Everything is Good News for McCain

Can I just note that I seem to live in some kind of mirror universe where the fact that Barack Obama has, for months, maintained a modest lead over John McCain in every public poll constitutes bad news for Obama and that the specific reason it constitutes bad news for Obama is that the larger political climate is favorable to Obama. The trouble of course is that given the favorable climate the expectation is that Obama will lead, so in order to "really" win, he needs to win by some gigantic margin -- merely being the first Democrat in over thirty years to secure a majority doesn't cut it. Or something.

But wouldn't it be interesting to visit an alternative reality in which the goal of a campaign is to win the election rather than to beat arbitrary media expectations? In this world, a modest-sized but stable and consistent lead would count as an indication that you're winning. And the existence of favorable background conditions for your candidacy would assuage doubts that the lead is likely to vanish over time.

Comments

This is Excellent News!!!!! For Hillary!!!

Posted by idiotic, not the original | July 16, 2008 10:49 AM

This is actually not a bad dynamic. Psychologically, the press couldn't handle the thought of McCain losing. So they can declare him the winner of their expectations contest, while Obama quietly wins the election.

Also, this dynamic makes it much less likely that McCain will do anything than what he is doing now -- giving bad speeches and issuing condescending press releases about Obama.

This election is going to be no fun until election night, which will be about the funnest night ever.

Posted by pjs | July 16, 2008 10:52 AM

For me at least, the fear is not just that Obama's consistent but narrow lead in the polls could disappear, but also that his eventual vote totals may not be large enough to overcome whatever dirty tricks the Republicans are going to pull this year -- from lack of voting machines in Democratic-leaning precincts to outright tampering with electronic machines whose security flaws are at this point very well-documented. We may need a landslide in order to win at all.

Posted by Tom | July 16, 2008 10:52 AM

The bad news is that the media has an economic interest in the race seeming highly competitive, so that is how they are going to report it.

The good news is that it doesn't really matter. On a gut level people understand that McCain is in trouble, and no matter what he tries can't seem to find his way out of trouble. Heck, the betting markets pretty much tell you what you need to know about ongoing perceptions of McCain's chances.

By the way, I'd note that I don't think the relatively steady margin is the real story. The real story is McCain's numbers actually going down a bit since his post-clinch bump and now more or less leveling off in the low 40s. That is pretty much exactly what you would expect if McCain was failing to overcome the terrible Republican brand.

Meanwhile, Obama of course still has his own work to do in consolidating Democrats and nailing down as many marginal voters as he can. But I think that currently appears a lot more doable than McCain suddenly finding the key to making Republicans popular.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 10:58 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt. You know as well as I do that the goal of a campaign is neither to win, nor to beat expectations, but to give cable news something to talk about in a slow summer. And your suggestion just isn't going to cut it as a solution to that problem.

Posted by Ted | July 16, 2008 10:59 AM

Sounds like he'll get all the benefits of being the underdog while he's always ahead.

What's the problem?

Posted by Renwick | July 16, 2008 11:03 AM

Matt...why not ask this question: what do the best models of fundamentals predict for McCain's share of the 2-party vote? Answer: go read Roy Fair's predictions or Doug Hibbs predictions.

Posted by anonymous | July 16, 2008 11:04 AM

I share Tom's fear that Obama needs to be ahead in the polls by a significant margin in order to overcome the Republican vote suppression (misallocation of voting machines, malfunctions, voter ID refusals, purges of the rolls, etc.).

And DTM is correct about the media's economic interest in making the race close. I don't think it's a coincidence that recent elections have been so close, with the constant media barrage trying to balance things out to make the story more exciting. We saw that in the Obama-Clinton contest.

Posted by KCinDC | July 16, 2008 11:17 AM

I'm sure that if Obama had gigantic leads over McCain in the polls, then the CW would be that this was tremendously unstable and would represent an imminent risk of collapse for the Obama campaign.

Posted by El Cid | July 16, 2008 11:22 AM

A slim but consistent lead is bad news for Obama. What Matt and others don't want to admit to themselves is Obama must have better than a 10 point margin at the actual ballot to win by a point or two. Poll goons, the Justice Department, various Republican state election board chairpersons, the unannounced moving or closing of polling places, "failure to register" votes on electronic machines, lost/stolen/miscounted/undercounted ballots, arcane registration policies and a host of other impediments and outright crimes will be perpetrated.You know, Election2000 writ large. The result will be several points shaved off of Obama's actual tally. He needs a devastating landslide just to overcome what Republicans have planned. So, yes Matt, a consistent 3 to 5 point spread in the polls is great news for McCain. And if you don't like McCain installed as Prez despite obvious monkey business and want to cause trouble over it? Well, we are at war and need an orderly transition of power. Martial law might answer your protestations.

Posted by steve duncan | July 16, 2008 11:24 AM

I agree completely with this Matt.

For reasons that baffle me, every time a new poll comes out showing that the latest line of attack by McCain has amounted to zero movement in the polls, it is construed to be bad news for Obama.

Obama is quietly gathering money, staffing up his ground organizations in key states, and storing up future attack ads like the Social Security "absolute disgrace" line, the economy "nation of whiners" line and more. Obama hasn't yet pounced on these yet, but he will at some point.

Frankly, I think he's being very wise. He's saving his big hitting shots for when a greater number of people are paying attention. If he went after these errors of McCain's now, then the media would cover it for a couple of summer days and then they'd move on. By holding onto them, he can deploy them in the fall.

Posted by Jim Crozier | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM

There is good news for McCain, why?

Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats.

And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.

Posted by Mark | July 16, 2008 11:31 AM

There is good news for McCain, why?

Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats.

And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.

Posted by Mark | July 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Can I just note that I seem to live in some kind of mirror universe where the fact that Barack Obama has, for months, maintained a modest lead over John McCain in every public poll constitutes bad news for Obama and that the specific reason it constitutes bad news for Obama is that the larger political climate is favorable to Obama.

Maybe you should just note that your "mirror universe" is just a fantasy universe? After all, you don't provide a link to a single story making this point. There is no such statement in the NY Times story that accompanies the new NY Times poll, for example.

This seems to me to be completely within Matthew's head, and unconnected to reality in any way.

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 11:38 AM

I would agree except John Kerry also lead Bush in the polls during most of the campaign season. And if I'm not mistaken the same is true for Gore, who as we all know also won the popular vote. Given Democrats' tendency to blow elections they should have won, I understand those who say that Obama's modest lead is not exactly great news (for Obama supporters).

Posted by MS | July 16, 2008 11:39 AM

Mark,

Yes, and Karl Rove's math shows that the Republicans actually won the 2006 elections, and are still in control of Congress.

Of course the truth is that voters have been disassociating themselves from the GOP in droves over the last few years. So what you are seeing isn't oversampling of Democrats, but rather the consequences of a rapidly shrinking pool of Republicans.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 11:42 AM

Part of the problem here is the expectations set up by Obama supporters in the primary. A consistent talking point was that, unlike HRC, Obama was going to realign the electorate and would be able to win a huge victory, as opposedd to every other Democrat in 40+ years.

Some, such as myself, pointed out that the massive historical evidence/US demographics inidcates that a Democratic presidential nominee never wins more than 50%+1 (at best). Perhaps that could be increased somewhat given the climate, but not in any huge way. But that was taken as just HRC-supporters spin.

So, the polls we are seeing are in fact likely right in line with the way things were always going to go, but MSM anti-Dem bias, and Obama supporters-expectation setting, has contributed to the this-is-excellent-news-for-McCain phenomenon.

Posted by Andruw | July 16, 2008 11:51 AM

This morning I saw a young hottie driving a black Acura with
with the bumper sticker "Got Hope?" in white letters on her rear window.

In my opinion, the hard part was defeating Hillary. He was ahead during most of that race too.

The Republican brand is tarnished. The economy sucks. It's a change election (see 2006 Congressional elections). Republicans are losing once-safe seats.

And for good or ill American culture fetishizes youth and doesn't value the elderly as much as it should.

Obama should pick a goofy VP candidate like Ross Perot's Admiral Stockdale so the late night hosts have someone to make fun of.

I'm hoping it will be a crushing victory which would make election night really fun.

Posted by Peter K. | July 16, 2008 11:53 AM

I would agree except John Kerry also lead Bush in the polls during most of the campaign season.

This is not true

And if I'm not mistaken the same is true for Gore,

You are mistaken.

Posted by WillieStyle | July 16, 2008 11:58 AM

Don't under estimate the unknown bounce from Obama's massive voter registration drive.

Posted by Trinity | July 16, 2008 12:00 PM

Don't underestimate the unknown bounce from Obama's massive voter registration drive.

Posted by Trinity | July 16, 2008 12:00 PM

WillieStyle,

Maybe I am wrong but I do remember reading DKos in those pre-election days and folks there seemed to be pretty upbeat about Kerry's chances.

Anyway, your own evidince indicates that Kerry was ahead until around late August so that is not exactly reassuring.

Posted by MS | July 16, 2008 12:10 PM

Andruw,

Well, Obama is currently leading McCain by an average of around 5 points in the polls, so that would add up to considerably more than a 50%+1 victory if that was his margin in the actual election.

And I think it is still early days yet. As I noted above, McCain has actually been drifting down, and I think there is decent reason to believe he could end up stuck in the low-mid 40s. If that does in fact happen, then the final margin could end up well over 5.

But we shall see.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 12:15 PM

Didn't Bill Clinton get a majority in the 1996 election?

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | July 16, 2008 12:31 PM

Well, no, he didn't, I see. I hadn't realized that Perot snagged that much of the vote in 1996.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | July 16, 2008 12:33 PM

As far as comparing this to 2004, keep in mind Bush did better then expected b/c of high evangelical turnout. I doubt John "agents of intolerance" McCain will get that high of an evangelical turnout.

Posted by Ajay | July 16, 2008 12:35 PM

"Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats."

On the contrary, these polls oversample people who have land lines and are at home in the early evening. About 13% of the population have only cell phones. They are overwhelmingly young or poor. They will heavily favor Obama, though they will probably have a less than average turn-out. Making assumptions very generous for McCAin, these people will vote at 2/3 the rate of the general public, and break 2/1 for Obama, giving Obama another +3%.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2008 12:54 PM

What small lead are you talking about?? Could you possibly be referring to the Newsweek poll that included mostly Republicans who have slipped a little in their recent support of Obama? How can the media be using this as a measure of the sentiment of the country at large?

Hmmm... it's this sort of thing that has me worried too. If I was going to try to steal an election I would start by trying to "modify" expectations by messing with the polls.

Remember the polls in the last election when W won at locations that were heavily Democratic and had record turnout? The Exit Polls were summarily dismissed after the fact which showed heavy Kerry favor. I smelled a rat then and I'm starting to smell one now.

Posted by Don J | July 16, 2008 12:54 PM

What small lead are you talking about?? Could you possibly be referring to the Newsweek poll that included mostly Republicans who have slipped a little in their recent support of Obama? How can the media be using this as a measure of the sentiment of the country at large?

Hmmm... it's this sort of thing that has me worried too. If I was going to try to steal an election I would start by trying to "modify" expectations by messing with the polls.

Remember the polls in the last election when W won at locations that were heavily Democratic and had record turnout? The Exit Polls were summarily dismissed after the fact which showed heavy Kerry favor. I smelled a rat then and I'm starting to smell one now.

Posted by Don J | July 16, 2008 12:57 PM

Could those with longer memories offer comparisons to 1996? Was Dole written off early on?

After all, you don't provide a link to a single story making this point.

You really don't do preciousness well, Al-bot. The latest WaPo poll writeup talks of 'lingering concerns', and the standard framing of every newspaper poll writeup has a similar template: "Obama leads, but doubts remain" in an electoral climate that's exceptionally good for Democrats. Take a look at the transcripts of cablenews gobshite shows and you get the same.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 12:59 PM

What small lead are you talking about?? Could you possibly be referring to the Newsweek poll that included mostly Republicans who have slipped a little in their recent support of Obama? How can the media be using this as a measure of the sentiment of the country at large?

Hmmm... it's this sort of thing that has me worried too. If I was going to try to steal an election I would start by trying to "modify" expectations by messing with the polls.

Remember the polls in the last election when W won at locations that were heavily Democratic and had record turnout? The Exit Polls were summarily dismissed after the fact which showed heavy Kerry favor. I smelled a rat then and I'm starting to smell one now.

Posted by Don J | July 16, 2008 1:02 PM

Dear American Citizens and the Press

As a concerned citizen, I consider it is my duty to bring following message to you all.

"We the citizens of the United States of America have the ultimate responsibility to elect the " Right Candidate" to lead our nation, out of our huge present and future internal and external challenges as well as opportunities. This is to prevent depression and isolation in-spite of being the only superpower in the world morally, democratically, economically, and militarily.

We need to consider the "critical qualities and characteristics" of our presumptive presidential nominees at the time we vote.

In my personal and professional opinion the critical considerations are as under:


1. Calm, cool, and collected " temper " [ Presidential Temperament ].
2. Sound and sustained "Judgment and Caliber".
3. "Thought-fullness and togetherness" of purpose and positions.
4. Minimum "ex-poser and exploitation" around "Washington and Washington insiders".
5. Renewed " Vigor and Vision " for our Greatgrand Nation.
6. Foreign policy based on " American Values, Virtuous, Vastness".

Stay informed, stay involved, and stay engaged. Do not allow some partisan media, pundits, pollsters, and perpetual political opinion makers effect your vote in the wrong direction.

Don't be effected and duped by "Psychological Terrorism" that is afflicted upon you all the time.

Long live U.S.A and its diverse but democratic people.

Col. A.M. Khajawall [Ret] MD., ABFM., ABDA.
Chief Consultant: World Wide Porfessional Consultants[WWPC]
Colonel, USAR/MC Combat Stress Control[Ret], Disabled American Veteran and Freedom team.
Consultant Psychiatrist: CA State, Medical Board of California, and Los Angeles Mental Health Department
Address: 7642 Eaglehelm Court Las Vegas NV 89123

Posted by COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] | July 16, 2008 1:12 PM

The latest WaPo poll writeup talks of 'lingering concerns'

How does this in any way support Matthew's post? The WaPo doesn't say that Obama's lead "constitutes bad news for Obama" - it says that Obama's lead could be even bigger except for X.

AFAICT, the "mirror universe" that Matthew says he lives in is a fantasy universe. There do not exist any media that say what Matthew thinks the media say.

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 1:30 PM

pseudonymous in nc,

It has obviously been a while, but as I recall Dole was also never really written off despite more or less consistently trailing in polls.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 1:35 PM

The Republicans Dirtball Machine will kick in come November and we may yet remain the world's most powerful Banana Republic. Look what the Rove-Republican Machine has given us Americans in the last 8 years. Toilet paper currency, massive economic distress, a planet that is dying, endless war, global anti-Americanism and fear and loathing divisions at home. McSame may well become our next Banana Republic President, brought to us by the same dirty voting machines that gave us our first retard for a President.

Posted by shir | July 16, 2008 1:37 PM

Listen, I think all these polls should keep Obama supporters cautiously optimistic.

But I get really annoyed at the cell-phone argument. It's a false hope, peddled by wishful thinkers who think that pollsters are a bunch of drooling morons. While I'm not fond of the profession, I have to point out that professional polling groups are aware of the cell phone gap and do try to adjust their models to account for it.

Posted by Philly | July 16, 2008 1:39 PM

And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.

Hey, wait. McInane is bad, but no way is he polling behind the late Saddam Hussein.

Posted by sunsin | July 16, 2008 1:42 PM

I look forward to McCain claiming victory on the basis of having beat the point spread.

Posted by MikeT | July 16, 2008 1:43 PM

It's a google!

Posted by cha cha cha | July 16, 2008 1:43 PM

"It has obviously been a while, but as I recall Dole was also never really written off despite more or less consistently trailing in polls."

Not openly, but everybody knew who was going to win as early as May. I remember one panel show, the pundits were asked who would win. One after another they seriously deliberated and gave a reason why they thought Clinton would probably win in a close election. Then Laura Ingraham said she thought Dole would win and the rest of them broke out laughing before she could go into her reasoning schtick.

Dole was completely written off long before the conventions. People never publicly acknowledged it because it is not in anybody's interest to do so.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2008 1:48 PM

What is interesting about these polls is the large number of undecideds. I suspect the undecideds are taking the summer off, so I don't expect much poll movement until the conventions.

Obama's summer strategy appears to be stay-the-course, but clearly his team is laying the groundwork for the fall. An economic speech and policy paper here, a foreign policy speech and policy paper there -- not intended to win over voters now but laying the foundation for the autumn. All the while stomping out any negative memes that the Republicans try to lay down on him. While this goes on his team quietly builds the 50 state campaign and GOTV network.

McCain, OTOH, didn't really have much of a strategy other than attack-attack-attack. He's got a bigger war chest that his team led the Democrats to believe, and they are using it with test ads all over the nation as part of the "throw everything agains the wall and see what sticks" strategy. They are trying to find the one or two memes that they will use to smear Obama with.

The net effect so far is that Obama hasn't made polling movements one way or another with the voters, and hasn't been trying to. McCain, meanwhile, has somewhat damaged his brand with both the severity of his verbal attacks (this runs counter to the calm, evenhanded image he carefully cultivated starting with the impeachment period) and with his position shifts. Obama's better positioned for the fall sprint than McCain is.

Posted by Anonny | July 16, 2008 1:52 PM

What is interesting about these polls is the large number of undecideds. I suspect the undecideds are taking the summer off, so I don't expect much poll movement until the conventions.

Obama's summer strategy appears to be stay-the-course, but clearly his team is laying the groundwork for the fall. An economic speech and policy paper here, a foreign policy speech and policy paper there -- not intended to win over voters now but laying the foundation for the autumn. All the while stomping out any negative memes that the Republicans try to lay down on him. While this goes on his team quietly builds the 50 state campaign and GOTV network.

McCain, OTOH, didn't really have much of a strategy other than attack-attack-attack. He's got a bigger war chest that his team led the Democrats to believe, and they are using it with test ads all over the nation as part of the "throw everything agains the wall and see what sticks" strategy. They are trying to find the one or two memes that they will use to smear Obama with.

The net effect so far is that Obama hasn't made polling movements one way or another with the voters, and hasn't been trying to. McCain, meanwhile, has somewhat damaged his brand with both the severity of his verbal attacks (this runs counter to the calm, evenhanded image he carefully cultivated starting with the impeachment period) and with his position shifts. Obama's better positioned for the fall sprint than McCain is.

Posted by Anonny | July 16, 2008 1:55 PM

How does this in any way support Matthew's post?

Like I said, you really don't do preciousness well.

Rob Brownstein, on 'Hardball', two days ago:

BROWNSTEIN: Chris, if I could just jump in? I think Ryan is right, but your underlying point is clearly correct. I mean, if you look at all the—“Newsweek” is basically trying to make a change between a poll that was way out of line and one that‘s now come back into line. But when you look at where we are, with a small—a steady but, you know, relatively small lead for Obama in this polling, not as large as you would—as would be suggested by the underlying attitudes, the gap there is clearly doubts about Obama

BROWNSTEIN: ... that he is someone they can trust to provide it. And until he does that, we are going to see a lot of volatility—until—until or whether he does that, you‘re going to see a lot of volatility in the polls, and you know, an inability of Obama to run as well as a generic Democrat in this environment.

(My emphasis.) The gap between 'generic Democrat' and 'Obama' is being parsed as 'lingering doubts' or 'questions remain', even though there's almost always a few points shaved off 'generic party candidate' for 'actual candidate'. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Obama's any different here.

[I'm sceptical about the 'cellphone polling' line, but I am pretty sure that the 'likely vote' model is all over the place, which has me in rare agreement with George Will.]

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 1:58 PM

The gap between 'generic Democrat' and 'Obama' is being parsed as 'lingering doubts' or 'questions remain', even though there's almost always a few points shaved off 'generic party candidate' for 'actual candidate'. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Obama's any different here.

Really? I'd bet that McCain is running ahead of "generic Republican".

But in any case, nowhere do I see what's in Matthew's fantasy universe, where Matthew sees the media saying that Obama's lead is bad news for Obama and good news for McCain. In this universe, I see "Obama leads, and that lead could be even bigger except for X".

Posted by Al | July 16, 2008 2:10 PM

Njorl,

That seems like an accurate description of 1996 (i.e., privately people realized early on Dole had little chance, but in public people rarely would say that straight out). And if nothing changes, I suspect it will be a more or less accurate description of 2008 as well. Again, things like the betting markets tell you what people really think about the odds of McCain winning (low), and I suspect most people in the media specifically also think the same thing. But as we agree, they are unlikely to say so.

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 2:13 PM

This, despite the fact that there are significant percentages of people who tell pollsters they will not vote for a black guy, believe that he is a muslim, and does not have enough experience (as if the two that had, in their opinions, actually made sound decisions in life)...

Posted by RadhHussein | July 16, 2008 2:15 PM

There is good news for McCain, why?
Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats.
And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.
Posted by Mark | July 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Strange, I heard the same argument made by Dems in 2004- the polls were oversampling Repubs, so Kerry wasn't really that far behind, or something.
But people's party identification changes over time. If this suggests flight from the Republican "brand", it is indeed bad news for Mc Cain.

And that Hussein thing is getting really old.

Posted by ronin hussein ronin | July 16, 2008 2:28 PM

There is good news for McCain, why?
Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats.
And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.
Posted by Mark | July 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Strange, I heard the same argument made by Dems in 2004- the polls were oversampling Repubs, so Kerry wasn't really that far behind, or something.
But people's party identification changes over time. If this suggests flight from the Republican "brand", it is indeed bad news for Mc Cain.

And that Hussein thing is getting really old.

Posted by ronin hussein ronin | July 16, 2008 2:31 PM

Obama dropped like a lead balloon from 15 to 3 when Newsweek actually did a real poll. Obama's lead depends on one thing, his supporters.

Basically a lot of his supporters will stay home if he appears to be in trouble. Like how they refused to support him until he won Iowa.

The fact is that McCain is a comeback kid. He did it in the primaries, coming back from the brink to win New Hampshire and sweep through the field.

Obama never won a big primary and actually won fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

But the facts connect Obama to radical Islam, and he will be clubbed over the head by that in the next few months.

While John McCain is not perfect, he's not a front for radicalism like Barack Obama is.

Posted by Gary Ruppert | July 16, 2008 2:36 PM

Current headline on the AOL homepage:

"New Poll Reveals Trouble for Obama"

Posted by brewmn | July 16, 2008 2:51 PM

bogus mccain talking points avalanche! looks like someone's only a few mccain points away from that golf gear, and he's bent on getting it today!

Posted by cha cha cha | July 16, 2008 2:56 PM

Gary? Is that really you? What the hell are you doing over here? Get yer butt back to S,N! where it belongs. To us.

Posted by PeeJ | July 16, 2008 3:04 PM

Gary? Is that really you? What the hell are you doing over here? Get yer butt back to S,N! where it belongs. To us.

Posted by PeeJ | July 16, 2008 3:07 PM

"There is good news for McCain, why?

Because all of these polls are heavily oversampling Democrats.

And if McCain is performing slightly behind HUSSEIN in these biased, that's trouble for Demcorats.

Posted by Mark"
===================================
Marky Boy, posting that stuff twice doesn't make it any less stupid.

Enjoy watching the GOP circle the drain.

Posted by Terry C - Obama/Clinton 08 | July 16, 2008 3:10 PM

Basically a lot of his supporters will stay home if he appears to be in trouble. Like how they refused to support him until he won Iowa.

Let's see...Obama is in trouble because, until he won the first electoral event of the primaries, he didn't win any of the electoral events of the primaries.

Is that kind of stupidity natural, or do you practice?

Posted by KeithM | July 16, 2008 3:13 PM

Is that kind of stupidity natural, or do you practice?

He practices.

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 3:18 PM

This meme (Obama is in trouble because he's only a few points ahead) is simply a continuation of the nonsense we heard for 3 months from the Clinton campaign.

Back then the press was asking "Why can't he close the deal?"

Posted by Jinchi | July 16, 2008 3:28 PM

Obama's lead depends on one thing, his supporters.

Wow. It really does burn.

Posted by Cakesniffer | July 16, 2008 3:28 PM

It's not a good Gary, since it's missing 'The fact is...'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 3:36 PM

And typos. Where are the typos, Gary?

Posted by t4toby | July 16, 2008 3:43 PM

It's not a good Gary, since it's missing 'The fact is...'

"The fact is that McCain is a comeback kid."

Also, check out this exciting new variation!

"But the facts connect Obama to radical Islam,"

Maybe he gets his talking points from the fax machine, and is just mixed up on the etymology.

Posted by scythia | July 16, 2008 3:46 PM

Original or not, I always love reading what Idiotic has to say...

In a fundamental way I think it is healthier for both individuals and societies to get their thoughts about reality as close to actual reality as possible.

And, I'm not so sure it makes a huge difference. Sure, we might be able to relax a bit more if the mainstream media were more accurately reporting that Obama is maintaining a lead over McCain in the nation-wide polls and doing even better when it comes to electoral votes but in the end Obama will win by a fairly substantial electoral vote margin and then there will be some surprize by the people who have only been following the race through the MSM.

It'll be OK.

We can have our own little reality-fest in the meantime.

Posted by PeninsulaMatt | July 16, 2008 3:51 PM

Original or not, I always love reading what Idiotic has to say...

In a fundamental way I think it is healthier for both individuals and societies to get their thoughts about reality as close to actual reality as possible.

And, I'm not so sure it makes a huge difference. Sure, we might be able to relax a bit more if the mainstream media were more accurately reporting that Obama is maintaining a lead over McCain in the nation-wide polls and doing even better when it comes to electoral votes but in the end Obama will win by a fairly substantial electoral vote margin and then there will be some surprize by the people who have only been following the race through the MSM.

It'll be OK.

We can have our own little reality-fest in the meantime.

Posted by PeninsulaMatt | July 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Iowa future markets tell the real story:

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm

Posted by Mike | July 16, 2008 4:00 PM

Iowa future markets tell the real story:

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm

Posted by Mike | July 16, 2008 4:03 PM

Shalom, gentlemen.

Posted by Saul | July 16, 2008 4:39 PM

My fear has always been that white folks won't vote for Obama. I am white and many of the folks I talk to are not ready to give up the white power. (Google: Bradley Effect) You have no idea how this upsets me. If Obama does not win in November, my so called "Golden Years" will be nothing but hardship. I do not understand working Baby Boomers who are not rich that vote Republican. They are just voting to have a meserable old age.

Posted by DownriverDem | July 16, 2008 4:49 PM

Just now, paraphrasing:

Tweety: shouldn't Obama be 17 points ahead?

Howard Fineman: that's what the McCain camp is saying, and they take some comfort in that fact.

So Al can fuck right off.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 16, 2008 5:08 PM

Because the MSM, being clued in to "how things really work" much better than just-out-of-college "Big Media Matt", knows that Obama needs at least a 15-20 point lead to overcome the ten or more point war bounce McCain will get when Bush attacks Iran.

Not to mention McCain being the anointed next President by both the MSM and the Powers That Be.

Obama is doomed.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 5:23 PM

The commenter DTM brings up the wide lead Obama has in the online betting services, where you have to bet 5 to win 2 if you pick Obama (that means he's a "lock").

I heard a right-wing caller on Air America today say how he has bet $10,000 that John McCain is going to win the election.

Where was he when the Bears were in the Super Bowl a few years ago? Putting aside, that is, the fact that the caller was almost certainly lying his head off. If there's one thing that NOBODY is doing, that is betting on John "Czechoslovakia" McCain.

Posted by Pope Ratzo | July 16, 2008 6:41 PM

Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We're winning! Read the whole thing. Obama's about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where's my recession? McCain's gonna win!

Posted by Malfunctioning Glenn Reynolds Robot | July 16, 2008 7:48 PM

Actually, this all makes sense. Because this confused version of Matt must be the one from the sane planet where he didn't have a beard.

Please, Matt: When you return, take me with you!

Posted by nitpicker | July 16, 2008 8:46 PM

By the way, Al, the proof of Matt's point, that "Barack Obama has, for months, maintained a modest lead over John McCain in every public poll," is right here.

Posted by nitpicker | July 16, 2008 8:52 PM

A true mark of depseration masquerading as bravado - "hey, look everybody: I'm not behind by quite as much as the experts thought I'd be! VICTORY IS MINE!"

May as well change the slogan to:
"John McCain 2008: Okay, Let's Face It, I Suck."

The only way he can win at this point is by quickly slipping into a coma (thereby preventing a further stream of "Senior Moments" & the impending spectacle of being totally pwned in the debates), while Obama is caught in flagrante delicto with a dead girl AND a live boy, preferably live on Network TeeVee.

Even Bush in 1992 had better odds - & he was lackluster if not flat-out pathetic.

Posted by jim | July 16, 2008 9:46 PM

Although I'm cautiously optimistic for a Democrat to win the White House this year, I believe that at one point very early in the primary, Obama himself said that he would probably need a ten point lead headed into election night to overcome any last minute barriers to success.

Someone can check me on that!

Posted by Cyndi | July 16, 2008 11:51 PM

“Obama's lead depends on one thing, his supporters.”

Didn’t I hear something very similar on a segment of SNL’s “Weekend Update” skit months ago?

“Hillary Clinton has shown a weakness in one key demographic in her primary race against Barack Obama so far; voters.”

Posted by Raindog | July 16, 2008 11:52 PM

This bizarre alternative world of yours would require a lot fewer political pundits. It sounds like a ghastly place.

Posted by Aleks | July 17, 2008 6:12 AM