8/12-21/08; 2,102 RV, 2.2%
McCain 42, Obama 41, Nader 1, Barr 1
Let me tell you idiot PUMA morons something - you know like that clown ciccina - if you dimwits cost the dems the election this year, you can bet that not one AA or one REAL obama supporter will EVER vote for clinton in 2012. Got it? Good.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:07 AM
PUMA is mainly a bunch of Republican operatives spreading disinformation and hoping to cause a distraction and to promote infighting in the ranks of the Democratic Party. Most of these supposed angry Hillary supporters would never have voted for any Democrat, the few genuinely disaffected ones will have to accept the peace offering at the convention or vote against their own best interests out of spite.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:17 AM
i think this poll is good for obama. he has alot of young people out registering voters and with them allowing them to start voting in september i think this will help obama in ohio.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:24 AM
A mail poll with such a large sample is certainly unusual. Ohio is certainly living up to its reputation as a battleground.
I voted for Clinton in the primary. I was worried that the country was too racist to elect an AA. But right or wrong, a close election defeat for Obama would create such bitterness in the Dem party that a 2012 run for prez would be out of the question for Clinton. She would be remembered like Nader in 2000.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:27 AM
Yes, Obama troops to take advantage of the same day registration/vote. The Ohio Secretary of State was only going to use this "advantage" in urban areas, but the Republicans threatened to take her to court. I hope all gets worked out before election day.
Regarding PUMAs... one poster here spews threats (Hey, good way to guarantee that they do not vote for Obama) and another speaks about voting "against their own best interests" (How in the heck would you know what another voter's best interests are?). I would call it elitism, but I suspect it has more to do with some kind of sexism.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:35 AM
Why would Clinton be blamed for an Obama loss? She is not running as a 3rd party candidate (as in your example of Nader). If Obama loses it will be because of himself... none of which has to do with his race. You guys are so acting like sore losers already and the election is over two months away.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:43 AM
Are you that effing stupid? Let's see, genius, voting for mccain whose policies are opposite of Hillary's is "voting against your interests". Got it ???
One set of numbers confirming, as zotz says, that Ohio is a battleground. I wonder if the Dems have figured out what went wrong with their massive registration and GOTV drive in 2004 in Ohio. That was a major concentration of effort - the parties, labor, the groups - and it wasn't quite enough to pull the state over the (blue) line. I don't remember how much they focused on capturing early votes but I should think it was considerable. I just hope they don't bleed Soros dry trying to figure out how to do field strategy. We need his money in Europe.
Registering youths is great, but their flakiness goes beyond kids forgetting which day is the one they call "Tuesday." They are also prone to thinking they are obligated to vote in the district of their family home address, not their dorm room. They are easily confused. Its because of all the smoke.
I predict Ohio winds up in the courts.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:51 AM
my understanding is you can register and vote early in ohio which would be great for the youg kids which again i would think would help obama out big time.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:56 AM
3 in 10 Americans admit to race bias which means it is probably higher than that. Ironically age bias against McCain is offsetting it to some degree. Polls really are not a good way to measure this since a real racist will always say that their opposition to Obama is based on something else.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:57 AM
"Let me tell you idiot PUMA morons something"
seems we know who to blame if obama looses.
His supporters and himself.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:08 PM
Most people are ethnocentric and have race biases, even if they do not realize it (let alone want to admit it). But this bias is usually directed at a cultural group rather than individuals. I know plenty of "racists" who have black friends. One truly bigoted guy even wanted Jesse Jackson for President.
Even age is relative (genetic). Obama's mother died at age 52 and his 80+ year old grandma is decrepit. Whereas McCain's mom (and her twin sister) at 96 is still running strong.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:28 PM
At first blush, this poll seems about right--a statistical tie in the swing state of Ohio, in which both candidates are advertising (although McCain has recently out-spent Obama there by about a million dollars). And it has a large sample. But consider the crosstabs:
1) This poll includes about 10% more Bush voters than Kerry voters, even though there were only about 2% more Bush voters in 2004.
2) This poll includes 590 voters who are 65+, and only 312 voters ages 18-34. In 2004, Ohio exit polls showed about the same number of 60+ voters and voters ages 18-29.
3) This poll shows Obama winning Northeast OH 44-37. In 2004, Kerry won the Cleveland area 67-33.
4) As with other polls, this one shows Obama with more room for growth, as his base has not yet come home to him (McCain's largely has). One of the reasons for a party convention is to bring the party's base home.
