9/17/08; 500 LV, 4.5%
McCain 46, Obama 50
Sen: Collins (R-i) 55, Allen (D) 42
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:39 PM
c'mon McCain! throw some money into Maine!
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:47 PM
This is the top of poll that makes me wonder if we should listen to ANY state poll at the moment, right or left.
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:50 PM
This poll is current, from a reputable polling company, and was done at the hight of the financial crisis. Wow! Notice the silence from the Obamabots.
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:52 PM
As someone from Maine, I can't see how this poll is even close to hitting the mark. This state is solid blue.
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:53 PM
Well Derrick, the University towns are blue, but I think the small towns, and the fishing villiages, and those who live near NH might just have something to say about that.
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:54 PM
It's Rasmussen. LOL They also showed Washington STATE close. Cmon' LOL
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:58 PM
Up 4 is a significant lead folks. LOL Don't drink the kool-aid THUGS. I know you need ANY kinda of good news after this week of Obama polls leading some of your traditional States. You have a great weekend ALL and we'll be back at it on Monday!:)
Posted on September 19, 2008 6:59 PM
I see that Rasmussen PAC is at it again.
I'm pretty certain that they have a current McCain bias of about 4 points on average (though with the 4.5% MoE, this can vary widely). This is showing up everywhere.
Maine is a +10 point state for Obama. No one is contesting this state either way.
I think McCain is a better choice for President. I hope he wins.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:01 PM
You really are stretching if you think the coastal small towns are going to even come close to balancing out the university towns. Even if they voted 100% McCain. This poll is a joke, even McCain knows he seriously can't compete for ME. He practically said so speaking with a local reporter.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:03 PM
How Extremist Is Sarah Palin?
19 Sep 2008 06:05 pm
No Biblical literalist can believe in evolution. So either Sarah Palin does not hold the faith she says she does or she denies one of the core theories of scientific modernity:
Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'
"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
If you thought Christianism reached its apex under Bush, wait for Palin. She will, of course, lie if asked, depending on the audience. It's what she does.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:07 PM
If anyone wants to place a bet that McCain will win Maine, please contact me. I would love to take you to the cleaners.
Maine also has moose and hockey. These states bordering Canada "heart" Sarah.
Rasmussen: "In Maine, McCain is now supported by 82% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats. The latter figure is up from 14% in August."
Note: Maine splits it electoral votes. Two EV go to winner of popular vote and one each to the popular vote winner in each of Maine's two Congressional district. McCain may pick up at least one electoral vote here.
So I will ask Obamanation who is now dissing Rasmussen... So you did not like the Rasmussen poll that showed Obama cutting McCain's lead to only two points in Indiana?
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:11 PM
I think this is a good result for Obama. Nationally Rasmussen has a 48-48 tie and they use a weighting that cannot underestimate the Republican turn out. Yet, here in Maine, they have Obama comfortable ahead. No worries!
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:16 PM
I emphasize--If McCain can win one of Maine's electoral votes, that may make the difference in this Presidential race.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:17 PM
Maine has been relatively close other years, it has a higher rural:urban ratio than the lower new england states, without the liberal culture of Vermont. NH is always super close, I don't see why people think ME would be an Obama blow out.
I do think that the financial crisis plays differently in New England than in the "heartland" there (e.g. are not many "Regan Democrats" in New England). Ppl are socially very liberal, but generally like the idea of smaller government.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:18 PM
EV's are all or none ...
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:21 PM
McCain could have had a chance in Maine (and the election for that matter) if he picked Olympia Snowe as VP instead of someone who has been beaned too many times by a hockey puck.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:22 PM
Maine +9 for Gore, +5 for Kerry .... 4/5 pts doesn't sound outrageous
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:24 PM
No, KipTim is correct, Main will split it's electoral votes to a certain extent. If you win one of the two congressional districts, but loose the state as a whole, you still get one (out of four) EVs. I believe it is the only state like this.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:26 PM
Rasmussen usually leans Republican, so when they show an unusually high number for Obama, it should be taken seriously. Unusually high numbers for McCain, no so much.
On the other side of the coin, a DailyKos poll showing a high Obama number doesn't mean much, but a DailyKos poll showing a high McCain number probably does.
