"Like dude... when do I have to show up?"
Posted on 05/19/2008 7:40:53 AM PDT by Kleebo151
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Ohio shows a toss-up between John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain attracts support from 45% of the Buckeye State’s Likely Voters while Obama earns support from 44%. Nationally, the race between McCain and Obama is also very competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
In Ohio, McCain leads by seven percentage points among men but trails by four among women. The presumptive Republican nominee is supported by 77% of GOP voters while Obama attracts 65% of Democrats. Among unaffiliated voters, Obama leads by McCain by thirteen percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
At Conventional wisdom had it that McCain was the one who would have most trouble rallying his party's base, but judging by these numbers Obama will have a hard time convincing many Democrats to vote for his race-baiting self.
McCain 45% Obama 44%
Outcome: We still lose.
Have any of you read the book, Black Power and Black Theology, that is referenced on Obama's church's website as the basis for the entire church's vision statement?
Here are some quotes from that book: "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores." (page 49).
"The black experience is the feeling one has when he strikes against the enemy of black humanity by throwing a live Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that there is more to getting rid of evil than burning buildings, but one must start someplace." (pages 35-37)
"The goal of Black Theology is the destruction of everything white so that black people can be liberated from alien gods." (page 118).
"No black man will ever be good enough in the eyes of white people to merit equality. Therefore, if black people are to have freedom we must take it, with guns if need be." (page 177).
From Trinity United Church of Christ Website - http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm paragraph 2...
Talking Points
Dr. Wright’s talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush’s comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.
Wait until Conservatives get a load of their candidate’s real record. I don’t think voting against someone will work when they cannot trust their own alternative.
I’m not even sure this is a good thing. It seems his pandering to the left is getting him votes.
IF Ohio is that close in Nov, voter fraud and charges of voter fraud will dwarf Florida 2000. This will also apply to any populous state that is close. The Rats have been building for this for eight years, all the "disenfranchised" and lawyers are in place and awaiting orders.
As much press and hype Obama is getting from the media, he should be trouncing McCain in all the battleground states. He plainly is not, even in the polls that generally favor dems. While I believe Obama will get a ton of votes, I still think he is simply unelectable. His bane will be that of John Kerry-the war on terror—particularly since neither he or McCain has any solution to the gas and alleged “economy” problems.
[/barely sarcasm]
Why - because Ohio has one big Southern border with West Virginia and Kentucky where all those 'bitter' Bible clutching gun owners, aka - white folk, are. Right Hillary.
Good Post!...keep them coming!
It’s not good news. The city machines in Ohio will throw it to the democrats unless the Republicans have a much bigger margin than that.
Also, it’s not good news since Obama has been suffering from a (well-deserved) campaign of mud slinging for months, whereas the press have barely turned their vitriol on McCain. They will do that later.
This is a very poor showing, and he is a very weak candidate. Just wait till they go after him in earnest. He won’t know what hit him.
"Like dude... when do I have to show up?"
From the article: "The current poll reflects an improvement for Obama. He trailed by seven percentage points a month ago and six points two months ago."
I actually think that McCain will do well against Obama in Ohio. Obama will certainly dominate the big cities, but McCain will win in the suburbs and exurbs (the ONLY areas of the state that are growing) and he’ll do well in SE Ohio, which might have voted for Clinton but won’t for Obama. Unlike similar size states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan, Democrats CANNOT simply run up huge margins in the urban areas and win statewide. They won in 2006 by making a huge dent in the suburbs/exurbs and in SE Ohio.
Much of what passes for analysis on this forum is little more than psychological projection; that’s the only way a five point loss of support by McCain in a key state could possibly be considered good news and evidence that he will win the state.
Now to inject a little reality: This poll includes SE OH. Rasmussen is one of the best at what he does, and his polling has been very accurate so far this election season. Quite simply, the polling doesn’t bear out the “working class whites won’t vote for the black guy” meme, which came originally from the Hillary campaign and has been widely parroted throughout the MSM. Obviously quite a few Dems, given a choice, would prefer the white woman. But when not given that choice they will vote for the black Dem over any Republican, even a RINO. THAT is what the polling is telling us.
