comment #1

Mgmax says ...

I think President Obama is likely. But just look at that map. Those tossup states are all the kinds of places that McCain is only a few points behind in-- Nevada, Virginia, Florida. Then it comes down to a few midwestern swing states-- Michigan, Ohio, Iowa.

Gee, just like every election of the last 50 years.

comment #2

Howlingman says ...

How many under 25s sitting on their hands?

"Obama Girl" for one. Couldn't be bothered to cast her ballot in the New Jersey primary.

It reminds me of an old, old Simpsons episode where Bart is poised to clean Martin's clock in the school president competition -- and none of Bart's supporters bothered to get out and vote, thus ushering in the era of Pres. Martin Prince, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and a 490 billion dollar deficit.

comment #3

JHRussell says ...

It's July, fellas.

At this point in July, 1988, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over GHWB...a very similar election to this one.

On Hardball Friday night, Bob Herbert pointed out that this single digit lead for Obama should be a concern to his campaign based on the summer polls for previous elections - his point being that Obama should have a 20 point lead right now, not a 5 to 9 point lead...and Herbert went on to say that he doesn't even believe the poll numbers anyway - he believes that this race is more or less tied right now...

And I agree with Mr. Herbert.

comment #4

Amazing Larry says ...

I used to be one of those under-25s who thought voting wasn't for them. Eventually enough of those kids will grow up and change their minds, and if their experiences develop into what the lower-and-middle-class have been going through during the last 20 years, then I got a sneaking suspicion I know how they're going to vote: just like me.

I wouldn't count on a comfortable Obama victory though. Between electronic voting shenanigans, voter disenfranchisement, and our retarded media, it's likely we could end up with '00 and '04 all over again. Just wait and see.

But as long as that girl in the blue shirt is still in that AMERICAN TEEN ad, things will be fine.

Oh, hey Mgmax: that guy who shot up the Unitarian Church in Tennessee and killed 2 people said he "hated liberals". Care to tell us about where he might've gotten those ideas? Or perhaps about how if there was less gun control, that never would've happened? Please enlighten us all with your ever-incredible-and-not-predictible-at-all wisdom!

comment #5

Bilge says ...

The consistent lead for Obama definitely means something, although I agree that his support is a bit weaker than the numbers may show. (This may be one instance where robocalls may work better than person-to-person calls - and they tend to show him with smaller leads.)

But to pretend that places like Michigan, Minnesota, etc. are not swing states is just downright silly. If Obama loses one big swing state that Kerry and Gore won -- Pennsylvania, say -- then his job becomes very, very difficult. That said, if Mccain starts losing places like Colorado and Virginia, which he very well might, then his job becomes practically impossible.

Comparisons to Dukakis are silly. Obama has significantly more charisma than Dukakis, and he's managed to occupy center stage and make himself the key player in this race: In other words, the 08 election is Obama's to lose. The 1988 election, despite Dukakis's early lead, was GHW Bush's to lose. Dukakis was simply a receptacle for voters' uncertainties about Bush earlier in the cycle.

Also, one assumes that Obama & co. won't run the comically ineffective campaign Dukakis & co. did. I mean jesus.

comment #6

chappiesan says ...

I'd be dlelighted if the Republican's didn't win, but the map scares the shit out of me. Two states that are included as Obama leans (Iowa and Ohio) voted for Bush in the 2004 election. Not to mention, Ohio also voted for Bush back in 2000. Take those away and Obama is down to 257.

Where will Obama get his final 13 electoral votes from? Beats the hell out of me. You see the remaining swath of yellow and red covering the south and everything inland? That's all going Republican. Just like it did in 2004, and just like it did in 2000.

If Obama were smart, he'd select Sherrrod Brown, or some other Ohio-ite, as his VP, and hope that gives him enough traction with the locals to put him over the top.

comment #7

SaveFarris says ...

PA is a no-doubter for Obama? Really?!? Didn't he lose that state by 20 points just 3 months ago?

That map relies on Obama sweeping PA, OH, and MI: the three states that have all those "bitter, gun-clinging, Bible-belters" that refused to rally to Obama's side even after everyone was saying "It's over." THOSE are the voters that Obama needs to close, but can't. And they're the ones that are going to wind up determining the election.

comment #8

C-PhreekII says ...

Until McCain finally gives into everyone (Ben Stein is the latest calling for this) and hires Karl Rove or one of his acolytes when he realizes that unless he goes negative he is going to lose.

Just listen to his remarks in Bakersfield an hour ago: it was "Obama" this and "Obama" that. He is no longer running as "John McCain" but "the Anti-Obama" candidate.

comment #9

Gus Petch says ...

What JHRussell said. I continue to suspect that McCain will win this thing in the end. The Democratic primary showed that Obama's appeal wanes the more people learn about him. And I think it'll be easy for McCain to emphasize Obama's weaknesses in September and October when voters are paying attention.

I could imagine a series of McCain ads, called "Obama Unfiltered" or something, that do nothing but air thirty seconds of Obama speaking. The "clings to religion" bit would be one of them, of course, and his recent riff on Americans speaking foreign languages would be another. (That latter one, especially, is simply jaw-dropping, and there are plenty of people out there who haven't heard it.) Obama ran an ad here in California where he condescends toward Michiganders; the McCain people should just run that same ad in Michigan.

The bottom line is, I think it'll be relatively easy to educate voters about Obama's attitude toward ordinary Americans (read: "rubes", if you're an HE regular).

comment #10

Mark says ...

PA is in the bag. Obama is at 50% there; same as he is in NY and his home state IL.

What's not in the bag is Ohio. That should be a toss-up, and included w/ only Colorado and Virginia as the only Toss-ups that Obama is currently running ahead.

comment #11

Howlingman says ...

If we're predicting things, how's this? Obama wins in November and inherits a recession, massive deficit, enormous debt. Tough measures (taxes) are called for, which galvanizes the Republican base and the tattered remains of the middle class. The Republicans use that anger to take back the house and senate in '10 and win the '12 election, blaming the economic policies and problems they caused on Obama and the Democrats.

comment #12

Walter Sobchak says ...

I don't think Rove looked evil enough. Couldn't Stone have re-imagined him as having a long, twirlable, pencil-thin moustache?

You know, artistic-license and all that?

comment #13

chappiesan says ...

Howlingman:

Great comment. For an orgnaization so enrapt by the idea of financial repsonsibility, the Republicans have done a wonderful job of playing army abroad and racking up, what will be by 2010, an $11 trillion debt. I hope Obama asks McCain how much his extended timeline for Iraq will actually add on to that. After all, come 2010, this shit is going to cost each and every one of us (the 59% of Americans that are taxpayers) $62,000. That's assuming, of course, the government sends us a bill and demands prompt payment, and doesn't let the interest compound to the point where we owe double that.

comment #14

Gaydos says ...

And then there are these Hillary supporters who are still angry:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D926V4880&show_article=1

comment #15

Josh Massey says ...

"Between electronic voting shenanigans, voter disenfranchisement, and our retarded media,..."

"...blaming the economic policies and problems they caused on Obama and the Democrats...."

Wonderful, it's already started. If Obama doesn't win, it's the Republicans's fault. And if he does win and fails to make this country into a land of rainbows and honey, it's the Republicans' fault.

St. Obama's streak of perfection continues.

comment #16

Mgmax says ...

"Oh, hey Mgmax: that guy who shot up the Unitarian Church in Tennessee and killed 2 people said he "hated liberals"."

Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who have had their anti-liberalism anger stoked by irresponsible commentators over the last several years, to the point where they're rabidly against traditiional liberal values such as spreading democracy, toppling dictators, allowing free markets to work to spread prosperity throughout society, making college admissions and hiring decisions without reference to skin color, and allowing free speech in sensitive areas such as on college campuses. That's why it's important for liberals such as myself to stand up for these things against the kind of conservative isolationism and central economic planning mindsets that bubble up out of these illiberal fever swamps.

comment #17

Mgmax says ...

"Also, one assumes that Obama & co. won't run the comically ineffective campaign Dukakis & co. did. I mean jesus."

Because he certainly knows better than to surround himself with old Dukakis campaign veterans. Just as he knows not to surround himself with people who made a killing off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Johnson_(businessman)

comment #18

Midwest Doug says ...

Those authors are all pretty bright, and I'd love to believe them. But after hearing other research and history-based political science maxims such as "Democrats will never lose control of the House" and "Gore is sure to win in 2000", I'll wait until I see it.

comment #19

roman says ...

Barack, I believe, like the article states, is a lock. All the states that he's consistently been strong in put him over the top. Done.

However, in '88 it was never GHWB's to lose. It was Lee Atwater's. Having been through the disgrace-machine in SC '00 McCain knows what really counts when it comes down to it. If you can scare the hell out of the legions of fear-voters in the red states by dispatching the next Atwater or Rove to go all negative, all the time, then you turn the election into an all-out shame-fest and history tells us that the greatest country in the world rarely ever shines in those situations.

comment #20

Amazing Larry says ...

Irresponsible commentators, Mgmax? Spreading democracy? Allowing free markets to spread prosperity throughout society?

If you really believe the tripe you spout, then I feel sorry for you, man.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

And I you, my friend.

comment #22

Amazing Larry says ...

No no no no no. Don't you DARE feel sorry for me. If you still think that Iraq was about spreading democracy, and that we're living in a "prosperous society" in a "free market", then you deserve all the sorrow that I have reserved for poor, misguided souls like you.

comment #23

Mgmax says ...

And someday you'll outgrow what your coddled aging-radical professors shoveled into you, too.

comment #24

supertaster says ...

Howlingman, as long as you continue to blame Republicans and not Congress-at-large for this country's problems, no constructive debate can be had.

And checking the Harold Lederman scorecard, it's Mgmax over Amazing Larry, 3 rounds to 0.

comment #25

MovieBob says ...

It's not going to be close. Obama is either going to keep rising and wallop McCain - as much as anyone CAN be walloped anymore, remember: Obama could lose FORTY states and still get close to 50% - or he'll flame out and McCain will walk all over him. The bottom line in either scenario is that Obama is doing something VERY risky but also extremely ballsy: He's turning the election from being a referendum on Bush to being a referendum on HIM. McCain, who I'll say upfront I largely prefer "big picture" out of the two, can't win this election - if he succeeds, it's because Obama lost.

Right now, they've both got things in their favor: McCain is leading among likely voters, but Obama can always reassure himself that the "right track/wrong track" question is still skewing in his favor.

And democrats/liberals should just cheer up either way: YOU ALREADY WON THIS ONE. All the genuine hardline conservatives dropped out of the Republican race. The congressional elections are going to be a fracking SLAUGHTER of Republican seats... you're going to have a fillibuster-proof and possibly even VETO-proof majority in Congress with either Obama or the famously Democrat-friendly, compromise-happy McCain as president... for one term, after which he's going to say he accomplished his goals and turn it over to his veep who will then LOSE to Hillary Clinton.

Put you're feet up kids, ya WON.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Bilge: Bush I was also coasting off of Reagan's popularity, which is really why he won over Dukakis. The economy was on a decline then, too, but it wasn't the wreck that is exclusive to this administration.

Farris: PA is pro-Dem, no matter who's running. Not sure about MI and OH, but those recent car factory closings have got to be painful, given that the only Republican 'solution' to their lack of jobs is to drill for more oil.

Gus: "The Democratic primary showed that Obama's appeal wanes the more people learn about him."

Is that why he's doing tv appearances while McCain's rotting in the grocery store? As for being condescending to Michigan residents, I don't think you could do any worse than McCain, and openly endorse free-trade policies which cost them their jobs.

Howlingman: The Republicans regaining their mid-term seats won't happen, since the people being taxed won't be liked very much-or propagandized as being likable-the way they were in '94. The only way they can win now is if they co-op Dem policies; and that won't fly, since it cuts off their lobbyist money.

Josh: "Wonderful, it's already started. If Obama doesn't win, it's the Republicans's fault. And if he does win and fails to make this country into a land of rainbows and honey, it's the Republicans' fault."

Probably.

Mgmax: "Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who have had their anti-liberalism anger stoked by irresponsible commentators over the last several years, to the point where they're rabidly against traditiional liberal values such as spreading democracy, toppling dictators,"

So what has Bush done about Sudan and Pakistan again? And didn't he also cut a deal with Qadaffi?

"allowing free markets to work to spread prosperity throughout society,"

Did all those bank bail-outs and Enron ripping off Californians suddenly count as the free market at work?

"making college admissions and hiring decisions without reference to skin color,"

You mean dark skin color from a poor family.

"and allowing free speech in sensitive areas such as on college campuses."

But beating up and jailing anti-war protesters is fine and dandy.

"Just as he knows not to surround himself with people who made a killing off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance."

But Ken Lay sponsoring Bush's campaign is off-limits.

comment #27

Amazing Larry says ...

Wow, wrong again, Mgmax. Got into IT right out of high school, and have an arm load of certificates and 15 years of on-the-job experience. Never had an aging-radical professor in my life.

Does it give you a sexual thrill to be wrong so often? Care to make another wildly inaccurate guess as to the slightest thing about myself and/or the nature of reality? Your batting average is almost as good as Bill Kristol.

comment #28

chappiesan says ...

The Amazing Larry, he didn't earn the nickname for nothing. Now, let's go free some more countries so we can sell them all our worthless shit.

comment #29

62Lincoln says ...

Flip flop: McCain leads among "likely" voters in USA Today/Gallup poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-28-poll_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

comment #30

Howlingman says ...

supertaster, I "blame" nobody -- just pointing out that it's the same old politics as usual, and that's coming from someone who considers themselves right of center. And as the Republicans controlled every branch of government for six of the last eight years, I'll grant you that Congress bears much of the blame. My prediction was based on what all governments and political parties do -- obfuscate.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

Amazing Larry:

Whatever. This:

"Does it give you a sexual thrill to be wrong so often?"

makes it clear you have nothing to say and a loud voice to say it with on the Internet.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Lincoln: The Stevens indictment should knock McCain's boost down soon.