Party identification difference down to one point?
posted at 9:20 am on September 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Allahpundit flagged an interesting point in an updated version of the USA Today story on their latest polling in the presidential race. According to the internals of the Gallup survey, McCain’s ascension to the leadership of the GOP may have healed the brand. Democrats lead Republicans in party identification by a single point:
In the new survey, more voters call themselves Republicans. Now 48% say they’re Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party; 47% say they’re Republicans or lean to the GOP.
Not since February 2005, right after Bush’s second inauguration, have Republicans been within a single point of Democrats in party identification.
What’s more, voters by 48%-45% support the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, the party’s narrowest advantage this year.
Needless to say, this has huge implications for the election, and not just at the presidential level. Democrats had hoped to ride their large advantage to big gains in both the House and Senate this year. Voters have apparently begun realizing that Democrats controlled one of the most useless Congressional sessions in recent history, and the 9% approval ratings have finally taken their toll on Democratic leadership.
Energy policy is the likely locus for this sea change. Nancy Pelosi’s early adjournment without taking action to increase domestic production of oil — a policy favored by 70% of voters — undoubtedly damaged the party’s support, already weakening over the summer. Republicans have hammered Democrats for their refusal to create American jobs and keep American wealth at home, especially with the House Oil Party, and voters have begun to notice.
It also calls into question Obama’s coattails, and suggests much stronger coattails for McCain than anyone might have guessed. Of course, those coattails may belong to Sarah Palin, but regardless, the Republican ticket appears to have caught the nation’s attention, which apparently has begun fatiguing on Obamamania. Obama was supposed to redefine American politics with enthusiasm for Democrats, but now it looks like the opposite may be happening; Democratic identification has declined since the primaries, and Republicans have closed to a virtual dead heat. His uninspired choice of a Washington insider for a running mate on a ticket of “change” probably hasn’t helped much, either.
Hold on to those November narratives. Republicans may just pull a surprise in the House if these numbers continue to move in the GOP’s favor. They have the momentum now, and they need to keep pushing energy policy to fuel it.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I’d prefer to win by more than .01 of a second.
Paul-Cincy on September 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I just read some comments over at HuffPo about how stupid the voters must be to favor Republicans. Maybe someday they’ll wake up and realize it’s the Democrats who deliberately try to take the voters for fools, but I doubt it. Every now and then a liberal comes to his or her senses, but not often enough.
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
That is kind of surprising that only 5% of country are independents.
poljunkie on September 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I predicted last week Intrade was headed from being stuck at 60/40 Obama to 55/45 McCain.
Moving so fast now, at the end of this week it may even hit 60/40 McCain.
econavenger on September 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
That’s been a storyline for months already — that if Obama, loses, it will be because America is too racist to elect a black president. Dick Polman, who is the Philly Inquirer’s political analyst, wrote this past weekend’s column on this very point.
I think it’s very funny that all the candidates are fighting over small town, “working class” Pennsylvania as THE must-win vote and Ed Rendell is already on record saying that that segment of his state probably won’t vote for a black guy.
BigD on September 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Being realistic and tepid in my support of cranky old bastard doesn’t make me an Obama supporter no matter how much you and the other self-proclaimed “Wise_men” (village idiots really) bleat that one cannnot question McCain or his motives and can not be critical of a single point in the mans three decades in DC. Sheeple like you are what is wrong with this country. I’m not questioning your right to be stupid but I sure wonder where the education system went wrong to produce such a large number of ill-informed lemmings.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Leave it to the party of retreat and dispair to once again pull defeat form the jaws of victory.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on September 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Let me clarify that I am not saying I think small town, working class Pennsylvanians are racist. I am only pointing out that their own Governor thinks they are, and that their own media is already blaming them if Obama loses.
BigD on September 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I’m not trying to be a nay-sayer. Heck, I was the first one I know who had a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on my car the same day he announced her. I made it myself with the computer and used packaging tape to put it on since the GOP headquarters didn’t have any yet.
