I read a much better analysis of these results at the excellent fivethirtyeight.com. As Nate over there notes, "This is a weaker performance for Obama than in June, but a better performance for him than in any month but June."

I think you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare June and July numbers to any polls that were conducted before Obama became the presumptive nominee.

@Alex, I see your point, but you really ought to read Nate's entire analysis. The guy knows his statistics.

I did, and I see what he's trying to say. And I don't disagree with your assessment of him. But look at Real Clear Politics' compilation of polls in all three states; he clearly got a bump after Clinton dropped out, which was no surprise -- we always knew that the numbers for Clinton and Obama vs. McCain were artificially low and that either would get a boost once they became the presumptive nominee. That said, as I mentioned in the post, I don't take these polls as gospel, and considering that we're only working with two data points, I don't think you should make too big of a deal out of these numbers. But I still don't think the pre-June polls should really be considered as relevant data points.

Polls are for anal retentive A-holes.

If Klytus' assessment is accurate, then why feel the need to read and post about them?

Oh... right. "Polls are for... a holes" and meaningless, kneejerk, snarky electronic comments are for trolls.

Don't you know Alex is always right and always knows best? Please stop trying to engage him or he might be forced to make and post another vacuous home video.

Lori

Actually, I don't think Alex and I are disagreeing (much). The main point of my original comment pimping 538.com was to preempt *other* commenters from drawing incorrect conclusions.

If commenters draw conclusions other than what Alex has specifically laid out for them, they are, by definition (and according to Alex), incorrect. Alex KNOWS!

Lori

One man's interesting snapshot in time is another man's utter annoyance (and apparently also the first man's easy blog topic).

I clicked on this thinking there'd be some kind of analysis of what neck and neck could really mean in states like Ohio and Florida, not just some superficial statement of the results of yet one more dumb poll.

Maybe you should poll your readers about whether to continue "covering" this useless stuff. My vote is: "Can it."

Polls are for A-holes

And Trix are for kids

Not trolls.

Go on off to a comfy corner

And have a real good and long

porsadgai cry.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges when you compare June and July numbers to any polls that were conducted before Obama became the presumptive nominee.

I'm also over at 538.com a lot (really fivethirtyeight.com), and the more analytical approach is refreshing. I don't get the apples to oranges comparison here either. It's obvious to me that many people formed very strong opinions about both McCain and Obama prior to June. We can see that just by readying the letters here. The 538 article below provides some basis for that. Isn't there a lot of continuity?

Link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/which-candidate-has-base-problem.html

Hate works. And Karl Rove knows how to deliver it. When John McCain's Base continues to echo GOP talking points through November, we can look forward to a third Bush term and "100 years" in Iraq.

One may also be inclined to assume telling the base to screw off has hurt Obama.

I think a lot of people wildly inflate Karl Rove's political skills. Sure Bush won re-election. But only by a hair, as a wartime president, only three years after 9/11, and against (let's face it) a miserable candidate in John Kerry. He also helped hand both houses of Congress over to the Democrats - including seats in some of the reddest districts in the country - and may have wrecked the Republican brand for a generation. His playbook is looking a little more predictable and worn these days.

Neither Kerry nor Gore were "miserable" candidates until Rove's machine started in on them. Dems were unprepared for the kind of "take no prisoner's" politics practiced by Rove. Turning Kerry's war record against him and neutralizing criticism of Bush's lack of a war record while taking down a perpetual thorn in the side of the right (Dan Rather) was brilliant. Anybody who saw the movie about Kerry on the night before the election knew that he was going to lose. It was heartbreaking - and brilliant. They had a bunch of sad old men talking about how Kerry had hurt them by denigrating soldiers, inspiring their captors to torture them more and even laying responsibility for losing the war at his feet. It was brilliant because they believed the lies - they had absorbed them from the media, the same way we absorbed the Kerry/Gore lost because they were bad candidates myth.

Salon itself has been ground zero for the "Obama is arrogant" and "Obama is nothing but a celebrity" tropes that now dominate the McCain message. If Obama loses, Salon will bear its share of responsibility for promoting these "Rovian" messages, just as the MSM generally killed Gore in 2000 for being a liar and flip-flopper.

Haven't you heard? Obama doesn't need the Democratic base, because he's building a new base of young people and minorities and red-state voter's who have never voted, or even bothered to register to vote. They will sweep him into the white house the way that fundamentalist Christians swept in Bush. They will be inspired to vote in the general election even though they didn't even bother to register for the incredibly contentious primary. They have a plan - win using non-voters. If it works, Axelrod will have earned the credit he is seeking.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on John Kerry. In my opinion, he was politically tone deaf and extremely slow to counterpunch.

Otherwise, your reply doesn't have much to do with my point:

Yes Bush won in '04, but at what cost? Republicans lost both houses of Congress and they're in terrible shape for this fall, in large part because voters are sick of the corruption and excess of the Bush years. Rove deserves credit for the win in '04 but he certainly shares the blame for the current sorry state of the GOP.