Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 50, McCain 45 (Rasmussen 10/07-09)

Topics: PHome

Rasmussen
10/07-09, 08; 3,000 LV 2%

National
Obama 50, McCain 45

 

Comments
BOOMFAIL:

Thought for sure this would widen today. Weekend numbers should be telling after another crazy day on Wall Street.

____________________

muckinello:

Steady hand at the tiller!

____________________

DT4OBAMA:

staying solid--the attacks by Mccain are failing, it appears. The market is tanking, Obama can gain points by just staying on economics and let Mccain blab about Ayers. Troopergate report comes out later, should be an interesting day.

____________________

pbcrunch:

Ras is generally the last pollster to pick up on trends (nothing necessarily wrong with that) so I will not be surprised if we don't see some of the movement we've been seeing for Obama in other trackers until tomorrow or Sunday.

Regardless, both candidates are within their 2 week ranges. I would rather have a stable Obama +5 lead in Ras than a wildly fluctuating lead like Hotline.

____________________

bill kapra:

Hotline is up one point today.

R2K/Kos is at 14 for last night's polling.

Looks like Rass held steady last night.

Anyone have GW/BG number yet?

____________________

Adrian B:

I think Ras is going to jump around the +5/+7 Obama for a few days. I'm waiting for Boom to come in and claim this means the election is swinging back to McCain.

Let's face it the lower outliers are +5 Obama and the higher ones are +12 Obama and I reckon +7 is about right.

State polls are bearing this out and at the moment it's highly likely that Obama will win all the crucial swing states (bar maybe OH, although if the economy continues it's dramatic nosedive for the next three weeks he will get OH and may even bag WV, MO, and IN just for fun!).

____________________

OGLiberal:

Steady as she goes. But Obama lost 2 points in his favorability ratings. (McCain stayed the same)

I did expect to see a 51-45 spread today from Rasmussen so I'm a little surprised, especially since Zogby with his ridiculous +2 Dem party ID showed decent movement for Obama.

In all likelihood, Obama has a 50-52 ceiling. And as Rasmussen continues to note, the race has been remarkably stable with Obama polling between 50-52 and McCain between 44-45. Today is, again, no different. So maybe the fluctuations are just statistical noise. But it could also be that we're never going to see anything greater in the Rasmussen daily than a 52-44 Obama lead.

____________________

Grummy1971:

Leave Boom alone. He tries, bless him.

I think to be fair that the 'Ayres' attacks did have a little effect on Monday / Tuesday, until it became obvious they were a last desperate play.

____________________

pbcrunch:

Oh, anybody else get a kick when those "Obama can't get 50%" arguments suddenly went silent?

____________________

Adrian B:

Also we probably need to see where the polls are when they are interviewing a few days after lame performance by McCain in the town hall debate and after the shares nosedive yesterday.

(Where's Boom to tell us it will be a tie by the weekend!! I love it when he does that.)

____________________

DT4OBAMA:

It would probably be better for Mccain if the troopergate report is released early, if its bad nwes for them, the economy may trump it a little.

____________________

pbcrunch:

@OGLiberal:

A 52-44 Obama lead in Ras will be an absolute landslide on Nov. 4th. I'll be overjoyed with such numbers.

____________________

CaliforniaIndie:

Can someone with a direct line to the Republicans tell them that the Ayers thing has absolutely 0 stickiness? Obama's fav/unfavs have held pretty well - McCain's have plummeted this week.

If he didn't pull this out during the celebrity ads in the summer, this topic's time has passed. It looks petty, ridiculous, and completely out of touch. What's wrong with McCain? How can he not have the instinct to see he's running a base-only campaign right now?

If he wants a snowball's chance, he better talk about the economy, my friends.

If current trends continue - what a disappointing end to this election and McCain's career. He's the leader of his party and he can't set the campaign agenda for other republicans hanging on by a thread - instead he just wants to talk character.

I got some news for ya, Senator - when people getting ready to retire tell ya they just lost 50% of their 401k in three weeks, they don't give a rat's behind about Ayers.

____________________

VermontWisdom:

Obama at 50% is actually extraordinary. Who was the last Democratic presidential candidate to get over 50% on election day?

Jimmy Carter 1976 50.08%

____________________

HogsBreath:

Does anyone find it amusing that at then end of the end of each McCain attach doom and gloom ad there's a happy little tune and then the "I'm John McCain...". It sounds so out of place.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Obama still 50+, McCain still 44-45. Great news for Obama. Troopergate details due out today. Politico is reporting that McCain omitted his membership in the private group US Council for World Freedom which gave aid to Osma Bin Laden in his congressional filings. He still hasn't disclosed what were the questionable activities that the group was involved in that caused he leave the group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081009/pl_politico/14436;_ylt=AriMkeCBDKMAd_ZE4IWmUp.s0NUE

____________________

JCK:

Despite all the nonsense about Obama can't get XXXX kind of voter, he's doing better than Kerry or Gore, when you actually look at the numbers.

____________________

muckinello:

uh oh.. GW jumped to Obama 51, McCain 43... from +3 yesterday to +8 today... you betcha!

____________________

GrampsMcCain:

Battlegraound

Obama 51
McCain (Gramps) 43

____________________

DT4OBAMA:

INTERESTING THAT IT WAS CARTER AND NOT CLINTON 96, OF COURSE THE PEROT FACTOR HAD ALOT TO DO WITH THAT. THE WV POLL REALLY IS PROMISING, EVEN IF A LITTLE HIGH THAT MAY EXPLAIN THE BIG SHIFT IN PA LATELY, LOTS OF THE RURAL FOLKS ARE COMING OVER TO OBAMA

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Obama is still at 50+ percent, and McCain is still somewhere between 44-45 percent. This is great news for Obama. The race seems to have crystalized.

Details are due out regarding Palin's role in Troopergate. Politico reported that McCain failed to report in his congressional filings his membership in the private group US Council for World Freedom, which gave aid to Osama Bin Laden. McCain still has not disclosed what were the questionable activities the group was involved in that made him decide to leave the group. His campaign put out a statement that he was proud of the work the group performed.

I'm not sure what to make of this. The media is going to have to bring some of the answers to these questions to light.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081009/pl_politico/14436;_ylt=AriMkeCBDKMAd_ZE4IWmUp.s0NUE

____________________

JCK:

The side bar is showing 48-38 for Obama in Battleground, not 51-43. Which is correct?

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Yeah, that was the really good news that came out last night for Obama. He's doing well with working class blue collar white Americans. Also, he is doing much better with hispanic voters than previously anticipated. This is all great news. He's really connecting with voters in a way that John McCain is not, namely by reassuring them about pocketbook issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/working_class_voters;_ylt=AnjgmBhptdHZlHFuq8U46h2s0NUE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081010/pl_politico/14444;_ylt=AnvvvpIYSzV.OwXZ.00pf6es0NUE

____________________

OGLiberal:

There are some really bad numbers in the GWU/Battleground report for McCain. Look at the questions re: issues. Look at the "based on what you have heard about XXX, will that make you more or less likely to vote for him?" question. Look at the "who is more negative?" question.

____________________

laguna_b:

@OGLiberal

Man the Fav/unfav gap for BOTH McCain and Palin are striking! No body loves them but thier crazed base.

____________________

KipTin:

Good news for McCain is the Rasmussen poll "52% Favor McCain’s Mortgage Bailout Plan"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/52_favor_mccain_s_mortgage_bailout_plan
--------

Again, I am still confused by Obama and his supporters saying it was Obama's idea first, and then in the same breath calling McCain's plan a bad idea.
--------

Only 35% oppose McCain's plan. I think Obama was taken by surprise on McCain's so-called "erratic" action AGAIN. Same thing happened when McCain changed his tune and said let states decide to lift offshore drilling bans. Obama ranted against the idea, yet more than 60% of the voters favored McCain's idea.
--------

"Democrats like McCain’s plan more than Republicans, even though Barack Obama opposes it. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters think it’s a good idea, compared to 47% of Republicans – and 49% of unaffiliated voters.

