McCain takes lead in latest national poll

Fifty percent for McCain, in

Submitted by inskeep on September 8, 2008 - 9:21am.

Fifty percent for McCain, in this poll, means 47-53 percent, and 46 percent for Obama means 43-49 percent (plus or minus 3 points).

So McCain could be ahead 53-43 percent or Obama could be ahead 49-47 percent. That's the problem with polls based on such a small number of people. And these figures are assuming the pollsters did everything right.

Rove is a master at using polls for political purposes, e.g., his push polling against John McCain in 2000. His main goal is to have the polls show the race close enough that his regular election fraud tactics will be accepted.

Jonathan Inskeep
Crofton, MD USA

I believe that the "error"

Submitted by Flapsaddle on September 8, 2008 - 10:06am.

I believe that the "error" cited in polls constitutes two (2) standard deviations from the mean - a 95% confidence level. While there are many ways to read the goat's entrails, this particular poll - which probably includes the so-called "convention bounce" - suggests that in the best light Obama leads McCain by no more than 3%; alternatively, McCain could lead Obama by as much as 10%. However, remember that this is a poll taken immediately after the convention and the novelty - notoriety? - of Sarah Palin. Future poll will doubtlessly give different data as both sides frantically struggle to recapture or maintain a statistically significant lead.

The poll size is not really a problem, provided that the sample is representative; if you look at most national polls by the reputable organizations, you'll find that the sample size is generally something like 800 to perhaps 2,000. Professional polling organizations have a lot of experience with handling the data, and they constantly strive to make sure that the poll questions, the sample demographics, and the data treatment are not biased. Look to see how each party treats the results.

Don't assume that Rove or any other administration figure(s) can manipulate the national polls. If you want to see biased polls, look at those conducted by each party's research team - they usually have hot-button questions arranged in a certain order to elicit a specific response.

We are within two (2) months of the election, the players are known, the initial shock and the warm-fuzzies on both sides have largely run their course, and newer sensations and persistent issues will be perturbing the equation; the polls will shift both ways between now and election-day. I think that the most significant polling will be that taken within three (3) weeks of the election when most voters will be making up their minds and emotions about their vote.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

TJ I agree. I don't even

Submitted by sherry on September 9, 2008 - 8:28am.

TJ I agree. I don't even believe we have any kind of trend one way or another.
While working Hillary's campaign, she always kicked butt on the weekend of the primary. Perhaps she performed better on the fence.
Jimmy Carter looked like he was going to be re elected until 3 weeks before the election. He had a good convention bounce.
Obama's acceptance speech was more like a rock concert. McCain was his usual bland self. Palin was the surprise and she wowed the crowd.
Dang I almost got excited about voting GOP. It almost didn't feel like a protest vote anymore.
Convention is over and now it feels like the protest vote that it is.

It is looking more and more

Submitted by Jim C on September 8, 2008 - 9:54am.

It is looking more and more like mccain might win . While everyone is dancing around it , the reason is race , it's just that simple , with assists from religion ( abortion ) , the corporate controled media and plain old american stupidity . It is sickening to watch this unfold , but unfolding it is . I watched the republican convention and the idea anyone could have been swayed by that repulsive spectacle is truely pathetic . Mccains speech was embarrasing in its empty ineptitude . I was absolutely amazed the next day to hear that mess referred to as " reasonably effective " , from the hokey computer generated effects to the delivery , it reminded me more of a Saturday night live skit than a serious acceptance speech , it literally seemed like a caricature . As it seems we are quite possibly going to be dragged even deeper into this conservative cesspool we've blundered into yet again , I am reminded of two old adages , I paraphrase , " those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them " and Menkens " nobody ever lost a nickle betting against the intelligence of the american public " .

Racism is getting old fast.

Submitted by sherry on September 8, 2008 - 11:09am.

Racism is getting old fast. Anytime Hillary won a primary it was because her electorate was racist. They could not possibly be voting for the woman because they felt she was right for the job.
Obama has a raft of issues, and if those issues are going to be effectively addressed, his supporters will have to stop pulling the race card.

This is nothing more than

Submitted by Janet on September 8, 2008 - 10:44am.

This is nothing more than post-convention bounce and the newhess of Sarah Palin. Once voters know what Sarah Palin is really like (religious extremist, creationist) and what she really stands for (anti-choice, abuse of power, etc.) they will swing back to Obama. Sarah Palin is not pro-life as like most of these people, she doesn't care about people post-fetus, like she doesn't care that having a baby will ruin her daughters' life, and she doesn't care about animal life. She support4ed aerial wolf hunting, does not support polar bears on endangered list and is for drilling in Anwar which endangers wild life. She doesn't pay attention to the Iraq War, so she doesn't give a damn about all the husbands, sons, daughters, wives, sisters and brothers being killed or maimed for life.

Realize that these polls are of likely voters - voters who voted in the 2004 election. It polls people who are home to answer the phone - mostly older people. It doesn't poll all the newly registered and first time voters and young people who tend to have only cell phones, not land lines. In a Harvard Poll of 18-24 year olds, done by e-mail and internet, Obama led McCain by 55-32.

YEs, redneck racists will vote for McCain, but they were going to do that anyway. The polls will be more accurate after the debates.

Janet , I certainly hope

Submitted by Jim C on September 8, 2008 - 11:08am.

Janet , I certainly hope you're right , but I have my doubts . I think race is playing a much bigger part in this than anyone wants to admit . The idea that mccain or any republican has any chance at all after the last eight years and the disaster they have wrought is mindboggling you have to admit .

Wait until the convention

Submitted by Janet on September 8, 2008 - 5:57pm.

Wait until the convention bounce dies down and Palin has to start answering questions. They can't keep her sequestered forever. I just hope the debate moderators don't softball it with her. She must stand up to the pressure like any man and not use gender as an excuse. I hope Joe "Joey the Shark" Biden is tough with Sarah "Baracuda" Palin.

I want to see her on Meet the Press where she can't hide behind her downs syndrome baby.

There will always be people who won't vote for an African American or a woman. It says more about them than the candidates. It is usually neanderthal losers with no education that think they are superior. Ever look at the skinheads and white supremicists? They're all losers who have to have a scapegoat for their inability to make something of their lives. But they are the minority. And younger people don't care about race or gender.

"It is usually neanderthal

Submitted by ekaton on September 8, 2008 - 10:14pm.

"It is usually neanderthal losers with no education that think they are superior."

This is at least 80% of the country.

"And younger people don't care about race or gender."

I do not believe you are correct. We have a simple difference of opinion, but here in south central PA I perceive the young to be equally sexist and racist with their parents and grandparents.

-- Kent Shaw

This country is racist! I

Submitted by Nogood on September 8, 2008 - 1:31pm.

This country is racist! I don't care what spin you put on it, it all comes out "racist"! I had(notice past tense) a friend who claims to be a Democrat and he said, "I ain't voting for a damn n****. Now you make what you want to out of this, but far too many people in this country feel the same way.

My vote is going for Obama, I don't care if he is black, yellow or red, just so he ain't a damn Republican!!

Where did you get the notion

Submitted by Flapsaddle on September 8, 2008 - 1:45pm.

Where did you get the notion that the Democratic party did not have a strongly racist core in their composition?

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

TJ I agree there is a strong

Submitted by sherry on September 8, 2008 - 3:04pm.

TJ I agree there is a strong core of racism in both parties.
That said, it is over used and over simplifies the reason Obama may not win.
The man has a very thin resume and while he may think community organizing gave him the experience needed for the White House, many disagree.
He not only didn't complete a full term in the senate, he only served a year. Four years ago, this guy was a state senator. His rise just baffles me. It really does.
Rather than talk about his obvious weakness, it is so much easier to pull the race card.
When Bill Clinton was called a racist, that did it. I lost all respect for Obama. He was in over his head and it was the only card he had to play.
Let the dems lose. They put up the weakest candidate they had. They deserve it.

Sherry: It wasn't Obama or

Submitted by Janet on September 8, 2008 - 5:48pm.

Sherry:
It wasn't Obama or the Obama campaign who called Clinton a racist. Get your facts straight and don't penalize Obama for something someone else said. It was the black community in North Carolina after Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. Obama has never, never complained about racism - even while the Hillary campaign was whining about sexism.

Sarah Palin is one scary broad - with extremist views, less experience and no exposure to foreign policy or even the issues of the lower 48. She didn't even know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned. She said they were bloated government entities costing the taxpayers money. I can't even imagine Palin beginning to be able to talk to international world leaders.

As with every good

Submitted by sherry on September 9, 2008 - 8:31am.

As with every good candidate, Obama had his minions to do all the dirty work. Notice your man never refuted that Clinton was a racist.
I rest my case.

Cheer up. For a nice

Submitted by Ardie on September 8, 2008 - 3:03pm.

Cheer up. For a nice treatment of the the recent poll this is an excellent site. Here is an excerpt.

"And yet, when this same poll asked voters whether the Republican convention had made them more or less likely to vote for John McCain, the results were fairly tepid. Just 43 percent responded with "more likely" as compared to 38 percent who said "less likely". That +5 score would make the GOP convention one of the least successful conventions in recent memory, trailing only the 2004 Republican convention which scored at a +3."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I don't think this is about

Submitted by scrugun on September 8, 2008 - 3:13pm.

I don't think this is about race or sex.
A good portion of Obama supporters are mainstream and prefer to use cellphones rather than hardlines.
I'm not sure where or how they get the polling information, I've used a cellphone for 7 years now and have yet to receive a single call from a pollster.

I couldn't believe anyone

Submitted by spartacus on September 8, 2008 - 4:29pm.

I couldn't believe anyone thought of McCain's speech as anything special, because it wasn't. No new ideas; no mention of the economy; no mention of healthcare; no mention of the mortgage crisis; the list goes on. However, he did manage to go on about his wartime experiences and his suffering as a POW, which more than one commentator commended him for opening up more than ever before on. Of course, McCain's been pulling out the POW card every single time: something goes wrong with his campaign; he makes a gaffe; he's asked a tough question; or he's asked something he simply doesn't want to answer. "Just how many houses do you own, Senator?" asked Jay Leno. Of course, the answer was, "well, Jay, for five and a half years, my home was a prison.....". DID ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND THAT HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH WOULDN'T CONTAIN A LONG, DETAILED AND MOVING PORTION ABOUT HIS TIME IN THAT POW CAMP? For goodness sakes! He's been playing it like a harp, and denigrating the experiences of every other POW in the process by cheapening his own experiences for cheap political gain! He had to stand there, hat in hand, and play the hero for all it was worth. UGH!!!!

Palin is a despicable piece of work, a female version of Bush/Cheney. McCain's choice made it clear that his administration would not only be more of the same, but worse.

People don't know what a monster Palin is yet. That hockey mom stuff will only go so far; once they learn what her record is, it'll cause a lot of concern about that ticket. McCain is also benefitting from selling himself as what he USED to be: I can't believe it'll last long. After the last 8 years, and McBush's record of supporting the sorry record of this administration, the afterglow of this primary is bound to end. There are just too many images, and too many quotes that can be pulled from video files, of McCain and Bush, and McCain supporting Bush, for him to get away with this BS forever. People may be stupid, but they aren't totally dumb!

We dems have done it again.

Submitted by drwholt on September 8, 2008 - 8:31pm.

We dems have done it again. The only political party in history that could take a "slam dunk" and turn it into a disaster. But we made history! I will vote for Obama but I believe the tide has turned and we are in for eight more years just like the last but maybe worse. I shudder to think what the Supreme Court is going to look like eight years from now. I am afraid that Janet is dreaming. I supported Hillary-because she had the best chance of winning. The unfortunate fact is that a consequential number of folks are not going to vote for an African-American. I have observed this among a large number of Texas Democrats-to the point that they are actively spreading right wing Obama "facts". I never thought I would see this happen. I want badly to be wrong but the sad truth is Obama is against long odds and they are getting longer as November approaches. Sad but true.

Obama spent so little time

Submitted by sherry on September 9, 2008 - 8:21am.

Obama spent so little time on the national stage. People didn't know him. There is no landmark legislation. There is no outstanding advocacy. No history to say, "look, you know better". No there is a thin resume, a wackadoodle preacher who apparently doesn't like white folk, and he didn't bother to finish his first term in state wide office.
He only got that job because he sued everyone else off the ballot. Since he couldn't do that with HRC, he had his minions calling for her to quit.
The people I talk to don't care about his race or religion. They care about the fact he has zero experience and our nation can't afford him at this time.
My mother has never voted for a republican POTUS in her life, but she will this year. She is a Hillary for McCain supporter. Like mother like daughter :)

Sherry, here are just two of

Submitted by colocritic on September 9, 2008 - 4:06pm.

Sherry, here are just two of many of the bills Obama has written or co-sponsored. These two are certainly very important and I wouldn't say they are not landmark legislation. Go to the website and see what all he has done for our veterans. There is plenty of info out there on the bills he has written or co-sponsored, just take the time to look for them - I found one website that said 37 of them since 2005.

I'd like PROOF from you that he sued everyone else on the ballot.

You keep claiming he has no experience - he has much more than Palin does. She's never written a bill, just signed them after they were written. She doesn't have a law degree from Harvard, the most prestigious school; she has a journalist degree. He graduated in the top of his class - where are her academic achievements? She's had some administrative experience. small town, gov.of small population state. You can't really compare the two, but don't say he has no experience!!!

GREATER FUNDING FOR VETERAN'S HEALTH CARE
As early as February 2005, Senator Obama warned of a shortfall in the VA budget. Four months later, the VA reported that in fact it had more than a $1 billion shortfall. Senator Obama cosponsored a bill that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans' medical care. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama cosponsored measures that would have provided additional funding increases for veterans.

In January 2007, Senator Obama reintroduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.

WASHINGTON – President Bush today signed the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative into law.
These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That’s why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.
By all accounts, it’s been pretty successful so far.

colocritic

Here is your proof, posted

Submitted by sherry on September 10, 2008 - 12:04am.

Here is your proof, posted in Chicago Tribune April 4, 2007 by David Jackson and Ray Long:
CHICAGO - The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckled arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, longshot contender Gha-is Askia, says now that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia asked. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.

“I gave some thought to . . . should people be on the ballot even if they didn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “My conclusion was that if you couldn’t run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be.”

Asked if the district’s primary voters were well served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”

America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago’s 13th Legislative District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.

It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.

In the early 1990s, Chicago’s 13th Legislative District was served in the Illinois Senate by Palmer, who was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when she got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, Palmer supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

“I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

“There was friction about the decision he made,” said City Colleges professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer’s behalf. “There were deep disagreements.”

Had Palmer survived Obama’s challenge, he would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he beat token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete if necessary.

“We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren’t going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody,” Obama said. “I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm.”

And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”

At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.

“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald L. Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant who filed objections to Obama’s rivals as a 13th District citizen.

In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.

While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges."
As for his "legislative" experience. Not exactly sticking out his neck on Vet issues. How about when he promised to filibuster FISA? Not only did he not do that, he voted FOR it. He voted for the Patriot Act. He voted for Cheney's energy bill.
A co sponsorship requires little more than a signature.
Colo, it's great to see you so passionate. You will come to realize it is difficult to defend any of these slimeballs. McCain is a slimeball. I am voting for him because I believe him to be less dangerous than your guy.

Brave Sarah shot a moose,

Submitted by bryan mcclellan on September 9, 2008 - 6:27pm.

Brave Sarah shot a moose, Hillary shipped it to Viet Nam where McCains captors cooked it and fed it to him making him the great warrior poet he is today. NAH,NAH.BLAH,BLAH.

Wheres that confounded bridge?

More than a bullet proof

Submitted by Hoosier_CowBoy on September 9, 2008 - 6:37pm.

More than a bullet proof vest and a brigade of Secret Service Agents, falling behind in the polls is the best protection Senator Obama can have from now until election day.

This is still a Nation with plenty of racist Kooky-pots and its certain that in their demented minds, bagging the first non-white Presidential Candidate would be like downing a prize elk.

They are sick, sick, sick...

The only poll that counts is the one on November 4th, lets hope the Senator from Illinois is around to see it.

Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments

Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name.

Syndicate

User login

Home