of all time, FDR.

But then, what;s my alternative? The sacrificial lamb that is McCain?

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful engagement. We disagree, but at least we do respectfully so

And no need to wait for $135/barrel beer ... head on down to 'Monks' or 'Eulogy' and there are hundreds of 'em to choose from. If McFatso leads the birds to the playoffs, it's my treat.