Pollster.com

McCain's lead is much smaller, 50-46, among registered voters. The difference between the RV and LV results seems pretty large, but I've heard anecdotally that Gallup's LV model puts a lot of weight on older voters, which favors McCain.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

It should be noted that the RV number is McCain 50%/Obama 46%. Gallup's likely voter screen tends to filter out minorities and the youth vote. both which strongly benefit Obama this time around. Plus, the article mentioned that the poll represents McCain's full convention bounce. Look for the race to settle down by the end of the week, with the next big known event-changer coming up being the debates.

Ouch.

How many likely voters did it count out of the approx. 1000 RV?

Well I think that it is obvious that McCain got a good bounce. Everyone should keep in mind that, in addition to the convention, McCain is dumping huge amounts of private money right now per FEC regulation. I saw about three heavily negative McCain ads in about a five minute period on my television. This unloading of ads may help McCain's numbers now, but unfortunately for McCain the election is not held in September. Let's see where the numbers settle. I am still waiting of state data, too.

Just one week ago, USAToday/Gallup had Obama up by 7 points. Obama seems to have lost significant ground here. Let's hope it keeps up.

On the other hand, the 54%-44% could signify something real and lasting. Surely at least the delta (the change), is real, if Gallup's methodology is unchanged from previous polls.

Guess we don't yet know if the change is permanent or transitory. My bet is: some of each.

one thing that is comforting about this poll is that 63% of voters said they are concerned that mccain would follow bush's policies!

Convention bounces rarely last. Obama up by 8 last week,this week McCain up by 4 or 10 dpending on how you read the polls. This race will be close all the way. Keep your eye on the EV map,not the popular vote. We all remember 2000.

but i think its ultimately gonna come down to race if we are gonna be honest! i mean you have ads running in which mccain in his own words says he has been supportive of bush more than any other republican. bush has an approval rating of 26 percent. 84 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction. democrats are running +8 nationally over republicans! i mean come on its race.

It is notable that whenever McCain attacks Obama with negative ads, polls show him ahead (or tie). However it does not last long. You cannot expect negativity to work forever.

Obama camp needs a shake-up. It seems like they lost their focus. Now we can see how bad Biden choice is. It should have been Hillary.

exactly hillary would have united the democrats and she is tough!

Howcome the Dems on here have 101 excuses wheN mccain is ahead....they pick apar the polls, spin them and try to explai nthe mccain lead, yet when the same polls show obama ahead, all of a sudden its the greatest poll in the world....and obama is unbeatable...mccain can't win, etc, etc.
Let's face it, as much as it pains the left, the Palin choice "greatly" helped mccain along with the media backlash on coverage of palin....and so did mccains own speech.....he is getting a big bounce out of these polls...huge swings and turnarounds in all national polls....
Depending on the polling dates this week of states, I suspect he will begin to pull away in battleground states as well. I also think the Dems should watch PA very closely, I think Palin puts that state in play....she has strong appeal to Reagan dems and PA has a ton of Reagan dems!

Palin's solidifying McCain's support with the religious right is something that wouldn't mean much in West Virginia, but might in PA. Given the likelihood that Palin will never look better than she does now, the R's have to go for it and hope nothing turns up that makes her look worse (and him, for being so impulsive).

There's a kamikaze quality about the R's approach at this point and it may be their best shot. It's clearly a cynical move, but R's don't have a patent on cynicism. I forget which corporation holds that patent, but they contribute 80% to 20% to the GOP, as I recall.

This could be a case of the grass seeming greener on the side with a fresh new face--a greenness which may fade as familiarity breeds contempt, or the rose loses its bloom, or whatever metaphorical maxim you like.

It could also be the beginning of more of the same.

If change is what we want, doesn't a pit bull beauty queen sound like change (compared to, say, Joe Lieberman)? Sure. A set of siamese twin beauty queen pit bulls would be even more change.

It will end up as a question of whose change we can believe in. I say Obama's, but what else is new?

A lot of polling is about patience. Clearly partisan Obama supporters you can tell are distressed by the news. While it is probably not what Obama supporters want to hear, it isn't completely unexpected. I would further implore you to not jump off the building.

Two events, the VP selections and the party conventions, have changed the complexion of the race. While polling has not shown Obama's selection of Biden the have an impact, there wasn't any gain either. On the contrary, McCain's selection of Palin has energized the base of the Republican Party that was not making it out to vote for McCain. Obama's choice of Biden was not as significant because the Democratic base was already coming out to vote. Barack Obama really needed someone who could shore up a swing state for him. He missed a huge opportunity by not selecting Ted Strickland from Ohio.

The other event, party conventions, have played a role. In front of a packed stadium of 80,000 in Denver, Obama and the Democratic party put on quite a show. To mitigate this powerful showing, McCain announces the next day he has selected a little known Governor from....Alaska. Stealing the spotlight by announcing a shocking choice was brilliant by the McCain campaign. If he had selected Mitt Romney, there would not have been the windfall of media coverage. Almost immediately the focused shifted to the RNC where Palin assumed the attack dog role to energize the base while McCain appealed to independents as a man above party.

Coming off the heels of what has been almost two weeks of positive Republican press the polling is hardly a surprise based on transpiring events. However, as another pollster mentioned, the real determinant will be whether McCain can maintain this lead. I tend to believe that the polls will 'settle' down and we'll have a close race.

I wouldn't jump off that ledge if I was a Democrat because you can expect that there will be a bounce from the extremely impressive GOTV effort by the Democratic party. Their field organization is unmatched in this election. The initiative now passes to the Obama campaign to redefine the issues and put McCain's campaign on the defensive. We're in for a fun election!

Stillow:

For once I agree with you. Keep in mind I only read your first sentence or two.

I don't think any of the numbers this last couple weeks are very indicative. I say let's wait until there's been a debate or two, so what is that, sometime around October 1?

The LV/RV screen is puzzling. Remember that the problem with Iowa polling was that almost everybody had a bad LV screen. Increased youth and minority turnout is something that would foul a LV screen. Then again, that's always been the hope, and it's frustrated more often than it's realized.

Still, this is still the only data point in this range, and it is not showing a bounce over time. We need more data. Simple as that.

Given ZerObama's performance in debates against Hillary, and also against Mccain at Saddleback, I won't rest my hopes on debates if I were ZerObama.

