Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 49, McCain 41 (Hotline 10/12-14)

Topics: PHome

Diageo/Hotline
10/12-14,08; 823 LV 3.4%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 49, McCain 41

 

Comments
BOOMFAIL:

Growing again.

Landslide Baby Landslide!

____________________

IndependentThinker:

As far as I remember boomERRATIC liked Hotline yesterday, I doubt he does today.

____________________

Trosen:

Wow.. biggest jump from this one in a while. Obama really has a chance to deliver a death blow tonight. If McCain starts screaming about Ayers and Wright, he (McCain) might even do it to himself.

____________________

JCK:

I hope McCain brings up Ayers; the worst thing McCain can do is give Obama a forum to respond directly to the charge.

That's why Biden and Obama have been taunting McCain for not bringing it up in the previous debate.

____________________

Thatcher:

Ipsos/McClatchy
NATIONAL (10/9-13)
1036 RV
Obama 48, McCain 39
Obama +9 (+7 on 10/7)

____________________

NW Patrick:

Is Ipsos/McClatchy a "Partison" poll? I noticed RCP doesn't include it.

____________________

Trosen:

Obama still has to handle it correctly. He has to say:

"Bill Ayers said and did some despicable things when I was 8. Yes, it is true that Ayers and I served on a board commissioned by the Annenberg foundation (remind everyone who Annenberg was) and this is what we did: Helped with low-income education, housing, bla bla bla.. and if you consider that 'terrorist' activities, I don't know what to tell you"

What McCain has to gamble on him doing is getting very defensive, agitated and saying "Why should we even talk about this? I'm not going to dignify it with a response!" Or something like that, to give the impression he has something to hide.

Unless Obama loses his mind and does the latter, the issue will die, along with any of McCain's chances, tonight in Hempstead, NY.

____________________

Thatcher:

NW Patrick -

Oh, no ... they're including it ... 2/3rd down on the list

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

____________________

bill kapra:

Pew Research +10 50-40

____________________

RussTC3:

NW Patrick said:

Is Ipsos/McClatchy a "Partison" poll? I noticed RCP doesn't include it.

It's included at RCP.

____________________

modrat:

The whole story line of "Will McCain bring up Ayers" plays into Obama's hands. That is the only thing most people are tuning in to see. Obama will have a great line about the Ayers association. Talk about anti-climatic. You will hear the air escaping, no, blowing out of the republican baloon. PhhhhhhhHHH.

Geeze, has anyone heard the republican radio about Obama and Ayers/ACORN? From the tone of some wingnuts, they expect Obama to hang his head and slowly make his way off the stage in shame when the "attack" is brought up. Crushed and defeated.

Completly over hyped issue.

By the way, great poll for Obama.

____________________

johncoz:

Intratrade has hit 80%

____________________

modrat:

@JCK

Great analysis on the Obama camp tawnting McCain into bringing up the Ayers deal. McCain has too now or he looks like he is afraid of Obama. Obama is playing this guy like a fiddle.

____________________

sunnymi:

The Early Line: Diageo/Hotline Tracking Poll

Obama/Biden 49%
McCain/Palin 41%
Undec 7%

- Obama is carrying nearly twice as many as GOPers as McCain is Dems. In the latest Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, 11% of GOPers support Obama while McCain takes just 6% of Dems.

- Obama is now leading McCain 52-34% on who LVs prefer to handle the economy; among Indies, he's up even more, 49-28%.

- 62% of LVs believe the economy is the most important issue facing the U.S.

Today's Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, conducted 10/12-14 by FD, surveyed 823 LVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. Party ID Breakdown for the sample is 41%D, 37%R, 18%I.

____________________

sunnymi:

@johncoz, you said "Intratrade has hit 80%"

It actually did so last evening for the first time. IEM has been trading above that for a while now.

____________________

DTM:

I don't think Obama has (or needs) some sort of stunningly clever response on Ayers. A simple recitation of the facts followed by some variation on the question, "Why is John McCain talking about this instead of real issues like the economy and health care?", should be sufficient.

____________________

jamesugw:

Obama 49-42 Pew Research LV

____________________

Thatcher:

DTM -

Obama needs to address Ayers if brought up. However, it can be 45 seconds of a 2 minute response and the rest of the time is about how appalling that this bit of fluff is taking the attention of McCain when people are losing their homes. When people are losing their retirement. When people are even losing their lives because of the economic conditions. "Shame on you, Senator McCain"

____________________

cinnamonape:

Trosen. Actually Obama and Ayers didn't even serve on the Board together. Ayers was part of a DIFFERENT group than the Executive Board. Ayers was part of a group of several education specialists that originally applied to the Annenbergs to place Chicago under the umbrella of cities eligible to receive Woods Foundation grants. But Obama was NOT part of that group.

Obama was appointed to the Executive Board for the Annenberg Chicago Challenge grants. Ayers was a member of an external "citizens advisory committee" that sat in the audience at the Board meetings. They were "ex officio" and advisory...like other members of the public.

Obama sat on the Board with a couple of former College Presidents, two former members of the Nixon Administration, an entrepreneur, and a member of the Chicago Board of Trade. Hardly a bunch of radicals.

____________________

wakeup:

What if McCain asks Obama about Ayer's theories on education?

____________________

NW Patrick:

McCain is walking into a TRAP tonight. His campaign is too stupid to recognize this.

____________________

Thatcher:

@jamesugw-

Thanks

Pew link:

http://people-press.org/report/458/economic-crisis

That's a +1 in the lead for Obama from last Pew

____________________

Trosen:

cinnamon, I understand that. But a bunch of semantics might also cloud the discussion and give the appearance of "hiding" something. All Obama needs to do is say: "Yes, we served on this Foundation together. This is what we did. This is who appointed Ayers. What's the problem, and how does this discussion help people losing their jobs, without healthcare, and facing foreclosure on their homes?" End of story.

____________________

Thatcher:

@wakeup -

Then Obama says "You'll have to ask William Ayers - I am not Williams Ayers."

____________________

NW Patrick:

I love this headline today "Which crowed does McCain ANGER tonight?" LOL It's so true. Attack Obama look out of touch to independents which he BADLY needs. Do you think the undecideds are Rep or Dem? WRONG. If he doesn't attack, there is no chance of a game changer, and the right gives up hope...maybe even not showing up to vote. He's FU*#(%*#CKED.

____________________

sunnymi:

"wakeup, you said "What if McCain asks Obama about Ayer's theories on education?"

What! let him do that and dig his own ditch deeper.
Do voters care to know Obama's and McCain's views on education or Ayer's views?
You think the voters are stupid enough to buy this!

____________________

RussTC3:

Pew Research 10/9-12, 1,191 LV (9/27-29)
Obama 49 (49)
McCain 42 (43)

Pew Research 10/9-12, 1,278 RV (9/27-29)
Obama 50 (49)
McCain 40 (42)

____________________

wakeup:

Ayers appointed Obama, twice. They must have common ground on something. Is it education? "Senator Obama, do you agree with Ayers' education philosophy?"

____________________

thoughtful:

@wakeup

is the debate tonight about 2 candidates for election to POTUS?

I don't for the life of me know what Ayers on education has to do with it?

McCain would be ill-advised to bring any of it up. Now Obama has invited to has given him that opening to bring it up, but for what end?

The reality is that Ayers etc there is no real legs to it?

____________________

wakeup:

Sunnymi,
Ayers has attcked US education policy and praised Chavez and Castro for their education reform.

____________________

Dan:

Agreed that Obama needs to address Ayers if brought up. If he tries to duck the issue like DTM suggests and bring up the economy, people will think he is hiding something. Remeber when Palin tried that?

____________________

sunnymi:


@wakeup, you said "Ayers appointed Obama, twice"

That is not true. You can check more about how he got appointed here

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.

____________________

wakeup:

Ayers and Obama have common ground... NOT in terrorism, but in education.

____________________

thoughtful:

@wake up

The first foreign leaders on Obama's invite list are?

____________________

sunnymi:

@wakeup, you said "Sunnymi,
Ayers has attcked US education policy and praised Chavez and Castro for their education reform"

Criticizing policy does not make someone unpatriotic. How much do you know about the education reform in Venezuela and Cuba? I don't so I am not going to comment on it.

The most important point here is Obama is on the ballot. Ask him what he thinks of education not what Ayers thinks of.

____________________

wakeup:

thoughtful,
Do you think Ayers and Obama share the same educational philosophy?

____________________

DTM:

@Thatcher

I think we are on the same page as to the nature of Obama's likely response.

@wakeup

I think you are mistaken as to the nature of the relationship between Obama and Ayers. They served together within some foundations, but they did so with many other people. So, Obama has no stronger connection to Ayer's personal philosophy than he has to anyone else who also served within those foundations, and that is a diverse group of people.

Now I suppose McCain could fairly ask Obama to characterize the missions of the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Fund and explain why he supported those missions. I doubt most people would ultimately view that as a productive use of debate time, however.

____________________

wakeup:

sunnymi,
I never said anything about patriotism. I am talking about an education philosophy.

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
I agree. Obama supporters are geared up for a terrorist accusation when it might be a simple question on education. This might produce a maximum effect for McCain.

____________________

zvelf:

Here is the state of the race between John McCain and Barack Obama.

Obama has been riding the momentum for the past month. Two weeks ago, he was up nationally by 6 points when averaging all the various polls (ABC/Washington Post, Battleground, CBS/NYT, Hotline, Gallup, Marist, NBC/WSJ, Pew, Rasmussen, Time, and Zogby). A week ago he was up by 7. This week so far, he is up by 8.

In the 2004 Kerry states that Obama needs to maintain, he is up by 8 points in Minnesota, by 9 in Wisconsin, by 10 in Michigan, and by 11 in Pennsylvania. They are pretty much impregnable at this point. To those, Obama has added Colorado, where he’s up by 6, as well as New Hampshire and New Mexico, where he’s up by 7, as near locks. With all those states where Obama is up by 6 points or more, Obama already has 273 electoral votes, enough to win the election.

But Obama is also leading in North Carolina and Missouri by 1 point, in Nevada and Ohio by 3 points, and in Florida and Virginia by 5 points. To win, McCain has to take every single one of these states in which Obama is currently leading and steal Colorado (New Hampshire doesn’t help him since that would only gain McCain a tie, in which he loses in the Democratically-held House of Representatives).

To boil it down: Obama only needs to win one of the following states to win the election: Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. McCain has to win all of them to win. Obama is leading in all of them. Even if they were all toss-ups, the chances of McCain taking every one is the equivalent of flipping a coin seven times and having them all come up heads, that is, 0.5 to the 7th power or 0.8%. Now imagine that the coin is tilted in favor of Obama because he has the momentum, he has more money, he has more enthusiasm, and he’s more organized with a better ground game.

It’s going to take some major event nearly the equivalent of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression that favors McCain to turn the tide for him. Otherwise, he has a less than 1% chance to win. That’s not to say people should become complacent. All these numbers cited will only prove accurate if the people actually show up and vote.

____________________

DTM:

@Dan

I didn't suggest that Obama should "duck" the Ayers issue. Rather, I suggested he should start with "[a] simple recitation of the facts," and only then ask the question of why McCain is talking about this issue as opposed to real issues.

In other words, my point is just that a simple recitation of the facts is an adequate response to the Ayers issue, and that in turn sets Obama up to point out the triviality of McCain's current campaign tactics.

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
Why would the issue of education be a "campaign tactic?"

