Obama Gets His Bounce

Things were going so well for Barack Obama abroad last week, the press reasoned, that something bad had to happen to him at home. As the week went on, the punditocracy kept scratching their heads and wondering: where was his bounce in the polls? Or would he even sink while across the pond?

"There has to be a backlash, folks, on this media coverage of The Messiah," proclaimed Rush Limbaugh, expressing the anger and anxiety of many conservatives.

"The Democrat is winning fans on his trip abroad, but is struggling to gain real ground against McCain at home," the Los Angeles Times wrote on Friday.

"Obama: Adoration abroad, backlash at home?" said the New York Times.

The Obama campaign even got in on the act, deftly moving to downplay expectations. "We wouldn't expect any sort of -- I guess the term people use is ‘bounce,'" Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on Saturday.

"I wouldn't even be surprised if that in some polls that you saw a little bit of a dip as a consequence we have been out of the country for a week," Obama himself predicted.

Not! It may have taken a week, but Obama has gotten his bounce. The latest Gallup daily tracking poll shows Obama up nine points against John McCain, the largest lead for Obama since Gallup started measuring the two head-to-head in March.

Of course, nine points is hardly a runaway, and other polls show the race tighter and more volatile. There are still a lot of undecided voters and, as the New Hampshire primary taught us, polls are often not to be trusted. A big debate is brewing among political scientists whether Obama-McCain will turn into a landslide or remain, as Tom Edsall of the Huffington Post puts it in a fascinating analysis, "trench warfare."

Obama is performing strongly, but the data remains inconclusive. But at least the events of the past week should teach the press corps to exercise a little patience and restraint.

UPDATE: A new USA Today/Gallup poll (not to be confused with the Gallup daily tracking poll, even though it's confusing), shows Obama leading McCain among registered voters by three points but trailing McCain among "likely" voters by four points. Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo notes that Obama leads among registered and likely voters in all other polls.

Via Marc Ambinder, Mystery Pollster Mark Blumenthal elaborates on bounce vs no bounce. Basically polls are all over the place these days, so consume with a fair amount of salt/skepticism.

Comments (76)

1. Thanks for the patience on this, Ari.

   I said last week that it would be THIS week when we will know whether the trip helps him in the polls.

   But as I also said last week, it is the state by state electoral college vote polls that really matter, and out of the 11 toss-up states, Obama is ahead in 8 of them. He can actually lose Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and still win the presidency by carrying Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado (or New Mexico) where he currently has a large lead.

   This is a HUGE change from 2004, and could very well mean a landslide if Obama carries ALL states where he currently leads.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/28/2008 @ 2:52pm

2. Ah, brings back fond memories of the big post-Democratic Convention bounce that Kerry received in 2004.

   Oh, wait, no bounce -- we had a Tair Warning that week. No bounce, just fear.

   But I'm sure BO won't be targeted by such tactics, cuz he's a great speaker and all.

   Posted by RLawrence at 07/28/2008 @ 2:59pm

3. But,but,but....John McCain has the BIG MO!

   An expert in politics who's predictions are never wrong told us all that?!?!?!!?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 3:06pm

4. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 2:57pm

   How are the stocks doing Hap? They are saying banks are no longer giving out loans to new companies.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:07pm

5. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 2:57pm

   BTW, HAPPY, you want to cite Rasmussen, fine...

   Rasmussen Marketing still gives Obama a SIXTY-FIVE percent (65%) chance at winning the WH.

   They also show that 52% of the country want us out of Iraq whether or not we "win" there.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 3:08pm

6. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 2:52pm

   http://tinyurl.com/68qhuj

   Can you link to whichever poll you are talking about? Because that is the Gallup Poll I see and it has him ahead 8%

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

7. It's summer, stups.

   Polls mean little now.

   Check back after Labor Day.

   Better yet, a week after the 1st TV debate.

   Posted by sloper at 07/28/2008 @ 3:15pm

8. It's summer, stups.

   Polls mean little now.

   Check back after Labor Day.

   Better yet, a week after the 1st TV debate.----Posted by sloper at 07/28/2008 @ 3:15pm

   Which is exactly what HAPPY SHOULD have posted, instead of trying to get into a "war of polls" that he was bound to lose.

   Sloper's right. It's meaningless and Obama's bounce was expected. Just ride it out, Repubs, but don't feel you have to throw a counter-punch at every jab.

