Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 48, McCain 42 (Hotline 9/30-10/02)

Topics: PHome

Diageo/Hotline
09/30-10/02,08; 909 RV 3.3%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 48, McCain 42

 

Comments
pbcrunch:

The first movement we've seen from this poll in a while; stuck at O +5 for nearly a week, it seemed.

Curious what the Gallup tracker will say...

____________________

Flashlight:

Obama now at his highest point on pollster. McCain near his lowest:

/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.html

____________________

Viperlord:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809270011 THERE'S the truth on the troop funding issue.

____________________

Viperlord:

And I see boom's predictions about a whole new race have yet to be proven, LOL.

____________________

Trosen:

Gallup and Ras will tighten over the weekend and into Tuesday. You may even see it get as close or 1 or 2 points as the media tries desperately to swing last night's debate into a "game changer." But it won't last past the next debate.. unless McCain comes up with a detailed economic plan to unvail that has something besides "taxes" and "earmarks." Obama shouldn't let him steal the thunder. either on Monday or Wednesday, Obama should set up a big rally/speech setailing his economic plan.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

"You may even see it get as close or 1 or 2 points as the media tries desperately to swing last night's debate into a "game changer.""

It's not getting any closer. Most people are solidifying in their positions. The damage is done. McCain can try to mount a localized ground game attack in FL & OH, while running some negative radio ads to energize his base, but he is fighting a losing game. People are running from the Republican party as a result his base is smaller, and Obama has amassed a far superior ground attack. As Chuck Todd said, it's over.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Interesting results from the Undecideds that watched the debate. While the pundits said "Palin did no harm" that doesn't seem to be true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml

Amongst the uncommitted likely voters who watched the debate 46% Biden said Biden won while 21% gave the debate to Palin. 33% said it was a tie. That's actually above the 40% vs. 22% differential in the Obama-McCain debate!

Even more bad news from the uncommitted- 18% of the originally uncommitted grounp say they are now committed to the Obama-Biden ticket. Only 10% say they committed to McCain-Palin. 71% remain undecided. So almost a 2:1 margin are switching to the Democratic ticket.

In terms of actual polling numbers this may only be about a 1% increase in the differential b/w the two tickets. But if the "undecideds" switch proportionately to these groups (or vote with the "majority" as frequently happens) there really is no chance.

____________________

boomshak:

DOES BOOMSHAK THINK OBAMA COULD BE A GREAT PRESIDENT?

If he governs from the middle, yes. Do I believe he will govern from the middle when governing as a liberal would be unopposed from Congress? No.

Remember that Bill Clinton did NOT govern as a moderate until the Contract w/ America Republican Congress FORCED him to in order to get anything done. I mean, Bill Clinton's FIRST act as POTUS was to put gays in the military - not very moderate.

What I fear will take place under unfettered liberal rule is:

1) judicial legislation from the bench over-riding the will of the people,
2) a weakened military,
3) a hamstrung intelligence effort,
4) explosive illegal immigration and
5) burgeoning government and the creation of a new welfare state.

____________________

Trosen:

boomshak:

What I fear will take place under unfettered liberal rule is:

1) judicial legislation from the bench over-riding the will of the people,

I have no idea what the hell that actually means, but for now there's a 5/4 Conservative tilt on the Supreme Court, and the Senate won't have a 2/3 majority of Ds, so you have your Republican last-ditch safeguards.

2) a weakened military,

This another asinine myth attributed to the Clinton years when bi-partisan legislation was approved as a military scale-down and re-organizing due to the end of the Cold War.not to mention our military has been SIGNIFICANTLY weakened over the last 8 years of THIS Administration.

3) a hamstrung intelligence effort,

If by this you mean torture and spying on American cictenz without FISA oversight, I'm sorry, but I can not have an intelligent conversation with anyone who believes torture and shredding of the Constitution in the name of nationa security is a good thing.

4) explosive illegal immigration and

That's happened under whose watch?? Some liberal commie-pinko administration? And do you really even want to get into how and why?? Not to mention, how has McCain's immigration stance worked out with conservatives?

5) burgeoning government and the creation of a new welfare state.

And burgeoning governemnt is exactly what we've seen under This Administration. You are pinting out concerns that have manifested under 8 years of R rule in the White house and 6 in the Congress! Whose side are you really for?

____________________

js:

@boomshak,

Bill Clinton was the chairman of the DLC, which is the most centrist organization in either party. He pushed NAFTA as a governor and signed it before the Republicans won control in the 1994 midterms. His entire political career was that of a centrist.

Honestly, how can you be so wrong? Are you just flat out lying or are you that uninformed?

____________________

Tyler:

@Trosen

You're forgetting that LIBERALS support THE GAYS. And in the military no less!

Honestly if someone wants to put his life on the line to serve his country, what the hell does it matter if he likes a little buggery now and then?

____________________

Trosen:

Tyler yea, don't ask, don't smell. (Or how about all those gay Arabic and Farsi-speaking intelligence agents the Administration had fired because of there sexual preference. There's some national security concern for you)I was struck with the Palin gay-rights love fest last night. Can't imagine that went over to well with the "base."

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Gallup Daily:
Sept 2 Obama 50 McCain 42
Oct 2 Obama 48 McCain 43

A full month of swinging back and forth, but McCain still has a net gain. The economy fiasco hasn't exactly destroyed his campaign. After Palin's performance last night, we'll return to the GOP post-convention numbers by next week. Thank you Sarah!

____________________

thoughtful:

@Trosen

Palin talking about same sex relationships, looked to me she was choking over her words.

@Broomshak is in realism today. Trust me Boom, Obama is not a radical, he just has many friends from all strands of politics. He's a centrist, looks for common ground.

So he'll delight you, already disappointed me, but McCain is just plain dangerous if you haven't already deduced that.

____________________

Tyler:

@NeverMetAnHonestLib

Or you could say "A full month of campaigning and McCain hasn't managed to close the gap by any significant magin over the long haul."

And if Palin's performance last night was what you guys were counting on to swing the election back in your favor... you guys are screwed. 90 minutes of gee-golly-gosh-joe-sixpack might help a little but it doesn't overshadow the worst economic crisis in decades.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Many of you libs would be surprised at how many conservatives support gays, and how many gays are conservatives.

____________________

thoughtful:

@NeverMetAnHonestLib

You've been missed!

There's a difference between the 2nd September convention Bounce and this post convention campaign, debate trend.

McCain is damaged beyond any chance for election.

Credibility none. Trust fallen off a cliff, calmness under fire - likely to go AWOL etc.

____________________

Tyler:

@NeverMetAnHonestLib

I never said that no gays are conservative or that no conservatives "support" gays in a personal "I have some gay friends and don't hate them" sense, but it is undeniable that the conservative political platform is anti-gay-rights and anti-equality.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Tyler:
Silly Tyler, you know that true conservatives aren't to be blamed for the economic crisis we're in. Bush showed that he was never a fiscal conservative. He caved to the Barney Frank/Chris Dodd types that created the mess. McCain and Palin will be seen as the responsible leaders America needs to get the economy back on track.

Obama's social policies will cost more than what Bush spent on the war. Doggone it, the folks know you can't tax the rich to pay for Barak's goodies. His healthcare plan alone will force America into a depression.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Biden said that McCain's $5000 credit to families for insurance would be paid to insurance companies.

That's like saying childcare credits would be paid to childcare providers.

Isn't that the point?

____________________

MNLatteLiberal:

NeverMet, keep swinging. If you think last night was about gays vs conservatives, then you just go ahead and wait for the Sarah-the-equalizer effect. Just goes to show how flawed the Right's internals are.

It's the economy, stupid. And, yeah, the general electorate out there is critically analyzing what flavor the new conservative d'jour is. Nice. If you have an R after you, you are going down. Just like in '06. Keep clicking those heels, Dorothy.

____________________

Trosen:

Oh that's a good one. It was Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's arm twisting that forced Bush to cut corproate and wealthy American's taxes to below Reagan-era levels. It was Frank and Dodd's arm-twisting that forced W to write blank checks to Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater (which we're still writing by the way). It was Frank and Dodd's arm-twisting to sepnd $10 Billion a month in Iraq. It was Frank and Dodd's arm twisting that forced Dick cheney into a secret 2001 pre-9/11 meeting with the head of the Energy companies (including Enron) that have brought them windfall profits, tax breaks, and saddled us with $4 a gallon gas. I have read some asinine stuff on this board, but that might just take the cake.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Tyler:

There IS NO "conservative" political platform. I suspect you meant the GOP platform. The GOP platform is NOT anti-gay or anti-equal rights. Being against gay marriage is not either one.

____________________

Tyler:

Regardless of who _you_ beleive is responsible for the economic crisis, it has been astoundingly clear over the past two weeks that the _public_ believes that the Republicans are responsible to an extent that it has given Obama a boost of 5-10% in the polls.

As far as the election is concerned, it really doesn't matter who is right in the economic crisis blame game. What matters for this election is the reality that the economic crisis is helping the Democrats in a big, big way. Whether or not it _should_ be helping them, it _is_, and Republicans need to either address or distract from that very soon if they want to have a hope of winning this election. Palin's performance last night, while decent, will not do that.

And yes, Bush is not an fiscal conservative. Neither is Obama. Neither is McCain - tax breaks to the wealthy do not fiscal conservatism make. If that's your major issue, then you're pretty much out of luck this election.

____________________

NW Patrick:

Boomshak what did you fear about Bush when you voted for him twice?

____________________

Tyler:

@NeverMetAnHonestLib

Okay fine, GOP platform, whatever. They are the current major party representation of conservative ideology in the US.

There's an argument that being anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay, but there is _no_ argument that being anti-gay marriage is not anti-equality for gays. By definition, if in the eyes of the state, homosexuals cannot get married exactly the same way that heterosexuals can, there is inequality. And don't bring up a "seperate but equal" solution because you know what the answer to that is.

And yes I know that the Obama/Biden ticket is nominally against "gay marriage". I disagree with them on that and I do think that is anti-equality. But remember this whole discussion started with Boomshak claiming that allowing gays in the military (even under the crappy Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy) was some kind of far-left liberalism on Clinton's part.

____________________

NW Patrick:

This +1 movement here must have been known to occur by the great BoomShakWindBag. Tied by Sunday!

____________________

nick-socal:

@Trosen: You bring up a good point about not letting McCain steal the thunder on Monday or Wednesday -- before and after the debate. In my opinion McCain has been winning on that front. He's made some ridiculous moves when doing it that has cost him points with voters, but he (McCain) seems to always be able to change the subject just when Obama needs to keep it on topic.

____________________

NW Patrick:

I would venture to say MOST gay people don't care about the WORD marriage, just like most straight people don't care about marriage based on the horrifying divorce rate. We simple want equaility in the rights to love another person, care for them if they get sick, and share insurance, medical benefits, etc.

____________________

nick-socal:

@Patrick: My gay friends down here in Socal seem to care about it. I've been to a few weddings already ;)

____________________

Trosen:

To Palin's credit, she did pass a gay-rights bill in Alaska.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

Trosen:

Thanks for the admissions. It didn't pay for Bush to cave to the libs' wishes. Barney and Chris were still telling the American people that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape as recently as July.

Bush and Cheney are out, and the dem's lame attempts to paint McCain as another Bush may work with the liberal choir, but even Lieberman is a smart enough dem to see that isn't the case. Or did you forget that Lieberman ran against Bush?

The dems are looking pretty bad overall. McCain jsut need to stick with true conservative principles. That's want resonates with the people.

____________________

Tyler:

@NW Patrick

Correct - it's not the word that's the issue, but I contend that the word is important to those more substantive issues.

Separating heterosexual marriages from homosexual "unions" in any way, including the wording, establishes the as seperate institutions that can be regulated and granted rights and privelidges seperately, opening the door for future inequality. Having parallel institutions means we have to trust our lawmakers to add an "oh yeah and civil unions too" clause to every piece of legislation dealing with marriage or married couples.

____________________

NeverMetAnHonestLib:

NW Patrick:

I am a conservative, and I AGREE with everything you said in your last post.

____________________

nick-socal:

I'd like to remind everyone that Dukakis was up something like 17% in the polls 5 weeks before the election. EVERYONE assumed that Bush was dead and it would be a laugher. Don't get too excited for Obama yet. Keep working, talking, convincing, etc.

____________________

boomshak:

QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS SERIES: PART I
Over the next few weeks, I will be coducting a series of questions for liberals. I really want to know how you think about some key issues:

Question 1: Our government has been set up to separate powers, and for good reason. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In light of this, do you believe that it is appropriate for judges to LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH?

____________________

Tyler:

Answer 1: No it is not appropriate to legislate from the bench. However I can't ever recall a judge passing a bill into law.

But when you say "legislate from the bench" you really mean "interpret the law and/or consitution differently than I would", don't you? There are supreme court cases that I disagree with (Bush v. Gore, Eldred v. Ashcroft, Kelo v. New London) but I do not consider rulings contrary to my own politics to consitute legislation from the bench. Part of the nature of a democracy is that there are going to be disagreements. The supreme court's (and inferior courts') jobs are to resolve these disagreements. It's neither mature nor healthy for democracy to accuse judges of abuse of power when they don't happen to agree with you.

And, "absolute power"? If judges were doing something so obviously onerous as you claim, they could be impeached, or overridden by a constitutional ammendment. Their power is hardly absolute.

____________________

boomshak:

@nick-socal:

Watch White Women Voters and PUMAS. The last time that McCain surged was due mostly to them being impressed with Sarah Palin, Version 1.0.

They were less than impressed with the Sarah Palin 1.5 Release. However, they may once again be excited by Sarah Palin 2.0.

At this point I think a McCain win is a long shot. However, it could happen this way:

1. Rescue Bill passes and stock market rallies 1500 points or more by Nov 4th.
2. There is a resurgence of support for Sarah Palin 2.0
3. Gas gets close to $3 a gallon.
4. Something big happens internationally.
5. McCain gets his head out of his ass and starts running a good campaign.
6. There is some October surprise or eruption that blind-sides the Obama campaign.

____________________

boomshak:

@Tyler:

For instance. Say there was a proposition that was voted on and supported by 80% of the electorate. However, this proposition was contrary to a single judges personal beliefs. Despite overwhelming support by the people and the legislature, that judge steps in and strikes down the measure. Do you support that?

____________________

boomshak:

Here we go, vote is starting.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

Gallup + 7 Obama. Definitely strong movement towards a tie race this weekend.

____________________

Tyler:

@boomshak

Yes I do. One of the roles of constitutional review is to defend against tyranny of the majority.

And beyond that, just because something is overwhelmingly popular doesn't mean it is constitutional. If the constitution says "You may not make laws prohibiting X", a law or proposition saying "X is prohibited" is unconstitution even if 100% of the electorate votes for it. Review judges are meant to judge constitutionality, not popularity.

The federal government and all states have means of ammending thier constitutions. 80% of the electorate is probably enough to do that (although voters might be more hesitant to ammend the constitution than to support a proposition, and with good reason).

Or, if the judge's decision was clearly an abuse of power, the federal government and all states have means to impeach and remove their judges.

____________________

boomshak:

"Without Preconditions"
—Slublog
A nice catch from Jonah Goldberg. Barack Obama not only stated he'd meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the primary debates, his promise to do so is still on the campaign website:


Someone get Joe a shovel.

And predictably, the media is claiming Palin had the truth problem last night. The biggest complaint I've heard? She got the name of a general wrong. Ooohhh! Burn!

A new definition of BS - "Biden Says..." One thing I heard from the media is that Biden showed a greater grasp of the issues. As Goldberg points out, it's easy to sound confident when you're creating your own reality. It would be nice if the media pointed out Biden's repeated lies, but they're too busy patting him on the back for how gosh-darned smooth he sounds while doing it.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdufus:

Gallup + 7 Obama. Definitely strong movement towards a tie race this weekend.

...and exactly how much of the debate reaction is in those dumbers asshat?

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@boomshak

Look, everyone already knows you're a low life scumbag. But don't start making **** up too. Did I SAY those numbers reflect the debate you moron?

Anyway, excellent. You are sticking with your prediction.

____________________

boomshak:

CNN REFUSES TO RELEASE THE INTERNALS OF THEIR POST-DEBATE POLL:

Last week, CNN did a post-debate poll giving Democrats a 14 point sampling advantage, for which they caught significant grief.

The solution? Fix the sample? Nope. Hide the sample? Yes.

CNN knows no shame.

____________________

tjampel:

nick-socal

It's fun to just make things up, isn't it. When you go on a site like Pollster I guess you think you can just do it and people will nod their heads in wonder at your command of the facts.

ABC and ABC/Post:
Dukakis Bush
1st Debate 9/25/88
Pre-debate poll 10/11/88 45 51 Bush +6
2nd Debate 10/13/88
Post-debate poll 10/18/88 45 52 Bush +7

FAIL!!!!!!

____________________

nick-socal:

@tjampel: I stand corrected and blame Tom Hartman for the bad dates :) He said that it was five weeks to the election that Dukakis was up 17%. So my bad for not cross referencing Hartman. However, his point was it was the Willy Horton ads that killed Dukakis. So my point is, don't get complacent. Fight on. And the RNC/McCain will probably try to come out with their version of the Willy Horton ad. Don't assume they don't have anything.

____________________

Trosen:

Willie Horton was a nail in the coffin, but Dukakis was a dead fish of a candidate. (As was Gore, and to a lesser extent, Kerry). They finally got a dynamic personality on the Democratic ticket, and finally stopped with the high road "let them smear us because people will know better" crap.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

boomshat,

You spoke of a 'Sarah Palin Version 2.0'.

May we ask when this 'Sarah Palin Version 2.0' will be released?

And will this 'Sarah Palin Version 2.0' be released on 'Meet the Press' or 'This Week' or 'Face the Nation' or 'Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer' or any other Sunday news program?

Because if not, then how can you say that there will be a 'Sarah Palin Version 2.0'? A new version must always be tested to find the problems, and the Sunday news programs are the best way to test. A simple repackaging of the old version as a 'new' version, without making any changes, makes for people disrespecting of, and angry at, such gimmickry, don't you know?

If there will be a 'Sarah Palin Version 2.0', what was wrong with the previous version (or version and a half) that she has to now be totally remade? Or was it her appeal was dropping, making her a drag on the product line?

With a new version being introduced, won't the masses ask what's different? Don't you know the old saying, 'Don't even consider buying until there's at least a .1 version of the new version'?

____________________

mac_1103:

Barney and Chris were still telling the American people that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape as recently as July.

Bernanke and Paulson were saying the same thing the week before the bailout. What's your point?

____________________



Post a comment




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.

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