Democratic polling firm says Obama would lose if vote today

[ichy]

And if the Republicans take the Senate, his re-election may not be a bad thing. Republicans have a history of forgetting all about fiscal responsibility if they have Congress and the White House, and if Obama can exert the same influence on a Republican Congress as did Clinton, then the country might be well served indeed.

This. The country's best years in recent memory were when a Democrat was in the White House and the Republicans controlled Congress.

 

[Anarchist420]

It was the collapse of the financial sector that doomed McCain.

What is amazing is that McCain held the lead through much of September.

Kind of shows you how weak Obama was up to that point.
In 1980 Reagan won by 9 points
In 1992 Clinton won by 6 points
In 2008 Obama won by 7 points

So Obama barely beat the Clinton total even though the country was in far worse shape in 2008 than 92 and perhaps 80.

Clinton would've won by at least 17 points if Ross Perot hadn't run.

No offense, but the sooner people like you realize that Republican Party was red from the start, the better off we'll all be.

 

[ProfJohn]

Clinton would've won by at least 17 points if Ross Perot hadn't run.

No offense, but the sooner people like you realize that Republican Party was red from the start, the better off we'll all be.

You're an idiot.

Most polls suggest that the Perot vote was nearly 50/50 from each side a third of his votes coming from people who would have not voted at all.

Split his votes 50/50 and the election goes
55 million Clinton
49 million Bush
53% Clinton
46% Bush
Nearly the same 7% difference

 

[Infohawk]

It is the economy stupid. He will win or lose based on that alone near the time of the election.

Absolutely and more job numbers than anything else.

I don't think this poll is meaningless though as some posters are suggesting. It's a reminder to Democrats of what they need to do and a lot of it is out of their control so it's scary. Job numbers need to start turning around far enough ahead of the election so the average voter feels like things are going well.

 

[Deeko]

Don't you get tired of posting these threads?

 

[werepossum]

Absolutely and more job numbers than anything else.

I don't think this poll is meaningless though as some posters are suggesting. It's a reminder to Democrats of what they need to do and a lot of it is out of their control so it's scary. Job numbers need to start turning around far enough ahead of the election so the average voter feels like things are going well.

That's certainly been so in the past, but I'm not so sure it will hold true in the near future. Right now we're still hemorrhaging jobs, but I've a feeling that the Pubbie candidate will have to actually convince voters her or she has a better plan to win. I think a lot of people believe, as do I, that we have a fundamental structural problem in our country, caused by outsourcing so many of our jobs even more so than by expanding government. If true, people may say better the failure they know than someone who might possibly be even worse.

If a Republican does win, I think it will have to be a former or sitting governor, someone who has demonstrated the ability to run a large government entity as well as a large private sector entity. If most people now agree that Obama has little understanding of our private sector economy, I think it will be difficult for another Senator or Representative to convince voters that he or she has that missing knowledge. And one problem with that is that few if any states are currently in great shape even compared to the federal government, facing the same general problems with fewer and less powerful tools.

 

[airdata]

Romney has voters?

 

[fskimospy]

It was the collapse of the financial sector that doomed McCain.

What is amazing is that McCain held the lead through much of September.

Kind of shows you how weak Obama was up to that point.
In 1980 Reagan won by 9 points
In 1992 Clinton won by 6 points
In 2008 Obama won by 7 points

So Obama barely beat the Clinton total even though the country was in far worse shape in 2008 than 92 and perhaps 80.

This is why you are terrible at predicting political events. You're so blinded by partisanship that your electoral analysis is always based upon what you wish was going to happen as opposed to what actually happened.

Here is the Realclearpolitics average for Obama/McCain polling for 2008:

It comes from this link where you can see the interactive dates of polling data: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Look at that wildly fluctuating polling in late August and early September!! You'll see that Obama was winning the entire summer, but he really pulled away starting around August 26th. What caused that? Oh, the 2008 Democratic Convention. His convention bounce that almost all candidates get shot him up and he peaked a few days later and then went way down while McCain went way up starting around September 2. What happened then? Oh, the 2008 Republican convention. McCain had his campaign bounce, but he was already trending back down to almost even before the collapse of Lehman Bros. on September 15th. McCain held the lead for all of 9 days.

Remember as well that polls take a day or two to publish after they are done, so it's most likely that McCain was already losing again by the time the collapse happened, and he was certainly losing again before the full effects of the collapse were known to the US public.

Collapse of the financial sector, my ass. Obama would have won either way. McCain might have cost himself a couple points by acting like a scared idiot, but he was already doomed and he knew it. Obama's campaign also centered on maximizing his electoral votes instead of his total vote count, which means he probably could have run up the numbers more in NY or CA had he focused resources differently. The way he did focus them led to a pretty epic asskicking.

 

[Fern]

I remember McCain being even with Obama, until the financial poop hit the fan. Then McCain was beaten over the head with his earlier self-proclamation of not knowing about economics.

A simple google search:

With 53 days until Election Day, John McCain has pulled even with Barack Obama in the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. Buoyed by the Republican convention and overwhelming partisan enthusiasm for his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, McCain is now tied with Obama among registered voters nationwide, 46 percent to 46 percent.

by Jonathan Darman
September 12, 2008

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/11/drawing-even.html

AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch

WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

Oct 22 12:23 PM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1

Polls: Close races in key battlegrounds

CNN) – A series of new CNN poll of polls out of key battleground states Tuesday suggests the race for the White House remains extremely tight with exactly six weeks remaining until Election Day.

September 23rd, 2008
11:31 AM ET

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/polls-close-races-in-key-battlegrounds/

That's 3 different polls saying it was a dead heat back then.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Fern, did you read what I posted?

 

[Fern]

Fern, did you read what I posted?

Yes.

At that time, the economic problem looked to hit McCain really hard; particularly since he was on (video) record as saying he didn't know much about economics.

Can anybody know for sure that McCain would have won in the alternate reality of no economic problems? No. Similarly, I don't think it can be definitively dis-proven either.

But I do think looking at the polling data it's easier to make a case it did hurt him.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Of course they attack the OP instead of the results.

 

[ProfJohn]

Don't you get tired of posting these threads?

What I get tired of is idiots like you who would rather attack me than address the issue at hand.

If you don't like my posts then stop reading them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What I get tired of is idiots like you who would rather attack me than address the issue at hand.

The issue is your idiocy. If you knew how to think you'd be able to disprove yourself and we wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense.

You keep vomiting, "Baby's first thought," and leave it to everyone else to clean up your mess. How about you chew a little more thoroughly and stop posting partisan bullshit?

 

[ProfJohn]

The issue is your idiocy. If you knew how to think you'd be able to disprove yourself and we wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense.

You keep vomiting, "Baby's first thought," and leave it to everyone else to clean up your mess. How about you chew a little more thoroughly and stop posting partisan bullshit?

No body is proving me wrong though. It is all opinions and nothing else.


I post stuff like this because a large number of members keep repeating that Obama is going to win no matter what and that the Republicans don't have a candidate who can beat him so this proves them wrong.

 

[BarneyFife]

What I get tired of is idiots like you who would rather attack me than address the issue at hand.

If you don't like my posts then stop reading them.

Do you have a job? How old are you? No matter what time of the day, you're always on here posting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Do you have a job? How old are you? No matter what time of the day, you're always on here posting.

That is because it is too damn hot to go outside in the day time around here.

And I don't have cable so I sit around here and read and study and annoy liberals. It's fun

 

[JEDIYoda]

And another reason to post this is because a large number of posters on here believe that Obama can not lose to any Republican. And this proves that idea false.

This proves nothing. Don`t start slavitating at the mouth.
Polls have been proven to not mean a damn thing!!

 

[DominionSeraph]

No body is proving me wrong though. It is all opinions and nothing else.

How much evidence does your defective brain need supporting the notion that polls a year out are no indication of the election?

I post stuff like this because a large number of members keep repeating that Obama is going to win no matter what and that the Republicans don't have a candidate who can beat him so this proves them wrong.

I see five of your shit threads on my page 1. I see zero that say, "Obama will win."
And no, your thread doesn't prove ANYTHING, you fool. Romney needs to win the Republican primary to even be in the damned race! And you can't call that.
And none of these candidates are firmed up in the national consciousness. An opinion of someone you've heard about once or twice ain't necessarily the opinion you have of them when being blasted with political coverage 24/7.
Look at the damned Michelle Bachmann numbers:
29% favorable
45% unfavorable
26% unsure

Yet somehow in a race against the President this turns into:
Obama: 48%
Bachmann: 41%
Undecided: 11%

Do you honestly think a real election would turn out that way? Girl's a nut.

Unless Romney can shake his weaselly image he ain't gonna do so hot, either.
If he was a solid New England Republican then it'd be all good as far as I'd be concerned -- Obama or a solid New Englander would both be fine. But he ain't.
He just doesn't have the honesty to him, and even conservatards can pick up on that.

 

[Deeko]

What I get tired of is idiots like you who would rather attack me than address the issue at hand.

If you don't like my posts then stop reading them.

I asked a simple question - you responded with a juvenile personal attack. You've got a lot to learn about life, sir.

 

[GoPackGo]

Everyone's ramblings remind me of an episode of the Twilight Zone I just watched tonight...no foreign force will destroy us...we are too busy doing it to ourselves. So much partisanship, so much drivel and hate...

 

[fskimospy]

Yes.

At that time, the economic problem looked to hit McCain really hard; particularly since he was on (video) record as saying he didn't know much about economics.

Can anybody know for sure that McCain would have won in the alternate reality of no economic problems? No. Similarly, I don't think it can be definitively dis-proven either.

But I do think looking at the polling data it's easier to make a case it did hurt him.

Fern

No one is saying it didn't hurt him, what I am saying is that the polling data shows he was already most likely going to lose. He had one brief bump of winning after his convention, after which he had already returned to losing before his incompetence at the whole economic crisis thing came to bear.

The trends are really clear. Pro-Jo's analysis was shit.

 

[umbrella39]

Translation, his wheelchair won't roll upstairs. MegaTroll don't roll. He's stuck down there.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I see this election as being fundamentally similar to 2004. Obama will likely not be particularly popular at the time of the election, and the economy will still not be in stellar condition, but the Republican slate of candidates is so fundamentally unappealing that he will win re-election without great difficulty. If I'm wrong I am OK with it as long as Romney is the nominee - I would have a much harder time with any of the other candidates (as an aside, it seems to me Romney and Pawlenty are the only ones with a realistic chance of nomination).

 

[ericlp]

That is because it is too damn hot to go outside in the day time around here.

And I don't have cable so I sit around here and read and study and annoy liberals. It's fun

Hows that global warming working out for ya?