Given these crosstabs, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Obama is the favorite in OH. Still, it is a second-tier pick-up opportunity for him, with VA, IA, CO, and NM in his first tier.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:38 PM
What shocks me out of this poll is the 14% of undecided Democrats. With more Dems than Reps polled, Obama should be up, but isn't. I'm surprised at the number of Clinton supporters that are not willing to vote for Obama. Will they come over? Maybe the convention and debate will determine what percentage of Clinton supporters vote for Obama.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:51 PM
"Will they come over? Maybe the convention and debate will determine what percentage of Clinton supporters vote for Obama."
or that class move----- that 3 am phone message from obama.
that was a real reaching out to the Clinton supporters! something any frat boy would snicker at
(kind of like the "dusting" off his shirt.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:04 PM
Two other notes about this poll: (1) it was taken over a long period of time, much of it while Obama was on vacation and McCain was receiving a lot of free media; (2) it was taken before the Biden announcement.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:12 PM
Thankyou for the analysis. Many of us here are too lazy or math-challenged to disect the polls. Reading your posts has been a real education for me.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:13 PM
@The_Voice99 and Tybo:
Keep it "intelligent and civil" - seriously. I like pollster because you usually don't have to wade throuh mounds of spam posts to learn something or read something insightfull about the election.
@The_Voice99 and ReverentMatt:
PUMA does tend to be more republican in nature, but there will be a shift in the voter base because of shifting gender biases.
In other words some of those republican women who actually were going to vote for HC aren't going to vote for BO, but at the same time there will probably be some democratic males swapping the reverse direction.
You start out great, but deteriorate from there. Do you honestly think Barrack Obama is genetically in line to develop ovarian cancer? he's obviously genetically in line to die from it like his mother.
I think we should focus on real issues.
@faithhopelove & freedomreigns:
who knows who is actually up? The crosstabs may be a little sketchy at times, but those are the responses they got to their sample size. I don't think this is either good or bad for either candidate, (maybe a little on the negative for BO as he was outside the margain of error for a little while) but all it does show is OH is continuing to be a true battle ground state.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:24 PM
PUMA is a bunch of GOP operatives? Hehehe, you lefties, you're always good for a laugh or two.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:33 PM
SurveyUSA has just released a slew of favorability polls, including one of OH. It appears that Obama's favorability numbers there are better than McCain's.
Obama also appears better-liked in the swing state of NM, where yesterday's M-D poll raised some eyebrows.
Missouri (where Obama is campaigning today) is clearly leaning toward McCain.
Silly... about thinking I implied that Obama could succumb to ovarian cancer. Although lung cancer may be in his future.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:37 PM
You know every time I run the numbers, Obama wins. McCain is simply unelectable.
This Poll model and weighting appears suspect, though with McCain fairly fully developed, most of the undecided appear to have made up their minds that it's not John McCain!
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:45 PM
I would put exactly zero stock in this poll. Check Nate Silver's pollster ratings over at 538.com -- the Columbus Dispatch ranks at the VERY BOTTOM, below even the egregious Zogby Interactive. The race is no doubt close in Ohio, but this poll (a mail-in poll? in this day and age?) tells us nothing at all about it.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:50 PM
Do you think McCain would ever use the phrase "hard working white people". If not, why not? After all what would he have to lose?
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:56 PM
Not electable? Well then, pop the corks now. Once again...for what feels like the millionth time the day after election day, liberlas will be standing around wondering what happened. Its a pattern you guys seem to enjoy for many many years now....liberal arogance says we can't lose, then you lose...and then think its because you weren't liberal enough.
Keep p the good work, its worked very well since 1968!
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:57 PM
Not out of context... Hillary was specifically responding to a question about demographics regarding white people who make less than $50K.
Whereas Obama's "bitter" comments actually are worse in context (SF fund raiser).
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:00 PM
I know where you are coming from. But this time round it appears that the right wing guy hasn't got the legs.
Don't blame me I am not a Republican. I am justreporting my interpretation of the polls. Romney isn't going to save Nevada either!
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:07 PM
The question had nothing to do with race.
"You know, there was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina) who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coaltion on."
Are all whites that make under $50k "hard working"? Tell me she wasn't pandering using race. I need a laugh.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:14 PM
I'm partly just razzing ya. I got this feeling the Dems will wake up Nov 5th and once again wonder what the heck happened. It happens over and over. Liberals just have a hard time getting elected. This economy is heading for a real disaster. The accumulated mess for the past 60 years is about to exlode. If Obama tries to push thru things like socialized medicine, it will knock down this house of cards. This is a time for spending cuts, not increases. Bush already spent us into a half trillion dollar deficite........we are in a real mess, no matter who wins this cycle, they are in for a real mess.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:19 PM
Socialized medicine... How horrible! We'll all have to learn to speak Canadian! And their football rules...disgusting. I'm heading for the gun range... I'll be ready ready for 'em.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:28 PM
There's a reason wealthy Canadaians come here for there medical needs. Having the g'ment ru nthe system is not the answer my freind. They can't even run the post office. I know you libs like the g'ment running your lives, but most of us don't.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, what I did was expose you as a liar. It follows that your commentary is also meant to purposefully mislead.
In the real world, people don't act like pundits appearing on Fox News, they are more reasonsoned and often times have their own opinions on a variety of topics instead of following a strict and parroted set of talking points put out by one political party.
I think that boskop is honestly short-sighted and bigoted. I think that Stillow is honestly doesn't trust government at all, but has been taught to mostly hate Democrats. I think that Ciccina is definitely unhappy about her candidate losing, and feels that it was unfair. All of these are honest representations of who these people are.
On the other hand, while you might have honest feelings, your approach is not at all honest. You knowingly misrepresent almost all of the data that you present, just like you misrepresent what ID's you used formerly. You are a liar.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:36 PM
There has been a transfer of wealth from the US accoss the Pacific Ocean and to the oil producers.
The US infrastructure Roads, Bridges, Schools is crumbling.
The Housing market is in a mess.
Medical and Health care insurance costs continue to escalate.
The boomers are beginning to draw down on Social Security.
The US public finances are gone. and yet the US is spending over $10 billion a month in Iraq.
The US is now producing less than it was 3 months ago, soon the entire economy will be in recession.
Yet you have the highest inflation numbers in what more than 10 years.
The next President is going to do what, print and hand out more money? His tax collection is going to be a lot less as corporate and financial sector USA are making less money.
Can he put up taxes certainly not across the board. So you're right a real mess.
The Chinese have got their own to finance, the russians would very much like to own more America but hey, there's other places for them to invest in. Ditto the Japanese in the pacific rim and the Arab states in cluding the Saudis.
That's the Bush Legacy. You expect mcCain has the intellect to run the technocrats needed to re-float the great American ship?
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:50 PM
Your post is absurd.....and youguys wonder why libs come off as elitist.....don't disagree with a lib or your stupid, a liar or a hater.
Geeeez, grow up.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:55 PM
Social Security is a good topic you mentioned in your post, which had good sense to it. G'ment run retirement is goign to bust this economy. Where do you want the moneyto come from to pay for social security, g'ment un health care....we already spends billions on education and it gets worse. The money is there for education, its the system itself that is flawed. So the lefts answer is to put a big spending liberal in office? We've tossed untold amount sof money at poverty, ye ti still exists. The federal g'ment isn't able to run these things. Its easyto sit up and say I want health care for everyone, I want great education for everyone, but ya gotta pay for it. The g'ment is incompetant at running most things. Why am I "forced" into g'ment run retirement? Its a financial nuclear bomb about to go off when the boomer really start hitting in 2010. The g'ment is an "obstacle" to good answers to things like education.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:04 PM
I think that Obama supporters are taking the shortcut in assuming that all people who are against him are racists.
I despise both John Edwards and Barack Obama for exactly the same reasons: being empty shelled insincere charlatans who try to market themselves as blue collar friendly.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:06 PM
Anyone check out the crosstabs? ALL of the Columbus Dispatch polls are notoriously weighted in favor of older and conservative voters.
In the 2004 election the 18-29 group made up about 21% of the electorate which is very high. According to this poll the 18-34 - yes that's right - the 18-34 group makes up only 15%!!!! So if you readjust the cross tabs to reflect REALITY, Obama wins Ohio in a stomp.
Also, the non-white portion of the poll is only 11.22%. The non-white voting percentage in Ohio in 2004 was 14% and that number has increased since 2004. This poll is really really good news for Barack Obama.
Just to give you a comparison: The Columbus Dispatch poll showed Hillary ahead in the primary 56% to 40%. The actual results were 53% to 45%, an 8 point swing. So when you actually reweight for correct demographics, Obama is crusiing in Ohio. Yahoo!!!!!
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:13 PM
What happens when individuals, Banks, businesses, government can't pay their bills, they go bankrupt. That is what is happening to the US economy it's going bust.
Bid Ladin stated aim is to bankrupt the US economy just like what happened to the old Soviet Union in Afghanistan - the war bankrupted the Soviets.
So, unfortunately you have McCain who can't really discuss the issues in more than jargon and the AA Obama who has a grip on some very complex issues - and no solutions - but at least an organizational skill and ability to bring people together to attempt to solve the problems.