The idea is basically that if a pollster seems to have a lean one way, a result that has a surprising lean in the _other_ direction can be regarded as the polling equivalent of a 'statement against interest' and gain extra weight.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:29 PM
A blowout is 30 points in OK, or 50 points in UT. Obama winning ME by 10 points would be confirmation of historical trends. This is also the only poll in ME showing the race closer than 4 points.
Rasmussen PAC moved their weighting to the favor of Republicans by 4 points in two weeks. Before this move, Rasmussen was shown to have a 2.7 point house effect bias in favor of McCain in comparison to the average of all pollsters on national polls. I don't doubt that things moved more to Republicans after their convention, but not by 4 points on top of 2.7. Rasmussen is currently weighting this election as if it was 2004. This isn't 2004.
And regarding Rasmussen PAC's clear bias, apart from the biggest skew of all pollsters, apart from Scott Rasmussen's obvious political affiliations, they have posted McCain's own attack ads as a headline. Not a paid spot, they posted it as "news". It's inescapable.
Rasmussen should have to register as a 527 group. Many media organizations do not report on their polls because they know that this is an organization with a bias and agenda.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:31 PM
Thank for the info. 1pt could be big if NH goes red. At this point based on the trends Obama picks up CO and Iowa making it 269/269, yup 1pt could be big.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:33 PM
"As someone from Maine, I can't see how this poll is even close to hitting the mark. This state is solid blue."
yeah, look at their senators..
(two republican women for those who don't know)
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:34 PM
Yea I always move Ras polls 3 pts. Thats wher there house effect was before they changed it to be even more conservative.
House effects of polls:
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:37 PM
Yeah, Collins and Snowe are Republicans like Lieberman is a Democrat, i.e. not so much.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:41 PM
maine and nebraska split EVs
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:42 PM
Thanks for the reminder, Tybo.
This idea that Rasmussen leans Republican is a myth. Reality is that Rasmussen polls for "likely" voters and has a database for weighing political ID. "Likely" voters levels out the Dem/GOP ratio (but still more Dems), whereas "registered" voters increases Dem ratio.
Where the real problem is for the Democrats is that so many more cross over to vote GOP, rather than GOP cross over to vote Dem. And a pollster does not have any control over that.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:43 PM
FYI, Even in 2004 when Kerry won by 5, both districts were roughly the same vote, and they are very similar demographically. The state would have to be less than 3 points in difference to split their vote. It won't happen.
NE is the other state that splits by CD. This state has different demographics in their districts, one influenced by urban population, one influenced by suburban population, and one that is totally rural. There's a better chance of NE splitting EV's than ME.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:44 PM
Uh... Lieberman is now an Independent, not a Democrat.
Collins and Snowe remain Republicans even though in the recent past some thought either or both might move to Independent.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:46 PM
Sorry KT but looking at the data over the last month many pollsters use LV and Ras has consistently been 3-5pt right of the avg.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:50 PM
Being from New England originally myself, and having traveled to Maine every summer for a month since I was born, I can assure you that all of you intellectual commentators out their trying to pin down Maine's political ideology are just making fools of yourselves.
Here's a tip, don't try to argue how a state will vote, if you have no idea what its ideological make-up is. Do a little research first.
Here's one comment in particular that is just ridiculous:
"Well Derrick, the University towns are blue, but I think the small towns, and the fishing villiages, and those who live near NH might just have something to say about that."
Most of Maine's population lives "near NH", and Portland, ME, 30 minutes north of the NH line is one of the most progressive cities in the country, with a very artistic, socially liberal, eco-friendly lean. Kennebec County, home of George Sr's Kennebunkport summer home, went for Kerry by 9 points in 2004, equal to the state average. York County, closest to NH went for Kerry by +8, or 9,000 votes out of 110K cast.
Posted on September 19, 2008 7:51 PM
Why are you using other pollsters who use LV as the benchmark to which you compare Rasmussen? Why is their methodology better? What is their weighting criteria? On what is political ID based? How does their methodology affect their results?
I do not assume one pollster is correct and the other is wrong. All is based on statistics, which is not an exact science, but rather based on probability.
Accepting one pollster over another without any basis except ill-informed assumptions colored by bias is just B.S.
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:14 PM
Ras is reputable, but they have recently tended to be biased (in the statistical sense) against Obama. I would use Ras as a lower bound for Obama. I would interpret this poll as meaning that Obama has at least a four point lead in ME and that the Senate race is within single digits--though Collins is probably ahead.
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:26 PM
Hmm, let's take a look at Rasmussen's Maine poll back in 2004 (their latest was 8/1-26, 2004--must have been a daily poll):
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:32 PM
Out of 27 senate and governors races in 2004, Rasmussen PAC had an average Republican bias of 2.04 points.
There's no reason to think that 2008 is any different, except that there were no conventions in 2004, and Rasmussen PAC didn't take their already 2.7 point biased party ID weighting and move it 4 more points in the space of 2 weeks. So it makes sense that they are now off the scale, and their results in most states following that change places them on the edge of being a consistent outlier.
Seriously, when Rasmussen PAC posts McCain attack ads on their site under Breaking News, what more do you need to convince you of their bias (and there's a ton more).
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:33 PM
How did Rasmussen do in the Dem primaries?
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:35 PM
If Rasmussen PAC was "reputable", most major media organizations wouldn't be ignoring them.
Rasmussen PAC has a right-wing/Republican agenda. They push out biased polling, and they do so with a volume that has never before been seen so that they can drown out other polls. This is an old Republican trick. Drown out the truth by repeating your lies over and over and over again.
Rasmussen PAC is biased, and they are not reputable.
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:44 PM
Party ID weighting has no effect in a primary. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:46 PM
When Bush took office he gave BILLIONS in tax cuts to the wealthy including corporations. They made great profits. In the meantime, incomes fell, the costs of living dramatically increased, food, gas, housing, energy, EVERYTHING went up. He has increased the federal deficit to HISTORIC highs. Still believe trickle down economics work? With all of those TAX CUTS, where are the new jobs? 100,000 jobs lost last month? I'm so confused. How come there is never PROOF to substantiate this economic way of thinking?
Do you really wanna do this, again, America for 8 more years? WOW. Intelligent.
Posted on September 19, 2008 8:56 PM
You gotta see this story!
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:04 PM
"If Rasmussen PAC was "reputable", most major media organizations wouldn't be ignoring them.
Rasmussen PAC has a right-wing/Republican agenda. "
So is the fact that "most" major media organizations ignoring Rasmussen polls because Ras is right leaning, or because the media organizations are left leaning? :-)
Having said that, unless things go very wrong for Obama, Maine is not likely in play... even with any sort of Bradley effect.
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:11 PM
There is no Bradley effect. This was an explanation for poor polling that was only noted maybe twice, and the majority of polling history points to this being an urban legend.
Regarding media bias, Rasmussen is Fox News' pollster for their weekly battleground polls. Does anyone possibly not think that Fox News is less biased than any other organization?
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:25 PM
Ras, as has been stated above and by those who analyze polls for a living, has a fairly consistent two point bias in favor of Republican candidates. That's averaged against many polls in many races totalling tens of thousands of interviews. The MOE is negligible.
I'm happy to just work with what's known and give Ras a pass on his two consecutive re-weightings. I say that because chickens DO always come home to roost. As the Palin/Convention bounce has faded and as McCain has made a few mistakes and events have conspired to magnify the most egregious one (fundamentals of the economy are sound) I fully expect party ID to move back modestly towards the Dems, perhaps as high as 8 by the end of this week. That will force Ras to shift his weighting back towards Dem, like it or not.
Ras is an honest pollster and a very good one; he's one of the higher rated pollsters on fivethreeeight.com. But, as Nate points out, you have to add in house effects where they are shown. Ras is close to the actual election result but consistently 2 points rightwards. So , when we think of it that way it becomes something we work with, not something to moan about or trash. Consider Maine at about Obama + 6 which means he's performing on a par with Kerry in '04. That's just fine with me. I'd put my resources elsewhere (for now at least) and rely on my ground troops come election day.
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:43 PM
Make that fivethirtyeight.com ....sorry bout that
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:44 PM
Those 538 ratings were from one primary season. Party ID weighting bias does not come into play in primaries. Primaries are not weighted for party ID.
They are the most biased in either direction in their daily tracker according to the house effects as Charles has pointed out.
