Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gallup Daily: Obama 47%, McCain 42% (McCain has not led since May, underperforming Bush everywhere)
Gallup ^ | August 9, 2008 | Gallup

Posted on 08/09/2008 11:34:52 AM PDT by nwrep

Comments:

Getting concerned as McCain has not led since May. Even the electoral college tally on Rasmussen has had Obama solidly ahead like a rock.

McCain is underperforming Bush in almost all Republican and swing states, including CO, NV, NM, OH, WI, MT, IA, IN, GA, NC, VA, and so on.

Despite an impressive anti-Obama ad barrage, McCain has still not managed to demonstrate a winning electoral college mosaic so far.

(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008poll; electionpresident; mccain; obama; theskyisfalling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last
To: Lady Jag
Talking about Arafat, why won’t anyone in the Mideast give “Palestinians” a little land?

Because

a)every other Arab actually hates them (they know that they are violent troublemakers wherever they settle)

b)to divert the people from their backwards state of slavery in their country the Arab rulers need to blame the Israelis. The Palestinians are useful pawns to keep the conflict alive. No Arab state actually wants the solve the conflict other than "throwing out" the Jews.

161 posted on 08/10/2008 12:01:18 AM PDT by SolidWood (God Bless Georgia and grant them victory over Russia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt

2004 final numbers for Northwest ohio was 65% Bush to 35% Kerry.


162 posted on 08/10/2008 3:51:48 AM PDT by jokemoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Fred,

First of all, settle down. We're on the same team. And, I used to live in the north Philly suburbs so I'm closer to this issue than you think. Also, get some anger management therapy. My post to you was tongue-in-cheek but you took it personally. No need for you to jump all over California Republicans, either. There has been a sea change in political affiliation all over the country and this is not because of a party or poorly run elections. That's why LA and Orange Counties are now predictably Democratic when a mere 20 years ago they were equally predictably Republican. Ditto for entire states like New Hampshire. The people are changing more than the party.

Second, I agree with your assessment of the Philly suburbs. Folks that should be reliably voting Republican now vote Democrat. I think the problem is them, not our party. They're like all my wife's relatives who think, now that they are 40-50 and are comfortably middle class, can vote their heart and expiate their guilt by voting liberal. Republicans will win not by getting the guilty prosperous whites in Malvern, Blue Bell, Downingtown, and Bala Cynwyd to vote Republican, but to get larger majorities of the blue collar whites in rural Pennsylvania (Reagan Democrats) to vote our way.

Third, there is huge evidence of voter fraud in Philly. I am not an expert here but the internet is filled with them:

* Republicans excluded from monitoring city precincts; no Republican observers in 61% of precincts.

* 96% of voting-age adults registered. [Yeah, right. I know what the citizens of Philly are like. They are not the most civic-minded, straight-laced, honorable people in the nation. I expect a lot of dead people and non-existent people in the total.]

* Huge reports of voter irregularities on election day by a local watchdog.

Frankly, I think that we in the US are almost at the point where we need to mark citizens' fingers, like they do in third world countries, to force people to vote only once.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PeterJWirs/2008/03/27/voter_fraud_has_begun_and_no_ones_noticed_yet

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a41f7e24141.htm

http://neighborhoodcivicpac.blogspot.com/2005/08/philadelphia-identified-as-no-1.html

163 posted on 08/10/2008 9:49:04 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Good point. If you count likely voters McCain may actully be leading by a bit right now. And it’s only going to get worse for obama. The man is not very bright, and has a history of horrible votes in Illinois. He’s a complete joke as a candidate, he makes John Kerry’s voting record look sane and rational.


164 posted on 08/10/2008 9:52:40 AM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bricklayer; gusopol3
from gusopol3 (post 74) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080326093339AAznnNm

As was noted earlier hits morning on Sirius Left, the former Guidance Counselor of Obama’s private Hawaiian school has supplied The Washington Post with a certified copy of Obama’s Stanford-Banai IQ Certification, one of which was taken in 1966 when he was a kindergardener in Hawaii before moving to Indonesia, and one which was taken as entrance protocol as a freshman in his private (extremely exclusive) Honolulu private highschool. His IQ was clocked at 172 and 166 respectively (IQ’s normally have a fluctuation of 6 or 7 points from test to test so that discrepency is normal). That puts Obama in the certifiable clinical genius category. Obama’s campaign is apparently NOT HAPPY about The Washington Post preparing to disclose this, because they fear it adds to his reputation as no an “everyman” and being too “professorial”.

165 posted on 08/10/2008 11:58:25 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
For a candidate that “stands no chance” McCain is doing extraordinarily well, dont ya think?

If you consider no conservatives voting for him "doing well" then I guess you need to find a dictionary for some remedial help with the English language.

After the Obama presidency America will be DONE.

Having survived the Civil War, WWII, and the Carter administration, I'm sure the US will survive Hussein. What anyone with a pulse knows, is that the conservative movement will not withstand McCain being the head of the party.
166 posted on 08/10/2008 1:22:35 PM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
That's a rather ridiculous statement considering they are virtually tied right now and the momentum is definitely in his favor.

Hmmm... no conservatives will vote for him and he will destroy the conservative movement... Not sure how you judge destroying the conservative movement as a good thing, but the liberals around here really seem to be coming out of the wood work in regards to "evil oil" and being "pro-McCain".

The simple fact is, you can not be a conservative and support a liberal piece of scum like McCain. You can support McCain, but that instantly makes you a liberal... you can not support liberals and claim to be a conservative.

McCain will kill conservatism. Hussein will root out the scum in the GOP like Keys, McCain, Rudy, and all the rest of the RINO's and bring true conservatives to power within the party.

Conservatism loses in "get a long" politics.
167 posted on 08/10/2008 1:27:46 PM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tom h
OK, that came across as pretty heavy I admit.

Second, I'm still not buying it. There is no evidence, and you really haven't cited any, of voter irregularities on the scale you require. Yes, they do happen, and yes, there are plenty of stories. But there are not a thousand stories, and there are certainly not 75,000 stories.

96% of voters registered in Philly is a "so-what" statistic. This happens because the change in the Federal election law in 2000 keeps us from cleaning up the rolls. It doesn't mean those people would actually be allowed to vote. Many of the actually documented -- in many cases resulting in convictions -- voter fraud cases in Philly happen during the Dem primaries. We don't watch them nearly as closely, and since Dems control the political machine in Filthydelphia, many of those charges are politically motivated in-fighting.

I am well aware of the claims made by American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund unfortunately, they haven't resulted in a single indictment, and most of their evidence is 1) anecdotal and 2) of voter suppression and intimidation -- not outright fraud.

Peter Wirs is also well known to me. His article at Townhall.com that you cite is problematic for a number of reasons. Mostly, again, it is anecdotal, and the kind of raw-meat that gets the base psyched-up, so, it's fine; however, he doesn't claim (although he might lead you to believe) that 61% of Philly elections are unmonitored. There aren't enough Republicans on the local committee for all of the judges and minority reps to be Republican Committee members. That doesn't mean they aren't Republicans. I believe we found the actual number of precincts with no GOP monitoring was 8%. Wirs says 11%. I won't quibble: either one is still way too high. But it doesn't mean the elections aren't monitored at all in those precincts, and it probably isn't all that rare even outside West Camden, PA. When I was an undergrad and still an idiot Libertarian, I often had to stand-in at the firehall for the Democrats who had one minority rep who often didn't show. I suspect there are many other rural counties in PA where the minority monitoring -- in this case Democrats -- is spotty.

I get irked by this because it's so casually thrown around on FRee Republic as a truism that PA is some kind of cesspool -- it's common to talk about 100+% precincts in Philly on FR, but you will not be able to document it, believe me.

I lived in Pasadena California for several years for graduate school. I also have lifelong family in Orange County. That doesn't make me an expert in California electoral politics, but I don't think your problems in (mostly) Southern California or for that matter South Texas have anything to do with New Hampshire. They're both migration problems, but of a different kind, and they have nothing to do with why we lost the Philly suburbs.

Reading your rebuttal, I think we agree on the fundamental point which is that the Republicans are destined to loser status if they don't start getting the message out, and that's what really burns me about the claims made on FR about Pennsylvania. The belief is that except for corruption, PA is "really" Republican. It isn't. It's "really" conservative, but the Party here has no idea how to make the brand identification (and many people down on the Main Line don't like that identification anyway.) Example: Fast Eddy had a record of being the biggest gun-grabber in the history of PA, but nobody has ever hit him with that in his statewide elections: this in a state with the highest percentage of NRA members. Geez. You cannot solve that kind of ineptitude by blaming voter fraud. That's the problem: poor losers blame the refs. We have a message that can be sold and we aren't trying. We've now had several gubernatorial nominations in PA in a row with no real primary. Sorry, I love the Steelers but when Lynn Swann is the only candidate the GOP can field in a state this size, there is clearly something very wrong with our Party.

Anyhow, I take the electoral process very seriously, and I know the Philadelphia FReepers do as well, but you are right. We're on the same side, so I do apologize for the tone of the original missive.

You're still wrong.

FRegards,

FRed.

168 posted on 08/10/2008 1:37:07 PM PDT by FredZarguna (No environmentalist will support any commercially viable "alternative" energy. That's not the Plan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover

Guess you are the self-declared “Conservative Coining Central Committee” which administers who can be called Conservative or not. THIS Conservative is going to vote McCain. Only Hussein-lovers enable Barry O by staying away.


169 posted on 08/10/2008 1:43:28 PM PDT by SolidWood (God Bless Georgia and grant them victory over Russia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
no conservatives will vote for him

Another ridiculous statement. MANY conservatives WILL vote for him.

Not sure how you judge destroying the conservative movement as a good thing

Of course I said no such thing. Do you always make stuff up as you go?

liberals around here really seem to be coming out of the wood work in regards to "evil oil" and being "pro-McCain".

I have no idea what even means.

The simple fact is, you can not be a conservative and support a liberal piece of scum like McCain. You can support McCain, but that instantly makes you a liberal... you can not support liberals and claim to be a conservative.

McCain was not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice. He has infuriated me on many occasions. Despite that, I would prefer him over any democratic candidate, hands down. Reality is that McCain or the democratic nominee IS going to be the next President, barring something very bizarre happening.

Very simple question - do you really think we'd be better off for the next 4 years with Obama (or Hillary if she steals the nomination) than McCain? I don't know about you, but the thought of Obama or Hillary in the WH and large majorities of demoncrats in Congress scares the living daylights out of me.

Another thing. YOU don't get to decide what the litmus test for a conservative is. You can say "if you do X, then you are a liberal", but your words are not worth 1 red cent. I can say something similar. "No true American patriot would vote for Obama or anyone else other than McCain, because a vote for anyone else (or no vote at all) IS a vote for Obama/Hillary. And to sit by and allow such a person to occupy the WH is an act of treason, and no such person can call themselves a patriot."

Now, is such a statement true just because I type it on a computer screen? No. No more true than your statement.
170 posted on 08/10/2008 2:21:32 PM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
Guess you are the self-declared “Conservative Coining Central Committee” which administers who can be called Conservative or not.

Ideological beliefs determine whether someone whether someone is conservative or not, not a subjective judgment by me. Supporting liberal ideas define one as a liberal. If the shoe fits, wear it.
171 posted on 08/11/2008 5:29:43 AM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
MANY conservatives WILL vote for him.

No, by voting for him, they define themselves as something other than conservative. This is an inarguable fact. You can not support liberal positions and claim to be a conservative.

Do you always make stuff up as you go?

You support an ultra-liberal and want to say you're not helping destroy the conservative movement? It's obvious that you're either a liberal or someone who claims to be conservative but has no concept of what that means. These are the only two options for you if you support McCain.

I have no idea what even means.

You can not claim to support McCain or think that oil prices are a result of anything other than macro-supply and demand economics. People supporting McCain are by that very fact not conservative.

...I would prefer him over any democratic candidate, hands down.

Thus you are supporting the decline of the conservative movement. Hussein will be terrible, but will assure the cleansing of the GOP of scum like McCain.

YOU don't get to decide what the litmus test for a conservative is.

No, I certainly don't, but you can't support a liberal candidate and be a conservative, thus McCain supporters are not conservative. It's a simple fact, but remember, you can't claim to be conservative if you support McCain, period.
172 posted on 08/11/2008 5:35:19 AM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover
Sorry, but you DO NOT get to make up the litmus test for what a conservative is. I'm sure this is a blow to your ego, but THAT is a fact. You can GUESS what the result would be for the conservative movement if either McCain or a democrat were elected, but that's ALL it is - A GUESS. You can say McCain being elected would destroy conservatism, which I disagree with completely. And you can say getting a democrat in office would be the best thing ever for conservatives. Maybe it would be, maybe not. Again, it's all GUESS, GUESS, GUESS. What I do know is that this country will be MUCH WORSE OFF if a democrat like Hillary or Obama gets elected with large democrat majorities in Congress. You know that too, which is obviously why you refused to answer my question.

Go ahead and vote for Obama or Hillary, since that is who you want to see win the election, but don't expect conservatives to goose-step to the polling booth behind you.
173 posted on 08/11/2008 10:23:59 AM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson