10/18-20,08; 791 LV 3.5%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 47, McCain 41
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:12 PM
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:13 PM
Damn, beaten to it.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:14 PM
Wow. What a close race.
this poll does not count according to republicans lol well unless it looks good for mcsame , then it will it will count again!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:15 PM
As FiveThirtyEight says, "Watch Rasmussen, he is the highest rated of all pollsters doing tracking polls".
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:17 PM
Boris Johnson, Tory mayor of London
On the legacy of Bush:
Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea. To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune. To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad, is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president.
On Obama, a sane conservative take:
He is patently not the Marxist subversive loony Lefty that some of his detractors allege. I revere Melanie Phillips, and I have carefully studied her blog entries about Obama and the vote-stealers, or Obama and his association with a quondam terrorist called Ayers. In the end I gave up, goggle-eyed and exhausted, having trolled the wilds of the Neocon internet without finding anything remotely approaching a smoking gun.
THE CEO OF GOOGLE JOINS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC TEAM!
Terrific. Google has lost HALF its stock value in the last 12 months. Let's listen to THAT guy, lol.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:19 PM
Trolls. I know in your circle world opinion means nothing but I'm curious if you could tell me WHY the world prefers Obama 4-1? Hmmm.
World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by Nearly 4-to-1 October 21, 2008
Gallup Polls conducted in 70 countries representing more than 2 billion of the world's adult citizens reveal a nearly 4-to-1 preference for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain among those who say they know enough to have an opinion. Citizens in Europe are the most likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States, while citizens in Asia are the least likely. Only Georgia and the Philippines prefer McCain to Obama.
boomshak and Carlie from HP meant nothing to McCain? ROFL IDIOT!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:20 PM
while Mac is spouting useless venom about him being a Socialist, Obama is actually discussing solutions. This new panel format is brilliant; there's no negativity, just issues and solutions. McCain is now just talk; Obama is doing something.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:22 PM
McShame listens to Graham when he says "America is a bunch of Whiners." The economy is strong. It's all in your mind. Those are the advisors that we should be running from.
Now really, who has a better grasp on the economy?
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:23 PM
I'll put this here so boom can't pretend it doesn't exist. From GaMeS at FiveThirtyEight:
"To keep the actual discussion going, here's a point a non-troll made earlier:
The lower income earner pays far more of their income, as a percentage, towards the essentials of life, however you may want to define them (typically food, shelter, clothing, health), than the higher income earner. This means that while their tax rate may be lower, it is actually a higher percentage of their income after essentials.
Nicely stated -- this is something the Repugs refuse to acknowledge in their specious flat-tax arguments.
Here's another way I would illustrate it: Imagine that a person has absolutely no possessions and no income, and there is no social network to provide aid. As long as this state persists, every waking hour will be spent on subsistence, i.e. acquiring basic sustenance and shelter.
Now, let's say that person finds a nice stash of food that provides more than necessary for survival, allowing some to be stored. He can now spend some time investing in himself -- building a better shelter, sharpening a new spear -- to make it easier to subsist. (You can also invest in yourself in the form of downtime, relaxing and recuperating both physically and mentally, making it easier to operate at peak capacity when needed -- ultimately, this is the origin of entertainment.)
This investment grows geometrically, making it easier and easier to survive while allowing a greater and greater share of his time to be spent on further investment. Put another way, investment is not directly proportional to income or wealth. A hunter-gatherer might spend 10% of his time on investment; a pastoralist might spend 20%; a farmer might spend 50%.
Now, it's pretty clear how this translates to modern life: The more money you have (in income and wealth), the greater percentage you're able to invest rather than simply spend on consumption (rent, food, car, etc.).
And where do taxes fit in? Well, by now it should be obvious: Taxes are investment in the nation. They pay for improvements in infrastructure, police, rescue, and so forth, making it easier to earn dividends in other pursuits. (For example, it's very hard to earn money in transportation if there are no good roads, and it's hard to keep your investments safe if there are no police.)
And before any of the right-wingers make a "free market" argument, even the dimmest free marketeer knows about economies of scale. It's not feasible to build just one lane of an interstate highway, or just enough military to protect your own house. (You either defend all the borders, or you're effectively defending none of them.)
* We have the need to invest in public goods (i.e. nonexcludable, or nearly so) that are subject to economies of scale that make private ownership woefully inefficient.
* Individuals with greater resources spend a greater percentage on investment.
* Ergo, progressive taxation is the best way to handle these common needs. Since investment is nonlinear, so too must taxation be nonlinear.
And that's why the rich get larger tax bills. Any proposal for "flat taxes" is ultimately a case of either woeful lack of understanding or gross intellectual dishonesty.
Related note: This is also why the Reaganomics trickle-down concept doesn't work. Dollar-for-dollar, tax cuts given to the rich will be spent on things other than consumption. (Remember that my broad definition of "investment," in this context, includes luxuries and such.)
Since consumption drives demand, and demand is what makes suppliers willing to invest in greater capacity, tax cuts to the wealthy will have far less effect in a slow economy than tax cuts to the middle class and working class.
Now, why is it best not to give tax cuts to the wealthy in addition tax cuts for the middle and working classes? Well, you still need to pay the bills -- if you keep running up deficits, you devalue your currency (compare the US dollar to the Canadian dollar over the past few decades), and that is effectively a tax hike on everyone (and it disproportionately affects those who spend most of their income on consumption rather than interest-bearing investments).
Ah, but why not simply reduce spending and cut taxes for the rich? Well, that government spending creates jobs, closing a recessionary gap to reach full employment and efficiency in the economy. If you were to cut spending just to give a tax cut to the rich, unemployment would skyrocket, and now you have a real depression.
Let's say that Y is the point at which you're in equilibrium (full employment, no recessionary gap from unemployment and no inflationary gap from overspending and scarcity). If you have an economy with, say, $2.5 trillion in fixed spending (essentially subsistence) and that spends 80% of discretionary income on consumption (the other 20% on savings), then you can solve for the point of equilibrium:
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y)
Y = $12.5T
Now, let's add government -- let's say you take out $3 trillion in taxes and spend the whole thing (balanced budget):
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $3T) + $3T
Y = $15.5T
See that? Even though you have a balanced budget, you're increasing the equilibrium income for the economy. If you're in a recessionary gap, this spending provides jobs and reduces structural unemployment.
Now, you don't want to overshoot or you create an inflationary gap, devaluing your currency. In fact, this is one reason that it's such a bad idea to run a really large deficit for a long period. Let's see what would happen if you only taxed $2.5 trillion instead of $3 trillion:
Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $2.5T) + $3T
Y = $17.5T
See how that works? If your "full employment" level is less than $17.5 trillion, then your currency will devalue due to inflation; worse, you racked up $500 billion in debt, which will increase your necessary spending next year, accelerating the problem.
After a while, you have runaway debt -- which is pretty much where Bush & Co. have left us.
Now, it doesn't hurt to carry some debt, just as it doesn't hurt to have a mortgage ... if you can afford the payments. In fact, the best reason for deficit spending is to help pull out of a recession or depression -- but it has to be done carefully to avoid overshooting and wrecking your currency, and thus it's best not to cut taxes on the wealthy during such times. And if your debt is truly out of control, you must bring it back in line, even if it means raising taxes on the rich.
One last point that the Repugs love to overlook: Obama's budget costs $1.5 trillion less than McCain's, according to the Tax Policy Center. (Giving away $300 billion in tax cuts to the rich is essentially a massive earmark that provides welfare for the rich as the expense of a giant tax hike -- inflation -- on everyone else.) Therefore, Obama's plan results in smaller deficits (and thus less inflation) while simultaneously generating more jobs and higher employment rates with pay-as-you-go spending. Obama's plan is exactly what you should do during an economic downturn, and McCain's is a guaranteed trainwreck.
So, the next time some idiot right-winger starts spewing his talking points without having ever taken a class in economics, feel free to copy and paste this. =)"
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:25 PM
boomshak, I fail to see how that's relevant, but it's certainly better than Phil Graham... right? A lot of companies' stocks have fallen as a result of Wall Street bank failures. It's an inevitable result of our interconnected economy. Stocks in China & France (for example) have fallen. Does that mean we blame China & France for failures of Wall Street?
Yep Rasmussen is the golden standard:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters now say that Obama is a better leader than McCain while 42% hold the opposite view. That’s the first time all year that Obama has held the advantage on this question
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:26 PM
I've done some math... Based on early voting turnout demographics from the Georgia secretary of state, Obama should be currently winning the state by 2 points. Jim Martin should be winning by 5.7%. Of course, those numbers might not hold up through election day, but if that's what's going on in deep-red Georgia of all places, imagine what's going on in the real battlegrounds.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:27 PM
McCain is in trouble! I really think 2wks out and these polls are not closing! McCain is doing better among white men! But tremendously underperforming where bush numbers were. If that trend continues, this election will be a landslide! McCain is down 10 in PA. WHy campain there, when you are down about 8 in VA, 6 in CO! Where is the strategy?
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Obama Favored in Key Muslim Countries --Saudis most likely to voice a preference -- Wow Obama .. brings us closer to the land of the Bin Ladens
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:29 PM
@boomshak, you said "Terrific. Google has lost HALF its stock value in the last 12 months. Let's listen to THAT guy, lol"
I thought you were celebrated Google beating analyst expectations the other day and were expecting the stock market to surge based upon this result.
Oh well! I guess grapes are sour!!!!
P.S: BTW, Google did not do any worse than NASDAQ itself.
"Terrific. Google has lost HALF its stock value in the last 12 months. Let's listen to THAT guy, lol"
So have most other companies because of the wallstreet nose dive. What are you talking about? Google is still one of the most successful companies.
The surge is working!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Obama's favored around the entire world, with the exception of Georgia, and the Philippines I think?
The same land whose rulers are as good as family members of the Bush family!
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:31 PM
Now who am I going to take more seriously? The guy advised by Phill Gramm and Carly Fiorina, or the guy advised by Paul Volcker and Warren Buffet? Toughie.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:32 PM
Despite Approval of Bush, Africans Favor Obama
Yes Bush and Obama are the same for America ! 2 faces of the same stupid coin ...
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:33 PM
Wait so now the republicans are going after the most successful startup of the past decade? So much for the GOP being pro-capitalism.
What you say about Rasmussen is true, which is why in the weighted average he is x4 of Hotline, for instance. However, it is still the case that the 3-day trackers so weighted have shown a +6 spread for Obama for the past two days, and depending on Gallup will probably do so again today.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:34 PM
If I wanted to design a poll which would give erratic results, I would use a small sample size. Then the results would show large random variation and generate many news reports and blog posts.
I think the Hotline and Battleground polls meet these conditions.
Prof. Wang at Princeton had an excellent article about this several days ago
The fluctuations in these polls are noise. Try to ignore it.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:36 PM
So now Vivla's trying to tie Obama to Bush when it's McSame who's voted with him 90% of the time. ROFL. And let's ignore that Bush is hated around the world, and Obama heavily favored, right?
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:37 PM
CNN News: Now ACORN is blaming McCain for people harassing them. (Listening to them one would think that McCain sent out goon squads.) Why not blame their own bad actions? They made their own bad publicity with the hundreds of fraudulent voting registrations.
Regarding this poll-- Obama still at 47% and McCain dropped to 41% from 42%. Over the last four days McCain has fluctuated between 41% and 42% and Obama has dropped from 49% to 47%. Looks like more lean Obama voters are going "undecided" rather than to McCain.
One can directly tie Obama to Bush because it was Obama (not McCain) who voted for the Bush/Cheney energy policy. That major vote is difficult to ignore.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:40 PM
On AC last night David Gergen said that the demographic for the majority of undecideds slightly favours Obama; things like the Powell endorsement, the Oct 29 spot and campaign events like the economic forum going on now (which is about solutions not smearing), will push him over the top with them.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:41 PM
Sure , let's have Europeans vote for our president -- No wait , how about if we let Africa or the Middle East do that .. No wait , perhaps we can have the rest of the world direct your destiny !
How naive and stupid can you be !! No wonder you are rooting for a naive rookie with zero experience as your own Clinton and Biden have so emphasized !
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:43 PM
Hotline and Battleground tracking polls use smaller polls and therefore have larger margin of errors... ergo more extreme fluctuations day to day. Not rocket science or "noise"... but rather sampling error. But over the long term, that is irrelevant because tracking polls show trends.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:45 PM
David Gergen is not a reputable source regarding undecideds. He is so much a part of the Obamanation it is embarassing to listen to his so-called analysis... which are in reality Obama campaign talking points.
BTW: I was commenting on this poll only.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:49 PM
Quoting our own imagine:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
* Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
* Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
* Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
* The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
* Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
* Foreign Policy (10 bills)
* Voting and Elections (9 bills)
* Education (7 bills)
* Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
* The Environment (5 bills)
* Homeland Security (4 bills)
* Discrimination (4 bills)
And the full details including bill numbers? See http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/obamas-senate-accomplishments/#more-6370
Not to mention one of the most startlingly successful careers as an IL legislator at both crossing the aisle and getting others to cross the aisle. Ever wonder why you don’t hear a single Republican IL legislator EVER bad mouth him? For that matter what about Republican US Senators? More likely to attack McCain, until recently than Obama. In fact, you here more negative attacks from (I) Lieberman than any other member of congress except McCain.
And, don't forget that he is the first black man to be the President of the Harvard Law Review, turned down million dollar offers to litigate for big firms or lobby for corporate giants and returned to the Chicago inner city as he promised, and became one of the most successful community organizers in IL history. Obama is a Constitutional scholar. He taught the Constitution for 12 years at Chicago Law, and knows it inside out and backwards. Obama has written two best selling books.
Much has been made by Senator McCain's supporters of his history as a survivor of a Viet Cong prison camp, of the broken bones and psychological onslaughts that he withstood for five long years. They argue that such an experience builds character. They should also take note of the challenges faced by a black man in America, challenges that have built Senator Obama's character. These may be harder to quantify than imprisonment and torture, but they are onerous in a different and inescapable way.
Obama has served his country well. So has McCain. If Obama was the son and grandson of Admirals and was born 40 years earlier he may have had a similar military biography. But he was born to a poor mother in Kansas and a father who left them, and he grew up in a time of relative peace. His bottom up economic policy, focus on foreign diplomacy, and push for universal health care may not be your cup of tea, and therefore you will not vote for him as POTUS; but what he’s done is more than remarkable - only the ignorant (that's you boomy woomy)can not see or appreciate that.
The only stupidity is yours Vivla, as your logic-lacking posts and attacks on anyone who dares to bring in reality show.
wow.. you just cut Boom from jumping on the battleground poll with your post..
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:50 PM
NONE of these trolls will be here Nov. 4th. MARK MY WORDS.
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:51 PM
"... over the long term, that is irrelevant because tracking polls show trends."
Indeed, and the trend, in aggregate, is not good news for McCain, who is dead-cat-bouncing on 44% while Obama is gliding on 50%.
If you check the client list of the Tarrance Group who did this poll, here is what you see:
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
FLORIDA HOUSE & SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF MARYLAND
MONROE COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF OHIO
OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS OF VIRGINIA
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF IOWA
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ALABAMA
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WISCONSIN
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF FLORIDA
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW JERSEY
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WYOMING
WISCONSIN STATE SENATE
COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY
Do I need to say more?
Posted on October 21, 2008 12:52 PM
Wow. Look at Gallup.
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:03 PM
RE VivalaRevolucion's statement saying, "No wonder you are rooting for a naive rookie with zero experience."
LOL....How ironic this is, coming from somebody who is a supporter of SARAH PALIN!
Care to take a peek at her abysimal negatives and "sinking like a stone" postive ratings?
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:22 PM
Posted on October 21, 2008 1:26 PM
Viperlord just learned how to cut and paste. Congraulations!
Posted on October 21, 2008 2:46 PM
Watch McShame love for PA
Posted on October 21, 2008 9:12 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR