As I keep saying, with little effect:
People who fixate on individual poll results -- or even near-simultaneous pairs of tracking polls -- misunderstand how reliable such polls are.
On top of which, there are 99 days of campaigning left, two conventions, and at least three debates.
Wait for a long-term trend to emerge.
We can resume this discussion more fruitfully in September or October.

Nice marketing angle, David. The New Coke that didn't sell, the media blitz that didn't convince, the difference that wasn't a difference. People still talk about the VHS vs. Betamax fight, but the public didn't notice the difference, certainly not one worth paying for. Macs are nice machines, but have spent 20 years being the nice machines only a few care to actually buy (had Microsoft not screwed both marketing and engineering with Vista, Mac OS X would be considerably lower than its current 8%).

Obama has gone a good ways towards ruining his brand, undercutting its simplicity. His followers grabbed onto his anti-war speech and Hillary's AUMF vote and held onto them like a bone - no amount of shaking could dislodge them from "Hillary poor judgment, Obama good judgment" - very clever. Because behind "change" was "wisdom" - maybe only one issue, but it spoke volumes about all others. Steadfast change, steadfast wisdom. But now we see only the politically expedient Obama - FISA, faith-based initiatives, support of Israel/Iran bashing, late term abortions, his well-connected and not-too-pretty VP selection team - all becomes fungible, with more asterisks than Roger Maris home run records.

As you imply, the Obama Edsel seems less a design breakthrough than a composite of Democratic slogans and Republican positions. The more time it sits on the lot, the more people kick its tires, the more they look at its sticker price and calculate the cost of add-ons, the less allure it holds. As for the real marketing team, the Mainstream Media, they're already moving on to the Next Big Thing. As Rhett Butler stated, there's more money to be made in the destruction of a civilization than in building one, and the MSM knows this rule very well. And besides, they've already decided Obama's not funny enough to keep around for 8 years - and that's issue #1 for the Kool Kidz on the Bus.

"It is obvious that the enthusiasm that much of the media feels for Obama is not shared by most of the voters."

How about a little specificity, David? That poll which separated out likely voters found that older women especially have a problem with Obama. McCain's getting older men as well.

People under 40 are in fact enthusiastic about him.

But his main problem as a Democrat is losing the party `base` of women.

David -

I'm one of those people who
Think July polls for a November election while a fun exercise are not always a good indicator of November outcome.

From gallup PRINCETON, NJ -- In 9 of the past 15 U.S. presidential elections, the candidate who was leading in Gallup polling roughly four months before the election ultimately won the popular vote for president. However, narrowing the set of races to the nine that were competitive, the early polling proved prescient in only three of those.

With Barack Obama leading John McCain by no more than six percentage points in Gallup's early July polling, the 2008 race currently fits best into the "competitive" category. Given that assumption, Gallup's election trends from a comparable point in previous presidential election years offer no strong indication of whether Obama or McCain is headed for victory in November.

(In 1976, Jimmy Carter, who won that election, was ahead by 33 points in mid-July, but the race narrowed significantly by Election Day and he won by only two points. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the 1976 race is classified as competitive.)
Winners in this chart refer to popular vote winners since polling only take into account pop. vote not electoral college

June July Poll #s Winners +/- on E day
1948: 7/16- 21 Dewey 48% Truman 37%, Truman +4.5
1960: 6/30-7/5 Kennedy 50% Nixon 44%, Kennedy +.02
1968 6/29-7/3 Humphrey 40% Nixon 35%, Nixon +1
1976 7/16-19 Carter 62% Ford 29% Carter +2
1980 7/8-10 Reagan 37% Carter 34% Reagan +10
1988 7/8-10 Dukakis 47% Bush 41%, Bush +8
1992 7/6-8 Bush 35% Clinton 28% Clinton +5.5
2000 7/14 -16 Bush 43% Gore 41% Gore +.05
2004 7/8-11 Kerry 51% Bush 44% Bush +2.5

I for one am happy it's tight, it keeps people on there toes. As for your Edsel analogy it only works after the fact not before the election.

ps: Since we are both old enough to remeber it here's a good article about the "Flop Heard Round The World"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301419.html

You won't approve my comments at your blogsite. This is the same article cut and pasted here. What's the difference?

I guess these are the types of comments you let through:

anonymous said... Barack Obama looks like the most left-wing candidate the Democrats have fielded in decades, and is of African ancestry, a fact not without relevance in today's America. He'd never have been nominated were it not for the immense frustration with Bush and to a lesser extent all the powers that are, y compris Hillary.

A more mainstram candidate might easily be 20 points ahead of McCain, but the only question that counts is whether Obama can get 50% + 1 of the votes of the electoral college counted.

The Edsel was a top down decision by an industrialist wont to tell his customers they could have a car in any color they desired, as long as that color was black; Obama, for better or worse, is a candidate backed by millions of people from the bottom up. I do not see why the two should be compared.

11:24 AM

This is your moderation mission statement?

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

You're kidding right?

And this?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

pffftttlol...what a fraud.

The same blogspot? Better look again. It's craziness like that that keeps people from taking you seriously, EOTB. Why not quit stalking people and concentrate on the issues? If you did, people wouldn't have to rebuke you so often.

This is boring now.

I don't like conversing with you 70 and 80 year old men.

Y'all will go back to talking about when things use to work and such.

If McCain were to win, it would mark a turning point in American culture. Personally, I think that point is several years and a couple of administrations away. I think the electorate will decide this year that they still have time to experiment with an Obama, that the situation is just not that serious. The turning point will come after Obama when the neocons, or however they style themselves then, sweep back into power. If you think the world hates us now, get a load of us then.

MINE!

Your skin looks lifeless with a leathery hue.

Get offa my thread.

David, I'm taking a partial break from TPM, but I continue to read your posts when I can.

I appreciate that you have a very strong perspective, different from mine, but well expressed. I totally "get" that you don't believe in Obama as a viable candidate. I infer that you are concerned about that and that you don't want us to make the mistake you feel you made in idolizing JFK.

I, too, experienced the grief and horror at his death. I was probably slightly younger than you were, but old enough to feel the weight of the tragedy and to have been affected by the man's charisma.

In Obama, I feel that charisma again, and so I think I can understand your reluctance to embrace another man who seems to charm the world with his high-minded, idealistic speeches. At least, that's what I think you have intimated on more than one occasion - that Obama is sure to disappoint us as JFK did you.

Of course, I believe that you are making a leap here to assume, with such certainty, that Obama will turn out to be such a disaster. Nobody knows for sure, but some of us actually do believe that he means what he says and that he is not so flawed. For one thing, the intimacy of campaigns is far deeper than it was back in JFK's time. And before you mention that Bush got elected - twice- I will only say that it was not because I was fooled, and it is possible, at least, that fewer people will be fooled this time into voting for McCain, who has become anything but what his preceding reputation purports him to be.

Also, when considering Obama's strength as an orator, there are other leaders who were great at speeches, such as Churchill and FDR, for instance, who seemed to rise to the occasion when the world was at war and the stakes were very high. Like Lincoln, another great orator, they had their failures and weaknesses, but they were leaders who accomplished very tangible results in the world.

There's little doubt that the stakes are high now, in some of the old and in many new ways. We could certainly use visionary leaders, and so Obama is a hope, if not a certainty. And the alternative is, at least to me, frightening and likely tragic.

Needless to say, I respect your feelings and beliefs, even if I don't always agree with the factual nature of your conclusions. I have my positions, as you can see, but I am interested in your logic and your attempts to persuade. However - and this is the issue that most brings me to post here - I do not find your rhetoric to be as high minded as your stated or suggested intentions.

You are a literate and clear writer. You can express yourself very well, and always your writing is crafted with care. You often speak of very personal issues, and do so well.

And then you seem to descend into base attacks on Obama that are couched in name calling and silly buzz words. To me, you demean your own message. Your Edsel analogy, while clever, is just one of many examples of how you have found demeaning terminology to describe Obama, and the result, for me, is not to convince me to consider Obama more critically, but to consider you more critically.

I ask myself, If he is really sincerely concerned with the direction this country is going, why is this highly literate thinker reducing himself to name-calling and insults? Isn't that sort of immature for a man of such apparent wisdom?

So then I think to myself, If David is a man of wisdom, then he must be doing this on purpose, knowingly sinking to a level of discourse that appeals to our baser instincts and incites agreement among the partisans or anger among those who would disagree.

My question to you is, What do you intend to accomplish when you post here on TPM? Meaning, do you intend to make a difference and to help people see real problems that may exist, or are you intending more to provoke people and incite them? If the latter, then what is it you gain from those responses?

Thank you for your time.

He's a fraud, Raider. Check out his "blog".

And don't bother commenting unless you can make a vile characterization of African American's personage.

Or some down low brown nosing.

I think he'd prefer both.

Quasar, I'm starting to think that you don't like David Seaton very much.

PS TPM has been more aggressive lately about banning people for comments like these.

You need to make sure that Workerbee that you hang with isn't doing illegal things.

How are you going to school me?

Quasar, I didn't write my comment to judge you. I wrote it to caution you because I would rather that you were not banned. Perhaps I might have spared an angry friend from getting banned had I spoken up sooner.

And no, I have never asked for anyone to be banned.

Just because you're all burned out don't mean others are, Genghis.

The Real McCain:

"In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331093161&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Needs minders.

But I get you, Genghis.

You like to say things and passive-aggressively say, "It was just snark".

Dave, just what ARE you going to do during the eight years of the Obama Administration? Gonna cost a fortune in bleach keeping those sheets and hood snowy white ...

Good night, quasar. Thank you for the elevated discussion, thoughtful personal critiques, dazzling wit, and not at all psychotic posting. Hahaha, as you say. And I might add, LOL. I regret not having interacted with you more often in the past. I've clearly been missing out.

PS <passive aggressive>It was just snark</passive aggressive>

PPS If it's not too hallmonitory of me, I suggest that you owe apologies to Taggart, JohnAH, and DiegoUK, whom you have forgotten to insult.

Wait, Genghis.

You left your lack of personality here.