Pollster.com

This narrows it, but, crucially, does not seem to be numbers that mean McCain led in yesterday's polling. (Nate at 538 has detailed analysis and crunching of this)

Palin was surely a better night for the GOP than McCain, which suggests that even at the height of McCain's convention bounce, the race is even with a slight advantage for Obama - the pattern that has held for months.

McCain TV Ratings Beat Obama in Preliminary Numbers...

Also,

Thousands show up to McCain-Palin speech today to "See Sarah". Did you see her cool rock and roll hand gestures!!!!

Smart People,

How reliable and respectable is this new Diageo Poll? Looks like a smaller sampling than the other two.

Also, are live interview polls more reliable than IVR?

thanks,

Flash

Maybe she'll be able to hand gesture our economy back to prosperity.

Question, can someone give me the 2004 R/D/I percents again of the actual final vote?

@kerrchdavis:

"sigh...ok, boskop. McCain certainly knows what war is like firsthand, and if that is your priority, you're voting for the right guy."

gosh, you dont seem to be able to pull the gist out of a post do you?

fyi: his fight talk is a non starter with me though i know why he did it.

i am anti war unless for our immediate protection. obama rattles his sabre louder and more recklessly than does mccain.

you are a foolish follower of the pied piper of the say anything to get elected demagogue. i'll save your thoughtless posts and hold them dear to my heart when obama recklessly repeats the mistakes of his most infamous predecessor.

sadly though it is not something i wish to be found prescient on.

Watching MSNBC this morning with "Live" and time in the upper left hand corner of the screen and the the ticker running along the bottom of the screen using YESTERDAY'S Gallup Daily Tracking Poll numbers. Yet TODAY'S Gallup Daily Tracking had been available for over 40 minutes. I noticed this because when the Gallup polls are going up for Obama that they "announce" it as part of the daily talk. Wow, how biased can MSNBC get?

Palin got over 40 million viewers, more than Obama...the GOP's #2 got more than the Dems #1....thats excitement for Palin. If McCain #'s come in higher than Obama....you could see the start of a very bad trend for Obama....afterall he was supposed to be the exciting one right? The left and the media are underestimating Palin....big time....her favorables are then the other three....
We won't know the full affect of bounces til Monday thru Wedsday next week.

Where did you get that lie, stillknowsnothing, the bible?

cnn is like too. i have too often seen the website post late for good mccain polls. like hours and hours late. but they post immediately for obama on the rise.

nothing new there.

is there really anything left that is unbiased? no.

do i think democracy is in big fat trouble? yes.
do i think we are the laughing stock of the world? we deserve to be.

do i think we need to overhaul antiquated documents and systems? yu bet.

do i think we'll survive,

better than ever. the 'shale things up ' riff that both candidates address underscores this. it is not just a play for difference it is a timely cleaning out of the filthy Augean stables.'

muck it out baby.

Funny thing is, Obama's support is stable at 48, even after palin's lie filled speech.

Wait til the media rips her a new one over all her scandals next week.......ROTFL!!

I can't wait for the next few weeks!!

@cmbat: The numbers up on CNN.com say 37%R / 37%D / 26%I for 2004.

SO THIS IS THE BOUNCE FROM PALIN!!! Bad news for McLame. His speech last night won't raise his numbers at all and her negatives will only increase from here, especially once the GOP shuttles her back to Alaska for the next 2-3 weeks. The Dems are going to hit her hard on why she has to go back home to 'bone up' if she is so ready to be VP, not to mention slamming her on her extreme right wing views.

many tards have -rightly- said that we are the laughing stock of the world. Yeah, and why do you repub clowns think that is?

Ask anyone outside this country and they will give you a one word answer: BUSH.

buruts1..

oh god voice99, cant you even disguise your style? is mark that lame he cant track your nasty habits?

@mirrorball

Thank you very much.

@FFlyer

Uhhh, the Palin bounce has barely one day in there...and you already see obama losing ground.....and trust me, the GOP want you guys to hit he rand hit her hard....cus so far its backfiring since her approvals are higher than obama and biden.......please continue to sink your own ship.

40 million viewers...more than Obama.....embarassing for Obama.

