Zogby: McCain Takes 5-point Lead Over Obama
A few Quotes from the article:
McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy - an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.
The dip in support for Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, cut across demographic and ideological lines. He slipped among Catholics, born-again Christians, women, independents and younger voters. He retained the support of more than 90 percent of black voters. [Tell me he's not retaining that 90% because he's Black (Emphasis and commentary mine)]
"There were no wild swings, there isn't one group that is radically different than last month or even two months ago. It was just a steady decline for Obama across the board," Zogby said.
It made little difference when independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who are both trying to add their names to state ballots.
McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. Barr earned 3 percent and Nader 2 percent.
Then again, what a poll says today about how the electorate will vote in November is more guess-work than anything else; but they are good for analyzing trends.
It must really suck to go into your coronation 5 points down with not much time to really "bounce" before all your thunder is stolen by the man who's beating you. I know, I know, we're not supposed to take these polls seriously. But I'd bet my last five bucks that the Obama Camp IS taking this one seriously, as is that murder of gore-crows we call Media.
This new poll by the way has a +/-3% margin of error. And that STILL puts McCain up between 2 and 8 points.
23 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If it continues, that might be troubling for the Obama camp. If it is merely one blip from one poll, and next week's polls show Obama back to a 4 point lead, what are we to make of the polls, then?
I hear McCain is considering pro-abortion Tom Ridge for Veep. I wonder if he picked him, what that would do to McCain in the polls? In the election?
What's left on the agenda between now and the election? Obama picks a VP, McCain picks a VP, the Dem convention, the GOP convention, and at least three debates.
Suppose Obama's faltering isn't because of the evil Republicans -- their supposed racism, their wedge issues, their smear campaign -- and suppose instead that it has at least something to do with the candidate's weakness. Besides his very thin resume, his behavior has been arrogant and presumptuous, and that Saddleback appearance shows that he's not the greatest extemporaneous speaker, particularly now when he's having to lurch to the center having seemingly secured the nomination.
With its large, open-air speech in a football stadium, the Dem convention is really more of a coronation, when he might be better served displaying down-to-earth humility, this is the sort of humility he showed when he won the nomination.
"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people... I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal... This was the moment -– this was the time –- when we came together to remake this great nation."
We're remaking this great nation and finally providing health care and jobs. Now is the moment the oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal. If this is the humility Obama displays in Denver -- the "profound" humility -- he will reinforce the notion that he sees himself as messianic.
And this is sort of a best case scenario. All this assumes that the convention goes as planned. With both Clinton's being there, I wouldn't count on that.
That brings us to the debates. Clinton has already showed us how to hammer Obama, and the fact is Obama really isn't a great impromptu speaker. There's a very good possibility that neither his convention nor the debates help Obama from this current drift.
That leaves his VP pick, McCain's VP pick, and the GOP convention. He could probably do better or worse with particular selections for VP, but the very nature of Obama's campaign -- his supposedly transcending politics -- means that the election will remain a referendum on the top of the ticket. Since McCain's campaign is more traditional, he actually could either shore up a wary base or reach out to more moderates (or, implausibly, both) with his VP pick, but there are few that will be more attracted to the Obama/So-and-So campaign because So-and-So is on the ticket.
What that leaves is the McCain VP pick and the GOP nomination.
Let's exclude any October surprises on either side -- or in world events, as in Russia -- and suppose Obama doesn't do the improbable by having a successful convention that doesn't reinforce a perception of arrogance or dramatically improve in his debating skills.
Obama is left having to hope for unforced errors from the Republicans.
Self-destructive as Republicans generally have been the last few years, that's a thin string on which such an annointed candidate is to pin his hopes, especially because McCain has so far been able to buck the trends in terms of Republicans underperforming.
45% 43% Gallup tracking
47% 46% Rasmussen tracking
45% 42% New York Times
45% 42% Wall St. Journal
45% 43% Louisiana Times
41% 46% Zogby
47% 42% Quinnipiac U.
46% 47% Lake/Tarrance
These are the other national polls taken. The results are close, but not definitive. In the Quinnipiac poll Obama retains the lead.
