I'm not one to get worked up over one poll but the result made me laugh so hard that I suppose it should be posted.
Yes: Gallup says McCain 54, Obama 44 among likely voters.
Even if they're right (and that seems a bit much), things sure can change. Oh, could they change.
In the meantime, what's the left going to explain this away with...all the favorable media coverage the GOP ticket received since August 29th?
Exit topic: what may be interesting to watch next week are battleground state polls that will inevitably be conducted in the wake of the conventions. If they show the same sort of movement in McCain's favor as Gallup's poll above, and the national tracking polls, Obama's campaign is going to be beset by a whole series of process stories about how he's fumbling the race away while Palin juices up Republicans.
Not saying it's sure thing, but it's not a remote possibility either.
UPDATE: though this McCain/Palin bump could just as well be a convention bounce that ricochets right back down to earth, note this bit from the write-up of the Gallup poll:
The convention bounce has helped not only McCain but also attitudes toward Republican congressional candidates and the GOP in general.
If that holds; and that's big if, we are talking about a substantially different playing field for these last two months of the campaign than that which we have understood for the bulk of the year.
UPDATE II: Some commenters claim Gallup doesn't have McCain up by 10. This is where I point out the links I provide in the post are there for a reason.
Yes, Gallup has a rolling, three-day tracking poll. That survey, whose Sunday release includes two nights of interviews after McCain's acceptance speech, does show McCain up by 3%.
Yet, if the geniuses objecting in the comments would actually look at the link to the separate Gallup poll conducted for USA Today that I provided originally, they would see that survey shows McCain up by four among registered voters and up by ten among likely voters. As I said from the beginning.
I doubt any lead McCain might hold right now is actually that large. But please, don't argue with the information that is right in front of your face...at least if you're not to lazy to click the link.
UPDATE III: Oh, what the heck. Here's the link again to the USA Today/Gallup poll showing McCain up 10% with likely voters...no matter how many times commenters want to say "you're wrong, the daily Gallup tracking poll says he's up by three."
The irony is that if you ask me, I'd say that if McCain has a lead right now that it is only in the mid-to-low single digits. But, these idiots who can't click a link are too rich a target to pass up.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 07, 2008 06:35 PM | Email This1. McCain has run a pitch-perfect campaign. He literally hasn't screwed up once since he got the nomination. The only mistake that's been made is by Phil Gramm. Everything else he's done has been right on the money.
2. Obama's thunder has completely been stolen, and his campaign has done very little right since winning the nomination. If he wins, it'll be because the year was so bad for Republicans, not because of anything he's done.
Posted by: Cliff on September 7, 2008 06:48 PMhttp://www.break.com/pictures/fake-sarah-palin-in-bikini567151.html
Posted by: PC on September 7, 2008 07:07 PMI just bet everyone at the dem HQ is going nuts!
Gezzz they picked another loser, just like Kerry.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 7, 2008 07:37 PMExcuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama, sir.
Um . . . know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is very important and . . . ah . . . I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute ok, sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things. Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!
Oh, sorry sir. I didn’t mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island ? No, I didn’t think so.
Well, listen, anyways, I can’t seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be “locked” or “not available’.
I’m sure it’s just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are . . . I . . . I . . . have them written down here somewhere . . . oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I’ll just read it to you.
Could you help me please find these things, sir?
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — “not available”
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Your Record of baptism— Not released or “not available”
14.Your Illinois State Senate records—”not available”
Oh hey . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow.
“Who wants to know these things?” asked Senator Obama.
Columbo answered: THE PEOPLE
Posted by: Alan Srout on September 7, 2008 08:11 PMWrong as usual. Yes, it's partly, even largely, because of Palin, that's undoubtedly true, but it wasn't because he picked a "true believer" and thus "closed the enthusiasm gap." That's obviously part of it, but it's only a part of it.
If he had picked a well known, well liked "true believer" such as, say, Fred Thompson, he'd be behind. It wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference even though he'd make "true believers" happy.
Palin worked not only because she excited Conservatives, as Coburn would have done, but because she's a great speaker, has a great life story, she can appeal to at least some wayward Hillary voters, has a reputation as running against her own party and standing up to "special interests" and, by enthusing conservatives, allows McCain to position himself more to the center without risk of losing them.
I say this not because I don't like Palin, I love her, or not because I don't like Thompson, I like him and thought he gave a great convention speech, but because I get really, really, really, really, really tired of braindead people on the right telling me that if we just picked a "true believer" all our problems would be solved. It's provably stupid and Palin proves it. Ideology is important, but if you honestly think things would be going swimmingly if Thompson was the VP, you're smoking something.
Not according to Gallup!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx
Where did you get those numbers?
has a reputation as running against her own party and standing up to "special interests" and, by enthusing conservatives.
That's what was missing with Thompson. Coburn, to my knowledge, hasn't expressed any aspirations for Prez or Veep. But let me make it clearer: Palin's runs against her own party and special interests for conservative reasons. Very different than her running mate. And if McCain is about to play the game you're suggesting, he'll be throwing cold water on all this enthusiasm.
I don't know why you're calling me brain dead, and where you get the idea I wanted Fred Thompson elected. I didn't. Far from it. You shouldn't make so many assumptions.
Posted by: Michelle on September 7, 2008 08:54 PMAlso plan to enjoy watching The One flail like the Alien over the same period of time. So much for a new kind of politics. Poor widdle Barry.
