Three races are happening today: NJ gov, VA gov, special NY-23 House. Predictions follow.
VA gov: Republican Bob McDonnell will destroy Democrat Creigh Deeds. Every poll has McD up by double digits. Prediction: Unless every single poll is wrong, this one is a done deal, and McD cruises.
NJ gov: Every major poll lately has Republican Chris Christie leading unpopular incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine, although nearly all of them are within the margin of error. There is an independent running in the race, although experts disagree from whom Daggett is siphoning votes. Predicition: Corzine will eke out a victory for two reasons: (1) NJ is so hopelessly blue (and stupid) that they’ll even vote for a man they detest because he’s not Republican; and (2) ACORN has been on the ground in NJ. Nuff said. Don’t be surprised to see an Al Franken kind of theft victory.
NY-23: The RINO suspended her campaign, though her name remains on the ballot. She has endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens. Most polls have the Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman, ahead, though most have that lead within the margin of error. As with NJ, “experts” disagree on the extent of damage done by a split ticket. Keep in mind that whomever wins this race will have to defend his seat next year in the midterms. Prediction: I think Owens squeaks out a win, making the Dems 2-of-3 on the night, and subjecting us to massive spin of how the Dems really aren’t unpopular at all.
Now, let’s say I’m wrong about NJ and/or NY-23, and the right claims those wins. Will the MSM read anything into Republican wins? Um…no. They’re already sandbagging the results ahead of time in case it happens. Excerpt:
For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won’t erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.
See? The right has “enormous obstacles” heading into the midterms next year. Nothing to see here tonight, right? Wonders Ace:
Imagine if the Democrats were clearly ahead in these races. Try to imagine the AP’s “analysis” reading: Victories in these races do not prove Obama’s popularity or ability to swing races, and do nothing to erase the enormous obstacles he faces in passing health care reform or cap and trade legislation.
You would never see that. If that were the case, it would, in fact, be a referendum on Obama, about how wicked-awesome he is.
So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party’s own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.
Ace notes that you don’t see this commentary on the current state of the Democrat Party:
The Democrats, which control both Houses of Congress by large, unbreakable majorities, are unable to agree among themselves on cap and trade, card check, and Pelsoi care.
And they have a national leader. Or Presenter, maybe.
Do they have no divisions over the path forward?
There’s more at Ace’s site, but you get the drift: Dems are not divided, Republicans are, the Dems don’t need to unify to get actual legislation passed that The One wants passed, yet the GOP is the dysfunctional party, etc.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The numbers don’t lie. From Rasmussen:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. The Approval Index rating has been lower only on two days since the current President took office (see trends).
To quote Woody Harrelson from Zombieland: When it comes to America, B.O., “she’s just not that into you!”
Let me be clear: B.O. is falling quicker than Monica in her kneepads
Obviously, people will believe whatever polls they want. And polls are crap.
Especially the comPost’s poll:
My first clue that the new WaPo/ABC poll had big problems in its sampling came from question 38 of the raw data released by ABC last night, the generic Congressional ballot. Most polls have that within the margin of error; both Rasmussen and Pew have it at a dead heat. The WaPo/ABC survey has Democrats winning that matchup by twelve points, 51%/39%.
The sampling [of the comPost poll] comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it’s significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that’s when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view. …
As for Rasmussen’s poll?
Now that the Senate Finance Committee has passed its version of health care reform, 42% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and down four from the week before.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan. …
The ABC (All Barack Channel) and the Washington comPost poll, oversampling Dems by 13% at a percentage of Dems much higher than exists in the electorate? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama’s health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama’s address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted just before and just after the president’s speech, with 427 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. (Really? A whopping 27% oversample, and your margin of error is only 5%? – Ed.)
The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Polls are mere snapshots in time, and as such, should be taken with a grain of salt…especially 14+ months in advance of an election. But man oh man, how awesomely McAwesome would this be?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing a top Republican challenger by 11 points ahead of next year’s election, according to a new poll.
The Mason-Dixon Polling and Research survey, reported Sunday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, showed GOP candidate Danny Tarkanian leading Reid by 49 percent to 38 percent in Nevada.
Tarkanian is a former basketball player for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and recently announced his candidacy.
The new poll also showed Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party and a possible candidate, leading Reid by 45 percent to 40 percent.
In other words, Reid’s losing to pretty much anyone he faces! Ed’s got some great analysis of this, a snippet of which is here:
Under any other circumstances, that’s what Reid would do, but he can’t afford to retire now. He would be the second Democratic Senate Majority Leader in a row to get thrown out of office by his own constituents (Tom Daschle got a compulsory retirement from South Dakotans), and he can’t allow that to happen by default with a retirement. The embarrassment would permanently damage the Democratic agenda in the Senate and take what little luster remains of the Obama administration. The Democrats have to fight for Reid, which makes the stakes even higher for them — and the embarrassment even worse if he loses.
Will Reid try to save himself by retreating on ObamaCare and cap-and-trade? Normally I’d guess yes, but I’m not sure that Reid will get the luxury of listening to his constituents. If he wants a big Democratic Party rescue, he’ll need the national interests pushing for both big agenda items, especially the unions and the hard-Left organizers. Without them, he’s sunk, big warchest or not. Also, he’s probably boxed into the Obama agenda thanks to his actions this year and the yoke he shares with Nancy Pelosi and Obama. It’s probably too late to salvage independents in Nevada already.
If the NV GOP has any competency at all, running the commercial over and over again where Filthy Harry says the war in Iraq was lost (as well as hit parade of other Reidisms) ought to do the trick. How cool would it be to dispatch two consecutive Senate Democrat Leaders?
“You kids get off of my lawn!”
There may be hope for this country yet.
Exit prediction: The MSM will get wind of this, start pooping up the economy and burying bad news, just in time for midterms next year.
I just had a flashback to “My Cousin Vinny” where Gambini says “Everything that guy just said was bull$h#t. Thank you.” Here is a link to the analysis, which you must read. Excerpt:
This is what propaganda looks like:
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind [72%] one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Bruce Kesler points out that — in traditional NYT/CBS fashion — the sample is badly skewed:
According to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama. The actual vote was 48% McCain.
This is a good example of why reading a poll is as much art as science, because the first problem is the percentage who say they voted in the 2008 election. In reality, no more than 62% of eligible voters cast ballots last year. Accordingly, the poll has sampled a lot of adults who were ineligible to vote… or, as often happens, respondents lied about voting. In such cases, the lie tends to skew in favor of the winner.
Fortunately, at least for the time being, it looks like Oprompter doesn’t have the votes to pass that socialist piece of garbage down our throats. But that may change after the ABC infomercial runs (without rebuttals, paid or otherwise).
Nope…no liberal media bias!
That’s just a fancy Southern way of saying “The emporer has no clothes.” Work with me, people!
A new Zogby poll shows that the Obamessiah’s approval ratings have plummeted to their lowest levels thus far. Independents are also tilting back to the right. Insulting handicapped kids, bungling the AIG bonus situation, and laughing about the state of the economy on national TV (prompting Steve Kroft to ask if he was “punch drunk”) probably haven’t helped him much. Maybe I’m full of it here (and if history is any indicator, I probably am), but I would think that those people of this country who think he can handle the job would probably like to see less of him on Leno and more of him doing his actual job.
Well, at least he’s taking responsibility for the AIG bonus fiasco, right? Yeah, right.
Chris Buckley, offspring of conservative hero William F., voted for Obama because he didn’t like McCain. He actually thought Obamarx wasn’t going to govern from the left (was his dad ever that naive?). Imagine his surprise to find that we were right: O is a flaming liberal wolf in sheep’s clothing. Well, Buck’s still giving him some slack, but not a lot. Excerpt from his latest column:
In the midst of this bonfire of inanities, President Obama is pressing ahead with a $3.6 trillion budget, predicated on utterly unrealistic economic growth, even as the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting that this year’s deficit will soar past $1.8 trillion, 13 percent of the US economy. This would amount, as the Washington Post reports, to “the deepest well of red ink since the end of World War II.” According to the Post, the CBO is warning, ominously, that the result of this kind of borrowing and spending could lead to an exponentially expanding national debt that would “exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019.”
President Obama came to office proclaiming that he aims to solve problems, not hand them on to our children. Most presidents say that sort of thing. But now we are in very dire straits, and that being the case, he will be held to account. It’s your legacy, sir, and let’s not hear any more about “inheriting the crisis.” You asked for the job. Meanwhile, let us hope that his talent for mastering a sérieux financial crisis are not on a level with the Special Olympians of Wall Street, and Congress. …
The excitable drama queen Andrew Sullivan has been all over Obama’s jock (figuratively, although he’d love for that to be literal) since 2004. As with C-Buck, Miss Andy wonders if Barry may possibly be incompetent, and that’s not good news for Uhhh-bama and his cultist followers.
Elections have consequences, people. If this country is smart enough (and the jury is still out on that), it will realize that you do not vote for politicians because they look good, speak well when staring at a teleprompter (as long as the word “Orion” is missing), shoot the three-ball in a pickup game of hoops, or hobnob with Hollyweirdos. You don’t vote for someone whose plans are laced with generalities and short on specifics while he/she is campaigning. You vote for a politician because he/she has great ideas and a proven track record of accomplishment…otherwise, you get stuck with Barack Obama and a bankrupting country.
The filibuster lives on. Details:
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has resoundingly defeated Democrat Jim Martin in the Georgia Senate runoff, winning a second term and ending Democratic hopes of gaining a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
With 93 percent of precincts reporting, Chambliss leads Martin 58 to 42 percent and the AP has called the race for Chambliss.
Here’s what I think did Martin in:
Martin aligned himself closely with Obama, and was hoping that the president-elect would campaign for him in Georgia.
Brilliant, Martin: run in a cherry red state as a flaming liberal who vows to be Obama’s chief dog washer. Little wonder the dude lost.
The polls leading up to this race had it pretty close…and the polls were wrong. In case you haven’t figured it out by now, let me spell it out for you: polls suck.
This is a brand new web site that offers up equal parts of hilarity and frightening sadness. I used to think that people who voted for Democrats were simply misguided, not stupid. This is beginning to make me reconsider:
On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple… the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
The video clip is at the link, and you absolutely MUST see it for the hilarity/sadness factor. However, there is more:
Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
…the rest of these results show the abysmal state of media coverage of Barack Obama. It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
I have always resented liberals who attribute idiocy to conservatives, as it reeks of condescension and elitism. But I’ll shoot straight with you folks: after visiting this site, it’s very difficult for me not to fall into the same mental trap by attributing idiocy to people who voted for Obama. I’m fighting it.
Indulge me for a moment, friends.
The Freepers showed this around the 2004 elections. Zogby’s final projection was a narrow Bush popular vote win, but a decisive Kerry electoral vote win: 311-213 (with NV and CO too close to call). He projected Kerry to win FL (he lost by 5%), IA by 5% (he lost narrowly), and NM by 3% (he lost narrowly).
Zogs had these states being competitive losses for Kerry: NC (Kerry lost by 12%), TN (Kerry lost by 14%), WV (Kerry lost by 13%), and AR (Bush won by 10%). Seriously…a MA blue-blood effete liberal hanging in NC, TN, WV, and AR? Unlike Bubba, Zogs must have inhaled.
Anywho, sorry to beat a dead horse, but I think you get the idea: polls suck.
We saw in 2000 and 2004 that exit polls are pure crap. Jim Geraghty of NRO found some interesting stats that show this year will be no different with exit polls, with the following prediction:
Now, I’ll tell you now – polls close first in Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia and Virginia at 7 p.m. eastern Tuesday . I find it extremely likely that Indiana and Virginia will be called for Obama immediately after the polls close by at least one network, based on these exit polls that have fewer pro-McCain respondents.
The ingredients are there for a rerun of 2004, when the exit polls indicated a Kerry victory and deviated signficantly from the actual results.
Remember this prediction on election night to see if he was right.
UPDATE (11/01/2008 – 06:30 A.M. EST): Another indication that polls are crap? Zogby had The One up by five yesterday…and now has McCain ahead by 1% today! Sure, it gives us hope, and I’m not trying to be a buzzkill here, but I’m just saying once again that polls suck. Go vote, and trust God with the rest.
NYT/CBS poll: Obama maintains “clear lead”, by 11%.”
Like I said before: polls are crap. They never predict turnout.
Like I also said before: “Nope…no liberal media bias!”
How awesome would it be for a true military hero (William Russell) to be supported by the “racists”/”rednecks” (to use Abscam Jack’s own words) in that district?
Murtha’s up by 4%, within the poll’s margin of error. At a time that the GOP could lose nearly every race, it would be poetic justice to see the Marine-slandering PA porkmeister lose!
UPDATE (10/23/2008 – 8:20 P.M. EST): Another poll shows Abscam Jack trailing 48% – 35%…dare we to hope? Sounds like ACORN needs to get crackin’ here.
IBD/TIPP: Obama by 1.1%
AP: Obama by 1%
GWU/Battleground: Obama by 2%
al-Reuters/Zogby: Obama by 12%
ABC/comPost: Obama by 11%
All over the place. McCain folks will believe the first three, and Obama folks will believe the last two. There’s tons more out there, but I think you get the drift: right now, polls suck.
Why our military personnel aren’t fond of a man who opposes their mission and wants them to lose, I have no idea. Anywho, from FNC:
A poll by the Military Times newspaper group suggests that there is overwhelming support for John McCain among U.S. troops in every branch of the armed forces by a nearly 3-1 margin.
According to the poll, 68 percent of active-duty and retired servicemen and women support McCain, while 23 percent support Barack Obama. The numbers are nearly identical among officers and enlisted troops.
U.S. troops also said in the poll that they prefer McCain to handle the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — 74 percent said McCain would perform better, while just 19 percent said Obama would.
Yet judging by the numbers, it appears that the Democratic party has not made many inroads into the traditionally Republican military. (Gee, go figure. – Ed.)
When the left says they “support the troops”, the troops are obviously not buying it.
According to Drudge, “GALLUP’s ‘traditional’ likely voter model shows Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain on Thursday, 49% to 47%, this is within poll’s margin of error.”
Keep in mind that polls and diapers sometimes have a lot in common in terms of their content. That said, this thing could get entertaining after all.
Actually, it’s exactly like that.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The distrust expressed in the 2004 and 2008 election seasons likely reflects the perception that the media have become increasingly partisan. In fact, Gallup finds Republicans particularly critical of the mass media and of its 2008 presidential election coverage. But interestingly, concern about media bias has been fairly constant over the years. This year, 47% perceive the news media to be too liberal and 13% perceive them to be too conservative (What?? – Ed.), with only 36% seeing media coverage as “about right.”
What I wouldn’t give to smoke whatever that 13% is smoking!
A scary, yet unsurprising, look in to the gourds of liberals. From Rasmussen:
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
Remember this whenever you hear some brain-dead leftard rant about Bush supposedly “trashing the Constitution”, OK? The left cares about the Constitution only when it serves their interest. The rest of the time, it’s just a cocktail napkin that the Founding Fathers scribbled some words on the back of.
I don’t know how many different ways I can express my “polls with grain of salt” disclaimer, especially when one of them is the once-respected Zogby. But here you go anyway:
Zogby: 50% – 46%, outside the margin of error of 2.1% and with a large sample (roughly 2,300).
Gallup: 48% – 45%, outside the margin of error of 2% and with a large sample (nearly 2,800).
Zogby’s poll was taken Friday and Saturday (9/5 – 9/6). Gallup’s was taken entirely after Palin’s speech, but a third of the respondants were polled before McCain’s well-received speech.
Prediction #1: Barring some Dukakis-like screw-up by either candidate henceforth, look for this election to be a carbon copy of the last two elections…close, comes down to a state or two, and maybe not known for certain until the wee hours of the morn. Only time will tell.
Prediction #2: The tabloidal sharks running the MSM will kick up the smear machine into overdrive in the coming weeks, making what we’ve seen thus far look like a walk in the park.
UPDATE (09/08/2008 – 09:55 AM EST): USA Today is reporting that McCain is up 10% among likely voters. Even in my most optimistic scenarios, I don’t see that happening. At any rate, there it is.
The hell you say! From Rasmussen:
Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
But 49% give Obama the edge on experience, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken before Palin’s historic speech Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention.
That 49% number will come down after her speech last night. Note the numbers from independents:
While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party’s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.
The potential problem for Democrats is that Obama, the junior U.S. senator from Illinois and a former state legislator, is the party’s standard-bearer, while Palin, an ex-mayor and now governor of Alaska, is number two on her party’s ticket. (Looks like Rasumussen gets it! – Ed.)
Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
If, by “bounce”, you mean the exact same location at the end of the DNC convention as before, then yeah…”bounce”! From Rasmussen:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday—the day before the Republican National Convention is scheduled to begin—shows Barack Obama ahead of John McCain by three percentage points both with and without leaners. That’s exactly the same edge Obama enjoyed a week ago on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. …
There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.
There has been little change in perceptions of Obama since his Thursday night speech and the Palin announcement.
Even reliably anti-GOP pollster Zogby (yeah, the same guy that said Kerry was ahead in TN in 2004, only to lose by 15%) says the same thing.
Yeah, they’re just polls, which are quasi-meaningless at this point. But with the RNC convention scheduled for this week, that can’t make Obabykiller’s sycophants happy. However, a hurricane that could decimate the Gulf and steal media limelight from the RNC convention will more than make the left happy. Sickos.
You guys know how I treat polls with a grain of salt, even if it’s a poll with numbers that I want to believe. Since this is a Zogby poll, I’m even more skeptical. In the mid-to-late 1990′s, Zogs had arguably the most reliable poll in the business. But ever since Bush was elected, Zogby (who is Arab) has released wildly pro-left “poll results” that greatly differ from reality.
For example, in 2004, his “polls” showed TN to be a toss-up between Bush and Kerry. No one in his right mind believed that a state that rejected its own (Al Gore) was going to vote for a Boston blue-blood liberal, and the final result was Bush by about 15%. Zogs also had Kerry by 1% in FL, which Bush won by 5%. There are other examples, but I think you get the point.
All that said, I find it telling that even Zogs has to report this bit of bad news for the Obamessiah. Excerpt:
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama’s solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama’s experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.
The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia’s invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.
“There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now,” pollster John Zogby said. “This is a significant ebb for Obama.”
McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy — an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election. …
Again, let me jump through hoops to stress that this is ONE poll and is merely a snapshot in time. We are about three months away from the election, and that is a political lifetime. However, times are not that rosy for The Chosen One right now, so he’ll need some more of that MSM fawning and adulation that followed him to Europe in order to further boost his chances.
Gee, go figure. From Rasmussen:
Voters who have served in the U.S. military favor John McCain over Barack Obama by a 56% to 37% margin.
This data, from a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, is based upon interviews with 3,000 Likely Voters, including 588 voters who have served in the military. Voters with no military service favor Obama 50% to 43%.
In the new survey, 61% of military veterans have a favorable opinion of McCain while 46% say the same about Obama. Thirty-seven percent (37%) have an unfavorable opinion of McCain while 51% offer an unfavorable opinion of Obama.
Maybe it’s just that the vets like Juanny Mac better because he’s a vet, too. Um…no, that can’t be it. After all, Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) is a vet, and he was roundly rejected by vets 2-to-1 in 2004. Perhaps there’s just something about anti-American anti-soldier leftists that rub veterans the wrong way?
A new comPost poll has the Obamessiah with an 8% national lead on McLame. You know how I feel about polls, but what gets me isn’t the fact that every reputable has the two essentially tied…it’s that this poll has a sample of 52% Democrats, counting “net leaned”!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
For those who harbor delusions that the Obamessiah will steal a state or two from Dixie, dream on. This column does a great job explaining the numbers, while conceding one point that I also concede, which is that there is one semi-Southern state that Barry O stands a reasonable chance of winning: Virginia.
But NC, MS, or GA? Fuggetaboutit.
Only in Liberal World would the following poll make any sense:
A recent poll in the state of Texas by The Texas Lyceum shows John McCain with a surprisingly small 5% lead over Barack Obama in the race for the presidency, 43%-38%, and also shows incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn with a razor-thin lead of 2% over Democratic Party challenger Rick Noriega, 38% -36%, in the race for a US Senate seat.
However, as usual, it’s important to look at the poll’s demographic break down — particularly by party affiliation.
The Texas Lyceum poll’s respondents self-identified 44% Dem and 32% Repub.
As we wrote back in April, a little historical perspective is in order:
Not only has a Democratic Party presidential nominee not carried Texas since 1976, but in the seven subsequent presidential elections since 1980, only Bill Clinton has come within 5% points of the Repubs’ presidential candidates (in 1992 and 1996). The five others lost by between 12.5% and 27.5% points.
But the Democratic Party’s weakness in Texas is not just about presidential races.
Since 1996, the Dems have not won a single statewide race in 74 tries. During that time, only nine Dem candidates received more than 45% of the vote (four in 1996, four in 1998, one in 2002); only three Dems have come within 5% points of their Repub opponents; only two have come within 2% points; only one has come within 1% point.
In the three Texas gubernatorial races since 1998, the Dems’ candidates have not received even 40% of the vote. In the three US Senate races since 2000, the Dems’ candidates have received more than 40% of the vote just once (43.32% in 2002).
To recap: Not only have Texas Dems lost their last 74 consecutive statewide races since 1996, they have fielded only three candidates who have come within 5% points of their Repub opponents in that 74-race stretch.
In light of these facts, in what world is it realistic for a pollster to assume that the Dems have a 12% advantage over the Repubs in party affiliation in the state of Texas?
Increasingly, it seems some pollsters need to put down the bong, the pipe, or that fourth martini glass before they decide to do a political poll — either that, or they need to see the doc about that fall when they hit their head perhaps much, much, much harder than they’d like to admit.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
A new poll by Time mirrors the one I linked to yesterday, which shows a virtual tie. Again, let me reiterate my distrust of polls, especially at this stage of the game. At any rate, note this snippet from the story:
McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, edged out Obama on national security issues. When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama.
Wow…a 20% lead is considered “edging out” Barry O? Upon examining the parts of the poll where the Obamaliar leads by a smaller margin, such as his 6% lead over McAmnesty in female support or his 17% lead in Latino support, conspicuous by its absence is the expression “edging out”, dontcha think? But I’m sure that’s just an editorial oversight.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Over the last couple of days, two polls that always oversample Democrats showed the Obamaliar opening up a 15% lead over Juanny Mac. Today, Gallup releases a poll that shows a tie, 45%-45%. Those of you who have been here long enough realize that I take polls with a grain of salt, but I put them up anyway for your consumption.
Anywho, Stacy McCain (who is not related to presidential candidate Juan McAmnesty) has a great explanation as to why the polls have varied so widely:
Given the fact that huge numbers of eligible voters don’t vote, a pollster — if his poll results are to be useful or credible — must try to screen for “likely voters.” This is a doggone difficult thing to do, but it must be attempted, because voters and non-voters differ significantly in their preferences. Non-voters are more likely to support liberal policies and Democratic candidates (a source of endless frustration to liberal Democrats). So a poll that doesn’t properly screen for “likely voters” will always skew leftward (as was true of the Newsweek poll that surveyed “registered voters” rather than “likely voters”).
This is probably why early polls have historically overstated support for Democratic presidential candidates. The closer you get to Election Day, the easier it becomes to determine who the “likely voters” are. Thus, the samples in early polls contain lots of liberal-leaning eligible voters who, in the end, won’t actually bother to vote.
Newsweak, the LA Slimes, and See B.S. have always loaded up their polls with extra Democrats (usually 10-15% more), smaller samples, and registered voters, and as a result, they’re always off come election day (at least, in terms of percentages, though not always outcome). While I don’t know what party breakdown Gallup used here, at least their sample was respectable at 2,600.
To be fair, this Gallup poll also uses registered voters instead of likely voters. But if that’s the case, and since it’s a well-known fact that “registered voter” polls always overstate Democrat support, this little snapshot in time (obligatory “if true” disclaimer) isn’t good news for our pathologically lying Dem candidate.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett