Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

"Despite broad, longstanding dissatisfaction with the war, just 50% of Americans prefer Obama's plan to withdraw most U.S. forces within 16 months of taking office. Essentially as many, 49%, side with McCain's position -- setting no timetable and letting events dictate when troops are withdrawn," according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

"McCain's competitiveness on Iraq runs counter to broader views on the war, which more closely align with Obama's."

"With commanding leads among women and young voters and near unanimous support from black voters," Sen. Barack Obama has a 50% to 41% lead over Sen. John McCain, according to a new Quinnipiac poll of likely voters released today.

Independent voters split 44% to 44%. McCain has a slight 47% to 44% edge among men voters and a larger 49% to 42% lead among white voters. But black voters back Obama 94% to 1%, while women support him [Obama] 55% to 36%.

Interesting: Obama gets 44% to McCain's 47% in red states, which went Republican by more than 5 percent in 2004, and leads 50% to 39% in purple or swing states.

http://politicalwire.com/

So Obama is only down by 7% among white voters. He's up by double digits with women and latinos. When will the media get the memo?

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://politicalwire.com/

So Obama is only down by 7% among white voters. He's up by double digits with women and latinos. When will the media get the memo?

They won't budge an inch. See: Obama's continued "problems" courting Latinos and Clinton supporters. Not to mention white pet-owning female blue collar suburban workers. Or his flip flops versus McCain's (like his complete reversal on troop level in Afghanistan - a change of position from last week).

 

[StoOgE]

http://politicalwire.com/

So Obama is only down by 7% among white voters. He's up by double digits with women and latinos. When will the media get the memo?

and he is burying mccain in "swing states". This isn't nearly as close as the MSM is trying to make it.

 

[Odrion]

They won't budge an inch. See: Obama's continued "problems" courting Latinos and Clinton supporters. Not to mention white pet-owning female blue collar suburban workers. Or his flip flops versus McCain's (like his complete reversal on troop level in Afghanistan - a change of position from last week).

Hum, I swore I saw a poll where Obama got twice the amount of Latino votes than McCain.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Hum, I swore I saw a poll where Obama got twice the amount of Latino votes than McCain.

Yes, but for the most part the mainstream media (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) ignore those findings to keep the narrative going (tight race).

 

[PhoenixDark]

More from the WA Post poll

From NBC's Mark Murray
The new Washington Post/ABC poll has Obama leading McCain by eight points (50%-42%) among registered voters. Among likely voters, Obama's lead is three (49%-46%), and among all adults, Obama's lead is 12 points (51%-39%) -- suggesting that the higher the turnout, the better for Obama.

The Washington Post writes that "Obama holds his biggest advantage of the campaign as the candidate best prepared to fix the nation's ailing economy, but lingering concerns about his readiness to handle international crises are keeping the race close... Forty-nine percent of those surveyed said Obama's level of experience would hamper his ability to serve effectively as president; fewer, 40 percent, said it would help. And asked whether he would make a good commander in chief, 48 percent said yes. While 56 percent said Obama knows enough about world affairs to be a good president, more, 72 percent, said so about McCain."

On the plus side for Obama: "Asked whom they trust more to handle the economy, 54 percent of those surveyed named Obama; just 35 percent cited McCain. Obama's 19-point advantage on the economy is his largest of the campaign. He also holds double-digit leads on dealing with the federal budget deficit and on immigration. On social issues such as abortion and gay civil unions, 56 percent prefer Obama, 32 percent McCain."

Given these numbers, it's perhaps no surprise now that Obama is heading to the Middle East and Europe.

Not so radical afterall

 

[GhaleonEB]

Hum, I swore I saw a poll where Obama got twice the amount of Latino votes than McCain.

All of the polls show that, which is why I put it in quotes. There is no Latino problem for Obama. He's much better positioned with them than Gore or Kerry ever were (and McCain worse than Bush ever was). But I still read about Obama's struggle to reach them, for some reason.

New CBS News/NYT poll has Obama 45, McCain 39 overall.

So three national polls today, showing Obama up by 9, 8 and 6.

 

[Odrion]

Yes, but for the most part the mainstream media (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) ignore those findings to keep the narrative going (tight race).

actually I caught it on fox.

but they probably were using it as "ARE MEXICANS RUINING OUR GREAT NATION?'

 

[Chrono]

This doesn't have anything to do with the elections but this thread is the only place where I can ask this since most of PoliGaf is here...

Has anybody seen anything like this: a dude in a suit and with no pants, just underwear, giving a press conference of some sort and the audience is mostly composed of something like a dozen women wearing islamic veils over their faces? Not the regular hijab, but the type that covers the entire face, or just reveals the eyes... They looked like reporters or something. It was something about Guantanamo.

I was flipping channels and got distracted when this was on. Now this wasn't on a US channel, but it was about Guantanamo, I think, so some here might know something about this.... anybody? :lol It's driving me crazy, I need to know what the hell that was about.

Edit: OK I googled "guantanamo underwear" instead of just Guantanamo and looking for news and it looks like underwear was smuggled in, lol... but there's nothing about what I saw. I suppose it could have been a demonstration, but the reporters thing was really weird as most, or many at least, were these completely veiled women. It didn't look like a press conference anywhere in the west, or hell, the middle east even.

 

[maximum360]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/mccain-raises-6.html

Here's a story you can say you read first at The Jed Report: according to FEC reports filed on July 15, through June 30, John McCain had raised at $62.5 million in private funds that can be used for his general election campaign -- even though he's already committed to accepting public funding for the general.

Moreover, based on my own analysis, of that $62.5 million, three-quarters -- $46.3 million -- comes from a total of 1,803 wealthy individuals who made five figure contributions averaging $25,664 each.

So not only is John McCain blatantly violating his public financing pledge, but he's doing it in grand style, raising money in increments of up to $70,000 per donor -- more than thirty times the amount a donor can give to Barack Obama's general election campaign.

How is this all possible? How has most of the media missed the story? Allow me to explain.

As you recall, on June 19th, Barack Obama announced that he would forgo the public finance system, electing to raise money directly from his 1.7 million supporters. In explaining his decision, Barack cited two key arguments: one, that John McCain and the RNC were jointly raising millions for the general election from private sources including from PACs and lobbyists and two, 527s would spend millions attacking him during the closing weeks of the campaign.

Now that the July 15 FEC reports have been filed, Barack's first argument has been validated. The jury is still out on the second argument; it cannot be evaluated until the campaign is over or until a major 527 or independent ad effort has materialized, whichever comes first.

Still, even though Barack has already been proven correct on one of his key points, he was subject to a ruthless browbeating by the mass media, which pilloried him as a cynical opportunist for days on end. Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign aggressively pushed that storyline with a daily barrage of sanctimonious and hypocritical personal attacks from McCain on Obama.

Now, however, it is clear that even as the McCain campaign was on the warpath against Barack Obama, they knew that his argument about the McCain campaign's coordination with the RNC was absolutely true.

First, ten days before Barack Obama announced his decision to forgo the public finance system, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told McCain supporters that the campaign had discovered a way around the campaign finance system that would allow McCain to raise at least as much money as Obama -- if not more.

Second, of the $62.5 million in private funds that McCain can use in the general election, $54.1 million -- 86% -- was raised before Barack Obama's decision.

So it is absolutely clear that even as the McCain campaign was telling reporters one thing about their intention to stick by the public financing pledge, they were actually raising tens of millions of dollars from private sources for the general election campaign.

In short, the McCain campaign brazenly lied to the media.

::: ::: :::

The issue isn't that John McCain will withdraw from the public finance system -- he won't -- but rather that he's devised a way to spend tens if not hundreds of millions in privates funds even as he takes $85 million in taxpayer funds. (Talk about a bridge to nowhere.)

McCain, whose campaign is predicting a campaign budget of $400 million through the November 4, is skillfully exploiting loopholes in a campaign finance law that he wrote.

Here's the nuts-and-bolts of the loophole: the money McCain is currently raising through the campaign committees which reported their quarterly results on July 15 is actually being funneled to the Republican National Committee, even though each campaign committee bears McCain's name.

There are two reasons why the money is transferred to the RNC. First, if it were not transferred to the RNC, the money could not be used in the general. Second, by raising the money for the RNC, McCain is able to take advantage of a much higher contribution limits, allowing each donor to contribute $70,000 to his campaign instead of the $2,300 limit that Barack Obama's general election campaign has.

(Although Barack Obama could exploit the same loopholes as McCain, he doesn't have access to the sheer number of wealthy donors that McCain does, so the loopholes are of far less value to him.)

Once transferred to the RNC, the money can be used on a number of McCain campaign activities such as get out the vote operations, advertising, or producing literature and signs -- without any spending limitations whatsoever.

The only restriction is that any advertising in excess of $19 million must be orchestrated by what's called an independent expenditure committee. Legally, there can be no coordination between the McCain campaign and this independent expenditure committee, but practically speaking there's no way to enforce that restriction. In fact, the McCain campaign offices and the expenditure vendor offices are just 3 miles apart -- on the same road.

The McCain campaign and the RNC are already running ads through this independent expenditure loophole.

::: ::: :::

Ultimately, what we've got here is a press corps that got completely bamboozled by a dishonest McCain campaign because the McCain campaign was able to deftly take advantage of the fact that most journalists don't know very much about the campaign finance system.

Given John McCain's personal familiarity with that system -- he helped create it, after all -- it's pretty clear that McCain himself knew that he was misleading the press corps.

Now, the question is how the media will respond to having been lied to.[

Update: After I posted this entry, I found an article by the WSJ's Todd Farnam reporting on the release of these numbers -- good for him, and good for the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617969988057495.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm sure the media will be all over McCain about this. Oh wait....

 

[Keylime]

Out of curiousity, everyone does visit this site, yes?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's easily the most trustworthy meta-polling and prediction site on the face of the earth.

Give it a check if you haven't already.

 

[Sleeker]

http://politicalwire.com/

So Obama is only down by 7% among white voters. He's up by double digits with women and latinos. When will the media get the memo?

They've already received the memo and wiped their ass with it.

 

[Tamanon]

BTW, Obama's huge advantage with women already kinda takes away from a Hillary Veep position, or a Sebelius one.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

BTW, Obama's huge advantage with women already kinda takes away from a Hillary Veep position, or a Sebelius one.

Not for Sebelius if he cares about a VP that's carries his philosophy.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why does John McCain get a free pass about everything? Schroco or what ever his name is might think crazy but McCain really is getting a free pass.

The man can't remember what countries still exist, he's losing women by 14 points, latinos by 30 points, blacks by 93 points, and is only winning men by some 5 points. And he is only winning whites by 7 points.

You do the math. Losing latinos by 30 and Blacks by 93 points is worst than losing whites by only 7.

And he is only winning red states that won big in 2004 by 4 or so points. AND he is losing swing states by 12 points. THAT'S HORRIBLE! Theres your story MSM!

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/mccain-raises-6.html



I'm sure the media will be all over McCain about this. Oh wait....

If somebody can post the the CNN or MSNBC tips email address, you should email this to them.

 

[scorcho]

i don't know who Schroco is, but i like the cut of his jib.

 

[Diablos]

MSM is trying to make this look close and dramatic for one reason: RATINGS.

McCain has "flip flopped" probably more than Presidential nominees in YEARS but nobody cares. People get on Obama's case over the dumbest things. I just hope people don't eat it up right before going to the polls.

 

[thekad]

MSM is trying to make this look close and dramatic for one reason: RATINGS.

McCain has "flip flopped" probably more than Presidential nominees in YEARS but nobody cares. People get on Obama's case over the dumbest things. I just hope people don't eat it up right before going to the polls.

That reminds me of this: "McCain is probably the only presidential candidate in history to oppose two pieces of legislation with his name on them." :lol

 

[Tamanon]

Imagine how much closer this election would be if McCain 2000 was running!

I just want somebody to get him to say September 11th changed everything for him.

 

[mckmas8808]

I can't wait till the debate.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

BTW, Obama's huge advantage with women already kinda takes away from a Hillary Veep position, or a Sebelius one.

Our girl Kate is also a great 2016 Hildeblocker.

 

[bob_arctor]

I won't bluster and I won't make idle threats.

But understand this, when I am commander in chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run and nowhere they can hide

I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice

I know how to win wars.

blus·ter (blstr)
v.tr.
To force or bully with swaggering threats.


Quick, someone look up gravitas!

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Anyone watch Dan Abrams last night? I'm trying to find his segment on a woman who wrote a book on GITMO, detailing how a general and CIA officer at GITMO saying half the detainees are innocent.

I can't find it on his main site.

EDIT-I found the video. You guys should watch it. It's just shocking:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25696246#25696246

 

[maximum360]

Anyone watch Dan Abrams last night? I'm trying to find his segment on a woman who wrote a book on GITMO, detailing how a general and CIA officer at GITMO saying half the detainees are innocent.

I can't find it on his main site.

EDIT-I found the video. You guys should watch it. It's just shocking:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25696246#25696246

It's actually not that shocking at all considering we're talking about the Bush administration here.

 

[reilo]

People should watch last night's Daily Show. Stewart just nails the absurdity of the media and their inconceivable ways.

Stewart: "So now we know where the real two-dimensional figures are! TELEVISION!"

 

[so_awes]

People should watch last night's Daily Show. Stewart just nails the absurdity of the media and their inconceivable ways.

Stewart: "So now we know where the real two-dimensional figures are! TELEVISION!"

here: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=176628
bonus: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=176629

 

[Hootie]

Hey! Rachel is on this Race for the White House show...that means Olbermann is finally back, right?

 

[worldrunover]

Hey! Rachel is on this Race for the White House show...that means Olbermann is finally back, right?

This is what I'm hoping.

 

[Hootie]

This is what I'm hoping.

I believe I saw a commercial yesterday that said he'd be back today though I may be mistaken. Looks like we'll find out in about 35 minutes.

 

[worldrunover]

I like Rachel but nothing beats the pure theatrics of Olberman.

 

[Hootie]

I like Rachel but nothing beats the pure theatrics of Olberman.

He's so awesome. Since I (for better or for worse) agree with all of his opinions, it makes the show very entertaining and informing to watch.

Oddball and Worst Person's in the World add some nice comedy, too.

 

[scorcho]

He's so awesome. Since I (for better or for worse) agree with all of his opinions, it makes the show very entertaining and informing to watch.

oh, so you agree that Obama has a morally righteous 'secret plan' for FISA?

 

[Hootie]

oh, so you agree that Obama has a morally righteous 'secret plan' for FISA?

Well....maybe not that :lol

The whole FISA shit is such a fiasco; I've tried to steer away from all talk on it.

 

[adamsappel]

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

I, too, like Rachel (

Spoiler

maybe a little more than most of GAF with me being a big ol' lesbo

), but I don't think the Countdown format suits her for the most part. Her biggest pitfall seems to be her handling of humor which, more times than not, has ranged from clunky to facepalm-ingly bad. I like her more in intimate 1v1 interview situations where her political analytical skills shine through as she engages with experts on the relevant topics, or on a panel that interacts with each other, rather than just presenting their views.

 

[scorcho]

Chris Matthews cracks me up - he highlights national polls showing that Obama is up by an average of 6% over McCain and his 'roundtable' question is -

wait for it...

'why is it so low?'

[slams head]WTF is he expecting, Obama to be leading by 20%? has the bar been now set so high that anything other than a 10% lead somehow a negative for Obama? the polls aren't tight, and they are in no way indicative of backlash within his 'base', what constitutes the democratic base would in no way vote McCain. the Democratic party was all but called dead in 2004 and have been in the electoral minority for a large part of the last few decades.

i think some pundits are a bit deluded by the latest California poll.

 

[User 10639]

i don't know who Schroco is, but i like the cut of his jib.

I hear he's a big fan of anal lubricant.

what constitutes the democratic base would in no way vote McCain.

See, I was always told by conservatives that the base of the Democratic Party was black people and fig-eating, latte-sipping liberals in upper-west Manhattan, and I'm pretty sure he's got both of those demos pretty well locked up.

 

[worldrunover]

Chris Matthews cracks me up - he highlights national polls showing that Obama is up by an average of 6% over McCain and his 'roundtable' question is -

wait for it...

'why is it so low?'

[slams head]WTF is he expecting, Obama to be leading by 20%? has the bar been now set so high that anything other than a 10% lead somehow a negative for Obama? the polls aren't tight, and they are in no way indicative of backlash within his 'base', what constitutes the democratic base would in no way vote McCain. the Democratic party was all but called dead in 2004 and have been in the electoral minority for a large part of the last few decades.

i think some pundits are a bit deluded by the latest California poll.

By any measure I think Obama SHOULD be up by 20 points. He's charismatic, eloquent, the exact opposite of the disasterous Bush years, and McCain is old, not adept at getting his message out, and adheres to Bush policies. The only reason he's not (in my opinion) is, because, well, you know...

 

[mckmas8808]

oh, so you agree that Obama has a morally righteous 'secret plan' for FISA?

I sorta agree with Obama in a way on FISA. It's not perfect, but I understand the choice he made.

 

[mckmas8808]

Chris Matthews cracks me up - he highlights national polls showing that Obama is up by an average of 6% over McCain and his 'roundtable' question is -

wait for it...

'why is it so low?'

[slams head]WTF is he expecting, Obama to be leading by 20%? has the bar been now set so high that anything other than a 10% lead somehow a negative for Obama? the polls aren't tight, and they are in no way indicative of backlash within his 'base', what constitutes the democratic base would in no way vote McCain. the Democratic party was all but called dead in 2004 and have been in the electoral minority for a large part of the last few decades.

i think some pundits are a bit deluded by the latest California poll.

I think I love you now. I was banging my head for like 10 minutes. Why should Obama be up by 15%?

Isn't that a bad thing for McCain? Why is being down by 15% something that should be looked forward to?

By any measure I think Obama SHOULD be up by 20 points. He's charismatic, eloquent, the exact opposite of the disasterous Bush years, and McCain is old, not adept at getting his message out, and adheres to Bush policies. The only reason he's not (in my opinion) is, because, well, you know...

No not really. I can see maybe 10-12% but not 20%.

And I LOOOOVE the fact that Olbermann is explaining with actual NUMBERS how the surge is not over. He is using actual numbers. And he is talking about the 18 jobs that the Iraq government was supposed to meet yet hasn't hit most of them.

 

[reilo]

Is this a re-run of Olbermann? Having a case of Deja Vu with this Worst persons segment.

 

[Hootie]

Is this a re-run of Olbermann? Having a case of Deja Vu with this Worst persons segment.

Nope, he's back and talking about what happened while he was gone.

 

[sc0la]

so have we talked about this Iran envoy thing?

Do you think McCain will use this distance himself from bush, or will it be a big blow considering how often he bags on Obama for it?

EDIT: it seems McCain has already taken a position

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who has said he wouldn't negotiate face-to-face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions, said Wednesday he had "no problem ... whatsoever" with sending Burns to Saturday's meeting with Jalili.

So you don't have any problems with the thing you said was a problem all campaign? cool.

"We have many negotiations with many countries ... throughout the world," McCain told reporters in Nebraska, noting the U.S. ambassador to Iraq previously met with an Iranian ambassador in Iraq.
advertisement

However, McCain repeated that he wouldn't meet Ahmadinejad unconditionally, noting the U.S. considers Iran a sponsor of terrorism.

"To sit down without any preconditions with a state sponsor of terror would be a mistake," McCain said.

So now real designees sitting down and talking is OK as long as the two presidents don't talk to each other? fuck that its the same thing, if not more important that the state department are acting here. And this after McCain crucified Clark as if a "campaign liason" was the same as Obama saying it with his own mouth.

 

[mckmas8808]

so have we talked about this Iran envoy thing?

Do you think McCain will use this distance himself from bush, or will it be a big blow considering how often he bags on Obama for it?

EDIT: it seems McCain has already taken a position
So you don't have any problems with the thing you said was a problem all campaign? cool.



So now real designees sitting down and talking is OK as long as the two presidents don't talk to each other? fuck that its the same thing, if not more important that the state department are acting here. And this after McCain crucified Clark as if a "campaign liason" was the same as Obama saying it with his own mouth.

bu.bu.bu.bu....two presidents aren't talking face to face. But 2 people that work for those presidents that have their own decent position can do it all day and it's absolutely NO problem.

Why the 2 extremes?

 

[Frank the Great]

Why the 2 extremes?

Divisive politics are divisive.

This whole diplomacy debate is ridiculous. Everyone knows that we need to talk with Iran, and the American people do not want another war and they want the government to do anything they can to avoid one.

The only reason Hillary, and then McCain, made an issue out of the Presidents meeting is because it is an issue that has the potential to irrationally divide people based on their gut feelings. No one cares if we have try diplomacy with Iran, but by arguing that our President meeting with theirs gives them legitimacy, McCain is attempting to appeal to the type of people who think that America is the greatest country and should be treated as such.

It's just a political game that the campaigns are playing, but it really doesn't make a difference whether the leaders meet. And if it does make a difference, it is nowhere near large enough to warrant the two extremes that you pointed out. This is politics at its worst.

 

[FitzOfRage]

Chris Matthews cracks me up - he highlights national polls showing that Obama is up by an average of 6% over McCain and his 'roundtable' question is -

wait for it...

'why is it so low?'

[slams head]WTF is he expecting, Obama to be leading by 20%? has the bar been now set so high that anything other than a 10% lead somehow a negative for Obama? the polls aren't tight, and they are in no way indicative of backlash within his 'base', what constitutes the democratic base would in no way vote McCain. the Democratic party was all but called dead in 2004 and have been in the electoral minority for a large part of the last few decades.

i think some pundits are a bit deluded by the latest California poll.

I'm glad Chuck Todd tried to put it in perspective though by noting that even with a massive electoral college you would likely only get a popular vote margin in the high single digits.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Have any questions for Howard Dean?


Let me know, I am attending a meeting with him involved, and I am trying to think of good questions to ask the leader of the DNC. If you want anything asked, let me know!

 

[User 10639]

Have any questions for Howard Dean?


Let me know, I am attending a meeting with him involved, and I am trying to think of good questions to ask the leader of the DNC. If you want anything asked, let me know!

Why is Nancy Pelosi ruining the catering at the convention? Hell, why is she running it in the first place?

 

[StoOgE]

Have any questions for Howard Dean?


Let me know, I am attending a meeting with him involved, and I am trying to think of good questions to ask the leader of the DNC. If you want anything asked, let me know!

You going to club deville tommorow night? I RSVP'd but I have batman tickets, so I dont know if I can do it.

I want to walk up to him and do the dean scream in the worst way possible.

"And Im going to go to the bar and get a drink.. PYAAAA"