"Reputable" pollsters don't post McCain attack ads on their site under Breaking News on the day that Biden was picked. Period! Not one other so-called independent pollster would ever possibly do this. Not one!
Rasmussen PAC is a propaganda machine.
Posted on September 19, 2008 9:59 PM
Rassmusen had George Bush winning by .6% last time for their last tracking poll. What was it that he won by again? I don't think anyone else came that close.
Rasmussen is a reputable polling firm. Their Party id weightings are suported by Gallup data, also one of the most reputable polling firms.
No one said McCain was going to win this state but wasn't it supposed to be McCain fighting to keep red states red what with that brilliant 50 state strategy of Howard Dean's. So obama spends his time and money dicking around in states like Montana and Georgia while McCain is looking to steal the North East out from under his nose.
Look at the polls for the Big ten plus NH and now Maine and even NJ. That wasn't the Obama campaign's plan to be on the verge in the entire great lakes region plus the North East.
This is not good news for Obama. Anyone who sayas it is really hasn't been paying attention to anything the Obama camp has been spouting for 6 months, that they were going to change the electoral map, yeah just not like they planned.
Posted on September 19, 2008 10:30 PM
Mike in CA, sweety I got some news for ya. Someone is voting McCain in Maine with a 4 point spread. Deny all you want, you just look like someone who choses not to see what's in front of his face. BTW I live real close to Maine. A whole lot closer than CA.
Posted on September 19, 2008 10:34 PM
For the last time, what "reputable" polling firm posts McCain attack ads on their site under Breaking News?
Answer: NONE! NADDA! ZILCH!
Posted on September 19, 2008 10:46 PM
To me based on poll numbers there have been some dramatic turns in trends.
2004 RED Battleground States
Colorado 04-Bush 4.7 todays polls avg Obama 2.5, thats 7.2 pts
Virgina 04-8.2 todays polls avg McCann 2.3, thats 5.9 pts
New Mexico 04-Bush .7 todays polls avg Obama 4.3, thats 5.0pts
Indiana 04-Bush 20.7 todays polls avg McCann 2.3, thats 18.4pts
Ohio 04-Bush 2.1 todays polls avg McCann 1.2, thats .9pts
Nevada 04-Bush 2.6 todays polls avg McCann 1.0, thats 1.6pts
Florida 04-Bush 5.0 todays polls avg McCann 4.5, thats .5pts
Missouri 04-Bush 7.2 todays polls avg McCann 6.6, thats .6pts
North Carolina 04-Bush 12.4 todays polls avg McCann 9.0, thats 3.4
Montana 04-Bush 20.5 todays polls avg McCann 9.0, thats 11.5pts
Results : Obama gains in every state with a avgs gain of 5.5 per state and he's flipped 2 states from red to blue CO NM
2004 Blue Battleground States
Michigan 04-Kerry 3.4 todays polls avg Obama 3.3, thats -.1
Pennyslvaina 04-Kerry 2.5 todays polls avg Obama 2.0, thats -.5pts
Minnesota 04-Kerry 3.5 todays polls avg Obama 1.3, thats -2.2pts
Wisconsin 04-Kerry .4 todays polls avg Obama 2.3, thats 1.9pts
New Hampshire 04-Kerry 1.3 todays polls avg Obama 3.3, thats 2.0pts
Washington 04-Kerry 8.2 todays polls avg Obama 4.2, thats -4.0pts
Oregon 04-Kerry 4.2 todays polls avg Obama 6.7, thats 2.5pts
New Jersey 04-Kerry 6.7 todays polls avg Obama 6.5, thats -.2
Results: mixed gains and losses witha a net loss of -.1 per state, No flipped states at this time.
This data seems to appear to show very little overall change in the blue states and a 5.55 avg gain in red states. 50 state assult seems to have some affect.
Posted on September 19, 2008 11:11 PM
Personally Rasmussen is a conservative who favors repubs as isn't shy about that fact. It's never pleasant hanging out on his site because this bias is all too obvious. I think Nate has also estimated his repub house bias aside from primaries as being around 2 points.
My point is that his polls don't tend to be as all over the map as some of the dicey pollsters like ARG. I always feel that Ras's results should be taken seriously, though with a house effect in mind. Basically, unless the result is especially pro-Obama, I just subtract a couple of points and it usually fits in nicely with other polling. That's why I like Ras. He ha outliers too but generally is on the right edge of the center.
