Do you think Obama is doing better than Kerry was at this point?

[senseandsensibility]

I was here in August of 2004. It was pretty negative. Remember a little group called the swiftbpaters? No, things were definitely not all roses and sunshine, and there was quite a bit of infighting, too.

But there were just as many threads proclaiming that it was going to be a cakewalk for Kerry, or, more realiatically, that he would win based on various facts and polls. Those threads got responses, too.

Well, here we are four years later. Are we in better or worse shape? I'm talking about the polls, sure, but also about the enthusiasm level, and the media, and whatever else you think is a contributing factor.

[PresidentObama]

1. Slightly n/t

[tekisui]

2. YES!

[Eric J in MN]

3. August 13, 2004: Kerry 327, Bush 211

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Aug13.html

[Justyce]

6. Wow. That's an eye-opener. nt

[senseandsensibility]

8. gulp.

eom

[Drunken Irishman]

13. This proves Obama is doing better.

Kerry had 8 states that were BARELY KERRY on that map. He was also winning the election, barely, with Ohio, Missouri and Florida INCLUDED.

Now compare it to Obama.

Obama only has 4 states BARELY OBAMA. He's also winning the electoral college without Florida, Ohio and Missouri. Kerry couldn't say the same thing. McCain, though, has 7 states listed as BARELY McCain, compared to only 4 for Bush in 2004.

This shows Kerry had very soft support, while Bush had solid support, though still lagged behind. The opposite is true this time around, but Obama leads instead.

[phantom power]

4. I think yes, but it's still more like "better defense" than "better offense"

McCain's little gambit sending a delegation to Georgia is yet another offensive move that Obama will be reacting to, instead of setting the agenda.

[brentspeak]

5. So far, at least, Obama's having an easier time now than he did in the primaries

Which was pretty much the opposite of Kerry's situation.

[Captain Hilts]

7. He most certainly is. He is a FAR more attractive candidate. nt

[blm]

9. Post Katrina, post Iraq Civil War, and no McAuliffe at the DNC refusing to do his job.

Obama is already four years ahead of 2004 because WE have a DNC chair who will have worked for four years to rebuild the party infrastructures that had been left to collapse in too many states for too many years by previous party chairs. THAT is why Obama will be better able to get the votes he earned counted, while Gore, Kerry and the 2002 candidates could not.

[senseandsensibility]

12. Good points.

Nice to hear a postive view.

[nevergiveup]

10. Toss-up

I think we are at about the same place. Obama will need a 5% point lead going into election day to pull it off. My fear are the older Democrats. My next door neighbor who is in her 70's told me this morning that she has never voted for a Republican for President and although she hates McCain she just doesn't know if she can vote for Obama. She said "he makes me very uncomfortable". It is very obvious what is going on here. As for me I am white and 63 and I am more excited about Obama then any presidential candidate since Kennedy but unfortunately for my age bracket, I am an exception. I really hope we Americans have the courage to elect Obama but at this point I am not feeling terribly optimistic.

[book_worm]

11. yes, I don't think that Kerry was ever seriously given a chance to carry states like

Virginia, North Carolina (even with Edwards on ticket), Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Indiana and an outside shot at Georgia. Also, Obama is doing better than Kerry in such states that went narrowly to Bush like New Mexico and Iowa. He is running better in Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon. Overall yes, I'd say Obama is doing better.

[Teaser]

14. Yeah, given that Obama has never trailed McCain

and Bush and Kerry traded places constantly in the polls.

[TheDonkey]

15. Things were difficult for Kerry in August b/c the convention was over and the swiftboaters were

going on an MSM-fueled offensive. It was sickening.

[senseandsensibility]

16. Tell me about it.

Sickening is exactly the word.

[mucifer]

18. seems to be what's going on now

[karynnj]

17. The biggest difference is that Bush was at 50 then and below 30 now

Even though McCain is not Bush, the fact is that 2004 was gonna be tough for a Democrat - while 2008 may be tough for any republican. You have to remember in late Dec 2003, Generic Democrat lost to Bush by double digits - Kerry did well to keep it close (and had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, he might have pulled a real upset - in spite of the media.

Obama needs to keep linking McCain to Bush.