Troubling Newsweek poll.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737

If as flawed a candidate as McCain is overtaking Obama, what does it say about the way Obama's campaign is being run?

:hi:

I realize how fluid, even volatile, an election can be. But as the article noted, it's puzzling how McCain could have gained traction in the past month.

For me, it's more than puzzling. It worries the hell out of me.

acting as an arm of his campaign its not so puzzling why McCain isn't doing that bad in polls. The press is not pouncing on McCain's many gaffes, incoherent messages and even reporting the many times he screws up in their very presence. But they hold Obama responsible for anything anyone who could be considered a liberal says or does.

And to his great credit Obama isn't joining the blame the media chorus. That's good, because as soon as a candidate does that, it's over.

For me, it's still more about how his campaign is currently being run. I just get the sense that he's not being himself. He just doesn't seem as comfortable as before.

>>>>>And to his great credit Obama isn't joining the blame the media chorus. That's good, because as soon as a candidate does that, it's over. >>>>>>





They *should* but they don't. And the myth that MSM is neutral or even "liberal" and pro DEM remains unchallenged and widely accepted.

see my post below for details.

that's the problem with the point you made.

This is based on averaging Newsweek, Gallop Tracking, Rasmussen Tracking,
CNN and McLaughlin - link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

That is a dramatic drop in any poll, national average notwithstanding.

There is no such thing. The term means nothing.

And most people didn't take the 15 point lead seriously. So why take this one seriously.

The answer is: don't. He was never ahead by as much as 15 and he's not only ahead by 3 now. He's ahead by about 6-8 points. End of discussion.

polls.

If you look at an average of national polls Sen. Obama has maintained a consistent lead of an average of about 4 to 6 percent since he secured the nomination. Occaisional blips up and down at this point in time are essentially meaningless.

No candidate running in such an unfavorable environment as McCain has EVER been successful; EVER

That's not to say this couldn't be the first time ever. It is certainly possible that John McCain could for some unforeseen reason shatter all the patterns and trends of the history of presidential elections and be the first, it simply to say that it would be unprecedented and unlikely.

Still I would have to agree that it is always unwise to underestimate ones opponent. And it is always unwise to insist that the unprecedented and highly unlikely cannot happen.

Here is an interesting article on exactly that point by Dr. Alan Abramowitz of Emory University:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

Can McCain Overcome the Triple Whammy?

A Commentary By Alan I. Abramowitz

" Polls in the spring of 1988 showed Michael Dukakis with a comfortable lead over George H.W. Bush and polls in June of 1992 showed Bill Clinton running third behind both Bush and H. Ross Perot. So recent polls showing a close race between McCain and Obama may not tell us much about what to expect in November.

Instead of using early horserace polls, political scientists generally rely on measures of the national political climate to make their forecasts. That is because the national political climate can be measured long before the election and it has been found to exert a powerful influence on the eventual results.

Three indicators of the national political climate have accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections since the end of World War II: the incumbent president's approval rating at mid-year, the growth rate of the economy during the second quarter of the election year, and the length of time the president's party has held the White House. "

"The Electoral Barometer has predicted the winner of the popular vote in 14 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. There were five elections in which the Electoral Barometer was negative and the president's party lost the popular vote in all five of these elections: 1952, 1960, 1976, 1980, and 1992. There were ten elections in which the Electoral Barometer was positive, and the president's party won the popular vote in nine of these elections: 1948, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2004. "

"The current national political climate is one of the worst for the party in power since the end of World War II. No candidate running in such an unfavorable political environment – Republican or Democrat - has ever been successful. "

"Dr. Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkely Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States."

link to full article:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

--------------

And some more point from the same article:

"These three factors can be combined to produce an Electoral Barometer score that measures the overall national political climate. The formula for computing this score is simply the president's net approval rating (approval minus disapproval) in the Gallup Poll plus five times the annual growth rate of real GDP minus 25 if the president's party has held the White House for two terms or longer. Mathematically, this formula can be written as: EB = NAR + (5*GDP) - 25.

In theory, the Electoral Barometer can range from -100 or lower to +100 or higher with a reading of zero indicating a neutral political climate. In practice, Electoral Barometer readings for the fifteen presidential elections since the end of World War II have ranged from -66 in 1980 to +82 in 1964. A positive Electoral Barometer reading generally predicts victory for the incumbent party while a negative reading generally predicts defeat."

Truman's score in 1948 based on this formula was +4.5

Bush Senior's score in 1988 based on this formula was +7.7

McCains score this year based on this forumula is -63

link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

Take a look at the breakdown of people polled in last month's poll. It was posted in another thread here a few days ago. They considerably oversampled Democrats, which would naturally skew Obama's numbers higher. That 15% lead was highly suspect, and I wouldn't base your concern on that.

Barack Obama and John McCain are the 'presumptive nominees'. The polls are being taken for people who are not officially running for President yet.

The Main Stream Media has a financial stake in the election being close, they will rig the polls to make it close right up the day of the General Election.

pick apart Obama, and prop the old man up.

:thumbsup:

But, looking at many over the course of the next couple of months, we can find trend lines.

Cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck.

to manipulate the public is by providing semi false information in polls. The US Intelligence agencies uses this method of propaganda regularly against Chavez and in any country that is voting for a NAFTA like trade deal.

That said, there is an interesting anomaly in this poll. Of the Democratic voters, they polled, 65% were Hillary supporters. I honestly don't believe 65% of the Democratic population are Hillary supporters, otherwise, she would never have lost the Democratic nomination.

Their sampling is skewed and their poll results are propaganda.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Enjoy your stay. And Fuck Democrats for Mccain. They are called republicans.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They always travel in packs, I've noticed.

... you couldn't be more mistaken. I read about the Newsweek poll just this morning and decided to share it - and my concerns - with my fellow Duers.

on any issue or subject even remotely related to Obama is now a suspect.


We have group think in full bloom.

Let's face it. The poll may be right on. The poll may be way off. It's hard to tell. But notice how many people make excuses for it instead of thinking about it from any other strategic viewpoint?

Lots of people say stuff like , "well the media..." well ya , the media. What's that mean? Did Obama ever get good media or bad media? Does Obama have any control over whether he gets good media or bad media? Based on that argument, the reason Obama won the nomination and Kucinich didn't had nothing at all to do with either Obama or Kucinich. It was "the media." Yet if you wer to say that, these same people who just a second ago were saying. "well, the media" would be in your face asking why you are bashing the nominee by suggesting the only reason he won was, "the media..."

You have been attacked in various ways by more than a couple of posters for posting a Newsweek poll. Why? Because the NewsWeek poll purports to show Obama's lead slipping. If the poll had purported to show Obama's lead increasing, these same posters would be kicking & recommending your post. No one would be saying, "well the media.."

So don't let the baseless attacks on your character get to you. It's simply the crowd-stoning-the-heretic response that sometimes manifests itself in otherwise reasonably sane humans. It's group think. It's reactive and ugly, but it's here.

************

I think the reason this poll as well as the Rassmusan poll may in fact be showing a trend toward tightening in the race is Obama's comments yesterday (or was it Thurs?) where he said explicitly that he is "a progressive."

I take this as a sign that he is working to shore up some lagging enthusiasm and doubts in his formerly rock solid progressive base. I think Obama's troubling turnabout on his FISA position (and to a far lesser degree his comments on social issues like government subsidies to religious charities, the death penalty, etc) took a toll and sucked the enthusiasm out of a significant portion of his base, and that portion which tends to be the most active.

I think most of this portion of his base will none the less vote for him, but it remains to be seen how this effects community outreach, voter ID, donations, gotv, and other feet on the ground activities important to his campaign.

