DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
10/14-15/08; 600 LV, 4%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 46, McCain 44
Sen: Hagan (D) 49, Dole (R-i) 45
Gov: Perdue (D) 48, McCrory (R) 42
"Ok,first of all, ignore the Registered Voters totals."
It would make more sense to ignore not only RV but also LV and focus on state-by-state polls and analyze the so-called McCain's trend
In the past 2 days:
Obama up in all Kerry states + IA
Obama is up VA (Republican state), NC(up but within the MOE so a toss up), NM, CO, NV, (ND is astonishingly a toss up), up in MO (though slightly), FL (which is necessary for a McCain)
IN (toss up), OH (slightly ahead), WV (slightly behind)
Do I miss one?
I know you jump on one of the Gallup poll showing Obama +2, I don't fault you for doing so because you don't have any other choice
FYI: Bush won by 2-3 the popular vote and barely won the EV, which is far different from what's is going on right now
my question is: Knowing you're not that stupid do you really think this Gallup poll mirrors those state polls?
If not, my other question is :
what McCain trend you're talking about sir?
BTW : 100,000 people attend Obama rally in St. Louis MO (a republican state)
Posted on October 18, 2008 2:08 PM
Obama up in NC and looks like we got ourselves another senate seat.
Posted on October 18, 2008 2:11 PM
Eric, the gov race is missing the Perdue percentage. It should be 43, as in 48-43.
That stinks. There aren't many competitive gov races this cycle but that's one I've been focusing on. Perdue had the edge for a while but now the trend is in McCrory's direction.
Posted on October 18, 2008 4:32 PM
It looks like the KKK rallies aren't helping Miss Alaska (almost) and the Crypt Keeper.
Oh well - I guess there aren't enough racists to make up the gap. Not enough idiots like "joe the dumb-ass unlicensed plumber" to narrow obama's lead.
It is rather pathetic that grampa is still getting 40% of the vote though. I knew we had a lot of utterly idiotic people in this country after bush "won" in '04, but good God, I didn't think they were THIS stupid. They seem to have the IQ of a chimp with downs syndrome.
Posted on October 18, 2008 4:41 PM
It looks like the KKK rallies aren't helping Miss Alaska (almost) and the Crypt Keeper.
The only former KKK members in Congress have been democrats.
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:14 PM
boomshat - you really are a delusional troll.
Mccain and paliar's base are just redneck racists -
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:27 PM
Certainly agree about the large % of stupiditiy in the US.. One of them is you and the rest are voting Obama like you !
KKK and Black Panthers have been and will always be democrats ... Dems need teh race card as their political agenda is empty ...
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:30 PM
By the way, where is david duke these days?
Also, Robert Byrd endorsed Obama. A reformed KKK member who is now endorsing a black man for the presidency doesn't sound like a bad guy.
republicraps are so pathetic these days, that some idiot is trying to get "joe the fake plumber" to run for office!! ROTFLMAO!!! What a douche!!
Gary, R2000 apparently inverted the McCrory/Perdue numbers at dKos. That's why DKos put some ?? marks against them.
I suspect it should read Perdue (D) 47% McCrory (R) 42% judging from the crosstabs. There's simply no way that McCrory would have 80% of the African American voters, for example. And there are other issues with Party affiliation clearly being opposite for that race.
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:40 PM
Confirmation that the Perdue 43%/McCrory 48% results have to be in error
MCCRORY (R) PERDUE (D) OTHER UNDECIDED
ALL 48% 43% 3% 6%
MEN 45% 47% 4% 4%
WOMEN 51% 39% 2% 8%
Men support Perdue (the Democratic woman) more that the Republican? And women are 51-39% for the Republican Pro-Life male?
DEMOCRATS 80% 10% 3% 7%
REPUBLICANS 10% 84% 2% 4%
INDEPENDENTS 44% 43% 4% 9%
Impossible! No way that 80% of the Dems would support McCrory while 84% of the Republicans support Perdue.
WHITE 31% 60% 4% 5%
BLACK 87% 5% - 8%
OTHER 77% 7% - 16%
Nope! Can't be. 87% of Blacks have gone of their nutter and support the Republican?
They've inverted Perdue and McCrory at the top of the column.
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:48 PM
The right wingers want to foist the KKK on the left? Sorry, but FAIL.
Posted on October 18, 2008 6:57 PM
And I have to apologize for the numbers I posted at 6:40 above. Those were the numbers in parenthesis, which represents the percentages from the previous month, just after the Republican "convention bounce", So, in fact Perdue has almost complete reversed those numbers with McCrory. That's a 10% turnaround. This despite a generally abysmal debate against McCrory.
That's the same as Hagen - up 10%.
But the massive turnaround has been Obama, who has a change of 18%!!! Contrasting those crosstabs would be a real eye-opener, I suspect. McCain must be bleeding support across categories that even the local Democrats can't touch.
Posted on October 18, 2008 7:01 PM
lol, that makes a lot of sense. The racists are all showing up to Palin rallies and shouting "Kill Obama" because they're really democrats in disguise.
Posted on October 18, 2008 8:00 PM
As the yanks come pounding through the south and take over nc, one can only wonder how much longer good ol general lee can hold off the army of the potomac before the south turns completely blue!
General lee with raise the white flag late afternoon come nov 4th!
Posted on October 18, 2008 8:35 PM
For boomshak and others, don't take it too personally. It's normal and healthy that the ruling party change from time to time. Look at it this way: for the past 8 years Dems have said "I can't believe Bush is getting away with this stuff" and the proper response was that the more damage he did, the more he would seal a Democrat win in 2008. Correspondingly, if Obama is as bad as the GOP makes him out to be, then rest assured he will be turned out in 2012.
It's human nature to get worked up about these things, but let's keep it in perspective. If the GOP wins, we will *not* see a swastika flag hoisted over the White House. Similarly if the Democrats win, we will *not* see a hammer and sickle flag raised. Life will go on.
Posted on October 18, 2008 8:45 PM
To be precise, prior to the Civil Rights era, white supremacists were in fact often Democrats, particularly in the South. But following the Civil Rights era and the GOP's adoption of the "Southern Strategy," that changed.
Posted on October 18, 2008 9:32 PM
inch by inch...
You dems seem worried. Your level of anger (and fear) is so apparent. It appears the huge numbers of newly registerd voters that you are counting on are bogus...Thank you acorn.
2 more weeks of "the common man" on the trail and the drumbeat of SOCIALISM, ACORN and the 3-headed monster (Pelosi, Reid, and Noboma) will bring this to a dead heat. The turnout for McCain will be huge (with truly registered voters)
Pad your rooms on November 4th. HAHAHAHA
Posted on October 18, 2008 9:55 PM
Republicans explicitly and deliberately went for the southern racist vote from 1964 on. You think Strom Thurmond moved to the Republicans because they were nice integrationists? LBJ said when he signed the Civil Rights Act that he had given the South to the Republicans for a generation, and it looks like it's about time for it to come home. To have that happen with the election of a black President would be very good karma.
Posted on October 18, 2008 9:58 PM
The last time Research 2000 polled this state (one month ago) it was M+17. So this is a 19 point swing!
Posted on October 18, 2008 10:16 PM
You need a history lesson. We had a Civl War, the North against the South, in part because the North wanted to end slavery. The Civil Rights movement was helped by prominate Democratic Presidents such as John Kennedy, and his brother Bobby Kennedy and other prominent Democratic leaders. The Republicans want to give all of the power to the states, and that is what led to the Civil War in the first place.
The Republicans nominate Supreme Court Justices who vote against Civil Rights, such as the 5 to 4 ruling a year ago that said the city of Louisville Kentucky's busing law that was aimed at desegregation was unconstitutional.
The 4 conservatives, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, along with the swing vote Kennedy ruled that the city of Lousville Kentucky's busing of students from inner cities should not be allowed.
The Democrats are the party of Civil Rights, not the Republicans. The Democrats are the party that will rule in favor of our individual rights to privacy, and our first ammendment rights to free speech...not the Republicans.
The Democrats are the party that values individual freedoms and rights to privacy, and Civil Rights, NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND LETS GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!
Posted on October 18, 2008 11:20 PM
Here is a question. Is there a risk that Obama ad saturation could backfire? Could it create burnout? As a supporter I hope not but this seems to be a question no one is asking. As one who works in advertising I guess I should no this, but it is rare that an organization truly has the resources to do this so it is not something that enters the discussion. It would be horrible if in the final media blitz the saturation created a turnoff.
Posted on October 18, 2008 11:38 PM
First, if I understood you correctly, you seem to have the parties reversed in the Civil War era (to summarize a very complex subject, the Democrats were on the side of the slaveholding states, and the Republicans on the other side, although that side ranged from just limiting the expansion of slavery to actually ending slavery).
Second, as I noted in my prior post, the Civil Rights era led to a significant realignment in American politics. So, while I largely agree with you about contemporary politics, things were indeed different prior to the Civil Rights era.
I'm not sure what evidence you need to see on this issue. But one of the most straightforward pieces of evidence is the voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See here:
What you will see there is a very notable split between Southern Democrats and non-Southern Democrats, with almost all of the non-Southern Democrats voting for and almost all of the Southern Democrats voting against. Meanwhile, the majority of non-Southern Republicans (and most Republicans were non-Southern) were also voting for.
So, you are not wrong that non-Southern Democrats were integral to the Civil Rights Movement. Nonetheless, there was also a part of the Democratic Party, mostly in the South, that was the primary political home of the opponents of Civil Rights. Again, what happened afterward was a mass shift of those people from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, leading to the party alignments you see today.
Posted on October 19, 2008 12:59 AM
cinnamonape, thanks for the correction! I'm glad I checked back after a long day of college football. That gives me renewed hope for that gov race, although I heard the same thing, that Perdue performed poorly in the debate. I need to start watching more of the debates on CSPAN. Normally I catch every one.
Posted on October 19, 2008 1:47 AM
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