CBS News - story, results pdf
8/29-31/08; 781 registered voters, margin of sampling error +/- 4%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviewer (landline and cell phones)
Obama-Biden 48, McCain-Palin 40 (8/15-19: Obama 45, McCain 42)
I knew mccain was in trouble! Mccain does better in lv rather than rv. Barack is going to win in a landslide. I hear that Hillary Clinton is hitting the trail next week. The Show is not over because remember that obama has one more trick in his bag! Him appearing on the same stage with Bill Clinton! Game Over Mccain!
Posted on September 1, 2008 4:40 PM
I like the horse race numbers but 781 is too small a sample for a nat. poll. Better methodology would help give these polls credibility.
THERE, you see, I can be objective.
Posted on September 1, 2008 4:46 PM
Small poll nationally, but interesting on the weighting in favour of independents and Dems.
It would appear that the Palin selection has not resonated as much with the public as with the political junkies.
This poll still reflects a lack of enthusiasm with McCain by Repubs, so you have to question that.
I'd take it with a pinch of salt and might be tempted to adjust by 6% for convention bounce as Nate is doing. I think it probably overstates Obama by 4%. But hey +4% for Obama would make a fine victory.
Posted on September 1, 2008 4:48 PM
zotz has it right. As much as I would love to give this poll credibility, it's simply too small to be an accurate (or remotely accurate) portrayal of the national consensus. I am happy that they finally put the VP names on there.
Posted on September 1, 2008 4:55 PM
Game over kids....
The election is about Colorado...Colorado...Colorado
All about has to do is carry all the Kerry states..(which is 80% likely)...Obama will most likely carry both Iowa & New Mexico.
If he just wins one of those states...Obama is the next president. If he only wins the Kerry states + New Mexico + Iowa + Nevada = 269 tie. However, if Obama wins Nevada, he wins Colorado, as well as Ohio too.
Posted on September 1, 2008 4:58 PM
These polls do seem to be showing a trend, but the one I'm most interested in is the ratings on the Republican acceptance speech. If McCann only gets 15 million viewers then I think he's in real trouble
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:04 PM
I think it is without a doubt that Obama can carry the Kerry states. It is important to note that gas prices weren't insanely high, the war had just started, the US economy wasn't entering a recession, there wasn't a subprime mortgage crisis, and Kerry didn't exactly make me want to get up and campaign for him.
What ever states Kerry got probably are thinking that they had it right when they voted for a dem (I'm not saying that it is fact about whether or not a dem would have been better. I'm just saying that would probably be the psychosis of the voters) and will vote democrat in november. It is the swing Bush states from 2004 like Ohio and even Virginia is in play that Obama needs to only win 1 of to become the next president.
2006 shows us that the Republicans have worn out their welcome in congress and I predict that, with an approximate 28% approval rating in the oval office, those who voted republican will be a little more hesitant to put in a ballot for the same party that brought them Bush.
Please note before responding that I am talking about voter mentality in this post so if you disagree, address voter mentality and not issues. This is not about who you agree with, but who will actually win.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:08 PM
I don't get the point about 781 being too small for a national poll. The sampling error is +/- 3.5%, which would also be true if this were a sample of NV or Wasilia, Alaska (well in that case the error would be about +/-3.3).
If we are to criticize the sample size (as opposed to the sample design) it would be that breakdowns into subgroups (region, race, occupation, etc.) are problematic. But the estimate of the "national" division of the two-party vote is not affected very much by the fact this sample has 781 respondents rather than, say, 1,500.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:13 PM
Ey, guys... Did you notice that Palin has not being well received by women? You know that on Friday when McCain made the announcement, my husband saw her and said: "I don't think that this will make many older women happy." He thinks that women are mean to each other, especially towards young, good-looking women. He was right. Since Friday, Rasmussen, gallup, and now CBS has come up with the same findings: Women are less enthusiastic about Palin than men.
I think that McCain would have been better off by putting Sen. Kay Hutchison, an older, moderate(pro-choice) woman on the ticket, more like Hillary demographic, or some centrist, pro-choice, republican like Tom Ridge or maybe Lieberman.
I thought that it was an odd poll until I looked at the party weight. Indep: 38% Dems: 35% Rep: 26%. By looking at the results with these kinds of weights, one would think that John McCain has a heck of a chance to take it all. This poll is heavily weighted to show the registered democrats and independents reaction to the convention. And the McCain campaign is only 8 points behind? Looks good.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:31 PM
Its one thing claiming to be reformers but reforming Government to what?
McCain has certainly potentially lost some of the centre ground with this pick and some women against that the right wing party base and activists are overwhelmingly pleased.
But I think the real potential loss to McCain is his credibility. Palin just does not appear equipped to be President of the USA and to try to put her up in some way to compare to Hillary Clinton, he has committed an even greater sin with that audience.
Great for the Christian right though. polls are reflecting this!
Robi it does appear at least at this time Obama will hold the "Rust Belt" states - Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and of course Illinois. The only one thats close is Ohio. The rest he holds comfortable leads (7-10%)and has been trending stronger. The fab 5 that McCann has to hold are Virgina, Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida: All these states are within the margin of error, but he needs all of em. One mis-step by either of them can be pivital.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:32 PM
Palin is to women what Clarence Thomas is to AA's.
