McCain... ahead?

[Kuya]

So am i supposed to say "Nu uh" or something?

[Beckwin]

last I read Obama has leads in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. might be close in Virginia too. not good for mccain, lol.

somehow the media was able to spin a highly successful foreign trip into a negative, and coupled with the wave of McCain attack ads, Obama's national polling took a hit. Obama is starting to swing back though, releasing an ad citing Bush and McCain being in the pocket of big oil (haven't seen the ad yet but there are numbers- $800,000 for McCain- that backs it up, in addition to McCain's former economic adviser being the one who opened the Enron loophole that fueled speculation etc) and touting his windfall tax idea.

Gonna be real interesting come debate time when Iraq strategy comes up, because Obama can make a very strong stand against any possible criticism by citing McCain basically adopting his plan in light of the American people and Maliki wanting it.

[Kuya]

I think the fact that McCain has been in politics longer is going to hurt him the most, he has had more time to screw up than Obama, and therefore it's easy to find dirt on him.

[oldoldman]

Obama's energy policy will be the death of him.

On topic: The only thing a poll affects is the next poll.

[Plow]

Yeah, polls are meaningless blah blah, but anything indicating that there's even the most remote possibility of Americans actually choosing 8 more years of this same shit is just beyond scary.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I still think Obama should win, but it would no longer surprise me if McCain won. If you look at all the Dem Presidents since Johnson each one had major extenuating circumstances to help them. Johnson had the JFK assassination and the war to help him. Carter had Watergate. And Clinton had Perot who recieved 19% of the vote and who's voters were mostly Republican right? He also only won with 37% of the vote which was one of the lowest ever to I think. Who the hell knows though.

[Charla]

Johnson had the JFK assassination and the war to help him. Carter had Watergate. And Clinton had Perot who recieved 19% of the vote and who's voters were mostly Republican right? He also only won with 37% of the vote which was one of the lowest ever to I think. Who the hell knows though.

Don't forget that Goldwater was seen as a candidate who probably would have undone the entire New Deal and had a decent chance of starting a nuclear war. More generally, I'll agree that each election in the last 50 or 100 years has had a single overarching issue go a long way to deciding the outcome. What would you say was the extenuating circumstance of the 1996 election?

[Plow]

Don't forget that Goldwater was seen as a candidate who probably would have undone the entire New Deal and had a decent chance of starting a nuclear war. More generally, I'll agree that each election in the last 50 or 100 years has had a single overarching issue go a long way to deciding the outcome. What would you say was the extenuating circumstance of the 1996 election?

Bob Dole being a 5000 year old dickhead.


I don't think the 92 election is as clear-cut as Perot taking all the votes from Bush, I was only 10 at the time but I remember it being somewhat of a surprise when Clinton won, as Bush really hadn't done anything you would think would keep him from getting his 8 year term.

[BarthelloSylph]

Raising taxes (read my lips!) and the stock market collapse of '89 doomed Bush Sr. Also not helping was the real estate downturn (lolirony) and the many savings and loans that imploded during the period. Also, bad economy.

[Charla]

I remember it being somewhat of a surprise when Clinton won, as Bush really hadn't done anything you would think would keep him from getting his 8 year term.

Apparently, we may or may not have read his lips.

And what I remember from '92 was my mom volunteering for the Clinton campaign and being extremely excited when he won, and the mock election in my fourth grade class which Perot won. Shows you what 10-year-olds know, doesn't it?

[archibaldcrane]

Perot was right in that race until he dropped out because the CIA was supposedly following his daughter or some such nonsense and then got back into it. I think at one point all 3 candidates were polling in the high 20's/low 30's.

And yeah, Clinton won because "It's the economy, stupid". Obama needs to capitalize on that point.

[BarthelloSylph]

The elementary school in my area picked Bush over Gore early in the race in 2000, when everyone else thought it was impossible

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Don't forget that Goldwater was seen as a candidate who probably would have undone the entire New Deal and had a decent chance of starting a nuclear war. More generally, I'll agree that each election in the last 50 or 100 years has had a single overarching issue go a long way to deciding the outcome. What would you say was the extenuating circumstance of the 1996 election?

Clinton being an incumbent I guess. I really didn't put much thought into it I suppose.

[Charla]

Incumbency being by no means an unusual circumstance, I'm going to agree with Plow on this one.

Ontopic, however, I would like to say that the emphasis placed on campaign opinion polls is probably overstated, and that a shift of a few polling points is probably not thread-topic material. As such, I'll treat this thread as "state of the race, 04/08/08" discussion.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So restated there's been one Presidential election since JFK in which there wasn't an unusual circumstance to help the Dems. Hell weren't JFK and Nixon nearly tied in the popular vote with Nixon being really unlikable?

[pohibaba]

The Republicans just didn't have anyone that could beat Clinton in '96, and they knew it. They just gave the nomination to Dole because he was the elder statesman of the party at the time and wanted to award his years of service.

[Charla]

So restated there's been one Presidential election since JFK in which there wasn't an unusual circumstance to help the Dems.

I think your original post only considered elections in which a Democrat won. So unless we're overlooking something that happened in '96, there's been one Democratic victory without such a circumstance, out of four such victories in the past 11 elections.

Alternatively, one could look at this in terms of history imitating a pendulum. Whenever something sufficiently bad happens on one party's watch, public opinion returns to the other party. To demonstrate, a list of recent Presidents and the events by which their party lost the next election.

LBJ: Vietnam
Nixon: Watergate
Carter: Iran Hostages
Reagan: Nothing! Republicans keep it
Bush: The economy, stupid
Clinton: Monica
other Bush: Iraq

Oh wait, now I'm making predictions.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I was just pointing out when Dem's won. I was ignoring when Repub's won. I didn't put that much thought into it. :X

[Plow]

I think your original post only considered elections in which a Democrat won. So unless we're overlooking something that happened in '96, there's been one Democratic victory without such a circumstance, out of four such victories in the past 11 elections.

Alternatively, one could look at this in terms of history imitating a pendulum. Whenever something sufficiently bad happens on one party's watch, public opinion returns to the other party. To demonstrate, a list of recent Presidents and the events by which their party lost the next election.

LBJ: Vietnam
Nixon: Watergate
Carter: Iran Hostages
Reagan: Nothing! Republicans keep it
Bush: The economy, stupid
Clinton: Monica
other Bush: Iraq

Oh wait, now I'm making predictions.

I'm prouuuuud to beeee an Americaaaaan

[Charla]

F*** yeah