Obama v McCain Polling

[hiding behind a poster]

Then there's the debates - not only is Obama a far far better debater, but also McCain's campaign (as always with an unpopular incumbent party) is almost entirely negative.

Sadly for Obama, he won't be able to rely on an autocue at the debates. If you saw him in any of the Primary debates, you would have realised he is a lightweight. The New Hampshire debate was particularly striking in this regard and probably had a considerable role in turning a 10 point lead on Saturday into a defeat on Tuesday.

You're right about the money advantage. Back in July I was convinced the money would see Obama through but now people are growing tired of Obama-related stories flooding the media, so he would probably have to spend a lot of the money going negative. Of course that would undermine his message of "change", "hope", "sunshine", "lollipops" and "rainbows".

He has lots of money, but currently can't gain much of an advantage by spending it.

Money gets you a lot more than attack ads. It gets you more paid organisers, more voter registration in key districts, more events in key districts. Consistently it has been shown over the decades that the guy with more campaign money is far more likely to win.

[BaudrillardNeverExisted]

[quote=hiding behind a poster]

Then there's the debates - not only is Obama a far far better debater, but also McCain's campaign (as always with an unpopular incumbent party) is almost entirely negative.

Sadly for Obama, he won't be able to rely on an autocue at the debates. If you saw him in any of the Primary debates, you would have realised he is a lightweight. The New Hampshire debate was particularly striking in this regard and probably had a considerable role in turning a 10 point lead on Saturday into a defeat on Tuesday.

You're right about the money advantage. Back in July I was convinced the money would see Obama through but now people are growing tired of Obama-related stories flooding the media, so he would probably have to spend a lot of the money going negative. Of course that would undermine his message of "change", "hope", "sunshine", "lollipops" and "rainbows".

He has lots of money, but currently can't gain much of an advantage by spending it.

Money gets you a lot more than attack ads. It gets you more paid organisers, more voter registration in key districts, more events in key districts. Consistently it has been shown over the decades that the guy with more campaign money is far more likely to win.[/quote:1wz1bsvh]

I overlooked voter registration drives. Although it's one thing registering people, quite another getting them to the polling station. This is particularly difficult in the USA where polls close very early in some states (5 or 6pm in Georgia and Indiana). Then there are the queues (remember that image of downtown Cleveland in 2004). Even Sinn Fein would have trouble getting the vote out in those circumstances.

As for more events, this has essentially the same pitfalls as more positive ads. Obama-fatigue has started to set in. His message has not evolved beyond "Hope, Change, America". He achieved brand recognition with this some time ago. Now the more it is repeated, the more superficial it appears.

The more I think about Obama, the more I see Royston Brady.

[Defeated Romanticist]

[quote=hiding behind a poster]

Then there's the debates - not only is Obama a far far better debater, but also McCain's campaign (as always with an unpopular incumbent party) is almost entirely negative.

Sadly for Obama, he won't be able to rely on an autocue at the debates. If you saw him in any of the Primary debates, you would have realised he is a lightweight. The New Hampshire debate was particularly striking in this regard and probably had a considerable role in turning a 10 point lead on Saturday into a defeat on Tuesday.

You're right about the money advantage. Back in July I was convinced the money would see Obama through but now people are growing tired of Obama-related stories flooding the media, so he would probably have to spend a lot of the money going negative. Of course that would undermine his message of "change", "hope", "sunshine", "lollipops" and "rainbows".

He has lots of money, but currently can't gain much of an advantage by spending it.

Money gets you a lot more than attack ads. It gets you more paid organisers, more voter registration in key districts, more events in key districts. Consistently it has been shown over the decades that the guy with more campaign money is far more likely to win.[/quote:1bo595ha]
He doesn't have a money advantage. When taken together with the RNC, McCain almost matches Obama and the DNC. More importantly McCain has accepted public funding. This means he will not have to waste precious time fundraising and gets to nail Obama as the liar he is on this issue.

[Keith-M]

[youtube:27ef27uy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMw0igOAVEo[/youtube:27ef27uy]

Hillary does her bit for Obama. If Obama can't win it after this his supportors can't blame Hillary (God bless her! )

We all knew she was an amazing liar, so it came easy to her.

Far more to the point, what the ************************ is she wearing? She looks like she's been tangoed!

[NotDevsSon]

[quote=BaudrillardNeverExisted]

Then there's the debates - not only is Obama a far far better debater, but also McCain's campaign (as always with an unpopular incumbent party) is almost entirely negative.

Sadly for Obama, he won't be able to rely on an autocue at the debates. If you saw him in any of the Primary debates, you would have realised he is a lightweight. The New Hampshire debate was particularly striking in this regard and probably had a considerable role in turning a 10 point lead on Saturday into a defeat on Tuesday.

You're right about the money advantage. Back in July I was convinced the money would see Obama through but now people are growing tired of Obama-related stories flooding the media, so he would probably have to spend a lot of the money going negative. Of course that would undermine his message of "change", "hope", "sunshine", "lollipops" and "rainbows".

He has lots of money, but currently can't gain much of an advantage by spending it.

Money gets you a lot more than attack ads. It gets you more paid organisers, more voter registration in key districts, more events in key districts. Consistently it has been shown over the decades that the guy with more campaign money is far more likely to win.

I overlooked voter registration drives. Although it's one thing registering people, quite another getting them to the polling station. This is particularly difficult in the USA where polls close very early in some states (5 or 6pm in Georgia and Indiana). Then there are the queues (remember that image of downtown Cleveland in 2004). Even Sinn Fein would have trouble getting the vote out in those circumstances.

As for more events, this has essentially the same pitfalls as more positive ads. Obama-fatigue has started to set in. His message has not evolved beyond "Hope, Change, America". He achieved brand recognition with this some time ago. Now the more it is repeated, the more superficial it appears.

The more I think about Obama, the more I see Royston Brady. [/quote:3uqt48x8]

You got it in one. One of the problems with a 9 month campaign (and that's what US presidential elections are) is that there is a limit to how much superficiality you can deliver. Even American voters (many of whom, to be honest, had obviously slipped out for a supersized burger while the Good Lord was giving out brains!) don't fall for 9 months of superficialities. 2, 3, 4 months, yes. But then fatigue sets in.

THAT is one of the key reasons Obama is now effectively static in the polls, why he is performing lower than his party, and why in the most recent poll by Gallop, in the middle of a Democratic convention, McCain is now ahead. 2 months ago the Democrats were absolutely sure Obama would be anything up to 10 points ahead going into the convention. It was inconceivable for them that he would not. They were talking about landslides, about bringing into play states the Dems haven't won for decades. That talk is all gone. They are now desparately worried because he simply is not going down as well as he has to, to have a snowballs of being president. When a Republican, in the aftermath of Bush, is more popular than you, you have one hell of a problem!!!

For HBAP - normally on politics you are pretty good. (I know just how good!) But on this you are seriously wrong. Listen to one phenomenon that has started to appear in the last two weeks - the question of who to blame if Obama loses. They have talked about Clinton. Now they are saying "if he loses it will be down to racism!" I've been following US elections for 30 years. I remember when Mondale was a no-hoper in 1984. (I remember getting up early on the morning after the 1980 election to check the results on CEEFAX. There was no breakfast TV then, no Morning Ireland, etc. For mornings you had Mike Murphy!!!) Yet thoughout all the no-hope campaigns, they kept up the pretence that they were going to win until near the end, even when those in the know knew they were going to be creamed. Yet in 2008, after the most incompetent and unpopular president in 150 years, people in the Democrats are already talking about who to blame if the race is lost. They aren't doing it by accident. They are seeing the figures. They are seeing that Obama is not assembling the coalition of support he needs. They see his liberal support slump. They see old man McCain, on paper a weak candidate, ahead of him in the week of the Democratic convention.

Youngdan said a true point in an earlier post - like her or loathe her, if Clinton was the candidate she would be running rings around McCain and McCain would be being seen as the Mondale of this election. The bottom line is that she assembled the natural committed coalition of supporters. Obama's was more ad-hoc, fluctuating throughout the campaign. He narrowly won the nomination, but now the lack of the natural coalition is showing, and he is where he should never have been by now, behind McCain. When your VP nomination sees your support drop and you go behind someone as dull and as old as McCain, YOU ARE IN TROUBLE.

I want Obama to win. But I have never once seen evidence that he will. His appeal suited the nomination race, and Clinton's didn't. But in this race now, Obama is not doing as well as he should. If a charismatic young candidate, after 8 years of Bush, finds himself behind a candidate like McCain then something is wrong. Sure Obama is get a bounce, probably a big one. But it is likely to be shortlived. Bounces that last are built on longterm creeping increases, followed by the big increase at the convention. Obama if anything has been sliding back, and the man most people did not give a chance to, John McCain, is matching him every step of the way.

BTW someone I know (I won't name him) is famous as a judge of elections. He got all parties right in the last election. Last January he made a prediction and put €500 on it: a treble. Obama to win the Democratic nomination (at a time when Clinton was believed by almost everyone to be guaranteed it). McCain to win the GOP nomination (at a time when McCain looked doomed and about to pull out of the race). And McCain to beat Obama for the presidency. At the time everyone laughed at it. (But then they laughed when he said the PDs would only have 2 seats!) This race smells more and more like an experienced candidate in McCain against a naive and out-of-his depth kid who is great for soundbites but not just more. So far he has let McCain define who Obama is, very very cleverly. The trouble is, the longer your opponent defines your message and image, the harder it is for you to reclaim yourself and define yourself. McCain's defining of Obama as a 'celebrity' was a masterstroke. It has stuck in millions of minds. Everytime Obama makes a big speech, people will now look and wonder whether he is merely a celebrity without nothing beyond that. Every time he delivers a soundbite the same thought will form. If by the first week of September Obama has not shaken that tag, it will stick with him for the rest of the campaign, and haunt him.

[youngdan]

Some seem to be seriously underestimating the ads that are ready to roll nationwide. I have linked the brother in the hut ad already.

This ad will be a great shock to those who are now tuning in to make a decision. How can Obama survive this ad

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ound&vt=lf

[Squire Allworthy]

Some seem to be seriously underestimating the ads that are ready to roll nationwide. I have linked the brother in the hut ad already.

This ad will be a great shock to those who are now tuning in to make a decision. How can Obama survive this ad

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ound&vt=lf

Apparently Obama's legal team have been trying to shut down that add and trying to elbow sites hosting it. To date they have been remarkably unsuccessful.

I have to say it was a decent speech but I still find it hard to find her genuine.
She was not considered for the polling because of the fact that she is the person who has said that Obama is not ready to lead the country throughout the 1st half of the year.
It is not the person you want beside you.

The polls have not taken into account the convention yet and will not until early next week. The Dems choosing Biden does not seem to have worked so far.

Biden said nothing different to what Clinton said.

I have be musing on this and am firmly of the belief that Obama made a catastrophic mistake not choosing her as VP and doubled the problem by not seriously considering her. If the roles were reversed and Clinton did exactly the same thing then I would be saying the same.

Firstly it is obvious that there are two groups of supporters strongly motivated to make history. It was a close and bitter race. The circumstance is not like the normal VP selection there are other considerations. Obama and Clinton have a following that, if motivated, could be out there getting the vote out. Biden and the likes do not. That is a major asset to squander.

Secondly the party needs to unite, but for that to happen both camps would have to have been involved in accommodating each other. It isn't just the responsibility of the sisterhood to knuckle under and do their bit for a candidate that just does not inspire them at all. Many of them will probably go home and take no further part. They are not there to elect the first black man but the first woman. It could so easily have been the first of both. What he has done is the equivalent of killing half your troops before a battle.

Thirdly there is the Clinton baggage. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She is not chattel. What she has had to put up with, with Bill defies imagination. At worst she is a pragmatist at best very loyal.

Fourthly the negative ratings. Well yes she has high negative ratings, who won't by the time this is over. The negative is more than balanced by her very strong support in swing states. Let her lose in the rust belt and she would achieve far more than Biden.

Fifthly experience she does have and she is also well informed and on top of most subjects.

Sixthly, if he had chosen her as VP the whole tone of this convention would have been different. It would have been 100% about electing Obama and no time needed on attempted unity. This is Obama's doing for by chosing Joe Biden he lost control of his own convention.

Bad mistake.

There are a couple of others, the 'bitter' remark and the 'above my pay grade' were really stupid and will come back to haunt.

Still Obama's to lose but only just.

Wonder what fall out shelters cost?

[NotDevsSon]

Some seem to be seriously underestimating the ads that are ready to roll nationwide. I have linked the brother in the hut ad already.

This ad will be a great shock to those who are now tuning in to make a decision. How can Obama survive this ad

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ound&vt=lf

Apparently Obama's legal team have been trying to shut down that add and trying to elbow sites hosting it. To date they have been remarkably unsuccessful.

I have to say it was a decent speech but I still find it hard to find her genuine.
She was not considered for the polling because of the fact that she is the person who has said that Obama is not ready to lead the country throughout the 1st half of the year.
It is not the person you want beside you.

The polls have not taken into account the convention yet and will not until early next week. The Dems choosing Biden does not seem to have worked so far.

Biden said nothing different to what Clinton said.

I have be musing on this and am firmly of the belief that Obama made a catastrophic mistake not choosing her as VP and doubled the problem by not seriously considering her. If the roles were reversed and Clinton did exactly the same thing then I would be saying the same.

Firstly it is obvious that there are two groups of supporters strongly motivated to make history. It was a close and bitter race. The circumstance is not like the normal VP selection there are other considerations. Obama and Clinton have a following that, if motivated, could be out there getting the vote out. Biden and the likes do not. That is a major asset to squander.

Secondly the party needs to unite, but for that to happen both camps would have to have been involved in accommodating each other. It isn't just the responsibility of the sisterhood to knuckle under and do their bit for a candidate that just does not inspire them at all. Many of them will probably go home and take no further part. They are not there to elect the first black man but the first woman. It could so easily have been the first of both. What he has done is the equivalent of killing half your troops before a battle.

Thirdly there is the Clinton baggage. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She is not chattel. What she has had to put up with, with Bill defies imagination. At worst she is a pragmatist at best very loyal.

Fourthly the negative ratings. Well yes she has high negative ratings, who won't by the time this is over. The negative is more than balanced by her very strong support in swing states. Let her lose in the rust belt and she would achieve far more than Biden.

Fifthly experience she does have and she is also well informed and on top of most subjects.

Sixthly, if he had chosen her as VP the whole tone of this convention would have been different. It would have been 100% about electing Obama and no time needed on attempted unity. This is Obama's doing for by chosing Joe Biden he lost control of his own convention.

Bad mistake.

There are a couple of others, the 'bitter' remark and the 'above my pay grade' were really stupid and will come back to haunt.

Still Obama's to lose but only just.

Wonder what fall out shelters cost?

I agree that Obama made a colossal blunder in not picking her. Her negatives are largely mythical. They are lower than McCain, lower than Biden's and only marginally more (4%) than Obama's. If he picked her he would have delivered a united party, while her campaigning strength would have been immense. Biden ran for the White House twice, and both times bombed badly. It is astonishing to think that Obama decided not to pick the person who won nearly half the party's support, and instead picked someone who in his campaigns got 1%. If he doesn't trust her, that was all the more reason to pick her - the old adage 'keep your friends close, and your enemies closer' makes perfect sense.

Obama is actually a very weak candidate.

- he performs poorly in debates, as was shown throughout the primaries
- her is under-supported among Reagan Democrats, a crucial constituency he must capture.
- he is still doing badly among Hispanics.
- in picking a pro-choice Catholic he has enraged conservative Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy who have now made an entry into the campaign condemning Biden. That could have been avoided by picking Biden and picking a pro-choice campaigner who was not Catholic. With Catholics already having an issue with Obama, Biden was almost exactly the wrong person to pick.
- he has allowed himself to be categorised by McCain, something that is a major tactical error.
- his poll numbers are very weak compared to where he should be. Obama is underperforming compared to the Democrats while McCain is overperforming compared to his party. Given 8 years of Bush, that in itself is seriously worrying. Obama should be far far higher in the polls going into the convention, not behind McCain.

[Squire Allworthy]

NDS I agree Obama has many weak characteristics. He is dire in debates IMO he is not on top of many of issues. I think his falling polls is in large part due to his performance at Saddleback. His team know he is poor and that is why they won't risk McCain's Town Halls. They have to keep him out of trouble.

Worse than that he just does not connect with many ordinary Americans.

I have serious doubts about his judgement.

[NotDevsSon]

NDS I agree Obama has many weak characteristics. He is dire in debates IMO he is not on top of many of issues. I think his falling polls is in large part due to his performance at Saddleback. His team know he is poor and that is why they won't risk McCain's Town Halls. They have to keep him out of trouble.

Worse than that he just does not connect with many ordinary Americans.

I have serious doubts about his judgement.

His inability to connect is striking. What is even more astonishing is that he and McCain are neck and neck. You would think the most charismatic candidate since the Kennedys would be walking it. But he just isn't clicking. An ominous sign for him is the beginning of the blame game in the Democrats. There are whisperings that if he goes down it will be Hillary Clinton's fault, or to do with race, etc. I have followed presidential elections since 1980 when Reagan beat Carter. I cannot remember either side starting the blame game at the convention, yet those there say that is what is happening. Senior figures in the Democrats are obviously seriously worried when already they are talking about what lost them the election. Normally it is not until October that the whisperings start as to why the impending loss happened.