The fabric of this convention will truly show how weak Obama is-- that he allowed negotiations with the Clinton's to the extent that they got the upper hand, scoring TWO nights to shine, AND Hill's name in nomination. The vote will highlight one thing very clearly... just how close he came to losing the nomination, and the picture of a party divided.
It'll be fun to watch.
McCain, by the way, has already been disabused of the idea of Lieberman or Ridge as Veep. Lieberman would be fine as Sec-Def or State, but not Veep. McCain's base has already taken him to task on that one, and his staff has already sent out a prompt "message received"...
Ben, your comment's worth noticing.
"It appears McCain who has adamantly opposed any timetable or discussion of winding down our commitments to Iraq is the unserious voice on this issue."
It appears that you draw this conclusion only because McCain may disagree with Bush. Is it really the case that BenT now thinks Bush is the voice of reason regarding Iraq? That you think that all disagreement with Bush is inherently unserious and unreasonable?
Or are you just playing rhetorical games? It is amazing how many leftists have lionized Goldwater, Reagan, and now Bill Buckley, and how their praise for these conservatives is directly related to the left's criticism of their intellectual heirs.
[shiver]
(Actually, with Goldwater, I'm rather joking - he wasn't as bad as the other two. And probably Buckley wasn't as bad as Reagan... and who knows? Maybe, if the improbable happens and McCain wins and we have an even longer extension of the Bush policies, I may find myself longing for the "more reasonable" days of the Reagan administration. Of course, that would only be relative...)
Your insistence that you really used to be a "conservative's conservative" notwithstanding, I don't believe you understand American conservatism, and I don't think you could accurately describe any substantial differences between Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan that would explain why one "wasn't as bad" as the other two.
You're free to prove me wrong, but knowing you, my guess is that you would follow in the footsteps of those documented here in claiming that Goldwater wasn't a fire-breathing social conservative, when the actual speeches he gave and platform he promoted puts the lie to this attempt to "rehabilitate" Goldwater in order to smear his acolytes.
I don't know as much about Goldwater but what I've remember reading is that he was more of a truly libertarian conservative, as opposed to the Big Gov't Reagan type of "conservative."
I believe I've read that Goldwater would be opposed to gov't intervention in matters of abortion and gay marriage, for instance, but maybe I am remembering incorrectly and he was more of a despicable Reagan-type "conservative."
Now, what leftists are praising these three gents?
Perhaps you're mistaking speaking kindly of the dead for actually thinking that these folk were "good" conservatives?
You're spouting pretty much the same revisionism that we find from John Dean and from arch-liberals who were interviewed for a documentary on Goldwater --- including Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, and James Carville.
Contrary to this revisionism, Goldwater ran as a staunch social conservative in 1964, and he only became more libertarian much later in life, in his last term in the Senate and after he retired from politics.
(Even then, I don't believe Goldwater supported abortion on-demand or gay marriage. He merely dropped his support for a Constitutional amendment regarding abortion, and dropped his opposition to gay rights.)
(And while we're on this subject, I'm at a loss about what you could possibly mean about "gov't intervention in matters of... gay marriage." Is government supposed to have no role in determining the legal definition of marriage, now? Do we want to get government out of the courthouse?)
There was not an appreciable difference between Goldwater's platform from '64 and Reagan's in '80 and '84.
You really don't know what you're talking about, as the "despicable" conservatism that Buckley espoused largely matches what Goldwater ran on and how Reagan governed.
It is stunning how your past life as a conservative really has made you no less ignorant about conservatism than a leftist from birth.
Obama's policy has been embraced by the Maliki government and the Bush administration. As Josh Marshall put it, "John McCain has staked his whole campaign on opposing Barack Obama's call for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.... And yet today, the US and Iraq have agreed on a 'timetable,' using that very word, for leaving Iraq. Reality, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government have jointly endorsed Obama's position and left McCain a relic."
To be sure, the issue isn't off the table with regards to the presidential election, but McCain is going to a) have a tough time calling Obama an elitist if he can't count his own homes; and b) have a tough time blasting Obama's Iraq policy as irresponsible if it's being implemented in Iraq right now.
In other McCain foreign policy missteps we can look back to March when McCain suggested kicking Russia out of the G8 economic powers group. Then apparently while being McCain's envoy to Georgia Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested again that the G8 should become the G7 for a while to punish Russia.
The only problem is that the G8 runs on consensus rules. To remove Russia, the Russians would have to agree to their removal. A senior Bush administration official recently conceded, "It's not even a theoretical discussion. It's an impossible discussion." The official described McCain's idea as "just a dumb thing."
Tell me again which one is the inexperienced, naive candidate?
For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily a gaffe to suggest that Russia doesn't belong in the G8, and there is a way to accomplish kicking them out: disband the G8 and reform the G7 with everyone else.
Considering Russia's recent belligerence, it seems to me that McCain was ahead of the curve about warning about Putin.
And I believe that he disagreed with Bush's trust in Putin, the idea Bush looked into his eyes and read the condition of his soul. Unless I misremember, McCain's response was that looking at Putin he sees only three letters: a K, a G, and a B.
But since you now argue that Bush is always right when he and McCain disagree, I assume that you think Putin's harmless, right?
Finally, if we want to talk about presidential candidates and their housing, I'm certainly willing to have us take a closer look at how Senator Obama acquired his home by working with a convicted criminal like Rezko.
If we want to talk about elitism, I'm certainly to discuss Obama's theory that angry rural voters "cling" to God and guns.
And if we want to talk about verbal gaffes involving numbers of houses and the like, I will remind you that the His High Holiness apparently thinks there are 57 states in the union.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
I'm not a huge fan of McCain for a variety of reasons, chief among them campaign finance "reform", amnesty for illegal aliens, and his cap-and-trade proposal, but your criticism of him is pretty vapid.
(And, in case you don't know what four strikes I'm counting...
1. McCain defines "rich" as those making $5 million/year - even as a joke, it was revealing
2. McCain doesn't know how many homes he owns! - again, his attempts to paint Obama as elitist and out of touch just don't hold water
3. His consideration of two pro-life fellas for Veep
4. Bush falling behind Obama and agreeing now that Obama's plan for a timetable to get out of Iraq is a good idea - leaving McCain as the only one refusing to consider a timetable.
This can't be a good week for McCain, some would tend to think...)
You don't get to put words in my mouth Bubba. We aren't nearly close enough for that. Nor can you construct scarecrows with my name on them. I build my own scarecrows thank you very much.
What I was applauding was that Barack Obama proposed a plan that was acceptable to George Bush as well as the Iraqi government. He built support for his plan with opposing political figures. His plan not only satisfies the American public's desire to wind down our commitments to Iraq. He also is making personal political capital out of the event. Isn't that what a president is supposed to do?
What can John McCain point to as his solid foreign policy accomplishments? Which one of these is the inexperienced candidate?
Suggesting that Russia could be expelled from the G8 is not a verbal gaffe. It is a knowledge gaffe. Especially when you have been in the Senate as long as John McCain, or Joe Lieberman.
He raises the issue of abortion without mentioning the two larger stories of this past week, Obama's abyssmal performance at Saddleback regarding his unwillingness to answer an honest question about when life begins (the matter being above his paygrade, don'cha know) and his being caught in multiple lies regarding his opposition to a bill that would protect survivors of attempted abortions from being left to die.
This ain't analysis, it's spin, and very poor spin at that. As such, it tells us very little about the actual political race and a lot about Dan's twisted psyche. Since I already know more than enough about Dan, I would rather he post this insubstantial content on his own blog, where it can be more easily ignored.
I find it interesting that Bubba can read my words and find some meaning that I didn't say or intend in them 95 times out of 100.
How about this? From now on, if you happen to CORRECTLY say something about what I've said, I'll address your comments, but all the times I say nothing, you can just know that whatever you read into what I wrote plainly isn't there. Fair enough?
I'm not ignoring you, I am just ignoring your ignorance.
I wonder, what with the four strikes against McCain this last week plus the Dem Convention and the Veep choice, what polls will suggest next week?
(And, in case you don't know what four strikes I'm counting...
...
3. His consideration of two pro-life fellas for Veep
...
This can't be a good week for McCain, some would tend to think...)
I summarize by writing "that Dan thinks it is a mistake for McCain to consider a pro-life running mate."
Oh, what a horribly unfair and inaccurate summary.
The 57 states misspeak was just that. Or do you suggest that Barack Obama didn't and still doesn't know how many states are in the US?
But when John McCain repeatedly confuses Sunni and Shia factions in the middle east, that's a comprehension problem. Is Iraq Suni or Shia? Is that the same as Hezbollah? What about Nouri al-Maliki's government? If McCain had confused just one of these, you could even pass that off as a misspeak without criticism from me, but to confuse all of these. That's a candidate who doesn't understand the distinctions among our adversaries.
How many houses does Barack have? One in Chicago? One in Washington? Who uses them? The Obama's?
How many houses does McCain have? Who cares? Does the number of houses a man possesses above two preclude him from being an effective president? Who lives in McCain's houses? Well, some of them are occupied by family members.
What kind of house does Barack's half brother George live in? Oh, that's right! A 9'x6' shack on the outskirts of Nairobi. Where does one of Barack's grandmother's live? That's right! In a shack in Kenya.
If you want to criticize a man for how many homes he has go ahead. If you want to criticize him for not knowing how to answer the question because, hey! some of those houses are not really his home... even though they are in his or his wife's name.
But wasn't it Michelle O'Bama who said,
"[America] is just a downright mean country!"
They're ones to talk, aren't they? Barack makes more than a million a year and his half-brother has to struggle in a shack on 1$ a month? But McCain's bad even though he's putting up family?
On top of this Obama gets a sweetheart deal on a home in Chicago from a man who is in prison for fraud? Obama is worse than "elitist". He won't even help out his own family.
Obama thinks anyone making over 250k is rich. Compared to what? At least McCain said what he said jokingly, while stating with sure knowledge that Obama would use it against him. So what? Did any of you Kool-Aid drinkers pay attention to his WHOLE response at Saddleback?
"SOME OF THE RICHEST PEOPLE I'VE EVER KNOWN IN MY LIFE ARE THE MOST UNHAPPY. I THINK THAT RICH IS -- SHOULD BE DEFINED BY A HOME, A GOOD JOB AND EDUCATION AND THE ABILITY TO HAND TO OUR CHILDREN A MORE PROSPEROUS AND SAFER WORLD THAN THE ONE THAT WE INHERITED. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM THE RICH. I WANT EVERYBODY TO GET RICH. I DON'T BELIEVE IN CLASS WARFARE OR REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH. BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE SMALL BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE WORKING 16 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD CLASSIFY AS, QUOTE, RICH, MY FRIENDS, WHO WANT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES AND RAISE THEIR PAYROLL TAXES. LET'S HAVE -- KEEP TAXES LOW. LET'S GIVE EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA A 7 THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX CREDIT FOR EVERY CHILD THEY HAVE. LET'S GIVE THEM A 5 THOUSAND DOLLAR REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT TO GO OUT AND GET THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF THEIR CHOICE. LET'S NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN AMERICA. SO -- SO I THINK IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT INCOME, HOW ABOUT FIVE MILLION. SO -- BUT SERIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN -- I DON'T THINK, SERIOUSLY THAT -- THE POINT IS THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE SERIOUSLY -- AND I'M SURE THAT COMMENT WILL BE DISTORTED, BUT THE POINT IS -- THE POINT IS -- THE POINT IS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE'S TAXES LOW AND INCREASE REVENUES. AND MY FRIEND, IT WAS NOT TAXES THAT MATTERED IN AMERICA IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. IT WAS SPENDING. SPENDING GOT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. WE SPENT MONEY IN A WAY THAT MORTGAGED OUR KIDS FUTURES. MY FRIENDS, WE SPENT $3 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY TO STUDY THE DNA OF BEARS IN MONTANA. NOW I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A PATERNITY ISSUE OR A CRIMINAL ISSUE, BUT THE POINT IS -- BUT THE POINT IS IT WAS 3 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY. IT WAS YOUR MONEY. AND YOU KNOW, WE LAUGH ABOUT IT, BUT WE CRY AND WE SHOULD CRY BECAUSE THE CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE CAREFUL STEWARDS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS. SO WHAT DID THEY JUST DO IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ENERGY CRISIS WHEN IN CALIFORNIA WE ARE PAYING $4 A GALLON FOR GAS, WENT ON VACATION FOR FIVE WEEKS. I GUARANTEE YOU, TWO THINGS THEY NEVER MISS, A PAY RAISE AND A VACATION. AND WE SHOULD STOP THAT AND CALL THEM BACK AND NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES. WE SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT RAISE TAXES IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER REALLY WHAT MY DEFINITION OF RICH IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO RAISE ANYBODY'S TAXES. I REALLY DON'T. IN FACT, I WANT TO GIVE WORKING AMERICANS A BETTER SHOT AT HAVING A BETTER LIFE AND WE ALL KNOW THE CHALLENGES, MY FRIENDS, IF I COULD BE SERIOUS. AMERICANS TONIGHT IN CALIFORNIA AND ALL OVER AMERICA ARE SITTING AT THE KITCHEN TABLE, RECENTLY AND SUDDENLY LOST A JOB, CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY IN THEIR HOME, EDUCATION FOR THEIR KIDS, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE, THESE ARE TOUGH PROBLEMS. THESE ARE TOUGH PROBLEMS. YOU TALK TO THEM EVERY DAY."
Dan said: "3. His consideration of two pro-life fellas for Veep"
Thanks for that bit of Freudian honesty, Dan. McCain is certainly not going to choose a Pro-Choice Veep!
And Bush IS NOT falling in line with OBAMA'S plan for withdrawal. If ANY on the left had even a shred of intellectual honesty they'd admit that Bush has said all along that he'll consider pulling troops out of Iraq when conditions on the ground warrant. And whether the Left cares to admit it or not, conditions on the ground DO WARRANT some sort of strategy adjustment. For now, it looks like they'll be pulling out of THE CITIES, but not out of the country. If Iraqi forces continue to improve and can manage their own security then a great majority of our troops will leave Iraq. But don't fool yourself into believing that this is Barack's plan. Bush has said all along that we'll leave when Iraq can stand on its own... long before Barack began to think of himself the anointed herald of light, truth, and justice.
Barack did say he had been to 57 states, with two more to go...
With all of America's territories added in, that's a total of 59. 57 plus "two more to go" equals 59. But this statement makes Barack a liar yet again... Barack DID visit Puerto Rico, but he did not visit:
The Midway Islands
American Samoa
The Virgin Islands
The Federated States of Micronesia
The Marshall Islands
The Northern Mariana Islands
Palua, or
Guam
Some Moonbats claim Obama meant D.C. and the "six" American territories for a total of 57. But they conveniently disregard the "with two more to go" line, and appear ignorant of the fact that the United States has NINE, not six, territories-- all with voting rights.
And just today [Friday], the audio tapes come out of Obama extolling the virtues of China, calling the infrastructure of Beijing superior to the entirety of the United States infrastructure. In effect, he's telling us we should be like China.
Communist Government
Slave Labor
Child Labor
No Unions
Forced Abortions
One-Child Policy
Poor Environmental Record
Yeah, let's be like China!
He's also chided the U.S. for having no room to talk about Russia's invasion of Georgia because we invaded Iraq.
Where's the similarities between the two? I'm sorry, but has the U.N. leveled 17 resolutions against Georgia that Georgia ignored? Did Russia and a coalition of nations enter Georgia to remove a despotic leader and force Georgia to become more democratic? Did Russia invade because every intelligence agency of note believed Georgia had a weapons program that threatened its neighbors, and the world?
What idiocy!
If anything, according to Danian Philosophy, Russia should be declared a rogue nation and Putin brought to trial on charges of war crimes, because Russia deliberately targeted civilians, and are only leaving Georgia now because they have run out of things to shot at.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many on the Left demonstrate themselves to be glittering jewels of colossal ignorance.