Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

FOX: CO, FL, OH, PA, VA (Rasmussen-9/14)

Topics: PHome

FOX News / Rasmussen
9/14/08; 500 LV, 4.5% (for each state)
Mode: IVR
(source)

Colorado
McCain 48, Obama 46, Nader 3, Barr 1, McKinney 0
(9/7: Obama 49, McCain 46, Barr 2, Nader 0, McKinney 0)

Florida
McCain 49, Obama 44, Barr 2, Nader 2, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 48, Obama 48, Nader 2, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Ohio
McCain 48, Obama 45, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 51, Obama 44, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Pennsylvania
McCain 47, Obama 47, Barr 1, Nader 1
(9/7: Obama 47, McCain 45, Barr 1, Nader 1)

Virginia
McCain 48, Obama 48, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 49, Obama 47, Barr 1, Nader 1, McKinney 0)

 

Comments
marctx:

Obama has a chance in VA, but he will loose the rest of these. PA needs to go yellow.

____________________

boomshak:

Wow, if I am team Obama I can't be liking these numbers. A few things break McCain's way and we could be on the brink of a Republican landslide.

____________________

axt113:

All of these are within the margin of error, and on top of that we've seen that Obama is ahead in PA, and Virginia and Colorado in other polls, so i'd say he'll likely win those three states, Ohio is still in the air, depends on Obama's ground game, florida will be harder and may staty red this year.

____________________

Rippleeffect:

Wow, I was not really expecting CO up by +2 for M

Ohio and Florida was pretty obvious.
Penn is also a surprise.

I'm waiting for Obama supporters to start disregarding Ras now.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Marctx

Paint it crimson red if you want, Obama's still going to win there.

____________________

boomshak:

I mean, with all the attacks 24/7 on Palin and the dicey ads from McCain, he has had a rough week, and yet he just keeps gaining.

____________________

axt113:

No need to disregard, since all the result are statistically insignificant, and three of them are contradicted by other polls, which show an Obama lead in those states

____________________

sjt22:

Each of these polls had a sample of 500 and a MOE of 4.5%. That means that every one is a statistical tie except Florida. Nothing really learned here except that the race is very tight.

____________________

change:

BULL****: Scott Rasmussen is a moron. This Idiot is giving Democrats only a 5 point advantage in party ID. Think about that.. can that be possible with what is expected to be a landslide in congressional election this upcoming year. Rasmussen made this decisions based on emails he was getting from right wing nutbags.

____________________

NW Patrick:

LOL how being TIED in VA with a dem can be good news to Rethuglicans I don't know. As usual, PA will swing dem as it always does. We heard this before about PA with Bush '04. And with all the wonderful news today about the Republican's handling of the economy look for these #'s to move over the coming weeks.

____________________

boomshak:

Here's the numbers with ONLY Obama and McCain and none of the 3rd party nutballs:

All BAD news for Obama:

VA: McCain/Obama Tied (told ya SUSA was BS).
OH: McCain by 7
CO: McCain by 2
PA: Obama by 2 (wow!)
FL: McCain by 5

Brutal results for Obama. NY down to 5 and PA down to 2? Deeeeeyam!

____________________

NW Patrick:

If obama wins VA and holds PA colorado won't matter.

____________________

axt113:

@boomshak, come now you know as well as anyone that state polls lag the national polls, and the nationals show the race becoming a tie once again and Obama gaining, wait a few weeks, we'll see these polls swing back to Obama.

____________________

KipTin:

In all five states McCain has a higher favorable rating and is trusted more than Obama.

Five point swing to McCain in Colorado. Ironically, Obama lost 3 points in Colorado and Nader gained 3.

More voters moved to undecided in Ohio. Up to 30% could change their mind as compared to 20% in the other states. Ohio also has the same day registration/vote issue heading for court.

Pennsylvania and Virginia TIED. Wow.

Florida is McCain's. Obama just could not move those voters even with his large advertising budget there.

____________________

boomshak:

change:

Do you live in a cave? The Genetic Preference for Democrats in Congress is down to 3% according to Gallup.

Geesh, read the news dude.

____________________

freedomreigns:

I bye all of these but Penn. which is good news for McCain in CO but bad news in VA. Frankly, the OH numbers are kind of bad news too.

I'm a believe that Penn has a 4 point barrier that a Republican cannot breach and frankly I don't believe this poll.

Florida is just about done and was never actually as close as it seemed. Turnout might change, but it would have to be gargantuan to overcome the edge of the older community.

Ohio is closer than it was last time by a rather dramatic margin. Frankly, I'd be concerned if I was McCain campaign, but only slightly concerned.

Colorado is a little curious but inside the margin of error so I can bye into it. Colorado is a tie mathematically speaking.

The last two Virginia polls would make me VERY nervous were I the McCain campaign. Unless he can pull Michigan, which I don't believe for the same reason I don't believe Penn., he HAS to win VA.

Florida is pretty much done, but otherwise, it appears to be a tie to me and the trend concerns the McCain campaign. The bounce is VERY slowly fading. Will it continue? Let's see next week.


____________________

boomshak:

Obama being tied with McCain in VA says less about Obama and more about VA. Northern VA's population is exploding and it is mostly a bunch of liberals commuting into DC to work.

Obama hasn't changed, VA has.

____________________

NW Patrick:

yah I beleive PA may be close but it will trend DEM, it always does. In addition, I'd give more clout to the polls that polled 1000 folks vs. 500. Quinnipiac 09/05 - 09/09 1001 LV 48 45 Obama +3
Strategic Vision (R) 09/05 - 09/07 1200 LV 47 45 Obama +2

____________________

faithhopelove:

sjt22:

It is my understanding that the MOE applies to the numbers of both candidates--in which case FL is also within the MOE. The real number in FL may be McCain 44-45%, Obama 48-49%; or McCain may have an even larger lead than right-leaning Rasmussen estimates.

If this understanding is correct, then all of these results show the respective states to be within the margin of error.

____________________

axt113:

Ah poor boomshak, he can feel the tides turning against McCain and he's spinning as he can to try and turn away the fear

____________________

boomshak:

McCain's top line bounce has faded slightly, but the internals to these polls have shifted wildly in favor of McCain.

Perhaps the most important internal of all is that McCain Voters are now MUCH more enthusiastic than Obama supporters.

____________________

Misrule13:

Polling for the main candidates is fine, but look at the above - the pollsters are having real trouble with the third party "nutballs". Nader up three (then down three, then up three...)? You're kidding me. That impacts the other figures significantly.

And you can't just take them out of the mix and look at the headliners - that's just unrealistic.

____________________

zotz:

"The Genetic Preference"????
Who the f*** are you, Dr Mengele?
New Rule!!!
No Nazis here!

____________________

change:

its funny this coming from rasmussen who last week put ohio 51-44 for mccain..lol and had florida tied .. can you say VOLATILE

____________________

KipTin:

RCP has had PA as toss-up since September 7.
------------
Rasmussen: These state results remain consistent with national polling trends as McCain currently holds a slight advantage in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. In fact, current national polling shows a race nearly identical to the final results for Election 2004. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Electoral College map is shaping up to look a lot like the map from four years ago.


____________________

change:

I am just outraged by scott dumbass rasmussen weighting of party ID. Dems by 5 percent is totally ridiculous. This numbskull decided this based on polling during the convention bounce. He has now adjusted all his polling with this flawed party ID weighting.

____________________

freedomreigns:

Change makes a good point. The polling is extremely volatile and any single poll can only be taken with a grain of salt. Even the pollsters themselves admit to having a problem getting a grip on this years race.
The problem is the new registrations, so they say. And Boom, the ratio is only plus there if you DON'T count the new registrations since March. What those numbers reflect is the Republicans who changes to Independent and then switched back. They do not represent new registration numbers. Please give up on that false representation.

____________________

boomshak:

If I were an Obama supporter, this is what would worry me.

The entire MSM has been in full-blown attack mode against McCain/Palin since the convention. They have ignored every negative story about Obama/Biden and written endless nutty stories about McCain/Palin.

They have come out with both six guns blazing and what did they get? 1 point off the national poll with Rasmussen Mccain surging in every single state poll.

Obama is in deep doodoo.

____________________

Bill A:

mm some should read. Every single state here has had an uptick for McCain. There isnt one bit of good news for Obama other than he isnt being blow out... Yet

____________________

KipTin:

2004 Election--
Colorado: Bush +4.7
Florida: Bush +5.0
Ohio: Bush +2.1
Virginia: Bush +8.2
Pennsylvania: Kerry +2.5

I do not understand how Obamanation is so confident that PA will stay blue.


____________________

freedomreigns:

Boom, I'm sorry but "surging"?

Hmm. Let's look at the math:

CO = McCain +1
FL = McCain +1
OH = McCain -3
Penn = 0
VA = McCain -1

I'm sorry, but that isn't a "surge", that is all within the margin of error.

____________________

Bill A:

Should mention. Zogby is saying Nevada will go red. Michigan is a tie right now with McCain and Obama within 2 pts of each other. Minnesota has turned into a battle state with McCain and palin going there soon.

Just saw reports that Dems in Wisconsin are begging for Obama vists as their numbers are starting to downslide there. Wisconsin is getting near tie statis

Obamas does have good news. Iowa is getting bluer every day. He is in double digets there.

____________________

ca-indp:

Nader is going to do to Obama what he did to Gore in 2000. Especially will be true in western states.

Obama going to join other professional Dems LOSERS.

LOL!!!

____________________

macsuk:

I am going to laugh my a#s off when Obama wins in a landslide. 500 hundred LV taken by a wing nut for Farce News. You can always tell when Obama is turning the corner because Rasmussen (Hannity Insanitys) buddy post a surprise poll.

____________________

Uri:

Obama has been advertising nonstop in the Pittsburgh media market which covers eastern OH. The ads are fairly effective, I expect to see a change here. Obama has to be sitting on tons of cash since he was advertising several times during the Steeler's game here, which is the most expensive time.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

If Rasmussen has changed his weighting for party ID in favor of the Republicans and everything has moved slightly toward McCain, it suggests to me that not much has changed.

What will change the game are Palin's and McCain's poor performances this week and the crash on Wall Street.

The polls have been converging toward the middle all week and you'll see them moving toward Obama next week.

____________________

boomshak:

James Carville and Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg regularly conduct the Battleground Survey. It's a national poll, but gives special attention to a pre-selected list of battleground states. Their latest poll confirms what many others are finding: a narrow McCain lead:

The latest events in the presidential campaign have tightened the race dramatically. In Democracy Corps’ latest surveys of 1,000 likely voters nationally and 1,017 likely voters in the presidential battleground states, the vote margin has shifted 7 points towards John McCain nationally and 9 points in the battleground. This swing puts McCain ahead of Barack Obama by 2 points nationally (48 to 46 percent), consistent with the national public polls, and by 1 point in the battleground states (48 to 47 percent).

____________________

carl29:

I'm glad that I was able to express my opinion, which most of you know by now, it is more than slongans and non-sense.

Let's see what my opinion was today at 1:29 p.m, regarding SurveyUsa's Virginia poll:

"So, are you surprise that a poll which had McCain up by 2% at the pick of his bounce, now shows him losing some support? I'm NOT saying that McCain is down precisely by 4%; however, I don't find irrational that he might have lost his previous 2% edge. I don't know, it could be a TIE."

See how a good analysis can be done by putting craziness and passion on the side?

Just as I argued early in the afternoon, polls show that McCain has being losing some ground since last week. The Colorado poll? Remember that Colorado was the stage of the democratic convention, so it would be the last state in which the Obama bounce will fade. I think that now the electorate in Colorado has sobered up from the Democratic convention and McCain's bounce can be seen. Will those numbers be lasting? I don't know, but if Obama lost 3% to Nader, my guess is that those people will come back home soon.

About Florida, all here know that I live in this state, and I have repeatly say that I think that Obama has a real uphill battle in my home state. Remember that this is a southern state, the oldest state in the nation, and the majority of Hispanics are Cubans, who are overwhelmingly Republican. Everything about this state's demographic works against Obama.

About PA, I really need to see other polls from that state. Recently, the only other pollsters polling the state was Quinnipiac, during the high of the Republican convention, from Sept. 5th to Sept. 9th, and showed Obama ahead by 3%. At that same time, Gallup had McCain at his pick, up by 5%. McCain's numbers have changed ever since, slightly down. I personally will take the PA poll with a grain of salt until other pollsters come out confirming or disputing it.

I bet that other pollsters will throw their hats in PA, inspired by this poll numbers. So, soon we will find out. Ohio? I don't know. Who does it come that Obama is gaining ground in Ohio, with a tougher demographics, and losing in PA, Ohio's neighboring state with a more democratic electorate. My gut feeling tells me not to bet the farm on those PA numbers. Time will tell boys and girls.

____________________

Indiana4Obama:

This is almost comical. Rasmussen, at least, is honest with how they've changed the weightings.

There's nothing here that should give comfort to Mccaincient and the Republicans.

The national polls are starting to swing back towards Obama, a trend which should continue. The state polls should be reflecting a Mccaincient ceiling.

If the economy and Wall STreet remain in the tank (and Mccaincient continues to say dumb things like the fundamentals are strong) then there's no reason to think Obama won't pick up a majority of independents.

____________________

KipTin:

I think if you are going to discuss a McCain surge relative to the previous Rasmussen poll you should use the gains/losses of the difference (aka "swing") between McCain and Obama:

Colorado: McCain +5
Florida: McCain +5
Ohio: McCain -4
PA: McCain +2
Virginia: McCain -2

So McCain did "surge" in Colorado and Florida.
McCain lost ground in Ohio (some went to undecided).
And in PA and VA, holding pattern for both.

____________________

boomshak:

Napoleon Complex:

You make an error. You assume that a bad economy favors Obama. It does not.

Human nature tells us that we are less likely to try something new and unproven during times of stress. When the going gets rough, we prefer the devil we know over the devil we don't.

McCain may not be perfect, but we KNOW how he will respond under fire. We don't know how Obama will respond.

Obama would actually have a better chance here if the economy was good.

Also, you better pray that nothing blows up internationally in the next two months. People prefer McCain by over 20 points when it comes to keeping them safe.

Any big international problems and McCain will be unbeatable.

____________________

vandrop:

@ Kiptin
Because Obama (in general) is more popular than Kerry was, yet Kerry still won PA. Logically then, Obama will be more popular in PA than Kerry, and probably win by a larger margin at the time of the election (depending on the next 2 months).


@ boomshak
The so called "nutty" stories include revealing of several untruths issued by the McCain camp. Example: at one rally, they said they received headcount from the fire marshal, and they said the number was 23000. When the fire marshal was questioned, he said he never told them anything like that number, and the actual headcount was more like 8000. In Nevada, Palin held a rally that was hosted in an area that held 3500, when a fellow Republican correspondant boasted a turnout of 10000. The McCain camp wants to paint itself as more popular than it is, which in some ways is justified, but just telling lies is not ok. I guess you think so though.

____________________

boomshak:

Indiana4Obama,

Rasmussen and Gallup have been around +2 to +3 for McCain for 3 days now. DailyKos - a joke. Hotline - bad sample and poll is all over the place.

National polls have McCain pretty much solidly ahead by 2 despite the MSM's best efforts.

____________________

jamesia:

There's not much movement, it looks like. 500 person polls each with 4.5% margins of error... These polls really just average with other polls into what we already know. OH & FL leaning McCain -- CO, VA & PA leaning Obama.

Then again, if we're dismissing Dailykos polls by R2K, maybe we should be dismissing FOX News polls by Rasmussen?

____________________

Reality Check:

PA, MI, WI, and MN are all fool's gold states--sure it looks close now, but in the end they will never go Repub. Ditto for OH/FL never going Dem.

That leaves VA as a must win for Mccain to have ANY chance @ 270 EV and after his continuing post bounce slide shown in those VA polls plus his inferior ground game--his chances seem to be getting pretty grim.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Some initial impressions of these polls:

1) They have samples of only 500 likely voters--relatively small, especially for the large states of FL, PA, and OH. Given their margins of error, they find all of the states in question to be statistical ties.

2) Since last week's polls, they show slight movement toward Obama in VA and slight movement toward McCain in PA. This float within the margin of error is likely nothing more than statistical noise. The PA movement can be explained by right-leaning Rasmussen's McCain-favorable change in party ID weighting, which has taken place since the earlier polls. He appears to factor this number into his state polls. See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology

3) In the three other states, there is more substantial (though not dramatic) movement--toward McCain in FL and CO, and toward Obama in OH. These polls are in line with other recent polls of these states, which have consistently shown McCain ahead in FL, Obama down in OH by 3-4 points, and the two candidates very close in CO.

4) While some commenters have made fun of this observation, the fact is that Rasmussen does not call cell phone only voters, who are disproportionately young and therefore lean Obama (a phone call to Rasmussen has confirmed this); and a non-partisan survey has found that including cell phone only voters may improve Obama's numbers by 2-3%. See:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/901/cell-phones-polling-election-2008

5) Finally, a look at Rasmussen's methodology re: his likely voter screen suggests that he screens out a percentage (if not all) of first-time voters by asking a question about their voting history. Again, this practice will reduce the number of young voters in his sample, which is likely to hurt Obama.

____________________

marctx:

If McCain is within 3 points in PA it will go red. There is a lot of hidden bubba votes in OH & PA. That is why the media and Obama supporters eyes popped out of their head when Clinton beat Obama by ten points after he campaigned there for six weeks and outspent her by 4 to 1. Same thing on Nov. 4th.

____________________

KipTin:

Only Obamanation cares about how many attend a poltical rally. Why they are so focused on "star power" is puzzling to me.

____________________

vandrop:

Oh, and about knowing how he will respond under fire, we know this; all of McCain's Republican chums say he is "hot-headed" (DeLay). So basically, yes, we do know how McCain would react to an attack: he would bomb everything to hell. Wow, what a magnificent person to have as president.

____________________

carl29:

Sorry for Mr.Carville and Mr.Greenberg, but I have a problem with this claim: "Barack Obama and John McCain are now getting roughly 90 percent of voters within their own party." I'm sorry but I have not seen any poll that shows Obama getting 90% of the Democratic vote. Indeed, this is precisely one of Obama's problems, the % of democratic support he's bleeding at this time. So, I really can trust a poll that is descrited by every other poll out there.

In addition, Mr. Carville and Mr. Greenberg claim that Hillary supporters are supporting Obama is greater % than before Palin. Sorry, but again, this "finding" doesn't hold water, compared to every poll out there.

The numbers regarding McCain support seem about right to me, but the "key findings" seem pretty odd.

*Note: The Carville-Greenberg poll was conducted from September 8-10, 2008. During the pick of McCain support.

____________________

zotz:

Rasmussen Ohio

7/21 +10 McCain
8/18 + 5 McCain
9/7 + 7 McCain
9/14 + 3 McCain

Anyone else see a trend. This list can't make the Reps happy. If they say it they are lying!

____________________

Indiana4Obama:

Boom,

Newsweek: Tie
NBC/WSJ: Obama up 1
Hotline: Obama up 1
Research 2000: Obama up 3

Gallup: Mccain up 5 last week, now up 2.

Just a few examples...You quote Rasmussen, I'll quote Research 2000.

Mccain certainly has gained momentum. The question is what happens between now and the election. Another positive is that Obama has critical surrogates in many battleground states: PA (Casey/Rendel), OH (Clinton, Strickland), VA (Warner, Kaine), NM (Richardson, CO (Ritter), MO (Mccaskill)...These folks also will be campaigning hard over the next 2 months.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

I agree that an international incident would help McCain, but you're wrong about the economy. Look at 1992 and 1980 and 1932 as prime examples.

I think the American public is smart enough to realize that trickle-down economics doesn't work. It failed under Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney. They are looking for fundamental change and I think they're just trying figure out if they can trust Obama. McCain has done a good job of keeping him off message, but now that Obama is fighting back his base has been re-energized.

We'll see what happens, there's a long way to go.

____________________

KipTin:

Actually, in Ohio the movement was not necessarily for Obama (+1) but more away from McCain to undecided (+2).

____________________

macsuk:

marctx

Nice......to see your counting on the KKK vote.

____________________

vandrop:

@ KipTin
If McCain cares so little, why lie?

____________________

harschwarz:

These states are volatile according to Rasmusssen. last 2 elections republicans hoped to win PA, MI, WI,came close but failed. A bit of a different map out west though. NM is pretty solid for Obama right now and Nevada is very close . These states have a much larger Hispanic population than in 2004 and that is making a difference. CO remains very competitive for now. rasmussen is not reaching many hispanic voters or voters under 30,many of whom have many more cell phones than in 2004.

____________________

Clint Cooper:

Wow, Fox News sponsored polls taken in the midst of the McCain bounce - if I were Obama I would REALLY be worried!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

____________________

Connor:

boomshak,

"Doodoo"? Along with your "LOLing," I really want to know: how old are you? Should I avoid harsh language here? Are you sure you're old enough to add an "A" to "LMAO"? Maybe you should try "B" for "bum-bum"?

I mean, I hate to tell you all this considering that most of you make it your hobby to decide what's going to happen on Nov. 4 fifty days out, but none of you "know" where the electorate's going to be on that day. Not only that, we don't even "know" what the electorate looks like at this point. That fact along with both Obama's massive voter registration drive and Michigan's voter PURGE effort, mean that these polls can only paint in broad strokes.

By the way, have none of you seen any of the leaked voter registration numbers? Not even the Orlando ones? I'm sure rightwingers like boomboombooty here disregard them, but I guarantee you that the McCain camp isn't.

It's clear that the Obama camp is no longer in "cruise" mode. We know for a fact, with the S.O.S. to the 527s, that they're switching up their strategy. Clearly, they're outside of their comfort zone.

But if a SWING state is bouncing around within 5 points between each candidate, then guess what: you have no idea what's going on. Neither do I. If a MA poll came out tomorrow showing McCain with a 10 pt lead, I'm sure one half of y'all would scream OUTLIER and the other half would pack a couple of confederate flags and book a flight to Boston.

Now, being someone who actually, you know, WORKS in the dreaded MSM, I can tell you that the, ahem, "narrative" is shifting as we speak. The third act of the campaign is just revving up. We saw Obama hit his ceiling a few weeks ago (in regards to the electorate as pollsters now conceive of it). McCain has hit his and is coming back to earth as we speak.

____________________

carl29:

I was looking at the archives of the polls back in 2004. Guess who was winning in PA at this point in 2004? Um...let me give you a clue: Starts with a B and his father was is a former President of the U.S. Ye...Bush!!!

Rasmussen had Bush up by 1% among likely
ABC News had Bush up by 3% among likely
Quinnipiac had Bush up by 4% among likely
Keystone had them tie, but this one was among REGISTERED
Strategic Vision had Bush up by 5% among likely
Mason-Dixon had Kerry up by 1% among likely
ARG had Kerry up by 1% among likely

Don't panic. It seems that Obama is doing just like Kerry or better than Kerry in PA. Who ended up winning? I think it was Kerry.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Looking closer at CO, this comment from Rasmussen raises eyebrows:

"In Colorado, Nader’s support went up three percentage points while Obama’s went down three."

It is doubtful that Nader will win 3% on election day in CO, and most of his support will almost certainly go to Obama. Nader won only 1% of the CO vote in 2004. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CO/

Obama has three campaign stops in two days in CO beginning today. Next Monday's poll of this state may be more telling.

____________________

marctx:

macsuk:

I was quoting what a top democrat was saying. I think his name was Armey or something. That's what he said.

____________________

zen:

Rasmussen poll doesn't include cell phone users. Their mode is automatic dialing system which doesn't allow call the cell phone users (that is illegal)

In primaries, most of the polls, the Rasmussen poll is 4-5 percent less than the result.
you can check NC, IN, OR.

____________________

BOOMISANIDIOT:

U really just are....

Do you have a job dude your always on this site when Im on break...lol

____________________

carl29:

See why I have my reservations about Rasmussen:

"three are very similar to their results from four years ago, Virginia is looking better for the Democrats at the moment, and Pennsylvania is looking better for the Republicans."

The impression one takes away from "Pennsylvania is looking better for the Republicans" is that Obama is not doing as good as Kerry was doing at the time in the race back in 2004. However, if one goes back to the archives, surprise, surprise, all of a sudden, Rasmussen "looking better" doesn't hold water.

In 2004 in PA according to Rasmussen:
Rasmussen | 9/6-9/12 Bush up by 1%
Rasmussen | 9/25-10/1 Bush and Kerry tie
Rasmussen | 10/6-10/12 Kerry up by 1%

Final Result: Kerry up by 2%.
Who was right? Quinnipiac had Kerry up by 2%, SurveyUsa had Kerry up by 2%, ARG had Kerry up by 2%. Right on target.


____________________

faithhopelove:

Rasmussen's PA numbers are curious. He finds McCain beating Obama among independents there by 23 points! In none of the other 4 states does either candidate hold a lead this large among independents. See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fox_rasmussen_polling/fox_rasmussen_swing_state_polling_september_14_2008

In 2004, Kerry won PA independents by 17%. So, this poll suggests that if McCain can pull off a 40-point swing among independents, he may earn a razor-thin victory in PA.

____________________

BOOMISANIDIOT:

Obama is not losing Penn. This race is just like Carter/Reagan 1980. People want what Obamas selling just not sure if he can do it. Soon as He pummels McCain in the debates its going to be over.

Look how close its been in Virginia and Colorado.
If he picks one of those up with New Mexico and Iowa its good game.


____________________

Stuart:

These polls are kind of worthless - why would you bother to sample battleground states with a +/- 4.5% margin of error? Even Florida is within the MOE. All that can be said is "yep - it's close".

That said, in the context of other polls it looks like VA would be easier than OH and FL, and that PA and CO will need to be fought for (from Ob's point of view).

I agree that as a Ob supporter I am not real happy with these numbers.

____________________

boomshak:

"BOOMISANIDIOT:"

Obsess much? lol.

You see, I am so into your head that you feel the need to use my name in your name. I on the other hand, don't care enough about you to even remember who you are.

You don't count.

____________________

boomshak:

Obama is going to lose this thing. You can just feel it.

____________________

Bigmike:

As an almost certain McCain voter I don't see a lot to cheer about here either. Some of the states are moving in the right direction, but not in a big enough way to mean anything. And I know the other side is not sitting on their hands. They are hitting CO hard today.

But what did we expect? Anyone who was paying attention the last two elections knows that neither side has much room for mistakes.

____________________

faithhopelove:

In OH, Rasmussen finds a higher level of uncertainty than in the other states:

"Ohio voters are less certain of their vote than those in other states. Thirty percent (30%) in the Buckeye State say they could change their mind."

See:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fox_rasmussen_polling/fox_rasmussen_swing_state_polling_september_14_2008

____________________

Snowspinner:

Rasmussen has, in general, showed a McCain bump that hasn't been reflected by the other pollsters in the last five days.

It is worth pointing out that the numbers for VA have been very, very good for Obama today, however. And that, for the most part, of the swing states that have flipped blue and red this cycle, Obama just needs to win one to have the election.

____________________

carl29:

See why I have my reservations about Rasmussen:

"three are very similar to their results from four years ago, Virginia is looking better for the Democrats at the moment, and Pennsylvania is looking better for the Republicans."

The impression one takes away from "Pennsylvania is looking better for the Republicans" is that Obama is not doing as good as Kerry was doing at the time in the race back in 2004. However, if one goes back to the archives, surprise, surprise, all of a sudden, Rasmussen "looking better" doesn't hold water.

In 2004 in PA according to Rasmussen:
Rasmussen | 9/6-9/12 Bush up by 1%
Rasmussen | 9/25-10/1 Bush and Kerry tie
Rasmussen | 10/6-10/12 Kerry up by 1%

Final Result: Kerry up by 2%.
Who was right? Quinnipiac had Kerry up by 2%, SurveyUsa had Kerry up by 2%, ARG had Kerry up by 2%. Right on target.

____________________

Snowspinner:

boomshak - I don't tend to base my electoral predictions on feelings. I prefer evidence. The VA polls today are evidence of that state going for Obama. That's the election.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

Nah. McCain threw a Hail Mary to tie the score, but he's left too much time on the clock. He's reeling today, because everyone's comparing him not to Bush -- but to Herbert Hoover. Ouch!

____________________

zen:

The reality is that
you have to add 2-3 percent for Obama in Rasmussen poll which doesn't poll the cell phone users.

My conclusion is coming from the primary polls (May, June 2008)

NC : the poll was 49: 40 (Obama +9)
the result is 56: 42 (Obama +14)
IN : the poll was 41:46 (Obama -5)
the result was 49:51 (obama -2)
Oregon: the Poll was 51:39 (obama +12)
the result was 58:42 (obama +16)

All these results say that 3-5 percent is less favorable for obama. very interesting... but that's exactly showing the cell phone users missing.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snow,

Obama needing just one to flip the election assumes he holds all of the states that went for Kerry. From what I see, it looks like there is a chance for PA, MI, MN, or WA to go from blue to red.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Regarding FL, there was a poll of a red district (Orlando area) that went for Bush both times released today. It finds McCain and Obama tied there. See:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=BA74988225CB425BF548307DB27F6EBB?diaryId=3048

Obama visits FL Friday.

Biden visits PA and OH (2 days) later this week.

____________________

dr_craig:

While I don't have a particular reason to believe that Rasmussen is intentionally biased, as I pointed out yesterday, if he's using a single set of IDs for every state poll, he's potentially seriously biasing results even more than RDD already does. Even if he's adjusting for each state, this is still potentially biasing unless he gets the breakdown exactly right, which he can't possible do. Simple random samples would be better.

In any case, I don't think it's appropriate for him to have McCain/Palin ads on his site - it makes him look biased even if he's trying not to be and raises unnecessary doubt.

____________________

zen:


when the difference is less than 3 percent,
Obama is winning. you can check the primary poll and the results in NC, IN, OR

Rasmussen don't poll the cell phone users. they are automatic dialing system which can't call the cell phone users by law.

____________________

zen:


In case of Rasmussen poll, you have to add 3 percent to Obama. You can check the primary poll and the results in NC, IN, OR

Rasmussen don't poll the cell phone users. they are automatic dialing system which can't call the cell phone users by law.

____________________

Bigmike:

I keep seeing mention on here that cell only people are not polled and pollsters only call land lines. What happened to number portability? Is anyone claiming that the pollsters are purposely biasing their results to exclude cell only users? Is there any proof of this? I don't follow their methods close enough to know that, so maybe someone can help me out.

____________________

dr_craig:

As has been pointed out, these are statistical ties and if the polls are valid, should be regarded as such. One poll from one pollster doesn't make a traditional blue state like PA red any more than an occasional tied poll in VA makes it blue. In my view, many of these polls are really just showing the tight race that most of these states always become. I believe that PA and WA, for example, were Kerry wins by only 3-4 points, so earlier polls showing much larger Obama leads there were probably not that predictive of the eventual outcome. I wish that Rasmussen would make his unadjusted polls readily available.

____________________

boomshak:

You guys do realize that Obama is going to lose this thing right?

Do you really think that a center/right country is going to give absolute, unopposed power to liberals over every branch of our government?

This is the same country who hasn't given a Democrat President more than 50% of the vote in 30 years and only twice in 60 years.

You get that don't you?

____________________

faithhopelove:

zen:

You missed another example of Rasmussen under-estimating Obama's support in the primaries--VA. In VA, Obama polled 8-9 points better than where Rasmussen pegged him. See:
/polls/va/08-va-dem-pres-primary.html

____________________

zen:


Rasmussen is automatic dialing system which can't call the cell phone users by law.
if you can google, you can't find this information easily.

____________________

dr_craig:

At least some pollsters are able to call cell phones. In theory, RDD should call cell phones a proportion of the time, so I'm not sure if they're excluded here or not. I think the bigger issue is whether the likely voter screens are accurately reflecting potential GOTV efforts, particularly so close to the conventions when people are more fired up. I would suggest not relying on LV polls until a couple of weeks before the election, when it will have more relevance, and even then, there is a chance that GOTV will have an effect as it did in 1980.

____________________

boomshak:

So, what happens if gas is $2.50 a gallon by election day? That's where people live.

____________________

Bigmike:

Zen

My understanding is that the old rule that auto dial, or telemarketers in general, can't call cell phones went out the window 2-3 years ago. A cell is like any other phone. If you are on the Do Not Call list, they can't call you. Otherwise, they can. With number portability it had to be that way. I know my work had us put company cell phones on the Do Not Call list for that very purpose.

____________________

zen:

to faithhopelove

Wow, that's good to know. So my conclusion is quite right. we have to add couple of points to Obama in Rasmussen poll.

____________________

Stuart:

CELL PHONES:
Automated pollsters, such as Ras, cannot call cell phone users - it is illegal. The law was put into place so people would not have to pay for answering spam marketeer calls.

Gallup says their national poll does include cell phone users (they don't use automated polling). We don't know if the weighting is correct. Gallup is the only one I know that does specifically say they include cell phones

____________________

dr_craig:

As a general rule, if a poll is unwilling to give you the internals showing breakdown by party, gender, etc. , treat that poll with some skepticism. The most credible polls will also publish the instrument used, showing the exact questions and how the names were cycled, etc.

____________________

dr_craig:

@boomshak

If you think that gas will every again be $2.50 a gallon, I've got a bridge and a plane in Alaska to sell you.

____________________

zen:

To Bigmike

if you have doubt about this matter, you can check yourself. Inqure Rasmussen poll.

But i have told you before that from primary polls, such as NC, IN, OR, VA, Obama was far better than rasmussen polls.
I was wondering myself at that time, then i found out that they don't poll the cell phone users. So this is the proof.

____________________

douglasfactors:

Since the last round of state polls, Rasmussen has adjusted the party weighting from a Democratic advantage of 7.6% to just 5.1%. That may be correct in absolute terms, but it skews the trendlines. If McCain appears to gain a couple points, nothing has really changed. And if the margin holds steady, that means Obama's numbers are improving. With the usual caveats about margin of error, of course.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - There is a chance for all of those, but in the end the fact is that McCain has not led in any of those states in recent polls save for a lone 1 point lead in a Michigan poll. I think McCain's chances of flipping a Kerry state are far more remote than Obama's chance of flipping a Bush state in excess of Iowa and New Mexico.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Bigmike:

When the question about calling cell phones came up here awhile back, one of us called Rasmussen. Rasmussen confirmed that cell phones are not called.

____________________

dr_craig:

@boomshak

I don't know, the Republicans had absolute power for 6 years. We Democrats could do any worse than that.

Besides, you've got a virtual majority on the Supreme Court, so what are you worried about?

____________________

Stuart:

As an Obama supporter I certainly hope for the cell phone + GOTV fairy dust come election day.

But there is no real history to base expectations on, so cannot be incoporated in current estimates (Nate would have done so if he could).

And there is certainly no benefit in becoming over-confident as the result of shakey assumptions.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

Gas will be dirt cheap. Of course, only classic, antique, dated automobiles will run on the stuff, and the stations will be few and far between. My 3 year old and one year old will probably have grandchildren of their own at that time too.

____________________

douglasfactors:

I'm assuming, of course, that true party affiliation numbers didn't shift by 2.5% instantly, as Rasmussen's weighting target did.

____________________

faithhopelove:

dr_craig:

I share your suspicion concerning Rasmussen.

Evidence that Rasmussen is right-leaning:

1) While accurately calling the 2004 presidential election, Rasmussen predicted a Bush win in 2000--by 9 points! See:
http://members.cox.net/fweil/FinalPolls2000.html

2) Rasmussen is a conservative evangelical. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rasmussen

3) Rasmussen's web-site is plastered with McCain ads

4) Rasmussen often partners with FOX news (as in the case of the polls here)

5) Rasmussen chose to run a series of state polls in the middle of McCain's bounce, but ran no state polls during Obama's bounce

6) Rasmussen asks irrelevant questions that seem designed to impugn Obama (for example, his recent poll finding that C. Powell would beat McCain by a larger margin than Obama)

7) Rasmussen's "house effects" are more favorable to McCain than any other pollster

8) Rasmussen has repeatedly polled deep red states in recent days (AK, UT, ID, WY, SD, OK) in which McCain has large and unsurprising leads; he thereby contributes to a narrative that is favorable to McCain, which in turn helps GOP fundraising and GOTV efforts (and may also create a bandwagon effect that attracts independents, who have no party loyalty and are therefore more malleable)

____________________

dr_craig:

@stuart

No there's really no way to know. In close races, as I'm sure - inexplicably - these will be, any number of factors such as GOTV, cell phones, caging, etc. can play a role.

Unfortunately for us, it benefits the Republicans in these tight races when they can target certain areas to try and invalidate votes as has occurred over the last couple of weeks in OH and VA. It's amazing how Republicans are so worried about voter fraud in heavily Democratic areas, but never, for some reason in Republican ones.

____________________

dr_craig:

We also have to keep in mind that on election day, many of those "Nader" votes will become "Obama".

____________________

Ryan in MO:

so, there it is... Rasmussen is garbage.

____________________

zotz:

No discussion here of the Wall St. crash. What is more important the economy or lipstick on a pig? What's more important, your retirement account or Palin's fiesty personality? Does America want another Roosevelt or another Hoover?

To hell with the culture war, IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

You just don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. This is a change election, and all McCain and his advisors can do is use blue smoke and mirrors to distract people from how bad things really are. But it's beginning to bite them in the ass because even Karl Rove has accused them of lying.

Most people had probably never heard of Lehman Brothers before today, but they've sure heard of the Great Depression. Bush's, McCain's and Gramm's fingerprints are all over the conductor's switch because they've been driving the train for eight years now.

As I said earlier, the American public is not as dumb as you think they are. I agree that an international incident will benefit McCain, but that's the only thing that will save him at this point.

____________________

dr_craig:

@douglasfactors

That has been my main criticism of this method, ie, affiliation isn't likely that fluid and can't be estimated accurately. Simple random samples are better and, if large enough, will self correct to a large extent on these things.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

So...... what would it cost to go county by county, in any yellow state, get each counties voter registration database, and send someone door to door, verifying identity, and essentially doing an almost complete poll of every resident in a state, liklihood of them voting, and preferences for voting????

____________________

brambster:

Case in point regarding Rasmussen. In just a 2 week period, they swung their party ID weighting towards Republicans and away from Democrats by about 4 points, first on September 1st, and then on September 14th.

Obviously conventions produce bounces, but Rasmussen's party ID weighting is in fact more predictive than their very small samples are. They are combining two margins of error in one final poll number.

Furthermore, their state-by-state weighting is even more suspect than their national weighting since you are dealing with even smaller numbers for these states. As Charles Franklin showed today in his post, the swing for McCain was much stronger in Red states.

Rasmussen always showed a polling bias. In 2006 across about 2 dozen senate and governors races, they had an average Republican bias of 2.04 points. Then a few weeks ago, and before these big party ID changes, Charles Franklin showed that Rasmussen had the largest house effect with a 2.7 point McCain bias compared to the average.

My guess is that Rasmussen may now have a 4 point McCain bias once all of the dust settles. They may tighten up their numbers for the last few polls before the election since this is what pollsters typically get rated on, but for the time being, Rasmussen is a pollster or propaganda. Their purpose is to diminish the possibility of Democratic wins by making it look like Democrats are losing. If you take Rasmussen out of the polling averages, Obama clearly is ahead right now, and clearly is on the rebound as the McCain convention bounce subsides.

Rasmussen's polls are propaganda.

____________________

dr_craig:

There's a real chance that today will be a big tipping point in the election. Not only did it move the economy back front and center away from this inane Palin dribble, it also was a perfect stage for Biden's speech this morning and the McGaffe and McRetraction on the "economy going okay" thing in Florida.

Another point for Obama to bring up now is that the great Phil Gramm pushed through the legislation that helped bring about today.

____________________

dr_craig:

@ryan in MO

Too much!! And preference would change by the time you were done. Heck, tons of people decide on the way to the booth!!

____________________

Bigmike:

To all,

Thanks for updating me on the cell phone issue.

Bottom line is the race is tight. We knew that.

I agree with Stuart - "And there is certainly no benefit in becoming over-confident as the result of shakey assumptions."

I would extend that to assumptions that are not so shakey. I don't know how long we stay in this evenly divided red/blue stage, but as long as we do I would take nothing for granted.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

Oh, and BTW gas won't be at $2.50 a gallon on election day because, as I said earlier, Bush vetoed Democratic-sponsored legislation to close the Enron loophole. That's why gas is at $4/$5 a gallon today. Look it up.

____________________

Bigmike:

bramster

Did you catch the title of Charles Franklin's article? While technically true that the swing for McCain was stronger in red states, given that the title of the article is "McCain gains not limited to red states," it seems like you are not catching the main point.

What about this statement in the article?

"But now battlegrounds that on balance favor McCain rather than favor Obama as they did before the conventions."

Seems to me that Mr. Franklin did not think he was spreading good news for Obama. Am I getting something wrong here?

____________________

change:

remember in PA voter registration shows 1 million democrats and decline in republican voters, i really don't think mccain can win PA with the kind of turnout anticipated+ dems owning an adavantage in party ID

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - Slate has an interesting article on the red/blue state divide that suggests that, for the most part, the problem will get worse, not better: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/default.aspx

____________________

dr_craig:

Like it or hate it, the GOTV is the linchpin of the Obama strategy this year. He will live or die with it. The number of new Democrat voters is staggering.

____________________

boomshak:

@Napoleon Complex:

When was the last "change" election that we had, do you recall?

2006, right? Democrats swept into power on the promise they would fix the mess Republicans had made. Problems would be solved and bi-partisanship would rein. Remember?

Now 2 years later, the Democrat Lead Congress has an approval rating of 9%, the lowest ever in history. We have double the deficit, foreclosures, bank failures, exploding gas prices, an almost 2% increase un unemployment, rising inflation. All under the Democrats watch. The economy was actually pretty damned good two years ago.

You promised change then and we saw what we got - it changed alright, for the worse! You are promising change again. Why should we expect any difference?

And speaking of the recent bank failures, who has been in charge of the Banking Committee these last 2 years? Democrats.

If the Democrats had spent some time actually watching out for the interest of Americans, maybe they would have passed laws to prevent this abuse by the banks, but instead they spent all of their time on Valerie Plame and playing gotcha politics wth George Bush.

No, the American people have already seen the kind of "change" the Democrats offer. Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me.

____________________

Tom:

The weird thing about all these polls is that they were all done on one night. Polls done on one night tend to be a lot more volitile than polls done over multiple nights, which is what most polsters do. Further, if Rasmussen is using the same voter weights as he does nationally, this will really throw off the individual states. Also, note that Rasmussen has a very pronounced Republican house edge.

Watch the next couple days to see if the Wall Street collapse has an impact on the race. I expect it will, but it won't be as pronounced an effect as was the Mark Foley scandal was in 2006. I do not see any scenario how the Wall Street mess helps McCain significantly.

____________________

boomshak:

The problem with Democrats is they run as moderates to get elected, then govern as liberals. Think I am wrong?

Tell me how many Democrats in 2006 won Republican seats running as liberals?

Then once in office, like Obama, they all votes 96% of the time with the liberal leadership.

Obama is the same old donkey dressed up in a pretty hat. Like a wise man once said, Barack Obama is one of those rare politicians who actually gets smaller the closer you stand.