If she energizes the Know-Nothing base, the opposition from the left will be equally energized.
The prospects for an Obama Tsunami have just risen, I think, and this bodes well for an end to the GOP Reign of Terror.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:36 PM
I asked in an earlier thread, but I'm going to ask it here.
Why are the national polls important? (I don't care about TV time)
In my opinion, there should be extensive polling in the close states i.e. the fab 5 as evolve put it. Ohio, NC, Virginia, colorado, florida.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:40 PM
Most Dems that I've talked to, after scratching their heads, are as excited about the Palin as are the Republicans. Not for the same reason's tho lol
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:43 PM
Trashing Palin isn't going to do any good. She has interpersonal skills. She connects with the every day get up and go to work and raise a family voters. Common people don't like elitist as it is; Greek temple for pity's sake. if you attack Sarah Palin, you are attacking them.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:54 PM
You are mostly correct. In an election that the national polls show is closer than 5 points, it really makes more sense to look at the states themselves and examine the chances of each candidate in each one.
I would however say that with any lead across most of the polls in excess of 5 points, it really doesn't matter what individual states are doing (at that point in time), because it is statistically improbable that the group of polls were that far off, and that a candidate would win an EV victory while losing the popular vote by more than 3 points. Typically you would see around a 100 point EV margin with a 3 point win. This certainly isn't what's happening thus far this cycle, but it has happened often enough in the past that it bears mentioning.
So yes, what really matters are those states that would likely tip the election. Obama has 4 primary paths to a victory if you give him all Kerry states plus Iowa. Those paths are as follow:
2) 2 of 3 of NM, CO and NV
On the other hand, McCain must not only win Ohio, he really needs to pick up Michigan in order to protect from Obama picking up an EV victory by moving other states.
So IMO, the most important single state in this race is Michigan. That doesn't mean it is the most pivotal state, it's just strategically the most important if you assume a close race.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Yes, Carl I did notice, and also that Palin has gone down moderately well with men. Reverse sexism?
We now have four post-convention polls which average to 48.75% Obama - 43.75% McCain, about a 4.5% bounce.
As for the party id, CBS do seem to be using a large number of independents (there are different ways to measure indi's and whether to include leaners), although the margin is roughly in line with it's last two polls (This one +9, July +12, +7 two weeks ago). What is strange is they do seem to weigh their polls so why the changes, unless they are not weighing by party id and that is just how the chips fall, but it is unclear.
Posted on September 1, 2008 5:58 PM
Sarah Palin is standing for Vice President of the United States and may be called upon to be President.
I think in the circumstances notwithstanding that John McCain did not vet her, the US voter is certainly going to vet her.
So far the polls have not been particularly positive. Both Palin and McCain have an uphill struggle as they are trying to sell a right wing reformer agenda which essentially is what Bush/Cheney sold the voter in 2000.
I don't think from the polling evidence that the country wants 4 more years>
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:00 PM
McCain is going to lose big time! This Vp selection of his is why! He caved in the repubs! But he forgot to Vet this woman! She is a political nightmare. And now that Gustav is calming down. Questions are starting to raised about McCains judgment!
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:16 PM
I think that Sara Palin daughter's pregnancy is hardly good news for the ticket, why? First, this remind those Hillary women, who were thinking about voting for McCain, how extremist Sara Palin's views on women's rights are. Even the most moderate woman will be glad that her daughter have the right to choose whether she wants to keep a pregnancy that it is obviously such a burden at that age. The fact that a 44-year old woman chooses to continue with a pregnancy, knowing that the child comes with a genetic disorder, it is not the same as a 17-year old girl who is pressured, by her fanatic parents, to grow up in such violent way.
Sarah Palin's radical views on sexuality is not limited to abortion. As all we know, she is also against sexual education. Now, see the point? All of us understand that regardless how moral the parents are, kids are kids and will end up doing whatever they want, so what is the point in ignoring reality? I think that McCain's pick will only make democrats, independents, and moderate republicans remember what it is at stake in this election. Putting one's head in under the sand will not make reality go away. Those crazy, right-wing "moral values" are just outdated.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:22 PM
Obama at 50%
McCain needs a convention bounce!
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:24 PM
It is important to note a couple of things. There are a lot of stupid people who say a lot of stupid crap. I have been witness firsthand to the power of selective information (i.e. babygate). What people should distinguish (those of us who don't have an agenda and will not try to spin any story as much as they can) is the difference between people who are democrats and are speaking their mind and the obama campaign's position (the same can be said about the McCain campaign, but Fox News doesn't exactly fit the definition of a blogger).
So when jackasses (like myself) say that this babygate thing is a possibility or others saying that it is true, remember to distinguish a person's own opinion from that of the campaign. We are not all alike.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:27 PM
Yea, I'm sure her daughter's pregnancy is a national security issue that must be explored to the max by the extreme liberal media. Too bad the press refused to vet Mr.Obama. If they had vetted him, Clinton would be running against McCain now. They tried to sweep it under the rug. His associations with a radical socialist activist church group for 20 years, his association with militant Bill Ayers who in most peoples opinions should be in jail and the shady Syrian Tony Rezko who is going to jail for a long time because he was involved in illegal contract kickback schemes with the local and state governments of Chicago and Illinois.
They wouldn't do their duty then but now they want to try to drag the teenage daughter through the mud; and if that wasn't enough??? The press may not know it but they are skating on thin ice. I wouldn't be surprised to see their freedoms curtailed in the future.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:35 PM
I really feel sorry for Sara Palin's daughter. A very dear friend of mine went through the same situation: got pregnant and her parents made her marry the guy. I really saw her suffering. She obviously had to drop out of school, had her child, which made her happy as any mother will be, but her marriage was an unbearable burden. She and the boy didn't love each other, and he really made her very, very unhappy.
Until this day, she really resents that her parents put her throug that marriage from hell, for the sake of the family's honor. I think this episode will open the eyes of many, many people in this country. I am far from being a supporter of abortion, but I honestly tell you that if my daughter were in that situation at such young age, I don't know what I would do. One thing I can assure you: I will never let my daughter marry at that age. No way, Jose!!! Having a child, has its down sides but it also has its rewards; however, I don't see the bright side on marrying at 17-year old.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:37 PM
I am an independent female voter has recently started to lean Democratic. I would like to share with you the reason many women view Palin more negatively than men. Most moderate women consider the choice of Palin as personally insulting. It has become clear to many of us that McCain does not understand or value the concerns of women -- most recently exemplified by his choice of Palen. It must be clear to everyone that he USED a woman to try to influence women voters, without regard to subtance but rather to gender alone. He seems to view women as one dimensional voters, and his actions look more and more like those of a sexist. Men don't feel this insult the way women do.
And by the way, I was not a Hillary supporter -- I can only imagine that their negative feelings run even higher than mine.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:43 PM
Are you out of your mind?! Not vetted by the media? This guy has been running for over a year and a half. and after super tuesday, he has been vetted time and time and time again and has engaged in numerous debates. Now maybe YOU don't know anything about him, but he has been vetted thoroughly and would not have become the democratic nominee via PRIMARIES if there was some really bad thing about him. You think the Hillary campaign wasn't looking for ANYTHING to get him on? Come on...
Oh, and although I don't believe the pregnancy should be an issue, it acts as the best argument for why abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK. This girl has been raised by one of the most conservative families in existence and lived in Alaska which isn't exactly Cali or NY. And she still got pregnant with all the abstinence teaching she could get. That's why some dems (not myself) talk about this and think it is an issue relating to republicans "Family Values" agenda.
A little understanding about the other side wouldn't be a bad thing instead of straw-men arguments that you have set up.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:45 PM
Good try but we are on to you.
When will she be 18? Would that make a difference? Probably not. I married a 17 year old girl a few decades ago. We have six grandchildren.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:51 PM
You need to get out more.
Amen Robi, player jumped in blowing smoke about the liberal media and then went on too throwing the same tpye of crap he was accusing the other side of doing.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:52 PM
I am against McCain on the issues.
I am against Palin on the issues.
The forthcoming birth of a grandchild is one of the greatest joys in life.
McCain is a very dangerous impetuous ill considered person, he has sold out to the right wing of his party. He is unfit to lead on temperament alone.
There is no difference politically between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.
As we know McCain supports Bush's Taxation, and socio-economic policies. Both Palin and McCain are now in the pockets of Big Oil.
What on earth was your comments about?
Obama will get over 300 EVs the way the polls are trending.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:53 PM
I'm out plenty thank you very much. I'm living in a dorm and studying my ass off for my independent thesis but I get out still. And I just found this forum thing yesterday so I'm still participating a lot in the conversation. Surely, like most things I do, I will ease it down when I get bored. But for now I'm interested in this forum. This is the first time I've posted stuff anywhere really.
Posted on September 1, 2008 6:55 PM
Don't sweat Player. He's angry because his candidate is doing poorly.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:02 PM
Obama at 50%
McCain at 43%
I posted this earlier. There is an apparent consistency in the polls except for the the CNN poll - no crossstabs, weighting model info to help understand it - I think News Entertainment = CNN.
McCain needs a bounce when you look at the polls - looks the opposite of 2004 when Kerry had a convention dip!
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:03 PM
To help my image and prove that I don't find excuses for everything democrats do (MSNBC):
Keith Olbermann had Michael Moore (shudder) on his show recently. Michael Moore said that Gustav happening at the same time as the convention proves that there is a god.
I don't care what the meaning behind his statement was, it sounded wrong, and it is wrong in any shape way or form suggest that any god that Americans believe in (Buddhists don't really have a god but whatev) would do this for laughs or irony.
What was worse was Olbermann not responding to the comment immediately or even now. Olbermann would most certainly have gone after Republicans and I think this calls for a "worst persons in the world" spot on tonight's show. People say stupid things, but are only stupid if they don't acknowledge them as such.
The whole VP talk is funny. The GOP and McCain know that there's no chance that they will ever win, especially having seen the Dem convention.
Rather than taking someone as boring as Kemp and losing with him the way Bob Dole did in 1996, McCain figured he'd make a final jab at Obama, sort of a "I really have no respect for you, and I'll symbolize it by picking someone who I consider to carry the same weight".
Besides, why would the GOP stain with the loss someone who has future potential, like Romney, Kaine, Bayh, etc?
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:05 PM
You know, this is the first time I have ever contributed a comment -- I had to register before I wrote the comment you read. I didn't write the comment to be combative, just to share my views.
I already told you that I was leaning Democratic so that you would know where I was coming from -- I wasn't trying to portray myself differently to sway anyone, or make my comment more dramatic.
I'm not a professional blogger, or a liberal feminist, or anything of the like. I'm just a teacher trying to make a comment about the way I realy feel. I have to say that your reaction to my comment was totally unwarranted because you don't know anything about me. I won't be making any more comments about this, but I had to let you know how I feel.
I have lesson plans to complete for tomorrow. . . .
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:08 PM
I second your comments and I, unlike you, was a Hillary supporter. Both my Independent mother and mother-in-law were Obama hold-outs but were insulted by the Palin pick. They now plan to vote for Obama. McCain may have energized his radical base but will lose some Independent and Democratic women who were willing to give him a chance.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:09 PM
Dear player: I don't doubt that you are a happy person who married at 17-years old; however, that was "decades" ago. Now, most mothers, middle aged women, don't see that marrying at such young age is "normal," as it used to be. Now, thanks to women's rights movement, women have control over their bodies, so no more marrying because of a unwanted pregnancy at an early age. I think that this pregnancy news will bring back a lot of memories to those women about how things used to be, before women had the right to choose and access to birth control.
I hope soon we will have a poll asking people about whether young people should marry in order to "cover" an unplanned pregnancy? I bet that the great majority of americans, mainstream americans, will say: NO!!! I think this is the part that is making me more upset: Seeing a poor girl being pressured into marriage for the sake of the family's honor. Is this the person who we want as the representative of women accross America?
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:11 PM
i guess the "bounce" is somewhat real. interestingly, i thought the bounce would have come from Democrats, but this poll seems to suggest that it came exclusively from indies. We'll have to see other polls if this is true, or simply an anomaly.
USAToday poll also shows a small bounce, with Barack up +7, a 50%....
@Uri: Really really interesting point you made about McCain's VP selection.... We'll see. I think Palin hurts more than helps, so you may be right :)
Based on this Gallup article http://www.gallup.com/poll/109381/candidates-Gotten-Small-Poll-Bounce-After-Naming-VP.aspx
and averaging the bumps produced by the the past 4 VP selections, including a big 0 for Biden, the average VP naming bump is 3 points.
Applying this to the Dem Convention and assuming an average bump for Palin we get the following results from the last 4 polls (CNN, CBS, Ras, Gallup)
Actual Dem Increase of Over Preconvention Polling Results
CNN +1 (even, +1)
CBS +5 (+3 +8)
Gallup +8 (-2, +6)
Ras +3 (even, +3)
Avg Increase from 1 week ago +4.25
Assumed Palin Bump (for McCain) +3
Estimated Peak Dem convention bounce factoring in Palin Bump
Average Peak Convention Bounce +5.5 (based on averaging Gallup and fivethirtyeight.com estimates)
So the Dems seem to have outperformed the norm modestly
Estimated Repub Convention Bounce (let's stick with 5.5)
Expected state of the race post Repub convention (if Repubs get the traditional bounce) McCain +1
However I don't expect anything close to that to actually occur for these reasons
1.Compressed time frame for this convention (shortened by a day).
2. Fewer "star" speakers, resulting in lower interest level (I'll be surprised if 30 million view McCain's acceptance speech)
3. Sara Palin's selection seems to have energized and brought in the base rather than reaching out to any new group (thereby accounting for a good part of the expected Repub. convention bump)
4. The continued uncertainty and second thoughts/guessing about Palin (what else will come out of the woodwork).
5.Palin and McCain's speeches (although they have a very capable speechwriter working overtime right now, I'd imagine) may be well received but are unlikely to be transcendent or even memorable moments in politics. If McCain can "hit one out of the park" it would completely change the dynamics of this race. However, that's unlikely, and his failing to do it won't influence people on the fence much or really rev up the rank and file; Palin is an unknown factor here; she might do both if she gives a great speech; that's the advantage of being expected to underachieve.
Since we've had a diversity of opinion on how the upcoming convention will play out for the Repubs I'd like to take this opportunity for my fellow pollsters to put their credibility on the line and guess the Real Clear Politics spread next Monday evening (it's at O +4.5 right now)
Here's my estimate---- O +2 next Monday; O +2.5 heading into debate #1
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:12 PM
I think the oil connection is significant as well. Palin stands for nothing that doesn't fit the big oil agenda. Since she doesn't believe climate change is human-caused, she's the perfect shill for more drilling.
Which evangelical pundits have the best explanation for what God has in mind with the hurricane situation? Do they have a weather report that factors that stuff in?
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:15 PM
Let's be fair to Palin:
We can't comment, until Bristol or someone there tells us, that she was "pressured" to marry.
It doesn't matter how evident that might be. We need to know for sure before we speculate.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:19 PM
If what you say is true then I apologize.
You are looking at it from a different angle than what has been reported. The daughter got pregnant on her own;she chose to keep her baby, and she chose to marry her 18 year old boyfriend. Her mother said that it was strictly the daughters choice. I have three granddaughters. The oldest is 12. She is very independent. This next phase of maturity will be difficult on her and the rest of us. Laws or theology don't matter her. You can't really regulate nature.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:27 PM
You know I am still astonished with the Palin selection though Boskop loves her too bits and she was on the list!
Alaska should be one of the richest states if not the richest state in the US. It has the energy resources comparable with Norway (4 million pop)and shares a similar climate and per ratio land mass! Norway's people enjoy the highest living standards in Europe!
The scale of corruption and the great Alaskan rip off is staggering - I am not an expert but hey just in the last couple of years oil has quadrupled in price. The Gas pipeline should bring great prosperity.
I was writing earlier in the day about the difference between her Climate change initiative and Global Warming prevention. I mean she thinks that Global warming is not "man made".
In an educated world she is unelectable and you know he is. He has now really underlined a lack of judgement. Can we trust how he would vet/pick his Supreme Court nominations? Cabinet?
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:28 PM
Fairly or not, for most mainstream Americans(especially women) the perception will be that the girl is being pressured by her very conservative, moralist parents. Obviously the girl doesn't follow her parents estrident morality, wasn't she engaging in pre-marital sex? oh well..However, now she is doing the "right thing," legitimazing her child by marrying the father.
Don't you think that the majority of mainstream Americans will make the connection between the girl going on with this pregnancy and her mother's strong anti-choice views? I bet every mother in America will make that connection, for better or worst. Don't you think that the majority of mainstream Americans will make the connection of the girl marrying in this circumstances(pregnant) and her mother's strong conservative views, regarding children out of wedlock? You bet people will make that connection.
I think this will be a "gift" for the religious right; however, it will be a turn off for mainstream Americans, democrats, independents and some moderate Republicans, especially women. It will be different if the girl was pregnant but the mother was pro-choice, in favor of every woman freely deciding whether she wants or doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term. If that was the case, everyone will agree that the girl made her decision based on free will, no pressure suspected.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:35 PM
If McCain picked a supreme court justice with similar views to Sarah Palin, we would all be doomed.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:36 PM
Sorry to post so many things at once, but CNN said that the McCain campaign stated that the decision to keep the baby was then "Family's" decision...not Bristol's.
Come to think about it, she's not the legal consent age and maybe Alaskan law or federal law states that a person under 18 can't make a decision about keeping the baby.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:39 PM
Exactly. Ironically, by picking a woman to be on his ticket, Mccain reinforces his misogynistic qualities. She is obviously not qualified and was only picked because of her gender. So Mccain's opinion of women voters (and especially women Hillary voters) is that "see, here is a woman, vote for me now, you brain dead fools". Never mind that Palin is socially right wing, including anti-abortion on all counts. Does McCain really think that women are that stupid?? Apparently so.
Taking this into account with his numerous "jokes" he has made about rape, lesbians, Chelsea Clinton, and wife-beating, and couple that with his numerous adulterous affairs and how he treats his current wife, and you get a particularly harsh insight into the soul of this man. He hates women. Period.
I'm still wondering why a "firm handshake" would require a cast like the one Cindy is sporting right now.
This guy is scary - and just plain unstable.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:40 PM
Robi - you can expect 3(!) Supreme Court justices just like Palin if McSame is elected.
There goes the last shred of decency......
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:43 PM
When you publicly espouse the beliefs of a fundamentalist movement which decries the teaching of sex education (ie. birth control) and instead teaches abstinence (which simply isn't happening anywhere in this country among teens) and your own daughter gets pregnant at 17 it cant possibly reflect well on you.
Marrying the father and keeping the baby (assuming that these are Bristol's personal decisions---and I have no reason yet to assume they are not) are both admirable means for coping with this situation but this doesn't make it an overall wash or even a Palin plus by any means.
One more thought on this..just gotta say it:
Had this been Obama's 17 yr old daughter can you imagine what Pat Buchanan, Bill O, Rush, Glen Beck, etc. would be saying about him and, even more so, about his "American-hating" wife ("unfit mother") right now. And would you McCain stalwarts really be saying "hey, wait a minute, that's his kid; let's keep our noses out of this...it's a private matter" or, would you all be laughing VERY out loud and rubbing Dem's noses in it?
Having stated the above...
I fully agree that this IS a private matter and shouldn't be used by Obama's team in any way, shape or form. Obama has said the same thing. And..if it WERE Obama's kid it wouldn't influence my vote at all.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:53 PM
I'm convinced there's a real security issue with pipelines. Amory Lovins was talking to Charlie Rose about it. You just can't protect them. One Bozo put a hole in the Alaska pipeline with a rifle bullet.
By the way, Lovins is the most intelligent voice I've heard on the energy front. He heads the Rocky Mtn. Institute.