   Or are you just scared it might "stick" if you don't?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 3:17pm

9. so, he is only 1 gaff away from being behind... Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

   And McCain is one gaff away from falling horribly behind?

   Also where is all this positive coverage you are talking about? Press studies are showing he is getting a lot more negative coverage. McCain isn't being covered negatively, he just isn't being covered as much. The press not covering McCain is probably helping him more than hurting him. I think if the press treated McCain as aggressively as they are treating Obama he would not be doing as well as he is doing.

   The headline would read one week:

   "McCain antagonizes Obama for not making world trip."

   The next week it would read:

   "McCain anatagonizes Obama for making world trip"

   I think it would just show how much of a hypocrite he has been. I think he is benefiting from this lack of press coverage. I think the less voters examine McCain the more they like him.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:23pm

10. Or are you just scared it might "stick" if you don't? Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 3:17pm

    They are scared right now. Which is to be expected. Obama's lead slowly grows and we aren't even in the most aggressive portion of the campaign yet. The debates will be interesting to see. I'm still holding my bet with Happy so we will see what happens when we get to the real fight. I am just waiting for McCain to have his "outburst."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:25pm

11. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Even some Repub/con pundits are begrudgingly agreeing that both (A) the trip helps Obama and (B) that it was MCCAIN'S IDEA and that his goading of Obama to go to Iraq is what helped make it the Media spectacle it was.

    Now McCain is desperately trying to say that the trip was phoney (while previously saying it was the only way that Obama could "learn the truth")...and with al-Maliki apparently onboard for OBAMA's withdrawal plan...

    McCain makes himself look foolish on Wolf Blitzer claiming that al-Maliki didn't say that and would NEVER say that because "I know him, I know the Iraqi leaders"!

    Which means if al-Maliki sticks with Obama....McCain's ONE issue where he's ahead and which he stakes his campaign on...

    just collapsed.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 3:29pm

12. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:31pm

    I'm not a pollster though. I just calls it likes I sees it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

13. "so, he is only 1 gaff away from being behind..."

    meanwhile, for the mccain campaign, major gaffes are a near-daily experience, and yet he remains steady?

    which sort of disproves your theory that obie gets better treatment from the MSM.

    if obama had said that the anbar awakening had created the surge, he surely would have lost his lead to mccain.

    however, "mr. national security" himself, mccain, said it, and not obama.

    which, again, disproves any theory that obama is getting preferential treatment from the media.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

14. With some polls and BERMAN showing Bounce, you feeling maybe you ought to be more `generous' and give me the 10:1 odds I wanted to begin with? Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:32p

    Nah. I don't trust polls. ESPECIALLY this early.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:33pm

15. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:32pm

    Maybe later in the race. Post debates when we start to get into the thick of it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:34pm

16. Actually Mask. Rasmussen has it at

    67.5% for Obama

    34.0% for McCain.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:35pm

17. Who are you thinking is going to be McCain's Veep Happy?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:36pm

18. ...Bush is not that hated...and Obie is not that strong a candiate..McCain is the best the repubs can do this year...the conservatives do not have a horse in this race...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 3:41pm

    I already posted before that hsuB has some polls at 15-19% job approvals and above 70% disapprovals. Oh, he's hated.

    McCave keeps flubbing it up for the next few weeks and uTube plays'em over and over again... Well, it's just not going to be pretty for poor poor McCave. Think Drole.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 3:52pm

19. no matter, the next guy will be 4 years and out...McCain for age, Obie for incompetence when the country realises they hired a guy who is not qualified for the job...in over his head. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 3:41pm

    Why is it condescending? I was just pointing things out. Also Bush is more hated than you think obviously. Is approval rating spans anywhere from 28-32%. I think that's as much as people think he is hated.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:55pm

20. Some of you multi-posters need to get real jobs. I'm sure they're hiring at McDonald's somewhere near you JOMAMMA--that is if your mother will let you.

    Posted by stefinmc at 07/28/2008 @ 4:00pm

21. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 3:41pm

    I don't think anyone is EVER going to govern the way you want Jom. No one will ever stop taxing people. We will continue to pay for corporate wars. Because if we aren't fighting what will all those defense contractors do? We will continue to pay for social programs. In social programs I include the socialized losses of corporations. I know you want 0 taxes. It's never going to happen. Won't even get close.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:01pm

22. I don't waste time thinkg/guessing who McCain's VP will be.......immaterial until we see who Magic picks! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:56pm

    Why is it immaterial until Obama picks? I think who McCain picks matters. Right now Rasmussen is giving 34% odds to Romney but I don't think McCain is that stupid. That would be a suicidal pick for him.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

23. "I want Carly Fiorina......adds sizzle and I want to see Libs & Femi-Nazis attack her....NOW, THAT's REAL CHANGE.....someone never having held elective office! "

    Or maybe they could focus on her sub-optimal performance at Hewlett-Packard. One could ask her if she'd make decisions with the same aplomb that led her to decide on the Compaq acquisition.