____________________

rosh400:

@Wakeup

Ayers did not appoint Obama to any post.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

Why do you think a discussion of the missions of the Annenberg Foundation and Woods Fund respectively would help McCain?

Here, by the way, is the Annenberg Foundation's mission statement:

"The Annenberg Foundation is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor, Pennsylvania established in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. It exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving its goal, the Foundation encourages the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge."

And here is the Woods Fund mission statement:

"Woods Fund of Chicago is a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground."

I don't think McCain insisting on discussing this at the debate would be helpful. At best, people would be bored. At worst, they would blame McCain for their boredom.

____________________

wakeup:

rosh400,
Ayers did not have a say? Who appointed him?

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
I am not talking about a 'game changer.' Ayers is more about education than terrorism. Ayers-Obama link on education is a reason I am voting against Obama. Having said that the Woods Fund did give AAAN $75K while Obama was on board, but I digress.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

First, "campaign tactic" is a neutral term, and just means whatever choices a campaign is making in order to try to win the election.

Second, with respect to Ayers, Annenberg, and Woods, McCain has not tried to engage Obama in a meaningful discussion about education policy. Rather, he has tried to drive up Obama's negatives through guilt by association and innuendo.

And in fact, it would be contrary to McCain's choice of tactics to actually ask Obama about Annenberg and Woods, because the more people actually know about those organizations, the less effective McCain's attempts at guilt by association and innuendo will be.

Generally, as I noted to you before, it is actually not in McCain's interest to actually have people hear the answers to these sorts of "questions". He just wants to leave the questions hanging, to claim that Obama is hiding something, and to leave the rest to people's imaginations. The actual answers to his "questions" being publicized only hurts those efforts.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

Again, there is no particular "Ayers-Obama link on education." I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand, but Obama has no more of a link to Ayers on education than he has to probably hundreds of other people, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, even active supporters of McCain, all with diverse views on education.

And there is exactly one reason that McCain is pushing Ayers out of all these hundreds of people, and it has nothing to do with Obama actually having a closer link to Ayers than any of these many other people. Rather, it is simply because McCain thinks associating Obama and Ayers in particular will help him win the election. That is why McCain talks about Ayers, not because Ayers is somehow particularly relevant to understanding Obama's views on education.

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
I conceed the point on 'campaign tactic.'
My point is that the Obama people are hyped up for an Ayers confrontation, I think a simple reference to education might be more effective. It fits with the socialism theme that apparently nobody cares about.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

I don't think McCain will get far with the argument that private foundations helping disadvantaged people is a form of socialism.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

By the way, though, I agree with you that McCain would be wise to spin the Ayers thing away from domestic terrorism and to something like education during the debate. Not because that would help him per se, but rather because he could then simply stop talking about Ayers after the debate without much fanfare.

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
Ayers' view on education is that ever child born in the US is disadvantaged because of capitalism and materialism. Ayers is not interested with math and science, he is planting the seeds (or acorn if you will) for a "change." He has said this clearly.

____________________

DTM:

@wakeup

Again, Obama has no more connection to Ayers on education than probably hundreds of other people across the political spectrum.

____________________

wakeup:

DTM,
Do you think Obama disagrees with Ayers views on education? If Obama says he denounces Ayers' views on education it will be another example of his words repairing perceptions of his past.

____________________

modrat:

@wakeup

Ayers is not running for president. And, in America, all opinions are welcome. That would include education.

Trust me, you right wing-nuts are beating a dead horse on this Ayers issue. You are the only ones who care. WHat ever happens with the question about Ayers in tonights debate will, IMHO, be a giant fizzle. Really, you all built this mountain up from a molehill.

BTW, no I don't think Obama agrees with everything Ayers belives. That kind of kool-aid drinking is mostly from the hard core right.

____________________

JFactor:

People in the US are so ignorant of any political ideologies that it's sad. Everything's "socialism". Political literacy level among adults is just sad.
__________________________________________
http://www.internationalpoliticstoday.com

____________________



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