Remember what I was talking about Hillary's dreams for 2012 and Sarah Palin: Well it wasn't just me.

Betsy Hart, a rightwinger, was thinking the same thing, Do you really believe that she and I are the only ones?Um..let me think: NO!!!!

"Can’t You Feel Hillary’s Pain?"

"On the one hand, Hillary Clinton could just be a very happy woman about now. Witnessing the blockbuster Sarah Palin speech at the Republican convention Thursday night, she has to feel more than a glimmer of hope that Barack Obama will lose in November, making her the presumptive nominee for the Democrats four years from now starting on election day 2008. (And giving her “I told you so” rights galore.)"

"Her moment of glory and vindication may keep getting delayed, but in her mind it’s all about patience, patience, patience."

"Hillary Clinton she watched what she had to immediately understand was the American people falling in love with Sarah Palin. Did she get a glimpse into the first woman President of the United States? Did she realize she’d seen the future – and it wasn’t Hillary Clinton?"

"'But wait a minute' you can almost hear Hillary Clinton say to all those ungrateful Americans – you people are supposed to want ME, ME! I’ve been waiting for this. I’ve sacrificed for this. I’ve stayed married to Bill because of this! I’m the one. You owe ME!'"

"'Her? Her? She doesn’t play the victim card! She doesn’t talk about glass ceilings and how she’s badly treated because she’s a woman. Are you people crazy? She’s not a woman, she’s pro-life. Pro-life. She likes babies! And guns. And men. And she’s really good-looking! It’s not fair!'"

"Yikes for Hillary. This has got to hurt."

*Betsy Hart is a syndicated columnist

Poor Hillary :-( she was so close when Sarah Palin slammed the door on her nose!!!!

What do you guys think of 6.1% unemployment? Shouldn't we be talking about it instead of non-issues?

Bush/Cheney were disaster and McCain/Palin are no different. Same tactics, same divisiveness, same advisers, same speechwriters, same policies same same same.

Sarah Palin isn't presidential. Its both her appeal and downfall eventually.

@"her approvals are higher than obama and biden"

Well, that depends who are you asking to. According to ABC News survey released today, "More have a favorable than unfavorable view of Palin by 50 percent to 37 percent — a bit less than the 54 percent to 30 percent positive opinion they have of Biden."

So, according to Rasmussen, the republican, evangelical pollster who since months ago has being pushing for Sarah Palin, she is viewed more favorably than Biden. However, according to ABC News, do you remember the debate debacle in PA? Hard to argue that they love Obama, Biden is seen 4% more favorable than Palin. In addition to 7% less favorable than her.

*Since ABC News' survey doesn't mention Obama, there is nothing to argue there.

Brutus1_ - Excellent observation. Palin and Giuliani's red meat attacks on Obama did not move his numbers - they enthused the base. Which is to say, all that happened here were some undecideds who were clearly already leaning McCain are enthused enough to say so to a pollster.

In Gallup, Obama and McCain were tied 45-45 the day the Dem convention began, August 25. By Friday the 29th Obama led 49-41 and by Monday of this week he still had the 49 while McCain had gotten to 43 with a Palin selection bounce. Today, McCain has only gained one point during the GOP convention from 43 to 44 while Obama gained 4 points during the same time of the Dem convention. McCain might get one more point or he may gain nothing more after his speech and today's unemployment report. In Rasmussen, McCain has basically gained more committed supporters (45) at the expense of his leaners, which is the same number today (46) as it was 9/1. Meanwhile, Obama's committed supporters (46)remains where it was last Friday before Palin and the GOP convention, while he has lost 1 point on his leaners to uncommitted in the past week (49-48), which is not surprising given the week of Palin and the convention. It appears that McCain is going to net less bounce than Obama and that part of that bounce is going to have been in the pre-convention selection of Palin and the rest her securing the base Wednesday night. McCain is not going to get what he needed from his convention to reach out to swing voters.

Palin was a gimmick pick and that will become clearer and clearer as the days go on. These polls are the high water mark for McLame and its only downhill from here for him and that joke of a VP pick. I can see it now, once she loses the election in Nov she'll head off to 'Dancing With The Stars' or some other reality show with her inbred family and that will be last we hear of her. BWHAAAA!!!!!

@SwingVote

Ok lets talk unemployment. Europe is into the whole liberalsim is great thing.....go look up there unemployment #'s and then come back to this forum............liberalism doesn't work, it leads to double digit unemployment....large tax burdens and more dependency.

Stillow:

What is your source for the ratings? She drew a very impressive audiance, but according to Nielsen, not quite as large as Obama's:

"An audience of 37.2 million people watched Palin on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, Nielsen Media Research said Thursday. PBS estimated its audience at 3.9 million, based on a less reliable sample of several big cities. Nielsen does not count the audience for C-SPAN, which also showed the speech.

Last week, Nielsen said 38.4 million people watched Obama speak at a Denver stadium on the six commercial networks, along with BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo _ four networks that didn't cover Palin's speech. PBS added an estimated 4 million to that total."

ht: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/republican-national-conve_n_123986.html

And let's not forget at a time when Obama is appearing on O'Reilly over 4 nites the GOP has to sequester their 'brilliant ready to lead' VP pick in Alaska for the next 2 or so weeks to, oh, how did they put it, 'get her up to speed.' LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

@dc:

Go to drudge he has a link to the info there shwoing palin drew over 40 million...and in addition her speech was aired on less networks...obama was covered by telemundo and bet for example, palin's was not....she got more viewers on less networks..........

Of course Palin got a huge audience. NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA WHO SHE WAS!!!! HELLO!!!!

Not that the argument is particularly relevant anyways, but his 42.4 M is still more than her 41.1 M, even with her novelty factor. Over a million more. More than the entire state of Alaska more.

Breaking: McCain beats Obama by 500,000...

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's campaign expects to leave the Republican National Convention with $200 million in the bank and be able to match the Democrats' spending in the next two months, an aide said.

...McCain's speech is now the most-watched in convention history...

marctx - That is misleading to some extent. By any standard, RNC money is not as good as campaign money.

Breaking News!!!!!

According to Nielsen:

"Nielsen Media Research reported this afternoon that an estimated 38.9 million watched McCain's acceptance speech Thursday night. McCain even drew a bigger audience than his running mate, Sarah Palin, who drew about 37 million for her speech Wednesday night."

"Separately, PBS said that about 2.7 million tuned in for its coverage Thursday night -- down from 3.2 million for Palin and 3.5 million for Obama's acceptance speech."

"That makes McCain's total audience nearly 41 million, compared to about 40 million for Palin and Obama."

Let's see what mainstream Americans thought of McCain's speech. It seems that most people, including Joe S., of Morning Joe, A REPUBLICAN, think that McCain speech didn't hit the nerve as Palin's. But remember, Joe is a Republican. He said that it was perfect to put you to sleep.

However, I don't think that was the main issue. I think that the really disappointing part is that he didn't talk about what he would do to fix the economy, job market, housing market, education, health care, etc. I really think that in the long run McCain fell short of putting "meat" in the bones. But let's wait for the debates, so we can see whether he starts addressing the bread and butter issues like the Democrats are doing.

The Dems are in a very good position. I am no Pollster but here are a few facts I've studied. #1 - Polling results are often based on '04 voting #'s. In VA for instance, 400,000 new DEMS are on the registration rolls. + OBAMA. #2 - Per RealClearPolitics.com the polling average the day before voting in '04 was less than +2% for Bush and he won with a pretty clear margin. Obama is currently up almost 4% with the same methodology. Good sign. #3 - McCain has not receive the bump he would have liked. The fact is in most polls he's hardly broken 45% while Obama is near 50% or sometimes over 50% for the 1st time this election cycle. Palin may h ave fired up the base as they like to claim, but did it fire up the independents? Every indicator says NO so far. #4 - Dems will successfully tie McCain to Bush, rightfully so, the voting record doesn't lie... you say it doesn't work? It already has. Why else is the Senator that everyone knows as the Maverick of 26 years losing in every single major poll? #5 - Obama currently leads in ND, VA, CO, and OH all bush states last go around. Remember, he only needs ONE plus the Kerry states to be elected president of the United States. I see Colorado as his best shot with a young, college educated population, large hispanic community. CO is trouble for McCain. A few recent polls have him up as much as 5% there. MN, MI, PA is a pipe dream for McCain...who drank the Kool-Aide? #6 - In 3 weeks the bi-partisan investigation will be released to the media. Word has it there is some very disconcering evidence of a Palin Scandal. If this is announced, and it shows ANY wrong doing for Palin, it's over. She told 40,000,000 Americans how she turned around the gov. of AK and how she is the reformer, yet the AP had to print a story countering 10+ bold lies she told during the speech, including her EARMARK Maverickness. She herself secured MILLIONS in earmarks for her tiny town. Hipocrite anyone? #7 - The change wind is at Obama's back. His is a brilliant campaigner and nothing will change this.