    Besides, if McCain got elected, I think he'd more likely ask her to chair the Council of Economic Advisers.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

24. Some of you multi-posters need to get real jobs. I'm sure they're hiring at McDonald's somewhere near you JOMAMMA--that is if your mother will let you. Posted by stefinmc at 07/28/2008 @ 4:00pm

    A dazzling display of intelligence and wit. Truly masterful.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

25. As I have stated ad nauseum here, I am not against taxes, rather, I would like to see the method of taxing change. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Ahh I am sorry. Well either way it won't happen. That would require such a massive overhaul in the government that no one would ever have the balls to do it because if it failed the economy would sink and there would be a dip for a few years no matter what as the economy adjusted to the change.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:10pm

26. Classy:

    Obama also responded to critics who said his trip was presumptuous for a presidential candidate.

    "I basically met with the same folks that John McCain met with after he won the nomination,'' the Illinois senator said.

    Talking with world leaders is "part of the job that I'm applying for, and so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential candidates have done in the past,'' Obama said. "Now, I admit we did it really well. But that shouldn't be a strike against me.''

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 4:20pm

27. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:35pm

    I apologize for my error....unlike HAPPY!

    heheh

    BTW, HAPP, the term is "hoisted on your own petard"....just like McCain and his brilliant plan of goading Obama into going overseas...

    your citing of Rasmussen opened you up to trying to spin your way out of RasReports showing ALSO that they still favored Obama to win (65%) ...

    and their recent poll of Friday showed that 52% (clear majority with 38% disagreeing) of Americans wanting us out of Iraq REGARDLESS if we "win" there or not.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Again, the trick (for the future) is to just let it slide...and quote what sloper posted.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

28. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

    The Dem's could spend other peoples money just as effectively no matter what the method of taxing. That isn't why the tax code hasn't been overhauled. The reason is what I said. No one is suicidal enough to risk it. If the economy flopped because of it their would be a mob with pitch forks at your door.

    Also what you guys refuse to look at is that the Rich pay a lower percentage of their total income because they hide so much from the IRS. There are so many loopholes and ways of evading taxes for the rich while the poor have no way to get out of it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:31pm

29. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 4:24pm

    By the way I am not opposed to changing the tax code by the way. Also. Revamping the tax code I think would hurt the middle class more than anyone. The middle class tend to be the biggest buyers. The upper class mostly puts their money into investments in order to make more money. They have lots of material things but most of their money goes into making more money. The poor only buy what they can afford. The middle class spends a lot on consumer goods. The middle class is what props up our economy. The rich get richer with their money. The poor try to scrape by with their money. The middle class spends their money toward products paid for by the rich and built by the poor.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:35pm

30. My biggest fear is that he will forget the people that brung him here. Is he really elitist? So far he says the right things , but I have detected a tinge of the corporate sycophant and a slight penchant toward the arrogant. His lack of an aggressive stance against "big oil" isn't terribly encouraging. He most certainly should have been more vocal on the congressional bill s. 3129 in congress. I feel very strong that democrats simply played politics on this one. Granted the media did its typical job of ignoring this one.

    Posted by julien38 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:37pm

31. Posted by Zero at 07/28/2008 @ 4:40pm

    Ain't that the truth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 4:49pm

32. How are the stocks doing Hap? They are saying banks are no longer giving out loans to new companies.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:07pm

    read these two:

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28109/pub_detail.asp

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north642.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 4:50pm

33. TV debate.

    Posted by sloper at 07/28/2008 @ 3:15pm

    an oxymoron.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 4:52pm

34. i suppose frank will tell us that obama got a bounce because "certain folks" are good at basketball.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 4:52pm

35. The debates will be interesting to see.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 3:25pm

    no, the debates will be stupid*.

    *recent history tells me so.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 4:55pm

36. A substantial portion of electorate will award the debate to the one wearing an American flag lapel pin the size of a pie plate.

    Posted by Sorelish at 07/28/2008 @ 5:02pm

37. I would like to see the method of taxing change.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

    the only way a consumption tax would work exclusively is if it were around 50%.

    are you ready for that?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:02pm

38. Besides, if McCain got elected, I think he'd more likely ask her to chair the Council of Economic Advisers.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 4:08pm

    the blind leading the blinding.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:03pm

39. Wasn't something just up here about McCain's misrepresentation of Obama's cancellation of visit to thw wounded soldiers in Germany? Compleat with my brilliant 3-brain analysis of it as typical right wing psychosemiotics?

    Anyway, in re this:

    The reason the MSM wanted to see backlash was because, after the smashing blow he delivered to the AIPAC-ers and Likudniks in Jordan, daring to even hint at an independent pov on Iran, he couldn't be brought home as the annointed one, so Boobus Americanus had to be signalled in advance that he hadn't closed no deals with THEM!

    Just as the image of his visiting wounded soldiers had to be blocked and smeared, lest it tacitly indict those responsible for putting them there, who he opposed, so the image of Historic Messiah bringing out throngs yearning for freedom and inner liberation in the streets of Berlin .... my,my and two hehe-hehes ...with French kisses coming up ? .... not on THEIR re-Surge detergent nickle!. "Mr. Obama, I OWN these mics you are speaking into.."

    But they couldn't keep a good man down, and those iside his campaign ought to have made whoever interviewed him grovel like Britney begging for her babies. Or Olhmert begging not to be forced into bombing Iran.

    This Bounce -- lets call it a Re-Surge against the snake-brain Satanic reality perpetrated in the Most, Most Holy Name of General Mary Petraeus -- is Boobus Americanus finally beginning to stand up against the Jews (for short -- the Zionist Power Configuration, in James Petras' terms) Only he can confront and stop it, by leaving off wooing the Jews. (as in the Presidents of 52 major Jewish Organizations) If he doesn't, he will go down with them, without excuse.

    It has already been announced by Prof Benny Morris in the New York Times that Israel will attack Iran in 4-6 months. Barak Obama has not responded to that (nor, of course, has McCain; but he is a sock puppet and will say whatever he is told to say if they want to trot him out). He owes us, and the media owes the public to pressure him for a statement on this.

    We have a right to know what's up here before the fact. No one has the right to duck responsibility for demanding answers.

    Posted by jones at 07/28/2008 @ 5:09pm

40. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 5:08pm

    Gah. Why make a 300k car? I don't even get that. Why own a 300k car.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 5:15pm

41. ccccccccc:

    "Federal investigators believe some of the clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to hide as much as $20 billion in assets from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge at least $300 million in federal taxes on income from those assets, according to a government official connected with the investigation."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/business/worldbusiness/06tax.html

    i'm still looking for another article, but that one is good, too.

    while your at it, read this:

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/december-surprise.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:15pm

42. The Iraq War, if finished in the proper fashion, will provide untold positive benefits....even if the architects (Bush/Cheney/McCain/etc.) do not get credit for it in the present!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 4:51pm

    war? benefit?

    remember, god is watching.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:17pm

43. Posted by Sorelish at 07/28/2008 @ 5:02pm

    there will be no debates.

    they're going bowling!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:18pm

44. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 5:08pm

    the best way to reduce waste is to love your children.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:20pm

45. Gah. Why make a 300k car? I don't even get that. Why own a 300k car.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 5:15pm

    egoturbation.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:28pm

46. read the "Fair Tax Plan"...the tax amount would be 20%.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 5:16pm

    impossible.

    you need better sources.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:29pm

47. tell me...how many guys making under $ 40k a year have hired anyone else or created any jobs?

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 5:21pm

    i hire people all the time.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:31pm

48. and they hire me.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:33pm

49. Chump change in the real world of federal budgets..

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/28/2008 @ 5:21pm

    just one small example.

    i'm sure you know more.

    i bet you gleefully hide money that could pay for

    THE WAR ON TRIBBLES!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 5:36pm

50. Also Jom. The argument that the rich pay a larger amount of taxes than everyone else is deceptive. Since the top 20% have 90% of the total US capital if everyone was paying 20% and the top 20% were only paying 1% of their total incomes they would still be paying more than everyone else because they hold most of the US capital. So the argument that the rich pay more than everyone else is deceptive at best because everyone else would have to be paying 90% of their income to even while the rich only paid 1% in order to even it out.

    A side question to you Jom, are you for or against these bail outs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other various lenders?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 5:37pm

51. Polls are meaningless in this election because of all the new 1st-time voters and young voters who aren't being polled. Polls only count people and groups who are known to vote. But in this election, massive numbers of people are voting who've never participated before, and unless you account for them any statistical analysis you do is mostly useless. You'd have to, for example, account for the substantial number of republicans and religious right voters that are jumping ship to vote democrat this year, and that's not really being done.

    Polling worked in the past because you knew that the Jewish vote was going to go this way, the black vote would go that way, latinos would vote for this candidate and unions for that one. But this year all bets are off. The Obama phenomenon makes all the old statistics useless. Remember, these same polls said that Hillary was inevitable. Now she's an also-ran.

    The only true way to measure voter trending this election is to follow the money. The donations will tell you who's getting the votes. Especially in a tough economy, you're not going to donate to a candidate you don't intend to vote for. So if you want to know how much of a bump Obama got from this trip, watch for a spike in donations.

    Posted by gmlaster at 07/28/2008 @ 6:26pm

52. "Jomamma," I'll repeat myself as often as I must: Wealth does not come from money. Rather, money comes from wealth. Wealth is produced by labor acting upon natural resources. A surplus of wealth can be invested as money.

    The rich are not golden geese. You do not increase the commonwealth by fattening them. You increase the commonwealth by good stewardship of natural resources and respect for workers. The result of this stewardship and respect is increased productivity and wealth. From this, investment flows naturally.

    The quickest way to pump more money into the economy is not to give it to investors. The quickest way is to give it to consumers, by raising their wages.

    The government is not a black hole, into which money disappears, never to be seen again. The money that the government receives, it spends. We, the voters, determine how this money is spent by voting. Every voter has an equal influence upon the government, but not every consumer has an equal influence upon any corporation. This is the advantage of government spending.

    Moreover, I may choose to invest in something socially or ecologically responsible, such as safer or more efficient technology. But if my competitors do not do the same, then I put myself at a competitive disadvantage compared to them. Their advantage disappears if they, too, are required by law to be socially and environmentally responsible. This is the advantage of government regulation.

    I may even choose to contribute to charity or to public works. But this, once again, may put me at a competitive disadvantage with respect to others who are less generous than I am. Their advantage disappears if we are all taxed according to our ability to pay, and the proceeds support the things that we all need, but don't want to pay for: road, schools, bridges, parks, police, environmental clean-ups, health care, et cetera. This is the advantage of taxation.

    Interestingly, our government's failure to make decent laws, to enforce these laws, and to tax us fairly has mirrored another, deeper failure - the failure of the corporate world to jump into the breach and to make up for the government's failings by means of volunteerism and private generosity, which the Repubs and Libertarians assumed would increase along with the incomes of the already extremely wealthy. Well... the rich have never been richer! And what has become of this lofty promise?

    Behold the spectacle of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - two firms that were once a single tightly regulated non-profit corporation. When Fannie Mae was deregulated and Freddie Mac created to provide "competition," it was assumed that the virtuous power of the profit motive, combined with the holy spirit of competition, would compensate for the lack of rules. But what has become of this assumption?

    Not just the Bush regime has fallen into disgrace, but the whole plutocratic ideology behind it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 6:28pm

53. Polls are meaningless in this election because of all the new 1st-time voters and young voters who aren't being polled. Polls only count people and groups who are known to vote. But in this election, massive numbers of people are voting who've never participated before, and unless you account for them any statistical analysis you do is mostly useless. You'd have to, for example, account for the substantial number of republicans and religious right voters that are jumping ship to vote democrat this year, and that's not really being done.

    Polling worked in the past because you knew that the Jewish vote was going to go this way, the black vote would go that way, latinos would vote for this candidate and unions for that one. But this year all bets are off. The Obama phenomenon makes all the old statistics useless. Remember, these same polls said that Hillary was inevitable. Now she's an also-ran.

    The only true way to measure voter trending this election is to follow the money. The donations will tell you who's getting the votes. Especially in a tough economy, you're not going to donate to a candidate you don't intend to vote for. So if you want to know how much of a bump Obama got from this trip, watch for a spike in donations.

    Posted by gmlaster at 07/28/2008 @ 6:34pm

54. Polls say this polls say that.. Let me give you something to believe in. My big toe's are a supreme oracle of presidential political prognostication and augury. I have gout and have suffered the pain of this affliction to leave you with this final prediction. Obama will win in November. When my left toe hurts a Democrat will win. When my right toe hurts a Republican will win. And my left toe has been giving me fits since last year. Nuff said.

    Posted by chaoszen at 07/28/2008 @ 6:57pm

55. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 6:28pm

    and what i see is that with our "system" of fiat money,

    "wealth" generation has quickly outstripped the planet's ability to support such activities.

    as you said, wealth comes from the earth (and the sun, of course!) and human labour related to said resources.

    but now, we are able to create pseudowealth that generates methods of exploitation far beyond the planet's capacity.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 7:21pm

56. And my left toe has been giving me fits since last year. Nuff said.

    Posted by chaoszen at 07/28/2008 @ 6:57pm

    such a terrible jam to be in.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 7:23pm

57. Yeah Frosty it is, and if this country ever gets a candidate from a viable third party I shudder to think what might hurt next. I have bad dreams when I think about a Parliamentary system...

    Posted by chaoszen at 07/28/2008 @ 8:03pm

58. The only true way to measure voter trending this election is to follow the money. The donations will tell you who's getting the votes. Especially in a tough economy, you're not going to donate to a candidate you don't intend to vote for. So if you want to know how much of a bump Obama got from this trip, watch for a spike in donations.

    Posted by gmlaster at 07/28/2008 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Couldn't have said it any better. People will see the light once they cut through all of this "political fluff" and follow where the money is going. Barack has been dominating in donations, to the point where he had to pass on public financing. He did so well, Hillary almost went bankrupt trying to keep up.

    I cant wait till after November, when every so called "repub analyst" will be sticking their foot in mouths for ignoring, I repeat, IGNORING the truth for so long. It's so f*cking obvious on how this will end.

    Obama 08

    Posted by Daisenryaku at 07/28/2008 @ 10:19pm

59. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 5:15pm

    Okay, fine...use polls...and they'll get used against you.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 10:19pm

60. I, am POLL-PROOF......hehehehehehe! Most polls are for idiots....not much different than the MSM as a whole! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 10:31pm

    Ain't that the truth. I don't bother with them. I go with my predictions. I nailed Obama. I nailed Bush 2nd term. I've done well so far on the Senate. Don't need polls. They are just weather men in a room with no windows and no doppler.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 10:54pm

61. ATTENTION JOHN THE BREWMEISTER:

    The shortfalls Obama would produce don't approach the size of the deficits John McCain's budget threatens to bring. The Republican candidate's tax cuts alone would increase the debt by $5 trillion by 2018, compared with $3.4 trillion for Obama, says the Tax Policy Center, another nonpartisan group.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anGhCq5adqhU&refer=h ome

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 01:26am

62. Speaking of polls no one pays attention to, may just want to take a peek:

    Research 2000 for news media clients. July 25-27, 2008. N=1,100 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all likely voters).

    ""If the election for president were held today, who would you vote for if the choices were between Barack Obama, the Democrat, John McCain, the Republican, ...?"

    ________McCain__Obama__Other/Unsure

    ALL _______39_____51______10

    Men ______ 45_____45______10

    Women ____34_____56______10

    Whites ____ 49_____ 41______10

    Blacks______4_____ 90______ 6

    Latinos____ 24_____ 65______11

    18-29_____ 26_____ 63______11

    30-44_____43_____ 47______10

    45-59_____ 38_____ 54 ______8

    60 & older__47_____ 42______11

    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

    As an aside check out the more accurate hsuB job approval poll by Research 2000:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

    OUCH!

    Isn't that poll number below Nixon's -- after Nixon got the articles of impeachment voted on?!?!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2008 @ 03:08am

63. I, am POLL-PROOF......hehehehehehe! Most polls are for idiots....not much different than the MSM as a whole!----Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 10:31pm

    Short term memory loss?!?!?!?

    Monday, July 28, 2008

    Gains for McCain in latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll

    Warning Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll......----Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 2:52pm

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 08:53am

64. hsuB job approval poll by Research 2000:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

    OUCH!

    Isn't that poll number below Nixon's -- after Nixon got the articles of impeachment voted on?!?!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2008 @ 03:08am

    Can we say-- DIC'TATORSHIP

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/29/2008 @ 09:49am

65. Where are the polls that take into account other candidates? Ron Paul hasn't dropped out, nor has Bob Barr, and good old Ralph Nader is still flailing around making noise. While for all intents and purposes there are only two viable candidates, in reality there are at least 5 - the two major party candidates, and three "others," two of which will significantly detract from McBush's vote totals.