Posted by: Sasquatch on September 7, 2008 08:58 PMHey Joey, click the link, ya dolt. It's a USA Today/Gallup poll and it's on the USA Today website.
Posted by: Easycure on September 7, 2008 09:04 PMAt least for the last few days, Obama has been running against Palin and not McCain. He was even force to say in one interview that he was 'running against John McCain, not Palin'
That's something of a demotion for him. Maybe not.
And Biden who?
Posted by: mykela on September 7, 2008 09:05 PMNot to mention that the Democrats are looking to take seats this year, and will probably have 54 seats in the Senate by January. (Less Joe Lieberman, of course.)
Posted by: demo kid on September 7, 2008 09:10 PMMcCain's acceptance speech Thursday received lower ratings than the one Obama gave a week earlier: 15% called McCain's speech "excellent" compared with 35% for Obama.
Posted by: demo kid on September 7, 2008 09:15 PMThe 54%-44% number is listed as being most likely to vote numbers (whatever that means) while both the others are registered voters.
The reversal of the polls, while clearly something to crow about, is not as big a bounce as the O got a week ago. There are still almost 60 days until the election - don't get too cocky.
Posted by: deadwood on September 7, 2008 09:34 PMThat said, the 10 point gap is, in fact, quite real; and "likely voters" are, in fact, just that: likely to vote in the election; a more genuine measure then just adults, or registered voters.
These numbers are yet another sign that the wheels are coming off the campaign of now self-professed Muslim, "almost enlisted" Barry OhDrama.
Posted by: Hinton on September 7, 2008 10:02 PMSource: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx
Posted by: Kenny on September 7, 2008 10:30 PMMcCain-Palin did not simply counter Obama-Biden, they broke through with a brand new image and candidacy. A populist-reformist Republican image that some of us in the party have been saying is the real key to victory.
I do think McCain opposed his party many times for good conservative reasons, including opposing the tax cuts while we were increasing spending, opposing the judicial filibuster "nuclear option," and more.
Of course, he also had some non-conservative oppositions, including his comprehensive immigration package (not that comprehensive reform is nonconservative, but that package was) and his campaign finance reform.
No one's perfect, but I am quite happy with McCain as our candidate, and Palin as his running mate only makes me happier.
Um. If that's true, then only 35 percent of people "liked" Obama's speech. Doesn't that sound stupid to you?
C'mon demo kid, THINK. Obviously there were multiple positive responses available to respondents, and "excellent" is only one of them. Most likely, both candidates had well over 50 percent of people who "liked" their speeches.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2008 12:39 AMYee haw I am lovin this
www.realclearpolitics.com has McCain in the lead for the first time in months.
Obama, tear down those Styrofoam columns
I know it's a little un-PC to talk about the Bradley Effect, but it will have an effect this election. Black candidates always poll better than they fare on election day. The cause is liberal white guilt - upper class whites who say they'll vote for African Americans, but don't follow through. Some would say it's racist to say it's going to be a factor. I think it just shows the racism of the left - these people are always uber-sensitive about the perception of racism, but still willfully ignorant about their own internal dichotomies/hypocrisies. :)
Posted by: AD on September 8, 2008 04:23 AMThe USAToday/Gallup Saturday post convention release is just two days of the daily tracking poll. They had a release post Dem Convention/Palin announcement as well.
Since it is only two days of their tracking poll, it has a sample size near 2/3rds what Gallup normally uses.
You may want to research what you post about before you insult your readers. It would make for a more entertaining, and legitmate website approaching what you were in 2004.
Posted by: bedir than average on September 8, 2008 06:07 AMFor example, my gym has several ellipticals and I use calories as my gauge on how long to go. Well, for the same workout, one gauge shows me burning 800 calories, another 600 and the third, 400. As long as I am comparing apples to oranges, I don't get bad burning 400 calories. Likewise, when on the 800 machine, I have to realize I can't eat three candy bars.
Gallup, CBS, Times, New York Times, Newsweak go up and down a lot. Rassmussen and Zogby stay relatively the same, but even both of them have their flaws.
AG McKenna said it best- it's real close.
Posted by: swatter on September 8, 2008 07:31 AMIn 2000, it was Florida, Florida, Florida. In 2004, it was Ohio. Right now, it appears to be another Ohio year with possibly Colorado and New Mexico combination potentially affecting the race.
I think it will be close. McCain had better get Palin out there and in front of the news reporters if he wants to keep up his momentum. The core Republican base appears a lot more excited about her than McCain.
Another factor that will also come into play however, and we haven't had a full assessment of its strength will be voter registration efforts. My guess we will get a better read come early October. Then, it will be a matter of both sides getting their new registrants out to vote.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2008 08:05 AMFace it... people vote based on the economy, and even with a "maverick reformer" (a lie) this bounce is not going to last. Obama still has a better ground game. And again, voting for McCain after eight years of Republicans in control is akin to watching your company collapse and giving your CEO a raise. People are just not that stupid.
But I'm still amused that McCain's campaign is now wholly dependent on his vice-president, who he would probably shove into a corner a la Dan Quayle if he were to win.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 08:29 AMA serious lack of judgment, and that is what creates voter uncertainty.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 8, 2008 08:46 AM...and of course you can cite proof of that statement right?
"But I'm still amused that McCain's campaign is now wholly dependent on his vice-president..." ~ demokid
Actually, it was Obama's choice of a D.C. relic like Biden to act as the annointed one's training wheels that show's Obama's the empty suit we've been telling you he is for nearly a year. Biden brings the experience the Freshman Senator from Illinois obviously lacks which was apparent to the Obama handler's in charge of the campaign that brought him on board.