Posted on September 19, 2008 11:35 PM
Rasmussen PAC's polls are consistent because they weight for party ID. 2/3 of all those polled (Democrats and Republicans) are 90% likely to favor the candidate of their party ID. So the variability is limited to under 40% of what they are polling.
Rasmussen uses very small samples because their party ID weighting is more predictive than the responses.
Not only are the very small samples a troubling sign, the fact that they do only one day polls does not allow them to do any call-backs. It's very clear from Gallup's daily tracker that callbacks matter, and that's why Gallup dips for Obama on the weekends.
Now think about it. Rasmussen PAC's bias is overtly evident by their headlines, by their polling bias, by them featuring McCain attack ads on their site, buy the paid ads on their site, by who hires them to do polls, by Scott Rasmussen's political activities, and I'm sure I'm missing something. So why in hell would you give them the benefit of a doubt?
Rasmussen's method of polling is a farce. It's prone to have a consistent bias when things are off. Both their method of party ID weighting and both their lack of callbacks both give extra weight to Republicans. If it wasn't for this, they would be more like SurveyUSA where there is no bias and more variability (which can be influenced by polling more people and weighting demographics better).
Consistency isn't a sign of a good poll. Rasmussen is biased, and their current polling is clearly giving McCain about 4 points advantage in most places.
Posted on September 20, 2008 1:06 AM
Fascinating statistics, you make a very good point, that Obama appears to be doing much better, (relative to Kerry) in red battle states than blue. (With the caveat that the polls are somewhat volitile at the moment).
Do you have any inclination into the reasons why?
(I think you might want to add Iowa to the red battlestates, and possibly WV)
Although I agree with you that Rasmussen's headlines and anaylsis can be baised, I think their actual polls are Rasmussen's genuine attempts to assess the race. They do have about a 2-3 point (at least it was) 'bias' to McCain compared to the average pollster but we will not know if they or the average is correct until the election day.
There is, of course, a problem with doing 40+ polls per a month with only a sample size of 500. A few of the polls due to simple sampling error (never mind any other type) are going to be out, badly out. I think this is one them. I think Scott Rasmussen knows this and that is why he is not making a song and dance about it. The New Mexico poll was another. Same type of reaction. While he may be a republican politically, he also cares about his reputation as a pollster.
Posted on September 20, 2008 3:45 AM
Sarah Palin has now ended the presidential careers of Romny, Huckabee, Guliani, Thompson, Obama, and Biben.
So I would forget all of the 2004 Bush/Kerry polls because conservatives are highly motivated and will turn out in numbers that will set the dems back for at least another eight years. We love Palin just as we loved Reagan. She is a real game changer, conservatives can hardly wait til Nov 4.
You will have forgotten Obamas name by 2016. By then all of the Obamabots will have actual jobs, paying taxes, raising children and will have lost all interest in an entilement society. Just wait and see.
Posted on September 20, 2008 5:51 AM
As a Mainer, I just don't see McCain winning even in District 2. District 1 will overwhelmingly go to Obama as it contains the more liberal southern Maine counties of York & Cumberland. District 2 will be closer, but Androscoggin County (with Lewiston-Auburn) and the Bangor/Orono area with its large urban (for Maine at least!)/student vote, should well overcompensate for more rural voters in the northern and eastern parts of the district.
Posted on September 20, 2008 7:01 AM
In Sarah Palin the conservatives might have the motivation to go out and vote in droves. But are they really going to vote in numbers any greater than in 2004?
What you gleeful "conservatives" might be missing is that Palin has provided all Progressives, and even moderates even more impetus to participate and vote, and we were already very excited about Obama. There is no way I'm sitting by and watch a lying radical right winger who wants to teach creation theory in school, censor the books I read, and appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will deny a woman the right to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest, get anywhere near the oval office, without doing something about it. So I'm dragging my tired old rear end off the couch and canvassing in NH. That's is the Palin effect for me.
New Englanders love the old Republican Party: fiscal conservatives, almost Libertarian on social issues. Palin is no help to McCain here. Maine goes to Obama by 10+ points.
Posted on September 20, 2008 7:38 AM
Because I try to follow the numbers this is what I have gleamd from them on the Palin effect. This is conjecture because many of the polsters have stopped asking questions about Palin due to the economic crisis.
Palin has energized the Right no doubt about it.
Palin also has energized the woman vote ... 55-45 opposed.
Palin has also polarized america, similar to hillary effect. ya love her or hate her.
Palins approval numbers have steadly declined as she gets vetted by the public. This was expected, at least by me.
Bottom line is her approval rating has moved from 55-40% with a large # of undeceided. She at least at this time will have little to no effect to the overall numbers. The only glaring number that could effect this is if McCann ended up in the hospital in the next 7 weeks. The number indicate that there would be a 5-8 point shift to the left. Again the data is a bit incomplete because the focus has changed to the economy.
Posted on September 20, 2008 8:50 AM
Interesting article in fivethirtyeight.com about polling cellphone users vs not doing so. On average polling cellphone users skews the result leftward (Dem, that is) by 2.2% relative to those firms that do include them. This, of course is a huge number 6 weeks out from an election.
Of course one possible explanation for this is that pollsters that don't use cell phones (about 36 different ones) trend repub anyway and those that do just happen to trend Dem, for entirely unrelated reasons. Looks that way when you see the pollsters which headline Nate's cellphone-poller list (that is, which show the largest Dem house effect)
I see a few other problems with this article. One is that the number of cell-phone polling firms is rather. Ann Seltzer is one of them. Her effect is huge...over 7%. Remove her one firm from the equation and you get an effect of 1.6. This might be more realistic.
Also Gallup is one outfit that does poll cell phone users and yet maintains a .6 Republican tilt relative to all firms.
I'd conclude that in key battleground states where there's a high concentration of young cell-phone only households we should certainly take this effect into account. Perhaps CO is the best example of this, with its younger demo.
Posted on September 20, 2008 9:26 AM
Meant to say that "the number of firms which poll cell phone users "is rather small"
Posted on September 20, 2008 9:28 AM
Rasmussen's party id weighting is based on a sample of 45,000. Forty five thousand. This is not a small sample, nor is 500 for a state poll a samll sample. In fact its quite a large sample.
As I said before, this supposed Republican bias predicted a .6% Bush win in 2004, closer than any other pollster.
You mean they have Republican bias, beause they don't show Obama winning and you just can't deal with that. Their numbers are sound.
Posted on September 20, 2008 9:37 AM
Greg, I see that you ignored everything I said and simply jumped posts to avoid my comments. And now you are spewing the same stuff again. Do you have these comments in a document that you paste in here? The whole "Palin has ended the careers of..." sentence has been on Pollster now about a dozen times in the past week. We get it. You think Sarah Palin is hot and that everyone loves her. What you forgot, however, is that just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so. Reality (polls) have consistently shown her approval dropping.
And again, I will make the same point that I made before that you simply ignored. You have a huge complex when it comes to income. You constantly bring up the fact that you have a job and earn money and others do not; and that subsequently you are superior to them. I wish that you would learn something about politics. It may surprise you to learn that as education goes up, individuals are more likely to be Democratic. Sure those who vote democratic include some poor and unemployed. But guess what, it also includes some of the smartest, most successful people in the country. Furthermore, the "base" of the Republican Party, that you rely on to keep office (news flash, there aren't that many rich people), consist of quite a few poor, rural, uneducated, and sometimes unemployed people from Oklahoma and Texas across to your great state of North Carolina. But keep thinking what you are thinking...
Posted on September 20, 2008 9:51 AM
Ras now has O +1
The race is slowly becoming "fundamentally sound" again.
On to the debates with big MO for O
The timing of the first debate really sucks for McCain, unless he can start to act Presidential instead of persnickety and vitriolic really fast. This debate favors someone who has gravitas, a calm demeanor climate of fear and unease.
His economic speech might have gone over well had he toned down all the rhetoric about Obama causing the meltdown by his associations with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae It's especially silly when your own top adviser lobbied for and received a few hundred k from those same entities. Brilliant!
I expect to see a very agressive prickly McCain in the debates. I don't think he can reverse course and come off as wise and experienced and focused on the country and its probems, though that's the only way he'll win the debates, IMO.