Seventy percent (70%) of African-American voters favor McCain’s plan, as do 50% of white voters.

Not surprisingly, support for McCain’s plan is highest among those in lower income groups."
-------------

____________________

mathrocker:

@ Kiptin

You and McCain are both equally confused and hilarious. The bailout ALREADY INCLUDES mortgage relief for low income folks to stay in their homes. Look it up, read it, educate yourself.

McCain's proposal for "the government to buy up all the bad loans" is unnecessary and shows his inherent lack of understanding about what the f**ck is going on.

____________________

zoom:

@kiptin

I think that McCain has somewhat intentionally obscured the main point of his proposal that is different than the current legislation. The current legislation already allows (actually is mainly for the purpose of) buying up distressed mortgages and then reissuing them at the new lower amount to the homeowner. That part of the plan, I suspect, is what people favor, and Obama is in favor of that plan.

McCain has introduced a new concept of paying the lender the FULL amount of the mortgage even if the property no longer supports that value. So the mortgage on a home for $500,000 where the home is now worth $400,000 would be bought by the government for $400,000 under the current plan (that Obama favors) and for $500,000 under the McCain plan--creating a $100,000 loss to the taxpayers that they can never get back. In both cases the homeowner gets a new mortgage at $400,000. I don't think people quite understand that the difference regarding the payment to the lender is the main point of the McCain plan, and once understood, I doubt it will be popular. People do not want taxpayer money used to bail out lenders from bad loans they made. It is too expensive and creates a "moral hazard" (look up that term if you don't know what it means). People are concerned about homeowners keeping their homes if possible, and both plans try to do that and get a new mortgage to the homeowner at the new value (although there are some difference in the plans on how to set the value and on what happens if the property is ultimately sold at a profit).

SO while there are some other subtle difference between the two plans (as noted above), my understanding is that the main difference is whether the lender gets paid the current value of the home (current legilation plan that Obama favors) or gets paid the full face amount of the mortgage (McCain plan). It is a nutty idea that is unworkable, unwise and inappropriate. If the media would do its job and explain this point, support will tank.

____________________

KipTin:

I reported a Rasmussen poll... mathrocker. Try reading what I actually wrote rather than inferring something else. It makes you looked "confused and hilarious."
---------

As to your argument... then if as proposed it is actually included in the bailout legislation, why is Obama arguing against McCain--

"Democrat Barack Obama told Ohio voters Thursday that Republican John McCain's mortgage buyout plan would cost them billions of dollars and reward bad behavior by lenders."

Maybe you should alert Obama, because it appears that he has an "inherent lack of understanding about what the f**ck is going on." (Your words).

____________________

zoom:

@Kiptin

Obama knows exactly what is going on. When he said that the McCain plan would cost billions of dollars and reward bad behavior, he was referred ONLY to the fact that McCain's plan would OVERPAY for the mortgages, bailing out the lenders for their bad loans and sticking the taxpayer for the bill.

Obama supports the current legislation that would buy the mortgages at current home values rather than the face amount of the mortgages. Thus, under the plan Obama favors, the lenders suffor the losses for their bad loans (thus costing less to the taxpayers and NOT rewarding bad behavior of making bad loans) and the taxpayers are likely not to lose money because the mortgages would have been purchased for an amount that the property actually supports so either the new written-down mortgages will pay off or the government will foreclose and sell the house.

So what Obama is trying to say is that the aspect of the McCain plan that is good is already in the legislation that Obama supports (and McCain voted for), but that the McCain plan adds a very bad additional feature that would cost billions and reward bad behavior.