Adam_Il - I think the tiredness and lack of energy of McCain, in most of the debates, will make Obama look good - much like the Nixon/Kennedy debates. The town hall debate could be an exception, but I think in this case the extreme telegenicness difference is going to be in play.

@stillow

"Howcome the Dems on here have 101 excuses wheN mccain is ahead.."

Same 101 excuses you had when Obama was leading by 12% :)

Historically 50% of the time the candidate leading the polls after conventions won the election.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON

the lead is only 50-46 among registered voters!

Heck, I'll hazard a few guesses.

Rasmussen state polling will not show Obama winning Colorado, Virginia, Florida, or Ohio - will show a dead heat in Michigan.

McCain will gain in both Gallup and Rasmussen tomorrow, but drop on Tuesday or Wednesday, with a tie or slight Obama lead restored by Friday.

also, a danger sign for mccain 63% of voters are concerned that mccain will follow bush policies, that is REALLY bad number!

There's a strong outside variable this time around that helps mccain, a lot. that is the backlash on the media over the Palin attacks. The hard left and media went way to hard and way to personal on Palin....and it ticked a lot of people off....people don't like it when you drag kids into the circle....the backlash on the media I think is helping surge these #'s for mccain....there may be a sympathy vote from females out there due to the treatment sof Palin and her daughter. The hard left and media made a huge mistake going to negative and personal against Palin.
I'd be tone of my dopy cats mccains holds a lead of a few points right up until the debates start.

to be exact: The Republican's ties to President Bush remains a vulnerability. In the poll, 63% say they are concerned he would pursue policies too similar to those of the current president. Bush's approval rating is 33%.

You are correct. Bush is a handicap...I wonder what these #'s would be if Bush was popular...............for mccain to even be ahead is really something if you consider the Bush factor and the big pickups the Dems will make in Congress....why is mccain even close? Is obama a weak choice or is mccain a strong choice?

Stillow:

McCain is obviously distancing himself from Bush and it is the no-longer deserving title of "maverick" that still has people believe that McCain will not follow Bush policies.

That and smear books like "Obama Nation" as well as 527 ads that are helping McCain. It has nothing to do with McCain being strong, just the Reps doing what they do best.

Dear Mccainites. Be careful what you wish for. This isn't just a sports race Republican vs Democrat. If you are in the middle class McCain has nothing for you. He wants to make tax cuts permanent(borrowing large amounts from China), and guess who benefits,the wealthy..not you! He wants to give oil companies large tax breaks. Does that help you?
If you're a college student who wants to get a loan,does McCain help you? It's the same old logic..supply side ,trickle down nonsense. Give more wealth to the wealthy and they will let it trickle down to you! Are any of you better off than you were 4 years ago? Mccain's plans for the economy, and healthcare are exactly the same as Bush. Look at McCain's voting record for god sakes. He has voted AGAINST helping schhol children, veteran's benefits, poverty relief for Katrina, re-training programs, and on and on..and you want to put him in the White House simply because he's a Republican and rah-rah he's on your team. At the convention no one even wanted to mention Bush or Cheney's name. Why? Now you are going to support a man who's voting record proves he is not a friend of the working man or middle class. Please take a look for yourself at his actual voting record in congress. Don't take my word for it. Be educated.

Just a quick note to all the dems who think only the GOP runs negative ads, "YOU ARE CRAZY"....I guess you guys dont live in swing states, I do, Nevada....Obama has negative ad running 24/7 here along with mccain. You dems who think your party is all holy when it comes to campaigns are simply nuts....both sides are nasty, dirty and cutthroat.

I'm not saying negative ads. I'm saying smear ads that are just insanely not true/misleading like hell (ayers ad).

I live in Ohio so yeah...Show me an Obama ad that says anything like McCain is friends with a terrorist?

The polls have been up and down but this 10 pt. difference seems a little out of what the rest of them are saying. Gallup has Obama up as does CBS, Rasmussen has them tied.
This could be for a number of reasons but I hope it's not for the ridiculous reason that the media was too hard. At worst, they were somewhat probing. They were doing what they were supposed to do, especially since it looks like McCain's team did such a bad job vetting Palin. It's too bad that the family is involved but the campaign put them out there. Note it was not Obama who went after them, he said family is off limits. It hasn't even been the networks. It's been the left-leaning blogs but then again the right wing blogs have been just as savage in their own right. I find it interesting that Palin is being rolled out more slowly than a shuttle to the launch pad. Obviously, she must have some gifts in order to win a race for governor but I think the Republicans are nervous and hoping they can get her up to speed before the debate. Of course, it's almost a no-win for Biden. If he tears her up, the right wingers say that he was mean, sexist, and whatever else. Look for them to lower the bar like McCain has done for himself when he said Obama was clearly a better debater than him.
In the end, harschwarz is most correct though, it's all about the EVs anyway.

The USAToday/Gallup method of identifying likely voters has already been debunked. Certainly there isn't a 7 point difference between likely voters and registered voters, yet USAToday/Gallup did just the same thing just a month ago.

Their likely voter screen rates people on three criteria, and they throw out all results that don't meet 2 of the three, and most of the results that only meet 2. The way they do this is very favorable to older voters, which also happens to be McCain's best demographic by far, and there are other groups disadvantaged by their methods.

I do however trust that McCain has a slight lead. Not entirely a surprise, but this is about as good as it will get without additional momentum.

I am very surprised by the amount of traction that the McCain campaign got from the convention. I just can't believe that this country would vote for another Republican, though I never thought that Obama would win by much more than 5 points. I do believe that Obama will still win, but who knows, he may freeze during the debates and McCain may surprise, but I expect the opposite. I also expect that by no later than the following Wednesday, Obama will be ahead again in the trackers, and other polls that are conducted at those times.

After all of the scrutiny that Obama has had, it is a sorry game that the Republicans drop Palin into the mix, and then "protect" her from questions by the press. (How could they be so nasty as to delve into her life?)

With fewer than two months until the election, Palin will remain largely an unknown quantity. Since a senior heartbeat is all that would keep her from world leadership, I think we deserve better.

Going on 2am, and I am looking at poll sites.

i disagree brambster. although i do believe that the mccain lead is overstated in the usatoday/gallup poll i think mccain will hold this lead until the 1st debate. and i dont think the 1st debcate will do anyting more than make this race a tie. it hink mccain has made a risky move payoff.who knew. alhtough im not sure if mccain will win it is in his favor right now.

I'm with you Never. Even though it has been 34 years since it happened, 9 of the 44 presidents started out as VPs. Even though it is ALWAYS a possibility, it is more crucial in this instance. So, yes, Palin needs to come out and say why the citizens should not be concerned. I was hoping there would be more meat in her speech but it was just an ugly night of rants.

@ harschwarz

My definition of a cynic is someone who thinks this election is a game.

The religious Republican base isn't cynical, they're just misinformed, in my opinion. And they're intentionally misinformed and manipulated by the real cynics (who could care less about Jesus, only power and money).

I would include anyone who resembles a neocon in this category. When they win, people die and misery increases. Some game.

@peterap

but that is what the people want. we pretend to be moral and upright.but we are not. we loe to hear people saying bad things about other people. we think it tough and make that person. i agree the speech she gave was a terrible speech. but it works. negative lies work. americans love it even though they pretned not to.

@saywhat

I know. I always hope for better especially when McCain said the campaign would be positive. I figured if he kept up his end, it would be. Should have known better. Words cannot describe my loathing of Giuliani at this time. I just hope it turns around and bites them on the $#%.

Great posts all. Nice to see some intelligent give and take. But this liberal has to go to work in the morning (shocking!). Have a good one.

@Basil

Pretty bold statements. You miss the point....its not a game, its a fundamental way of life that people choose. Liberal candidates simply do not win. You have to go all the way back to Carter in 1976 to find a liberal democrat who was elected. And htat was coming off of watergate, he lasted one term. The far left simply doesn't get the fact that people do not want the g'ment running there lives. Bush did tremendous damage to conservatism, yet mccain still has a great shot of winning....its just a simple fact, more people trust a smaller g'ment, more people trust i ntheir own decision making skills over that of the g'ment. Its zero surprise to me that mccain is leading now, granted he had some convention bounce, etc....but history has shown us tie and time again, liberals simply cannot win the white house. The dems in 1992 finally understood that with Bill Clinton, a self described "new democrat"....a center left guy fro mthe south. But even he couldn't muster 50 percent. The country simply doesn't trust liberalism.... Most people beleive in traditonal conservative values, its just how it is. Bush did a lot of damage with his neocon nonsense, but the people remain skeptical of liberalism as a form of g'ment. Had the dems nominated a center left guy like bill clinton, they would be ahead by 20 points right now....mccain has the bush thing going agaisnt him, but obama has the liberal ideology going against him....and people can smackdown the religious right, but the loony left are worse, the moveon types, the kos types, the code pinkers.....that is so far outside where the average people think its scary.

@Stillow:
I watched the CNN documentary on Barack Obama tonight. I noticed something. He won his two races where a strong candidate was taken off the ballot; those being the state senate for the first time and the US senate for the first time. When he tried to run for Illinois US Congress seat, he was defeated soundly because a strong opponent stayed on the ballot. Is it any wonder why his campaign's media friends has started rumors about McCain taking Palin off the ballot? We know that won't happen; and McCain certainly isn't going to quit. Do you see the correlation? It might be the only way that BO can win.

I suspect the uptick for the Republicans in the polls is a bit more than the usual bounce from the convention. Just watching some of the campaign events this weekend, I think there is some genuine enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket, especially from the Republican base which had mostly given McCain the cold shoulder before the RNC.

As good of the news is for McCain, and as good as the publicity Palin brings, McCain ticket isn't out of the storm yet. I think Palin is still pretty much a wild card since she has not be vetted nearly as much as any of the other candidate. It is entirely possible that you might have a Rev. Wright-like surprise for Palin before the election and unlike Obama there really is not that much time for them to recover if such an event occurred.

I really doubt this kind of spread will be maintained by either side in the upcoming weeks. I think the race is going to be very close, possibly Election 2000 close now that the Republicans actually wants to vote. The winner will probably be decided again by the silver of swing voters in a few key states.

@player

who is specifically spreading this rumor? dont just throw somethingout there and have nothing to substantiate it.

@Stillow

Your analysis of Liberal/Conservative election results is rather, well, not analytical.

As you can see from the posts here, Americans do not vote on issues - they vote on personality. Which is why McCain is getting the heady rush with Palin. She's energetic, she can deliver a speech, her nasty comments said with a smirk make her look "gutsy." (I have a friend who says he's turned on by her - yes, in That Way.)

The Iranian hostage situation didn't do well for Jimmy Carter's reelection bid, but his defeat in 1980 had a lot to do with personality. (Everyone called Reagan "charming," though I couldn't see it.) Can you remember the debate in which Reagan successfully refuted Carter not on expertise, but by mocking his facts with a smiling "There you go again, Mr. President."

Jumping forward, this is why negative ads work. It is much more effective to denigrate a candidate's personal life than to examine the issues. Because ultimately, we vote for a person.

If we were truly voting on issues - we'd have a parliamentary form of government.

@Player:

I think that is hardly conclusive evidence that he cannot win against a strong candidate since you left out his most significant victory up to this point, his victory against Hillary Clinton. I think everyone can agree that Hillary was as formidable candidate as there can be for the democratic primary and yet Obama still won using his lessons from his previous elections and his experience as a community organizer. (As a side note, unlike Giuliani or Palin I think community organizers does great services for this country and it is part of what makes America great.)

What I do think is that Obama is a person that is incredibly lucky and you provided two great example of that. Although the Rev. Wright thing for Obama is a terrible black spot on his campaign, I think the timing of when this burst on to the national scene is impeccably lucky for Obama. If it came earlier he might not be able to win enough states to beat Clinton (IMO it's pretty much what kept him from winning the later primaries). If it came later... like now he probably wouldn't have a chance at winning on Nov. 4th. The timing of the Rev. Wright thing is pretty much about the time when it would do the least amount of damage to his campaign.

@NCC81701

Well spoken. Hillary is not a cupcake.

Interesting that everyone talks about Obama the Community Organizer (Palin has compared her job as Mayor to Obama's first job out of law school?)

As I recall, he has taught constitutional law, which means he has at least read the document.

And yes, he was a lawyer.

Oh, right, Obama did talk about community organizing in his bio. But had he taken credit for the constitutional expertise - someone would have thought to call him "elitist."

Well, all those explanations are pretty good, but there is such a thing as a bad poll too. I would just be patient and wait to see what happens before anyone jumps to conclusions, either side.

For all the people(including Obama himself) that say McCain has been using negative ads and scare tactics, this is nothing compared to past elections. Besides why is the fact that Obama is trying to tie Bush and McCain not considred by you as a negative/scare tatctic/old politics of the past... If you really want to talk about numbers, did you know that Obama has voted with the Senate majority leader Harry Reid 99% of the time(and the Senate is half as popular as the president), not to mention what a nightmare it would be to have the most liberal senator as president trying to work with the incompetent Reid and Pelosy. Overall, voters are not fully buying the cloning of McCain from Bush that Obama is trying to sweet talk and drill into them from day 1. Obama's plan is to create a big government, but that can only work if the deficit wasn't huge. For all the mile-high rehetoric in Denver about how he can solve everything, Obama only mentioned in 1 sentence that he can pay for it all(which is debunked by factcheck.org and other objective organizations). None of the previous 43 presidents have achieved anything near to what he proposes, and he has the audacity to think that he is much different than them, which is misleading the voters with velvet words. Well it's time to wake up Obama fans, shake off the words and look at the reality of how he is promising things that he 100% cannot keep(not 90% ;) ). I hope you would realize the KEY POINT that Obama's resume is similar if not much less robust than the resume of thousands of other people in the country, and the only conclusion as to why he got this far is because he speaks well and promises the moon. Maybe I will run for office in the next elections and promise to give all of you new houses and cars(and stop global warming as well). Hey, I wouldn't bluff you to get elected, would I ?

Sorry if the truth hurts sometimes, but to me John McCain is a safer and more logical choice in November 2008.

America is a Center/Right country. Obama/Biden is a Left/Left ticket. McCain/Palin is a Center/Right ticket.

Are these new polling numbers any surprise?

Those who normally vote Center/Right were willing to give Obama a look when they weren't excited about McCain, but when he balanced his ticket with Palin, they got turned on.

Not only will Obama lose badly, you guys may lose Congress.

Remember, during uncertainty, it is human nature to go with the status quo.

its not fair obama campaign cant question palins background with it being called sexist by the mccain campaign,but the only way to fight this if his polling numbers continues to fall will be asking joe biden to step down for the sake of the party in put hillary clinton on the ticket,this would assure a big win for the democrats,how can obama attack palin when the mccain campaign cry sexism everytime,its just not fair in the media is letting mccain get away with it,its time for a change breaker for obama,he really needs hillary,the mccain campaign will flipout if hillary acceppted the vp.because they know the race will be over.

its not fair obama campaign cant question palins background with it being called sexist by the mccain campaign,but the only way to fight this if his polling numbers continues to fall will be asking joe biden to step down for the sake of the party in put hillary clinton on the ticket,this would assure a big win for the democrats,how can obama attack palin when the mccain campaign cry sexism everytime,its just not fair in the media is letting mccain get away with it,its time for a change breaker for obama,he really needs hillary,the mccain campaign will flipout if hillary acceppted the vp.because they know the race will be over.

boomshak:

So you are saying that when we are uncertain we return to the status quo. So by the Palin pick the status quo includes the believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that we should base wars on the "will of God". This country is going backwards rather then forward..Frightening!

USA Today's corporate cousin, the Detroit Free Press, released some of the internals from this poll. This one alone is enough for me to question whether this poll is real:

The Republican’s ties to President Bush remains a vulnerability. In the poll, 63 percent say they are concerned he would pursue policies too similar to those of the current president. Bush’s approval rating is 33 percent.

Link

Does anyone know what the sample size was for the LV results?

Halleluya!

MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008_pf.html

If they would have done this earlier, Hillary would be 20 points ahead right now and the democrats would have won the white house.

There will not be much difference between RVs and LVs due to the following facts:
(1) 10-20% of Clinton supporters are likely to abstain.
(2) Republican base solidified.
(3) 1,000,000 Mexican illegals went back to Mexico during 2007-08.
(4) The above said factors will neutrilize the 25% population growth for Hispanics during 2004-08.

Never Decaf:

The idea that many Americans vote on personality may have been true in the past, but a significant number of voters do care about issues and that number is growing this year. The belief that McCain/Palin are stronger on issues that matter to conservatives is what has energized the Republican party. The personality thing, though secondary, is now a positive for McCain because of adding Palin. People are now taking a second look at McCain and finding they really like him too. The "too old" argument is fading and the "older and wiser" argument is gaining.

I usually don't care much about the daily polls, I rather look at the trends. In that respect, InTrade is a good indicator. Obama has been leading by more than 10% in InTrade until last weekend. Today it is almost tied, which is not a good news for Obama. (50.5% Obama vs 49.5% McCain)

Obama's VP pick was really bad. He also needs a shake up in his campaign. People are tired of seeing same messages again and again.

I think it is going to be very close race. I was not expecting that close race. Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton. I hope he won't regret it in November.

If Obama loses he would be wise to leave the Senate and run for Governor. A solid record of accomplishments while leading a state would solidify his chances in a future run for President.

INTRADE is a good barometer. The British Bookmakers are another! The Race is tightening before the all important Debates.

Personally the only polls that I trust are those that I have a reasonable knowledge of the pollster's model, weighting, crosstabs then an informed judgement can be made.

There is no doubt that after 10 days of back to back Republican coverage the GOP ticket has got a bounce, the further extent of that bounce we will know a little later today.

Now the Repub convention is over the Obama Campaign has got to get their Positive Narrative into the news cycles. I think Bill Clinton should have some good advise for Obama at Lunch on Thursday.

There are some Rasmussen battleground STATE polls out to day commissioned by FOX due out.

Palin's accomplishments as Governor in such a short time are what give her the edge over Obama and Biden. She has managed shake up the status quo and that's what impresses the people. Action always speaks louder than words to the heartland.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain with a statistically insignificant one-point lead over Barack Obama.

In the first national polling results based entirely on interviews conducted after the Republican National Convention, McCain attracts 47% of the vote while Obama earns 46%. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 48% and Obama 47%"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I suppose it's human nature to love the pollsters when they appear to validate our own wishes and hate them when they don't. It's rare to see the libs talking down the polls. It's definitely a sign of great concern among Dems.

To much news with the huge bounce, MSNBC demoting the devil and nutjob.

But,

Did anyone see the story about Obama throwing flags in the trash after the convention. McCain used them at his rally this weekend.

