If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know that I have been deeply concerned about Barack Obama’s ability to beat John McCain. I’ve been worried about his weakness in key battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I still think the electoral college nightmare scenario outlined by David Yepsen is possible if McCain squeaks by in a few large battleground while Obama runs up a popular vote lead in Democratic strongholds.
But if the last few days are anything to go on, Obama is going to be the favorite this November.
Obama has picked up a decent bounce in tracking polls against McCain since Clinton ended her campaign, and it looks like he is increasing his lead among women. State polls indicate that he is ahead in electoral votes as well as in nationwide polls.
He has taken an important step toward uniting the party by promising to work with Elizabeth Edwards on health care reform. Not only will this excite the Democrats who supported John Edwards, it is a gesture toward Hillary Clinton’s supporters as well. The Clinton and Edwards health care plans were very similar, and this spring Elizabeth Edwards made clear that she preferred Clinton’s plan to Obama’s.
I still think Obama should pick a Clinton loyalist to be his running mate (if not Clinton herself). But if these reports are accurate, it sounds like his VP vetting team is casting a wide net, including some former military leaders.
What has John McCain been doing? Saying on the Today Show that the timing for bringing American troops home from Iraq is “not too important”:
Slinkerwink summarizes the reaction from various prominent Democrats here. The defense coming from the McCain camp is that he didn’t say bringing troops home from Iraq was “not too important,” he said the timeline for bringing them home was “not too important.”
Tell that to the loved ones of troops serving in Iraq right now, especially the families of those who’ve been stop-lossed and are serving their second or third tour.
I’ll be sure to mention to other moms of young kids that McCain doesn’t mind leaving our troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as U.S. casualties come down. I doubt many mothers relish the thought of their kids growing up to staff permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
Also for your reading pleasure, Daily Kos user timran brings you McCain’s top ten blow-ups. This is not the temperament you want in your president.
6 Comments
No good choices in this election.
Hm, I think barring any major bad news about Obama (I mean, bad enough for the press to see it as bad, and that’ll have to be really bad), he’s going to win. Does ANYONE like McCain?? It’s sounding more and more like McCain’s biggest supporters are democrats who are upset that Clinton lost and who hate Obama…but I’m not sure they hate him enough to actually vote for a Republican. I mean, that’s a lot of hate to last them all the way until November.
But it seems clear from your post that you ARE worried about McCain, since you seem intent on bringing him down.
Though I think it’s funny… I mean, I understand why you are doing it. You don’t like Obama, so you can’t promote him, so all that’s left is to tear down the opponent. I feel somewhat the same way this time, and it disgusts me. I hate it. I want to have someone to rally behind. I have largely reacted, though, by stopping thinking about it. Obama makes for amusing news (breathalyser…um…inhalater), and beyond that, I’m trying to pretend I dont’ have to choose between him and McCain.
PS, I don’t think McCain is thinking permanent bases in Iraq. Though how that’s markedly different from permanent bases in Japan or Korea, I’m not entirely sure. I would agree, and have said from the beginning, that having a timeline with dates is not important. There are other things that are important re: bringing troops home, but dates are not among them.
sarahtar Thu 12 Jun 10:09 AM
when I say I don't like Obama
I mean that he wouldn’t make my top 10 list of Democrats I’d like to see as president.
That said, I strongly support him against any Republican. Obama may not be as good on labor and environmental issues as I would like, but he would be a lot better than McCain, and he’s good on some issues that are important to me.
I’ve written many times that the Democrats are unlucky that the GOP nominated McCain. Of all the candidates in the Republican field, McCain has the best chance of beating Obama. If Romney or Huckabee were the nominee we’d be looking at a Democratic landslide of historic proportions.
desmoinesdem Thu 12 Jun 11:33 AM
National Popular Vote for the Presidency
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote…
mvymvy Thu 12 Jun 4:17 PM
I'm all for this reform
but I can’t see that the Iowa legislature would ever pass it. It’s going to have to come from large states.
desmoinesdem Thu 12 Jun 5:01 PM
Iowa will be the anchor for his general election win next November
Barack Obama has led in the vast majority of head-to-head national polls versus John McCain for the previous two moths. Obama is particular strong in recent polling in the swing states of the upper Midwest, which includes Iowa along with Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri. I feel strongly that Senator Obama will win Iowa by at least 10+ points in November. What the pundits need to understand is that Obama has a very strong grassroots organization in all 50 states. Obamas most lopsided wins versus Hillary Clinton were in the states of the upper Midwest. Iowa will be the anchor for his win in the general election next November.
mitch Sat 14 Jun 3:15 PM
from what I've seen
Obama still trails by quite a bit in Missouri. Maybe I haven’t seen the most recent polls, though.
He was running quite a bit weaker in WI this spring than in MN and IA.
desmoinesdem Sat 14 Jun 5:08 PM