Obama has gained five points in OH since Rasmussen’s last poll, and that’s BEFORE he demagogues NAFTA, which McCain voted for and has repeatedly defended. People who are hurting economically are particularly vunerable to economic populism, and the economy is not nearly as strong in 2008 as it was in 2004.
And while much ink is being spilled over current Dem angst, it has gone virtually unnoticed that 12% of Republican voters say they will vote for Obama, and 6% for the Libertarians. Take into account that McCain had a smaller base to start with, and realize that this campaign will be an uphill slog for McCain.
It’s just my opinion. One poll isn’t enough for me to change my views as I have lived in this state my entire life and have followed state and federal elections since the mid 1990’s. Obama cannot win using Kerry’s strategy in 2004. He can’t be dominated in the suburbs/exurbs and he has to keep SE Ohio. Bush won both these areas in 2000 and 2004. Comparing McCain’s numbers to those of DeWine and Blackwell in 2006, he’s running much stronger at this stage and he’ll be competitive in the fall. Keep in mind, I was completely writing off Ohio until McCain won the nomination and it looked like Hillary would lose.
“Now to inject a little reality: This poll includes SE OH. Rasmussen is one of the best at what he does”
Rasmussen is a silly and biased organization. Their poll questions catagorized national security and the war in Iraq as two seperate issues (right out of the DNC playbook). When I said that I was against the summer gas tax relief, which was asked after I said which candidate I favored (I said McCain), it asked me if I knew which candidate was opposed to this. What a bizzare question. It was as though it was trying to talk me into voting Obama.
Add “the Bradley effect” and it’s probably McCain by 49% - 40%
“Obama cannot win using Kerry’s strategy in 2004.”
And McCain cannot win using the strategy of hoping that racists vote for him instead of the black guy. Almost all recent state polling shows some movement toward Obama. Meanwhile, McGenius is wasting money on global warming ads in Oregon instead of substantive ads in swing states. The Stupid Party is earning its title this time.
“Their poll questions catagorized national security and the war in Iraq as two seperate issues”
That’s because the WOT is one element of national secuity, not the whole thing. Or doesn’t the threat of North Korea, China or a resurgent Russia concern you?
Quibble all you want, but Scott Rasmussen is a Republican who uses the best polling methods known to exist. He is rarely off by more than a few points, and called the 2004 election to within less than a percentage point. He knows what he’s doing, and he’s not trying to get you to vote for Obama.
Rasmussen, like all good pollsters, rotates questions, and has followup questions which depend on previous answers. For instance, if he determines that you are a likely Republican voter, he is not going to ask you what you think about Ralph Nader’s positions. You said you were against the gas tax holiday, so his preplanned follow-up was the next question asked. If you had been for the holiday, it’s likely a different question would have been asked.
Feel free to disregard the polling like so many did here before the 2006 election. “The Republicans aren’t losing, no way! The polling is wrong. Add a bunch of points to the Republicans because of bias. Everything will be okay. The Republicans will win, you’ll see.”
How’d that work out for us?
“That’s because the WOT is one element of national secuity, not the whole thing.”
Perhaps you misread my statement. The poll catagorized national security and the war in Iraq as two seperate issues, within the same question. In other words, it asked what is more important, the war in Iraq or national security.
“Or doesn’t the threat of North Korea, China or a resurgent Russia concern you?”
This statement makes no sense. I never made any comments regarding these.
“Quibble all you want”
I’m not quibbling, I’m pointing out bias. Pretending that the war in Iraq is a seperate issue than national security is left-wing bias that attempts to trivialize the importance of Iraq.
From your post, quoted verbatim:
“Their poll questions catagorized national security and the war in Iraq as two seperate issues...”
They are. Iraq is ONE element of national secuirty. Some other elements are China, North Korea, Russia, our borders and VISA system, and the rise of communism in South America, just to name a few.
Rasmussen is not trying to trivialize anything. In the minds of most Americans, Iraq is distinct from the WOT, not part of it. I don’t agree, but it’s a fact that the MSM has managed to separate the two in the public’s mind, and the Bush Administation has been completely inept at countering the propaganda. When 62% of the public wants all the troops withdrawn from Iraq within 12 months, they don’t consider Iraq vital to national security.
Rasmussen must phrase questions so that the average poorly- informed US voter will understand them. He’s not phrasing his questions for politically astute Freepers who represent a miniscule part of the electorate. There’s a difference between tailoring questions to the audience and liberal bias.
Regardless of how you feel about how he frames his questions, that doesn’t change the fact that Rasmussen is very, very accurate. If he says Obama’s gaining in OH, Obama’s gaining in OH.
In May of 2006, DeWine was polling 41% according to Rasmussen. Meanwhile, Blackwell was polling at 36%. McCain is doing substantially better than the last two Republicans to lose statewide in Ohio. He’s polled between 45 and 47 % since March.
If you want to see something scary, look at Rasmussen’s numbers for Hillary in Ohio. She’s polling at 50% and ahead of McCain by 7 points. Now that would have me worried.
If you want evidence of my position, look at Survey USA’s most recent Ohio poll. Against Hillary, McCain loses SE Ohio 60%-36%. Against Obama, McCain wins SE Ohio 50%-38%.
Hillary polls well in my state of Florida, too (lots and LOTS of older white women) while Obama loses by a wide margin. Obama polls better in NM, CO and IA, worse in WI and NH.
I’ve said before that McCain has NO chance to win against Hillary, despite her unfavorable ratings (52%). Even Dems who don’t like her have shown they will vote for her. McCain has a shot against Obama, but so far, I haven’t been impressed with his campaign. He’s trying to attract voters who are never going to give him the time of day and ignoring ones he could win. Meanwhile, his polling is deteriorating. This election will come down to the swing states (OH, FL, NM, WI, NH, CO). If he concentrates on those, he can win. If he wastes his time and money trying to win over greenies in the Northwest, he’s toast.
If you want more evidence, look at Quinnipiac’s most recent Ohio poll. Hillary beats McCain 52-34% while McCain beats Obama 47-39%.
SurveyUSA polls are registered voter instead of likely voter polls, so you can add a few points to McCain.
Quinnipiac also polls registered voters.
If it is an element of national security, it can’t be a seperate issue.
So it is not legitimate polling to ask a question separating China from other national security issues? Or our borders? Or the rise of FARC in Latin America? Or US-Canadian relations? One must holistically ask questions about the totality of all issues possibly related to a subject without ever separating out any aspects or the question is illegitimate? Funny, they never mentioned that little factoid in any of my Probability and Statistics courses in graduate school, maybe because it’s...utter bullcr@p.
You better let Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, all the pollsters in on that rule because they all divide up questions in various ways. In fact, asking the same question different ways and dividing issues into their subsets is one of the best and most widely accepted methods for getting the least baised responses. It is, in short, how good pollsters do their job.
If Rasmussen is framing his questions so poorly, how come he’s so accurate? Try again, cower2tyrants.
“So it is not legitimate polling to ask a question separating China from other national security issues? “
Huh? They never asked this. They made national security and Iraq two seperate issues, and asked me which one is more important. Since both Iran and al-qaeda have made their intentions known, the two cannot be seperate issues.
“Try again, cower2tyrants.”
????
Come back in November, after the media gets through with McNasty and try to tell me that.
They have not even begun to spin the ‘08 POTUS campaign yet.
On top of that, Hillary is still in the race, taking Democrat loyalty for the moment. After Obama is nominated, he will easily take a double digit lead over ol’ Juan. The Democrats are highly motivated as well as populated. There are two new generations of Democrats now voting, not to mention countless Hispanic “immigrants” that will add weight to the coming Democrat landslide.
It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. We have little time until 2010 to start purging this party of the disease that got us here in the first place. (McCain)
It’s called an analogy. Look it up.
To reiterate, it is absolutely legitimate and common practice to divide a large issue into its parts and ask about the parts and the larger issue separately. For instance [warning, another analogy coming up] pollsters can ask about your opinion of the overall economy AND ask about gas prices. It doesn’t mean they don’t consider gas prices to be part of the economy.
Your original statement was that Rasmussen is baised. He is also very, very accurate. I’ve asked you to reconcile the two and you’ve avoided answering, because you can’t.
“To reiterate, it is absolutely legitimate and common practice to divide a large issue into its parts and ask about the parts and the larger issue separately. “
They didn’t ask this in seperate questions, that asked it in the same question. The option was to pick national security OR Iraq, thus seperating them as different issues, when clearly they are not. It’s the DNC that attempts to paint them as seperate issues.