____________________

serpounce:

"Now 2 years later, the Democrat Lead Congress has an approval rating of 9%, the lowest ever in history."

I've always felt this is a pretty deceptive figure. The generic congressional vote is about +5% Dem, so while people don't like congress, they don't seem to dislike the dems running it.

The "congressional approval" number often seems to simply be a reflection of what people thing about politicians in general.

____________________

macsuk:

Obama is going to win the election, and carry the popular vote by about 2%.When you consider that nearly 20% of the voters say that race plays a big part in their decision, this "my friends" is a blow out. Instead of asking why Obama can not close the deal, you should ask why McCain can not close the deal on a dude who starts 20% behind.

____________________

serpounce:

macsuk,
Race playing a big part in an individual's decision could go either way. Undoubtedly there are some people, myself included (although I wouldn't say it's a "big" part of my decision) who would like to see a black president.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

You never answered my earlier post. Didn't you take Civics in high school? The Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress, but they don't have enough votes to override vetoes or invoke cloture in the Senate.

I just told you that Bush vetoed Democratic-sponsored legislation to close the Enron loophole. The Dems tried to get some controls on the speculation on gasoline, but were thwarted by the oil man in the WH. What do you expect them to do if they don't have enough votes to change anything?

The Democrats haven't had enough power to barely move their agenda forward. Are kidding me? Your cause and effect argument is one the best examples of logical fallacy that I've ever seen!

____________________

carl29:

Thank God that mainstream Americans are not as ideological driven as some people here. Jesus...the name-calling is so childish. As someone who is neither a liberal, what that heck is that?, nor conservative, and that?, I really find the whole ideological war totally non-sense. Actually, people who spend their time putting tags, that they seem offensive I guess, on people rather than discussing the issues look very, very foolish in my eyes. All that ideological discussion sounds like: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....to me, like if they don't have anything to say, but can't stop talking.

____________________

boomshak:

serpounce,

The only thing thinner than Barack Obama's resume is the list of this Democatically Controlled Congresses accomplishments.

And face it, things were pretty good when the Dems took over, now they suck.

Need an example? Nancy Pelosi said before the election "Democrats have a common sense solution for keeping gas prices down..."

Prices have doubled since she said that.

Maybe she was speaking more long term and meant that the Democrats would eventually drive down gas prices by destroying our economy? In that case, I say bravo, well done.

____________________

cmbat:

I'm just going to say this once, and then I'll go back to bashing the McSame lovers on this board.

The reality is this. If the election were held today, it would be a squeaker. Probably Obama by a small margin in the Electoral College. But let's just call it a statistical tie, and a dead heat in the EV.

The problem is, it doesn't really matter what either side says today about McCain kicking Obama's ass or Obama getting the cell phone vote for one simple reason. The election isn't today. This thing could easily still be won by McCain by 5% (52/47) or Obama by 9 (54/45). It will largely come down to the debates. So spare me how MSM has been hard on Palin and she's holding up. The reality is that the bubble is slowly bursting, probably will burst harder, but everyone in the country has basically said, "Let's see them debate," and that's what will decide it. Well, that, and the 527 blitz that will come after the first debate. So don't overanalyze what these polls mean today. We have seven weeks left.

OK, back to the usual. You Republicans are going to get your arses kicked.

____________________

boomshak:

@Napoleon Complex:

If the Democrat Majority had had the will of the American People behind them, they would have easily passed legislation because the Republicans wouldn't dare have opposed truly popular legislation.

The reason they didn't have the will of the American people behind them is they sold us a pig in a poke. The American people thought they were hiring moderates but instead got liberal partisans.

Let me ask you this. The Dems ran on change in 2006. What has changed for the better since then? (And don't say raising the minimum wage which has been prven to cost thousands of low paid workers their jobs and contributed to unemployment).

____________________

boomshak:

The truth is, for all of high high-soounding words and soaring rhetoric, Barack Obama has morphed into a typical politician.

What position that he ran on so fervently in the primaries has he not now changed as he moves to the middle in the general election? Look at his ads attacking John McCain now. Does that look "post-partisan" to you?

This is why in every poll, enthusiasm amongst Barack Supporters has fallen of dramatically.

It's hard to be the Messiah when your desciples find you sleeping with the town whore of political expediency.

____________________

dr_craig:

@boomshak

It is inappropriate to bash congress when every meaningful piece of legislation that might actually benefit the average American is guaranteed to be vetoed by Bush. In 8 years, he's not approved a single piece of legislation to help anyone other than the top 1%. I long ago realized that in abscence of any details, if Bush is for something, it will screw the average American. Let the Dems get to 60 and filibuster/override proof in the senate for 2 years and then criticize them if they don't do anything.

In any case, Phil Gramm pushed through the legislation that created today years ago.

____________________

serpounce:

Boom,
Well you just completely changed the argument... I was simply pointing out the congressional approval number doesn't tell the whole story regarding the public perception of the "Democratically controlled" congress.

Clearly people are upset with congress, but it's not clear that they blame the Dems/ Dem leadership. In fact the generic congressional vote number suggests that they do not.

Regarding the merits of whether the Dem congress has done a good job, in my rather cynical view I'm just happy they haven't done anything terribly counterproductive like the Rep congress did (irresponsible tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts, refusal to do oversight, patriot act, etc. I'm probably the wrong person to defend them though, as I likely disagree with the Dems on about 60% of issues (it's just that I disagree with the Rs on about 80%).

____________________

dr_craig:

@boomshak

As a Marxist, I only wish that your claim that Democrats are liberal was really true. Alas, they are centrist at best and sadly, as much in the pockets of the corporations as the Republicans.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

You obviously don't know how our government works. Have you ever heard of the filibuster? Legislation dies in the Senate if you can't invoke cloture with 60 votes. This includes any legislation the House has already passed. The will of the people has nothing to do with it.

The bubble that burst today started years ago when the Republicans were in control. As much as you would like, you can't paint it any other way. Sorry.

____________________

boomshak:

serpounce,

I agree. The Republican Congress lost their soul and deserved to lose. They allowed themselves to be pussified with the whole "compassionate conservatism" crap.

Any of us who have survived in the world this long know that the only sure way to make sure no one likes you is to want everyone to like you. Republicans decided they wanted to be popular instead of sticking to their principles and it destroyed them. Oh well, Atlas shrugged.

This is part of the appeal of Sarah Palin by the way. The Republican Party has been waiting since Gingrich left for one of our leaders to grow a set, and it took a woman to finally do it.

____________________

boomshak:

@Napoleon Complex:

"The bubble that burst today started years ago when the Republicans were in control. As much as you would like, you can't paint it any other way. Sorry."

No, the laws that lead to the abuse we saw today came into being under Clinton.

My point on the will of the people was that if Republicans felt the will of the people favored the Democrat legislation, they would not have dared filibuster.

Get it?

____________________

voteforamerica:

On the congress discussion:

In June the Senate GOP set the filibuster record.

____________________

dr_craig:

@boomshak

You say that "Like a wise man once said, Barack Obama is one of those rare politicians who actually gets smaller the closer you stand." Who exactly is this great and wise sage?

It seems to me that most Republicans, including John McCain, are small no matter how close or far you stand - they have small minds and short sighted ideas, but, unfortunately, big mouths. It's odd to me that so many of them are so desparate to ensure that no babies are aborted but so unconcerned about creating a healthy and happy world that those babies can grow up in. At the core of every Republican's ideology, it seems, is the notion that "I've got mine so screw you", even when they're Christians (after all, Jesus continually preached to keep everything for yourself).

I've always wondered if you could tell future Republicans and Democrats by watching them in daycare. The kids who hoard all of the toys will probably be the Republicans and the ones who share will be the Democrats.

____________________

carl29:

Do you think that average Americans know how Congress work? Do you really think that Republicans don't understand that they can filibuster as much as they want and no one, outside the beltway and political junkies circles, will even notice? I think guys that you are a little bit "engaged" in politics that you no longer see government in the way "the average Joe" sees it.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

Go read some history. Phil Gramm was the principal architect of this legislation. It was signed by Clinton because there were veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress at the time that they were trying to impeach him for getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

I certainly get the will of the people thing. The problem is, the Republicans' constituency is not the people--its the monied interests and corporations. Go look up the Congressional Record. They filibustered just about anything that would have helped ordinary people and anything that threatened corporate power.

Get it?

____________________

Stillow:

None of these numbers are surprising....I've been saying for two weeks now to watch closely PA.....Palin has strong appeal to Reagan Democrats....and PA is full of them.....PA is definately in play....and I think Palin steals this state for McCain....and without PA....I see no way Obama can win this election.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

Open question to McCain supporters....

Why do you support him? I support Obama. Not because I consider myself a liberal or even a Democrat. My views are more conservative in nature. Although I have never been outside of British NA, (US-Canada), I have always considered myself a worldly person. I am proud of being an American, and truly believe the US is the greatest country in the world. But I think the US could be a greater country. I support Obama because everything about him is what a president should be. McCain is not presidential whatsoever. It has always been my opinion that the greater good of America, is to be a greater partner of the world. I don't see McCain doing anything to redeem the US in the worldview, in fact I see us becoming more of an ugly step-sibling to the world than we already are. I see Sara Palin compounding that even more. You have realize that the chances of her having to take over duties as Commander in Chief are much greater than chances of her staying VP. Last fall, I was very interested in the Unity 08 campaign. They decided, of all the candidates that Obama was the unifier we needed. I also seriously would have supported Colbert as not falling into partisan divides and making this nation better. While there are other candidates to vote for, none of them are abouot unity of any type. They all have their own agendas. I just cannot understand how McCain-Palin can have any type of positive, non-partisan support and agenda. I have watched Obama take the high-road, and McCain claim to want to take the high-road, and then decide to jump down into s*** creek. The Obama campaign's vision has been our nation, our people all along. McCain has been bash Obama, bash Obama, and fabricate pure and utter lies. In these respects, I am not proud to be an American, in fact I despise being an American when personal and party agendas and lies become the rule. I truly cannot see anything positive out of a President McCain. What I see is all hell breaking lose with that outcome, both domestically and internationally. Somebody please tell me something that will be positive for our land and our people with President McCain, because I've watched the rally's, read the websites, researched the candidates, and I can't find it.

____________________

serpounce:

"This is part of the appeal of Sarah Palin by the way. The Republican Party has been waiting since Gingrich left for one of our leaders to grow a set, and it took a woman to finally do it."

Really??? I'm completely not getting this Sarah Palin thing. I also hadn't really thought of Republicans as in need of "grow[ing] a set," the Dems are certainly in need of some balls, but Rs seem to have plenty of nutage to go around, just not always the sense to go with it. That's why I liked Romney for the Republican candidates, that guy has some brains as well as balls... Palin? I have yet to be convinced, but keep an open mind.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

BTW, Napoleon Complex is my snarky tribute to John (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran) McCain who is a classic example of this personality defect.

____________________

tjampel:

@ KipTin:

"Only Obamanation cares about how many attend a poltical rally. Why they are so focused on "star power" is puzzling to me."

Most of your analysis is intelligent and I enjoy it and even learn from it. This statement, however, is so incredibly stupid I just wanted you to see it again.

Think for a second. Who's the one who cared so much about having people think that his crowds were massive that he'd have his people lie--- twice? Was that an Obama obsessed with star power? I thought not.

In fact it seems that McCain and his campaign who are obsessed with appearing to have newfound "star power" and attracting large crowds.

The statements by the Mccain campaign were pure unadulterated lies in two ways. Firstly they lied about consulting authorities regarding crowd size, and secondly they just made up a vastly inflated crowd size themselves without attempting to properly estimate it. That's proven by their estimating a crowd more than twice the capacity of one of the venues.

As for Obama, calling out a rival campaign on truthiness issues is a no-brainer and totally proper. McCain should do it every time Obama's people lie and distort. You should applaud it because we don't need this kind of S--t in our campaigns at any level.

For me the McCain campaign, by trying to get away with baldfaced lies and then criticizing the other side for calling them out when they got caught red-handed is the epitome of dishonor.


____________________

macsuk:

serpounce your an idiot

Do you read the news?? This lady is the most dishonest politition since Bush McCain.

____________________

Stillow:

@serpounce

As you put it, Gingrich was not afraid to say he was conservatve....and he won huge majorities in Congress because of it. Bush tuned his back on it and became a big g'ment spender, like a liberal. Palin is a breath of fresh air to the party who is seeking conservative leadership once again....Palin isn't backing down......she inspires....and the GOP love her and so do Reagan Dems....and that's why states like MI and PA are now neck and neck when no one thought they'd even be close prior to the Palin pick.

____________________

Stillow:

PA shoul dbe yellow on the map, its been trending Mccain and now its tied....it should be yellow....I think pollster is hesitant to do that because the Obama supporters on here will go into shock to see another state they thought was solid blue go yellow........its comin baby....PA goes to McCain....and he can thank Sarah Palin.

____________________

dr_craig:

@stillow

If MI and PA have learned to love and accept their higher than average unemployment, I'll agree that Palin is the one for them.

____________________

marctx:

Liberals don't see the writing on the wall. There is no way Obama will win this election. The democrats and the elite media are acting crazy and trying to spread lies and distortions to try to change the momentum. You can't show McCain supporting regulation of wallstreet then say 5 min later that McCain opposes regulation??? Voters are listening and we are not as stupid as Obama thinks we are.

____________________

zotz:

Tom-
"Further, if Rasmussen is using the same voter weights as he does nationally, this will really throw off the individual states."

No Tom, they don't do that. Dems have a 12% advantage over Reps in PA. If Ras used the national voter weights that would make the poll invalid.

____________________

slinky:

Hewlett Packard just announced it is laying off 24,600 worldwide.

If the Repubs. think they will bring the world prosperity (in my lifetime), they should think again.

Hoover didn't get it; neither does McCain. Talking up the economy and saying it's 'resilient' is Repub. BS.

Great for people with jobs; not good when you don't have one.

6% of houses are at or near default.

6%!

____________________

carl29:

Dear Stillow here are some numbers from back in 2004 in PA, remember that back then there was no Palin on the picture.

At this exact time in September, 2004 in PA:

Rasmussen had Bush up by 1% among likely
ABC News had Bush up by 3% among likely
Quinnipiac had Bush up by 4% among likely
Keystone had them tie, but this one was among REGISTERED
Strategic Vision had Bush up by 5% among likely
Mason-Dixon had Kerry up by 1% among likely
ARG had Kerry up by 1% among likely

I really don't see how can this poll showing McCain and Obama tie at this time makes the argument in favor of the Republican ticket any better than it was 4 years ago, when Bush was leading Kerry by 1% according with this same pollster, Rasmussen.

____________________

dr_craig:

Hilarious! Grampy still can't draw crowds without Sarah. Now who's the celebrity?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mccain-palin.html

____________________

Stillow:

@dr_craig:

Good point, but you forget both states have been run by Dems for a long time, espeically MI....and they have run that state into the ground....they may be getting tried of Dems....

____________________

Stillow:

@carl29

Bush was way more popular in 2004 than he is now...Obama should be running away with PA...and its tied....the Palin affect is not only stopping the bleeding but giving momentum to the McCain team.....you can deny it all you want, Obama should be running away with this thing and its neck and neck...not a good sign for Obama at all.

____________________

carl29:

At this exact time in September, 2004 in PA:

Rasmussen had Bush up by 1% among likely
ABC News had Bush up by 3% among likely
Quinnipiac had Bush up by 4% among likely
Keystone had them tie, but this one was among REGISTERED
Strategic Vision had Bush up by 5% among likely
Mason-Dixon had Kerry up by 1% among likely
ARG had Kerry up by 1% among likely

I really don't see how can this poll showing McCain and Obama tie at this time makes the argument in favor of the Republican ticket any better than it was 4 years ago, when Bush was leading Kerry by 1% according with this same pollster, Rasmussen.


____________________

serpounce:

I still think McCain winning PA is a long shot. I think he can force Obama to sink A LOT of money into PA, but I doubt he can win it. What group of people who voted for Kerry is going to vote for McCain? It's going to be close, and it's possible McCain will win, but I think very unlikely.

____________________

carl29:

"Obama should be running away with PA" Why? Because you say so?

"Obama should be running away with this thing" Again, according to whom?

Whenever you bring up an argument, please attach the facts; otherwise, they are just opinions, and I don't argue other people's opinions. I live in a Democracy and understand that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

____________________

marctx:

The "bitter" American gun and religion clingers are not going to vote for Obama.

____________________

Stillow:

@carl29

No not because I say so, because of common sense. You have the most unpopular president since Jimmy Carter...you you have the Dems poised for huge gains in Congress...., the act this race is ties in PA is huge...McCain is ahead in hte popular vote right now....states like PA, MI and WI everyone thought would be way out of reach for McCain...ever sinc ehte Palin pick Mccain is getting stronger.....you dems are taking those Reagan democrats in states like PA for granted this time....Palin energies them....So ya, Obama hsould be running away with this thing in PA...its about to turn yellow....I'd be nervous too if I were an Obama suporter.

____________________

marctx:

Do you liberals even know or care that one of the born alive survivors was on Hanity tonight. Obama voted to kill her. Do you even care?

____________________

Sergei Groinka:

Time to poll MN, WI and MI.

____________________

zotz:

Stillow-
The race is tied and the economy is tanking. People are getting laid off. 401Ks are threatened. You sound like you are whistling past the graveyard.

The Reagan Dems of PA didn't like Kerry either. He still won the state. This is a contest between fear and hope. The more fear there is the better Obama's chances. McCain's claim to be the change candidate with 95% voting agreement with Bush and a campaign staff full of lobbyists is nothing more than a bad joke. But then McCain is known for bad jokes.

____________________

carl29:

Again, "you you have the Dems poised for huge gains in Congress" any facts please? If I am not mistaken, people opinions on who should control congress have shifted pretty dramactly. I don't know if you remember, but a couple of months ago it was the democrats ahead by 12% or 15%. Now it is down to less than 5%. Please, whenever you claim X or Y or Z, attach the facts; otherwise, I will take it as pure opinion, to which you are totally entitled.

"states like PA, MI and WI everyone thought would be way out of reach for McCain" Again who are everyone? If I am not mistaken, the talk since the primaries has been that Obama has a PA problem, based on Hillary's primary victory. So, again, please, opinions or facts?

Since I don't see the demographics in this poll, I can't tell what % of "Reagan Democrats" are for McCain in this particular state, if you have that data please share it with me; however, I can tell you that Bush got 15% of the democratic vote in PA back in 2004. Could those people be "Reagan Democrats"? No idea my friend, but they surely didn't seem to mind supporting the Republican candidate.

In this Rasmussen poll in PA, McCain is getting 15% of Democratic vote, just like Bush in 2004; however, there are also some Obamacans as well. Obama is getting 14% of the Republican vote, compared to 11% for Kerry in 2004.

____________________

slinky:

I agree with the McCainiacs that it doesn't make any sense that Obama is not hugely ahead.

I can only attribute it to racism and slime.

There is simply no other explanation.

Americans must be dopes.

America is collapsing, and these dopes are not voting for Obama cuz he's 'black'.

They must be complete idiots.

There's simply no other explanation.

No one believes that McCain or Palin even understand derivatives, specialists, audit problems, cooked books etc. They simply don't have the intelligence.

Glad to offend alot of the Republi-nerds on this board!

I don't think you're very smart either!

____________________

Stillow:

@zotz

Fear vs. hope is just mumbo jumbo. This is a classic election between a tax and spend liberal...a big g'ment entitlement guy who has nearly a trillion dollars in new spending he wants....and a small maverick conservative guy who wants less g'ment and lower taxes...and who for his entire career has voted against wasteful spending like earmarks. This is why Obama will lose. I know you lefties hate to hear it, bt I will say it again....the people even in hard times and slow economy simply do not want there lvies run by the g'ment....After the election...and your side files all there normal lawsuits claiming you were cheated, etc....and the dust settles, you will once again have a far left liberal canidate who lost.....in 1992 you finally figured it out that you need a moderate to win or a conservative....yet you keep nominating liberals....and ya still can't figure out why you keep losing....so keep talking smooth rhetoric about hope and fear....it won't work.

____________________

Stillow:

@slinky

It has nothing to do with skin color....Obama cannot pull ahead because common sense tells people when the economy goes thru a slow phase you don't raise g'ment spending by nearly a trillion dollars and also raise taxes.....that would lead to more severe problems....right now is a time for fiscal conservatism, reduce taxes and slash spending....why on Earth you lefties think you can tax and spend your way out of a slowdown is beyond all logic. The people need there money right now...not the g'ment...after Bush's big g'ment liberal spending binge....its time to return to some fiscan restraint and stop all the crappy spenidng and start cutting g'ment dependence programs...............increasing spending by a trillion dollars while your running a 500 billion deficite is a recipe for major disaster. Unfortuantely for Obama, the people are not stupid.....

____________________

slinky:

You don't know anything about Hoover, who thought your prescription was just the thing to stem the recession that became the great Depression.

Oy, are we in for it!

____________________

voteforamerica:

The model on this site, 538.com and VoteForAmerica.net all use local regression. Local regression relies on past data to calculate a trend. Right now the most recent past data that is still given reasonable weight are polls that reflect the McCain convention bounce. The problem is that there are no Obama convention bounce polls to counterbalance this effect because none were taken.

Everything seems to be aligning with the debates.

____________________

Stillow:

Its like I am talking to a brick wall....the people are not falling for the Obama spin....sorry, but people realize doubling the size of g'ment, increasing the tax burden is not the answer....why are you guys on the left so eager to have your lives run by the g'ment....are your lives so meaningless that you have nothing else to look forward to except getting your orders from the g'ment....which doctor you can see and when.....taking your money because they can spend it more wisely than you.....liberalism is rampent in Europe and wha tdo they have to show for it? Double digit unemployment!!!! And no ability to defend themselves against aggressors with out our assistance. Ifyou like liberalism, move to Europe and good luck finding work over there with the high unemployment.

____________________

Robi:

Stillow:

Alan Greenspan himself has said that McCain's tax cuts are horrible for the economy. This is the same guy who wrote a book that McCain has still yet to read.

Are you really going to tell me that McCain, who relies on Greenspan and constantly talks about him as a mentor, is going to help the economy when the same guy says that McCain's tax plan will hurt America even more?

Come on. Greenspan knows better than you I think.

____________________

Robi:

The book comment was referencing the fact that McCain, when saying he didn't know much about the economy mentioned Greenspan's book as what would help educate him about the economy.

____________________

Robi:

Here's an op ed (unedited) that I submitted to my college's paper. JOE BIDEN IS COMING TO MY COLLEGE FOR A RALLY WEDNESDAY!! WOO!!!!


The Failures of the American Electoral Process

It has been almost two years since the presidential race began its marathon of campaigning and the race is finally coming into the sprinting phase of the election. The race has taken many twists and turns and surprises such as the Democratic ticket in fierce contention between the first African American (although I also like to point out that the man is also half-white) and the first Woman. The race also took a surprising turn when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as the Republican vice president. The pick was surprising for many reasons. First and foremost, she’s a woman on the Republican ticket. The second biggest surprise in the decision was that I had never heard about her and, because I follow the race very closely, I thought I had at least a list of four potential candidates of which one had to have been chosen. But maybe the most surprising and also the absolutely most horrifying surprise was that Palin is the least experienced and least knowledgeable person on the most important issues of the presidency: foreign policy and the national economy.
Palin’s political credentials are as follows: She was the mayor of Wasilla; population of approximately 6300 from 1996 until 2002 and then became governor of Alaska in December of 2006. The only uncontested political stances I could find (because the earmarks reform and lobbyist reform is in much contention and for good reason) was that she has an incredibly extreme anti-abortion stance in which she believes that, not only should every kind of abortion not be practiced, but pregnancies that were the result of rape and/or incest should not result in a choice for abortion as well. Sarah Palin’s religious views are also quite extreme. She believes in creationism (world is 6000 years old) and also believes that it should be taught in public schools right alongside evolution. She also believes that sex education should teach abstinence-only education (a method that has shown not to work in preventing pregnancy and STDs and is showing its ineffectiveness in the form of Palin’s oldest daughter). My assessment of Sarah Palin is as follows: considering the fact that John McCain is 72, has had bouts with skin cancer, and, when looking at the actuary tables, has a 1/3 chance of dying in his first term as president, Sarah Palin as the next in line scares the living hell out of me.
I tried to make logic of McCain’s decision. This is a man who said in January that, when picking his VP, would pick someone with experience and knowledge about foreign policy to help combat terrorism. Does Sarah Palin match the criteria in McCain’s statement? Absolutely not. I thought, “surely any informed Republican would be furious at this choice,” but the talking heads on the news stations tried everything they could to talk about how Palin was the “perfect pick” and McCain “Hit it out of the park” all the while I’m shouting at my TV “Are you F-ing serious?!” It was only Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy when, off air, stated their disbelief about the Palin pick. Noonan called it “political bull s***” about narrative and Mike Murphy chimed in talking about how the pick was going against McCain’s greatest strength which was “no cynicism.” Vindication at last!
But this was off the air. The public was not meant to hear their comments (thank god for youtube). Why is it that the Republican talking heads are paranoid to concede any ground at all especially when the subject is about something as important as the vice presidency? I was then reminded of something John Stewart said in 2004 on crossfire. He said that what the media does is not honest debate, it is political theatre. Four years later, this crap was still going on. But our problem is worse than that. FOX news and conservative radio shows are convincing their listeners that any questioning about Sarah Palin’s qualifications as vice president if the result of the left-wing media conspiracy. What’s even worse is that a lot of people are buying into it. Of course there are crazy conspiracy theorists talking about Palin’s fifth child not being her own, but there are also real arguments such as the fact that she has no issue stance on foreign policy or the national economy on any third party fact checking website. I have had many a headache about these problems but perhaps the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was the first part of Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson and more specifically the questions about foreign policy.
When asked if she agreed with the Bush doctrine, she paused, leaned back, put her hands together and asked, “In what respect Charlie?” Strike one. Gibson stuttered a little in what I could imagine was disbelief and realized that talking to Palin was no longer about her stance on the policy, but if she even knew what it was. Gibson continued, “What do you attribute it to be?” In which Palin responded quickly “his world view?” Strike two. The desperation on her face was apparent. Her second attempt had the tone and look of “oh god please let me be right” but unfortunately she wasn’t. Gibson was in no mood to be merciful and clarified what he was referencing without actually giving away what the policy was, “The Bush doctrine, enunciated in 2002 before the Iraq war.” Like a professor giving a clue to a struggling student, Gibson had given her a clue about the policy referring to Iraq. Palin then did what I have sometimes been guilty of doing in intro to IR exams: making a broad statement about what you do know and hope that what you have mentioned addresses some of the question that was asked. She made a general statement about Bush’s commitment to fight Islamic extremists. Strike three. The professor had heard enough and finally let the student off the hook, Gibson explained that the Bush doctrine was the policy that the US could launch a pre-emptive attack on a state if there was an imminent threat of an attack. Palin, being finally able to comment on the policy, essentially told Gibson that she agreed with the Bush doctrine. What was only one minute and ten seconds must have felt like an eternity for Palin. Seeing this part of the interview made me think two things immediately: first of all, Sarah Palin doesn’t know the most basic and important policy that was created by her party leader and which was the key argument for the US to invade Iraq. Second of all, I know more about foreign policy and international relations than Sarah Palin (yes there is a facebook group and yes I did join it).
I thought to myself, “Surely nobody could say this was a good part of the interview. That, when asked about the most basic policy, Sarah Palin failed miserably to give an answer.” It turns out I was wrong. FOX news had Rudy Giuliani claiming that she did know what the Bush doctrine was and the talking heads felt inclined to agree. FOX was one thing but then I turned to CNN. There I found David Gergen talking about how it’s not fair to ask her about the Bush doctrine because journalists and the media don’t refer to it as the Bush doctrine. Afraid of being accused of being part of the leftist propaganda machine, the other CNN anchors tended to agree with Candy Crowley summing up the consensus of the commentators at the station claiming that it didn’t matter because the average American didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was so Palin shouldn’t be held to a higher standard. This story highlights the failures of the American electoral process as we know it.
The office of the president of the United States is perhaps one of the most complex and sophisticated jobs in the entire world yet part of every campaign’s platform is that the candidate is just your average American. But do you really want John Doe who works in the coal mines running your country? The president needs to be educated and well informed about the world and how it works as well as understanding that having Georgia join NATO and thus having the US obligated to attack Russia is a bad thing to do. Since when did being well educated become a negative? The McCain campaign has reinforced the idea of “I’m a good old fashioned American and you’re not” as reason why to vote for them with the Palin pick. McCain’s answer to any flaw in his policy appears to be that he was once a POW, but when the deficit increases and the American dollar continues to reach record inflation, yelling at the world markets that you were once a POW won’t help the situation. Americans are no longer talking about what both sides truly want to do. Both sides might understand their own candidate’s policies, but doesn’t understand their opponent’s policies. Candidates are being accused of not being able to use a computer or wanting to teach sex to kindergarten children instead of talking about how one candidate believes in the ability of diplomatic pressure through economic pressures whereas the other believes in diplomatic pressure through the threat of military force. What is truly saddening is not just the absolute lack of knowledge about campaign policies, but rather the knowledge of fundamentals such as the US constitution. This country was founded on the principle that people would vote on which candidate shared most of their stances on issues. But it is not possible that the founding fathers could ever fathom that such a wonderful system could get so twisted and distorted that people would vote for someone because they’re a “Hockey Mom.” It is when we don’t educate ourselves appropriately about politics and our country as well as when we only get our information from what is rightly described as political “Theatre” that we do our country a disservice as well as desecrate the symbol of our citizenship. We should all hold ourselves as well as our candidates to a higher standard.