. Instead, McCain will talk about Obama gaming the system and being part of the problem in Wahington.
I think that will play very badly. Right now the country is looking for a leader, not a finger-pointing fake populist who suddenly reverses 26 years of calling for less regulation on business, by promising to give BIG GOVERNMENT a much greater role in regulating the Insurance,Banking, and Investment industries. Also the MSM isn't going to give McCain another pass on this kind of 180 degree turnabout. McCain and his party, for better or worse, is identified with less regulation and less government, especially when it comes to forcing industries to comply with banking, safety, labor, envirnomental laws and the like. Phil Grahm's 261 page amendment inserted into a banking bill hours before Christmas recess in 2000 may not be the reason for the current crisis but it certainly made risky investments easier and IS indicative of what Republicans believe in regarding these industries and that's.....as little regulation as possible...period.
Obama will work very hard to come off as presidential and knowledgeable on the economy, foreign policy, etc. He's very good at coming across as post-partisan when it helps to appear that way. I see the deck stacked in his favor in the first debate
Now Obama is as partisan as McCain but it's to his advantage now to wait for our Gov't to act officially and then, most likely, approve their actions, and go one step further in offering more middle class tax relief, job retraining, etc. as an emergency stimulus package. Something like "This is a great first step but we need to help all those who are hurting because of this situation, etc
I think this will play well in debate 1
Posted on September 20, 2008 10:01 AM
Just deal with the facts ... I just look at the facts, and these are them.
Of the 20 or so pollsters they have the largest house effect for Rep. of over 3%, and that was before they modified there weighting to the right. There headlines on there site are pro Rep. and the show Rep. attack adds on there site, all showing a bias. You can also conclude that there addvertising revenue is also tied to the right by the amount of right wing postings there. To be taken seriously you have to tote the line. Having said all that I do think there a good pollster and after looking at there graph for results I'd just apply the 3% house effect to their numbers.
Pollsters graph #:
Posted on September 20, 2008 10:16 AM
So what is the "house effect" for Daily Kos? They seem to be outside the norm for daily tracking.
Posted on September 20, 2008 11:20 AM
Most Americans are not progressive, or care to be. You might if get your yankee ass spanked down here if start talking about gay marriage, killing living babies, anti-military or any of the other horrible crap you progressives seem to enbrace. Plus you sound really ignorant when you imply that southerns/conservatives are not educated, you could not be further from the truth. I personally went to Purdue in Indianpolis and studied electrical engineering, new homes sales just happens to be a much more profitable business.
I not angry with you are any other Obama supporters. I think the all of you need to do some research on the Jimmy Carter econ. plan before you vote. Obama's plan is to basically tax businesses, wealthy citizens and corporate America at higher rates. this never works. YOU CANNOT BEAT THE RICH. Rich people hold all of the cards. If the rich/corporate Americas taxes are raised then they simply pass it on to the consumer, period. Obama cannot do a thing about it. Basically the economy stops because everything is much higher priced. Plus interest rates go sky high.
I don't expect McCain to do anything to make my life better. I have to work hard to support me an my family and I bare all responsibilty. And so should you. Obama is not going to do anything to help you or anyone else with their resonsibilities or quality of life. Their is only one messiah regardless of what your progressive masters teach you, and its not Obama
Posted on September 20, 2008 12:24 PM
sorry for the typos.....but I think you get it
Posted on September 20, 2008 12:33 PM
Greg, again, you are spewing the same crap about Carter and Obama. I had a lengthy post on this yesterday that you ignored. I gave detailed descriptions of Carter's economic plan and how it was NOT like Obama's in many ways. And in fact Carter practiced DEregulation. Now who does that sound like?
You also display your ignorance by using hte term "yankees" (FYI, the Civil War is over by the way).
And I did not say that all people in the South are uneducated? Did I? No, you tried to strawman my statements. The thing this, you can beat the rich. Because there aren't very many of you. What I am trying to get you to realize is the only reason that the party that favors the rich ever gets in power is because it relies on many people who are NOT rich - mainly religious, rural, voters in the South. This is an empirical fact. If they stop voting against their economic wellfare, the rich will be left out. You may see that this election in fact.
You are also ignorant if you think politicians have no bearing on quality of life. Maybe not yours since you are already wealthy, but the president will impact most Americans. If you are gay and want to get married who the president appoints to the Supreme Court will matter, for example. Also, you undermine your own argument by saying that the president won't matter, but then continue to rant about economic policies like they do matter. Which is it?
I suppose your education taught you that the world was created in 7 days?
Posted on September 20, 2008 1:01 PM
"As someone from Maine, I can't see how this poll is even close to hitting the mark. This state is solid blue. "
Isn't that what they said about PA and MN? Have you checked those polls lately? It seems most states are up for grabs..excluding the South and North East!
Posted on September 20, 2008 1:38 PM
I'm not rich or ever will be. I come from a blue collar family.
When I graduated high school in 1980. There were no jobs available for anyone because of Jimmy Carter economy. It was really really bad, much worse then it is now. So I enlisted in the Navy for five years. During my time in the service I was able to save enough money to pay for my own education because my parents could not afford to send me to school. After I got out of the Navy I worked 3rd shift as a building engineer for five years while going to school full time.
I have a pretty good idea of how life really works.
Obama is nothing new to politics. Once you have some real life expierence, I believe that you will agree with me. You will start to understand that no one will be able to positively effect your life but you.
Obama is appealing to the least productive, least motivated Americans. He is affectively offering them something for nothing. But we all know there is no such thing as something for nothing.
You have got to get use to the fact that rich people do hold all the cards. It does'nt matter if the poor out number the rich. You will learn this when you start your job search. I will promise you that a poor person will never sign your pay check or offer you a good interest rate on a home or car. And you will never buy any of your shinny new things from a poor person. The rich really do hold all the cards. Get use to it.
Alot of young people today have had it so easy all of their short lives, my own daughter included. Reaganomics has made our all of our lives much easier for over 20 years. Like all things the ecomnomy will go up and down, its a part of the natural business cycle. Life will teach you this.
People today are quick to push the panic button at every little bump in the road. This is very disheartning. Americans are living better than anyone else in the world.
I believe that there will be a whole new group of young patriots coming home from Iraq that will inspire other young people to take charge of their own lives and pass on the socialist and their empty promises and hope you are one of them.
Posted on September 20, 2008 1:43 PM
Greg, it has now become clear to me that you have not even bothered to read anything that I've typed. What makes you think I am not employed? Or that I have no life experience? I've searched for a job and found one quite easily. I am quite happy with my profession and am in no fear of not continuing to do well far into the future. This is about the third time I have mentioned this, so it would be great if you could actually read it so that all of your comments don't same the same stupid stuff about me being unemployed. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster since you get into so many exchanges on here.
Also, unlike you I am not obsessed with "shinny" (sic) new things.
Also, if you think there are many "socialist" in this country you are delusional. American's are NOT living better than anyone else in the world. In fact, going by Purchasing Power Parity, the US is 7th behind most of Scandinavia. The rest of Western Europe is right on par with the US. There is a reason the Euro is destroying the dollar and quality of life is better there. They are not socialist, but actually have social services available to their citizens.
Also, most people returning from Iraq think the war is stupid. I know many of them. They find it ridiculous that their friends had to die and they were injured fighting a pointless war.
Posted on September 20, 2008 2:29 PM
You seem really lost and hurt. God bless you
Posted on September 20, 2008 2:35 PM
Greg, nice comeback. When you can't think of anything intelligent to say, call on God.
Please continue to copy and paste the same crap you have been pasting into the comments on Pollster.com, I'm sure you are changing the world.
Posted on September 20, 2008 3:14 PM
I've noticed that Rasmussen keeps changing his weighting system. it's as though he creates these polls to suit his whim, which is definitely a Republican slant. He continues to show in his poll that voters think McCain can better handle the economy than Obama. he is the ONLY major pollster to show this.
Posted on September 20, 2008 3:17 PM
Im not trying to hurt your feelings or comeback on you in a hurtful way. I'm really sad to hear that you don't even believe in god. And to answer you question, Yes I do believe the earth was created in seven days and I also believe god created man is his own image. If you don't believe in god it would be to difficult for me to make you understand love for your own country over euro countries, that depend on us to protect them. So I give up on you. Some day your progressive god will fail you and Jesus will pick you and put you back together.
Posted on September 20, 2008 3:32 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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