8/4-6/08; 1,000 Adults, 4%
Obama 42, McCain 39 (7/29: Obama 44, McCain 37)
great poll data. much to explore but sample's a bit small given the depth of the questions.
seems obama is able to deflect insincerity/pander
rap against him and mccain is taking it on the chin.
Posted on August 11, 2008 11:54 AM
3% Nationally - That's only a 97% chance of an electoral college victory. What does that mean? - -Let's ask Chemical Ali - A/K/A McCananite's Blog Trolls.
Posted on August 11, 2008 12:09 PM
49 pages of interesting reading. Interesting use of lexical decision testing from cognitive psychology.
OK.. Here is what I gleaned from the lexical decision (descriptive word questions). The numbers are percentages in order of Obama/McCain:
Obama's highest ratings (Obama/McCain):
Risky Choice 45/26
McCain's highest ratings (Obama/McCain)
Well, this explains Obama's wimpy response regarding Russia's invasion of Georgia. That event made me finally decide that I would NOT vote for Obama at all (no matter who the VP). His weak "let's all come together" reaction reeked of inexperience and ignorance. Then he had a second do-over tougher response, but in world affairs one does not always get do overs. He is really risky. Too bad he has not read any of JFK's books and taken up those lessons for himself. I guess I should change my screename to "anyone but Obama" or something like that.
P.S. This is the 3rd poll I have seen where it is indicated that more voters think that Obama does not "believes" what he says in comparison to McCain (aka "phony" factor).
Posted on August 11, 2008 12:39 PM
What's wrong with coming together....it sounds like a perfectly well formulated foreign policy to me....................and a perfectly well worded response to Russia's attacks on georgia...............
Posted on August 11, 2008 12:53 PM
Actually the national polls relate to popular vote. Notably, candidates have won the popular vote, yet lost the election. Gore 2000 comes first to mind.
But what is more important is to look at the trending of the issues including candidate "traits."
Are people on election day going to choose the inspiring candidate or the boring candidate, the risky candidate or the competent candidate, the inexperienced candidate or the experienced candidate? Will the strength of "patriotism" play a role? Who knows. I cannot think of a similar contest. Not JFK who barely squeaked out a win over Navy veteran Nixon (Ike's VP)... JFK was the ultimate patriot (PT109) as well as inspirational as well as highly intelligent as well as proven competent as experience of 12 years in Congress. JFK had far more things going for him than Obama. Some say the final push for JFK was his debate performance on TV, yet those who listened on the radio thought the debate was a tie.
So look at Obama's positives... he is ranked high in intelligence and is inspiring. Yet, he is remiss in patriotism, experience, and is considered risky as well as NOT tough.
McCain may not be inspirational but he tops Obama on several important factors. I disagree that McCain is not intelligent, but his intelligence is different and more practical (see Howard Gardner's "Multiple Intelligences.")
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:07 PM
Are you kidding Stillow? Russia invades a sovereign country and we tell them to work it out with Georgia... the country they invaded? Note if Georgia had already become a member of NATO as they are pursuing, then invading a NATO country is automatically considered declaration of war and all of NATO would have come down on them. Also note that Russia is do as we say, not do as we do... i.e. Chezna. Accordingly, Georgia has the right to protect its sovereign border, even if it is a region that wants to break away. (Hmmm... U.S. Civil War comes to mind.)
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:14 PM
Note 1: Sarcasm is hard to read on these blogs. So my question "Are you kidding?"
Note 2: Obama came out with a "tough" stance on Russia invading Georgia on his second comment... his "redo." (Obama has a lot of "redo" comments because he "wants to make himself clear." So he should express himself well the first time, and then he would not need 2 or 3 or more redos. It is also difficult if not impossible to be "clear" if one talks in lawyer-speak (parsing and nuances).
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:20 PM
Heh, yes I was being sarcastic. I too thought Obama's comments were a joke. It actually scares me to think of him sitting in the oval office and the news comes out that Iran publically announces they have built nuclear weapons...and intel shows them pointing missiles at Israel....He is very very weak on foreign policy which comes from inexpereince. Iran is going to be a real problem for the next president....and the idea of just ebing nice and they will be nice back is nieve at best.....disasterours at worst.
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:32 PM
You mean to tell me that after posting anti-Obama rants for 6 months on over 70 websites that you finally decided not to vote for Obama? Pleezzzzeee, come on now.
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:44 PM
I wanted to comment on the latest polls but have got drawn into the debate, there is so much misinformation visavis Russia and Georgia. The Georgians are playing the US as suckers. They started this conflict last Thursday afternoon with a sneak attack, the Russians, who this like a hole in the head, have called the Georgian bluff and will call their own cease fire probably within the next 24 hours.
I am sorry McCain fans I hear that McCain wanted to throw Russoia out of the G8 and let Georgia into NATO. He has no understanding of how to run foreign affairs.
Posted on August 11, 2008 1:59 PM
I think you missed the point. Obama's was respone was for us all to get along.....even the left has to laugh at his initial response to a world wide event like that. Luckily for him his staff told him he was being obsurd and he is now coming out with more logical replies to the situation....
Posted on August 11, 2008 2:03 PM
I think you are misrepresenting Obama. Let me make a point sometimes the job entails calming all sides down, not escalating it.
Posted on August 11, 2008 2:08 PM
With posters like brambster who are intent on bullying anyone who criticizes Obama for anything, I would not be surprised if he and his ilk are truly responsible for many voters deciding NOT to vote for Obama.
FYI... I have not been on this site for 6 months... nor have visited those "over 70 websites." I am not who you think I am. I also do not "rant"... that is left to posters like "brambster."
Why not try to encourage other posters to vote for Obama by arguing his strengths rather than beating up those who could have possibly been persuaded? Many of us do not see "the one" in any candidate and never did throughout the years (except maybe JFK when I was 10). Past time for you to mature into an intelligent and civil adult. Bullying is not attractive.
Posted on August 11, 2008 2:17 PM
Yes... calm all sides down while Russians kill Georgian civilians. Sure, that works. NOT.
Do not forget that Obama made a second "tougher" statement because his first one was inadequate. So please email him and tell him you liked his first statement better.
Posted on August 11, 2008 2:21 PM
Right, on Sept 12th 2001 Bush should have said, can't we all come together. Trust me, he knows it ws a foolish comment and his staff has made sure he is briefed on what to say from now on on global events.
Posted on August 11, 2008 2:24 PM
The discussion of the candidates responses to the Georgian conflict is a bit simplistic. Note that the State Department and the EU responded initially the same way Obama did. McCain and Cheney both came out forcefully, but neglected to mention what practical steps could be taken. While Russia has reacted dispropotionately, no one is suprised that Putin reacted with military force to Georgia's military move into South Ossetia. Just as the Russians could not stop NATO from bombing Serbia, the US and EU are not in a position to stop Russia. Diplomacy seems a better choice than empty sabre-rattling.
Posted on August 11, 2008 3:34 PM
how tough is it really if you say something you cant really back up?
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:30 AM
and i dont think what barack said is weak. the answer to a crisis is not always gung ho warrior tactics. especially since georgia is not entirely innocent in this conflict. they did use an over aggressive response to the south ossetians(most) wish to return to russia. not a very democratic thing to do.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:41 AM
@ STILLOW Yesterday, I forecasted that the Russians would call their own ceasefire within 24 hours, The Russian President, Dmitriy Medvedev has now ordered his troops to halt all operations.
Personally, I think Obama's, Bush's and the EU's response was the correct one initially.
I think my friend Stillow really did not mean to compare this to 9/11, but if he did it must be as an analogy of wrong response. The US and the World's Capital markets were attacked on 9/11 by Al-Qaeda an extreme islamist organization. The invasion of Iraq and regime change was a completely wrong response and has only acted in the short and medium term to create instabiliity and a further cause for extremism. Over the last 6 years, the US and the rest of the civilized world was diverted from its pursuit of Al-Qaeda.
A wrong response from the west in dealing with a settling down period after the break up of the Soviet Union into seperate sovereign states could lead to world war 3, especially with a hot head like John McCain as President.
The situation in Georgia is complexed yet relatively simple, inside their internationally recognized are 2 regions where the majority of the population are not Georgian and do not want to be ruled by Georgians. There has been a defacto standoff and peace since 1992.
Georgia decided on Thursday to end that peace last Thursday afternoon. The Russians have driven them back, and disabled the Georgian military for the time being and seek a legally binding agreement with the Georgians that the wishes of the the peoples in the 2 provinces are respected.
Posted on August 12, 2008 8:11 AM
Best to review the Rasmussen poll before giving Obama a pass on his response:
"Although 85% of Republicans believe McCain is the better of the two presidential candidates to handle a similar crisis in the future, only 61% of Democrats feel that way about Obama. More than one-out-of-five Democrats (22%) think the Republican presidential candidate would handle it better than the prospective candidate of their own party. Only 8% of GOP voters favor Obama over McCain in such a situation. Among unaffiliated voters, 56% prefer McCain while 28% like Obama better."
Posted on August 12, 2008 12:36 PM
John McCain is like the guy who gets a Lynch mob going. Very dangerous man. The biggest threat to national security indeed world security is John McCain. Presidents need to moderate at times and exhort at other times the South Ossetia situation was one of coming to the aid of mutual friends to help settle a dispute. That opportunity has been lost at least by the US. Obama's friend the President of France is mediating!
Posted on August 12, 2008 1:17 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