I just don’t want to get overly confident. I think that is what happened to the Democrats. When I go out into the rest of the blogosphere, it reminds me that there are an awful lot of liberals who are completely irrational. Too many to be safe. But I am loving this, and incredibly hopeful. For the first time in a long while, I am hopeful that the country my children are going to grow up in isn’t as far gone as I had feared.
pannw on September 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It’s one thing to be critical of some of his positions. It is quite another to obsess over them with the exclusion of all else.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The Dems want to beat the economy drum, but seem to miss what defines economy to the average American. The price of gas has soared since the Dems took over Congress. This is after the howls and shaking of chains by Schumer about Republicans being in bed with big oil.
Hening on September 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM
It’s going to be a close election, possibly as close as in 2000. Yes,the Dems are in crisis, but crisis passes. Yes, the Dems are still split, but they have two months to get back together, and winning the White House, in the face of possibly losing control of Congress, can be a strong uniter.
Obama and his team attacking Palin leaves McCain free to get his message out. If the Dems were smart they would quit on Palin and ignore her, focusing on McCain. How much does the McCain camp focus in Biden?
Doug on September 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
There fixed it…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on September 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
The WP article on Palin taking on the Big Three oil companies in AK tends to cut the legs out from under that line of attack. The donks are checkmated on energy. I can’t wait for Congress to reconvene.:)
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
The Donks are trying they’re hardest to tie Tim Bee, Republican for US Representative from Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, to Bush to “drag him down”. What they can’t answer is the failure that Giffords is here in our district. Maybe this will help turn that tide…
SkinnerVic on September 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Um… ah… but… aren’t Obama & the Democrats still way ahead in the 27 states of the EU?
Loxodonta on September 8, 2008 at 11:02 AM
And when, pray tell, do sheeple like you ever critique the candidate? You gloss over the inconvenient bits (McCain’s liberal social policies for example) and scream we have to support the man without question because of his national security experience.
That’s BS and I’m fed up with you fools demanding the rest of us STFU and blindly support McCain the way you do. The voter needs to know exactly what they are getting with McCain and it includes some version of amnesty, some version of global warming gimmickery (like cap & trade), some version of higher corporate taxes. John McCain isn’t as liberal as Obama but he isn’t a real Republican either.
I think you do a disservice to others and show how much you don’t really care about the issues when you claim it is “obsession” to be forthright in stating where one agrees and disagrees with the candidates. It is offensive that the cadre of sheeple on here keeps calling others “Obama supporters” for not joining you in spouting whatever the McCain campaign puts out. You are nothing but an RNC propagandist. I am an informed voter. Not that sheeple understand the difference.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 11:02 AM
To some extent, McCain/Palin’s surge in the polls may be due to backlash over the media attacks on Palin, followed by her speech to the RNC. The media attacks probably led open-minded voters to watch the convention to hear Governor Palin tell her side of the story in her own words, which she did with a true eloquence we haven’t heard from the leg-tingling orator before the Styrofoam O-crapolis.
Although some commenters here may be fearing that McCain might have a RINO attack sometime in the future, his choice of Governor Palin probably puts that problem to bed for the base. McCain and Palin both realize that there were two major reasons the Republicans lost the 2006 Congressional elections: a failed strategy in Iraq, and too many Republicans getting caught in Abramoff kickback schemes. McCain’s early recommendation of the “surge” strategy, and its obvious success that even Katie Couric has acknowledged have neutralized the Iraq issue, and Palin’s successful effort to fight corruption among Republicans in Alaska is an example for other Republicans to follow in their campaigns. She ousted a sitting Republican Governor in a primary during the same year that Republicans lost Congress! McCain admitted that Congressional Republicans had lost their way in his speech, and called them to return to their principles of fiscal conservatism and responsibility.
The third plank of their platform has to be energy development, and Sarah Palin is the perfect advocate for it. She is all for energy development and drilling, yet she has shown that she will not be bought or corrupted by greedy oil companies–she wants a free yet fair market. McCain and Palin need to push this further than offshore drilling, to shale oil development in the Rockies, most of which is under Federal land. They need to shout from the rooftops that we have enough shale oil to last over 100 years, and make us completely independent of foreign oil, and provide blue-collar jobs in Colorado to boot.
Governor Palin has turned out to be a potent “attack dog” in the typical role of the VP nominee, by pointing out that Obama’s flowery speeches haven’t been backed up by any real accomplishments. She can also criticize the do-nothing Democrat-controlled Congress, because she’s not part of it. While it’s true that the Democrats can attack her youth as “lack of experience”, they tend to fall flat because Gov. Palin can rightfully say that she has DONE more than Obama has, making Obama look even weaker, and how does that compare to McCain?
The one weakness that needs to be addressed is that Governor Palin does not have as much foreign-policy experience as Senator Biden, which could cause problems during the debate. Hopefully she is getting a crash-course in foreign-policy from experts while she is not campaigning, although she does seem to be a quick study!
Steve Z on September 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Party identification is part tradition, part observation, part emotion.
Tradition: my parents are X, so I’ll be a X. My parents are X, screw them I’ll be Y. We’ve always voted X. This town is Y. This is an X state.
Observation: X brings jobs. Y lowers taxes. X is in line with my beliefs. Y apears competent. X is consistent. Y is fluid. X has a platform that resembles me. Y has a good history. X bends with the times. Y costs me money. X gives me a better shot at making money.
Emotion: My favorite celebrities are X. Y candidate looks good. X hates me. Y hates/loves America. X is cool. Y is whack. X has better ads. Y makes my leg tingle. X makes me cry.
Tradition and observation are fact based.
Emotion is “feelings” oriented.
Why the recent trend toward conservatism? It can’t all be emoition.
Tradition may have a smaller part of the recent trend.
Observation seems to be a large part of the recent trend.
Thus, what is being seen? What is the GOP doing? What are the observable results? What are the Dems doing? What are the observable results?
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Imaginary Q & A from 1st McCain/Obama debate:
Charley Gibson: Would you speak for one minute on what you believe are the limits of the 2nd amendment.
Senator Obama: I, uh, (OK, I need to say something plausible so everyone will think I’m a reasonable person, appealing so people will like me, and vague enough so I don’t get pinned down or alienate any voter segment), I, uh … There must be a balance between gun owner rights and community safety. I, I, uh, uh … (I’ve got to say something strong here, so people see I’m strong and mean business). Let me be clear. I’m against private ownership of nuclear weapons. I categorically reject that. That’s been my position all along. (I hope I didn’t lose anyone with the “nuclear” comment. Do they still like me? One guy over there is staring at my ears. That guy over there is a racist. He doesn’t like me because I’m black. Some people are afraid of me, but they shouldn’t be. I get smeared so often, it’s no wonder people are afraid of me. The name puts them off too. I know that very well.)
Charley Gibson: Thank you, Senator. Same question to you, Senator McCain.
Paul-Cincy on September 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Point of order! Barak Obama isn’t black, he’s multi-racial.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I think its a bit simpler… The Republican brand lost its Conservative base by becoming part of the problem.
They GREW the government, and got bought off by Washington instead of doing what they were sent to Washington to do…
Thus, a LOT of Republicans started to self identify as indendents… this country is still Center Right… and I would guess the majority of Independents were RIGHT on the political spectrum.
Now, with Palin, and McCain’s new messege, they are willing to give McCain a try, and hope he keeps his word.
And notice, the Poll is Republican AND LEANING TOWARD… its those leaning towards who are the independents.
Romeo13 on September 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Everyone considers themselves a well informed voter on issues. However, some claim those who prefer to keep the baby from going out with the bathwater are not well informed and don’t know how to prioritize. Best I can understand, it’s an uncontrollable reflex or perhaps even genetic.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The difference between the parties is easy to understand this year:
REPUBLICANS: If you’re hungry, EAT! If you’re low on fuel, drill for some more!
DEMOCRATS: If you’re hungry, you’re selfish – you should be starving. If you’re low on fuel, walk, put on sweaters, do without air conditioning and transportation, and put up with hyperinflation because we said so.
The Democrats have characterized themselves as the party of the rabidly insane!
landlines on September 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Romeo13 on September 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM –
The Republicans over recent years have become Dem-Lite. A provable observation. The Dems have become more fascist, more strident. A provable observation.
What the GOP is doing, or moving toward, with McCain/Palin, has to be carried in full view out over the next two/four years. If it can be seen, observed, over the next two years that McCain/Palin mean business, and the GOP responds positively to that, we will own the mid-terms. In four years, if the observable pattern continues with positive results, the GOP will move into the next four GOP years, and have new members of Congress as well, and bring independents along with them, again.
If McCain/Palin do not produce results immediately, the GOP will lose the mid-terms and the next general election, and the independents will go their own way, possibly a third party.
The GOP has the task of making the GOP look like a winner, produce like a winner. Do this, and the independents will gravitate in droves toward the GOP.
It is a moving game, in three dimensions, with a moving target. Rest on one’s laurels, stop moving toward the objective, as the GOP did and has done in the recent past, the GOP loses.
Independents trend toward winners, not losers.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I kkep hearing how much foreign policy experience Biden has. Can anyone give some specifics other than the fact he was on the committee? And specifics at all would be nice. Rywall? J_Gocht? crr6? Anyone?
ManlyRash on September 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Fair enough. So…may we conclude that you will be casting your ballot for Bob Barr? Just curious.
ManlyRash on September 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Two more weeks of this failing, and Pelosi and Reid will throw Obama/Biden under the bus.
They will lose their jobs over this fiasco, no way is Pelosi and Reid going to allow that to happen.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it is “leaked” out the the DNC made an error, Hillary should have been chosen. That it is important to keep every Congressional seat to stage a huge victory for 2012. Pelosi and Reid won’t give up their leadership position for some two-bit politician from Chicago.
The reason for the loss…pure personality, the Republicans had a better personality then the Democrats. It is just too early for us to elect a black man to the highest office. They took a gamble but they did not realize the depth of racism still in existence. The Dems ideas are better blah, blah, blah, but a personality cult won the election.
So goes the Democrat official statement in about 6-8 weeks.
right2bright on September 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Larry Schweikart (of Patriot’s History and 48 Liberal Lies fame) has been making the argument that McCain’s anti-Washington message may actually hurt down-ticket Republicans:
MitchellC on September 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
One item can’t be overlooked…
McCain’s dismal record on immigration. Through all this hoopla, we can’t let him get away without holding his feet to the fire on this critical issue.
Once we know he is really ahead of the campaign, then we attack on this issue. If we can move him down a few points he will realize that his security on the ticked is from the conservatives that are supporting him—to a point.
right2bright on September 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
If he would just consistently distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, that would be a start. The vast majority of the time he will NOT make that distinction.
Paul-Cincy on September 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
And he’s also multi-positional.
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
That begs the question- whose priorities? Clearly the things I find most important you don’t but is that any reason for you to say I’m hoping for Obama to win? My comments are in line with my priorities- deal with it.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
right2bright on September 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM –
The 2008 GOP platform, which defines what the GOP expects McCain/Palin to accomplish once elected can be found here.
This may cost Latino voters in the short run. But in the long run, McCain must comply with this plank.
If McCain does not adhere to this platform plank, he screws the pooch for the mid-terms and for the GOP in four years.
Out here in flyover country, most halfway intelligent voters, us rubes, know the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. McCain needs to hammer home that difference. It is the Dems who love to lump the two together, and make this an emotional issue.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM –
What’s Michelle’s take on that? :-)
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
When Giuliani gave his zinger-filled speech at the convention and mentioned congressional approval ratings, I was hoping he’d add “no wonder they can get anyone to buy their books!”
Tzetzes on September 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
No, primarily because I don’t believe in casting one’s votes for sure losers. Besides, I have always thought Barr was somewhat of an idiot and an opportunist. His dabbling with the ACLU before becoming a “libertarian” just cements my perception that he’s really not operating with a clear vision about the issues or what he would do if elected. A President Barr, IMO, would govern the way Clinton did- by consulting the polls before making any decision.
McCain is the less objectionable of two very bad choices. We shouldn’t forget that it wasn’t too many months ago McCain called a large chunk of his base racist and inhumane for not agreeing to the amnesty scheme he worked out with Teddy Kennedy and other Democrats. We shouldn’t forget that McCain isn’t the champion of core Republican values and has a long record of making unfavorable comments about social conservatives and evangelicals (who he blames for not getting the nomination in 2000). We shouldn’t think that we are electing a President who will show loyalty to his own party’s priorities since time-and-again John McCain has been a political Judas. We can’t rely on John McCain to deliver the kind of SCOTUS nominee necessary to break the constant cycle of 5-4 decisions (McCain will give us another Souter when we need a Scalia).
In the final analysis all the above and other McCain positions may still favor his election over the other guy but I refuse to be one of the sheeple who gloss over the many ways McCain isn’t the right choice for the GOP or the nation.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Remember you read it here first. I’ve been saying Captain Amnesty will win all along. To that i now add the GOP will regain majorities in congress. Despite these things we will not be pleased with what we get.
We seldom have reason to be pleased.
dogsoldier on September 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Come on, Ed, I know you’re one of those mature, reasonable moderates, and you have a fellow-traveler in McCain, but how in the world can you attribute this to McCain? He’s been the leader of the party for months, and the Republicans have been in the toilet for months.
It’s Palin and the Democrats who’re responsible for this. McCain, if anything, has improved from being a drag on the ticket to being neutral.
misterpeasea on September 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
AP read this and almost smiled.
Jim Treacher on September 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Fair enough. You raise very good points. And few here would dispute that John McCain is NOT the perfect exemplar of conservative Republicanism. On the other hand, we are realists and these trying times call for pragmatism. In this case, half a loaf of bread is better than burning down the bakery. Let’s take our victories when and where we can get them.
ManlyRash on September 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM
With his choice of Palin, could McCain have saved the Republican Party from irrelevance?
McCain, savior of the Party.
How ironic.
29Victor on September 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Or implications for the credibility of the poll… time will tell.
DaveS on September 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Seems like I heard her say something about being proud…
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM
His selection of Palin gives fair indication he’s willing to look ahead. I would like to think most conservatives prefer cleaning out the corrupt, dead wood in the GOP gradually, by taking away their pork privileges, rather than lunging at the most pure conservative ticket lacking in Palin’s reform record, McCain’s pork record, and little backing from moderates. This election is a means to an end,…I’m patient and optimistic. If the reform effort goes away once McCain/Palin are in office, I’ll admit I’m wrong.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM
BTW, the thing that concerns me most about both McCain and Palin is the bipartisanship gig. It may have worked for her in AK, but it won’t do it in the big leagues, if they want to retain the base. I didn’t care for Lieberman’s plea for working across the aisle at all.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM
For some strange reason, this 9% fact is getting ignored by the McCain camp and by most conservative bloggers and pundits. Other than at HotAir, the only other mention of this stat has been by Hannity. The “Blame Bush” rhetoric only goes so far; I believe that congress plays a much larger role in our country’s problems.
RMCS_USN on September 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM –
I was leading toward a more Kama Sutra-esque sort of response. :-)
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM –
Was discussing this over the weekend with a few boys my age, about it being time to tuirn the Party over to the younger kids. McCain/Palin has opened that door. There are a lot of old timers who have done no good at all for the party. Hastert was our Murtha on the corruption side. That has been the problem for way too long.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM –
Bipartisanship is McCain’s public announcement. He has to extend that hand across the aisle. During his acceptance speech, he should have given examples…examples of his own bipartisanship. Would have made the point strogner.
The beauty of this is it is pretty much a given that Reid and Pelosi will reject that hand, in clear view. At that point, McCain can easily disregard both. The GOP can then pull Dem legislators one at a time, on the issues into bi-partisanship. Give these Dem legislators public kudos for rising above partisanship. Enhance their cachet. Play to their egos, and to their constituents, while enacting GOP-sponsored legislation according to the GOP platform, while again cutting Reid and Pelosi out at the same time. Take the lead, keep it out front, seize the high ground.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Point taken. Guess I’m weary of bipartisanship being used as a code word for giving Teddy kennedy anything what he wants. And, you are correct about Pelosi and Reid. They are so tone deaf they dare not appear cooperative. They are a blessing.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
s/b anything
whata capella on September 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Of course. ;-)
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM
DNC blew this election when they nominated Obama over Clinton, and even then it probably would have been a tough win. And then Biden is picked as V.P… {snort}.
I would really like to know who Hillary would have picked for VP…
I’m not saying I want Dems to win, but this election is like watching two heavy-weight boxers trying to see which one can lose the worst without them both looking like they’re being paid to take a dive.
Lawrence on September 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Had the primaries not been so acrimonious (how dare anybody step on what was supposed to be the unopposed coronation of Hillary) Obama would have been the pick. Had Bill Richardson not jumped ship he would have been on the very short list because of the Latino vote. Nevertheless, my guess is that Clinton would have done something “historic” and unexpected like putting another woman on the ticket.
The real problem the Dems had is forcing voters to choose between an utterly inexperienced candidate or setting up the Clintons in such a way that it would be possible for only two families to hold the presidency for 24-28 years. They needed a legitimate third choice. Whereas the GOP had to settle for McCain because the all the legitimate candidates cancelled each other out of contention, the Dems set up Clinton and the voters had another idea.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 2:17 PM
It’s good and all, but the fact that we’re cheering not being down by much suggests…um…desperation.
Gaunilon on September 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I made a new custom motivational poster for the Dems. Use it as your leisure.
http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm463/LorenAvedon/dems.jpg
MarcusBrody on September 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM
classic
sven10077 on September 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM
It’s the price at the pump, stupid.
And what hockey mom is it that took on big oil and is building a pipeline? Why, it’s Sarah Palin! And the best part is, anyone who knows any good hard-working “get it done” kind of Mom KNOWS that it is just that kind of woman who actually gets the job done.
Off-topic: someone has to tell me what the female equivalent of a man-crush is, because I may be developing one for Governor Palin.
JustTruth101 on September 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Not at all.
RCP and state polling is a weekly or 10 day cycle event. We are still going off of pre-convention electoral numbers. IF we are still down at the end of next week I’ll worry.
That said for things not to shift the bounce has to be concentrated entirely in places McCain is winning.
Not likely.
I think there’s a reason all hell is breaking loose in LunarFledermaus land….
GOP:Keep Firing Unity Voting Victory
sven10077 on September 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM
you have a Jolie Crush….
sven10077 on September 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Awesome…don’t be surprised if that gets emailed back to you, Marcus…I don’t usually start those email things to be forwarded, but that one’s too good to pass up…
JustTruth101 on September 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Men crush, women swoon.
But woman-swoon just sounds, well, gay.
Lawrence on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I don’t mind people sending me good stuff through email. What rubs me the wrong way is when there’s a note at the end telling me to forward it. If it’s good enough, I’ll pass it on. If somebody’s trying to tell me to, I delete it.
backwoods conservative on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
The fact that the polls are showing a close race now is very bad news for The Obama Lama. Palin’s selection energized the base. When the conservative base gets excited, there is no more reliable voting bloc in the universe.
GulfCoastBamaFan on September 8, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Its possible that being black could hurt you if you combine that fact with ANTI-American friends, an anti American church, less than glowing depictions of America, AND, American people.
Sonosam on September 8, 2008 at 4:04 PM
One of the things I notice consistently over the past four decades is that there are still too many who never take that step from the color of their skin to the content of their character.
It is the Reverend Wright’s, Jackson’s, Sharpton’s, and Farrakhan’s of this world who reject that notion, content of one’s character having any validity, that produces still those who insist that color of one’s skin is more important than content of character.
And, when Obama loses in November, we will be greated by those who will accept no other explanation for Obama’s loss other than color of his skin. The editorials and public exhortations have already started.
A very pathetic position in which to find one’s self, blinded by one’s own bigotry.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
To quote Patton: We`re gonna hold `em by the nose and kick `em in the ass!
……..crosses fingers.
ThePrez on September 8, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Veterans groups don’t identify with Senator McCain…?
“…John McCain never spoke the word “veteran” when he accepted his party’s nomination for president. The only mention of veterans during John McCain’s speech was by Iraq Veteran Against the War Adam Kokesh. He held up a two-sided banner reading “YOU CAN’T WIN AN OCCUPATION” and “MCCAIN VOTES AGAINST VETS.” Then Kokesh yelled, “Ask him why he votes against vets!”
He was greeted by chants from the GOP delegates.They chanted…
“USA! USA! USA!”
McCain received a “D” from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for his votes on veterans issues. The Disabled American Veterans reports that he voted for legislation benefitting veterans only 20% of the time….
Way to go John…!
John if you don’t give a damn about us…why should we even consider you…?
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM
J_Gocht, indignation is indignant. It’s not like you’d have voted for him before.
femme-crush
Entelechy on September 8, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Barry has been campaigning way too long. Over exposure and viewer fatigue. He’s got nothing new, no details, no specifics that last more than a day unchanged. His acceptance speech is an example. The warts ae finally being exposed, and his inability to deal with the unexpected like Palin’s selection firm up the impression he rattles easily under fire and flails about without purpose. People must be thinking, “Hmmm, not the kind of guy I want with his finger on the button.” OTOH, Palin has only a short way to go, she’ll remain fresh, in command, and unwrinkled, right up till election day.
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Have the Democrats stopped blowing themselves?
byteshredder on September 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Watching McCain and Obama being traded on Intrade. someone is throwing money around trying to push Obama below 50% and McCain above 50%. Its going on as I type. If you have an Intrade account you have an opportunity to make some easy money by bidding against him.
agmartin on September 8, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Joe Biden on Foreign Policy
John McCain on Foreign Policy
Barack Obama on Foreign Policy
Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy
Governor of the State of Alaska, just 75 miles from Russia and absolutely has no clue…and,or won’t discuss any of them with the national press corps…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Manly my man, you’re gonna have to check here for a more verbose discussion of Ms Palin’s prefered positions.
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Manly my man, mon apologies… Sarah has made a previous statement concerning our foreign policy.
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Treacher says she has them in timeout.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/cheerful-bespectacled-hockey-mom-drives-journalists-nuts/
a capella on September 8, 2008 at 7:16 PM
She placates moonbats on her way to an 80% rating there Gucci…her son joined the “war corps” as Kos kidz call it.
There is a point no?
sven10077 on September 8, 2008 at 7:28 PM
My dear Entelechy, you may have inferred from my post that if I hadn’t voted for him before why in H-E-double tooth picks would any self respecting veteran vote for him now…?
Your are RIGHT, my dear…!
Why would she or he; for any reason on God’s great,good, green, earth…?
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 7:34 PM
According to this wikipedia entry there are 42 millon Independent voters as of 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
Dr Evil on September 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM
a_c, I’m certain you’re correct.
Sarah’s a quick study, she’ll do fine, given sufficient time to get up to speed.
My concern is, it’s just those little continuing gaffes over the next sixty days that will grind her credibility down…?
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 7:56 PM
So what?
Her son and Joe’s son are going to serve in combat in a despicable war…!
Not my idea of a warrior hero’s purpose or cause.
Yah gotta do what the olde men conjure my young sons…!
For their honor you just may die…!
Who the hell am I to say, when you’ve got real honest to God shirkers like Cheney and Bush the younger…?
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Someone give J Gocht some attention please.
Chuck Schick on September 8, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I remember hearing when the poll giving Congress the 9% approval rating came out, that a large part of the respondents (I can’t remember exact numbers) believed that Republicans were still in control of it. After my initial shock that anyone with an opinion on the performance would not know the Dems had the majority, I remembered how really uninformed many, including voters, really are. The Republicans need to be very clear on who is responsible for the failed congress since 2006. It’s a shame that it is needed, but it really is. I wonder if some of the ignorant even think Pelosi is a Republican. In their media fueled BDS, they seem to think anything negative in government must be his doing or under his control and hold Republicans as a whole responsible.
pannw on September 8, 2008 at 8:34 PM
“McCain received a “D” from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for his votes on veterans issues. The Disabled American Veterans reports that he voted for legislation benefitting veterans only 20% of the time…”
I’m a veteran who doesn’t give a F*** about “veterans” groups who are largely led by losers with their hands perpetually out, asking for more. Gimee, gimee, gimee.
I say give it to the guys wounded in action, instead of heaping benefits on the 98% of troops who spent their days chairbound.
It’s ridiculous that a guy who develops a bad knee over time, gets benefit checks in perpetuity. That’s the kind of nonsense veterans groups got us.
Veterans groups also do incredibly antiquated things like preserving the 20 year retirement, guaranteeing a steady supply of dead wood from years 15-20. I say, pay us up front, not when we’re retired.
I don’t want “benefits” from a worthless, anti-military, anti-American poof like Barack Obama. Most veterans don’t walk around with their palms out and we’ll be voting for John McCain.
NoDonkey on September 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Thanks for the thought, Chucky…
Been on the road all day and thought I might have missed something…?
I may have swamped all their neurons with my links to On the Issues …?
One vodka and four posts have set me straight.
Thanks again Chuck…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Why should they? Veterans groups are primarily made up of those who made the decision to serve this nation and had to make an effort to do so. With a grandfather and father who were four star admirals, McCain didn’t so much make that decision than go along with family tradition. He coasted into the Naval Academy on the family name and got some plum assignments because of who his daddy and grandaddy were. That’s not to marginalize his service in the least but, let’s be honest here, his personal life story doesn’t mirror most veterans.
Put another way, most vets don’t have ships named after their grandfathers.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Hey NoDonk, so you have all your arms and legs, your eyesight and hearing and no effects from TBI [traumatic brain injury] …?
You dah man NoDonk, you dah MAN…!
Hang tough trooper…!
Olde soldier sends…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 8:54 PM
In every election I can remember after Reagan the dems have been up at least 5 points at this point. The period between the conventions and debates is always one in which the dem media protects their candidate while attacking the republican. Today they are scared to death to attack Palin after last weeks sliming and the blowback by decent folk. It has always been at the debates where our candidate, for the first time since the convention, gets to be seen by lots of the public without the screen of dem media opinion. This year we have a VERY strong debate team v a pretty weak one. If McCain still has the big MO going into the debates and wins, as expectd…we could have a blowout in november
JIMV on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 PM
I’m with you JIMMY VEE…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 9:15 PM
The cowardly lion is about to retire…
0430 till 2115 is soldier’s time…
I’m retired…!
Thanks folks…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 10:19 PM
The cowardly lion is about to retire…
0430 till 2115 is soldier’s time…
I’m retired…!
J_Gocht on September 8, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Benefits come from Congressional action, not the Executive branch of government. The new GI Bill that came out of Congress is an example. It was spearheaded by creepy Senate Democrat James Webb of Virginia. IMO, it’s not a perfect bill, my one combat tour should probably be differentiated from those on their third tour in harm’s way. The generic requirement that one only need have served on active duty for three years since 2001 is a good starting point but I personally would have been happier if those that took on more risk got more reward from this legislation.
You’re right that most veterans are not out there demanding handouts. You’re wrong in your assertion that only combat wounded service is worthy of consideration of benefits. The possibility of combat service when you enlist/recieve a commission should be enough to qualify you for whatever benefits are legislated into existence. There should be (and are) a seperate set of benefits for wounded vets but that doesn’t mean that service without peril is meaningless and not worthy of recognition. The possibility was always there. Back in the 1980’s I joined a military poised to attack the Soviet Union. I’m going to retire from a military attempting to deal with asymetrical warfare from terrorist groups. I was ready to respond throughout that transition- no matter the threat. Why diminish the service of those who were around for the (relatively) peaceful times?
All that being said, I only wish that there was more of an appreciation of military service by the American public. Older folks who find out I am in the military will thank me for my service but, frankly, that isn’t really the point and it shouldn’t be. The young people making the real sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan should be treated like rock stars and they are probably the most likely to be treated with your “walk it off” mentality unless they are wounded.
Think about it. For the first time since the Vietnam era, there is a significant group of combat-tested veterans in America but not every veteran serves in combat and not every combat-tested veteran comes back wounded. Does this nation recognize military service during wartime or do they take on your attitude that most of the military is chairbound and worthless and one needs to be wounded before they are worthy any sort of consideration? Military service in combat or not is honorable and should be recognized for what it is.
Of the “final four” John McCain is the only one who served in the military. Biden (far more than Cheney who had a family) used deferments to keep him out of having to join the military during the Vietnam era. Obama and Palin are children of the volunteer military. I’m saddened that the current crop of political “leaders” don’t have more of an appreciation of these matters though I think it interesting that McCain, Biden, and Palin all have children serving in harm’s way. The fact that our political leaders’ kids might be facing combat is a good thing because it adds a personal touch to impersonal policy decisions.
highhopes on September 8, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Gucci, I am pretty certain I don’t rate as much of a Peacenik Corps backer but it gives the lunatic leftoids something to do and maybe wakes them up to how good we have it here vis a vis “the world”.
This war is not worthless, nor misguided.
sven10077 on September 9, 2008 at 3:30 AM
oh and Gucci, Bush’s militray service sure does fail to stack up to Joe and Barry’s eh?
Joe’s son is a Jag it is not like he is a door kicker.
sven10077 on September 9, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »