Up 15 points. Of course this is a national poll and it's early, however, it's always good to be on the positive side of momentum. The media wants very badly to have a close race, but I think McCain is going to get his clock cleaned.

"The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51 percent to 27 percent. Younger voters, in particular, are more likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27 percent. Obama's current lead also reflects the large party-identification advantage the Democrats now enjoy—55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way. "

"Obama seems to have built his margin in part by picking up a key slice of Clinton's support, including women. Women voters in the new poll prefer him over McCain by 21 points (54 percent versus 33 percent). Defections to McCain by Hillary Clinton supporters are also down significantly since she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Obama. In the new poll, registered Democrats and Democratic leaners who supported Clinton during the primaries now favor Obama over McCain by 69 percent to 18 percent. In last month's survey, Clinton supporters backed the Illinois senator by a significantly smaller margin, 53 percent to 34 percent. Registered independents have also moved toward Obama, backing him by a 48 percent to 36 percent margin after splitting about evenly in last month's poll."

"Obama's personal ratings have improved, as well: 62 percent of voters overall say they have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 26 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. By comparison, McCain's ratings are 49 percent favorable to 37 percent unfavorable, representing a drop from his previous 54 percent favorable rating."

"Obama is trusted more to handle what may prove the biggest issue of the 2008 election--the economy and jobs—by a wide margin (54 percent to 29 percent). He also has a sizable advantage on energy policy, 48 percent to 34 percent, despite McCain's attempts this week to turn voters his way by supporting some new oil drilling and renewing his call for a gas-tax holiday. Voters do not lean as strongly to Obama on the issue of the Iraq War, but he is still preferred over McCain by 46 percent to 40 percent."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

The trend is not McSame's friend.

I think it’s important to remember that it’s early and not to get complacent – even if the polls indicate a 15 percentage point lead by Senator Obama over Senator McCain. Michael Dukakis had a sizable lead over George H. W. Bush in the summer of 1988. Things changed rather quickly after the Labor Day holiday in that campaign. Senator Obama needs to say focused, continue to define his vision for America but ready to attack when provoked. The Republicans are masters at throwing firebombs at their opponents – most especially with the help of 527’s. The Republicans believe that the White House is their property -- and will do what it takes to keep it in their hands.

Ah ya, I remember hearing about how well Kerry was doing....

We all know how that turned out.

I think that if McCain put together a serious energy plan to attack high gas prices and made it the big priority in his campaign...watch out Obama. High gas prices...THEE campaign issue...hey...start of a new thread.

Oh no. The issue is the Supreme Court, Iraq, Health Care, our falling dollar

And that's responsible for our rise in gas prices as much as anything is. Remember, the VALUE of a gallon of gas has not changed all that much.

When Bush was elected, gas was somewhere about $2.25 / Gallon. Now it's $4.25.

Now, let's look at the dollar. --or the petrodollar as I like to think of it.

At 2000, it was worth about 1.3 to 1.5 euros. (I'm not inclined to look it up)

Now, it's somewhere around .6 or so.

Ratio and proportion, right out of 7th grade tells us:

.6 / 1.3 = .46

2.25 / .46 = $4.89

Close enough.

So, if we want to focus on the symptom, which is higher gas prices leading to higher costs on goods and services, then the McCain energy message might resonate with those not thinking it through.

If we want to cure the disease, then the issues I mentioned above, along with stronger labor policy here will improve the dollar, taking care of a lot of the other stuff.

And for those bitching about taxes, remember that military spending is 40 percent of our current burden. Mr 100 years isn't gonna play well there because that kind of drain is not sustainable.

We cannot solve our problems so long as we are paying that bill every month, with interest.

So, we raise taxes some and in return get a better dollar, meaning what's left will have far more buying power. Combine that with a reduced military effort, increased diplomacy, and our military nut goes down, resulting in a net tax cut for most Americans.

And that's what we want at the end of the day. More buying power per hour worked.

Now, another element about currency that needs to be considered is that devaluing it, as we are seeing right now, is a straight, across the board tax on everybody and everything!

That check you get in the mail does not even begin to cover the tax you are paying through devalued dollars.

Say you make 50K / year. After taxes, say that's 40 or so.

Now, on that 40, you pay 20K in gas, food and such.

If the changes we need to happen, actually occur, then perhaps that 20K becomes 15, and maybe wages in terms of absolute numbers go up as well.

Puts that $600 or so into perspective doesn't it.

The problem with McCain is that his SCOTUS choices are going to be very conservative ones. That will leave us with an unbalanced court and for many, that's just a no vote right there.

Assuming he can get past that somehow, we don't hear him talking in these kinds of terms and we need to, if he even merits more than cursory consideration from anybody but the 23 percenters.

Wages for most of the Bush Presidency have been flat, or falling relative to the buying power of our national currency. That's a wage cut, year over year, that's significant.

(which is why we bitch about taxes right now)

Also, job loss has been heavy, with replacement jobs not paying what the old job did. That's trade agreements working against us. (Yes, Clinton did this too --bastard)

This has just hammered the middle class.

Few, if any Americans are making solid gains. The rest of us tread water, compensating for our year over year wage cuts through credit, less overall consumption and other things.

Wonder why crime goes up?

That's why. Those that can't get credit, good paying jobs, etc... are more tempted to do criminal things to make the difference up.

Also, health care being what it is; namely very expensive, means that we are not maintaining ourselves as we should. Why? Because that's another compensation for year over year buying power losses per hour worked.

That compounds over time as we age early and require more services because we didn't make use of the services necessary to prevent this in a timely fashion.

Think of it like not changing your oil in your car because you can't make your month, then having to change the whole engine in a coupla years, instead of just paying the oil change.

Oil changes are $30, if you have somebody do them. Most people will do this 12 times or so, for sake of discussion. That's $240 over the year, times three = $720

Not spending that money means new engine = $2K or so, or a new car, depending.

This is the kind of crap we are living with and it's got to stop.

Get back to me when you hear McCain talking in those terms.

Obama is.

Put another way:

Let's say you were making 50K when Bush was elected.

Factor in the currency as done above and you would have to be making about $100K now to have the same buying power you did then. I realize I'm keeping it simple, meaning that number could be 90, could be 120. Bear in mind the swing is more substantial than cutting taxes would compensate for. That's the take away point for friendly discussion.

How many people do you know made that kind of gain?

Nobody.

This is why we are screwed such that everything costs too much to afford to do. We talk about cuts here, cuts there, waste here, waste there.

Do you know that all the social programs combined equate to maybe a quarter of our total tax burden?

That means cutting them all would only reduce your tax bill by 25 percent.

If that bill is 10K, then it would be $7500 instead.

Now go look at the buying power numbers and consider the implications of our current policy and it's impact on the value of our currency.

In short, we don't have a spending problem, other than the damn war. Oh, and that's borrowed dollars when they are at their lowest. Worst case scenario for pay back.

Beautiful aint it?

What we have is a production problem. We don't make anything that's worth anything because we freaking outsourced it!

That's got to change or none of this other discussion will have any longer term meaning.

Now consume that information in terms of a wage cut. What would you do? Move somewhere cheaper? I did that! Quit eating out, seeing movies, not buy new cars, cut back or eliminate investments?

Frankly, I do most of those too.

Now look around at resturaunts closing, chain stores closing, and it's pretty clear that we are on a destructive path.

Additionally, that cycle only escalates. As things close, people are out of work, the more out of work, the less there is moving in the economy.

At the corporate MBA level, these rising costs also trigger the same cycle! Cut people, cut benefits, outsource services, etc...

It's a race to become a banana republic.

Want more?

(hope so)

Let's say you've been a good person. Socked away your dollars for retirement. Well, think about the implications of those dollars being worth roughly half what you thought that would be worth.

You are getting your nest egg stolen from you, a little each day.

Worse, the prime rate is low as the Fed tries to check this production (trade) imbalance. So, in addition to your dollars being worth less, the returns on them are now far less too, meaning even the best investments are likely losing over their term.

Depending on what you hold, a rising dollar could pay off nicely, but that's only gonna happen if we get people leading this nation that understand these things and are willing to go and fight for them to be realities.

You money loving conservatives might consider Obama on that basis alone.

Great stuff Missing!

Barack Obama could make it a campaign issue. John McCain would not benefit at all. Everyone is suffering from some of the worst economic, energy and foreign policy decisions in the history of our nation. The press first brought in up in January:

"ANDERSON COOPER: Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created."

Are you better off than you were eight years ago? Virtually the entire populace is eager to answer that very simple question. It ought to be asked and answered over and over again throughout the campaign.

According to the data, Missing's earlier points are correct. Oregon is a good example of a place where that fuel price message would resonate quite well in this election. Gasoline when Clinton left office in 2000 was at $1.73. Gasoline today is $4.30. So, in eight years, our price has climbed $2.57.

Minimum wage in 2000 was $6.00 and today it is $7.15. In 2000, someone living at the poverty line could afford almost 3.5 gallons of gas with an hour of pay. Today, an hour of labor by our most vulnerable neighbors earns just over a gallon and a half. Even a "low information voter" can figure that much out at the pump.

"Ah ya, I remember hearing about how well Kerry was doing...."

John Kerry's staff ran a horrible campaign, and he came across as an aloof, elitist dullard. Enough of one that Bush, who should have been dead in the water and would have been against ANYONE else who could put togther a decent campaign, won.

I don't think that Barack Obama will have that issue. When he speaks, he moves people. He does a much better job of damage control than Kerry ever did (hello, Swiftboaters).

This out today:

A LA Times/Bloomberg Poll says that in a two-man contest, 49% of respondents favor Barack Obama, while 37% support John McCain. With Ralph Nader and Bob Barr added to the mix, Obama holds 15-point edge.

I don't remember poll numbers, but I don't remember Kerry EVER having any sort of significant statistical lead in 2004. In fact he got basically no bounce out of his convention, something that is almost unheard of. He did run a fairly bad campaign in the beginning. He improved a lot by October and in my view did pretty good in the debates (whereas Bush looked like an idiot). But by October it was far too late.

Still, while canvassing for Kerry in Oregon and Ohio, I met a number of Democrats who said they were voting for Bush. They weren't crazy about Bush, but they didn't like or trust Kerry. I think he simply wasn't a good candidate. A better campaign may not have helped.

I still don't take this latest Obama lead very seriously. But if he is up 15 points still in September - more importantly, if he's ahead in enough states to win 270+ EVs - then we can start talkin'.

Andrew

If there is ever a Presidential election during our lifetime well positioned for a Democratic landslide, this November would be it.