Obama. Look behind you. You appear to be carrying some dead weight (Biden).

I'm still skeptical. I think the convention bounce will be seen on Monday.

"McCain's speech is now the most-watched in convention history."

As I said, this a double-edged sword, if people were impress with McCain, good for him; however, if people were dissapointed on his speech or the substance of the speech, too bad for him. Time will tell guys. Don't worry, we are 60 days away from election day.

Let's face it, Dems. The Republican convention was supposed to be a total disaster -- what with Gustav bearing down on New Orleans, the media bearing down on Palin (a.k.a. Caribou Barbie), and everybody still glowing from the reflected light off of Obama's and Biden's brilliant smiles in Denver. But much to our collective surprise, they had a very respectable showing and Palin was a hit. Obama better pray that Hillary can pull his tuchus outta the fire. Obama's big mistake? Not choosing Hillary.

[cf. Thomas Roeser, “Obama’s BigMistake: Not Picking Hillary,” Chicago Daily Observer, Sept 4, 2008
http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns…illary%2C1649/

Roeser's article also supplies illuminating details about Biden’s tendency to, um, let's say, slightly rewrite his personal history. Hillary’s exaggeration re: Bosnia sniper fire seems utterly minor by comparison.

Where is the evidence Biden is pulling Obama down?

Biden is meant to reassure those who are wary of Obama's foreign policy experience.

MILLIONS of Dems including myself watched Palin to see who the hell she is.

Stillow,

I guess you have an understanding problem. We are living in the US and I was talking about the unemployment in the US. Europe having worse unemployment is not relevant.

Correct me if I am wrong. Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and countless number of European leaders are not liberals. Moreover, European liberals' failures do not make liberals in the US responsible for a conservative president's failure to create jobs (he even kills jobs). Similarly, Islamic terrorists being conservatives does not make you responsible for their actions. You should stop seeing things "us and them" like Palin did. That's why many of the conservatives give free pass to Palin's daughter being pregnant. God forbid, If Obama's daughter was teenage and pregnant....

I am neither liberal or conservative. I am in the middle for most of the issues. I am not in favor of big government, however I believe in government's responsibilities. I am not in favor of gay marriage but I support their rights. I am not in favor of abortion but I don't want some people to impose their values to others.

Once again, instead of answering a question, you attacked some other territory. My question was simple though. If 6.1% unemployment was too high or low? Who or what to blame etc. Because this economic issues make more sense than sexiness, being celebrity, being woman, being black etc.

Remember what I was talking about Hillary's dreams for 2012 and Sarah Palin: Well it wasn't just me.

Betsy Hart, a rightwinger, was thinking the same thing, Do you really believe that she and I are the only ones?Um..let me think: NO!!!!

"Can’t You Feel Hillary’s Pain?"

"On the one hand, Hillary Clinton could just be a very happy woman about now. Witnessing the blockbuster Sarah Palin speech at the Republican convention Thursday night, she has to feel more than a glimmer of hope that Barack Obama will lose in November, making her the presumptive nominee for the Democrats four years from now starting on election day 2008. (And giving her “I told you so” rights galore.)"

"Her moment of glory and vindication may keep getting delayed, but in her mind it’s all about patience, patience, patience."

"Hillary Clinton she watched what she had to immediately understand was the American people falling in love with Sarah Palin. Did she get a glimpse into the first woman President of the United States? Did she realize she’d seen the future – and it wasn’t Hillary Clinton?"

"'But wait a minute' you can almost hear Hillary Clinton say to all those ungrateful Americans – you people are supposed to want ME, ME! I’ve been waiting for this. I’ve sacrificed for this. I’ve stayed married to Bill because of this! I’m the one. You owe ME!'"

"'Her? Her? She doesn’t play the victim card! She doesn’t talk about glass ceilings and how she’s badly treated because she’s a woman. Are you people crazy? She’s not a woman, she’s pro-life. Pro-life. She likes babies! And guns. And men. And she’s really good-looking! It’s not fair!'"

"Yikes for Hillary. This has got to hurt."

*Betsy Hart is a syndicated columnist

Poor Hillary :-( she was so close when Sarah Palin slammed the door on her nose!!!!

As I said and MANY agree, Next week the polling average will settle somewhere around 3-4%. If obama is up 3-4% the day before the election, that's close to a landslide. In '04, Bush ended with a polling average of just under 2%. Be very worried Republicans. You are about finished. I have spoken with many indpendents who pretty much have said YAH Palin seems bright, but we don't know her, and SHE'S A REPUBLICAN. The problem is going to end up the Republican brand. They can say whatever they want, but the country won't go for it, it's won't work this time I'm afraid.

Swing vote knows his stuff:

Maybe humanity is worth saving after all?

O.K let's see:

Poor Hillary Clinton got 26 million viewers according to Nielsen.

Sarah Palin got 40 million viewers.

Ouch!!!! "ungrateful Americans – you people are supposed to want ME, ME!" Hillary was supposed to be your Girl!!! The one ready on day one, the girl with 18 million cracks on the hardest ceiling in the nation. The one with 35 years of experience, Bill's wife. I can't believe that almost 14 million people couldn't bring themselves to see me, but see the new girl on the block!!!!

Go Hillary!!!, I mean Sarah!!!

Indpendents will NOT go for Palin. Mark my words. She is WAY too conservative. Indpendents fall in the middle, and more SOCIALLY liberal than conservative. They tend to be fiscally conservative BUT the party in charge, you know, the fiscal conservative ran up the single largest deficit in WORLD HISTORY. So I think that fiscal argument might be shot. They only have fear and yehaaaa to run on. It's over...you watch.

I'm recalling a certain Reagan speech writer and Wall Street Journal columnist saying something about the pick being "Political bullshit" and how it's all "about narrative".

Better watch what you wish for. Hillary will be out campaigning for Obama come Monday. Sarah is NO HILLARY with women. Trust me.

As is typical, McCain is getting a "bounce" from his convention. By definition, a polling "bounce" fades. The national polling numbers should stabilize by Monday, at which point the state of the race will become clear. Most likely, the two candidates will be close.

According to 538, Obama won yesterday's polling (despite the Palin speech) in both the Rasmussen and Gallup trackers. See:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

In the Rasmussen polling, McCain needs to win today's polling by about 2 points in order to remain where he is. In the Gallup polling, Obama needs to win today's polling by about 4 points to remain where he is. Part of the reason for McCain's improvement in the Rasmussen tracker is the fact that this pollster recently adjusted his party i.d. numbers in a way more favorable to the Republican. The "house effects" of both Rasmussen and Gallup favor McCain. The Diageo poll has a small sample for a national tracker.

@carl29

I don't really think Hillary wants to be pres in 2012 she wanted it now. This is the time that if a Dem gets in that history will remember. They will 50 seats in the House and a 10-12 advantage in the senate. She wanted in this year, cus this is the year a dem. would have the power and majority for sweeping change. We may see sweeping changes that we haven't seen since FDR with that type of majority. As the pendulum swings back her opportunity to make a mark on history fades.

You don't get the point that I am making: Look, there are some crazy people, former Hillary supporters, who were dreaming of Obama losing this Nov. and then Hillary coming back in 2012. Now that picture looks "a little bit different," why? Well, if Obama loses, Gov. Palin will become the next Vice-President of the US, and in so doing, she will position herself a step close to becoming the first female president of the United States. She will be the GOP nominee in 2012 to face off Hillary. The GOP will make sure that McCain gives Gov. Palin a lot of visibility, forget about telling tall tales about sniper fire, so she can act very presidential.

Whom do you think will have the upper-hand in that duel? Well, the easiest way to get elected president is having served as vice-president. Also, take into account that in 2012, Hillary will be around 65 years of age, compared with Sarah's 48. See my point?

@Stillow

like double digit unemployment under the 8 years of clinton? Excellent point, our economy did so much better once we canned his liberal ass. And while you're at it, check out the status of countries like Sweden, which have high tax rates but produce a plethora of excellent social services that their population enjoys as well as producing huge amounts of wealth and entrepreneurship.

From Forbes:

Shows a taxed-to-the-eyeballs welfare state where the government grabs more than 52% of the country's GDP—the highest percentage of any industrial country.

Shows a booming economy bubbling with entrepreneurial activity. Growth is predicted to be 3.5% for 2001; inflation, 1.7%; unemployment, 4% (less than half the European average). In 1999, according to the European Information Technology Observatory, Sweden ranked first in the world in investment in information technology and telecommunications. Venture capital is pouring into Sweden, and labor productivity is rocketing: From 1990 to 1999 productivity climbed 47% in Sweden, against 39% in the U.S. and 31% (on average) in the EU. Last year, Sweden topped the global standings in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP with 3.7% (in the U.S. it was 3.1%), according to the OECD.

Look, I know I'm making a simplistic argument that has a ton of other factors behind it. But don't generalize and say that europe is an example of why liberalism does not work. I'm not even FOR higher taxes...but consider some examples before you decide to over-generalize. There are a lot of european countries with HIGHER standards of living than us that are very liberal.

@carl29

I would agree with you that if McCann won Palin would have the upper hand. I just don't think Hillary is gonna run in 2012, it'd probably be Warner

@stillow

In fact, I'll go one better Stillow. The Human Development Index is used to a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy...many of the things you and I would love to see our country improve on, yes? It is a defined as "a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare."

Here is the list of the top 10 countries in the world:

# Norway (=)
# Iceland (↑ 5)
# Australia (=)
# Luxembourg (↑ 11)
# Canada (↓ 1)
# Sweden (↓ 4)
# Switzerland (↑ 4)
# Ireland (↑ 2)
# Belgium (↓ 3)
# United States (↓ 2)

Now tell me, Stillow, how many countries above us would you perceive to embrace Liberalism?

sigh...

Dear Evolve: You really believe that Hillary wasn't thinking about 2012? Please!!! It was obvious for everyone that she will make the comeback. However, being political savvy as they are, the Clintons understand what Palin means for Hillary's future. Unfortunaly, there is nothing they can do. If Obama wins in Nov. she will have to wait 8 years to run again, unless she challenges Obama in the primaries, just like Ted Kennedy did to Carter. If McCain wins, Sarah Palin will run in 2012. Now, the Clintons are kind of in a box.

Hillary needed McCain to pick a weak V.P., a regular guy. So, she could comeback in 2012 with all the women anxious to make history. Now, it seems that the one on her way to make history is Sarah.

Totally agree Evolve. I think that if McCain-Palin wins, Hillary will not run in 2012. The Clintons are not political dummies. They understand that Palin's presidential campaign would start on Nov. 5th, 2008.

Gallup is saying the full convention bump will be there in the Monday numbers!

Will the GOP go completely negative next week: we will see. The bump so far whilst it is at the top end of my range +2, it has to be very disappointing as McCain loses by a fair few EVs based on these numbers!

McCain has got to 46% with Gallup for one day previously and 47% for 3 days with Ras(before ID weight change).

The electorate is voting for President and, last night, John McCain looked tired, old and worn out against his youthful Veep pick and Obama.

A little research shows that, in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.3.

What is it now?