This election is not about conservative or liberal America burt about the continued existence of America as an afluent country with opportunities for all.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:18 PM
Yes Clint it is a very suspect poll. There are a stream of suspect SurveyUSA state polls just being released although the data is over a week old. Have fun with them as well!
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:24 PM
Everyone be honest. Who actually thinks this poll is accurate?
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:26 PM
I agree with you. Unfortunately you and I are on polar opposittes on what is the right solution to fix the mess. We both agree its a big mess, but totally disagree on which path to take towards correcting it. I am hoping McCain picks Romney...a successful business minded fellow who can bring good ideas and solutions to the economy that don't require full g'ment control.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:29 PM
President's run countries not VP, especially a VP who is detested by his boss the Commander -in-Chief. Romney will be an errand boy!
I am surprised you don't support Barr!
Here's Virginia (Survey USA)
Asked of 655 likely voters
Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 3.9%
If the election for President were today, would you vote for ... (choices rotated) Republican John McCain? Or, Democrat Barack Obama?
48% McCain (R)
47% Obama (D)
Asked of 655 Likely Voters
On the crosstabs Repubs maybe over weighted.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:35 PM
romney.. can you imagine the number of ads with a poor dog tied to the roof in fear as it vomits and has diaherra?
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:41 PM
keep your posts civil.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:43 PM
SurveyUSA has really gone downhill. They totally screwed up in Indiana and North Carolina, along with a host of other states. Zogby used to suck but I think they're coming around a bit. Not sure.
Anyway, if Obama is only trailing in the white vote category by 12 points on election day (i.e. 55% to 43%), then Ohio is his.
The crosstabs could look like this:
Even if Obama's white support drops to say, 42%, he still wins by a half of a percentage point.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:44 PM
Well at age 72...McCain's VP might just become president. I think he's looking for reasons not to pick Romney, but Romney I think is favored. Just like Obama / Clinton, McCain and Romney are certainly not best freinds.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:50 PM
I am hoping McCain picks Romney...a successful business minded fellow who can bring good ideas and solutions to the economy that don't require full g'ment control.
Do you mean like how a lack of regulation helped to stop the current housing crisis? Or how the lack of regulation helped to stop the Internet Bubble in the stock market? Or how the lack of regulation helped to stop the 2000/2001 energy crisis in California. Or how the lack of regulation helped to stop market manipulation of oil prices in the last 4 years?
You know, all of these have something in common. Laws were enacted that lifted regulation and oversight of these things, and as a result they were gamed by greedy companies and individuals.
In the 90's they lifted the rule that required IPO shares to be held for 3 years...and made it just 6 months, and that caused a rush to bring companies to market that could only last 6 months from the IPO cash infusion. In the 1990's California de-regulated their energy supply and failed to put in controls or oversight for energy traders, and Enron and others bent them over as hard as they could. In 2001 in order to recover from the recession that the two earlier things caused, the Fed lowered interest rates and allowed new forms of sub-prime loans to be written, including such obvious idiocy as interest only loans. These sub-prime loans increased demand, and therefore prices, and lead to a housing bubble which is currently bursting. In the early 2000's congress lifted a requirement that oil had to be physically held by an oil trader, and this caused a massive increase in trading and false demand that then pushed the price of oil up over 500% in the years following, and the same effect was seen with other commodities such as food and feed staples.
As long as there is such a thing as greed, we need some oversight. The troubles that this country has right now are primarily due to too much greed and too little oversight during the last decade.
...and I could bring up Chinese toys and pet food, but I didn't.
You have an opinion, and no surprise that opinion is one of those famous Republican one-liners with nothing to back it up. I have an opinion...and facts to boot.
No one likes regulation, but without oversight, the greedy and the crooked would surely have even more of a field day than they already are.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:53 PM
The problem with your argument on deregulation etc is that thjis happened when Clinton was in the White House. Indeed the biggest fraud in Economic History was the "Millienium Bug".
So I don't know Bramster what this has to do with Romney, he at least although Stillow doesn't know it introduced socialized medicine in Mass!
Take it easy with her, bro!
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:03 PM
I'd like to reply to your post, but after your boneheaded statement above.......no thanks. When you grow up and can carry on conversations I can respond.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:04 PM
Yes, the changes in securities regulation were enacted under Clinton. I'm not a person that would claim that no Democrat can do no wrong. Even though the other three things that I pointed out were done under Republican administrations, that was not the point either.
The point was that Stillow essentially implied that government regulation was bad, when in reality our biggest recent economic failures have been the result of loosening regulations.
And as far as Romney being a small government guy goes; in Romney's former life as a Massachusetts governor, he fought to enact sweeping legislation that required people to carry health insurance, and enacted penalties on most companies that didn't provide it to their employees.
I'm not saying that's wrong, but as a first in the nation effort, Romney surely wasn't on the side of a lack of regulation.
What gets me is that the people that parrot these talking points don't even see the hypocrisy in them. They actually believe what they are saying as if their one-liners had truth to them.
And BTW, to Sillow, if you want to go call mommy and report me then go for it. That's just idiotic.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:15 PM
Since we're all talking about it, I'll go ahead and jump the gun:
Reasons why Obama lost the election (expect to hear any combination of these from the left)
2. Democrats nominated the wrong candidate
3. McCain cheated in (insert name of battle ground state)
4. The Clintons
5. Americans suck and that's why we're moving to Canada.
Did I cover all of them?
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:19 PM
I did know about the MA health care system, but that is far from g'ment run health care....very very far!!
I'm not opposed to g'ment on a limited basis, or the g'ment providing oversight, but the applications cannot be run by the g'ment. They have a proven history of not being able to do anything well.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:23 PM
You undermine your points by putting them forward in such a vitriolic manner.
We all agree about the rule of law. We can all agree that regulations and corporatew laws like ani-trust are necessary.
I think if we can find common ground we might be able to construct a ways forward that all Americans signed up to.
Whether its Obama or McCain hopefully the next President will understand he has to have the support of the people, not because we have been conned and lied to, but because it is something that we as a country must unite to do.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Well the health care initiative funded by the commonwealth I am told did not work and is virtually bankrupt.
I have absolutely no idea how America is going to be fixed, the entire country is run for the benefit of "special interests", its got too far the nations coffers have been plundered by friends of Bush and Cheney and freinds of friends of friends if you follow me starting with halliburton.
But hey, that's the corruption that is endemic in the US of Bush/Cheney Government.
You know we have almost become a laughing stock, an impotent giant conned by Chalabi into a war in Iraq, currently being conned into Georgia, absolutely nuts! yet we have crumbling roads and bridges, schools etc. Yea, lets build for the rest of the world when we desperately need to renew and rebuild at home.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:39 PM
Its not just Bush. This is a problem dating abck for 50 years. Its not only the White House, but Congress too. I say every day on here both parties are as corrupt as they have ever been.
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:44 PM
Don't leave out Dean/Pelosi and DNC
2. The Clintons
3. DNC flawed undemocratic nomination process
4. The media
5. Democrats nominated the wrong candidate
6. Obama/DNC disenfranchised FL/MI
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:48 PM
We are electing a real Commander in Chief, a leader and that is the challenge. Sorry a guy at 72 without any positive vision doesn't cut the mustard!
I don't like politicians, generally, they are devoid of honesty, integrity or principles. I can't think of any that I would want to invite into my home!
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:58 PM
For the most part I am not vitriolic.
I have had exchanges with Stillow in the past. Then and again this time, there are talking points being parroted. It really saddens me how people think something is true because it has been repeated enough times to them. It's all just propaganda, and of course propaganda works. It may be this bothers me too much and that I am aggressive at times in tamping that down, but I do in fact think that all responsible people should step it up in tamping down propaganda of all varieties because it is a scourge and good people don't use propaganda.
Sillow also wanted to "report me" for some unknown reason. I don't take any blame for mocking that.
Posted on August 25, 2008 5:20 PM
Well we can disagree on McCain having or not having a positive vision. But Obama scares the hell out of me, the economy is in bad shape....we cannot afford another spender, Bush did enough damage spending money we didn't have....McCain at least as a hisotry for speaking out against wasteful spending and always opposed pork.
Posted on August 25, 2008 5:32 PM
Excuse me? I never said anything abotu reporting anyone. Show me where I ever said that? You can't, because I never did.
Unbeleivable. You reply to thoughtful was we all need to raise our discussion, yet above youcall everyone a hater or a liar....just because somoene has an opposing view to your own, doesn't mean they are stupid, a liar, a hater or whatever else you want to call them...it simply means they have an opposing view. Your name calling sinks the level of discussion. Then you just make stuff up about reporting.....geeeez, agai nI will say, grow up! You look very un-credible when you just make stuff up and call people names.
Posted on August 25, 2008 5:36 PM
Wrong person, it was me. I just re-read your reply to me, and I misread what you said. So I do stand corrected and I am sorry for that.
Posted on August 25, 2008 6:04 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