The romantic notion that Barack Obama will compete seriously in the states of the old Confederacy has not been abandoned altogether. But a big batch of new poll numbers suggests that the Democrat should look not south but west.

Arkansas, where Democrats have remained strong on the local, state and congressional levels, kept voting for Democrats in presidential contests long after most Deep South states turned hard to the Republican right.

But, this year, Republican John McCain is running well ahead in Arkansas. The latest Rasmussen survey has McCain ahead of Obama by a 47-37 margin.

Even in North Carolina, a state where Obama ran especially well in the primary season, is now leaning toward McCain 45-42 in the latest Rasmussen result, while SurveyUSA has McCain at 50 percent to 45 percent for Obama.

Across the south, McCain is ahead (even when he loses substantial support to Libertarian Bob Barr in states such asGeorgia and South Carolina).

In contrast, the Republican is not getting the traction that candidates of his party usually do in western and northern plains states.

The latest Rasmussen numbers from Nevada have Obama up 42-40.

In Colorado, the new PPP group survey has Obama ahead 47-43.

In North Dakota, the candidates are tied 43-43.

In South Dakota, McCain is up -- as every Republican candidate has been since 1964 -- but only by 4 points: 47-43.

Comments (21)

1. Live by polls and die by the polls.....

   I look at the red state /blue state map and can't see a red state that Obie will take nor a blue state that McCain can take..

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/18/2008 @ 12:45pm

2. I look at the red state /blue state map and can't see a red state that Obie will take nor a blue state that McCain can take..

   ~Johnny Maasch

   Thanks for sharing your expertise on this matter, Monsta'.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:14pm

3. Consider the rapidly growing poverty level in the south, stir appropriately and Barack's campaign can do some majorly big time pick-up points from the McCave clueless mean-spirited joke gaffe-ridden campaign that's seems all the more ready for its Darwin moment:

   Official poverty measure undercounts the nation's poor

   By Jared Bernstein

   In a few weeks, the U.S. Census Bureau will report on the 2007 poverty rate in America. Most likely, poverty as officially measured will have fallen slightly. But whatever the outcome, one thing is for sure: the official measure will represent a significant undercount of the nation's poor. A more accurate measure would reveal that millions more persons face material deprivation.

   The chart shows the official measure alongside a more accurate, alternative poverty measure taken from recent research that incorporates the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (see note). This alternative measure provides a much more detailed accounting of who is poor.

   ...

   In both 2000 and 2006, the alternative measure is higher than the official measure. In 2006, 12.3% of the population--36.5 million people--were officially poor. But under the more comprehensive, alternative measure, 17.7% were poor--16 million more poor persons than under the official measure.

   The trend in both measures is also revealing. Despite the fact that this was a productivity-rich recovery, the growth of income inequality over these years meant that income gains from the economy's expansion failed to reach the lowest income families, and poverty rose under both measures. This lack of progress against the scourge of poverty amidst plenty stands as a stark reminder of the costs of inequality.

   Note: The source for the alternative measure is Creating a Consistent Poverty Measure over Time Using NAS Methods, 1996-2005 by Thesia Garner and Kathleen Short (2008), The alternative measure for 2006 was kindly provided by the authors. Their alternative measure incorporates the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from their extensive study of updating the official measure of poverty in America. The new measure counts many more income sources, including tax credits and the market value of food stamps. It also updates the poverty thresholds--the income levels used to determine poverty status--using up-to-date information on consumer spending, including housing and out-of-pocket medical costs.

   http://tinyurl.com/6cdks3

   Rapid Increase In Severe Poverty In The US Has Serious Implications For Public Health

   Article Date: 31 Aug 2006

   Since 2000, Americans have been getting poorer, and national rates of severe poverty have climbed sharply, according to a study published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The researchers reported that the growth in the poverty rate is due largely to a rise in severe poverty and that "moderate" poverty has grown little.

   The percentage of Americans living in severe poverty--earning less than half of the poverty threshold--grew by 20% between 2000 and 2004, and the proportion in higher income tiers fell. The researchers reported that the number of Americans living in severe poverty increased by 3.6 million between 2000 and 2004.

   ...

   "The rise in severe poverty is striking children the hardest," said Woolf. His study found that children under age 5 are twice as likely to be living in severe poverty as the rest of the population. "In 2004, one of three Americans with incomes less than 50% of the poverty threshold--5.6 million people--was a child." Severe poverty is also dramatically worse among African Americans and Hispanics, and minority children therefore face the greatest risk. The researchers reported that children account for 45% of Hispanic and African Americans living in severe poverty.

   ...

