2008 Polling

[Mister Tee]

ARG is a VERY dubious pollster this season. It's hard to believe Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio are closer than West Virginia, these days.

But the general trend is quite believable. West Virginia is an historically Democratic state, and the state of the country may be enough to reawaken this tendency. In general, the events of the past few weeks have moved a very-Obama-friendly electoral environment to a map-redefining one. There are great anecdotes all over the web, of people finding the most unlikely folks confessing the crisis is getting them to vote for a man they'd never have guessed they would (my favorite: a guy who tried to get his bigoted father to vote Obama on his absentee ballot by euphemistically saying, "Vote a straight Democratic ticket, Dad" -- and his father said, "I just want to be sure I vote for the colored fellow"). The situation -- and, it must be said, Obama's extraordinarily calming presence -- has made him into a Tiger Woods-type figure, who defies the country's racist roots.

Meantime, there are going to be more people voting than we've ever imagined. I saw a kid go by me on a skateboard the other day -- a classic slacker, one you'd figure would be as likely to have season tickets to the Met as to be voting. He not only had on a button, it was an Obama/Biden button -- meaning he's paying attention quite recently. I salivate over what this is going to mean on Election Day.

[Greg]

The American Research Group released a set of new state polls today with an especially odd result: Sen. Barack Obama is ahead in West Virginia by eight points.

Minnesota: Obama 47%, McCain 46%

Missouri: Obama 49%, McCain 46%

Montana: McCain 50%, Obama 45%

New Hampshire: Obama 52%, McCain 43%

Ohio: Obama 48%, McCain 45%

Texas: McCain 57%, Obama 38%

West Virginia: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.

http://politicalwire.com/archive....ia.html

[Sabin]

The only thing that's going to be debated about Bush's presidency in the years to come is whether or not he was a worse president than James Buchanan.

Franklin Pierce. Kansas-Nebraska.

[Johnny Guitar]

sought to improve education, social security, the immigration system, the medicare system,

Criddic, there's a reason why people accuse you--with good reason--of parroting what you see on TV with the Republican party line. Read the above words again & again ... then ask yourself what it even means. Your words are precisely like a party hack ... or a presidential candidate at a debate. Devoid of content. Signifying nothing. Like Tom Cruise & Scientology being "the authorities on improving conditions." 'Improving' and 'reforming' are two completely vague buzzwords used only by mainstream partisans trying to put one over on the electorate ... and those gullible enough to believe them. The issue is how one proposes to do it. It's about policy. Any major public figure is in favor of "reforming" welfare, "strengthening" social security, "improving" the immigration situation ... yadda yadda yadda.

[Damien]

Nate Silver went back to his baseball roots on Colbert by likening McCain to the Seattle Pilots.

[MovieWes]

It's not like I just switched parties recently. I switched probably 2 or 3 years ago. And it's not just Bush; it's that most Republicans have adopted Bush's policies as their own. I am totally anti-Big Government, which is one of the basic tenets of the Republican party, and which is absolutely the main reason why I hate the Democrats (and which is why I never completely defected). The Republican ideas of government are now much bigger and more intrusive than any administration in the history of the United States.

I didn't abandon my principles. In fact, I still hold the same principles that I held before Bush. And I voted for Bush the second time not because I had strong faith in Bush, but because I had zero confidence in Kerry due to his flip-flopping on just about every single issue. I never knew where I stood with Kerry, but I always knew where I stood with Bush. Also, I felt that it was better to stick with the devil I knew than go with the devil I didn't.

And I've never said that I'm voting for Obama. I don't trust the guy one little bit, and I am definitely not even considering voting for him.

[criddic3]

All I'm giving him kudos for is the good he's done in Africa and for the fight against AIDS. I think that everything else has been a disaster, and this is coming from someone who voted for him twice. If I could do it over again, I would have voted for Kerry in 2004. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.

All I can say is, this man and his buddies are responsible for me leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party (although I could argue that I didn't really leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me).

Umm, excuse me for wondering, but isn't that kind of a strange move just when Pres. Bush can't run for a third term?

I mean, John McCain is a very different person who will have a very different cabinet and administration. He may want to keep the tax cuts and he may want to win in Iraq before leaving, but on many other issues he disagrees with Bush. Stem Cell research, global warming, etc.

Not all of Pres. Bush's ideas were bad, which is probably why you voted for him twice. Just because he didn't deliver the way that was intended doesn't mean another Republican wouldn't be successful. Abandoning your party over one administration is almost like abandoning your principles.

I agree that Republicans did some things very wrong, including overspending, but I think most of them have learned their lesson. And handing over all three branches to the Democrats doesn't help matters.

[flipp525]

[Bush] isn't some heartless warmonger

No. We have Cheney for that.



Edited By flipp525 on 1223400391

[MovieWes]

All I'm giving him kudos for is the good he's done in Africa and for the fight against AIDS. I think that everything else has been a disaster, and this is coming from someone who voted for him twice. If I could do it over again, I would have voted for Kerry in 2004. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.

All I can say is, this man and his buddies are responsible for me leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party (although I could argue that I didn't really leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me).

[criddic3]

Moviewes, it's no use. Let it be said that, although I have long defended President Bush here, even I know that his second term has been woefully disappointing in many ways. I still respect him, because he has tried to do many wonderful things. He has set aside bodies of land and water for preservation, helped the fight against AIDS in Africa, fought against Partial-Birth Abortions, sought to improve education, social security, the immigration system, the medicare system, created the office of Homeland Security, and has done much to keep us from another terrorist attack. He hasn't been successful in every area, and perhaps some of his successes have been muted ones, but no one can say he hasn't been ambitious in his efforts. This is why I have supported him all these years, because I see that he cares. He isn't some heartless warmonger, but someone who sees the War on Terror as a necessity. He waged the fight the way he thought best. For sure, his Presidency has been uneven, but eventful and difficult from the moment he won the election in 2000. At least that's the way I view it.

[MovieWes]

Wow. I actually thought that I had found a good thing about Bush's presidency that even the Bush haters around here could agree on, but I guess I was wrong. Can't blame a guy for trying though. He can't win for losing around here, can he?

Still, I think that attacking his motives and pointing out that his predecessors didn't set the bar very high is a bit reductive. He's done some good over there, regardless of how you may feel about him personally. I don't like the guy either, but I'm at least willing to give credit where credit is due.

[rain Bard]

Obama himself has said that he'd like to follow in Bush's footsteps one those issues if/when he is elected President.

I hope he doesn't follow in the footstep of disproportionately funding abstinence-only programs there.

I'm happy to commend Bush's efforts in Africa, which are indeed better than any of his predecessors in most ways (a low bar indeed), but I wouldn't want to see them sugar-coated either. Like all of his policies, this one too is tainted by his incessant <s>pandering to the Christian right</s> practicing of his religious beliefs.

[MovieWes]

Statesmen are just common people, and pretty much all have something that they have failed in and (except maybe for Bush) something that they've succeeded in.

Well, Bush does have at least one success that can't be denied, so your "except maybe for Bush" statement doesn't even apply. And that success is the good he's done in Africa and in AIDS research/awareness. Believe it or not, Bush is considered a national hero in many African countries. Even the Democrats give him kudos on that one and Obama himself has said that he'd like to follow in Bush's footsteps one those issues if/when he is elected President. Sure, it's probably going to be a minor footnote when the historians look back on his presidency, but it's still a success no matter which way you look at it.

Bono even called him the greatest American President ever for Africa.

But yeah, on everything else, he's been a disaster.



Edited By MovieWes on 1223355144

[OscarGuy]

A new Fox News/Rasmussen (note that these are two of the more Republican leaning organizations) poll shows Obama with a 3% margin over McCain.

[Heksagon]

...Besides, how do you suggest to count what caused "most harm"?

Well, I suppose one could start with the 4,000+ soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent civilians who have died in an illegal war....

Yeah, that's a very good beginning - although by that measure, Vietnam would appear to be worse...

I don't approve of the Iraqi war any more than the others on this board, but the issue is not just about how people feel about Bush - clearly nobody is saying nice things about him right now, except for Criddic. If the people making these ratings would follow the principle that engaging in wars is a major demerit, that would be just fine, but they do not consistently follow that approach.

...I don't believe in "great man" theories either, although materialistic and deterministic theories are far worse in my opinion. I think that individuals do shape events, but the effect of any single human is only very limited; no-one can become a head of goverment without appealing to considerable support.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards an idealistic interpretation of history, where changing ideas and thoughts are seen as the primary engine of change. I think it's fascinating that social, political and economical thought has changed so much over time. I haven't read that much theory on it though.