Obama "slipping"? You've been told time & time again that the internals for the Newsweek polls were weighted heavily in one direction or other, but I understand you have to push your favorite talking point. I guess we believe what we "choose" to believe. He's up in CNN's poll, so your argument seems to be kinda useless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3391651

I haven't bothered to read the particulars on each poll (or click on the link on the other thread) but those polls may be stretching back a ways. Maybe not.

What do you make of Obama calling himself a progressive? That's not a move to the middle type of rhetoric.

I've always thought Obama was a progressive prior to his arrival in the US Senate. His voting record there isn't particularly lefty, nor is it extremely blue dog either. It's very close to Clinton's.

But it's an interesting choice of words.

My guess is his base is wondering wtf. That's what people I know seem to think. They are going to vote for him but they aren't sure of what to make of his recent revelations.

Gives me the warm fuzzies inside.

...huge discrepancy in numbers.

No one would give this news week poll any credit if the sampling data weren't revealed cause no candidate swings 12 points in less than a couple of weeks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6489547


Last month's LAT/Bloomberg poll showing Obama with a wide lead, which many here took as "proof" that last month's Newsweek poll wasn't an outlier, also greatly oversampled Democrats. You need to check the internal numbers.

Newsweeks' job is to sell magazines ,and not necessarily accurately report the news. They are doing it very well.

just to make us want to read them more (i.e. give these news companies more business).



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.273784559

It's one poll, Obama still leads, and it's only July.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj942vfKP_E

LET'S GET TO WORK PEOPLE!!

Another Duer pointed me to it a while ago. Great site.

I hope there's booze

that things like his FISA vote, embracing Government funded Faith Based social initiatives, and the like are taking a toll on his campaign. Folks here on DU have been saying for weeks now that his turn from his base during the primary would exact a price, and the fact of the matter is they were correct. It was the dedication and enthusiasm of the base in the primary season that fueled this campaign. Extinguish the fire in the belly and you'll get smoke, but the passion no longer burns. I hope that he will find a way to re-energize the base, but as a consolation we can thank our lucky stars that his opponent is someone as inept as McCain.

The Newsweek poll is an outlier, and you're wrong.

whatever floats your boat.

Of course, I can't prove it. But that's my gut feeling.

but I'm not about to argue the point with someone who blatantly states that it is emphatically wrong to make such a claim. I mean, what purpose would it serve in the big picture? Some want no discussion or rationalization beyond sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. I can't give that to them because I don't see life, or this election, in that way. While I will vote for Obama in November, I cannot force myself to the belief that issues like FISA, and Faith Based social programs have absolutely no bearing on popularity polling. I believe that America on the whole is much more Liberal that the MSM, the Democratic Party, and certainly the Republican Party want us to believe. I am convinced that a swell of these Liberal minded voters is what surged Obama over the top in the primaries for the simple reason that they believed him to be as Liberal and progressively minded as they were. Perhaps their feelings were misguided to some extent, or perhaps a Liberal persona was intimated to serve a purpose at the time. Either way, I believe this Liberal base aptly demonstrated that they were up to the task of electing Obama much to the disdain of the Clinton campaign who thought they had this election in the bag. I personally see it as a mistake for the Obama campaign to take this very segment of the voting public for granted, much as I see it a mistake for the sunshine, lollipop, & rainbows only DU'ers to attack any poster that raises a valid concern or issue with respect to the nominee or the campaign. At any rate, what does it really matter as I am simply one individual with my own opinions and theories and I don't expect everyone to share those opinions and theories with me. I do appreciate your vote of confidence though J.Q.C. :hi:

I signed up to volunteer on the Obama web site.
I actually think Obama has promise as a progressive, his past history prior to his entrance into the US Senate in fact is very progressive.
That said, I also think his turnaround on FISA was both a policy mistake and a political mistake. It sucked the enthusiasm for his campaign out of grassroots progressives who are concerned with civil liberties, and who had hope that grassroots progressives might actually have a seat at the table under an Obama administration. If he won't listen to us on a bill he already pledged to reject and who's only constituency was the bush administration and the telecoms, why would he listen to us on health care? Or labor? Or Iraq? or Iran? or anything?

I spoke with my friend who runs the Missoula Obama office today. She said a lot of folks ask about FISA and ask why Obama supported it. So I guess that's a good thing. People are apparently paying attention.

That doesn't mean mrone2 is right. But it does suggest that maybe mrone 2 might be right.

Also, yesterday Obama said specifically that he "is a progressive."

That suggest that Obama is attempting to shore things up with the part of his base who is upset with FISA and other issues perceived as a move to the right/center

Why is it impossible in your opinion that Obama's FISA vote resulted in lower nationwide polling numbers for Obama?

Back in Oct 2007, the last time polling was done, Americans were solidly against immunity and against increasing government warrantless wiretap powers.

So again, why do you assume mrone2 is wrong?

To be fair, they may be. but they might be right. Keep your eyes open and see what you think in the next few days. Don't close your mind based on what you want to be true.

Obama. I could have whole heartedly gotten behind Obama, but to my enlightenment, I see he is just another politician, saying one thing and doing another.

I will vote for him and that is about it. The worst of two evils. No passion for him hear. I am too old and have seen this dog and pony show before.

On edit: Some will see these comments as means to discourage. I do not mean for that. It is an honest observation and reality as I perceive it.

Rest easy--I imagine you will at some point, anyway.

It kills me that these numbers are thrown around as some sort of genuine indicator of ANYTHING. It can't even be considered a "snapshot" when you don't know how the numbers were collected and weighted.

Thanks for your "concerns." :eyes:

Not a new member.

I think after 500+ posts I can safely say I'm not new. Actually been around for a few years. But thanks for the thought.

Maybe you meant "Welcome to the new DU. Discussion Unwelcome."

If it was a Newsweek poll that showed Obama increasing his lead, it would be acceptable to post.

Since it was a Newsweek Poll that shows Obama's lead decreasing, it's highly suspicious and most likely disloyal to be posting it.

Go figure.

most DU poster distrusted that poll too.
So what you are saying isn't what I witnessed
with these extreme polls done by Corporate media.

I'm just really really tired of the Obama loyalty police. If they really wanted to help Obama they wouldn't be spending their time at DU, they'd be at their local campaign office, out knocking doors or registering voters and working to get Obama elected.

I think about 2/3 of them are posers.

What do you think?

I love when people say what you said - and the exact opposite is the facts! You're newer than they are, you coulda checked that out, especially with 500+ posts attributed to that user...

so what if he's concerned about the close race... I don't believe it will matter - McSame will have a "moment" in a press conference or debate that just ruins his chances!

constant is that Obama is always ahead. Quit worrying. :hi:

They don't work that way.

Most people only thing about politics for 5 minutes a month. And those aren't consecutive minutes. Plus it's only July. Way too early to believe any poll.

lately and this one is an outlyer.

should be required by law. And thanks for your concern

Basically, it's their way of "creating" news.

From last month's poll


In this month's poll, 35 % Democrats to 28 % Republicans. May be this could explain a lot

McCain is worse; but it is what it is. Obama is pandering to the right and most people see it for what it is.

Obama should of stuck with principle, like he did with the gas tax holiday, but he and other Dems are not learning their lessons. Life gives exams, and if we don't pass the test, we have to take the class over again.

Just the way I see it. I am not god so I could be wrong.

Look for a big bounce after the convention.

Republican convention should prove to be somewhat boring, e.g., little bounce.

Still way too early...look to the October polls for some sense and sensibility.

The final poll...Obama will be leading by 60+++ EVs.

Relax, it is going to be a landslide.

no surprise there.

- not to mention that the contest between Obama and Hillary had been receiving a lot of attention. I think we'll seen polls bounce up and down until after the conventions. Then we should begin to see polls reflecting how people will actually vote. It's too early for polls to mean much at this point.