   "This is not just a problem for the poor," Woolf added. "Except for a small class of highly affluent Americans, income for the entire U.S. population has fallen since 2000." The researchers describe a "sinkhole effect," in which "families and individuals in the middle and upper classes appear to be migrating to lower income tiers that bring them closer to the poverty threshold." U.S. household income, adjusted for inflation, fell by 3.6% between 2000 and 2004. Woolf says that the sinkhole effect and the upsurge in poverty could deeply affect society and calls for the reexamination of policies enacted in recent years to foster economic progress.

   ---------------------------- Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.

   http://tinyurl.com/6ddu4g

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 2:19pm

4. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Thanks for the TOTALLY off subject filler! This is about the wet dreams of the followers of B.Hussein O. (aka Alibama) still dancing around the may-polls after 2000 and 2004 showing they have learned NOTHING!

   Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/18/2008 @ 2:55pm

5. "This is about the wet dreams of the followers of B.Hussein O. (aka Alibama)" Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/18/2008 @ 2:55pm

   OOh you are so clever with the emphasizing of his middle name. This is the first time I've ever, ever seen someone do this. Kudos for your originality! Anyway, this article is really showing nothing new. Besides, polls are as valuable as the paper they're printed on.

   Posted by k330k at 07/18/2008 @ 3:18pm

6. Thanks for the TOTALLY off subject filler!

   Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/18/2008 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   er: For Obama: Not South But West

   "Consider the rapidly growing poverty level in the south, stir appropriately and Barack's campaign can do some majorly big time pick-up points from the McCave clueless mean-spirited joke gaffe-ridden campaign that's seems all the more ready for its Darwin moment:"

   So evidently ReRi objects to the sufficient substantiation added to my contention?

   No, it's ReRi's successful attempt at irony; creating a vacuous self-referential-- oxymoron.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 3:39pm

7. Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 3:39pm

   You evidently went over RedRiver's head here.

   Poverty in the south, voting in the south, people of minorities in the south voting against those increase their poverty level.....sounds like it pertains to this article.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:25pm

8. Sorry,

   Those who would increase their poverty level.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/18/2008 @ 4:26pm

9. Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/18/2008 @ 7:42pm

   Not to be argumentative sir, but as somebody who has lived in the south, and currently central PA, I think this area's population is literally the dumbest most backward place i've ever been.

   And that's after visiting/living between VA, W. VA, NC, TN, GA and FL.

   The closest i've ever gotten to this place's ridiculousness was the far east side of Tennessee.

   Posted by madlib at 07/18/2008 @ 8:34pm

10. And THESE tards will never vote for a black man, especially one with a name like "Obama."

    Posted by madlib at 07/18/2008 @ 8:41pm

11. Hey I live in Austin, Texas and we have lots of both; some of the smartest and dumbest on both sides of the political spectrum. Apart from NYC and SF CA, I don't think there's a better place in the USA people-wise. But I can't really speak that way about the rest of Texas... I grew up in south Texas and talk about racist BS, poverty and lack of educational commitment, gotz it in overflowing buckets.

    However having said that, I think with as much money as Obama has to campaign with, not spending in the south would be a big big mistake. A wise way to use it in the south would be to do some real simple educational PR about how the local citizenry will benefit by getting out of the economic sinkhole the repub new con dic'tator wannabes have them in. Tie McCave to the disaster that is the hsuB/cHeney admin and the high energy/gasoline costs, crippling health care costs, low wages, war, etc. THEY created for us. Tie McCave to the economic legislation that got us Enron and these crazy oil prices, Vet mistreatment and their subsequent suicides, New Orleans, the shear hypocrisy of a lie that would get us more-- a McCave/hsuB disastrous third term.

    Well but of course-- do get some really good out of work elementary school teachers to get the commercials down some to at least a 3rd grade level 1st. Austin will understand the need for doing that... it will be ok. But if you can get the low to middle income south to vote their interest-- most repub new cons will be tarred, feathered and riding rails for a good long while.

    We might even get our constitution back!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/19/2008 @ 12:22am

12. I believe Obama's bright chances in the West make sense. The US-American West is actually a much more urban place than people imagine (e. g., most of the population of Colorado is in Denver and Boulder and their suburbs), and Obama does well with educated urbanites.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/19/2008 @ 08:56am

13. Well, I just came from a board that recently shut down for reasons too complicated to explain here. I had to argue with a lot of very conservative counterparts and I must say that a lot of the comments here come across as being very elitist. Yes, the South will be the hardest for Obama. Yes, their is stubborness to conservative thought patterns. Yes, the major split is urban versus rural. I looked at a red blue map that was broken down by county rather than state and was suprised by how blue southern Montana is. The left needs to learn how to appeal to rural voters in the way that has been done in southern Montana. Being a snob doesn't help. I also think Obama's chances are good in Colorado and New Mexico because of the latino presence there.

    Posted by caltrek at 07/19/2008 @ 09:22am

14. While I don't disagree with the basic thrust of Rese's comments in this thread and in the article cited, I do think the rhetoric used will not be helpful in appealing to centrist voters. It comes across as laden with judgemental jargon that may do well in certain urbanized areas but rubs against the grain of how many voters think about these issues. I think an approach that stresses a greater respect for the liberal traditions of freedom of speech and rights found in our cosntitution will ring in a more digestable fashion. Accusations of fascism will be seen as extremist rhetoric.

    Posted by caltrek at 07/19/2008 @ 11:25am

15. Obama faces the same problem Democrats face in each presidential election. They carry 20-22 states. 22-24 gets them the election since they carry the large population leftist states like NY and CA.

    The most likely red states are New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. All three will depend on turnout in the major urban centers. Nevada especially. Democrats carry only Las Vegas in Nevada, so a big turnout there will be critical for Obama. Add to that, whether he can get the Hispanic vote that went overwhelmingly for HRC.

    If the commanders in Iraq are able to continue drawing down troop levels this fall and oil continues to fall another 15-20% (as it dropped 15% this week), McCain becomes more and more attractive to Obama's very uncertain campaign.

    The left is growing dissatisfied with Obama's campaign to the center and may not be the factor he once thought he had cinched. Look for more acts of political desperation in Congress as Dems try through the mechanism of hearings to focus on Bush in an attempt to paint McCain with the same brush.

    As Susan Estrich noted in a column this week, Democrats are very worried that Obama has not been able to jump out to a 15-20% lead. By most polling, this race is statistical tie.

    All this makes conservatives like myself smile.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/19/2008 @ 11:55am

16. Oh please, McCave has a well known name per running for president for years upon years literally-- and is a 'war hero' and like hsuB is a likable guy-- until you get to really know him well.

    Obama, on the other hand, is not a well known name, but unlike McCave, is very likable once one gets to know him very well. And Obama truly believes in our US Constitution more than corporate control, unlike McCave/hsuB.

    The situation is one in which once the public is better educated about the two candidates, Obama wins. Easily.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/19/2008 @ 1:52pm

17. hsuBfools, thanks for the information about recalculating the official poverty line. (I realize it's off-topic but I haven't seen it discussed much.) This has been bothering me for a long time, and it has real consequences for eligibility for everything from Section 8 to food stamps to Medicaid & SChip.

    On the "first 100 days" list for January 2009 (assuming McCain loses), I'd like to see an executive order telling HHS to recalculate using current information, setting new figures for the FY beginning Oct. 1, 2009. That would have an immediate impact for low-income families. I'm not sure I'd even do it with a big public broohaha, which would excite backlash, just treat it as an administrative detail. After all, the government the past 8 years hasn't made a big deal out of the fact that they've increased the poverty line each year at much less than the CPI increase.

    Posted by bcazden at 07/19/2008 @ 7:53pm

18. Nichols' article points out the classic weakness of the national "insiders" way of thinking: an early poll indicates that a candidate is behind in a particular state, so the campaign commits no resources to that state, and voila! the state is lost in November. I live in Arkansas (6 electoral votes). Aside from one, lonely Republican member of the U.S. House, and the odd dog-catcher, there are NO elected Republican Officials in the state. The legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic, all of the state constitutional officers are Dems, and what is the Obama campaign doing down here? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Just throwing 6 electoral votes away. Most of the south is Republican territory, no question, but Democrats have to follow Howard Dean's lead and COMPETE. Half of life is showing up!

    Posted by Hamiltonian at 07/20/2008 @ 04:38am

19. It would be tragic if Obama overlooked a golden opportunity in Virginia (particularly in the wake of new polls showing him tied here).

    To carry the state, Obama effectively needs to win only Fairfax County plus at least one of the bedroom communities of Loudoun and Prince William. This pattern has repeated itself in the two statewide elections preceding this one, and with the albatross of the Bush years hanging on Republicans, it will hold true again.

    After four long decades of decline, Virginia Democrats have finally put together a strategy for winning statewide. Count on Virginia turning blue in 2008.

    Posted by bushisawarcriminal at 07/21/2008 @ 01:01am

20. I agree with "ibbleblibble's" take on the South...

    What I want to know is why all these motherfucking New Englanders and Californians continue to move here?

    Posted by bleedingheart at 07/21/2008 @ 09:20am

21. "southern city dwellers, packed into sprawling, auto dependent, cookie cutter, unplanned urban nightmares, slowly begin to get less stupid"

    Now is that southern California you're talking about? Because I've spent some time there and the shoe fits....

    Posted by bleedingheart at 07/21/2008 @ 1:08pm