As far as Quayle is concerned, at least he is fully aware there aren't 57 states in the Union.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 8, 2008 08:56 AMBoth over the bump, which is likely to be temporary, but in the reaction on the left which is a bit like throwing holy water on a vampire.
I don't know if McCain will win this shooting match, but I'm finally glad to see conservatives have got a dog in this fight.
Posted by: Andy on September 8, 2008 08:58 AMYep ACORN tricks again. So how many dead or from Mexico will vote this time around.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 8, 2008 09:01 AMFive-thirty eight talks a little about the bounce this morning, also, and the contrast to the other poll numbers. One theory they have is the Tory-effect, named after conservative voters in England who historically are underrepresented in pre-election polls. The theory applied here is that conservative voters may not have been answering pollsters phone calls due to the lack of excitement about the top of the ticket, and thus underrepresented in the polls. It is just a theory and we will have to see in the coming week or two the real story.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2008 09:08 AMAren't you concerned that McCain's going to ban every beer that comes across his desk?
@40: Yep ACORN tricks again. So how many dead or from Mexico will vote this time around.
As opposed to Republican tricks, where you throw anyone that's not melanin challenged off the voter rolls.
@41: I can't remember the other stop I saw, but it was the same enthusiasm, which wasn't for the top of the ticket, but for Palin.
Then let her run for president. But I'm sure once she opens her damn fool mouth without a gaggle of speechwriters at her beck and call, she'll fold like a cheap card table.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 09:17 AMSo you're SURE about that are you? Keep telling yourself that! The left has been completely WRONG about Governor Palin from the beginning. We'll get to see in the next few days how well your "certainty" plays out. I'm looking forward to it!
Posted by: Bill H on September 8, 2008 09:26 AMHAHAHAAHA...I bet the Dems *really* wish they could go back to two weeks ago and nominate Hill-dog instead.
If Obama had put Hillary on the ticket, they would have been unbeatable. Here's to Democratic in-fighting!
(I'm willing to bet though that Obama offered the Veep spot to Hillary and she turned it down. She doesn't want to be second fiddle. She is wagering that Obama will lose and come 11/3/08, she'll be the a priori Democratic nominee for '12.)
Posted by: blindman on September 8, 2008 09:30 AM"Face it... people vote based on the economy, and even with a "maverick reformer" (a lie) . . . "
I'd like to point out that Obama is the one slating himself as a change agent. It was the basis of his campaign until he picked Biden, who's been in DC at least six years longer than McCain. Not a lot of change there. Excuse me, I need to use your vernacular . . . Obama is lying.
The proof in the putting is that when Obama announced Biden the press was pretty under whelmed and the GOP laughed. When Palin was announced the media and the DNC immediately went on the attack and it hasn't stopped since, stooping as low as to fire salvos at her 17 year old daughter. As of this writing, the count on Palin baseless smears is now standing at 54. If Palin didn't count they wouldn't use the ammunition.
If Obama looses this deal with all of the support of Hollywood, the mass media (can you spell O-P-R-A-H) and every multinational billionaire on the planet (can you spell S-O-R-O-S?), the Demorats will be in the wilderness for decades. That Obama can't seal the deal is now the common refrain and seems to be accurate.
Posted by: G Jiggy on September 8, 2008 09:30 AMLet's see. How many times has ACORN been caught and fined in it's voting tricks. (try this state)
Face it foolish one, you lost in FL & Ohio.
Get over it.
In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms.
In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. ACORN's regional director said, "we find it abhorrent and do everything we can to prevent it from happening."
On November 1, 2006, four part time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud, after being caught, fired, and turned in by ACORN. Prosecutors said the
indictments are part of a national investigation.ACORN said in a press release that it is in large part responsible in these individuals being caught, and has cooperated and publicly supported efforts to look into the validity of the allegations.
ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified.
In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time. ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."
Like the scumbag YOU support, Dumbo? Have you forgotten yesterday's idiocy, when OhDrama admitted he's a muslim? Now, wasn't that because HE didn't have a "speechwriter?" Of course it was... but because you're such a cowardly hypocrite, you can't afford to apply the same standards to that empty suit as you try to apply to everyone else... thus, the double standard you willingly engage in when it comes to the stuffed shirted cowards FIVE defferments.
Just curious, dumbo... but why do you post here? Are you expecting to gain converts with your despicable lies and hypocrisy? Do you spew here to help convince yourself that your moronic decisions are somehow realistic or worthwhile?
You're such a whiny little lying bitch. Do you get hammered on the playground?
Or are you just one of the legion of fringe left-wing lying little trolls, doing what you're told because you're too damned dumb to form an original thought?
The whole world wonders.
The message here is clear: the leftist's heads are exploding about how the worthless moron they support is losing it... and they can't STAND it. So to them, I say: Thanks for stopping by. Come back often... because the more you show up, scumbag, the more we'll pound you and your hypocritical intellectual dishonesty into the ground.
God, how it sucks to be a leftist today.
Posted by: Hinton on September 8, 2008 10:06 AMGotta love Olbermann and Mathews getting the demotion too on MSNBC. Remarkable considering that only network officials deaf and blind wouldn't have seen it coming before they put these two liberal Democrat operatives into convention anchor jobs.
Posted by: Reality on September 8, 2008 10:36 AM"As opposed to Republican tricks, where you throw anyone that's not melanin challenged off the voter rolls."
Hmm got proof of that? Please post it.
The Democrat ACORN group has been convicted in teh largest case of fraud in Washington State. Not my words, Sec State's words.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003806904_webvotefraud26m.html
Let's not forget Char Staton, OHIO 2004 the Democrat group NAACP hired him to get fraudulent registrations in exhange for crack cocaine! Nothing says Democrat like crack! JUst ask Barack!
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2008 10:41 AM"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come."
Here is the link to the story in the Washington Times:
Obama's verbal slip fuels his critics
Posted by: Bill H on September 8, 2008 11:24 AMI already made up my mind three weeks ago. That ridiculous Greek temple was over the top for me in emphasizing the fluff that is Obama. Hillary would have been a much better candidate.
McCain/Palin 08 Go HILLARY 2012!!!
Posted by: SeattleDemocrat on September 8, 2008 12:12 PMI suspect as the Obama campaign starts to implode, you will see many more asking for Hillary 2012.
I suspect that she saw this coming and positioned herself quite nicely for a run in 2012. She and her supporters want Obama to fail so she is only 4 years away instead of 8. And that assuming the country would elect another democrat after a disasterous Obama administration.
Her best bet is McCain in '08. Regardless of what she says.
Posted by: Chris on September 8, 2008 12:26 PMActually not amazing, simply predictable.
I've been working on a line about Obama without a teleprompter being like the Emporer's new clothes...I know there's a great joke there and am working out the details.
Posted by: scott158 on September 8, 2008 12:26 PMhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/politics/animal/main4426309.shtml
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2008 12:31 PMNow, where's that speechwriter and teleprompter when you need one?
It also says a lot that Obama has to troop out Estrich, the former Dukkakis manager, Dukkakis himself and Mario (as in Cuomo). Pretty desperate. (ED. NOTE: it was also pathetic seeing those oldies with Larry King- the batch didn't make any sense; think Romo is the first Mr. Smirky- take a look at Dukkakis)
Bring on Hillary? She should go after McCain and the Dems should leave Palin alone. My word, you idiots in the MSM, Obama is supposed to be running against McCain. I think it great the MSM, in addition to the DalaiBama, has lost focus.
Posted by: swatter on September 8, 2008 12:46 PMHmm, well we know they CALL Fannie Mae a public company, but what does Fannie Mae say about itself?
http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
Fannie Mae has a federal charter and operates in America's secondary mortgage market to ensure that mortgage bankers and other lenders have enough funds to lend to home buyers at low rates. Our job is to help those who house America.
Fannie Mae was created in 1938, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at a time when millions of families could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consistent supply of mortgage funds across America.
The government established Fannie Mae in order to expand the flow of mortgage funds in all communities, at all times, under all economic conditions, and to help lower the costs to buy a home.
Now how silly is it that one could think Fannie Mae was a govenrment operation? How many other mortgage banks have a Federal Charter?
I'd say it is more of a gafe for a Senator Obama to come to Oregon and not have a clue as to what Hanford was depiste the fact he voted for a bill funding it. I'd expect the guy wanted to be PRESIDENT to know what he is voting but hey, that's just me. Apparently for liberal the identity politics trump all.
The Federal Govt. has now nationalized two private entity's in the name of saving the housing market. They plan to replace the CEO's of both Freddie and Fannie Mac. Million of American's mortgages are now controlled by the federal govt...Bush has expanded Govt. interference in people private affairs into a whole new level not seen in this country.
How many times did Bush say there would be no bailout of Freddie & Fannie Mac? How many times did we hear that Obama would lead to Socialism in this country? Turns out Socialism is already here courtesy of Pres. Bush and the GOP.
Even more, look what was done under the Clinton time for Fannie & Mac.
Sweet. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 8, 2008 01:36 PMZogby Interactive. Beware. Internet-based poll, not a random sample, historically terrible. Recently, they had Obama up in Arizona. I agree with their numbers (even more than Gallup, probably) but the methodology is just not sound.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on September 8, 2008 01:40 PMhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann
And Palin has no power!
Looks to me like she has not only energized the Republican Conservative Base, but she even woke up some of the liberal media.
Now if she could just get the red sea rejoined that Obama claims to have parted!
Posted by: gs on September 8, 2008 01:56 PMBut, of course, as conservatives are hypocrites, expect no action on the entire news staff of Faux News for being biased towards the right.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 02:11 PMI come here because it amuses me to no end how out-of-touch rabid conservatives are with the rest of the country or the world. Ranting and raving about morals, for example, when it is proof positive that you have none, or about hypocrisy when it is obvious that the Republicans are pretty much lying to the American people in order to ram the country into the ground for another four years? It's priceless.
Reading the comments on this board are also useful from the perspective that I know more now than ever what I am fighting against... a cadre of insane, pathetic folks that believe that belonging to a country involves nothing but waving a flag around and nothing else. If the world was left to the likes of you folks, it really would be nothing but a burned-out hole.
But hey... go on believing that a decrepit old Senator and an inexperienced governor from a backwater state would make for a great change. Personally, I think that it will be the end of the country as we know it if these pathetic excuses for politicians win.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 02:23 PMYou might want to go back and check the Alaska gubenatorial debates before you saw off that limb from which your dangling!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 8, 2008 02:43 PM"But hey... go on believing that a decrepit old Senator and an inexperienced governor from a backwater state would make for a great change."