Palin opens up a birth control debate the GOP can't win. It's probably unfair to lump all evangelicals in with the fanatics, but they're just Taliban lite as far as I'm concerned. And I consider myself a religious person.
I appreciate your civility. It's hard not to get nasty after living through the Bush nightmare. My level of contempt for neocons is way up there, and until the party repudiates them (they won't) all Republicans complicit.
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:57 PM
There is no way that Bristol's pregnancy is her first. See the DailyKos link below.
Trig is actually Bristol's first kid. Sarah Palin pulled a "Bree Hodge" (with full baby suit) to fool everyone. The facts just don't add up - especially the weird timeline. If Bristol is 5 months pregnant as Sarah Palin now claims - how on earth could photos of Bristol in March show her to be 3-4 months pregnant????
Something stinks in suburbia...........
Nothing short of a genetic test will convince me otherwise.....
Sorry. Last comment was @thoughtful
Posted on September 1, 2008 7:59 PM
Brutus enough about this conspiracy theory crap (believe me I've looked into this and now I'm 100% sure it's not true). What's done is done and don't push it with this second pregnancy crap.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:03 PM
Well said Basil. Well said.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:04 PM
Maybe the kid is actually John Edward's :)
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:05 PM
@Brutus1: If Bristol had a kid in April, what are the chances that she would be five months pregnant again already? And even if she technically could, what are the chances that her mother wouldn't put her in "house arrest" after taking one for the team?
All I am learning from reading the liberal blogs and media today (e.g., Huff, DailyKos) is that I am ashamed that I used to be part of that scene and thought that it was better than the Republican. Obamabots and especially Obamafembots are sexist and fairly disgusting, whether it is to Hillary or Palin.
As much as Palin's religious nutness disgusts me, there's a part of me that really wants to see her having a sixth baby as president just for the poetic justice.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:11 PM
Kos has no credibility. In any case look stick to the issues with Palin and McCain.
This is a far right ticket.
The repubs are panicking and trying to spin out.
McCain has lost the experience argument and the judgement argument.
The polls are going to be very intereting I am expecting a 2 point dip in McCain's numbers with this convention.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:18 PM
Forgot to say, if Palin is dirty MSM will expose her - she is not a war hero!
Leave her kids alone.
The moderates in the Repub party are about to jump ship. There are going to be some important Repub endorsements for Obama/Biden.
McCain may not give an acceptance speech on Thursday. I think he is being protected, gosh knows about the debates maybe they'll up his dosage and he'll get by.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:25 PM
Sorry Brutus, I'm not on board with the fake pregnancy story either. Stranger things have happened, but still...
Another scenario might be that the fake pregnancy story was floated by McCainiacs to try to neutralize whatever negatives the daughter's real pregnancy engendered (sorry).
Don't believe anything you read or see online. It's a hall of mirrors. I'm actually the governor of a small eastern state where they haven't yet found out that I'm an extraterrestrial. And I'm undecided as to whether McCain is a serious candidate or a food item.
Thanks for the nod, though.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:27 PM
Every son or daughter shares the mind of their parent especially before they mature. Sometimes children will come right out and say what their parents don't won't to say; so thoughts are shared within the family. I'm sure that the daughter shares her parents views and probably patterns her own after them. She also shares an ethnicity in the Eskimo Indian culture. That almost wipes out liberalism and pro choice right there. Sarah Palin isn't a seasoned politician that can spin her own family's stories like some who the extreme liberal Hollywood worshiping media seems to adore and lust after.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:30 PM
I find two things very odd about todays "disclosure" of Bristols pregnancy.
1) If one doesn't want the media and public droning on about your "personal family life" why not simply disclose ones OWN medical records that would establish that the child is yours? Why bring the daughter into it at all. There should be a bevy of medical reports, hospital visits, the results of the amniocentesis that showed that Trig had Downs Syndrome, and the Birth Certificate. That would have ended the rumors. Instead Palin chose to put her daughters pregnancy ("five months"?) before the public to "rebut" the rumors flying over the blogosphere.
2) Normally two deeply in love teens who want to take responsibility for creating a child would get married soon after discovering the pregnancy. Yet Bristol and Levi have waited 5 months (it "is" five months, isn't it?) and they still are not married? How much longer were they going to wait? Were they suddenly pressured because of SP's being nominated? Is Levi really the father?
3) This demonstrates just how unsuccessful and irrational the Fundamentalist agenda (one that Palin supports) is regarding sex-education and contraception. If Palin taught her daughter about "abstinence only" it clearly failed. Supposedly, the daughter was out of school for 7 months with mono (i.e. she was "home schooled"). Not to mention the disease aspects of a sexually active teenage girl not using "protection", where was the effectiveness of the no contraception, no sex until marriage, no sex-education policies so vaunted by the Palin's of this world?
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:31 PM
@thoughtful: "Up his dosage?". I wish Americans had some respect for their elders even if they don't agree with them politically.
The fake pregnacy is definitely a Rovian plant EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE
Why go there?
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:32 PM
Being an Obama supporter from NY, it never ceases to amaze me the absolute absurdity of the list of excuses that the Clinton supporters have said. It is even more amazing that one would claim sexism against one candidate and not think for a second that racism was an issue with the other. The issue is plain and simple: you lost and your upset about it.
