Check out Kerry's numbers when he clinched the nomination (0.00 / 0)

They were a lot better than this is my recollection...I recall he lead Bush handily throughout March and maybe April...but it's just memory not data.

I know we all despise McCain and think his negatives are apparent to all...but he has been a media darling for a long time and most people remember that..not calling his wife C***

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:44:00 PM CDT

Funny you should ask (4.00 / 3)

That was the first thing I thought of as well, so I searched it up.  It turns out, Kerry never had it this good.  Here is Rasmussen's tracking poll of Kerry versus Bush.

I don't remember when Kerry "clinched", but his best showing was only +2.8, right after the convention, I think.  He also bumped up in April to +2.1, which might have been the clinch moment.

So this looks very, very good for Obama.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:53:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen is not the pollster I would have used nor remembered (0.00 / 0)

It was the only polling company that ever consisitenly had John polling poorly throughout the race.

The others had John in the lead....NBC, Gallup, CBS, ARG, even SUSA

Every pollster but Rasmussen gave John much bigger numbers than Rasmussen ever did.  So that's what I remember not these Rasmussen polls.  Now you argue that Bush won but that validates the numbers at the end not the beginniing where there was a bog discrepancy between Rasmussen and everyone else


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 15:48:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, to give you a full picture check out (4.00 / 2)

RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

They were a statistical tie from what I can read of Real Clear. Not only this, Kerry only started to significant lose in August when he was swiftboated, and his campaign went dark for the month due to his financial limitations (again that's my memory).  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:55:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why did he go dark in August? .. (0.00 / 0)

Because his primary funds ran dry? .. even so .. you have to have surrogates out in the media .. or the candidate himself

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:02:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again just on memory (4.00 / 1)

They felt they didn't need to respond to it. By the time they did, it was too late. The way Kerry choose to respond is that he put it on Bush to call off the attack dog rather than just calling it bullshit. I think the reason for the lack of ads was  money. McCain to me is more like Kerry this term, and Obama (at least financially) is more like Bush. McCain will have to choose his battles, and Obama can push and afford to be more agressive. Kerry wasn't ever aggressive until the end. I remember pining all my hopes on the debates because he hadn't acted as aggressively as he could.

For example, I was on one of the lawyers for kerry committee and quite frankly our training sucked. The organization of our trips to the polls were poorly done. My friend who works in politics said that a lot of things were done last minute that really required field operatives to be out there months setting up.

From what I read of Obama, he isn't doing this. He's setting up organization in all 50 states, he's putting key people into place now rather than later, etc. Remember, Kerry changed several key people late in the race, etc. Part of the story of 2004 was that kerry never delivered on being a great finisher (the tagline for why we should choose him as ABB) because his organization sucked. Bush and co said that they would close well because of their organization. I got to say at the polls the GOP organizers had their shit together.

I guess I am saying all of this to say that the polls are important, but they are to be taken in light of other factors. These other factors didn't favor us. Now they do. The fact the polls are too makes the case for Obama upside even stronger.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:12:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is basically right... (0.00 / 0)

I think Kerry's response was more or less "I'm not even going to dignify these charges with a response."  When Bush refused to disown it, the media kept playing it over and over again with only this "We're not even going to respond to that" BS, and then a Democratic Convention where they were cowed into basically never even mentioning Bush (which has to be the absolute dumbest strategy when running against an Incumbent president) which led to zero bounce, and then a Republican Convention that focused SOLELY on vilifying Kerry ("spit-balls" anyone?) which finally led to a massive bounce for Bush that he basically never relinquished.  Kerry came close after Bush's first atrocious debate performance, but it wasn't enough by then.  Kerry was seen as a flip-flopping veteran who lied about his service to get ahead.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:29:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dukakis (0.00 / 0)

As I recall, Michael Dukakis was way ahead following his successful convention--maybe something like 20 points ahead. Then he was silent as the Willie Horton ad and the helmet and tank ad did their work. When John Kerry, recalling the Dukakis experience, told Republicans to "bring it on," he didn't mean it. And he shared Dukakis's fate. Somehow I don't believe Obama will make this particular mistake.

---

by: stevenaxelrod @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 19:24:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I told you so (0.00 / 0)

And so the background environment of the election (lousy economy, lameduck President with 25% approval rating, occupation of Iraq that the country hates) starts to take hold...just like I've been saying would happen for weeks every time Chris posted his doom and gloom posts trying to make the case that Obama is the underdog in the general election.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:03:29 PM CDT

Minds Made Up? SUSA Says, "Not So Much" (4.00 / 1)

Since the start of 2008, at the national level, Pollster.com has shown Obama and McCain within 3% of each other or less, indicating that this would be a third consecutive close election where virtually the entire country already has its mind made up.

The SUSA VP polls show an enormous variation--20 to 30 points for most states--as I noted in my weekend diary analysis that supports your thesis about the relative importance of Dem voters as a swing demographic.

Here's a 24-point swing in Virginia, for example:

In the chart below, the blue line represents the fluctuation in Obama's margins, the orange line represents McCain's fluctuations, and the yellow line represents the average. (The two are not identical, due to variations in losses to "undecided.")  You have to double the yellow line to get the total fluctuation--which is obviously quite a bit more than the paltry 5-10 percent normally considered to be in play:

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 15:08:54 PM CDT