1. juliobarrios says:

    The trouble is you post so much inane B.S. on here that you contradict yourself on a weekly basis. Having no clue as to what you posted only a few days ago.

    Only a week ago you were writing about how irrelevant the polls are due to pollsters not giving enough demographic weight to the cellphone generation.

  2. juliobarrios says:

    Remember Towery’s most admirable election eve prediction of a Reed win in the LG’s race. One of the most high profile races in the state and he missed that one by a mile.

    I can go on and on about his pathetic polling. The only significant thing about his analysis is he somehow manages to do worse then someone flipping a coin – a true statistical accomplishment.

  3. SpaceyG says:

    Actually… InsiderAdvantage has polled the winner correctly in 13 out of 14 Pres. contests… the highest percentage wins tied w/ one other national pollster. And as for Reed — do your research, the New York Times the weekend before the race, their last poll for newspapers had Cagle up by 10. The IA tracking on the final day had it tied. Name another race in Georgia they ever missed. You can’t because they have not.

  4. SpaceyG says:

    And one more thing before bed time… Julio, you have a smallish point. However, I fully well remember EVERYTHING I post here. It’s only fair, hardly “inane,” to bring-up the cell phone issue. And to continue to do so. In the meantime, IA is, statistically, the best we’ve got. If you’re too stupid to be able to sort the wheat from the chafe in these info-loading times, that’s your own brain defect, not mine.

  5. Ms_midtown says:

    There was not much analysis in that video, looked more like a commercial.
    Four states were mentioned Georgia, Virginia,
    NC and Florida.
    I would say Virginia is the only state Obama has a real chance of winning, and if Obama is winning in Virginia at 10:00 on election night – game over. We can all go to sleep.

    Spacey, I suggest you follow the data at

    Whoever wins Colorado will be the next president. That is ground zero, not Georgia.

  6. Common Sense says:

    Picking the winner and having an accurate sample are actually two different things. Did anyone need a poll to figure out who was going to win PA’s democratic primary? Also taking the last poll before an election and using it to validate a series of polls is disingenuous. According to SUSA’s ranking, IA is #19 when ranked by median error and #21 when ranked by mean error. Only 5 pollsters who polled at least 5 races during the primary season did worse.


    Here’s a great story on why IA’s polls actually aren’t scientifically valid…

    “Take a look at the Democratic tab, and if you look closely, you’ll see the problem: According to the crosstabs, Barack Obama gets 19.6% of the vote from men, 17.8% from women but 24.3% from all voters. Needless to say, that result is impossible, especially since they report 392 interviews conducted among men, 585 interviews among women and 977 overall (and since 392+585=977).**”

    More fundamentally GA is not relevant to this race. If Obama wins it, then it is at least his 300th electoral vote and not decisive. If he loses Georgia it has no impact on chances.

  7. Harry says:

    Spacey, hon, I gotta break some bad news to you. In the last week, according to Rasmussen, Obama’s spread over McCain has been cut in half, +6 down to +3. Factoring in the Bradley Effect it means McCain is actually leading Obama by +7.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Spacey’s finding herself using CAPS to strongly emphasize her POINTS now…looks like she’s been hanging around us PP menfolk too much… 🙂

  9. Rogue109 says:

    If you’re too stupid to be able to sort the wheat from the chafe in these info-loading times, that’s your own brain defect, not mine.

    More reasoned, polite and respectful conversation from SpaceyG!

  10. debbie0040 says:

    Polls mean nothing at this point.

    At this point in 2004, John Kerry was far ahead of Bush; In 2000, Gore was ahead; in 1992 Ross Perot was ahead; in 1988 Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Bush 41.

    Bob Barr has cut into McCain’s lead but that will not hold.

    Dick Morris has a very interesting article on rasmussenreports.com…

  11. debbie0040 says:

    Also from Ramussenreports:

    Thursday, June 19, 2008

    The Presidential race in Colorado has narrowed again, with Barack Obama dropping to just two percentage points ahead of Republican John McCain. One out of two Colorado residents say the Democrat is too inexperienced to be President.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama with 43% of the vote in Colorado and McCain earning 41%. Eight percent (8%) support a third-party candidate, and 7% are undecided. Support for both major candidates is down from a month ago when Obama led by six, 48% to 42%. (See Video)

    Obama registered a modest bounce nationally after besting Hillary Rodham Clinton for his party’s nomination early this month. But, the findings in Colorado show the narrowest gap between Obama and McCain since March when they were tied.

  12. DMZDave says:

    Obama is running ads in Georgia, they may have a lot of money but you don’t spend money in Georgia unless you think you have a shot. Add Nunn as Veep or a significant foreign policy role, figure Barr takes 3 percent from McCain, and Obama’s people register 300,000 new voters and Georgia could be in play. Turn out for this election is going to be huge.

  13. jsm says:

    I would be shocked and amazed if Obama took Georgia. He might win in Atlanta, and maybe in Macon or Savannah, but unless he GOTV’s a huge number of new urban votes, he’s not gonna win the state.

  14. John Konop says:

    Bush won Georgia by almost 17 points in 04. I wonder if the State is even close in 08 for Obama what seats would the Dems most likely pull an upset if at all?

    I say Saxby.

  15. Chris says:

    The key issue for McCain and Obama will be George Bush. If McCain can differentiate himself from Bush then he has a chance. If Obama can paint McCain as Bush’s 3rd term he is toast.

    I’d love to someone poll GA today matching Bush to Kerry. I suspect that 17% would drop to less than 5%.

  16. benevolus says:

    If the poll is meaningless to you, then ignore it. It is NOT meaningless to a lot of people, the campaigns most of all. Of course, the significance in polls at this time is not how accurately they will predict the future, but what are the current circumstances, which affects many things, including whether or how much campaigns spend and where.
    If you are interested in predictions for the future, perhaps you should try this:

  17. ACConservative says:

    The only thing that really surprises me about all of this is that Spacey actually posted something pertaining to Georgia.

  18. Progressive Dem says:

    If McCain has to defend Georgia, he is in a lot of trouble. I’ve also seen polls showing Obama with leads in Pa., Oh., and significantly narrowing the gap in Fl. and NC.

  19. jsm says:

    I wonder if the GA ad may just be a ploy by Obama’s campaign to generate discussion and create an appearance of being competitive in long shot states. Reminds me of the quote, “Perception is reality.”

  20. Icarus says:

    Obama also has (or at least is seeming to claim) the ability to spend more than any campaign on record. If so, he can afford to spend some money on long shot states, in the hopes that the McCain camp will have to spend some on playing defense.

  21. IndyInjun says:

    The way the economy is going, Georgia will be a blue state and the Republican Party will poll below the libertarians.

    Among the fiscal conservative blogosphere, who nailed the financial crisis 30 months ago, Bush is almost universally denigrated for the simply insane policies of the last 7 years and so are his GOP enablers.

    Financial types are not exactly liberal.

    If you lose this class of support, who is left?

    Based on performance the Republican Party is toast.

  22. CHelf says:

    Yes he now has money to compete in all states. But this is at the expense of the issue he’s championed from the get-go – change and reform of DC. While some of his followers have no scruples in tossing aside this breaking of a pledge, this goes to show that even the core beliefs of Obama are tossed aside to become what he’s decried for months. He claims the system is broken and this is why he foregoes the public funding. But did he not already claim the system was broken and corrupt when he signed the pledge? Even CFR champion Russ Feingold is slamming Barry for the move. It seems in his effort to change DC and change the way politics and money works, Barry has become the embodiment of this ‘evil’ DC. If such a core principle is tossed aside with such ease, what else will be?

    The issue here is that Obama has set his own bar so high. And now he’s chipping away at his own issues – this being perhaps his top issue all focusing on change. He’s all about something new and cleaning up the old, corrupt system. But now he’s caught up in the money race and trying to make this all about ‘grassroots giving’. No matter how you sugarcoat it, he made this whole concept as the evil of DC and what is wrong with politics. He made this a top change he could accomplish. Now he is no different from the evil. Now the messiah is just as evil and corrupt as any man is. What else is there for him to offer? It’s no longer about change. It’s no longer about something new. It’s no longer about something outside DC coming in to change DC. He IS DC. It’s about money and it’s about breaking promises and flopping on the issues. What he brought to the table is no longer on the table. Now it is about a liberal solution of tax what little money is left to inflate government even more. It’s the same thing we hear every four years.

  23. benevolus says:

    Foregoing the PAC money has allowed him to do this. The goal, or the principle, hasn’t changed, only the mechanism to achieve it.
    Otherwise, you describe an all-or-nothing approach: If he doesn’t do “change” perfectly and completely, then he must be the same as the evil he opposes. The world has more depth to it than that.

    To paraphrase a former colleague:
    Some change is better than no change.
    Good change is better than bad change.
    Change today is better than change tomorrow.

  24. CHelf says:

    Foregoing PAC money has allowed him to do this? He’s still getting it indirectly. It doesn’t matter how it comes in. When he signed a pledge he never said anything about this. His pledge had to do with public funding. He never pledged foregoing PAC money. The only change here is the path of the money. It’s still getting to him. And you’re right. It is change. The fact he flat out lied about the money. He lied about the change. He spelled out his “perfect” change and then didn’t do it. Spin it how you like. But he set the rules and made the promise. And then he broke them both.

  25. Jmac says:

    His pledge had to do with public funding. He never pledged foregoing PAC money. The only change here is the path of the money. It’s still getting to him. And you’re right. It is change. The fact he flat out lied about the money. He lied about the change.

    That’s preposterous.

    Obama never made a written pledge to adhere to public financing, and it was only after McCain realized he couldn’t raise the money to effectively challenge Obama that he began playing the public financing card.

    And, truth be told, Obama’s campaign is fueled by individual donors giving small amounts of money and foregoing PAC money which you so trivially dismiss, and that’s essential to his argument. He’s raising money from individuals in chunks of $100 and $200, bringing millions of donors to the midst who never gave before.

    If McCain would have agreed to shut down conservative 527s as Obama has done for liberal ones, you might just have seen some deal worked out. McCain balked because, from a political and strategic standpoint, he needs those organizations to open fire.

    Why then handcuff yourself?

    If McCain could raise what Obama can raise, we’d never hear the former utter a peep about public financing.

  26. Harry says:

    “And, truth be told, Obama’s campaign is fueled by individual donors giving small amounts of money and foregoing PAC money which you so trivially dismiss, and that’s essential to his argument. He’s raising money from individuals in chunks of $100 and $200”

    That was then. Now you’ll see a different dynamic.

  27. CHelf says:

    So Obama didn’t sign a pledge back in February? Read FactCheck.org’s assessment of Obama’s flopping AND his claims about McCain’s fundraising. Again, the facts and what Obama says are two different things.

    Why handcuff yourself? Well in Obama’s case, he’s promised this as his major issue of change. He’s whined about how the system is broken and candidates keep adding to the broken system. He had a chance to prove his commitment to change and show leadership. Instead he came up with a lame excuse equivalent to “everyone else is doing it so why can’t I?”

    The line about McCain raising ungodly amounts from lobbyists and PACs is a blatant lie. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama excuses his own behavior, the one he claims is representative of corrupt DC politics. He claimed for months that DC was all about money and he would change this. Now Barry has made it all about money.

    The ironic thing is him saying people cannot afford food and gas but yet he’s not refusing their money. Instead of telling people to keep their money and saying “you need it more than I do” he’s turned himself into the cheap hustling tele-evangelist taking social security checks from old ladies every Sunday morning.

  28. Harry says:

    What really bugs me is that Obama’s campaign is designed to appeal to voters on the basis of race and class, while anyone who opposes him is “using race as an issue.”

  29. duluthmom says:

    After hearing the news (nationwide) that GA was back in play this election, I signed on nostalgically to my old favorite site Peach Pundit, now that I am living in Idaho. To be honest, I am dismayed about all the whining on this thread over all the financing issues rather than concentrating on what I believe to be the true critical issue of this thread. For the first time ever we are looking at states other than FL as the key to the White House. That is huge!!!
    So I believe you should look at the opportunity for victory at being active beyond finances. (Sadly, many love to contribute but don’t want to put personal time against it. ) To me, the keyto victory is truly grassroots this year than ever before.

  30. liberator says:

    True conservatives will vote for Barr over McCain. I hope those who hold their noses and vote McCain as the percieved lesser of two nanny state liberals don’t cost Barr the election. McCain with his temper would be a disaster as the man with the finger on the war trigger.

  31. Icarus says:

    “I hope those who hold their noses and vote McCain as the percieved lesser of two nanny state liberals don’t cost Barr the election.”

    Just how much do you smoke everyday liberator? It’s not even 4:20 yet…

  32. SecretIdentity-NotStevePerkins says:

    Interesting that in the InsiderAdvantage results for Georgia, 40% of Barr’s support comes from Democrats.

  33. Bill Simon says:

    And to think that it was 6 years ago that Barr blamed his “defeat” on Dems crossing the line and voting for Linder. (Hint: It wasn’t Dems, but ‘Pubs who were fed-up with Barr’s hypocrisy on handling guns and his “gooder” ads).

  34. HLittle says:

    Obama will be the next President, McCain’s temper will get the best of him in the last month before the election, he will say or do something that he can’t recover from and what had been a fairly close contest will wither on the vine. Voter turnout will be extremely high on the Democrat side in every state.

  35. Taft Republican says:

    HLittle may be right, but I’m betting McCain does that “something” before the national convention even hits. What will all those delegates do then? The parties around St. Paul sure won’t be as fun.

    And yes, voter turnout will be extremely high on the Dem side, because they got a really liberal candidate. And it will be extremely low on the GOP side, because they got a really liberal candidate.

  36. liberator says:

    Icarus I don’t smoke at all pal. I’m a proud member of the unhooked generation like Bob Barr and Ted Nugent who both sit on the NRA Board of Directors. Barr for prez and protect Your gun rights and bill of rights period.

  37. duluthmom says:

    Perhaps that is true Jace. However, your far bigger concern this election is not who is the most conservative, but rather who is electable from a national standpoint. The truth is Barr has little to no recognition outside of GA.

    When I asked my politically active friends in key states like IA, PA, and OH and even here in the very red state of ID, Paul was easily identified as an alternative candidate, while Barr was unheard of or not even noted as a potential candidate.

    Granted he is only now exploring the viability of his candidacy, but outside of GA he lacks the recognition that one would expect from a true potential contender for the presidency.

Comments are closed.