"because his younger audience is out"

Historically, they are not so likely to vote.  If they do this time around, he should win.  If 50+ turn out in their normal numbers, while < 29 turn out in their normal numbers, it will be very close.

Obama widened his lead during his overseas trip.

The Gallup daily tracking trend has been consistently positive. The state map lies between a win and a landslide.

I know complacency s a real enemy here, but I do not see one iota of evidence that is cause for alarm, unless you cherry pick apart certain polls. And other than to darkly motivate the base, what would be the point?

Also, I wonder why some people very clearly relish posting the one (literally one) poll which doesn't have Obama up by a substantial margin.

Or why some people seem excited to post some concern trolling by a guy who still hasn't endorsed Obama.

This is a good question - what's the liely voter screen?  I would peg it at 3 out of five fo the last national elections.  What dose Gallup use?

Look at the overall trend: http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-p res-ge-mvo.php

Mccain is at 49 not Obama .

Point of correction.

Looks like the number is, at least in part, an artifact of how they decide someone is a likely voter.  

He says the number of likely GOP voters is up for now, probably in part because of Obama's trip and the "laudatory" media coverage of it. "At least in the short term it may have had the side effect of energizing Republicans," he says. Also, he says that McCain's sharp words about Obama and the media last week may have energized his faithful.

Although, I must say, the Gallup pollster's claim that the difference between this and the tracking poll is "statistical noise," really makes me wonder how they're operating.  

See my post above - Frank Newport of Gallup says that RV is a better thing to look at now.

So why are we bothering with LV numbers?

Why isn't Obama up by 15 points or so?  The GOP nominee is a joke and everything points to a huge Democratic year.  Where was the "Hillary is out of the race" huge bump for Obama?  Where is the "McCain is GWB Part 3" bounce?

I think Obama will win, but that it is so close is disconcerting given how weak of a candidate McCain is, in a terrible year for the GOP.

1. do these polls account for an anticipated much higher than previous turnout by black voters?
   
2. Do they correct for anticipated much higher turnout by youth voters?
   
3. Do they poll folks without landlines?
   
4. Do they poll folks who don't answer numbers they don't recognize?  (read poor)
   
5. Registered voters might be important now to the pollsters -- but might we anticipate a significantr SURGE in newly registered voters just for this election?
   

is a lose-lose. He says he was wrong, it leads to a question in his judgment, he stands by it, he looks like he's not accepting "success"

He decided to stand on principle, which is probably the best he could've done. He was vulnerable no matter what.

People won't vote easily to give command of 2 war fronts to an experienced politician! In a time of war, people want to feel secure, and McCain, like it or not, is reassuring figure to a lot of people!

I think he helps us from letting our heads get too big.  Which is good.  I really don't believe that he wants Obama to loose to McCain.

That is very odd.  Likely voters often skew Republican but this year it should be different.  

he gets criticized for not having any foreign policy credentials.

Your concern is noted.

"John Kerry was up by 4 points on this date in 2004 vs George Bush."

Kerry's largest "lead" was around 2-3 points for most of July-August.  In reality, given then MOE, he never really led by a significant margin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Preside ntial_04/chart3way.html

"the foreign trip was a stupid idea"

No doubt, it was.  If you have to come back and defend a trip, it was dumb.  He should be WAY up over McCain at this point.  

i think Jerome is doing it on purpose now to mock all those that are constantly bashing him on his own site. I think he's totally being sarcastic.

Lol.

For a truly active discussion, sombody has to be wrong.  Jerome has always dared to be wrong in our service.  He is a true samurai.

As soon as I read his post, I was going to make the same comment.  

Personally, I think the post the other day about Obama's massive lead amongst Hispanics just goaded Jerome out of hiding.  Because as those who have followed this blog since last year know, Obama is dooommed against McCain when it comes to the Latino vote.

One reason is that McCain is ahead among those they define as likely voters. But there is still a discrepancy among the registered voter figure for USA Today/Gallup and the Gallup tracking poll. In one, Obama is +3; in the other, he's +8.  And they offer NO explanation for the discrepancy.

No kidding.  An emerging bounce in daily tracking polls from both Gallup and Ras doesn't rate a Jerome post, but this poll does.  Interesting.

Although I am deeply, deeply concerned with the thoughts of Mario Cuomo.  After all, I think that most voters, informed that Mario Cuomo has not endorsed Obama, would respond, "Mario who?  Who's he?"

Good points all.  Let's turn Texas blue!

Jerome, I must concur.

Of all the FP posters I have not read a single line that shows you are actually excited for well our party is doing.

Compare your diaries to those of your excellent writers Josh and Johnathan.

A new user here might wonder if politics is even your passion.

Why not write one diary that at the least shows what good we are doing right and how we can do that better.

You have an enormous platform and I think many of us are flumexed at why you don't use it at all.

No, just your reality.

Jerome, you have been Eeyore to this election for months now, posting only when you've found a fly of sufficient size to put in the ointment. Your like this site's personal Slate Magazine columnist -- frequently seeking out contrarian positions over any kind of real analysis. This may be a leftover from your Hillary-propping days. Even though you claimed you were an Edwards man who had no choice but to choose Hillary -- you at least seemed 'into' her, as opposed to Obama. I don't think that makes you a bad person, heck, if there are real concerns to be had about Obama -- offer them. Make a case. Make it strong. Shut us up. But this kind of "oooh, look, I've nothing much to say but to point out a single bad poll and a single holdover Democrat" stuff makes you look petty.

Reality has a known bias towards serious discussion.

I think we are more concerned about your cheery-picking of stories and polls to make your point.  Every -other- measure shows Obama with a small lead (possibly outside the margin of error).  But you choose to air today's Gallup/USA Today poll even while Gallup's own tracking poll shows Obama up in the last three days than at any other time.

And then you cheery-pick a story about Mario Cuomo that came out yesterday or the day before.  Everyone who is everyone in the Democratic Party has endorsed Obama.  Republicans formerly in the Bush Admin. have endorsed him today.  But, instead, you choose Mario Cuomo.  If this were 1992 and he was choosing not to endorse our nominee, Bill Clinton, then we might have a problem.

It just appears, and probably is true, that you are intentionally doing this to fulfill your own perceived reality.  The whole "Obama is losing because he isn't winning by enough" meme is such garbage as to be laughable.  It's July, and he's up.  Why don't we all work to making sure he's up by more once November rolls around then sit around playing arm-chair quarterback for the one dropped pass when our team is up at half-time.

This is a non-story supported by nothing more than one slice of one poll. Every other piece of conventional wisdom, plus the general mood of the country, points (at this time) to an Obama win to an Obama landslide.

I have been enthralled by your excellent writing for months before joining, but I find the tone of this entry to be, well, unnecessarily concerned and pessimistic, and quite frankly, out of touch with reality. As I have said before, I detect a tone of bitterness. I may be mistaken, and I hope I am, but every time you write about Obama, there is a strangely negative tone.

It's just too precious.

Not only that but if you look at what he is talking about the quote is obviously old.  I thought sites like this were out there to give us what old media wouldn't, not turn into it.

It is a pre concession quote that was obviously requoted for this article.  Jerome was looking so hard for someone to back up his "concern trolling" that it looks like he didn't bother to even give the quote a cursory full read.