Two new polls: McCain leads Obama on Iraq by double digits
posted at 4:49 pm on August 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Wonderful news, less so for Maverick (who still trails by five overall) than for hawks desperate to protect the progress that’s been made in Iraq. As Lowry notes, if McCain’s ahead on this issue it likely means the public’s starting to see value in keeping troops there — a point supported by Quinnipiac battleground surveys — with McCain reaping some goodwill for having supported staying the course when the Democrats were ready to abandon ship. If you’re wondering why “surge” rhetoric has been creeping into his stump speeches on unrelated issues lately, this is probably why.
[O]n specific issues, Obama is treading water or sinking a bit. On the number one issue of the campaign right now, the economy, Obama leads McCain 43%-39%, compared to 44%-37% reported by TIME’s poll in June. Despite his highly touted tour of Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan last month, Obama may be in something of a late summer slump. The poll shows that voters have increased their faith in McCain’s ability to manage the Iraq war, favoring him over Obama by a margin of 51%-36%, a five point jump since June. And voters boosted their belief that McCain would do a better job in managing the war on terror than they did in June, favoring the Arizona Senator over his colleague from Illinois by a 56%-29% margin, up from 53%-33% in June.
The other poll is Rasmussen’s survey of voter trust yesterday, where McCain leads — believe it or not — on nine out of 14 issues, including by 12 points on Iraq. Quote: “Perhaps the most interesting finding of these polls is that McCain has expanded his leads on nearly every issue he had previously had the advantage on, while Obama’s leads have diminished over the past two weeks.” They’re dead even on the economy, and on social security, where McCain used to trail, he now leads by fully six points. Karl e-mails to say he suspects it has to do with being a wrinkly old white-haired dude, as Paris Hilton put it, but if that were so he never should have been behind. It has to be attributable to those ads chipping away at Obama’s credibility, no?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Paris spoof ad did have a beneficial effect for J-Mac.
Seriously.
Straight face.
LimeyGeek on August 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Just a few months ago this looked like the issue that would kill Republicans.
amerpundit on August 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
One thing that I take away from the whole “Public View of Iraq” fiasco over the past few years, is that (in general) the public are a horde of spineless fairweather muppets.
LimeyGeek on August 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM
The Obamanation has been skewering himself:
1. Americans are sick and tired of unfiarly being called racist.
2. He sounds like a junior high brat. Americans want their President to be Presidential, nit juvenile.
3. He has no sense of humor. Americans don’t like that either.
4. He’s a wuss. We like our POTUS to be tough and vigorous. He just looks tired and weak.
The fight isn’t over…it’s just trending our way this week.
JustTruth101 on August 6, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Paris is raaacist!
Ropera on August 6, 2008 at 5:02 PM
is this registered or likely voters? doesn’t say
jp on August 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM
McCain has to focus on energy and the economy, now. The Iraq War issue is taking care of itself. If he wins on energy and the economy…..he wins.
After he wins, we can start pounding on him to finish the wall at the border!
Star20 on August 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I think you’re misunderestimating the effect of the MSM’s reporting on public opinion. If the public hears “WE’VE ALREADY LOST AND IT’S BANKRUPTING US TO STAY,” it’s kinda sorta understandable.
misterpeasea on August 6, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Maybe it won’t be quite so epic.
lorien1973 on August 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Turst will be the issue. Reagan was able to seal the deal and when the americian people trusted him enough. BHO is doing the exact opposite. By flipflopping on every issue to win votes, the americian people are losing trust in him. BHO is becoming in the eyes of the americian people a typical politician that no one can trust and who will sell his grandmother to get votes (which he did LOL) It is just too funny. If BHO would have stayed to the left there is a good chance he would have been elected because the americian people where ready to trust in him. They were wrong but they were ready. Since he “moved” to the center the people no longer trust a word he says. With every new policy and shift in policy he becomes less trustworthy.
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 5:16 PM
pass the popcorn:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Not Ruling Out Having Name Put Up for Vote in Denver
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5528104&page=1
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Well, the ads and Obama talking. Obama might want to take a cue from Kerry and sprinkle in some short vacations to prop up his numbers.
Dusty on August 6, 2008 at 5:22 PM
“Mr. McCain seems intent on reassuring skeptics that he’s no George W. Bush. If he loses in November, he’ll prove it.”!