It would appear that we are back to where we were before the Obama bounce with the McCain bounce. Please look at the reverse symmetry from Rasmussen daily trackers below:

"General Election Match-Up
John McCain vs. Barack Obama
Match-up without Leaners Match-up with Leaners
McCain
Obama
Spread
McCain
Obama
Spread

09/08/2008
47%
46%
McCain +1
48%
47%
McCain +1

09/07/2008
46%
46%
Even
48%
48%
Even

09/06/2008
45%
46%
Obama +1
46%
49%
Obama +3

08/29/2008
43%
46%
Obama +3
45%
49%
Obama +4

08/28/2008
44%
45%
Obama +1
47%
47%
Even

08/27/2008
44%
44%
Even
47%
46%
McCain +1"

Breaking news: McCain has a 50+ percent chance of becoming the next president, according to the Intrade Market. The gamblers may be overreacting to a transitory shock in the polls or they may see a more fundamental change in the race.

@NeverMetAnHonestLib

I agree and disagree. A governor experience would help Obama. However, I don't think Obama or any other AA will run for presidency for a long long time if he looses.

Although I am a little new in US politics (living in the US for last 7 years and US citizen for the last 7 months) I read a lot and watch all the political news, discussions. I want to share one of my observation. Please write your opinions too:

If Obama looses, AA population will not be enthusiastic about the elections anymore. i.e. Democrats will lose a lot of votes. Considering very few AAs in GOP, AAs will not be represented as much as today. I see this possibility as a danger for the future of this country.

I love the talk of doom and gloom for Obama by all the Republicans on this site.He was bashed for 3 straight days last week and women initially flocked to Palin. By the end of this week Obama will be leading again by 2-4 percent. Palin's popularity will only go down from this point forth when women realize she is way to the right of mainstream America.

Maddiekat I agree with you.

I am waiting tomorow or maybe even later to make a rather large bet on OBAMA.

The McCain/Palin ticket is unelectable.

Swingvote:

The number of African-Americans in the Republican party is growing. I believe they are being drawn there beacuse they too understand that most Republicans are not racists, but they are conservtives. Conservatives want minorities to be successful. They just don't want minorities to be enslaved to the government. Keeping minorities dependent ensures votes, but it doesn't help them in the long run.

McCain for president with the senate and house under the democrats is the best thing for America

Split party government works best!

I am not judging the overall numbers of the horserace in this poll since more and more polls will come out, either disputing it or conforming it; however, I can't overlook some numbers in the poll, related to specific issues, that I found really akward.

I don't know you but I really doubt that McCain has 46% vs. Obama's 45% support on HEALTH CARE!!! Do you really believe so? Do you really think that something in McCain's convention speech or plataform has made Americans believe that he has a plan to fix the health care issue in the nation. I can hardly believe that number.

Do you really believe that all of a sudden Americans believe that McCain is better position in education, 50% vs. Obama 45%. What has McCain said about his education policy?

If those numbers are in fact real, I think a lot of people will be disappointed after the debates, when it comes very clear that McCain has no plans to address those issues. Time will tell guys!!

If you look carefully at history, the republican party has done more to empower African-Americans than the democrats. At some point, hopefully, they'll see the truth. Time and again democrats have failed the minorities they claim to care so much about. It's the actions they need to consider, not the words. If Obama was a conservative with more proven experience than he has, he would win in a landslide.

"McCain for president with the senate and house under the democrats is the best thing for America"

This is exactly what Republicans are betting on: A McCain-Palin administration with a democratic congress will give the impression of governing from the middle, on a bipartisan fashion. This will boost the GOP brand. Thanks to a popular McCain-Palin administration, in 2010 more Republicans will be elected for congress and the Senate. In 2012, Palin will be the head of the Republican ticket. She will take credit on everything done during that administration and will surely beat the democratic nominee, probable Hillary. In 2012, with more Republicans in Congress, President Palin will push for a more conservative agenda.

Look, I personally have no problem with a Palin president. I surely prefer her over a Hillary Clinton president. So, if this is the "price" to pay to keep Hillary out, I'm more than committed to voting for her.

Dear all,

Can anyone let me know the sample size of likely voters Gallup has used? This really seems an odd result.

Carlos Santos

TYBO

Normally I would agree with you on that, I can't take a risk of McCain dying and Palin taking over.

Imagine Sarah Palin becoming President January 22nd 2009 as McCain sudden heart attack.

Hypotheticals: Al Qaeda launches a major Afghan offensive. The financial markets implode as there is an attempted Coup D'etat in Saudi Arabia. Oil goes to $500 a barrel.

What is she going to do, phone up Dick Cheney and ask for advise?

Can you imagine how President Palin without any legislative experience other than as being the Chief Executive Officer of Alaska is going to cope with Congress from day one?

Does she understand or have any experience of our manufacturing industries, inner cities, farming you know mainstream below the 48 stuff? My goodness She is the most unwordly candidate for national office in US History.

A lot has been made of executive experience, That is garbage Its judgement that matters and there are a whole series of matters in her executive record in Alaska that suggest she definitely does not have the judgement thing and to which she is not answering any questions.

By listening to the libs and neocons you would think that money solves all problems--particularly education. When will people open their eyes and see that money hasn't helped education in America at all. Money isn't the solution. If it was, we would have the most highly educated populace on the planet. The solution is personal responsibility and ownership. When people truly want education, they'll do what ever is necessary to get it. The same attitude of entitlement is what keeps people down.

Knowledge and information are readily available in our free society, but unless people go after it, they'll become more and more ignorant.

Grading government schools doesn't help the problem either. The idea that children will get an excellent education at an A school just because it's an A school is a deception. It's simply a matter parents valuing knowledge and passing on this value to their children. As it is, it's easier to blame others for their own lack of responsibility.

NeverMetAnHonestLib - Your attempts to knock the education system in the US are rather falling flat, given that we have what is widely viewed as the best system of universities in the world.

Snowspinner:

Then why is Obama always blasting education in America? You can't have it both ways.

The "best system of unitersities in the world?" By whose standards? You and I may both be graduates of this system, but that doesn't mean it's the best or can't be better.

NeverMetAnHonestLib - Our public education system for grade school to high school is unacceptably spotty. Our higher education system is amazingly good, and Obama hasn't slammed it much. Where, exactly, do you think has a better higher education system?

