The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon’s on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

Things are so bad that many people don’t even want to call themselves Republicans. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found the lowest percentage of self-described Republicans in 16 years of polling.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10238.html

"Putting aside for a moment the question of who each party's nominee might be, what is your preference for the outcome of the 2008 presidential election -- that a Democrat be elected president or that a Republican be elected president?"

Democrat Republican Other (vol.) Unsure

4/25-28/08 51 33 4 12
3/7-10/08 50 37 4 9
11/1-5/07 49 39 2 11
9/7-10/07 47 38 4 11
6/8-11/07 52 31 5 12
4/20-23/07 49 31 6 14

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

FIRST SO THAT NO ONE GETS IN TROUBLE, PLEASE NOTE THE SUB FORUM.

I'm first going to go out on, what used to no be a limb at all, and assert that defeating John McCain is a Progressive value. Who knows lately though.

So that said, should we be worried?

I have taken a positive line on this debate, and I will continue to do so. I believe that Barack Obama will be the next President. However I'm not exempt from personal bias, and there are TWO DISTINCT VIEWS on can take.

First, if you look at the electoral college, McCain is ahead on every map I've seen.

Here are a couple:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May10.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May10.html

Even though Barack Obama is ahead in national polling he is behind in the electoral college. Yes. It's a long election. However it's not going to matter how many votes Barack Obama has if he can't win 270 electoral votes.
On the other side of the coin is the position I favor. The Obama bashers consider it foolish optimism. But they are no more immune to situational bias than the rest of us.

As Ely posted:



Further there is the NBC poll:



So who's right? What do you think? Should we be scared by the electoral college? Or is the anti-Republican sentiment enough to carry Obama through? People are suspicious of polls. However the negative opinion of the Republican party is a lot less likely to change than John McCain's polling numbers, especially while running against Obama. That's why I give Obama the edge.

What do you think?

New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin are not going to the Repubs this cycle, neither is New Mexico...Colorado is secure for Obama. Your reading the tea leaves way too early and incorrectly.

I think main reason Republicans gave McCain the nomination was to give it to him in a race he wouldn't be able to win, then they've repaid him for his support of and he's happy he's the nominee.

Concerning his campaign if McCain is ever given the Obama treatment by M$PM he'll lose.
Look who are his traveling companions on the campaign trail.
I can't think of any issue where McCain hasn't flip flopped except for the "surge".
McCain says he's not but his policies are the same as on the economy, health care, SS, Iraq, WOT.
McCain doesn't have a foreign policy outside of the surge.
Above all McCain's energy policy was the 18.4¢ gasoline tax break.

McCain would really be a 3rd term of policy and I hope those Hillary democrats, independents and moderate Republicans realize it.

Many arguments have been advanced about how to settle the Democratic nomination. Barak Obama argues that winning the majority of pledged delegates should decide the race – but he is wrong. Clinton argues that perhaps the total popular vote should decide the issue – but she is wrong. Earnest people are calling for immediate reinstatement of the primary delegations from Florida and Michigan, saying that is the key – but they are wrong. All that matters is electability.

This nomination will be settled by a few superdelegates, most of whom are allied with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Some time between now and the end of June, those three and their allies will make the decision that all of the primary elections and caucuses could not resolve. They will base their conclusion on one factor and one only; which of the two candidates is best equipped to beat John McCain. How should they reach that decision?

*snip*

By a majority of more than 2 to 1 in Electoral College strength, the Democratic voters of the Swing States prefer Hillary Clinton. A preference of 99 to 43 is not even close; it is definitive. The voters who are most in a position to know, who actually live in these states and know not just their own opinions but those of their friends and neighbors, have made a resounding decision; they want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. This overwhelming popularity is why a delegation of elected officials from Swing States have written an open letter to the superdelegates, arguing forcefully that Clinton is not only the clear best choice as the Presidential nominee but also will make the greatest contribution to winning the down-ticket races.

“Of the fifteen districts rated “toss up” by the Cook Political Report, Hillary has now won ten. Of the 20 districts we picked up in 2006 that had gone for President Bush just two years before, Hillary has now won 16. She is strong in the places we must win to hold and expand our majority.”

These are voices that must not just be listened to, but thoroughly respected and heeded.

There is a serious problem with swing states if Obama ends up being the nominee. I read an article this morning that shows some important trends that cannot be ignored regarding Democrats winning electoral votes in November--
More at the link below
Link

Well now that's interesting. How did the Republicans organize and carry out this plan to "give" McCain the nomination? Did they dump a bunch of money his way? The media?

If this is the case who is giving Barack Obama the nomination? Presumably if such things are handed down like entitlements, most people must not know. So how do we know then?

I sure do love conspiracies. The questions without answers just never end.

Regarding the rest, I've been watching this strategy unfold. Senator Reid was going on and on about how John McCain was just a third term of Bush. Honestly it didn't come across as that convincing. He had the first 15 minutes. The Republicans had 15 as well. She sure did a fine job of painting John McCain as a rebel, even if it was just window dressing.

I think it would be wise for the Dems not to fall too deeply in love with this attack. If this is their line from here to November then I think we might be in trouble. I think it would be much better if the Dem leadership started saying that McCain is WRONG on XXX and here's why rather than just calling him Bush. 15 minutes of that would have played better in my estimation.

Who is reading the "tea leaves" incorrectly? I'm merely posing the question. I'm pretty sure that I said I thought Barack would win. It appears that you are agreeing with me. So are you reading too early too? Because you just made more predictions than I did, and with absolution no less.

With 'absolution'...then I can err with impunity, thanks for your forgiveness in advance!

No problem.

In all actuality I'm not sure what the proper form would be in that sense. Absolutism perhaps? Although that conjures images of Hegelian philosophy. Anyway, go fourth in absolution. I'll probably continue to manufacture words, meanings and tenses. Somehow after my brief stint as an English major I learned to care a lot less.

No problem.

In all actuality I'm not sure what the proper form would be in that sense. Absolutism perhaps? Although that conjures images of Hegelian philosophy. Anyway, go fourth in absolution. I'll probably continue to manufacture words, meanings and tenses. Somehow after my brief stint as an English major I learned to care a lot less.

This is what happens when we dabble in the more obscure corners of the process. Now the personal opinions of each state elctors only have as much impact as the states constitution gives them. You must remember that we all still have a real election cycle to do and nothing that is carved in stone on mothers day 2008 is guarnted to still be in stone in late October. The wild card in all these scenarios is still in the form of the Bush executive order which alows him to preserve the constitution by declaring an emergency ant taking over all facets of government operations-thus destroying the constitution to save it.

New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin are not going to the Repubs this cycle, neither is New Mexico...Colorado is secure for Obama. Your reading the tea leaves way too early and incorrectly.

Did anyone edit the letter/correspondence you wrote for the member of Parliament? Not really making fun...my wife is very articulate, just a horrible speller.

With absoluteness...

Haven't studied the other states, but I wouldn't consider Wisconsin to be 'in the bag' for Obama. See the map from 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...I/P/00/map.html

This is why I'll be hitting the phones for Obama's campaign in the fall. Our home state is a no-brainer to go for Obama, but many people in northern Illinois will be helping out the campaign to the north.

I do believe vigilance is needed in the polling places. Remember that bush won in '04 only because he won Ohio. And we all remember the nightmare there at many polling places. I firmly believe that if the repubs can find a way to win this election through any means, legal or illegal, they will do it. The guy who was CEO of the Debold voting machines was quoted as saying he would do anything to get bush elected. These machines, by the way, have no paper trails to look at after the fact.