PDA

View Full Version : Obama Falls Behind McCain in Swing States


orange
03-19-2008, 03:25 PM
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/145653/053

Survey USA Poll: Big Obama Losses In OH, KY, & MO
by andrewalker08, Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST

SurveyUSA is out with three polls today that shows the first signs of an Obama electoral defeat in November if he should become the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States.

First, Ohio:

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 50%

McCain - 44%

Undecided - 6%


What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 50%

Obama - 43%

Undecided - 7%
Next, Kentucky:
If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 43%

McCain - 53%

Undecided - 4%

What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 64%

Obama - 28%

Undecided - 8%
And finally, Missouri:
If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

Clinton - 46%

McCain - 48%

Undecided - 6%

What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?

McCain - 53%

Obama - 39%

Undecided - 9%
Any thoughts?

orange
03-19-2008, 03:27 PM
Nasty ripples from Pastor Wright.

Donger
03-19-2008, 03:27 PM
The novelty is wearing off?

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 03:27 PM
I don't trust this particular poll as much as I do the trend. Baaarack's support is trending downward while his negatives are trending upward.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 03:29 PM
The novelty is wearing off?

I think not only that but people are getting to know him besides the rhetoric and image and some are not liking what they see. I also think that when the bandwagon was first accepting riders some people had no reason to not support him UNLESS they did their homework. Now, they've been given some reasons...

dirk digler
03-19-2008, 03:39 PM
This isn't surprising I knew this would hurt him the longer it has been talked about. Also McCain is basically getting a free pass because his race has been decided. When the general starts up he will start to get beat up as well. If it wasn't for the Wright story everyone would be talking about McCain clearly not knowing what he was talking about in Iraq this past week. The guy is senile.

Hopefully for Obama this will turn around, I was listening to O'Reilly today and he was basically defending Obama and Mike Huckabee just came out today and supported Obama.

Via Ben Smith: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Huck_defends_Wright.html)An assist from an unexpected quarter: "[Y]ou can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do," Huckabee says. "It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what ... Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable, years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.'"
Later, he defended Wright's anger, too:
"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."

HonestChieffan
03-19-2008, 03:43 PM
Perhaps the voter doesnt feel good about a guy who has now been outed for his bad judgement, attempts to mislead people, and inability to manage tough issues.

No, its the fault of a right wing whiteman conspiracy.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 03:50 PM
Kentucky is not a swing state and Obama hasn't even been there. Putting that aside, cherry-picking polls is fun. According to polls on RCP:

Obama is tied with McCain in Colorado. McCain leads Clinton by 14 in Colorado.

McCain leads Obama by 3 in New Hampshire. McCain leads Clinton by 6 in New Hampshire.

McCain leads Obama by 4 in Florida. McCain leads Clinton by 11 in Florida.

Obama leads McCain by 12 in Connecticut. Clinton leads McCain by 3 in Connecticut.

Sully
03-19-2008, 03:51 PM
I'm not surprised after this last week that he's dropping.
He has plenty of time to work through it and recover, though.
In the end, for the Dems, the alternative is still Hillary.

dirk digler
03-19-2008, 03:53 PM
Perhaps the voter doesnt feel good about a guy who has now been outed for his bad judgement, attempts to mislead people, and inability to manage tough issues.

No, its the fault of a right wing whiteman conspiracy.

I am sure they will like it more when the American public finds out about Cindy McCain stealing money and whoring around for drugs.

beer bacon
03-19-2008, 03:54 PM
I am sure they will like it more when the American public finds out about Cindy McCain stealing money and whoring around for drugs.

Or about McCain cheating on his ex-wife after she became disfigured with the woman that is now his current wife.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 03:54 PM
...McCain is basically getting a free pass because his race has been decided...

Teed up, if anyone wants to take a whack.

dirk digler
03-19-2008, 03:57 PM
Or about McCain cheating on his ex-wife after she became disfigured with the woman that is now his current wife.

LMAO

Total class act McCain is, he fits the Rudy G mold.

Maybe I won't vote for him after all.

penguinz
03-19-2008, 04:02 PM
I think not only that but people are getting to know him besides the rhetoric and image and some are not liking what they see. I also think that when the bandwagon was first accepting riders some people had no reason to not support him UNLESS they did their homework. Now, they've been given some reasons...You are a real nut-job aren't you?

Sully
03-19-2008, 04:04 PM
You are a real nut-job aren't you?

Well... she thinks Obama is speaking in secret code, so....

keg in kc
03-19-2008, 04:05 PM
Perhaps the voter doesnt feel good about a guy who has now been outed for his bad judgement, attempts to mislead people, and inability to manage tough issues.I thought this was about Obama. When did we start talking about the sitting president?

orange
03-19-2008, 04:05 PM
Kentucky is not a swing state and Obama hasn't even been there. Putting that aside, cherry-picking polls is fun. According to polls on RCP:

Obama is tied with McCain in Colorado. McCain leads Clinton by 14 in Colorado.

McCain leads Obama by 3 in New Hampshire. McCain leads Clinton by 6 in New Hampshire.

McCain leads Obama by 4 in Florida. McCain leads Clinton by 11 in Florida.

Obama leads McCain by 12 in Connecticut. Clinton leads McCain by 3 in Connecticut.


You need a reading comprehension or eye test. In Florida, McCain leads CLINTON by 4, and OBAMA by 11.

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton PPP (D) McCain 47, Clinton 43, Und 10 McCain +4
Florida: McCain vs. Obama PPP (D) McCain 50, Obama 39, Und 11 McCain +11


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:12 PM
Had the numbers backwards, but two days ago:

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 40, Und 13 McCain +7
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 43, Und 10 McCain +4

StcChief
03-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Well... she thinks Obama is speaking in secret code, so....
he is and has sucker alot of kids.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 04:14 PM
So the establishment slime machine as done what they could to make sure we don't get an anti-war president. Lay it on thick by the MSM for weeks then send someone out to do a poll. Did anyone really expect anything different? Now we Bush lite or Bush on steroids— a NC election.

orange
03-19-2008, 04:14 PM
Had the numbers backwards, but two days ago:

Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 40, Und 13 McCain +7
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 47, Obama 43, Und 10 McCain +4

Right, and Obama's falling... that's the trend.

And Clinton's rising? +26% in Pennsylvania? :clap:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 04:21 PM
I think it was expected Clinton would win Penn.

jettio
03-19-2008, 04:21 PM
I think you can expect polls taken after the Rev. Wright videos and before yesterday's speech to have lower numbers for Obama.

The polls taken later will be more meaningful if Hillary wants to make a case. Hillary has been on the sidelines during the Rev. Wright dustup.

I think she would beat McCain in a general matchup, this is 2008 with an economy tits up after all, but from watching recent footage of her I think there is a chance that people will be tired of her and that she may lose more ground in the nomination battle before the primaries conclude.

She had a nice scarf on for St. Patrick's Day but she has had a weird look on her face lately. I can't see her being the one to turn the tide by her running around and giving speeches.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:21 PM
Right, and Obama's falling... that's the trend.

And Clinton's rising? +26% in Pennsylvania? :clap:

+12 in one, but clearly that poll doesn't mean as much as the other.

I don't even see the point in rooting for Hillary at this point. She's not going to win the nomination and even if she were in the General, she'd just end up getting slaughtered because she would have torn the party apart in the process. Hillary has absolutely no upside and I will take pleasure in voting for McCain in November if that's the decision I'm confronted with.

Ultra Peanut
03-19-2008, 04:22 PM
the first signs of an Obama electoral defeatLMAO

And Clinton's rising? +26% in Pennsylvania? :clap:Wow, she's still ahead in a state that she would have to verbally insult on television to lose? THIS IS HUGE!

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 04:24 PM
+12 in one, but clearly that poll doesn't mean as much as the other.

I don't even see the point in rooting for Hillary at this point. She's not going to win the nomination and even if she were in the General, she'd just end up getting slaughtered because she would have torn the party apart in the process. Hillary has absolutely no upside and I will take pleasure in voting for McCain in November if that's the decision I'm confronted with.

Can we please raise the voting age to 35?

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:26 PM
Can we please raise the voting age to 35?

Probably the Republican's best hope against Obama.

orange
03-19-2008, 04:26 PM
+12 in one, but clearly that poll doesn't mean as much as the other.

I don't even see the point in rooting for Hillary at this point. She's not going to win the nomination and even if she were in the General, she'd just end up getting slaughtered because she would have torn the party apart in the process. Hillary has absolutely no upside and I will take pleasure in voting for McCain in November if that's the decision I'm confronted with.

And it's comments just like that which have pushed me firmly and decisively into Hillary's camp - because the whole Obama "movement" is a fraud.

You want us out of Iraq - so you're going to vote for a warmonger who's vowed to keep us there 100 years. The same guy who insisted we had to send 500,000 ground troops into Yugoslavia. Mr. "Bomb, Bomb, bomb bomb Iran." The guy who INSISTS for three days running now that Iran is training and supporting Al Quaida in Iraq. Yeah, that makes PERFECT sense.

beer bacon
03-19-2008, 04:31 PM
And it's comments just like that which have pushed me firmly and decisively into Hillary's camp - because the whole Obama "movement" is a fraud.

You want us out of Iraq - so you're going to vote for a warmonger who's vowed to keep us there 100 years. The same guy who insisted we had to send 500,000 ground troops into Yugoslavia. Mr. "Bomb, Bomb, bomb bomb Iran." The guy who INSISTS for three days running now that Iran is training and supporting Al Quaida in Iraq. Yeah, that makes PERFECT sense.

Most people wouldn't vote for McCain. They would just stay at home or vote third party. There are a lot of Obama supporters that aren't coming out to vote for the democratic party.

The biggest reason to vote for Hillary would be because there are two Supreme Court Justices due to retire soon, and I would want a democrat choosing the new ones. I would probably vote for Hillary this election, but I don't think I would be a member of the democratic party any longer. They would not get my default support.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:35 PM
You want us out of Iraq - so you're going to vote for a warmonger who's vowed to keep us there 100 years.

You're the one supporting a candidate who was in favor of the war, not me.

Your stupidity is embodied in the fact that you see Hillary as the foreign policy antithesis of McCain. She's not. Hillary's for whatever is popular until it no longer is. Her candidacy is built on the foundation of hindsight.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 04:35 PM
Right, and Obama's falling... that's the trend.

And Clinton's rising? +26% in Pennsylvania? :clap:


The trend shows that Hillary at her lowest point was 3/2 while Obamessiah's was 3/16. That was before the 'spoken Word' from yesterday. I bet those numbers worsen for HIM.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/031908DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

jettio
03-19-2008, 04:37 PM
Hillary only gets the nomination if she closes the delegate lead and Obama is demonstrably not viable according to polls at nomination time.

I think any scenario that leads to Hillary getting the nomination includes writing on the wall that would make Obama supporters accept it and support Hillary.

I think Obama prevents that from happening and will have better numbers than Hillary by then, but I don't see any chance of Hillary getting the nomination under Machiavellian circumstances.

Ultra Peanut
03-19-2008, 04:37 PM
And it's comments just like that which have pushed me firmly and decisively into Hillary's camp - because the whole Obama "movement" is a fraud.You have woefully misunderstood the entire point, then. The thing that makes Obamania or whatever other cute term so unique is that there's a candidate who's finally managed to bring out the youth and disaffected in incredibly large numbers (in the primaries, no less). He's pulling in people who AREN'T ALREADY PARTY-LINERS. That's what's special about it.

The fact that you can't take their vote for granted regardless of the candidate is exactly why Obama has managed to slay the Clinton dragon. This is a previously apathetic group that finally found someone who actually appeals to them in both policy and posture.

You want us out of Iraq - so you're going to vote for a warmonger who's vowed to keep us there 100 years. No, they're overwhelmingly going to vote for Obama or, in some bizarro-world situation where he's not the nominee, stay home. Those who vote for McCain would be doing so out of bitterness towards the way the Clintons have been running their campaign at every turn. When you've got one side that's so adept at succeeding without coming out and smearing the hell out of the opponent, "that's just politics" isn't a good enough excuse for the people who want a more grown-up process.

But again, you don't have to worry about this previously untapped vein of Saving-the-Democratic-Party's-Ass (the most precious metal of all) staying home or voting for the fifth Beach Boy, because their guy is going to be on the ballot.

orange
03-19-2008, 04:41 PM
Tom Hayden (lifelong anti-war activist; Google him) on Obama's Foreign Policy speech today:

"The only way for peace advocates to really commit themselves to Obama after this speech -- as I do -- is by clinging, first, to the importance he brings to our racial crisis; second, crediting him for an Iraq speech given five years ago, and third, assuming that he's just doing now what he has to do and is open to changing direction later. By the logic underlying Machiavellian politics, even McCain could withdraw from Iraq. We vote our hopes and illusions, and wait. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/nothing-new-in-obamas-ir_b_92418.html

And, I assume you're aware that Rep. Murtha (recent anti-IRAQ-War activist) endorsed Clinton last night?

orange
03-19-2008, 04:44 PM
You have woefully misunderstood the entire point, then. The thing that makes Obamania or whatever other cute term so unique is that there's a candidate who's finally managed to bring out the youth and disaffected in incredibly large numbers (in the primaries, no less). He's pulling in people who AREN'T ALREADY PARTY-LINERS. That's what's special about it.


Utterly self-absorbed and condescending. Most voters - REAL voters, not one-timers - started at 18. Apathy is not due to youth, and it's not a virtue.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 04:49 PM
Utterly self-absorbed and condescending. Most voters - REAL voters, not one-timers - started at 18. Apathy is not due to youth, and it's not a virtue.

Wow, who are you and where the hell have you been the past few months?

:clap:

I'm glad there are finally other Democrat Baracklashers here.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:50 PM
Ah, Obama's voters are 'fake'. I get it now.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 04:52 PM
Ah, Obama's voters are 'fake'. I get it now.

No, HE is fake. YOU have been fooled.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 04:54 PM
YOU are a fool.

orange
03-19-2008, 04:54 PM
Ah, Obama's voters are 'fake'. I get it now.

Just those like you.

Quickly, now. List, say, five points of agreement between Obama's platform that you say you support and McCain's, who you say you'll vote for.

Then try listing five points of DISAGREEMENT between Obama's platform and Clintons.

The number doesn't matter. Pick your own number.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 04:55 PM
YOU are a fool.

Yeah, funny you should say that on this anniversary of all days...

:doh!:

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 05:01 PM
Yeah, funny you should say that on this anniversary of all days...

:doh!:

Yes, the day Obama wasn't a fool and the day Hillary and your boy Edwards were. Don't know why you'd want to bring that up.

orange
03-19-2008, 05:02 PM
Yes, the day Obama wasn't a fool and the day Hillary and your boy Edwards were. Don't know why you'd want to bring that up.

What was your boy McCain's vote on that war again?

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 05:04 PM
Yes, the day Obama wasn't a fool and the day Hillary and your boy Edwards were. Don't know why you'd want to bring that up.

Obama wasn't a fool while in the IL state senate. Big F*cking deal. I was not a fool in Macy's that same day...

you don't see me thinking that makes me qualified to run for POTUS.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 05:10 PM
McCain's not my boy. I will be casting a protest vote and hope for the chance to get to vote for Obama in 2012.

patteeu
03-19-2008, 05:11 PM
I don't trust this particular poll as much as I do the trend. Baaarack's support is trending downward while his negatives are trending upward.

He's not sinking yet, but he's taking on water.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 05:13 PM
Obama wasn't a fool while in the IL state senate. Big F*cking deal. I was not a fool in Macy's that same day...

you don't see me thinking that makes me qualified to run for POTUS.

You're the one who brought it up to 'prove' you're not a fool. Just because it makes your argument look retarded is no reason to downplay it's significance and Obama's foresight. In fact, you applauded him for his opposition to the war and said it'd be the reason you'd vote for him. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter.

memyselfI
03-19-2008, 05:21 PM
You're the one who brought it up to 'prove' you're not a fool. Just because it makes your argument look retarded is no reason to downplay it's significance and Obama's foresight. In fact, you applauded him for his opposition to the war and said it'd be the reason you'd vote for him. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter.

Yes, I appreciated that he opposed it. Then I realized it was when he was in the ILLINOIS state senate and couldn't have voted to support or deny anyway. All of a sudden the 'risk' he took in his opposition was clear as day...

minimal. Like I said, the more I learned about him the less I liked him. And many people don't realize his opposition was basically worthless in it's practical result. A good friend of mine who is one of the most intelligent and politically astute people I've ever known was mistaken in her belief that he was in the US Senate at the time of his opposition. I had to correct her and she was really unwilling to want to believe me until I could prove it. She was tilting to Obamania.

I realized then if someone like her could be mistaken about this then it's a safe assumption that he's getting credit for an opposition that had no bearing on anything and he's done little to correct the record. MOF, he 'mistakenly' stated during one of the most watched tv debates in history he was running for the US Senate when he opposed the war.

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-lied-in-debate.html

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.
And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.

patteeu
03-19-2008, 05:24 PM
You're the one supporting a candidate who was in favor of the war, not me.

Your stupidity is embodied in the fact that you see Hillary as the foreign policy antithesis of McCain. She's not. Hillary's for whatever is popular until it no longer is. Her candidacy is built on the foundation of hindsight.

You're both supporting candidates who supported the war at one point or another. You're both supporting candidates who have, more or less, shaped their messages about the war on political calculation rather than national security.

Obama gave a throw-away speech opposing the war before his position mattered, then after becoming a US senator he took a position that was essentially the same as GWBush's (according to the Senator, himself), and then when the going got tough and the presidential election grew nearer, he completed the flip flop by turning against the war again. If he is fortunate enough to win the election, I have no doubt that he'll magically become a war supporter again.

Hillary supported the war in the face of a lot of liberal democrat opposition thinking that it would help her in the general election, but when the race looked like something less than a cakewalk, she retreated from that position and pandered to her base with sweet promises of cut and run. Of course, if she becomes president, she'll find a reason to continue the war because no president ever created a great legacy by losing a war.

HolmeZz
03-19-2008, 05:38 PM
Yes, I appreciated that he opposed it. Then I realized it was when he was in the ILLINOIS state senate and couldn't have voted to support or deny anyway. All of a sudden the 'risk' he took in his opposition was clear as day...

You didn't take a friggin' risk either and yet that never prevents you from continuing to bring up the fact that you opposed the war.

because no president ever created a great legacy by losing a war.

Says an ardent defender of Bush's legacy. I could've sworn we just went over Reagan pulling out of Lebanon too.

Ultra Peanut
03-19-2008, 07:16 PM
Utterly self-absorbed and condescending. Most voters - REAL voters, not one-timers - started at 18.The contrast between sentence one and sentence two is beautiful.

"Those people who never got involved before because they felt shut out shouldn't stick their noses into MY process! How DARE they become supportive of a member of my party, further enabling its aims to be met! They just don't know what's best for them, so they need to GIT!"

You're the DLC's wet dream. Have fun watching 50+1 die a quick death.

RINGLEADER
03-20-2008, 08:40 AM
At the end of the day the polls mean about as much as who people like more. Seriously, when was the last election where the winner won because people were voting FOR him? 1984 with Reagan and 1960 with Kennedy are the only two instances that come to mind from the last 50 years.