I understand that Clinton supporters would be upset as I would have been if Obama lost. What I would do though is understand that there were 52 Primaries and, at the end of the day,the people of the democratic party chose who they thought was best and they did: Clinton lost and Obama won.
I am willing to accept that both the people who would not vote for Clinton because she's a woman as well as those who would not vote for Obama because he's black or a secret muslim (SARCASM ABOUT THE MUSLIM THING for those who don't understand the concept) are both balanced by those who vote for both candidates becasue of those qualities (probably not the muslim thing).
You have to accept that in primaries, people lose and it sucks when your candidate gets blindsided, but that's what happens if your side runs a poorly managed campaign. What you should do if you don't want to be blamed for destroying this nation is match up the issues Clinton has and compare them with the remaining candidates and make your decision based on who shares more of them.
I'm a Yankee fan so I know something about incredible upsets (i.e. 2004 ALCS). But if you take your vote seriously and not just a form of spite, I think you will do what's right.
This whole argument assumes you want Hillary Clinton as president.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:33 PM
@Robi: Clinton lost because her campaign was mismanaged and since she didn't take Obama seriously. Same mistake that Gore did with Bush in 2000.
That has nothing to do with the level of personal sexist attacks that have been prevalent about Hillary. I have seen all versions of the witch/bitch etc. All the things that were said about Hillary because of Bill while you guys were all sucking ass to the Edwards. I am not even talking about the MSNBC gang and the way they acted.
Of course, if anybody would have said anything about the future first mama, you'd all be crying racism.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:40 PM
Sorry Uri, McCain's medication is not off limits. Or tell me why his medication is not a matter for public record?
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:43 PM
Sorry to say dear Player, but the perception is that since the mother, Ms.Palin, is such a rightwinger, the girl is being pressured "to do the right thing." The majority of MAINSTREAM Americans, especially women, will suspect that the girl is being "influenced," to say the least, by her parents to a)have the baby b)marry the guy
Again, for "true believers" in the religious right, this will be the ultimate proof; however, for MAINSTREAM America, this will only shed light on Ms. Palin's radical right-wing mentality. American women will see their daughters, grand-daughters, or even themselves in this poor girl. I think that this will call upon reflection a lot of those moderate women and men, mothers and fathers, who were thinking about pulling the lever for McCain-Palin.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:46 PM
Upon reading your earlier post, I assume your saying that this is to be expected from the Obama people? If so:
In every single campaign and every single party, there are fringe groups. It happens and it's a fact of life (one that is hard to take). Every now and then the fringe arguments get placed into the media. Obama has assholes in his party and so did Clinton and so does McCain. But that should not be representative of the campaign or the demographics of either campaign.
The only issue that I would have would be if the official positions of either campaign were such that indulged the fringe groups i.e. stating that the trig scandal should be investigated and such.
There are millions of peoople on both sides and a couple thousand spread across the country should not reflect the millions that are not sexist or racist or ageist or babygate asses.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:51 PM
Oh and that was meant for Uri
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:57 PM
Wow. I came across this site a few weeks ago, and found it to be an interesting place to keep up with the latest polls about the presidential race across the country. I enjoyed reading both the articles and the intelligent comments about polling, the science behind it and the issues and inconsistencies in many of the polls' methods. Fascinating really.
But this string is pretty ridiculous. The conspiracy theories and complete lies that many of you are perpetuating are totally ridiculous. Leave this poor girl alone. She made a mistake and she's dealing with it. You people are "swift boating" a 17 year old girl who isn't running for anything. She can't even vote. Why don't you go pick on someone who is at least running for office. Aren't you some of the same people who are so offended at the false emails about Obama's religion?
Here's to the hope that this site can continue to be what made it interesting in the first place.
From my perspective, I think it's a little early to know if the polls reflect people's perceptions of Palin. Perhaps they do, but this is a holiday weekend and she was just introduced on Friday. I think the full impact of her candidacy and the RNC convention (assuming there is one later this week) won't be reflected in the polls until the early/middle part of next week. Given the timing of the two events, I doubt pollsters will be able to separate them.
And as I've said before on here, rarely does a VP help gain votes. The #1 rule in picking a VP is "do no harm." And while I'm sure some of you believe that Palin has harmed McCain, one person's "bad choice" is another person's "maverick choice."
I think McCain was trying to energize his base. Without them, he has zero chance this year, and they definitely haven't been energized up to now. And regardless of what any of you may think, the Palin announcement does seem to have energized the Republican base. I can definitely see why many Clinton supporters are unlikely to vote for McCain with or without Palin. But McCain has raised $10M since Friday.
Posted on September 1, 2008 8:58 PM
In keeping with Robi's post above, I thought the following story might be interesting to some.
I'm a 43-year-old mother of 3 and an Obama supporter. I recently spoke to an old friend of mine from college -- she and I are long-time Democrats who've lived through the ongoing trials & tribulations of our party together (Kerry in 2004 was especially hard for us to take, but that's another story). Last January, she and I briefly spoke about the then-upcoming Iowa primary and it became obvious to us that we were wholeheartedly committed to different candidates (she to Hillary Clinton). Since January, we've had an unspoken agreement not to discuss the election.
Well, with the nomination of Sarah Palin, I thought that we might finally agree on something so I tentatively asked her opinion of the nomination. Full disclosure: I think this nomination is possibly a smart decision for John McCain but a mind-boggling risk for our country. Palin seems like a nice person but I have a hard time picturing her trying to broker a peace agreement in the Middle East with her qualifications.
Well, my close friend (who I've loved dearly for 20 years) gave me an earful. I had no idea she was so enraged. She hates Obama with a passion and hates Joe Biden (!) just as vehemently. I just listened and told myself I got what I deserved, what was I thinking in bringing this subject up now? When she wound down and I asked her if she was concerned about Sarah Palin's right-wing views, she told me I was labelling a fellow female with no personal knowledge of her views. I just kept my mouth shut after that and considered it a lesson learned.
I'm sharing this story because I thought the enraged Hillary fans who were now supporting the McCain ticket were nobody I could possibly know. This friend of mine is a long-time Democrat who I NEVER could have pictured supporting a Republican ticket, especially after George W. Bush. But she was beyond furious -- there was spittle. Just a cautionary tale, I guess.
Posted on September 1, 2008 9:05 PM
**pointing at HJM-UGA's post**
And that's why humans don't deserve self-rule
Posted on September 1, 2008 9:18 PM
@HJM-UGA: I don't buy your story because of the following sentence: "I asked her if she was concerned about Sarah Palin's right-wing views, she told me I was labelling a fellow female with no personal knowledge of her views.".
Our extended family is an extremely avid Hillary family (blue collar PA) and despite Obama, and yet none of them was thinking about McCain because of his stance on abortion. I honestly doubt that any real Hillary supporter (rather than the quacks Obama supporters try to paint us as) is not aware of Palin's positions on most topics. Whereas McCain tries to be a Maverick and all that, Palin had stood by consistently behind her opinions and they were all over the papers. I doubt anyone heard of her without hearing about the fifth baby and all that. Hence, I don't buy it, sorry.
And Robi, separation of church and state means that avid cultists of the messiah should not rule either. So ?
Posted on September 1, 2008 9:30 PM
I like how you talk like there is still a race between Hillary and Obama. I'm not trying to paint Hillary supporters as all quacks but when I hear polling data saying that 27% will vote for McCain this late in the game, I can't help but vent my frustration. 27% of 18 million is 4.86 going to McCain. Are all of them quacks?
But also...what are you talking about with the seperation of church and state comment? I don't follow.
Posted on September 1, 2008 9:40 PM
I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. You seem to have taken my story as if I was trying to make Hillary supporters look bad. On the contrary, I was trying to say that Hillary supporters who refuse to support Obama aren't as far-fetched as I had assumed.
Although I don't have to justify the truth of my experience to you or anyone else, my friend was specifically referring to my questioning Sarah Palin's intelligent design beliefs. I could have gone into more detail but I was trying to keep my entry short -- I didn't consider that someone would in effect call me a liar. That's awfully depressing, actually.
Posted on September 1, 2008 9:56 PM
I look at it this way. Its her business and none of mine. If my granddaughters run into this kind of problem, we as a family will deal with it. The liberal sleaze media who has made the political spectrum their personal proving grounds are just showing Americans why they should be restricted to what they can and cannot do. If they want to treat Paris Hilton and her type as dog hoppers, that's fine since they revel in the attention. However, private citizen are strictly off limits and show be left alone. It will stop; probably sooner than later.
Posted on September 1, 2008 10:37 PM
@HJM-UGA: I'm sorry to, I didn't mean to get into an argument with you. It's just that the way you described it, the woman refuses to believe that Palin is a right-wing proponent of ID. Not believing that when Palin has said she was a creatonist would be kooky.
By the way, I don't think McCain believes in ID.
Either way, I'm not srue that's really related to being pro- or against- Hillary. Do I dislike Obama myself? Yes. Would I ever vote for him? Not in a hundred years.
By the way, this is not for love of Hillary, I have disliked Obama since the DNC turned him into a poster child in 2004, but I did not think he would even consider running till 2012/2016 at least.
Would I be able to vote for McCain? Perhaps yes because of foreign policy; McCain recognizes the threat that is Russia. Obama represents such far left that Nader is battling for his own foreign policy voters that are going to go with Obama.
Do I like Palin? Not for her opinions, that's fro sure. But I still think she's not less qualified than Obama. Being twice more qualified than zero still keeps you at a zero.
Posted on September 1, 2008 10:39 PM
Interesting polling data coming out these days. McCain is still not getting any traction. After all the conventions bumps and blips, I will wait til after 9/15 to really pay attention to the daily tracking polls. Once the debates start I think then they will get interesting.
As for the Palin kid having a kid? I can care less. But it does slap the face of the abstinence education only supporters, plus slaps the face of the party that promotes and legislates morality. I do wonder if Obama had a 17 year old daughter and she was pregnant, what would the Republican Slime machine do then.
Posted on September 2, 2008 10:43 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