____________________

ritwingr:

If you believe in Marxism and misery spread equally, vote Obama.

If you believe in an eviscerated military, vote Obama.

If you believe in the Owellianly entitled "Fairness Doctrine, designed to silence the last voice of opposition to socialism in our country - talk radio - vote for Obama.

If you truly believe we can power our economy on windmills and solar panels, and that coal, oil and nuclear power are just palin icky, vote Obama.

If you are an adherent of the fanatical religion known as Globalwarmingism and immune to facts that disprove your faith, vote Obama.

If you drool and foam at the mouth with hatred for those who've made something of themseves because you haven't, and it makes you feel good to bring them down, vote Obama.

If you want to get rid of secret ballots for union certification and give union boss goons control over our economy, driving what's left of our industrial base overseas, vote Obama.

If you think the 2nd Amendment is a nuisance but see "pnumbras" and "emanations" in the Constitution that give a woman the right to kill her baby, vote Obama.

If you think the Weather Underground was just plain peachy, vote Obama.

If you DON'T think these things, but don't much care for liberty, either, vote McStain.

If, however, you believe in capitalism, liberty, the 2nd Amendment, and a limited, Constitutional government that does just a few things, none of which involve stealing from Peter to pay Paul...

VOTE LIBERTARIAN

____________________

Snowspinner:

Robi - You're at Wooster?

____________________

ritwingr:

OBAMA: Chump Change We Can Believe In!

____________________

zotz:

Stillow-
Estimates are that Iraq will cost over $2 TRILLION. McCain not only voted for it he wants to spend more on it while spending on the US infrastructure is labled as "wasteful". Education spending is wasteful because we don't want "elitists" telling people what to do. So the logical result of this thinking is Palin who thinks being able to see Russia from Alaska qualifies as foreign policy experience. BTW I once visited Mexico City. I suppose that qualifies me as an expert on NAFTA! That makes as much sense as what McCain and Palin said. You don't even read these posts Stillow you just regurgitate the same right wing tripe without thinking over and over again.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Welcome back. When you're done with dogmatism, I had an unanswered point last night about the fact that freedom is more than the negative freedom from interference - there is also the notion of positive freedom whereby one is free to do things - a freedom that is heavily constrained by conditions like poverty.

On a fundamental level, a child who has a single parent working two jobs that barely put food on the table - that child is not free to do the same things you are or I am. Especially in your ideal view, when that child has no access to public education and is very probably illiterate, unable to do basic math, etc.

That child is not free.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this issue. Hopefully you won't blow me off in favor of low-hanging fruit again.

____________________

Robi:

snowspinner:

Yeah.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Robi - Cool.

(Class of '03)

____________________

slinky:

It's alright. The US will have to declare Chapter 11 before 2010, so it doesn't matter. The hole the Repubs have dug is so deep that we couldn't get out if we made a full-spirited try.

New Zealand is starting to look pretty good...

____________________

Robi:

awesome. I'm 09.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Robi - Fantastic. How's IS going? What're you working on? :)

____________________

Stillow:

@Robi

Is that the same Greenspan who printed so much paper money in his time that it devalue dour dollar the way it is now? That guy was a fool, he lowered rates way to low, pumped trillion of dollars into the system and left us with a devalued dollar.....part of this mess we have now was his fault...he put way to much paper money in the system......way to much.

@zotz

I read all you post...its just typical left wing nonsense.....wanting us all to accept that g'ment knows better for us...they will take care of us....they will save us....more taxes is good, more spending is good, more dependency is good....the g'ment failed torun social security and medicare, both will be bankrupt without a slash in benefits or a massive tax increase.....so they have proven they cannot run these things and you guys wanna hand them healthcare....they cannot run education....I agree with Reagan, abolish the dept. of education because its a joke. They are more intrested in installing transgender restrooms than teaching math. We graduate the dumbest kids on the planet, but hey, they sure know how to put a condom on right? The liberal idology is so backward its funny. Just willingly give up your freedoms in exchange for g'ment dependency.....this country was not made great relying on the g'ment to do things for you. Look where Bush's spending has gotten us? And you want more? Its insanity. I'm tellin ya, there is a reason you guys cannot win national elections....most people simply do not want to give up there lvies to g'ment ownership.

____________________

Robi:

Well IS is tough. I'm a poli sci IR major and my adviser is professor Lantis. I am working on looking at the past 20 years of US China and Taiwan relations and how they have changed and why. Thesis is something along the lines of: During the Clinton administration, US Taiwan relations strengthened and after 9/11 with Bush, relations lessened due to the economic interdependence between the US and China.

Neo-realism will probably be best when explaining the change in relations between the 3 states. That's a very short explanation and it's limited my time to post here (grrr). What major were you?

____________________

ritwingr:

My god, Snow are you really that simple? I'll type this slowly so you can understand.

Freedom is always "freedom from." Why? Because others have freedom to; and there is no freedom that requires the initiation of force against another.

Example: You have (or SHOULD have) the freedom to pursue whatever health care you wish. But you do NOT have the "freedom" to acquire it AT THE COST OF THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS. Health care doesn't grow on trees. To say that you have the right to health care is to say that you have the right to compel others to provide it. You have no such right!

If a loved one is gravely ill, I may, of my own volition, provide whatever assistance I choose. If YOU were gravely ill, I'd just as soon you succumb to whatever ailment you have.

Clear enough?

____________________

Robi:

Stillow:

And your candidate thinks he's one of the best to go to...so I guess lose-lose for you. Either McCain is getting advice from someone who sucks at the economy (which isn't correct at all and it would take a really really long time to explain that to you) or Greenspan knows what he's talking about and McCain is going to hurt America.

So which is it?

____________________

zotz:

Stillow-
you keep talking about Bush as if I voted for him and you didn't. It makes me question whether you are in touch with reality or not.
MCCAIN IS BUSH except more so. McCain has shown that he has no principles. He will embrace the religious right even though he depises them. He even will go along with torture even though he has more reason to be against it than anyone else.

HE ONLY CARES ABOUT POWER, just like Bush. He will tell any lie, do anything if it would help him get elected. McCain is a man without principles or honor.

____________________

slinky:

It's that McCain doesn't know **** and Greenspan fxxed up too! They're both conservative mofo's that don't understand rule 1 of economics.

Rule 1 is that, in the real world, orderly markets do not exist without regulation.

____________________

slinky:

Rule 2 is that accounting firms that lie have accountants in them that go to jail,

and Rule 3 is that accounting rules are effectively government regs.

Here's how stupid the dopes on this board are: They don't know that all the accountants in the US got together during the last term of Bush, and they couldn't agree to rules! Did you know that?

They couldn't agree to uniform accounting standards, so they decided to agree to disagree!

A whole profession that needs to be disciplined!

It's deja vu all over again.

____________________

ritwingr:

Slinky: screw New Zealand. Costa Rica is where it's at. I now have two properties there and plan to retire there in about 15 years.

Taxes are low, low, low and government interference is almost nil in any aspect of your life.

You would be AMAZED at how many Americans have property there...and the number is soaring. Those of us who've earned a bit aren't going to sit idly by and let it all get stolen.

Check it out.

____________________

Robi:

I recommend everybody read "The War Within" By Woodward. It's incredibly revealing and informative.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Ritwingr - So you completely reject the concept of positive freedom? Western philosophy and political thought leaves off in the 18th century for you?

The appeal of negative freedom, of course, is that you get to resolve it without difficulty. The catch-all "you have no right to initiate force against another" serves well.

Of course, that's convenient only if you're willing to adopt a completely outcome-blind approach.

I didn't bring health care into it. Again - in this case that you seem intent on causing. What freedoms does someone with no ability to read, write, or perform simple math have? What can they do? In what meaningful sense are they free?

I mean, in your worldview, there is next to no credible opportunity for advancement for someone born into a situation like the one I described. That person has no significant chance of having any earning power. They have no meaningful chance of obtaining any ability to have basic positive freedoms.

Your worldview says that such a person, by the accident of their birth, deserves what they get.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Robi - I was English. I worked on Kant's idea of the sublime and its appearance (or lack thereof) in contemporary literary forms.

____________________

From "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig von Mises. Sound like some people here?

--------

From the very beginnings of the socialist movement and the endeavors to revive the interventionist policies of the precapitalistic ages, both socialism and interventionism were utterly discredited in the eyes of those conversant with economic theory. But the ideas of the immense majority of ignorant people exclusively driven by the most powerful human passions of envy and hatred.

The social philosophy of the Enlightenment that paved the way for the realization of the liberal program—economic freedom, consummated in the market economy (capitalism), and its constitutional corallary, representative government—did not suggest the annihilation of the three old powers: the monarchy, the aristocracy and the churches. The European liberals aimed at the substitution of the parliamentary monarchy for royal absolutism, not at the establishment of republican government. They wanted to abolish the privileges of the aristocrats, but not to deprive them of their titles, their escutcheons, and their estates. They were eager to grant to everybody freedom of conscience and to put an end to the persecution of dissenters and heretics, but they were anxious to give to all churches and denominations perfect freedom in the pursuit of their spiritual objectives. Thus the three great powers of the ancien régime were preserved. One might have expected that princes, aristocrats and clergymen who indefatigably professed their conservatism would be prepared to oppose the socialist attack upon the essentials of Western civilization. After all, the harbingers of socialism did not shrink from disclosing that under socialist totalitarianism no room would be left for what they called the remnants of tyranny, privilege, and superstition.

However, even with these privileged groups resentment and envy were more intense than cool reasoning. They virtually joined hands with the socialists disregarding the fact that socialism aimed also at the confiscation of their holdings and that there cannot be any religious freedom under a totalitarian system. The Hohenzollern in Germany inaugurated a policy that an American observer called mon­archical socialism.* The autocratic Romanovs of Russia toyed with labor unionism as a weapon to fight the “bourgeois” endeavors to establish representative government.** In every European country the aristocrats were virtually cooperating with the enemies of capitalism. Everywhere eminent theologians tried to discredit the free enterprise system and thus, by implication, to support either socialism or radical interventionism. Some of the outstanding leaders of present-day Protestantism—Barth and Brunner in Switzerland, Niebuhr and Tillich in the United States, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple—openly condemn capitalism and even charge the alleged failures of cap­italism with the responsibility for all the excesses of Russian Bolshevism.

One may wonder whether Sir William Harcourt was right when, more than sixty years ago, he proclaimed: We are all socialists now. But today governments, political parties, teachers and writers, militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy and praising the alleged benefits of state omnipotence. The rising generation is brought up in an environment that is engrossed in socialist ideas.

The influence of the prosocialist ideology comes to light in the way in which public opinion, almost without any exception, explains the reasons that induce people to join the socialist or communist parties. In dealing with domestic politics, one assumes that, “naturally and necessarily,” those who are not rich favor the radical programs—planning, socialism, communism—while only the rich have reason to vote for the preservation of the market economy. This assumption takes for granted the fundamental socialist idea that the economic interests of the masses are hurt by the operation of capitalism for the sole benefit of the “exploiters” and that socialism will improve the common man’s standard of living.

However, people do not ask for socialism because they know that socialism will improve their conditions, and they do not reject capitalism because they know that it is a system prejudicial to their interests. They are socialists because they believe that socialism will improve their conditions, and they hate capitalism because they believe that it harms them. They are socialists because they are blinded by envy and ignorance. They stubbornly refuse to study economics and spurn the economists’ devastating critique of the socialist plans because, in their eyes, economics, being an abstract theory, is simply nonsense. They pretend to trust only in experience. But they no less stubbornly refuse to take cognizance of the undeniable facts of experience, viz., that the common man’s standard of living is incomparably higher in capitalistic America than in the socialist paradise of the Soviets....

____________________

ritwingr:

Snow:

I don't speak that sort of language. Everyone "deserves" what he gets in a free, value-for-value exchange.

Whether those who cannot exchange enough value to sustain themselves "deserve" to be sustained by the fruits of the labors of others is entirely for those others to decide: not for you to decide for me or me for you.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Are there any credible Austrian school economists still working? I thought even the UChicago conservatives had given up on the Austrians by now.

____________________

ritwingr:

Oh, and yes, in case you haven't figured out, I utterly reject positivism.

____________________

ritwingr:

Snow:

Thousands. More importantly, every one of them is right.

____________________

Robi:

Well this was fun but time to get back to IS reading...fun fun....

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Rejecting positivism is about as interesting or unusual as rejecting flying spaghetti monsterism.

Seriously. The Austrian school? Next you'll start citing Ayn Rand as a major or credible philosopher.

____________________

ritwingr:

Snow: Does it bother you to be a walking cliche?

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Thousands? Baloney.

Let's go for this - who are the five most prominent Austrian school economists working in the US today?

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Walking cliche? Oh come on. I don't think there's a proper cliche template for a PhD student studying media theory.

____________________

ritwingr:

I like Hoppe best. Salerno is very good, too. And of course Lew Rockwell does some great stuff, though I disagree with him in lots of areas.

Of course, most Austrians, like the economist of the Fortune 100 firm I last worked with, are not public figures.

Oh, and you really disply nothing but ignorance when you deny the almost unparalled achievements of Ayn Rand. Only the Bible has influenced more people. Rand, though, had the advantage of being largely correct.

____________________

ritwingr:

"Media theory?" Good lord. No wonder you have contempt for economists who emphasize actual value.

____________________

change:

hey everyone discredits daily kos but their party id weighting makes alot more sense to me. and they just give you the numbers, they dont b.s you with shyt like "those who drink beer favor mccain, and those who drink whine favor obama" - trying to pin the elitists label on him. this was in a Rassmuesson poll i saw.

____________________

saywhat90:

earmarks are not the problem and they are not a bad thing in most cases. it is not wrong for a senate or house member to want to push an agenada for his at times if the earmark is for a good reason or cause. and earmark are not the cause of the economics problems of today. finally john mccain has not reformed the congress while he was in it for 26 years. and do you honestly think that he will force a dem congress with a more powerful majority to change the way thigs are done in washington. state and federal politics are two different entities. you honestly think mccain wil veto something with earmarks if it has legislation he favors. it would be the easiest way to kill any policy he wants to push through congress. plus the fact of the matter hes not really pushing reform. hard to believe him when he sounds like bush in 2000 when he gave his i willl cross party line and his uniter and not the divider speech. hard to believe him when suddenly decided that the bush tax cuts are a good thing.hard to believe when he is using rovian tactics that were used against him in 2000 primaries. so wheres the reform. he hasnt given one single real issue of reform since he said he would reform washington. earmarks do not count because they are not the reason for troubles in the economy.even wiht the market crisis of today he said he would regulate the corporations but never said how. funny he didnt seem to concerned about regulation in the senate. so once again where is the reform really i mean show me in his issues where he is shaking up washington.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Your preferred school of economics's best examples are from UNV-Vegas and Pace? Jeez. There's academic prestige for you.

As for media theory, they pay me. For a free marketer like you, doesn't that mean it has inherent value?

As for Rand, all righty. Let's have ourselves some fun.

1) Explain Rand's objection to Kant in a way that actually demonstrates the slightest understanding of what Kant said.

2) What is the underlying justification on which Objectivist epistemology rests?

3) Without resort to phenomenology, how do you solve Hume's objection to causality?

____________________

player:

The electoral college is very sound. It lets every state be represented. If it was by popular vote only, the 15 smaller states would be left out of the process. Oh and by the way, watch out for the sodomites.

____________________

JimGray:

I dunno what all this fuss is about.
Rasmussen + Fox?
This is definately a Rep. leaning poll. Of course the numbers are going to be slanted. As much as one by CNN + Newsweek would be the other way.

I still say Colbert for president.

____________________

joydivision8:

McCain also ate several chicken sandwiches during the 2000 campaign, as mentioned previously.

____________________

favrejet2008:

Mcc had a town hall meeting in Orlando Fl. yesterday (my home state). He said, not to worry about the economy, the "fundamentals" are sound. He clarified that to mean that Americans are great entrepreneurs. So that means if your employer decides to send your job out of the country (based on deregulation, which was a Republican creation, btw) to make more money for himself, dont worry, you can make your own job. Shades of "Roger and Me." If Mcc does get elected, people, you are on your own.

____________________

boomshak:

@dr_craig

You really are making this too easy.

You said. "I've always wondered if you could tell future Republicans and Democrats by watching them in daycare. The kids who hoard all of the toys will probably be the Republicans and the ones who share will be the Democrats."

Did you happen to see the news about the release of Joe Biden's tax records?

USAToday said this:

"Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

Meanwhile, we get this about John McCain:

"McCain and his wife reported donating $129,390, or about 18%, of their joint income to charity in 2006 and nearly $211,000, or about 27%, last year. McCain's campaign says he donates royalties from his five books to charity, as well as each increase to his Senate salary since he first took office in 1991."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-18-mccain-taxes_N.htm

Embarrassed yet?

____________________

boomshak:

And that Conservative Blog, The Huffington Post, has this about Barack Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama released seven years of prior tax return documents on Tuesday. And a review of the records reveals several newsworthy, albeit minor, disclosures.

"Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent)."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on_n_93353.html

So Barack Obama and Joe Biden, great champions of the poor and downtrodden, gave dramatically less than the national average in charitable contributions.

During this same time, Barack Obama was buying a $1.5 million house.

I think the facts speak for themselves.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

I would be donating 18% too if I thought the fundamentals of our economy was sound while the stock market was crashing.

____________________

boomshak:

Barack Obama talks like a moderate, but has governed like a liberal. Barack Obama says he has compassion for the poor, yet gave little to charity (he didn't even tithe 10%!). Barack Obama promised he would take public financing, then said no when he thought it suited him. Barack Obama was for immediate withdrawal from Iraq until the primaries were over, now he says it depends on the conditions on the ground (same as Bush).

Yes, Barack Obama really is the "change" candidate.

____________________

boomshak:

Barack Obama says "words matter". Yep they do, and that's his problem.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

The banking sector is crashing due to abuse and a lack of regulation.

Who has been in charge of the Senate Banking Committee for the last two years? How was banking doing 2 years ago? How is it doing now?

____________________

thoughtful:

Good Morning

I thought I'd let everybody else sound off.

Obama is ahead in the Kerry States +NM; CO; IA; and VA on my polling. But there is a lot of churn. Nevada is too close to call.

2 Saturdays ago, I wrote that the timings of the Ras State battleground polls released on the Monday immediately following the Republican convention were designed to help give the McCain/Palin, the appearance of BIG MOMENTUM.

This was and is part of a sophisticated multi facteted or strand strategy to present the McCain/Palin ticket in best light. This obviously includes the "grooming" of Sarah Palin, right down to what I thought was a bizarre 2 days of filmed interviews by ABC Charlie Gibson fed to all of MSM for example. This is what I call make believe journalism.

One suspects that due to the disparity of the Gallup tracking poll and the Rasmussen, converstaions were had as to how to get the Rasmussen poll in line with the Gallup bounce, and prolonging BIG MO, after all a bounce isn't a game changer.

The Right Wing Propagandists are trying to sell Sarah Palin as the game changer, as they know as I do McCain at 72 is just as unelectable as Barrack Obama is because he's black. She undoubtedly has ralled the die hard base and therefore with a poll that works rigidly on ID weighting which has now in 2 weeks yielded a net 5.7% swing from Democrat to republican can only be treated for what it is.

It simply, in my professional opinion, overstates the McCain total and understates the Obama totals by a minimum differential of 4% on the weighting alone which is within the MOE!

____________________

thoughtful:


Colorado
McCain 46, Obama 48, Nader 3, Barr 1, McKinney 0
(9/7: Obama 49, McCain 46, Barr 2, Nader 0, McKinney 0)

Florida
McCain 45, Obama 47, Barr 2, Nader 2, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 48, Obama 48, Nader 2, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Ohio
McCain 46, Obama 47, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 51, Obama 44, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Pennsylvania
McCain 45, Obama 49, Barr 1, Nader 1
(9/7: Obama 47, McCain 45, Barr 1, Nader 1)

Virginia
McCain 46, Obama 50, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 49, Obama 47, Barr 1, Nader 1, McKinney 0)

____________________

boomshak:

thoughtful,

I thought hallucenogenic drugs were illegal in America?

Or maybe you just went to the "I'll randomly add 4% to my guys numbers so it looks like he is winning" school of statistics?

"Self-delusion" is not a destination.

____________________

H2OPlus:

We're experiencing McCain's high tide. The selection of Palin is his Pickett's Charge; something that looks great but will be shown unsound as the battle intensifies.

There are two troubling signs:

First, McCain is riding Palin's skirt-tails. His crowd draws return to mediocre when she's not with him, indicating he still has negatives. The real question is whether Obama can regain control of the message and return focus to McCain (rather than Palin)?

Second, McCain's camp does not deem Palin ready for prime-time political interviews. This isn't because she can't handle them - she expresses herself extremely well. It is because her intrinsic message may be too right-wing for middle America (i.e. coercing women to give birth to their rapists' children, taking whatever earmarks she could get). The real question here is how long will the press allow McCain to keep her under wraps?

The selection of Palin was only the culmination of McCain's drift to the extreme right since 2006. As moderates begin to see McCain as he is now rather than as he was in 2000 and begin to see Palin as an extremist, polls will drift back to Obama.


____________________

boomshak:

@H2O,

Obama has the entire MSM giving him a 24/7 BJ while McCain/Palin gets a colonoscopy with a 2x4.

And still, the Messiah is losing to an old man and a moose-hunting hockey mom.

____________________

boomshak:

To quote Shakespeare:

"the (gray) lady doth protest too much"

-Hamlet

____________________

saywhat90:

@boomshak

so you must be the gray lady. becuase you do as much protesting as anyone on here. and i am so sick of this false charge that the msm is in the tank for obama.they have questioned every thing that obama has done and at the same time said that the mccain strategy is brilliant.

____________________

boomshak:

@saywhat90:

Can I visit your alternate universe sometime?

NYTimes Sunday - over 6000 words attacking Sarah Palin, 0 words attacking Barack Obama.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along..."

____________________

vmval1:

Why is PA still light blue??

____________________

vmval1:

@Boomshak

Do you consider Fox MSM?


____________________

thoughtful:

@Boom

Its not that McCain has gained ground, its that Rasmussen has altered his model so that McCain appears to gain ground and Obama loses ground.

I can only tell it the way the methodology is and condition the numbers in a consistent method thereafter.

Indeed my conditional Rasmussen numbers above are in the trend line with all the other recent state polling save for the changed ID weighted Rasmussen numbers published today!

That is because Rasmussen numbers seem to indicate a further shift to McCain in the last 7 days.

Rasmussen is the only Pollster reporting that. We know that he can only do that because he has changed the ID weighting of his polls.

OK he can claim he is still in the 4.5% MOE!

You are able to see just how that ID weighting adjustment feeds through to these States polls from last week to this weeks polling.

As a Consequence, we are not comparing like for like with how Rasmussen is now modeling his poll one week to the next, are we?

So its not that McCain has gained ground, its that Rasmussen has altered his model so that McCain appears to gain ground and Obama loses ground.

____________________

boomshak:

@vmval1:

When I watch FoxNews, on every single issue they present someone on the right and someone on the left. Can anyone tell me I am wrong on that?

Then I watch CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, etc and I see "Expert Panels" that are made up 100% of liberal Democrats or maybe a moderate Republican thrown in occasionally for the appearance of balance.

So no, I do not consider FoxNews part of the MSM.

____________________

boomshak:

"Hey big boy, what's that BULGE in your InTrade?"

McCain enjoys a 6 point lead on InTrade this morning. I think the smell a good day for McCain.

____________________

vmval1:

@ Boom

What's the link for the InTrade?

____________________

boomshak:

@vmval

Intrade probably doesn't mean that much but it's fun to watch when there are no new polls to obsess over :)

____________________

Viciousfishnet:

At the dutch Binnenhof Stock Exchange Obama is still favoured at 56 against 43 for McCain. (http://www.binnenhofsx.nl/)

____________________

vmval1:

It'll be interesting to see how McCain does on the morning shows. Buzz words this morning will be 'fundamentally sound economy' What was he thinking...

____________________

Tybo:

thoughtful wrote:
Its not that McCain has gained ground, its that Rasmussen has altered his model so that McCain appears to gain ground and Obama loses ground.

..

you do know that polls are showing that republican registration has gone up, while democratic reg. has dropped?

____________________

thoughtful:

Tybo

I am a very simple person.

Last Monday the 8th Rasmussen reported 5 states.

Yesterday the 15th Rasmussen reported the same
5 states,

He changed his ID model reducing both the Democrat and Independent weighting and increasing the Republican weighting.

Against the 8th of September Polls this obviously has the effect of McCain appearing to gain ground and Obama losing ground.

If McCain gets given 1 and Obama loses 1 then thats a movement of 2.

Tell me why you don't agree with my statement above?

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughtful

"I am a very simple person."

First time I have ever agreed with you on anything - jk :)

____________________

Tybo:

thoughtful, you're looking for an excuse for Obama's drop that does invovle "obama dropped"

If there are more republicans now, and less democrats, then rasmussen did the correct thing.

it's that's simple.

obama has dropped.
every poll shows it

____________________

vmval1:

@Tybo

Doesn't your statement hold true only if the repub to dem registration ratio has held constant over the week between polls.

Given the level of Palin mania, you have to admit that a spike in repub. registration numbers is not entirely out of the question.

Whether it holds or not is another question.

____________________

thirdparty:

Oh, it's a FOX Rasmussen poll. Obviously it's biased towards the Republicans. I mean, same logic as saying that the Daily Kos Research 2000 polls are biased towards the Democrats. O'Reilly must be massaging the figures!!!!! ZOMG!!!!!

____________________

boomshak:

Ok, let's have some fun today. I think everyone would agree with me that neither candidate is perfect.

So here's the question:

"What is your #1 complaint about your favorite candidate?"

I'll start.

John McCain wants so badly to be liked by everyone, including the left. He needs to state his positions unapologetically and stand by them.

The only way to make sure no one likes you is to try and make everyone like you. You will seem wishy-washy to half the people and like a panderer to the rest.

Even God said, "I would rather you be hot or cold, for if you are luke-warm, I will spit you out of my mouth..."

John needs to grow a set politically. His addition of Sarah Palin helped with that and I believe that is at least partly responsible for his surge since she joined the ticket.

____________________

vmval1:

sorry that last post was for thoughtful not Tybo

____________________

Tybo:

vmvali, I completely agree.
If it holds, it's valid. If not Rasmussen should revamp their ratio's.

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

The problem with the DailyKos poll isn't just DailyKos, it's how the poll is structured. They are only polling about 350 people per day and their sample overweights Democrats.

It's just a bad poll and with only 350 people per day, has no business calling itself a "tracking poll" alongside Rasmussen and Gallup who each poll over 1000 per day.

____________________

vmval1:

Anyone know when the next bunch of swing state polls are being released? I am getting withdrawal symptoms.

This election is severely decreasing my productivity at work.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

McCain's increase in popularity is a result of selecting Palin. It would be difficult to argue otherwise. The Palin effect is not rocket science.

People like people that resemble themselves. Sarah and Todd are just like the majority of voters. They've lived the everyday American experience from high school sweethearts to public education to rasing a family and making a living.

Sarah's saw the same concerns in government that bother most Americans. She thought she could make a difference, took a risk, and succeeded.

The liberal elite marginalize people like us. If we don't have an ivy league education, we're inferior to them.

Obama is just another member of the liberal elite masquerading as Cinderella. He may have had humble beginnings, but he is far removed from his roots today.

Sarah Palin is every average American's hope for that "one of us" finally represents the rest of us.

____________________

slinky:

(1) Americans are complete idiots; the economy is failing.

(2) The economy is failing because of Republican policies.

(3) The solution to the failing economy is Democratic policies.

(4) The Democrats are losing.

(5) The only possible excuse for the Democrats losing is that the people are idiots.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

(6) One must conclude the idiots are losing.

____________________

vmval1:

@Slinky

Nobody is winning or losing anything at this stage. There are 50 days to go and the thing is on a razors edge.

Regardless of who wins, half the country are idiots. We'll work out which half at some point next year.

____________________

boomshak:

slinky,

You brought it up so I will ask:

I am sure you would agree with em that at the heart of our financial crisis is the bursting of the housing bubble.

- Please list for me which "REPUBLICAN POLICIES" resulted in that?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Also, keep in mind that the Democrats have been in charge of the law-making bodies of American politics for the last 2 years and did nothing, as far as I can tell, to head these problems off.

As a matter of fact, Obama received almost 3 times as many contributions from members of Lehman as McCain did.

One last question. During the last two years, which did the Democrat Congress spend more time on, 1) The Valerie Plame Affair, or 2) Reforming the Banking Industry?

Too bad "banking abuse" wasn't as important as "steroid use in baseball", or the dems would have solved this problem a year ago.

____________________

Fueled by a surge of support from white voters, Republican Sen. John McCain has narrowed a 10-point gap and now trails Democratic Sen. Barack Obama 48 - 45 percent among New Jersey likely voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1213

____________________

boomshak:

Consider this before you criticize the "Bush Economy":

The Bush Economy has withstood:
1) 9/11
2) Multiple Huge Natural Disasters
3) Threat of Terrorism
4) 2 Major Wars
5) Collapse of the Housing Bubble
6) Implosion of Wall Street Banking

...and our GDP last quarter? +3.3%. Still no recession - actually, not even close.

The Clinton Economy had NONE of these exposures listed above and yet plummetted into full-blown recession just from the bursting of the dot.com bubble.

Instead of cursing Bush for this bad economy, we should praise him for an economy that was not only wide, but deep enough to withstand multiple devastating body blows without even going into recession.

____________________

Florida Voter:

Such a small sample and a large margin of error. Not surprised at all on the numbers. Being in Florida, the spread there seems too big. Lots of local polls make the race more of a deadheat. The debates will be fun and the outcome will be close in November.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Boomshak:

I suppose it would be the same republican policies that caused:

1. The collapse of the World Trade Center
2. Hurricane Katrina
3. The levies in Louisiana to break
4. The Russian agression in Georgia
5. The recent train crash in California

____________________

vmval1:

@Boom

The Financial Crisis was set in motion once sub prime loans were rolled out en masse (approximately 2002). Once these were in the system, there was absolutely nothing anyone could have done about it.

However, the crisis was in the making for the first 5 years of B42's administration, and the lack of foresight by them was stunning. When the Dems came into power in 06' the crisis had already started, and was at a stage where nothing could have been done to prevent it.


____________________

vmval1:

B43

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Florida Voter:

Please name a local poll that shows a deadheat in Florida. Palm Beach Post?

____________________

boomshak:

There is an old expression:

"The past is prologue..."

Or in other words, you can tell what someone will do by what they have done. That is why we have such things as credit scores.

In the primaries, Obama built an early lead but then barely limped across the finish line, losing by large double-digits to Hillary.

Now, the Obama faithful see Obama in a rough spot and are expecting him to surge into the finish. But that isn't what Obama does. He is all smoke and not much fire.

The Democrat Primaries were proof that as the finish-line approached, people choose substance over style. All the polls are telling us the same thing. People believe John McCain has the substance over Obama by double-dgits.

The past is prologue. Obama has already lost because he failed to build a big enough lead to coast to the finish.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

vmval1:

You give a pass to the the dem congress for doing nothing in 2 years?

B43 was blamed for not fixing FEMA in 2 days.

You dems spend more time blaming and deflecting blame than doing anything else.

____________________

boomshak:

@Never

The mantra of the Left is this:

"Don't believe what we have done, believe in what we will do..."

____________________

vmval1:

@ Boom

not a dem :D

____________________

vmval1:

that was mean to be @Never...

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

boomshak:

Agreed. BTY, who gets the credit for homeland security's handling of the last two hurricanes to hit the Gulf? The dems, of course.

Dem strategy: take credit for the good--lay blame for the bad--DO nothing.

____________________

thoughtful:

Our country stands on the brink of economic collapse.

We have 2 wars currently ongoing, and implicitly a 3rd one in the offing against Iran and worsening relations with the Russians.

Our long time friends and allies in the world, in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and the Far East have largely been alienated.

We are the only industrialized country in the world still practising capital punishment.

We have the highest crime rate and murder rate in the the industrialized world.

We are the only country in the industialized world that can not afford medical and health service as a right for all its citizens.

Our level of literacy is towards the bottom of the league in the Industrialized world.

Our average living standards continue to fall.

We claim to be the richest country on the planet.

We have the Republican candidates claiming to be reform candidates, what are they reforming?

That ordinary misddle class people get even less!

____________________

vmval1:

thoughtful:

I solely blame the repubs for the disastrous state of our foreign relations.

Aside from that, the dems are as much to blame as the repubs.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Thoughtful:

Didn't you say you BECAME a U.S. citizen just a few years ago?

____________________

thoughtful:

Boom

the so called growth in the last 1/4 was a direct response of the Government's stimulation package of giving every tax payer a rebate that was spent.

How many more 1/4s cxan the government do this for.

I nsome states like Michigan and Ohio, tell the people there that there is no recession, indeed in Michigan it looks like a depression with industry and out put still contracting.

____________________

vmval1:

Never:

He fures that its always easier to change a situation from within a circle than from outside it. :)

____________________

vmval1:

figures

____________________

thoughtful:

VMal1

I largely agree with you. But Bush has been completely irresponsible with Government spending on every count.

Still he isn't collecting revenue from the Iraqi Government to pay for this war!

I'll let everyone on in to a little secret. Most wealth is inherited, Wealthy people do not rely on social security and pensions do they?

____________________

thoughtful:

VMal1

I largely agree with you. But Bush has been completely irresponsible with Government spending on every count.

Still he isn't collecting revenue from the Iraqi Government to pay for this war!

I'll let everyone on in to a little secret. Most wealth is inherited, Wealthy people do not rely on social security and pensions do they?

@Nevermet

I was born in California in 1951. I do spend most of my life outside the US contributing to our global presence.

____________________

vmval1:

@ Thoughtful:

I have never understood the line of reasoning behind the Iraqi Govt having to pay us back for this war.

I know this is a simplistic analogy, but if somebody walked into my house uninvited, and started 'fixing' a problem that NEVER existed in the first place (WMDs), there is no way I would ever pay them for anything.

____________________

vmval1:

McCain only up by 1 in the latest Rasmussen. No point even trying to speculate how this will pan out.

____________________

thoughtful:

@VMval1

Again I agree with your logic. But George Bush did sell it to the American people that the Iraqis would pay.

Dont forget the very people that we put in power in Iraq are the very people who gave the WMD intelligence.

____________________

vmval1:

But the people we initially put in power in Iraq, Ahmed Chalebi & co, have long been removed from posts of power. The only people who would be 'paying' for the war would be the general Iraqi population, and I figure the direct/indirect price of 600,000 civilian lives is enough to cover the bill.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

thoughtful:

As an American that spends much time outside the states, why do you think the U.S. is the only remaining world power?

____________________

vmval1:

Never...

We are NOT the world's only remaining superpower. We do not want to tangle with China. Also, give it about 10 years, and we won't want to tangle with India either.

We are lucky that those 2 countries are largely externally apolitical. If they had a streak of 'Russian' aggression, we would not be having a good time of it.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Real clear politics now shows Obama 207 to McCain 227 electoral votes. Wow.

____________________

thoughtful:

VMVal1

Chalabi isn't in power?

$80 billion surplus in Iraq?

Its a mess we need to get out, as the Iraqi Government wants.

Now the today's tracker. rasmussen doesn't tell us whether this 48-47 is with or without leaners.

This is with the new ID weighting, BOOMSHAK, which means Like for Like McCain is down on a week ago.

It also tends to agree with me that the 5 battleground polls published yesterday and on the 8th based on the weighting used on the 8th are:
Colorado
McCain 46, Obama 48, Nader 3, Barr 1, McKinney 0
(9/7: Obama 49, McCain 46, Barr 2, Nader 0, McKinney 0)

Florida
McCain 45, Obama 47, Barr 2, Nader 2, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 48, Obama 48, Nader 2, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Ohio
McCain 46, Obama 47, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 51, Obama 44, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0)

Pennsylvania
McCain 45, Obama 49, Barr 1, Nader 1
(9/7: Obama 47, McCain 45, Barr 1, Nader 1)

Virginia
McCain 46, Obama 50, Nader 1, Barr 0, McKinney 0
(9/7: McCain 49, Obama 47, Barr 1, Nader 1, McKinney 0)

____________________

Tybo:

"But Bush has been completely irresponsible with Government spending on every count. "

congress controls spendiing.

____________________

vmval1:

been like that for the last 3 days.

____________________

Tybo:

thoughtful, the problem you aren't facing is that there are more republicans and less democrats this month than last month.
SO it's the 3 polls in the last month that are wrong, not the new one.

Can you understand?

____________________

thoughtful:

@Tybo

Semantics: the executive branch supposedly runs the show. Congress exercises oversight.

But hey I think both Houses of Congress is just as bad as the Bush Presidency.

____________________

vmval1:

I'm out guys. Catch you later.

____________________

Tybo:

"thoughtful:
@Tybo

Semantics: the executive branch supposedly runs the show. Congress exercises oversight.
"

please re-study the constitution.
The govt is 3 equal parts with separate duties.

the Purse is Congress.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Tybo

I was wondering when you were going to come round to that view.

If that were the case the 3 Rasmussen polls that you refer to would have been outliers to the other polls.

I am trying to run a trendline based on Like for Like polling.

Any rise in McCain preference would show in the previous models and indeed would be in line with the other pollsters including Gallup.

What appears to have happened is that Rasmussen's model is nowvery similar to the gallup model and now has an even more profound GOP bias and house effect. That's OK because we can factor it in.

As I have done on the polls they published yesterday.

____________________

carl29:

@"Real clear politics now shows Obama 207 to McCain 227 electoral votes. Wow."

Imagine 4 years ago, super-WOW ! !! According with Real Clear Politics in mid-September 2004:

Bush Total = 279
Toss Up = 41
Kerry Total = 218


(152)Solid Bush
(127)Leaning Bush
(41) Toss Up
(65) Leaning Kerry
(153) Solid Kerry

Again, we can see McCain struggling to perform at Bush's level in 2004. Obama is 11 votes away from where Kerry was 4 years ago; however, McCain is 50 votes short from where Bush was. See?

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

vmval1:

The belief that the U.S. is the only remaining super power is still the most commonly held one, but there are some that debate it.

Why has the U.S. attained this status?

____________________

Tybo:

I didn't come around to that view.
I'm following the facts..
MOre Republicans
Less Democrats
For the poll to be valid the demographics
of the poll much change.

what you want to say is :
"everything should be static"

you can run a poll that way, but your
results would be chicken feed.

If you're looking for a specific result, do it your way.
If you're looking to be accurate, the rassmussen change is the correct method.

It just depends on what you are looking for.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Tybo

Do you have the latest updated registration by party for the 5 states in the above polls?

Nationally?

Are you saying that the situation changed on total registration in one week between September 1st and September 8th. That effectively the Democrats had more than 1 percent quit and become Republicans and that 0.5% - 1 in every 200 Independents joined the Republican party?

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

carl29:

Bush had already defined himself in 4 years and did end up beating Kerry by a significant margin. McCain has only just begun to define himself and the momentum has been in his favor for 2 weeks or more with a HUGE shift.

To help McCain more, Obama needs to come up with a few more POWs that supposedly think he's too volatile to be close to the red button. Enough money should buy a few more.

I don't remember Kerry admitting he had returned from duty a broken man. Swift boating will only help McCain. His heroism has already been established. Kerry was never considered a hero--never.

____________________

slinky:

Republican policies that resulted in current crisis (for Boomer):
(1) Restriction of FTC action (started severely under Reagan).
(2) Privatization of Fannie Mae and later Freddie Mac's invention and privatization (Reagan).
(3) Greenspan March 2002 at Senate Finance Committee Hearings: ""The notion of a bubble bursting and the whole price level coming down seems to me as far as a national nationwide phenomenon, is really quite unlikely,"
(4) "Greenspan, who calls himself a libertarian Republican"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14465152
(5) President makes both monetary and fiscal policy in this country. Congress investigates, passes laws, passes final budget if they can get it signed by Pres. Pres. proposes budget. Repubs. misrepresent the way Congress actually functions to shift blame to Dems. Dems only have had slim majorities in Congress since 2004. No override power.

Been said on this board many times.
(6) Worst tax bill in world was passed by this President and a Repugnican congress, just before attacks of 2001; Failure to repeal worst tax bill in world after attacks altered fundamentals of American Economy.
(7) "Great Country" with nearly 50 million people who can get sick and die tomorrow and would have to declare bankruptcy, with the state paying for their funeral.

Please, US is speeding toward trash can status, boomy.

And as the commercial says about you.

"An' I helped..." -- Southern Accent.

____________________

slinky:

SEC has also been eviscerated by Repugs.

____________________

slinky:

Justice Department was turned into a Repugnican bastion by Gonzalez (illegally).

Note: FTC, SEC, and Justice all under President's direct control.

DIRECT. Not part of Congress.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Nevermet

McCain's polling numbers as polled by Rasmussen on a like for like model are now less than they were before the Democratic Convention.

The HUGE SHIFT and the BIG MO is only due to an EVEN LARGER SHIFT IN THE ID WEIGHTING!

The issue pof McCain's mental and psycological ability to command would be settled if he released his Military Evaluations from before and after his captivity. There should be no problem with that?

____________________

Tybo:

Thoughtful..
Polling is done by "self-identification", not "registration". And yes, multiple polling companies have reported a swing in identification (Usa/gallup, pew, rasmussen,etc).

____________________

Tybo:

thoughtful, we might as well end this conversation.
You seem determined to see a conspiracy where the truth is that more voters now identify as republicans.

____________________

thoughtful:

Tybo:

All I want is a consistent trend line.

There has been a shift to McCain in these Rasmussen's polls due to new ID weighting adjustments.

The swing in identification is typical of the noise bounce from a convention. end of

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Thoughtful:

McCain's military psych evaluations after being POW (operative word PRISONER)? That is the most distasteful comment I've seen from you.

Obama's ability to command would be settled if he would release his psychological evaluations before and after the 20 years he WILLFULLY spent under the leadership of his former mentor, Jeremiah Wright.

Twenty years by choice.

____________________

NW Patrick:

The biggest news here is the polls were from 9/7. Watch these #'s shift along with the National #'s. The +4 Obama per Survey USA is more accurate and recent.

____________________

NW Patrick:

Watching these National Polls fall today for McCain is interesting, I think just the beginning. The Palin fun is over, Americans are waking up to the fact that she is an empty nest.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR