Obama up 19 in latest poll

Remember Tom was telling us we should be concerned that Obama might be underperforming in New York, but it wasn't his belief, it was the belief of others that he was just sharing with us? Well there is now a third poll released since his cherry picked outlier. SurveyUSA shows Obama now up 19 points, 57%-38%.



Expect Tom to have a new article any day saying the race won't be close and his last article on the polling was a mistake and unprofessional...

Tom Wrobleski concern trolling over Obama polling in NY

In April I talked about Tom Wrobleski being a concern troll for saying Obama at the top of the ticket would hurt the Democratic congressional nominee despite the only numbers, primary day turnout, showing quite the opposite. Today Tom pushes a Siena poll that shows Obama up 5 points in New York;

Borough Democrats aren't too concerned about polls last week that showed presidential candidate Barack Obama on some shaky ground in New York State and New Jersey.

A Siena College poll showed Obama up by only 5 points over Republican John McCain in normally true-blue New York.

I say Tom is pushing the poll because that poll was conducted from September 8-10. Tom chose that poll because the narrative seems good, Obama could be in trouble in New York. The only problem is that there have been two new polls in New York between that poll and Tom's column running that show Obama up 12 and 14 points respectively. You would have to go back to another Siena poll in April to show Obama with only a 5 point lead. Here is the polling for New York. See if you can find the same reason for concern that Tom found;



So why did he hand pick one poll that would otherwise be considered an outlier instead of saying all other polls and all poll averages show Obama is up double digits over McCain in New York? To borrow from our last post on Tom being a concern troll;

"It seems the biggest thing stopping that is that it wouldn't be news worthy."

Obama vs. McCain and the down ballot impact with voters

Bob from Manhattan has come out with a statement thanking Obama for choosing Biden and in his opinion essentially handing McCain and Bob himself victory in NY-13, don't laugh;

Straniere yesterday issued a press release, thanking Obama for picking Biden as his vice presidential running mate.

I for one welcome an Obama vs. McCain race in the thirteenth and can't wait to see Bob lose horribly, that is if he even gets past his own primary he seems to over confidently think he has already won. Across the internet Politico interviewed Rep. Van Hollen, chairman of the DCCC, about the effects of having Obama and Biden atop the ticket this November;

“The majority of our candidates would be very happy to identify with Senator Obama,” the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Politico. “If you look at the Obama economic agenda, it’s one that lines up very well with the agendas of our candidates.”

The Maryland congressman added that the presence of Joe Biden on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee will help down-ballot Democratic candidates in blue-collar parts of the country...

snip

But Van Hollen expressed some concerns that, despite the increased Democratic turnout expected on behalf of Obama, first-time voters may bypass the congressional races lower on the ballot.

“We need to make sure they don’t go in and vote Obama-Biden and hit the exits,” Van Hollen said. “That’s easier said than done, because there’s always some falloff on the ballot.”

The down ticket attrition rates have been horrible for Democrats in the past, as I have covered in my very first post. It is great to see that they are addressing this and believe the support to the Obama/Biden ticket will drive many new voters out and increase the likely votes for the next race down the ticket, this Congressional race. The impact in terms of new Democratic voters on the north shore alone should be significant.

Tom Wrobleski, Concern Troll

via Wikipedia;

The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

Tom starts off telling us that presidential candidate Sen. Obama has not raised as much money in Staten Island as Sens. Clinton or McCain. Thus;

Which could mean trouble for borough Democratic candidates -- especially those who are aiming to run against GOP Rep. Vito Fossella -- if Obama wins the party nomination.

The fundraising totals from Staten Island are;
Clinton - $111,348
McCain - $48,820
Obama - $33,762

more Tom;

In other words, congressional hopefuls Steve Harrison and Domenic Recchia had better hope that Hillary finds some way to win the Democratic nomination.

So Harrison and Recchia are in trouble if Obama is the nominee according to Tom because McCain has raised more money on the island and thus has more support. Thus the concern trolling. Tom wants us to believe he is just stating some facts and raising concerns for the public to think about but he stops well short of presenting his case in an unbiased fashion. Why does Tom not continue that line of thought to say Fossella and McCain are in trouble if Sen. Clinton is the nominee seeing how she clearly blew McCain away in fund raising on the island?

Instead Tom pulls out his infamous "source" whom he never attempts to show has any knowledge or credibility and hopes you don't question him. This source goes on to lay out the argument that Republicans are just going to win Staten Island even if Sen. Clinton is the nominee, it is how the island works we are told. Aside from that continued lack of credibility this line of reporting has, should it be true what is the purpose then of this article? Why is his slant that Obama will hurt Harrison and Recchia instead of simply writing an article that Staten Island votes for Republicans. It seems the biggest thing stopping that is that it wouldn't be news worthy.

Tom Wrobleski is pushing biased anti-Democrat articles

Have you seen any pieces by Tom Wrobleski that talk about how the Chris Ward scandal may harm Fossella's campaign? How about how declining Bush approval and declining Republican party affiliation by voters across the country will hurt Fossella's re-election changes? Chances are you haven't because Tom hasn't written any articles about that.

He didn't write articles about how the Mark Foley scandal could hurt Fossella in 2006 or how Tom Delay and his contributions could bring down Fossella. Recently though multiple articles he has written talk about how various wide ranging circumstances will only hurt Harrison or Recchia's chances this fall without similar comparison to Fossella's campaign. Aside from partisan bias they are almost all absurd in their reasoning.

In a previous article Tom actually addresses the possible negative impact of Obama or Hillary a top the ticket on this Congressional race. He includes quotes like this;

"Would Hillary or Obama be enough to tip the congressional race?" he said. "Probably not. A race like that usually comes down to the local candidate and local issues."

So after we have seen primary voters come out in overwhelming numbers for the Democrats, Hillary alone had more votes than all of the Republicans combined, we should expect them to not have the same impact this fall? If you want more indicators try The Hill which has a whole piece on the coattails of Obama on down ticket Congressional races. Of the 21 paragraphs looking at the benefits and drawbacks of Barack or Hillary, only one paragraph touts how McCain will help Fossella. So then Tom tells us in his own words how Spitzer could damage Democrats this fall;

But now you've got Hillary and Barack Obama ready to tear the Democratic Party apart for the presidential nomination, and you've got the shining light and de facto head of the state party preparing to slink out of office in disgrace. How do Democrats like state Sen. Diane Savino convince voters that the entire state government apparatus should be handed over to them?

snip

And the new Spitzer mess could even hurt the Democrats this November.

Naturally there needs to be a tie into the Spitzer story for what ever reason. So in the first article we are told it is about local issues and not other candidates on the ballot and now we are told that its other elected officials that will effect this race and not local issues. Then we are told Obama or Clinton will do nothing for the race even though they are on the ballot, but Spitzer who is not will only drag down Democratic candidates. Tom questions why voters would give Democrats their vote following Spitzer's fall from grace but that really pales in comparison to the numerous Bush administration scandals and yet there is no question about voters supporting Fossella or other Republicans. Not quite sure I am buying that desperation on Tom's part. Now if you want to take this all a step further Tom tells us that Rep. Reynolds, a Republican congressman from upstate New York retiring is bad news for Harrison and Recchia;

More potential bad news for Democratic congressional hopefuls Domenic Recchia and Steve Harrison: Upstate GOP Rep. Tom Reynolds, who squeaked to re-election with just 51 percent of the vote in 2006, is retiring.

His premise, which may be difficult to understand is that with Reynolds retiring and this becoming an open seat that nationally Democrats may put money into this race and thus thinning out what is then available for them to contribute to Harrison or Recchia. This is simply stupefying. Despite this being the second New York Republican retiring rather than face a difficult election, this is somehow bad news for Democrats. Even though this is a much more heavily Republican favored district, R+3 PVI compared to the D+1 PVI here in the 13th, this is again somehow bad news for us. Despite the DCCC having $38 million cash on hand compared to the NRCC having $5 million with $2 million in debt, this is bad news for Democrats.

Did Tom choose to write any articles on how Bush is bringing down Fossella? No.
Did Tom choose to write any articles on how not having Giuliani as the Republican nominee is bad news for Fossella? No.
Did Tom write an article on the $33 million cash advantage the Democrats hold and how that could be bad news for Fossella. No.

While Fossella's margins of victory have been going down cycle after cyle, and while he is having one of his poorest fundraising cycles and while every week it seems there is a new scandal he is connected to, Tom manages to put all of that aside and imagine up a troublesome scenario for Harrison and Recchia. Tom Wrobleski is toeing a dangerous partisan line in his reporting and this should not be tolerated.