____________________

KipTin:

Maybe Obama should use his extraordinary intelligence and vocabulary to EXPLAIN directly to the voters instead of you expecting the MSM to explain Obama talking points.

-----------

You know that Obama instead focuses on changing bankruptcy law for judges to "renegotiate" mortgages... but that means one has to declare bankruptcy to get that advantage.

-----------

Again, it was McCain who took on this populist message of MORTGAGE RELIEF and Obama missed the boat. Obama is arguing AGAINST mortgage relief based on the "details" which is ridiculous since it is not legislation and those details always change. The voters are smart enough to know that. Bottom line they like the idea.

McCain in fact is trying to keep the concept message simple, and Obama is trying to convolute it. Rasmussen poll shows that McCain is winning this debate.
----------

Today Obama proposed proposed a new SBA loan program for small businesses.

McCain is calling for suspending requirement to force retirees to take money out of 401K because that would mean selling off devalued stock.

____________________

boomshak:

I really wonder how Gallup and Rasmussen feel about how one is at +5 and the other more than twice that at +11? I am sure these companies talk with each other?

I can only imagine that Gallup is MASSIVELY OVERSAMPLING Democrats. Unfortunately, Gallup doesn't share that information (why not?) so we are left to guess.

What continues to amaze me is that the News Shows NEVER EVER NEVER EVER announce the Rasmussen numbers. Only the Gallup numbers. When Rasmussen shows the largest Obama lead, we never hear about the Gallup poll, only Rasmussen.

Anyway, McCain is up against it, but can still win this. It truly amazes me that people "trust Obama more" on the economy since he has NO ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE and as far as I can tell, otjer than a $500 tax credit, NO ECONOMIC PLAN.

We'll see.

____________________

KipTin:

Again... Obama's nuances on mortgage relief is lost. He appears to the public to be AGAINST mortgage relief. His argument is better left for Senate debate.

____________________

KipTinBoomShakNotTooBright:

@kiptin

Read what Zoom wrote. It's NOT the same plan.

The sad part is that McCain has now actually changed his original modified plan (that he announced during the debate) and now supports the ORIGINAL plan in the bailout. McCain=Donkey.

____________________

boomshak:

OBAMA SUPPORTERS HELP ME OUT:

Can you explain to me how dramatically increasing taxes on the small businesses that EMPLOY THE MOST PEOPLE (those making over $250,000 a year) will CREATE jobs?

Please, no flaming, just explain to me how that will work.

Also, don't give me anything about Obama's "Incentives For Small Businesses". Unless those incentives are greater than the taxes, we will still lose jobs. If the incentives completely offset the taxes, why have the taxes in the firstplace?

Please, sell me on this tax plan.

Also, explain to me how a tax cut equaling $1.40 a day to the average American is going to SAVE this economy? Help me out.

____________________

KipTin:

Just keep in mind that Gallup is out of synch with the rest of the polls at this time in the election cycle because it is still sampling REGISTERED voters, which gives advantage to Democrats because they have higher registration. Registered voters do not necessarily translate into likely voters... those who actually vote.

I know Gallup said at one time it would switch to LIKELY voters as the General Election gets closer. I thought it was one month prior... maybe it will be two weeks prior.

Yes, I noticed MSM references Gallup poll on a regular basis, most often without stating that it is a daily tracking poll... and then sometimes using the old number and not the new for that day.

____________________

zoom:

@kiptin

Two separate points--one political one substantive.

On the political side, you might have a point. It looks like perhaps Obama needs to explain the point clearer (and I suspect in the debate on Wed he will).

On the substantive side, it is not even close--McCain's idea is bad. As a conservative, I would think you would agree with that. Most conservatives have come out against it.

____________________

boomshak:

I heard an Obama Spokesperson on the news today. She was asked, "Whate are some of Obama's SPECIFIC PROPOSALS to get the economy going?"

Her answer?

"A positive attitude."

I'm not kidding, that was it.

Wake up America. Obama is an empty suit.

____________________

JFactor:

McCain is pretty much doomed bar some real scandal about Obama (not this lightweight Ayers stuff which have been there to see for ages now).

Obama is solidly hovering between 48-52% and McCain is somewhere between 43-45% and that is quite a conservative estimate. McCain has been pretty awful in the debates where he should've shined and that sealed his fate. Obama is pretty much a lock to win this election. Anything can happen for sure but Intrade's numbers (Obama at 80.0 and McCain at 25.0) really tell a lot.
_______________________________________
http://www.internationalpoliticstoday.com

____________________

KipTin:

I am not a conservative. I am just voting for one this time.

I think as a political move, mortgage relief is a great idea. I have not made a judgment on mortgage relief past agreeing with it on principle. Better to keep people in their homes rather than to have empty buildings awaiting sales at a loss, which is devastating for neighborhoods... more than just property values because empty homes mean increased crime, less safety, and deterioration of social structure of the community... including schools.

____________________

JFactor:

Boom, it's a great argument to quote a supporter...I guess all Republicans are shouting "kill him" and "off with his head" and "Obama Osama" right? I so love the quality of Boom's arguments...they're so unintellectual that they're almost funny because I know he can't be serious. And if he is, it's even more funny though scary at the same time.
__________________________________________
http://www.internationalpoliticstoday.com

____________________

zoom:

@boomshak

It would take too long to try to explain the issue in full (and at some level you are correct, whatever you tax you get less of). The bottom line is that we have to pay for what we expect government to do. I know you want government to do less, but government is doing very little that most people don't want it to do.

Small business owner who bring in more than $250,000 are quite successful business people. They are taking advantage of the "single level of tax" that an S corporation or partnership can use. So a C corporation pays its tax and then the shareholders pay another level when dividends are paid. These small businesses pay at the individual level--avoiding the double tax.

I don't see such a business owner closing down or reducing workforce because the takehome pay is reduced a little (the owner is still doing better than in a C corporation). These people are doing quite well economically and perhaps will try to increase their business to make up for the new tax cost (not saying they will--just saying who knows).

The bottom line is that the government needs to get revenue from somewhere, and those poeple are a pretty good place to get it.

____________________

zoom:

@kiptin

Not to belabor the point, but if we are taking substance (rather that politics), EVERYONE is in favor of keeping people in homes if possible and where there are distressed mortgages, everyone is in favor of writing them down to the new value of the property (that scheme is basically the point of the legislation that passed Congress). The disagreement is in the method. The McCain plan (or at least what was the McCain plan as of the day after the debate) was to overpay to the lenders to keep them whole and then figure out how to write down the mortgages for the homeowner. I tried to explain above why that is a bad idea (reward bad behavior, "moral hazard," hard to know how to set value, etc.). Once again, McCain has gone for the quick soundbite that may give a short-term boost but is likely to backfire once all the facts come out.

____________________

KipTin:

Argue using Obama's talking point all you want. There is NO legislation with these details and I will wait and see.

McCain's concept is DIRECT mortgage RELIEF vs. Obama's current idea is mortgage NEGOTIATION as part of bankruptcy.

Sure, these are simple concepts and soundbites. This an election and not a debate on the Senate floor.

____________________

boomshak:

@zoom:

You really have no clue do you?

Look back at history. What has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME marginal tax rates have been cut?

1. Business investment explodes upwards.
2. Revenues to the treasury skyrocket.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

How can that be? Because lower marginal tax rates encourages business investment as money move to where it can earn the greatest return with the least risk.

The marginal rates are low, but because the economy is robust, each dollar gets taxed over and over again at the lower rates thus resulting in greater revenues.

In other words, would you rather have 50% on $100 or 30% of $200?

The only reason Clinton has a budget surplus and we have not under Bush is because we have had HUGE expenses Clinton did not.

TAKE IRAQ ALONE:
They say Iraq has cost Americans a Trillion Dollars. Ok, take Iraq out fo the equation (which Clinton did not have), and we are looking at a $500 Bush Surplus right now. That's not even to mention 10 major hurricanes, the war on terror, 9/11 and everything else Clinton never faced.

You are utterly wrong.

____________________

mathrocker:

@kiptin

There is no legislation with "these details" included because they don't make any sense. I sure as hell don't want lenders to be granted a get out of jail free card on this.

I read what you wrote, and it was indeed confusing and hilarious. As I said originally McCain's "plan" is unnecessary. What part of zoom's analysis in the several posts above are you not understanding?

____________________

KipTin:

I understand what "zoom" said, which is what Obama says. I also understand the difference between written legislation and a political campaign.

What is truly "confusing and hilarious" is that you do not understand the difference between "campaign speak" and legislating.

Bottom line: Rasmussen poll shows that McCain made a very smart political move. The "100 Blogger" survey that appeared Wednesday or Thursday in the "news" to the right on this web page also agreed.

You guys can ignore reality all you want, but it does not change it.

____________________

Ryguy:

boom, youre so right. clinton never had to face any huge issues. he never did lie his way into a war. its so unfair that the war the bush administration got us into should be used to judge the administrations spending. actually, as you are quite aware, the bush administration out spent all of the previous ones. dick cheney said that deficits dont matter. maybe THATS the reason that we dont have a... what was it you said wed have? a five hundred dollar surpluss? tell you what, you keep trying to spin the bush economic policies as anything but disastrous... the rest of us will actually look at reality.

____________________

Viperlord:

Yeah, because our economy's been great under Bush... Please. Out of the last 4 Presidents, the only one's who's had a surplus along with a good economy is Clinton.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@boomshak

Here's a history lesson for you, my friend.

How have the last 7 years been for you buddy?

____________________

mathrocker:

@KipTin

Well, I don't think the polling since the debate, where he unveiled this 'full amount' idea of his, has shown any consistent trend away from Obama. If it was a smart political move I would expect to see narrowing in the aggregate, which hasn't happened.

Troublesome Fact: Obama surpassed McCain in the most important category when this whole crisis started; "who do you trust to lead us in the right direction?" Mac can make all the "smart political moves" he wants, but unless he dramatically swings those numbers in his favor he's finished.

@everyone
Dow down another 6% today, where is the bottom?

____________________

zoom:

@boomshak

I know that you are convinced of the theory that every tax cut produces more revenue, but that is silly. Let's cut to zero and really maximize revenue if that is the case.

We are really talking about the "Laffer Curve" but no one knows the tipping point on the curve. You might think we are on the "right half" of the curve where reduced rates increase revenue. I disagree. At some point, you must admit reduced rates reduce revenue. How can you be so sure we are not at that point now (as opposed to when rates were cut from 90% to 70% (Kennedy) or 70% to 50% (Reagan) where your argument had more bite)?

The bottom line is that the reason revenue increases over time even when rates are cut is because, in general, our economy keeps growing. Clinton raised taxes and revenue increased. Under your theory, revenue should have gone down because of the harm to economic growth from his tax increases.

The question is what percentage of any particular tax cut contributed to the economic growth. Very few economists believe that we are at a point where tax cuts can "pay for themselves" through the economic growth they spur (I actually exchanged e-mails a while ago with an economist from the Cato Institute who believes in lower taxes, but not because they "pay for themselves" but because he believes in less government--even he admitted that at this level of rates, a cut in rates cannot be offset by economic growth created by the rate cut).

In fact, the Bush Treasury Department found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated only enough economic growth to cover less than 10% of the long-term cost in lost government revenue. Given the national deficit and debt, it is not clear that 10% additional growth today is worth the long-term cost of increasing the national debt. We have an obligation to the next generation.

You keep drinking that right-wing Kool-Aid. I will stay in the reality-based world.

____________________



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