For the first time since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, McCain and Obama are now tied.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a statistically insignificant 47% to 46% advantage. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Up to now, Obama has consistently held about a 5 point lead.

For comparison, Kerry was ahead of Bush 2 by 2 points at this point in the election cycle. Dukakis was ahead of Bush 1 by 7 points and that lead would expand to 17 points by the end of July before going down to defeat.

A look at the internals is also interesting.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, Obama by 54%. Obama receives unfavorable reviews from 44% of voters while McCain is viewed unfavorably by 41%. McCain earns favorable ratings from 32% of Democrats while Obama is viewed favorably by 22% of Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters, McCain is viewed favorably by 58%, Obama by 54%.

Opinions are more strongly held about Obama than McCain--29% have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 27% have a Very Unfavorable view. For McCain, those numbers are 17% Very Favorable and 18% Very Unfavorable McCain is ahead of Obama in pretty much every category.

Regardless, it's anyone's race at this point. Considering how unpopular Bush is, and the fact that McCain is pretty much hated by the Republican base, that's amazing.

If elections could change anything they would've been outlawed. Doesn't really matter. It's just a spectacle for the plebians.

Here is an interesting thing. At the betting site Intrade Obama is way up 60% to McCain 30%. Now why is the huge difference? markets are usually efficient and mirror reality most of the time. I could see a 10% Obama lead based on polls, but how come that people betting on the outcome of the race see Obama's chances twice as good as McCain's?

If they are this wrong there should be good money to be made by betting against them...

Here is an interesting thing. At the betting site Intrade Obama is way up 60% to McCain 30%. Now why is the huge difference? markets are usually efficient and mirror reality most of the time. I could see a 10% Obama lead based on polls, but how come that people betting on the outcome of the race see Obama's chances twice as good as McCain's?

If they are this wrong there should be good money to be made by betting against them...
Perhaps people are betting on Obama so that they win no matter what happens. If Obama wins, they make money. If McCain wins, we've dodged a huge bullet in keeping a radical out of office. So a bet on Obama is a win-win.

Regardless, the Newsweek poll that just came out shows a 12 point swing in McCain's favor from a 15 point lead for Obama last month to a 3 point lead this month (which is a statistical "tie").
In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. 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. http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737

I hope it doesn't end up another 2000 election, where the dems try stealing the election again if they narrowly lose. I could understand the 1st and 2nd Florida recounts, but when they started hand-picking democractic counties for recount by mind readers and tried omitting the overseas military ballots that hadn't arrived yet, it became obvious they were trying to steal the election. And then they had the nerve to say republicans "stole" the election. :rolleyes:

Actually, that betting thing works the other way around: Always bet against your team, then it is a win-win scenario. It is either your team winning or you making some money...Well, maybe a ton of republicans are trying to make some money. :)

By the way you are wrong with the numbers because if you add up the polls by states (and that's what counts) Obama is leading by a 5 to 4 ratio....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Regardless, it's anyone's race at this point. Considering how unpopular Bush is, and the fact that McCain is pretty much hated by the Republican base, that's amazing. Through all of 2007 and into 2008, McCain polled nationally to beat Obama (and Hillary) head to head.

The Republican "base" that hates McCain is also the Republican "base" that has the most trouble voting for blacks (or women), and the most trouble handling English sentences with clauses in them and basic arithmetic involving percentages. Their hatred of McCain is not much of a factor, as Obama has no way to appeal to them.

It's becoming clear that almost nothing McCain says will get him a lot of Obama-style "criticism" in the media (tape loops of his idiotic statements about Iraq, Iran, or Social Security, with laugh tracks dubbed in and so forth, will not be featured 24/7 on the bigtime broadcast media outlets), so the Dems are reduced to appealing to reason and memory and common sense - they have a rough row to hoe.

Check out the cover of the New Yorker:
http://images.politico.com/global/080713_nyorkercover.jpg
Yep. That's Obama and the Mrs. Notice the American flag burning in the fireplace!
The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of the The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

I’m sure Senator Obama is oh-so appreciative for The New Yorker’s help.

UPDATE -- Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

I hope it doesn't end up another 2000 election, where the dems try stealing the election again if they narrowly lose.

You have your facts backwards. In the 2000 election, it was the Republicans who stole the election. Remember all the legal battles over the Florida votes? Remember the black people who incorrectly weren't allowed to vote in Florida? Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote?

You have your facts backwards. In the 2000 election, it was the Republicans who stole the election. Remember all the legal battles over the Florida votes? Remember the black people who incorrectly weren't allowed to vote in Florida? Remember how Al Gore won the popular vote?

i followed that recount very closely James. Some people were mistakenly not allowed to vote, but there were thousands who were not supposed to be voting who did and were registered by the democratic party. So that's a wash.

Some people were mistakenly not allowed to vote, but there were thousands who were not supposed to be voting who did and were registered by the democratic party. So that's a wash. If you followed all that closely you know that your "some" and "thousands" should be switched. You also know that "registered by the Democratic Party" in Florida doesn't mean anything like what it would mean in a northern state, and that there were improperly registered likely Rep voters (snowbirds, etc) as well.

Besides: You seem to be claiming that the actual vote counting manipulations and apparent frauds favoring the Reps are somehow balanced by some unknown number of improperly registered voters favoring the Dems ? Vote fraud and ballot manipulation is OK if you can assert it was sort of balanced somehow by registration improprieties ?

If you followed all that closely you know that your "some" and "thousands" should be switched. You also know that "registered by the Democratic Party" in Florida doesn't mean anything like what it would mean in a northern state, and that there were improperly registered likely Rep voters (snowbirds, etc) as well.

Besides: You seem to be claiming that the actual vote counting manipulations and apparent frauds favoring the Reps are somehow balanced by some unknown number of improperly registered voters favoring the Dems ? Vote fraud and ballot manipulation is OK if you can assert it was sort of balanced somehow by registration improprieties ?

Now prove your assertions, facts would be a nice place to start,

U.S. Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election by a 7-2 margin;


In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

Bush v. Gore
George W. Bush, et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. (531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525), commonly known as Bush v. Gore, was a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. The case decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore.

In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. The ruling in effect awarded Bush the presidency.




Media Matters - Count the falsehoods: Sammon discussed 2000 ...
Mar 16, 2006 ... US Supreme Court halted the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election by a 7-2 margin; and that a study of the 2000 presidential ...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160002

I hope it doesn't end up another 2000 election, where the dems try stealing the election again if they narrowly lose. I could understand the 1st and 2nd Florida recounts, but when they started hand-picking democractic counties for recount by mind readers and tried omitting the overseas military ballots that hadn't arrived yet, it became obvious they were trying to steal the election. And then they had the nerve to say republicans "stole" the election. :rolleyes:

???

Now prove your assertions, facts would be a nice place to start, If you Google the various recounts, you will find what you have almost certainly already found (to have dredged up that Seidman recount) that the more complete the recount the wider the margin of Gore victory.

Further, that the improperly excluded voters from the error-ridden "felony conviction" list numbered in the thousands, and mostly from Democratic leaning demographics. If they had voted in their demographically expected percentages and preferences, at least a couple of thousand more votes for Gore would have been counted.

Also, the butterfly ballots that created so many problems in a couple of Dem heavy districts were misprinted on top of their slightly confusing layout, and only Dem districts got the misprinted ones - the statistically established bias against Gore cost him at least a couple of thousand votes.

That's on top of the recount margin.

And the Supreme Court decision, which overruled a Florida Court decision without justification for even the hearing of it, and created the very delay it used as the basis of its ruling, is irrelevant to that.

And it looks like Florida and a couple of other places are going to be trouble again, this November, in another close race.

Puhleaze!

Polls are beyond garbage and mean NOTHING.As Andrea Mitchell said,Tim would of said what has always been right.If you wanna go by Polls,try the state to state polls were Obamas lead continues to open up.One must understand the media gains a large profit by creating controversy.Therefore they highlight one poll claiming its Obama,they turn to highlight one that has him below and it just creates controversy.The reality is as said on Morning Joe.Polls at this point can say whatever they want.This country is too hungry for a change.Mccain is finished.There is just no way this man will receive nearly the support,enthuisiam Obama has.

I have to say I'm surprised. I wasn't even aware McCain was campaigning.

And are people really still bitching about the 2000 election? Unbelievable...

If we're lucky, McCain will win

If you Google the various recounts, you will find what you have almost certainly already found (to have dredged up that Seidman recount) that the more complete the recount the wider the margin of Gore victory.

Further, that the improperly excluded voters from the error-ridden "felony conviction" list numbered in the thousands, and mostly from Democratic leaning demographics. If they had voted in their demographically expected percentages and preferences, at least a couple of thousand more votes for Gore would have been counted.

Also, the butterfly ballots that created so many problems in a couple of Dem heavy districts were misprinted on top of their slightly confusing layout, and only Dem districts got the misprinted ones - the statistically established bias against Gore cost him at least a couple of thousand votes.

That's on top of the recount margin.

And the Supreme Court decision, which overruled a Florida Court decision without justification for even the hearing of it, and created the very delay it used as the basis of its ruling, is irrelevant to that.

And it looks like Florida and a couple of other places are going to be trouble again, this November, in another close race.

Stating your opinion again.

Supreme Court was a 7 to 2 decision, so it wasn't a party line vote.

Supreme Court was a 7 to 2 decision, so it wasn't a party line vote. It was a 5/4 decision to prevent any attempt at recounting, straight party line. And of course the Chief Justice's decision to hear the case at all.

A couple of the Justice's failed to recuse themselves, despite having immediate family and other conflicts of interest in the case.

All in all, a sad day for the Court - or its reputation, anyway.

Meanwhile, McCain is still not getting hammered for his cozy dealings with "Enron Phil" Gramm, major architect of our current financial difficulties in all its aspects - the housing mess, the tax cut deficits, the war contracting cesspool. And this even after Gramm injected himself gratuitously into the headlines, rather than keeping his shadowy proper place off stage, or obscene as its called.

Gramm is a fool, but don't try to blame him for what's happening with the economy -- it's just another prime example of the ridiuclous leaps in logic and oversimplifications you like to make in order to further your agenda.

Gramm is a fool, but don't try to blame him for what's happening with the economy A fool with a great deal of power and influence. Who would be more blameworthy? The list would be very short. Milton Friedman didn't actually write and sponsor those bills.

More hyperbole.

Gramm's been out of office for several years. And the economy isn't such a simple thing as to succumb to one man's back room peddling. Gramm is not responsible for the housing crunch, a weak dollar and rising oil prices.

Gramm's been out of office for several years. And the economy isn't such a simple thing as to succumb to one man's back room peddling. Gramm is not responsible for the housing crunch, a weak dollar and rising oil prices. He is, as I pointed out, a major architect of the housing based financial mess - the author, sponsor, and single key enabling force behind the most important deregulation measures in Congress,for one thing - and through that as well as other ventures (various support for W&Co in general) the weak dollar.

And the weak dollar is significantly responsible for the 4 dollar gas. In pre-Gramm pre-bubble Euro equivalents, oil is less than 80 dollars a barrel right now - 2 or 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

So the fact that he is and has been for years McCain's most important consultant in financial matters - matters in which McCain admits little personal expertise - is worth noting.

He is, as I pointed out, a major architect of the housing based financial mess - the author, sponsor, and single key enabling force behind the most important deregulation measures in Congress,for one thing - and through that as well as other ventures (various support for W&Co in general) the weak dollar.

And those would be?

And the weak dollar is significantly responsible for the 4 dollar gas. In pre-Gramm pre-bubble Euro equivalents, oil is less than 80 dollars a barrel right now - 2 or 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

Weak dollar is a factor, but supply and demand is what it is. It's funny, in one thread your heap all the blame for high oil on the above. In others, you talk about the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan...

So the fact that he is and has been for years McCain's most important consultant in financial matters - matters in which McCain admits little personal expertise - is worth noting.

It is. McCain is a dummy on economic issues. I thought this was common knowledge?