A good education in American universities is still possible, but not without knowledgeable independent thinkers entering our institutions to combat the pervasive liberal ideologues that run them. Smart minds are built at the elementary and secondary levels, and that's where America is weakest.

Ey guys...Some of the commentators here have turned out way too ideological and radical that are turning me off, big time indeed. The name-calling is just unbearable. I remember when we used to discuss the topics and the numbers within the boundaries of civility and partisan passion, but entertaining for the most part. I don't know why we can't go back and keep up the exciting, entertaining part of the journey.

*Just food for thought :-)

NeverMetAnHonestLib - You're avoiding the question. You contend that the US does not have the best system of higher education in the world. Who has a better one?

Once you get that established we can talk about "pervasive liberal ideologies."

Rasmussen Poll:
McCain 47/Obama 46 w/o leaners
McCain 48/Obama 47 with leaners
Favorable: McCain 60%/Obama 55%

Important Narrative:
"For a variety of reasons, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll is less volatile than some other polls and always shows a somewhat smaller convention bounce than reported by others. This is primarily because we weight our results by party identification (see methodology).

Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I would look at that the 2% undecided category as the outlier statistic. With 60 days to go, I would think that the undecided total would still be in in the 6-10% range. I also love the comment that "50% of the time the candidate leading after the convention wins". And that tells me what? That it is a coin flip? With the oft published biases of Rasmussen and Gallup, what could be the strategy of publishing such a controversial likely voter poll. Normally if you had a lot of hidden strength, you would want to hide it until the right moment and then unleash on your unsuspecting opponent. I think that the motives here are little more insidious. With race being the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, I think that they are trying to create an air of acceptance for being biased. It's kind of saying that it's alright to vote against the Black guy. Everybody's doing it. Just look at the polls. Obama has got to change the conversation to the economy. It's the one thing that might trump race. When it comes to putting food on the table even race takes a back seat. At least I think it does.

@NeverMet

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think politics will be better when whites, blacks and hispanics are divided equally between two parties and people do not vote based on race.

I am neither Democrat or Republican. I will vote based on the candidate. I'll vote Obama in November. However, I have no intention to vote for Mikulski in the senate election. I am not happy with congressman Van Hollen either. I'd rather seeing a Democrat president and Republican congress than the opposite.

Snowspinner:

I suspect that you are right in that American universities are the most popular, but I have no clue as to the criteria for ranking them or who does the ranking--probably graduates of American universities.

That's kinda like those of us that drink Starbuck's coffee claiming it's the best in the world.

I think we agree that it's pre-university education that's weak, and that's where we need to accept more personal responsibity as parents.

The universities will automatically improve as better prepared minds enter them.

"Imagine Sarah Palin becoming President January 22nd 2009 as McCain sudden heart attack...."

imagine obama, with no executive experience trying to make a decision.. he wont' , he'll flounder,

do you see?
obama is the bigger risk. Even as a legislator he's been awful.
he's only good at running for office.

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

(By the way, I've never met you...) As Snowspinner points out, Obama has not been "slamming" American higher education. In fact, Obama, unlike Bush/McCain/Palin--who were silent on this subject, as with much else at their convention--has concrete proposals to make higher education much more widely available to Americans. (By the way again, did you see that McCain/Palin just picked the much coveted Dick Cheney endorsement?)

Registered voters favor Democrats because of the higher number of registered Democratic voters.

Likely voters favor Republicans (and older voters) because historically, Republicans and older voters have a higher turnout.

McGovern, Gore, Kerry, depended on a high youth vote for victory:
1972 was the first year 18-year olds could vote and to date the LARGEST turnout of younger voters. Unfortunately, not as many youth voted as expected despite huge voter registration drives, and then almost half of those that did, voted for Nixon. (Note: 1972 was the time of the draft for the Vietnam War.)

Gore did pretty well and got the popular vote, but the electoral voted failed him in many ways.

Kerry had great youth support (and registration efforts), but by general election time it was less enthusiastic and not enough.

Historically, the youth are undependable as a demographic group. A couple of polls have already seen a slight (but still significant) drop off of youth voters (as well as ID as Democrats).

Obamanation should be concerned how their leader will keep his masses enthused for the next two months.

tybo -

Yeah, i want an idiot who took 6 years to get one degree (from the university of idaho) running the country over a harvard law (magna cum laude) grad.

You are living in retard land.

______________________________________

Does any rethug big-talker want to wager on the outcome of the election? If you are willing to put your money where your big mouth is, please go to intrade.com right now please. Thanks.

NeverMetAnHonestLib - What's this? A conservative suggesting that just because American universities are the crown jewel that international students most want to get into, they're not the best? Whatever happened to the market!

Clearly, however, we disagree sharply on key issues. I have no problems with the quality of minds in the higher education system. I think accusations of "liberal ideology" in the higher education system egregiously misunderstand the basic purpose of that system. And I think that it is clear that the problem with the primary and secondary education systems in the US is the appalling degree to which the income of a neighborhood is a good predictor of the quality of school. As long as geography determines educational quality, we will never have a good primary/secondary system.

The discussion has now begun (Sunday morning talk shows) how Americans like split government (different party in Congress than in Presidency.) They predict that McCain will ease into that argument of keeping Congress "in check" because a President Obama with a Pelosi/Reed Congress will be way too liberal for most voters. And maybe even go as far as to use President Bush and a GOP Congress as an example of ONE PARTY governance.

I agree on this point. I had high hopes for Pelosi as Speaker, but as soon as Obama appeared like he was going to win the Democratic nomination, she has been acting on her personal liberal ideology (which matches Obama) and blocking legislation being heard-- most notably of late-- energy.

tybo

Obama is making an executive decision now. Like what to do about these polls. Or how he will attack McCain in the debates. This mythology that executive decisions only occur if you are the Gov of a state or a CEO is pure crap. Bush was a governor that cut taxes in Texas. But when he transferred the same mindset to the national scene and then got involved in Iraq it has resulted in a $4 trillion add to the national debt. So "executive experience" doesn't mean that the decisions won't be wrong. And by your logic, McCain and Palin should change places. That way we can have an inexperienced if not bad executive running things. Just like we have now.

KipTin - At least in Gainesville, FL (One of the big centers of youth vote in Florida, since it has UF), the answer is a massive volunteer organization. Massive. It generated door knocks in the thousands on Saturday.

This is what the long and dedicated investment in ground game over the summer buys Obama - a way to keep enthusiasm.

Don't forget that a lot of election takes place off the national media stage.

It is surprising not to see any criticism of Freddie and Fannie takeover from conservatives, who advocate small government. Being silent when billions of dollars of our tax money (may go up to 100 billion or maybe more) is used to bailout failed companies.

Seems like we have a mixed government. Capitalist to poor, socialist to rich.

"Sarah Palin Brings the Hillary Clinton Era to an End"

"Following the failure of Hillary Clinton's campaign, Palin is suddenly, and flamboyantly, the most prominent female politician in the country. At age 44, she is also the most prominent representative of her generation of women--a generation which already looks set to be different, in important ways, from its predecessors."

"The appointment of Palin does bring the Hillary Era to an end--she isn't the archetypal Female American Politician anymore, she's just one of many."

*Anne Applebaum is an adjunct fellow at AEI

See what I was talking about? Why do you think that now Geraldine Ferrero is willing to pull the lever for Obama? Well, she understands that Palin's presence is surely dashing Hillary's almost lost dreams. Baby-boomers are quite self-centered, and think that they deserve anything they want. In their minds, they own it, which in my mind means "SPOILED."

Palin's presence on the national stage just confirms one suspicion that older women have: they spend a whole entire life building their careers, and when they are almost there, a young, good-looking girl comes along and takes the pie in a minute.

All of you know that my problem is with Hillary has to do with more with her being an older women, a baby-boomer. So, on my part no problem with Palin. She is pro-life like me, she is christian like me, she doesn't come from the "burn your bra" era like me, she doesn't see the world in terms of gender lines like me. The only problem that I have with her is the idea of bringing religion to politics. This is the only thing that bothers me a great deal about republicans. If I were to take a test on social issues, I will be pretty conservative; however, I have not aligned myself with the republican party because of their use of God as a political issue, which by itself offends me deeply.

Do your homework Brutus1... Palin is NOT an idiot and in fact took 9 semesters (5 years) to get a Bachelor of Journalism and Political Science at a reputable land-grant college (since 1899) in Idaho. A typical degree takes 8 semesters. Palin took ONE semester off to run for Miss Alaska. She came in second and won a college scholarship. That fall she enrolled in University of Idaho.

P.S. One cannot be an "idiot" and graduate within 9 semesters, especially as a transfer student.

Idiots are people who put down other people who do not graduate from ELITE Ivy League colleges.

This is exactly what Republicans are betting on: A McCain-Palin administration with a democratic congress will give the impression of governing from the middle, on a bipartisan fashion. This will boost the GOP brand. Thanks to a popular McCain-Palin administration, in 2010 more Republicans will be elected for congress and the Senate. In 2012, Palin will be the head of the Republican ticket. She will take credit on everything done during that administration and will surely beat the democratic nominee, probable Hillary. In 2012, with more Republicans in Congress, President Palin will push for a more conservative agenda.

Look, I personally have no problem with a Palin president. I surely prefer her over a Hillary Clinton president. So, if this is the "price" to pay to keep Hillary out, I'm more than committed to voting for her.

SwingVote:

You havn't been listening to conservative voices if you think they like the Freddie and Fannie takeover. I'm sure Nancy and Harry consider it a big win.

KipTin:

It has been pointed out here that there is a weak mind that often tries to express itself under the name you alluded to. Better to ignore that one like every one else.

Swingvote ignores that the failure of FreddieMac and/or FannieMae would more than seriously disrupt the stock/investment markets.

FreddieMac (1970) and FannieMae (1938) are privately-owned and run government sponsored enterprises of the United States federal government.

Nevermet,

Why don't the conservative voices criticize Republicans for that? This whole thing is done by Bush administration. Congress and Senate's approval does not mean that Republicans are not responsible for this "socialist" move?

I didn't like Obama's position on this. I am in favor of real free market, where governments do not bail out companies or adjust interest rates to manipulate stock markets etc.

KipTin - To be fair, I've taught at the university level, and I can say, with complete confidence, that it is more than possible to be an idiot and graduate within 9 semesters.

I've no idea if Palin is an idiot, but her degree isn't evidence one way or another.

KipTin,

Paying debts of people facing foreclosure would solve the issue if we use the same logic. Free market is a free market. If FRM/FNM are inefficient, they will eventually fail. If you think the government takeover will make FRM and FNM more efficient, then it means socialism is better.

I don't think socialism is better and I don't think government will run FRM FNM better. It is going to be a burden for us. S, what's next step? Government buying houses to pull the prices up?

SwingVote:
I suspect that conservatives have given up on the Bush adm. and are looking to the future. Your thinking seem to be leaning to the right a little.

Amen, Snowspinner. For further proof that university degrees do not necessarily imply common sense, check out the "let's re-create certain big bang conditions" experiment planned for Wednesday in the European particle accelerator.

Most scientists think this is safe. A few think that the experiment will, in time, destroy the Earth (create tiny black holes, etc.) So naturally 'Evans the Atom' (the Welsh have similar last names and a sense of humor) is going ahead.

Thus these polls may or may not matter, in the larger scheme of things.

@all

like it or not, what began as a pc debate about a black man as president has finally become what it should have been along, an out of the closet debate about women in america.

first time around for the primary season, that is, the female issue was too toxic and too deep seated to broach, so they gingerly opened the discussion about the other minority, the one that had a distinct historical bracket and the one with the clearest narrative that could be punctuated with a big fat period, finally!!

but not the anti-deluvian other one, the one of female subjugation that persists and persists. what of that?

that's the one that had hillary clinton cuckolded by her husband, the press, the DNC and most recently by Barack Obama.

think about it. she is the old school of women's lib, the one where she wants the right to be equal but has to swallow insult after insult and must still tow the line. stay faithful to the man that wasunfaithful all of them.

so here she is, whipped and beaten by barack obama, promised this and that and scorned and rejected but made to dance for him and make love to him because he has her believing some how she owes it.

well, thank god for sarah palin. because the dialogue that was left dangling and half starved to death is now revived. this time by the party of conservatives who tend to drag their feet in liberty issues. this time around, Chris mathews the raging intellectual liberal cant be duplicitous and scorn the woman again by opting for the other minority discussion.

(plus he thankfully got canned)

whatever you people out there have to say, mccain's choice insists this truncated conversation be expanded and the PC-ness of it be finally deflated.

i actually think it's fine that liberals call her the stewardess, go on, get it out of your systems.. truman had less education.

the sad part is that the trail blazer ie hillary is still wearing her apron wrapped around her neck and pbama is pulling it tighter and tighter till choking.

she is biting back her sadness, her bitterness and her constant mistreatment at the hands of men she has supported for the greater good.

btw: do you all know who paid obama's way through harvard?

hehehehe...and do you know how he got in? hehehehe? and do you know what his grades were? man will you love this well kept secret.

Holy cow! Yes, this is just after the Republican convention - and clearly it's a "bounce" for McCain. But what's truly amazing is that ANY Democratic candidate could possibly be behind ANY Republican candidate in ANY national poll! Remember, 70% of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction; Bush has an historically low approval rating; people are "hungry" for change; and in every generic poll, "the Democrat" outpolls "the Republican" by 12 to 16 points! So Obama is now under-performing by 15 to 20 pts. Yikes. As a student of history (and someone who worked for Michael Dukakis), this doesn't really surprise me. I've been saying all along that Obama was perhaps the ONE Democratic candidate who could actually lose this election, and McCain was the ONE Republican who could actually win. Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama loses the election (and goes down in history as the biggest embarrassment to the Democratic party in recent history) just because he kicked Hillary (the woman who got more votes from Democrats in the primaries than he did) to the curb, allowing McCain to select a woman as his running mate (and getting everyone all excited about his campaign by doing so). To those of us voters (many of us lifelong Dems) who feel Obama is the most unreal, fakest, calculating candidate in recent history, it would certainly be amusing to watch. Hillary in 2012!!

@patrick

the last bounce may be the best bounce and the one that holds.

i like that mccain can finally be mccain.

the libs simply dont read enough about palin. her father is a science teacher. she is neither a creationist nor other. she merely sttes that because we lack so much in the way of facts, make sure all ideas are put on the plate for kids to sort through.

this very day, they are testing the big bang theory with the biggest atom smashed of all. my guess is that they'll come up empty.

and as for her anti abortion stand, you;ll note that never entered into her speech. in fact, she stifled discussion by the pro lifers in alaska. hers is a private matter not a policy one.

how she handles her own family issues would not likely be the way i would, but they do not overflow her public policy profile. so sit on it!

Rasmussen: New state polls will be released tonight (Monday) at 6:00 p.m Eastern. Throughout the rest of the week, new state polling on the Presidential race will be released each day at 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

marctx
thx for the heads up.
i cant wait till we read wis.
and watch new jersey.. i know it's a stretch but it went hillary last time and it has been gaining for rep.

even if it never moves to a majority if the trend is distinct there, it predicts less top heavy lib. states swinging around/.

@Hillary in 2012!!?

It seems that some people can't see beyond their noses!!! I wouldn't say Hillary 2012, but Sarah Palin 2012!!! Republicans are betting on electing McCain-Palin and then putting Palin at the top of the ticket in 2012. The Vice-President always has the upper-hand in being elected. The Palin's gamble is not just for 2008, but 2012/2016!!!

In 2012, I'm a Palin democrat against the "Girl Power" Hillary. I can't stand another pro-abortion, masculine, burn-your-bra baby boomer, female politian. This time around my guy is Obama, the anti-Hillary. Next time around it will be Palin, the anti-Hillary candidate in 2012.

why did it take CNN over 24 hours to post the new mccain up polls?

this organization does not deserve the word 'news' attached to it anymore.

they get the fav obama polls up in ten minutes. screw them, it's time to serve them notice: when the media jumps in bed with a political group it erodes the very notion of republicanism in its truest sense. democracy shrinks that much more.

Patrick:

As a hillary supporter myself, your comments about Obama being "fake" aren't strong enough. I think McCain was "fake" when he pretended to be like Bush and opposed his own legislation. I am glad he is being himself again. Nothing like Bush. Obama is pretending to be like Hillary or Bill but we know he is not. He is the most liberal senator pretending to be a moderate.

"Sarah Palin Brings the Hillary Clinton Era to an End"

"Following the failure of Hillary Clinton's campaign, Palin is suddenly, and flamboyantly, the most prominent female politician in the country. At age 44, she is also the most prominent representative of her generation of women--a generation which already looks set to be different, in important ways, from its predecessors."

"The appointment of Palin does bring the Hillary Era to an end--she isn't the archetypal Female American Politician anymore, she's just one of many."

*Anne Applebaum is an adjunct fellow at AEI

See what I was talking about? Why do you think that now Geraldine Ferrero is willing to pull the lever for Obama? Well, she understands that Palin's presence is surely dashing Hillary's almost lost dreams. Baby-boomers are quite self-centered, and think that they deserve anything they want. In their minds, they own it, which in my mind means "SPOILED."

Palin's presence on the national stage just confirms one suspicion that older women have: they spend a whole entire life building their careers, and when they are almost there, a young, good-looking girl comes along and takes the pie in a minute.

All of you know that my problem is with Hillary has to do with more with her being an older women, a baby-boomer. So, on my part no problem with Palin. She is pro-life like me, she is christian like me, she doesn't come from the "burn your bra" era like me, she doesn't see the world in terms of gender lines like me. The only problem that I have with her is the idea of bringing religion to politics. This is the only thing that bothers me a great deal about republicans. If I were to take a test on social issues, I will be pretty conservative; however, I have not aligned myself with the republican party because of their use of God as a political issue, which by itself offends me deeply.

Several of us predicted these results last week, but we can all be guessing what kind of October surprise Obama-Biden might be trying to come up with before they utter that desperate "we're mellltingggg" cry. Will Katie resort to Dan Rather tactics and dredge up something concocted?

@richardkreed: The large hadron collider will come nowhere near the energy scale of the big bang taken to be for the sake of argument the grand unification scale. The LHC will go up to about 10TeV while the grand unification scale is about 10^13TeV---a difference of 12 orders of magnitude.

The energy scale reached at the LHC won't even come close to the energy of many cosmic rays that bombard our atmosphere constantly. Cosmic rays with energies 7 orders of magnitude or more larger than that of LHC have been bombarding us for billions of years and we're still here.

pion:

That just energizes me. Unless, of course, you meant hardon collider, and then we digress to talking about Hillary's husband again.