I also think if Obama wins you'll end up seeing Hillary in the Supreme Court ... nothing would stick in the craw of the Rep party than having to deal with her for the next 20yrs or so

6.1% as today

I find it quite humorous that McCain is trying to wow the nation with the pick of Palin. Everyone talks about how great of a pick it was, how great she can speak, and that all the women in the country will run to the voting booths to get her elected. If that is case why is he still behind in almost every poll out there? He trails Obama in almost every swing state, albeit it is only a couple of points in some states, but other states Obama has a good size lead. He was talked out of the guys he wanted by the base of his party, and now he is paired with someone who doesn't help him a lot. It is like the base of party is saying we still do not like you Mr. McCain, and they lied to him saying Palin gave him a good chance to win. I kind of feel sad for Mr. McCain he is an American hero, and his party it seems is sabotaging his campaign.

can anyone tell me how many of the countries that have a higher standard of living than us embrace liberal policies?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

This is all the unemployment rates up until now. Isn't it nice when people do research and don't make false claims?

@"I also think if Obama wins you'll end up seeing Hillary in the Supreme Court ... nothing would stick in the craw of the Rep party than having to deal with her for the next 20yrs or so."

This is totally evil!!!! Republicans will be up in arms. Do you want to see a real rebellion, a revolution in D.C? That confirmation will be the biggest soap opera in the country's history. Everyone glued to the tube!!!

It is interesting that so many people tuned in for McCain's speech. That's not necessarily good for him.

Everyone already knew he was the war hero, though it's true that they did learn more details about his POW experience (at least, I did). His POW stories were the most interesting and moving part of his speech.

The problem is that the rest of the speech was boring and there was no policy for economic recovery presented.

Campaigns that rely too heavily on the military heroism of the candidate don't do well. No one can dispute the greater military heroism of George H. W. Bush 1992, Bob Dole 1996, Al Gore 2000, and John Kerry 2004 when compared to their opponents.

War heros tend to feel disdain for their opponents and they make the mistake of thinking that the election will be a referendum on who has more honor. That's what we give people medals for, though--elections have more to do with the future. This is why policy matters, whether you are a dope-smoking draft dodger or a brave fighter pilot.

Bill dramatically reduced the unemployment rate stillow. Stop listening to FOX for your info.

'Ok lets talk unemployment. Europe is into the whole liberalsim is great thing.....go look up there unemployment #'s and then come back to this forum............liberalism doesn't work, it leads to double digit unemployment....large tax burdens and more dependency.'

F'in idiocy, pure and simple. In Europe, the word 'liberalism' is applied to what in America is called economic conservatism.' But the idiocy is deeper than than that. 'It' -- as if there were one thing out there, 'liberalism.' 'Doesn't work' -- not, 'has not worked' or 'will not work,' but 'does not.' What shall we say about the 1990s in America, run by Clinton, or the nougties in Great Britain, with very low unemployment, run by Labour, and involving a government which guarantees housing and medical care to everyone? (Did you not know that, Stillow? Of course not; evidence is not your forte.) What shall we say about France, a 'social democracy,' even under Sarkozy: high unemployment relative to the US (though under double digits for the past 15 months), but a very low rate of poverty relative to the US. And a much higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rate.

Stillow, you need to go home, get off the internet, and read a book. Because your arguments are ahistorical, simplistic, and bigoted. May I suggest you begin with Rousseau's The Social Contract. . . . Oh sorry, I forgot, you don't have time for French people, or history, or thought. You prefer to trade in simpleminded accusations.

@ robi

So let me get this straight...Clinton left Bush with an unemployment rate at about 3% and now it's up to 6% right before his reign ends?

I know that Ireland, Canada, Australia have National healthcare> I thin Sweeden and Norway do also ... looking it up now

Wow!!! In August 2000, when Bill still was president, unemployment was 4.1%. Unbelievable how things look like 8 years later.

I apologize stillow I should have read what you wrote before I got back on the forum. You weren't saying that. My bad but look at the stats anyways.

My job is done here **flies off into the sunset** lol

The problem with Palin in Alaska isn't just her record. Alaska is practicing sort of a semi socialism themselves. The oil wealth is divvied up and distributed to every man, women, boy and girl in the state. This year a family of 4 will nearly get 10K including a $1200 energy credit engineered by Palin. Alaskans pay no sales or income taxes which means basic social services are bing provided free of charge. In addition the state and employers provide 80% of the healthcare bill. One newspaper even stated that Alaska was the only state that income redistribution was written into the constitution. But despite the kind wealth that the state has, only 1 in 5 Alaskans will finish college and the state has one of the highest high school drop rates in the country. Sound like the reformer needed to do some reforming.

Oh btw 7.3 unemployment rate to 4.0 is pretty impressive in 8 years if you ask me.

Bush went from 4.0 to 6.1 (right now)

Yeah dems don't know how to take care of the economy

McCain's no longer polling in the high 30's.

I guess he did get a bounce.

All governments in Western Europe have national health care. Most also provide nearly indefinite unemployment benefits.

lol.

where did Stillow go? To europe to check his stats?

The European economy is very hard to understand.

@Robi

Certainly, because Europe is comprised of dozens of individual nations with different govts. standards and policies.

Which is WHY you do not GENERALIZE (stillow)

@atreides

Right about Alaska. There is no other state in the Union where high oil prices have resulted in a flood of revenue to the state coffers. Almost every other governor has dealt with serious challenges in recent years, requiring budget cuts and re-prioritizing of expenditures.

Even with the geyser of oil tax revenues of the past few years, Alaska receives 50% more federal money than it sends back to the federal government. That's what makes the "reformer" and "anti-earmark" label so unsustainable.

Maybe Bush Jr. will be able to surpass his dad not only in Iraq, but in the unemployment rate as well.

You can't make fun of Europe's economy republicans when its trouncing ours in growth currently.

The minimum wage in the United Kingdom, where I live, is over 5 1/2 pounds an hour, that is about 9 US dollars an hour -- and medical care is free. For everyone, regardless. Because unemployment benefits are indefinite, a portion of the population is doubtless 'dependent,' and a major social problem, but this portion of the population does not pose nearly so great a social problem as that posed by the poor in America. There were fewer homicides in the UK last year (pop. 60 million) than in Michigan. And unemployment has been at 3-4 percent for years. (This will change as the recession hits.) The standard of living here is lower than in the US, measured in the aggregate. But inequality is lower, and the 'HDI' is only slightly worse than the US's. The United Kingdom is considered one of the most conservative of states in Europe in terms of social policies. Here, Europeans complain about the UK being too 'liberal' -- i.e. too laissez faire -- and people on all sides of the political divide are grumbling about moral and political stagnation.

But if you want to understand 'Europe', which is not only a lot of different states but also a 'Union', you might being with the idea that it is taken for granted in the Union that no society benefits from wealth unless everyone benefits. There is still a belief in equality here, even if equality is more a belief than a reality.

More than any other single factor, people vote for their jobs when the economy is doing poor.

The perception is that the Republicans ruined our economy (as evidenced by McCain's "divorce" from the party and Bush during his speech).

Come November, ordinary folks will choose Obama's middle class tax cuts over McCain's preferential treatment of the rich.

yes kerrchdavis that is correct in 1992 the unemployment rate was 7.5%, in 1999 the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.1% the lowest since 1969.

I think it would be more useful to compare US living standards to Canada's.

Anecdotal my son, who lives in the England, had a liver transplant on the NHS and I have to say absolute 1st class care and ongoing. The whole thing would be ruinous in the US without top tier Medical Insurance.

With regards Medical Services in Europe although there is National Health free at the point of demand inmember states, there is also a private sector earning what would imagine to be $ billions annually particularly in Western Europe including the United Kingdom.

RedSoxFan:

That was me buddy...lol

TV ratings don't mean anything. Like many people, I watched Palin and McCain to see how the oil interests were pitching change. Drill, baby, drill?

Look at McCain's campaign versus Obama's vis a vis lobbyists. There's no comparison. Obama is far more trustworthy in this regard. McCain's campaign is crawling with lobbyists. Obama's isn't.

Robi:

My Bad....lol

Were did all you out of touch liberals come from? Yeah, I ended my sentence with a preposition. You pat yourselves on the back and defend european values...then wonder why the rest of America hates you. Out of touch liberals are just like HS geeks that never quite get what it takes to fit into the mainstream. Fox news is the football team. Rush L is the quarterback. Liberals are the nerds. Watch last place nerdfest MSNBC and watch your star trek re-runs. We'll be playing sports and hunting. Augula Obama is like the Fresh Princes brother.