You should be happy the world was left to us. Otherwise you'd be bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day.
1/5 the United States is a "backwater state"? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Doesn't even pass the sniff test.
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2008 03:13 PMWhat I heard is that she wrote it herself and then supposedly one of the McCain speech writers reviewed it.
I'd also like to add that one Democrat voter I know is shelving Obama and now in the "Palin camp". His words, not mine. Another is very curious about her and my tumble. For a supposed light weight she sure is making some heavy impressions.
Posted by: G Jiggy on September 8, 2008 03:15 PMABC/WaPo: Obama 47%, McCain 46%.
CBS: McCain 46%, Obama 44%.
CNN: McCain 48%, Obama 48%.
The truth will set you free!
RCP Average 09/05 - 09/07 -- 48.3-M 45.4-O McCain +2.9
ABC News/Wash Post 09/05 - 09/07 LV 49-M 47-O McCain +2
CBS News 09/05 - 09/07 655 RV 46-M 44-O McCain +2
USA Today/Gallup 09/05 - 09/07 823 LV 54-M 44-O McCain +10
CNN 09/05 - 09/07 942 RV 48-M 48-O Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 3000 LV 48-M 47-O McCain +1
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 924 RV 44-M 44-O Tie
Gallup Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 2733 RV 49-M 44-O McCain +5
The KEY is the LV (likely voters) vs the RV (registered voters) ... and NOTICE the DATES... incovenient, eh?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 8, 2008 03:39 PMPS I know I am not the first with this, but won't it be great to see Sarah rip Biden apart? The no nonsense Walmart mom destroying a pompous Northeasterner Senator! He will think his 36 years of sitting on a committee will make him untouchable by some Alaska hick, but I don't think he understands that America doesn't want to see some action.
Posted by: Thom on September 8, 2008 03:54 PMThere are similar numbers about the economy. Where bHo was up close to 15 points in who would be trusted more with the economy, he's now up only 3, which I believe might be within the margin of error. The interesting part of that number is the the bHo number did not change: it was McCains that went ^UP^.
What's important are the trends. bHo started high; he can't seem to manage to GAIN and that simple message should speaks volumes to the campaigns AND to the electorate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 8, 2008 04:07 PMPS Obama, never step away from a teleprompter.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 8, 2008 04:07 PMHeck, they already are. I love this weekend's crybaby narrative, "how come Palin isn't on Meet The Press, huh, huh, huh?" They've spent more ink and airtime on that than they have on Obama's dodging McCain's invitation to debate at town hall meetings.
The trouble for Obama is that Palin has awakened a sleeping giant. The majority in this country who do not want a socialist takeover, and have finally had it up to here with the global warming lies of the left. These people don't drink coffee with slick lawyers like Obama, or Biden, but they all know plenty of honest hardworking women like Sarah Palin.
And speaking of counting chickens before they are hatched. I would not be so quick to dismiss Sarah's chances in a debate with Biden.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 04:14 PMBad news because the tv's and papers will now return to their regularly scheduled misinformation and cheerleading for Obama.
So PI is definitely right: this race is nowhere near over. Obama may be a disingenuous empty suit, but he is smart and totally without scruples. And the Republican hacks who gorged on pork and privileges while in control of Congress did a tremendous amount of legitimate damage. 8 years of leftards in the MSM demonizing Bush has left its tool as well.
For me, this means donating/volunteering/car stickers and finally refusing to stay silent when some idiot or leftard (but I repeat myself) spouts yet another lie about McCain or Palin. Time for these fools to stop assuming that everyone shares their politics.
Posted by: iconoclast on September 8, 2008 04:32 PMPlease help clarify the tax and earmarks positions outlined in the following article. I genuinely want to know.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/how-to-understand-sarah-p_n_124801.html
- Collecting windfall profits tax on oil companies (which McCain is against)
- Higher sales taxes in her town of Wasilla
- On earmarks and advocacy of the bridge. She was for the bridge until she was against the bridge.
The Democrats are in a trap. The more they sniff and sneer at Sarah and look at her record with a liberal microscope the more people on the fence are going to ask for a similar examination of Obama's record.
The last thing Democrats want is for the "great unwashed" to find out just how far left Obama really is.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 04:59 PMYou surprise me. I usually look forward to your responses because they're normally more researched and nuanced with links and citations.
Her positions on taxes and earmarks is an important one. This is her most important stance as a reformer. If you think this is a microscope, you need to first start with some glasses.
Posted by: Just asking on September 8, 2008 05:09 PMThey do?
He's up big in Ohio, tied in Colorado and Virginia. Behind by 1% in Michigan and 2% in Pennsylvania. Why is that awful?
Posted by: Cliff on September 8, 2008 05:14 PMSheesh, how many times have we heard that one, it's the centerpiece of the Democratic campaign strategy. I like the latest suggestion that Sarah is just another Dick Cheney.
Except Sarah is a much better shot.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 05:32 PMYet you think Obama can? YEAH keep singing that tune. He still can't get over 50%. What happened, all you libs said is this was a blow out, he had it in the bag. Well were still waiting.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 8, 2008 05:32 PMWe could say Obama is just like----------> Jimmy Carter. LOL
And we all know what mess he left us.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 8, 2008 05:36 PMCarter actually managed to get elected as President. I don't give Obama that much credit.
At this point in his campaign I can see a slight resemblance to another democrat candidate though.