    Posted by Turk33 at 07/29/2008 @ 10:37am

66. It's his election to lose.----Posted by frankgrits at 07/29/2008 @ 10:14am

    FRANK, on "who's to lose" and other predictions-

    "BTW, Hillary will be staying in the race even if she gets less that a double digit lead. The rules of the DNC favor her if it gets to Denver. Hillary could lose NC, win or be very close in Indiana, win WV and Kentucky and then the nomination is HERS TO LOSE (my bolds)again, depending on what the SD.s decide and as I've said, Harold Ickes set those rules up. They favor Hillary. Also, at that point, Florida's delegates will be seated along with Michigan's possibly."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/21/2008 @ 12:43pm |

    "I think Hillary already has the race won."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/07/2008 @ 2:40pm

    "MASK, You don't understand. Joe Lieberman couldn't even be elected as dog catcher in conn. no matter which party he chooses."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:34pm

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 10:38am

67. Anybody know when Obama is going to crash another rock concert?

    Posted by bleedingheart at 07/29/2008 @ 11:11am

68. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:03am

    That's all fine and true - as far as it goes. But that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how the rich avoid paying taxes. Offshore bank accounts, corporate headquarters in optimal tax-burden countries, shell corporations, holding companies, corporate welfare, scores of tax accountants whose only job is to figure out how to avoid paying taxes, etc., etc.

    Mostly legal (if morally questionable), just odd for the "patriots" who claim to love the America but actually are the only ones reaping the benefits of trickle down voodoo economics on the backs of the middle class and working poor.

    Posted by Turk33 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:19am

69. McCain has the big Mo. Being 4 points up in this year when a democrat should be at least 20 to 30 points ahead has to be heartening for the Mccain campaign. It's his election to lose. Posted by frankgrits at 07/29/2008 @ 10:14am

    Uhhhh. I don't know what your smoking McCain isn't up 4 points. He's behind by anywhere from 4-8.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:35am

70. McCain has the big Mo. Being 4 points up in this year when a democrat should be at least 20 to 30 points ahead has to be heartening for the Mccain campaign. It's his election to lose. Posted by frankgrits at 07/29/2008 @ 10:14am

    Do you just make things up and hope that everyone will believe you!?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:36am

71. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:03am

    hahahahaha!

    when was the last time you did taxes for a billionaire?

    tell me, how is jonny lowpaycheck going to get his funds to the caymans?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 11:36am

72. Take the example of a return I just finished. He is a immigrant, non citizen who owns a landscape business. He earned $47k gross last year with a profit of about $9k. He is getting a $1500 refund with his EIC credit and after paying his self employment taxes. That is far better than someone with 10x his income would fare. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:03am

    You seem to be an expert on everything. Jesus, Taxes, Buisness management, War. Do you fly or something is that how you do it all?

    To respond to your comment. There are loopholes the poor don't use. For instance offshore banking is a tax haven for the rich.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:39am

73. Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 6:55pm Will he owe them? Not anymore than he will owe any other voter. I answered that part already. 90% of black voters ALWAYS vote Democrat. So how is Obama any different than every other Democrat who ran? How will it manifest itself? It won't that's how. He will do for them what he can. He isn't going to make blacks his priority as you seem to be implying Frank. On a side note. McCain gets a lot of his money from defense contractors and oil companies, how will that manifest itself if he gets elected? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 7:48pm

    Are you trying to turn him into a nother Jesse Jackson? Make people afraid of the darkies so we won't vote for him?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:43am

74. Hey, LVLIB...question.

    If McCain is elected, like you and FRANK want...

    you think you guys will remain buddies AFTER January, 2009?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 11:49am

75. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 11:49am

    maybe he'll let frank stroke the cluster bombs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 11:53am

76. Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 11:53am

    I think Larry is smart enough to realize that this is a "temporary alliance" with FG....sort of a "Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact" of the "Nation" blog.

    McCain wins...FG immediately turns on him, both to lay the groundwork for "Her Nibs in 2012" and to try to win back favor among the folks here he's alienated.

    Summer of '09...he'll be back to calling LL (and PONTI, HAPPY, MARYBRET, etc.) "right-wing fanatics and fundy Christian zealots"...like OLD FRANK did.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 12:09pm