Anita on August 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM
The movement may reflect McCain’s current upward trend in general. My speculative question goes more to where McCain is seen on this issue when compared to the generic numbers, where the GOP is down by 11 on SocSec. Rasmussen does not say how behind McCain was, but he may not have been down by 11 points in the first instance. And I’m not ready to pay Rasmussen to find out. I thought Ed was a subscriber, so maybe he could find out.
Karl on August 6, 2008 at 5:29 PM
And while I was composing my comment, unseen posted a comment @5:16 that I find intriguing. The questions are all framed in terms of “trust,” not “agreement.” It could be that recent events — going back to Obama’s early July flip-flop-a-palooza — are causing a general erosion of “trust” in Obama. If confirmed by other polling, this would be highly significant. Untrustworthy candidates do not win elections.
Karl on August 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM
It’s McCain’s victory to lose: personally, and as a Party.
Randy
williars on August 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM
I think it’s probably a lot of things, not just the ads.
terryannonline on August 6, 2008 at 5:35 PM
It’s hard to read voters in this country since having a presidential candidate claim he’s a citizen of the world should be enough to sink his chances to ever hold office again.
This is the independents, and Democrats that are not left wing loons starting to pay attention. I just got a chain e-mail today about Obama being a traitor from some folks at a plumber’s union. They are just now going nuts over him taking the American flag off his private airliner and putting up his Mousketeer logo.
I still say this is going to be a landslide for McCain.
Hening on August 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM
This is a bit worrisome. Other than the entertainment value, I hope she doesn’t get too frisky in Denver. I like the way things are going right now.
a capella on August 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Nobama’s European victory tour leg of his trip turned out to be a huge mistake, hopefully fatal. While McCain was standing in the supermarket in front of the cheese, he was at least hanging out with good ole solid Americans. And when Obama dissed those wounded Landstuhl troops to go shopping or to the gym for the third time of the day, he really showed how completely lacking he is in character, maturity, and judgement.
marybel on August 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
McCain should totally let out a big nasty fart at a debate and proudly proclaim, “I just produced more gas than Obama’s plan will ever save us!”
That’d totally win the election.
lorien1973 on August 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I personally think Obama’s an empty suit … that’s why he’s so gaffe prone. Any major mistakes in campaign strategy are the fault of his handlers I believe. It gives a window into the people who are actually running the show.
darwin on August 6, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Yes. And the ads not only eroded Obama’s credibility, they diminished his “coolness” via ridicule.
That’s the thing about fashion: it always changes. What was “in” a few months ago is soooo like over already. Obama is starting to look like last winter’s handbag to the shallow trendy crowd who comprise his base.
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Judgment on a huge call will affect perceived judgment on other calls. You pegged the reasoning in your headline I’d say - ‘Leading on Iraq by double digits’.
3 or 4 sillyish ads which are running mostly in a few states, and online are not going to give him these kinds of numbers in gains over 72 hours. If you take a step back this surge based on the other surge is obvious, makes perfect sense. This is the bounce.
Obama’s position on this was ludicrous, that was obvious too, the media cow towing for him in that absurdity only did double damage imho. You are talking about making a call & winning a war here, it doesn’t get more Presidential than that no? “Is he ready to lead” - Either way ads or not it is about the calls on the surge imho.
saus on August 6, 2008 at 5:59 PM
a capella on August 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM
on the contary I hope she wins the nomination. The riots that would occur would show beyond a doubt that the dems are Chevez lite.
sen Clinton winning the nomination would do a couple things. It would ingrain in peoples minds that the election is rigged so why bother. This would surpress the young turnout. It would split theblack vote maybe for all time from the democratic election. It would not give the dems the coattail in the general election for Congress. It would dry up the huge donations the dems are getting. It would cement the dems as the party in power in Washington.
It would also because the rep hate Hillary allow the base to be reenergized on the rep side.
Plus it would be great TV and enetertainment vaule. Hell we might even get some firebombings and burning tires in the streets. I just pray no one gets hurt.
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM
It would cement the dems as the party in power in Washington
as far as the voters are concerned and thus make the dems the incumbants
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 6:02 PM
How did Bob Barr fare in the polls?
alphie on August 6, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Who cares?
terryannonline on August 6, 2008 at 6:05 PM
It’s up to McCain ( his staff and the RNC ) to coalesce these various ‘issue voters’ into a coherent mass–and a winning coalition on election day. If he can do that, he will not only win but Win Big
If he can’t, he may still win in a Squeaker due to the astonishingly bad campaigning ( and sheer dishonesty ) of his big-eared big-ego opponent
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I do not want to see anything like this in America, for any reason. Ever.
Hillary will not get the nomination. She certainly doesn’t deserve it more than Obama, who got his delegates and superdelegates fair and square according to the rules set down by the Democratic Party.
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 6:14 PM
+4
Buford Gooch on August 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM
OOOOOps
+4
Buford Gooch on August 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Reality check with handy dandy graph included at no extra charge
MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM
McCain.
MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I believe that Obama’s inability to admit that the surge in Iraq worked hurts him.
TooTall on August 6, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 6:14 PM
It appears you do not understand how the superdelgates are given to the nomination. They are basically bribed. they can and will vote for the highest bidder. they are not tied to ANY canidate. even now. BHO has not won enough regualar delegates to win the nomination. He needs the superdelagates to win the nomination.
If these political whores decide to sell their vote to Hillary because they think BHO is fundementally flawed or Hillary offers a better deal then they can and will do it.
As far as the riots and burning tires it has been done in this country several times. 1968 convention comes to mind. As well as the MLK riots, the Rodeny king riots, etc
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 7:21 PM
After the tune up/tire inflation statement would you trust Obama on anything?
Really, he has been saying stupid things since forever (supporting driver’s licenses for illegals, Iran not being a threat, etc) but now it seems that everything out of his mouth is far left pablum he is looking mighty bad.
GogglesPisano on August 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Of course I understand how the superdelegate system works under the current Democratic Party rules. The same methods available to Obama are available to Hillary, making the process fair as they have chosen to conduct and follow it.
But even if I didn’t understand, it wouldn’t make remarks hoping for riots for “entertainment” or any other reason any less despicable.
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Good point. Allow me to correct myself.
It’s perfectly understandable, if the population is generally a horde of mindless, incurious spineless fairweather muppets.
LimeyGeek on August 6, 2008 at 8:14 PM
What…according to Time Magazine?
Jaibones on August 6, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM
You said BHO won the delagates fair and square. He has not won anything yet.
As far as the riots…its what dems do. Stopping themf rom having a “protest” is like try to stop the wind. Might as well look on the “good” side of things. Like I said hopefully no one gets hurt.
unseen on August 6, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I did not say “won.” I said “got:”
Although the distinction between “getting” and “winning” is not at all the point, nor is the objective or relative fairness of the process. What matters is that the rules were set down and agreed to by all Dem primary contenders prior to the primary contests, hence, level ground within that specifically defined context.
But of course you know this. None of it will erase the statements you’ve made with which I have disagreed re riots for “entertainment” or any other value.
Actually I may understand what you’re saying better than you think - I too would like to see the Dems explode via hoist on their own petard, spectacularly enough that even the MSM can’t explain it away. But if we’re to have, and maintain, a viable America, we’ve got to have an orderly, trustworthy, mutually-agreed-upon framework that serves to unite us long-term. Riots by one group or another tear at the fabric of our melting-pot and weaken not just me but us.
I don’t want that, even if it would affirm my current views. I want to engage all Americans in our civilized political process and thuggery of any stripe will only work against that.
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Gilda on August 6, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I believe that america is hopelessly divided. the left in this country want something that is against the very documents in which this country was founded. We are at a cross roads today as we were in 1860. there is no compromised to be had with the hard left. They hate everything America stands for. They want to remake the country in their view( more control, less freedom, less freedom of speech, more taxes, bigger government. the hard right is just as bad. they want to pass over the articles in the founding documents that they don’t like. for example individual rights to illeagal search and seizure, bigger government, more mandates, less freedoms. The middle up to now has been able to stay above it. However as the politicians move ever leftward the middle will have to make a choice. I would just as well have the hard left expose themselves before the election than afterward. the hard right exposed themselves after 9/11 and in 2006 they got voted out. Now it is time to vote out the hard left.
I see a massive civil war coming if we do not tell the extremists on both sides to Sit down and shut up. A little roit would go along way to accomplishing this goal.
unseen on August 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM