Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 49, McCain 46 (GWU 10/22-23, 26-28)

Topics: PHome

GWU/Battleground
Tarrance Group (R)/Lake Research (D)
10/22-23, 23-28,08 1000 LV 3.1%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 49, McCain 46

 

Comments
Trosen:

I'm convinced that GWU just stopped polling a week ago, and just keep cutting and pasting the same results every day.

____________________

dd0031:

Steady. But the Rasmussen poll has be a bit shaken. I worry about it for the following reason(s). It seems to nullify the recent state polling released today. Why? The dates of the state polling were during the height of the recent nation-wide Obama boomlet. (Check out RCP's graph on this.) These polls were completed on the 26th. If, in fact, there is tightening nationally, it's unlikely that this tightening isn't also happening in places like PA, CO, and NM. (Although Ras will release NM numbers later today.) It's nice that GWU and Zogby are roughly flat, but the Ras number has me worried. I worry that the trash that McCain and Palin have been throwing out there is actually catching on.

____________________

LordMike:

Don't panic just yet, dd... McCain had a monster Sunday and that will drop out. Obama had a good Saturday, and that is what fell out today. Rasmussen's report hints as much.

Not all the state polls occurred during the boomlet... the most recent ones are during the McCain surge. In fact, Rasmussen's one-day polls came at the same day that McCain had his monster Sunday in almost all the trackers.

So, it is disconcerting, yes... but, there is room to grow. Axelrod and Plouffe seem to be on this... hopefully, the ad tonight will move things more in our direction!

____________________

Keep VA Red:

@dd0031

You are worried that middle America will actually remember that they hate government intervention in everything, they hate people that think the government is the solution to all problems and they hate the thought of redistribution of wealth, because even though many of them may get some of it, they don't want it (they are too proud and self-reliant to live off of other people's money).

____________________

hou04:

@ Trosen

LOL! I absolutely agree. And remember, these are the same pollsters that publish the IBD/TIPP poll, too. So why bother, right? You get all of the right-wing stuff in one poll.

____________________

dd0031:

@ Keep VA Red

That's an interesting analysis, and perhaps right. But no one has yet answered the following question of mine satisfactorily. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Obama is "redistributing wealth" from the top to the bottom given his tax plan. Let's just take that as an assumption. Why isn't McCain's tax plan also "redistributing wealth" via a tax on health insurance, and a tax cut for the wealthy? And why isn't that just redistributing wealth upward? It's not clear to me. I worry that people are confused in the way you note, but it seems to me to simply reflect confusion.

____________________

pbcrunch:

There is no need to worry; McCain is tightening, yes. That he would tighten the week before the election was expected and predicted.

Look at the forest... for the past two+ weeks, the Republicans have been throwing, literally, the kitchen sink at Obama: the things we don't see like the robocalls and the mailers have been particularly vile and misleading. Even though McCain/Palin have stopped mentioning Ayers, his name is still being thrown around A LOT.

Obama was bound to take damage from this, especially as his campaign shifted to an emphasis on GOTV from the normal back-and-forth or retail campaigning.

Also, there is nothing saying that Obama can't untighten the polls in the next 6 days, Obama has a huge lead in money, and, most importantly, his supporters are vastly more motivated to vote FOR him, while McCain's voters are motivated to vote AGAINST Obama. Historically, it is very difficult to win an election when you are simply running AGAINST something without offering a cohesive set of policies yourself.

____________________

JerzeeBoyMI:

Folks...most of these tracking polls are only relevant if turnout this year resembles past elections. If it does then it will be tight, like it has been my entire adult life. If the kids and minorities come out at historic levels then this will be a popular and electoral vote landslide for Obama.

If the youngsters don't come out then I don't want to hear them crying about the lack of jobs or their student loans.

If the minorities don't come out then I don't want to hear them crying about anything.

I also don't think the polls are accurately capturing the electorate. I've always voted republican, but will cast my ballot for Barack this year...along with a lot of my "former" republican friends...none of which have ever been polled.

We can all sit here and find hope and fear in every poll...let's instead spend our energy the next 6 days helping GOTV. I'm volunteering this weekend and next Monday to do just that: gotv.barackobama.com

____________________

RaleighNC:

State polls always lag national polls. The state polls will catch with the national polls next week. Just in time, too!

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Rock Solid.

____________________

douglasdao:

All of the tracking polls are making sure their margins are narrowing so that the news services who pay them can have a story that the race is still alive. It's all about ratings and money. This happens EVERY presidential election.

Still shows a lead over the margin of error and the state surveys still speak of an Obama landslide.

____________________

Thatcher:

Thatcher:

Go look at RCP's general election graph - you will notice that 2 other times in this October - the polls did this exact tightening on the national level ... October 8 and October 19 (11 days apart) - the lowest we'll see Obama is today, Thursday or Friday and then he'll bump up again for the final 4 days.

This is nothing more than cyclical situation - in the national polls

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

Meanwhile during all that time (including the 2 dips on October 8 and October 19) - statewide polls have continued to trend in Obama's favor.

In the entire month of October - Obama's national RCP average has never dropped below 48.1 and McCain's has never been above 44.5.

The states are what matter and they continue to show improvement for Obama. On RCP - Obama has 259 EV in his strong column and 52 in the leaning. Here on Pollster - Obama has 272 in his strong column and 39 in the leaning. Those are the #'s that matter.

____________________

Keep VA Red:

@dd

Well, you have to understand his health plan to answer that question. Here are some examples from a e-mail I received from the McCain campaign yesterday:

If you are in the 10% bracket and your employer provides you with a $12000/yr policy, you would pay an additional $1200 in income tax, but he gives you a $5000 tax credit, so you are actually $3800 better off. The "better off" part gets less with each tax bracket and ends at $800 with the 35% bracket.

So, how does that redistribute wealth upward, when no one would end up paying additional taxes because of it. What it does do, however, is give those without health insurance a credit (vs. the current deduction) that they can use to buy insurance.

My fault with his plan, is that I think your credit should be limited to the amount you are taxed if you have employer provided health care. But then, I'm a fiscal conservative. I would be so anti-Obama if he said "Hey, lets raise taxes on the wealthy, cut needless government spending and get our budget back in balance and start paying off that debt." Unfortunately, that's not what he's saying. He's buying votes by promising poor people a few thousand dollars every Spring to pay off all their Christmas purchases, or to buy a big flat screen TV to put in their trailer. When McCain came out and said he would make serious attempts to balance the budget by the end of his first term, he won my vote solidly and with no hesitation. That is issue #1 for me, because I firmly believe that the fiscal irresponsibility of our government is bad for us in many, many ways.

____________________

NHBlue:

@Keep VA red
"hate the thought of redistribution of wealth, because even though many of them may get some of it, they don't want it (they are too proud and self-reliant to live off of other people's money)."

Go here and see which states pay more in federal taxes that get back. Mostly blue states. And which states get back more than they put in: you guessed it, mostly red.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

My state NH gets back only $.70 for every dollar paid. VIRGINIA gets back $1.50 on the buck. I guess you're not too proud and self-reliant to live off my money.

You guys are such damn hypocrites. Why don't you first give the money back and then talk about redistribution of wealth.

We're paying your way, retard.

____________________

hooptampa:

Keep VA Red-

You do know McCain's pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term is ridiculous, and economists have indicated that Obama's budget will leave us less in debt than McCain's, right? So by your own standards as a fiscal conservative it would appear you should vote for Obama.

____________________

NHBlue:

Better yet, to avoid socialism, NH's taxes should be cut to 70% of current and VA's to be increased by 50%. Anything else is Marxism.

____________________

Dewey1858:

@RaleighNC:
State polls always lag national polls.

You seem to think this statement is self evident and self proving, or maybe magical if you repeat it enough times.

____________________

PlayingItStraight:

dd0031:
@ Keep VA Red

That's an interesting analysis, and perhaps right. But no one has yet answered the following question of mine satisfactorily. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Obama is "redistributing wealth" from the top to the bottom given his tax plan. Let's just take that as an assumption. Why isn't McCain's tax plan also "redistributing wealth" via a tax on health insurance, and a tax cut for the wealthy? And why isn't that just redistributing wealth upward? It's not clear to me. I worry that people are confused in the way you note, but it seems to me to simply reflect confusion.

Here is the argument that seems to be lost. I'm not saying I concur with this but here's the argument.

The health care exclusion actually provides a greater tax value to higher income people because of marginal rates. So by excluding HC from income on say an 10,000 per year employer contribution saves the guy in the 10% tax bracket 1000 in income taxes, whereas the person in the 25% bracket gets a tax savings of 2500. By taxing and providing a credit you actually are eliminating a subsidy that exists in the tax code. There may still be some subsidy to low income individuals, especially those who have no health insurance.

____________________

Keep VA Red:

@hooptampa ... it may be impossible, but at least he is willing to try ... Obama is not.

@NHBlue ... what the hell does that have to do with giving individuals money they didn't earn? If you really want to know, I think the federal government should get out of the business of building roads, bridges, schools, etc. for the states. I think the states should each be responsible for their own. The federal government is inept and incapable of doing anything with any type of efficiency.

____________________

Lou-NH:

@KEEP VA RED

I live in NH and I have one question. Can I have my money back?

I don't know how the hypocrite republicans can run with this line of thinking when their VP nominee exhibits even greater signs of socialism with her sharing of the resources in Alaska.

As for the McCain health care plan, the issue is not with whether people will have a net benefit from the tax credit. The real issue accoring to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (a generally conservative bunch) is that employers will stop providing insurance. This will benefit the young and healthy while leaving older less healthy Americans without insurance. This will only add to those who are uninsured as those who are already uninsured will not be able to buy health insurance with a $5000 tax credit. You can not even purchase catastrophic insurance for $5k.

____________________

Keep VA Red:

@Lou-NH

What you miss about Alaska, is that they have preserved the basic fundamental concept of our nation: that the people, not corporations and not the government, own everything. So, when she forces the oil companies to pay more to the state to be redistributed to the people, she is only protecting their right to what they already own. She is not taking anything away from one simply to give it to another.

____________________

Lou-NH:

@ Keep VA Red

I must of missed that in the constitution. Would you be so kind as to illustrate exactly what part of the constitution states that the people own the natural resources of a particular state and that it is the state governments role to REDISTRIBUTE this wealth to the people. You are totally wrong about not taking away from one for another. What she is doing is to make people in the lower 48 pay higher prices for oil to subsidize those who live in Alaska.

____________________

hooptampa:

@Keep VA Red-but that's my point, McCain isn't trying to balance the budget, it's just something he says in his stump speech. But practically, in terms of his policies or the progrmas he's talking about cutting (e.g. earmarks), it's meaningless.

I agree with you that government spending is out of control, but what I am suggesting is that McCain would actually do worse than Obama in terms of managing the deficit. So I think it's a legitimate question to ask who is the fiscally conserative candidate?

____________________

milwsport:

Thanks for clearing that up. Apparently, Palin subscribes to the Marxist belief that "everything belongs to the people."

She also subscribes to the Republican belief of getting what she can. How else can you explain asking for earmarks that amounted to $2,300 per person in Alaska and then sending out checks for $3,600 to every Alaskan (man, woman and child).

Why didn't she just reduce those checks and not ask for earmarks. Oh wait... that's right, she's a redneck, red state, Republican

____________________

cinnamonape:

" Why isn't McCain's tax plan also "redistributing wealth" via a tax on health insurance, and a tax cut for the wealthy? And why isn't that just redistributing wealth upward?"

Seems the only one that could ever win this argument would be the Anarchists!

Down with the STATE!
Down with Political Parties!
Down with the Government!
Down with the USA!
Down with Iraq!
Down with Iran!
Down with Andorra!

No taxes, tithes, tariffs...or bus fares!

____________________

Lou-NH:

@Keep VA Red

milwsport has just finished my point for me. Thank you milwsport.

Just think if every state did the very same thing with its natural resources. Food producing states should REDISTRIBUTE to all of its citizens at the expense of every non-food producing state. This would lead to economic chaos.

This argument about Obama being a redistributionist, socialist, marxist and whatevet other -ist they can think of is utter garbage. For as long as this country has had a federal tax, that tax has been progressive. Meaning that the more you earn the more you pay. The Bush administration has totally taken the tax system out of balance with his biased cuts on the upper brackets as well as capital gains. Obama is just suggesting rolling back to rates similar to those under the Clinton administration when more americans did better. What is so wrong with that?

____________________



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