” I’ve asked you to reconcile the two and you’ve avoided answering, because you can’t.”
I never made any comments regarding their accuracy. I was just pointing out their bias, which apparently upsets you.
“After Obama is nominated, he will easily take a double digit lead over ol’ Juan. The Democrats are highly motivated as well as populated. “
Before you get your hopes up too high for Obama, perhaps you should look at some of the recent exit polls, like the one that shows that 53 percent said Obama shares the values of Rev. Wright.
They would not be accurate if they were baised.
Your statement makes no sense. They can get ‘who do you plan to vote for’ questions accurate, but quesitons that paint national security and Iraq as two seperate issues demonstrate bias.
Inserting your words from a previous post into your last statement:
“[The organization I called silly and biased a few posts ago] can get ‘who do you plan to vote for’ questions accurate...”
Talk about making no sense. You flipflop almost as fast as your candidate.
My point is that Obama has a fundamental weakness in SE Ohio that is clearly visible in comparing Hillary’s numbers versus McCain and Obama’s. Both SUSA and Quinippiac have Hillary beating McCain by an average of 21 points in SE Ohio while McCain beats Obama by an average of 10 points. Those are Democratic votes switching to McCain because of Obama.
I went over the Rasmussen poll again and something new jumped out at me. Obama’s percentage of Ohio voters who view him as “very unfavorable” was now at 34%. That is up five points from 29% in the last Rasmussen poll in April. His combined number for both “somewhat” and “very” unfavorable is now over 50%. That shows consolidation in the vote against Obama.
There is absolutely no historical proof whatsoever that the way a state votes in the individual party primaries determines the final vote in November.
And, you, not I, were the one who said Obama needs to win SE Ohio to win the state.
And Hillary’s unfavorable is at 52% overall, higher than Obama’s, yet she’s still winning some primaries by double digits.
I’ve said McCain can win Ohio although it will be tough going. So who are you really trying to convince, me...or yourself?
I’m not convinced McCain will win at all. I said I didn’t even really consider it a possibility until it was clear the matchup would be McCain-Obama.
Like I stated before, McCain has a good chance against Obama. After the bloodbath that was 2006, I think it is fair to say that McCain is in much better shape than DeWine or Blackwell. Both of those losing candidates were consistently behind throughout the summer, DeWine by a little and Blackwell by a bunch. To me, anything 45% or above gives you a fighting chance.
In 2004 President Bush, with a better economy and much lower gas prices than today, just barely beat arrogant fop John Heinz Kerry. Rising gas prices, a weakening economy, an old and sickly GOP candidate, and the way that Ohio Republicans have generally fracked that state up in the past couple of years all work in Obama’s favor. I’ve already resigned myself to the fact of his presidency next year.
Add to that the fact that Obama can demogogue NAFTA big time. McCain voted for it and has supported it vociferously ever since. NAFTA is hated in the big industrial states, and the nuances of international trade, the benefits of insourcing, etc. are not going to matter to people who can hardly afford gas and groceries. Add to that it will be getting cold in November and OH voters will be worrying about paying their heating bills, and you have a confluence of events that will give Obama a boost.
Like I’ve said before, lower middle class blue collar voters are susceptible to economic populism, and that is something that McCain, for all his faults, rarely indulges in. I can easily see a scenario where Obama makes a bunch of promises, and runs a bunch of negative ads, and scared, hurting people buy it, even though they don’t particularly like the black guy and would have preferred the white woman.
At this point I’m calling all the upper midwest states and northeastern states for Obama except WI and maybe NH. That may change if the economy improves, and the media is willing to admit that the economy has improved. In a bad economy, the big industrial blue states will vote for the Dem, any Dem. Count on it.
So what is the Bradley Effect going to be worth in Ohio, 5 points, 10 points?
I guess I just don’t see much justification for your pessimism. I’d rather be in McCain’s position in Ohio than Obama’s as of this minute. Obviously, the dynamics could change in ways you outline, but Obama is hardly the type of Democrat who is typically sucessful in Ohio. He has little or no appeal outside the cities and outside his base of minorities and yuppie liberals.
We’ll see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.