Posted by: Smoley on September 8, 2008 06:03 PMWow... Republicans are sure full of themselves, eh? Apparently you're not just arrogant, but completely nonsensical too. Perhaps I missed the massive invasion force that was coming to occupy the United States.
1/5 the United States is a "backwater state"? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Doesn't even pass the sniff test.
Sorry? Alaska *is* a backwater. And do you really think that Alaskan politics are anything like politics in any of the other 49 states? All the state government needs to do up there is hand out oil royalty checks to people and figure out where to allocate the federal money that Ted Stevens wrangles from Washington.
@82: You kiddies seem to want to pick and choose polls that suit your agenda.
And you fossilized dinosaurs want to do the same. I'm really enjoying how one poll that records a bounce goes McCain's way, and it's the best news all week. You still are all grasping at straws, eh?
@88: The majority in this country who do not want a socialist takeover, and have finally had it up to here with the global warming lies of the left. These people don't drink coffee with slick lawyers like Obama, or Biden, but they all know plenty of honest hardworking women like Sarah Palin.
That's bull, and you know it. First of all, under Bush's watch the government has grown, and more businesses have been nationalized than under the Clinton administration. Likewise, Obama has not promised *anything* related to "socialism".
Second, maybe you're too stupid to remember, but McCain has actually sponsored greenhouse gas emissions reduction legislation. Guess that argument's a bust for you.
Third, you fail to realize that the Republican Party actually *does* drink coffee with slick lawyers, as many of them are slick lawyers. Heck, Republicans are far more likely to be rich upper class folks that probably wouldn't know a tractor from a hole in the ground. This image of Republicans as being the sole representatives of "small town America" is a bunch of crap.
Finally, how is Palin either "honest" or "hardworking"? By all accounts, she was a marginal mayor and a horrible business owner, and the only reason why she was elected as governor was because her last name wasn't Murkowski.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 06:19 PMWould it be out of line to ask how much you get paid by the Democrats to troll here?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 06:29 PMa. yes, Alaska state politics is just like the rest.
b. um, EVERY major poll has McCain ahead or tied, for the first time ever.
c. Obama has promised MANY things related to socialism, including universal health care.
d. what businesses have been nationalized under Bush?
e. your "by all accounts" is completely made-up B.S.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/2841005903_505e4d425b_b.jpg
Posted by: John Bailo on September 8, 2008 06:56 PMAnd considering ACORN's reputation, does any one really want one of their "community organizers" as President? You can tell Obumma is definitely a product of the Chicago political machine. Quite frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference between his view of government and Hitler's.
Obama stumbles and fumbles when he is unscripted, and makes unbelievable gaffes, "my Muslim faith".
But you just have to understand that he's tired and under a lot of pressure.
Face it. He is a manufactured phony candidate.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 07:18 PMLike the scumbag YOU support, Dumbo? Have you forgotten yesterday's idiocy, when OhDrama admitted he's a muslim?
Hey, don't forget he's been beating up Palin over the Bridge to Nowhere. You know, funds that she COULD NOT raise herself, and which she spent on other transportation needs.
And funds that McCain voted against.
Of course, both Biden and Obama HIMSELF voted FOR funding the Bridge to Nowhere.
So in the Slavery Party alternate universe, it's a bad thing when you vote to give money to a project and the person who was to receive that money can't even ask for it, actually spends the money you voted to give.
Wow, talk about twisted logic!
Here, I'm going to give you $10, and I'm going to be upset when you actually spend the $10 I gave you!
Obama's an empty suit, full of platitudes and vacuous statements. He has zero credibility, no record, no plans, nothing. The ultimate Chauncey Gardner. Speaks nearly as clearly and eloquently as Chauncey, too!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 8, 2008 07:35 PMDidn't anyone ever hear of the 1994 Republican Congress that forced it?
The other great Clinton era lie, the prosperity of the 90's which largely was due to the dot.com boom in which people invested hugely in tech companies regardless of whether or not they had made a nickel.
The boom busted just before Clinton left office and low and behold the Democrats called it the "Bush recession".
I am so fed up with these people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2008 07:45 PMdemo kid:
a. yes, Alaska state politics is just like the rest.
Like how? The state budget is flush with oil money, the largest city is half the size of Seattle (with the second largest the size of Burien!), the entire state has fewer people than the metro Seattle-Tacoma area, and separatists have a true following. So I'm itching to know how a state with such an insular and unique political culture can produce someone that can even hope to manage the other 49.
b. um, EVERY major poll has McCain ahead or tied, for the first time ever.
After a convention. Not to mention that people still aren't excited about McCain, just the vice-president. And that state-by-state polling still puts Obama-Biden ahead. But we'll see what happens once the newness wears off, and she starts campaigning separately without a net.
c. Obama has promised MANY things related to socialism, including universal health care.
First of all, Obama's plan is hardly "universal". Secondly, one of the major Republican candidates presided over a plan that was actually quite similar. Finally, the healthcare system in the United States is in need of overhaul, due to its rather convoluted evolution. Even most Republicans can see that. (And not just because of trial lawyers, as Republicans might claim, or greedy HMOs, as liberals might claim.) McCain's plans for this are tepid at best.
d. what businesses have been nationalized under Bush?
Aside from the recent GSE stuff, the TSA was formed by nationalizing security at airports. Before that, of course, the last president to nationalize an industry was Ricahrd Nixon.
Odd, isn't it? Seems like Republicans are a bit more socialist than you would expect.
e. your "by all accounts" is completely made-up B.S.
I'm really waiting for the proof that Palin did remarkable things as mayor, or that she pretty much did anything other than kick Murkowski out of office and sign a deal for a pipeline that's still on the drawing board. (Heck, the fact that she was handing out money to offset energy costs to state residents should poke holes in the idea that she's some sort of free market purist.) Her record for "cleaning up corruption" is also minimal, amounting more to internecine political battles within her own party than an actual attempt at bipartisanship governance.
Posted by: demo kid on September 8, 2008 08:27 PMYeah you must have missed the planes crasing into the twin towers on 911. Were you even born then little boy?
"Sorry? Alaska *is* a backwater. And do you really think that Alaskan politics are anything like politics in any of the other 49 states? All the state government needs to do up there is hand out oil royalty checks to people and figure out where to allocate the federal money that Ted Stevens wrangles from Washington."
Apparently you haven't had geography class yet little boy. Alaska is the LARGEST state in the union, one fifth of the country! Palin has already had more executive experience governing one fifth of the nation. Unlike that backwater Illinois with its crooked Democrat machine Tamany Hall politics doling out the federal pork Obama brings home (more than Palin ever got).
"Third, you fail to realize that the Republican Party actually *does* drink coffee with slick lawyers, as many of them are slick lawyers. Heck, Republicans are far more likely to be rich upper class folks that probably wouldn't know a tractor from a hole in the ground. This image of Republicans as being the sole representatives of "small town America" is a bunch of crap."
Oh puhleezes. When was the last time Ted Kennedy was hunting or fishing? Well OK, there was that one time with Mary Joe Kopeckne when he got drunk and left her trapped in a car to drown, waiting 14 hours to report the "accident" so scratch the fishing.
Democrats despise small town America. You hero Lord Obama mockingly refers to them as "clinging to the guns and their bibles".
Face it dumbo kid, you're going down! Grasping at straw won't save your party. Americans are finally back from vacation and paying attention, the rock star concert of Obama is OVER and you are going home with a headache.
Avoid the rush, get your Canadian passport now. Perhaps you and your fellow moonbats can get a group rate on MDS, just show em your records on coucnelling for BDS and I am sure you'll get a good discount!
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2008 08:31 PMWe all know you liberals despise self made people, especially women who don't know their place in the Democrat house - barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2008 08:34 PM
How Palin Beat Alaska's Establishment
Appointed to the state oil and gas regulatory agency in 2003, she blew the whistle on fellow GOP Commissioner Randy Ruedrich for refusing to disclose energy dealings.
In 2004 when former Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski made clear he'd be working exclusively with three North Slope producers--ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and BP--to build a $25 billion pipeline to move natural gas to the lower 48. The trio had informed their political vassals that they alone would build this project (they weren't selling their gas to outsiders) and that they expected the state to reward them. Mr. Murkowski disappeared into smoky backrooms to work out the details. He refused to release information on the negotiations. When Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin suggested terms of the contract were illegal, he was fired.
Mrs. Palin ran against the secret deal, and vowed to put the pipeline back out for competitive, transparent, bidding. She railed against cozy politics. Mr. Murkowski ran on his unpopular pipeline deal. The oil industry warned the state would never get its project without his leadership. Mrs. Palin walloped him in the primary and won office in late 2006. Around this time, news broke of a federal probe that would show oil executives had bribed lawmakers to support the Murkowski tax changes.
Among Mrs. Palin's first acts was to reinstate Mr. Irwin. By February 2007 she'd released her requirements for pipeline bidding. They were stricter, and included only a $500 million state incentive. By May a cowed state house--reeling from scandal--passed her legislation.
The producers warned they would not bid, nor would anyone else. Five groups submitted proposals. A few months before the legislature awarded its license to TransCanada this July, Conoco and BP suddenly announced they'd be building their own pipeline with no state inducements whatsoever. They'd suddenly found the money.
Mrs. Palin has meanwhile passed an ethics law. She's tightened up oil oversight. She forced the legislature to rewrite the oil tax law. That new law raised taxes on the industry, for which Mrs. Palin is now taking some knocks, but the political background here is crucial.
The GOP machine has crumbled. Attorney General Renkes resigned. Mr. Ruedrich was fined $12,000. Jim Clark--Mr. Murkowski's lead pipeline negotiator--pleaded guilty to conspiring with an oil firm. At least three legislators have been convicted. Sen. Ted Stevens is under indictment for oil entanglements, while Rep. Don Young is under investigation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057381593001741.html?mod=todays_columnists
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2008 08:50 PMAfter all, the delusional, ignorant-of-politics world he lives in has come crashing down around his head with the self-destruction of empty suit's and five-deferment-coward stuffed-shirt's campaign.
If only ONE of his two remaining functioning neurons could grasp reality... Sigh.
Posted by: Hinton on September 8, 2008 09:06 PMPlease help clarify the tax and earmarks positions outlined in the following article. -Posted by Just asking at September 8, 2008 04:47 PM
Her positions on taxes and earmarks is an important one. This is her most important stance as a reformer. If you think this is a microscope, you need to first start with some glasses. -Posted by Just asking at September 8, 2008 05:09 PM
Does Obama Really Want to Talk About Earmarks?
The Democrats are also trying to blame Palin for all of Alaska's earmarks, but only U.S. senators and members of Congress are responsible for snagging their pork. And as U.S. Senator Obama requested more than $740 million for his pet-projects in the last three years, including a $1 million earmark for the hospital his wife was working at and a $750,000 earmark to pay for the renovation of a space center named after top Obama donor James S. Crown's grandfather, Henry Crown.
And since Obama is bringing it up, why doesn't he explain why he sought more than $3.4 million earmarks for his VP Joe Biden's lobbyist son, Hunter? I thought Obama detested lobbyists and those kind of cozy, Senate relationships.
Barry's been a busy boy... do earmark votes pass on PRESENT, barry?
Finally, how is Palin either "honest" or "hardworking"? By all accounts, she was a marginal mayor and a horrible business owner, and the only reason why she was elected as governor was because her last name wasn't Murkowski. -Posted by demo kid at September 8, 2008 06:19 PM
Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
FACTCHECK.ORG: False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Her positions on taxes and earmarks is an important one. This is her most important stance as a reformer. If you think this is a microscope, you need to first start with some glasses. -Posted by Just asking at September 8, 2008 05:09 PM
You were saying?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 8, 2008 09:40 PMIf you can't defend her stance, just say so. Stop deflecting.
Posted by: Just asking on September 8, 2008 10:37 PMAs mentioned in your article link to "Sliming Palin", the analysis states that her firing of persons after taking office were part of a loyalty purge. Window into the appointments of tomorrow? Because we've already seen the heck of a job that loyalty over ability produces.
Posted by: Just asking on September 8, 2008 10:48 PMDid Palin raise taxes on the people of the great State of Alaska?
Did Palin ever seek or approve earmarks for Alaska?
Now answer those truthfully...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 8, 2008 10:50 PMToo bad you are NOT honest enough to reveal the entire content of that section:
Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years.
Slime, indeed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 8, 2008 11:02 PMHow can Barack Obama criticize Palin for the earmark of Ted Stevens for the bridge to nowhere, when neither Palin nor McCain voted for the earmark. But Obama and Biden did - TWICE?
Just Asking...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 8, 2008 11:34 PMyes. She did raise sales taxes in Wasilla to build an indoor hockey arena. With title costs which went from $146,000 project to an estimated $1.7 million.
yes and no. She did not personally travel to Washington to ask for an earmark. She hired a lobbyist, Stephen Silver, to secure $27 million for Wasilla equaling $4029 for each resident of Wasilla. Which, if the same average were applied to a 350 million person population of the US, would total 1.4 trillion dollars in earmarks.
Just ran across this article in the Times that has more details.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html
Why do you think she rehired the librarian? Second thoughts on her loyalty purge? It was after pressure from people in the town.
BTW. How did point of rehiring her the next day counter the loyalty issue?
Posted by: Just asking on September 8, 2008 11:44 PMYou really can't read. Please read my questions again, and then answer those. For the State of Alaska, not the town of Wasilla.
But let's play your game of ignorance (or illiteracy?). She cut overall tax loads in Wasilla, slashing property taxes by 40%. And that 0.5% increase in sales tax? Didn't offset the slash of property tax and taxes on personal property and businesses. Overall tax loads came down. She did not raise taxes - she lowered them.
And I see you completely ignored the earmarks that Obama and Biden voted for TWICE, but now criticize Palin for accepting. Nice way to ignore those inconvenient truths!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 9, 2008 12:09 AMLike how?
Because politics is the same everywhere. Just like a socialist: you think money solves all problems. No state is just like all the rest, but they are all similar.
So I'm itching to know how a state with such an insular and unique political culture can produce someone that can even hope to manage the other 49.
Um. How could someone from ANY state manage the other 49? They are all different.
After a convention.
So you agree you were wrong when you said "one poll." It was ALL polls.
... she starts campaigning separately without a net.
She couldn't do any worse than Obama. "I mean, seriously! Come on! What's up with that? These people!" He sounds like he's doing a really bad Jerry Seinfeld impression.
First of all, Obama's plan is hardly "universal".
Call it what you wish, when it is controlled by government, it's socialism.
Secondly, one of the major Republican candidates presided over a plan that was actually quite similar.
That isn't an argument against me or my argument, it's an argument against Romney.
Finally, the healthcare system in the United States is in need of overhaul, due to its rather convoluted evolution. Even most Republicans can see that.
Yep. I and McCain want to fix this through the private sector, and Obama through increased regulation and control (i.e., socialism).
Aside from the recent GSE stuff, the TSA was formed by nationalizing security at airports.
Bush didn't set up the system whereby the feds take over failing banks. So that's a bit different, it's not like he said "hey let's grab some banks." That's a completely separate thing.
TSA was overwhelmingly bipartisan, and I think it actually was supported by more Dems than Republicans.
Odd, isn't it? Seems like Republicans are a bit more socialist than you would expect.
Not at all. It's not like I believe Bush is a conservative. But while some Republicans opposed, or had qualms about, the TSA thing for reasons of federalism and so on, Democrats didn't.
I'm really waiting for the proof ...
No, sorry, you have it backward. You made an assertion -- "By all accounts, she was a marginal mayor and a horrible business owner, and the only reason why she was elected as governor was because her last name wasn't Murkowski" -- and you need to back it up with proof.
Her record for "cleaning up corruption" is also minimal, amounting more to internecine political battles within her own party than an actual attempt at bipartisanship governance.
More completely made-up B.S.
Obama has another socialist plan out today.
Posted by: pudge on September 9, 2008 01:45 PM
