A look at the recent Presidential polls

WRL

Well...the right is right
I noticed a great many folks here like to sample polls, and while they shouldn't be used sway policy from one direction to another, and back again, or cause us to run in 15 different directions at once, they can provide certain insight into public perception. So I'll link a few of the latest polls, because their has been some major shifts, and then we can debate what are the underlying reasons for these shifts...

Rasmussen said:

Clinton Leads Obama


Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. For the past week-and-a-half, Obama’s support has been between 44% and 47% every day. Clinton’s support has ranged from 42% to 46%

Rasmussen Reports


McCain Favorability Surges to Eight-Year High


John McCain's favorability rating has surged 11 percentage points this month to 67%.

Gallup poll

McCain up in General Election Machups


Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents.

McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41%

McCain leads Hillary Clinton 49% to 42%

Rassmussen Reports
Support for war effort highest since 2006

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

In recent years, election results have tracked perceptions about the progress of the war in Iraq. The Democratic wave in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public’s view of the war. The resurgence of McCain’s candidacy also tracks the decrease in U.S. fatalities in Iraq. Monthly troop deaths have dropped by about two-thirds since the summer of 2007, according to Department of Defense records.

Democrats’ resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House.

Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request.

Politico
 
While I agree polls this far out mean nothing about Nov. a million and one things can happen between now and then, but these do represent a significant shift today, and I'm just trying to spark debate on why?
 
Obama took a nosedive because of Wright, but he's already climbing back.

I think the GOP is severely overestimating the shelf life of this "controversy."
 
Obama took a nosedive because of Wright, but he's already climbing back.

I think the GOP is severely overestimating the shelf life of this "controversy."


Well it's certainly controversial, and when it dies, we'll be glade to start a dialogue on Obama's votes to raise 300 different taxes, his votes to deny medical care to babies that survive an abortion, the fact that he's running on his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war, which is based on a 2002 speech, yet in 2004 he said he didn't know how he'd have voted on Iraq, and several days latter Obama actually said "There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage." He's a house of cards, and the honeymoon is over.
 
Well it's certainly controversial, and when it dies, we'll be glade to misrepresent as many positions and quotes from Obama as we can, and subtly assassinate Obama's character with our usual campaign of distortion & fear.

There; fixed it for ya
 
Every thing I said was true, call out something specific and I'll link it.
 
supprto for war surges to a high ?

I just watched a segment on PBS nightly news hour that said MSM coverage if the Iraq war is now at 15% of what it was a year ago. This is for video, radio and print.
Out of sight out of mind I suppose.
 
The first signifigant polls generally come out about a week after both parties conventions are over.
 
There; fixed it for ya. You see I am a complete hypocrit and will pretend that the right misrepresents Obama while at the same time I will post 5000 threads along with my leg humper Cypress on how McCain said he wanted war for thousands of years, even though we all know that is not what he said. My leg humper and I will also continue to bitch about this "non-story" that is Wright all the while posting 3000 threads to discuss how much of a non-story it is.

Fixed that for ya.

:cool:
 
There; fixed it for ya

People often say we should have a debate on the 'issues'. What in wrl's post was not an issue or position Obama is taking or has taken? If discussing stated positions is fear mongering then it doesn't seem like there is much a debate to be had.
 
People often say we should have a debate on the 'issues'. What in wrl's post was not an issue or position Obama is taking or has taken? If discussing stated positions is fear mongering then it doesn't seem like there is much a debate to be had.

I've gone over the Obama quote on Iraq a few times, on a few different threads, with WRL. He knows that this is a dishonest, somewhat out-of-context representation of Obama's position, which has been solidly anti-war and anti-invasion since 2002. The "agreement" he references with Bush has nothing to do with the decision to invade or the conduct of the war for much of the time leading up to that quote. The "iffy" nature that he portrays about not knowing how he would have voted is part of a broader conversation with Tim Russert on his Senate colleagues, in which he passes on the opportunity to roast them for their vote yet again.

WRL has, and will continue to, portray this in the most dishonest way possible, for nothing but partisan reasons. If you know WRL's postings on this & the other board, you understand that this is what he does. This is what a lot of posters do, but it's important to call him & others on it when they do. It's a total misrepresentation of Obama's position to try to portray him as some sort of serial waffler on Iraq & the invasion.
 
If only Obama had been a senator long enough to vote against Iraq, I would give a shit about his opinion on the issue.

He gave a speech, maybe you should read it, where he denounced Iraq before he became a senator. At the same time Senator Clinton Voted for the war.
 
He gave a speech, maybe you should read it, where he denounced Iraq before he became a senator. At the same time Senator Clinton Voted for the war.

Or maybe I have the sense to not vote for a man who is so new at politics that he wasn't there to vote for many of the issues affecting us today.
 
Should I vote for the people on this site that made posts about how Iraq was a bad idea, even though they have no experience?
 
Or maybe I have the sense to not vote for a man who is so new at politics that he wasn't there to vote for many of the issues affecting us today.

Had GWB voted on the forign policy issues affecting us back in the day? NO

Had RWR voted on the forign policy issues affecting us back in the day? NO
 
Name the last Republican president who had voted on forign policy issues prior to becoming President?
 
Had GWB voted on the forign policy issues affecting us back in the day? NO

Had RWR voted on the forign policy issues affecting us back in the day? NO

But GWB and RR had experience as governors before running for president, instead of only 3 years as a senator.
 
Back
Top