MT: Rasmussen: McCain kills Obama in Montana

[© tweed]

FDU had Bush within one of Kerry on Sept. 28.  two polls had Bush and Kerry tied as late as Oct. 26.

[muon2]

If this is all because of Palin, I think it is suffice to say that the party and the country are pretty fu cked.

I don't understand it myself. It can't be her positions. It must be her novelty plus the fact that she has been dominating the news for the past 2 weeks.

Has Obama said or done anything noteworthy since August 28? I can't think of anything that has been widely reported.

You know none of this would have happened if the DNC had just been scheduled after the RNC. Unless this tradition of the out-party going first is engraved in some law (which would be pretty strange), I say that in 2012 we screw the tradition.

But how do you replace the tradition without ditching the conventions. Without an agreement, how and when would they be decided? Neither party can easily change the agreement, and they aren't Federal functions at present. I suppose the parties could get into a leapfrog contest like NH did with primaries this year, but that doesn't really address your issue.

One can imagine the Federalizing of the primary eliminating that need for conventions. But that leaves the VP selection in the air. Does the Federal government specify a deadline post-primaries to name the VP, or should the candidates run as tandems in the primaries?

There is also the question of when the general election begins for campaign finance purposes. At present it is set by the nomination at the convention. A Federal law would be needed to deal with that as well.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it is customary that the party out of power holds their convention first.

[Beet]

Ok, I didnt mean to hijack the thread,but...

If this is all because of Palin, I think it is suffice to say that the party and the country are pretty fu cked.

I don't understand it myself. It can't be her positions. It must be her novelty plus the fact that she has been dominating the news for the past 2 weeks.

Has Obama said or done anything noteworthy since August 28? I can't think of anything that has been widely reported.

You know none of this would have happened if the DNC had just been scheduled after the RNC. Unless this tradition of the out-party going first is engraved in some law (which would be pretty strange), I say that in 2012 we screw the tradition.

But how do you replace the tradition without ditching the conventions. Without an agreement, how and when would they be decided? Neither party can easily change the agreement, and they aren't Federal functions at present. I suppose the parties could get into a leapfrog contest like NH did with primaries this year, but that doesn't really address your issue.

One can imagine the Federalizing of the primary eliminating that need for conventions. But that leaves the VP selection in the air. Does the Federal government specify a deadline post-primaries to name the VP, or should the candidates run as tandems in the primaries?

There is also the question of when the general election begins for campaign finance purposes. At present it is set by the nomination at the convention. A Federal law would be needed to deal with that as well.

After doing a little research on this, I was unable to find why this tradition originated. However, this was not the case in the 19th century. During that time conventions were sometimes delayed to await particular events, and toward the end of the century the Republicans usually went first.

However, there is an abstract (which I do not have access to) which claims that the tradition is no longer justified and hurts challengers:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118611234/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It seems to me that a simple solution would be to alternate between the parties. The party that went first last time goes second, etc.

[Ronnie]

Doubt it.

Why?  It's swinging 8 points to the Democrats since '04.  Seems pretty plausible to me.

[Rococo4]

Ok, I didnt mean to hijack the thread,but...

If this is all because of Palin, I think it is suffice to say that the party and the country are pretty fu cked.

I don't understand it myself. It can't be her positions. It must be her novelty plus the fact that she has been dominating the news for the past 2 weeks.

Has Obama said or done anything noteworthy since August 28? I can't think of anything that has been widely reported.

You know none of this would have happened if the DNC had just been scheduled after the RNC. Unless this tradition of the out-party going first is engraved in some law (which would be pretty strange), I say that in 2012 we screw the tradition.

But how do you replace the tradition without ditching the conventions. Without an agreement, how and when would they be decided? Neither party can easily change the agreement, and they aren't Federal functions at present. I suppose the parties could get into a leapfrog contest like NH did with primaries this year, but that doesn't really address your issue.

One can imagine the Federalizing of the primary eliminating that need for conventions. But that leaves the VP selection in the air. Does the Federal government specify a deadline post-primaries to name the VP, or should the candidates run as tandems in the primaries?

There is also the question of when the general election begins for campaign finance purposes. At present it is set by the nomination at the convention. A Federal law would be needed to deal with that as well.

After doing a little research on this, I was unable to find why this tradition originated. However, this was not the case in the 19th century. During that time conventions were sometimes delayed to await particular events, and toward the end of the century the Republicans usually went first.

However, there is an abstract (which I do not have access to) which claims that the tradition is no longer justified and hurts challengers:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118611234/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It seems to me that a simple solution would be to alternate between the parties. The party that went first last time goes second, etc.

If it is an indeed an advantage, and it probably is, then to the winners go to the spoils.  want to have your convention 2nd?  Win the White House.

And this poll tells us just like the NC one what we knew.  Obama is not going to win here.  But congrats on cutting into the 04 margin.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If it is an indeed an advantage, and it probably is, then to the winners go to the spoils.  want to have your convention 2nd?  Win the White House.

or, just pick a better selling running-mate

[Beet]

Ok, I didnt mean to hijack the thread,but...

If this is all because of Palin, I think it is suffice to say that the party and the country are pretty fu cked.

I don't understand it myself. It can't be her positions. It must be her novelty plus the fact that she has been dominating the news for the past 2 weeks.

Has Obama said or done anything noteworthy since August 28? I can't think of anything that has been widely reported.

You know none of this would have happened if the DNC had just been scheduled after the RNC. Unless this tradition of the out-party going first is engraved in some law (which would be pretty strange), I say that in 2012 we screw the tradition.

But how do you replace the tradition without ditching the conventions. Without an agreement, how and when would they be decided? Neither party can easily change the agreement, and they aren't Federal functions at present. I suppose the parties could get into a leapfrog contest like NH did with primaries this year, but that doesn't really address your issue.

One can imagine the Federalizing of the primary eliminating that need for conventions. But that leaves the VP selection in the air. Does the Federal government specify a deadline post-primaries to name the VP, or should the candidates run as tandems in the primaries?

There is also the question of when the general election begins for campaign finance purposes. At present it is set by the nomination at the convention. A Federal law would be needed to deal with that as well.

After doing a little research on this, I was unable to find why this tradition originated. However, this was not the case in the 19th century. During that time conventions were sometimes delayed to await particular events, and toward the end of the century the Republicans usually went first.

However, there is an abstract (which I do not have access to) which claims that the tradition is no longer justified and hurts challengers:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118611234/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

It seems to me that a simple solution would be to alternate between the parties. The party that went first last time goes second, etc.

If it is an indeed an advantage, and it probably is, then to the winners go to the spoils.  want to have your convention 2nd?  Win the White House.

Hahaha. No, your spoils are if you can stop us from doing it.

[War on Want]

It will definatley be closer than this on election day but McCain pulling ahead was bound to happen at some point.

[cinyc]

It will definatley be closer than this on election day but McCain pulling ahead was bound to happen at some point.

Why?   Bush won Montana by 20 points in 2004.  Even New York was closer.

[auburntiger]

It's about dang time!

[War on Want]

It will definatley be closer than this on election day but McCain pulling ahead was bound to happen at some point.

Why?   Bush won Montana by 20 points in 2004.  Even New York was closer.

First off because McCain is leading by two points, this won't happen on election day. Second, I think there will be a movement back to Obama in some western states in about a month or so after the RNC bump wears off.

[Person Man]

What's interesting is that there was NO movement, for McCain anyways, in Colorado, Florida or Virginia. Yet there were tremendous bounces in North Carolina, Washington or Montana. What's goin' on here?

[Keystone Phil]

MT - Possible Obama pickup?

PA - Strong lean Obama

[Lief 🗽]

MT - Possible Obama pickup?

PA - Strong lean Obama

Yes.

[exopolitician]

Obama wont win Montana. Pennsylvania....yes.

[Vsanto5]

OMFG lets analyze these post convention pollZ in Greater DetailZ.  WEll we didn't expect Obama to win anywayz I mean McCain just blew it out of the freakin water.  I will vote for hIM!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!

[Sam Spade]

What's interesting is that there was NO movement, for McCain anyways, in Colorado, Florida or Virginia. Yet there were tremendous bounces in North Carolina, Washington or Montana. What's goin' on here?

The polls are telling you to wait a week before making any rash conclusions.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

MT - Possible Obama pickup?

PA - Strong lean Obama

Yes.

Montana, lol.

Live by really old polls, die by really old polls.