McCain opens a 5 poin lead on Obama

[rubberneck]

This one has all the makings of a shellacking come November. Most of the Obama mania is driven by 18-30 year olds who tend to be the most apathetic voters. His only chance to get them to the polls is to be the front runner. If the end of October rolls around and McCain has a commanding lead in the polls those young voters will stay home in droves. This one has the potential to get as ugly as the election in 1980.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...080820?sp=true

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.

The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.

McCain has been on the offensive against Obama during the last month over energy concerns, with polls showing strong majorities supporting his call for an expansion of offshore oil drilling as gasoline prices hover near $4 a gallon.

Obama had opposed new offshore drilling, but said recently he would support a limited expansion as part of a comprehensive energy program.

That was one of several recent policy shifts for Obama, as he positions himself for the general election battle. But Zogby said the changes could be taking a toll on Obama's support, particularly among Democrats and self-described liberals.

"That hairline difference between nuance and what appears to be flip-flopping is hurting him with liberal voters," Zogby said.

Obama's support among Democrats fell 9 percentage points this month to 74 percent, while McCain has the backing of 81 percent of Republicans. Support for Obama, an Illinois senator, fell 12 percentage points among liberals, with 10 percent of liberals still undecided compared to 9 percent of conservatives.

OBAMA NEEDS TO WORK ON BASE

"Conservatives were supposed to be the bigger problem for McCain," Zogby said. "Obama still has work to do on his base. At this point McCain seems to be doing a better job with his."

The dip in support for Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, cut across demographic and ideological lines. He slipped among Catholics, born-again Christians, women, independents and younger voters. He retained the support of more than 90 percent of black voters.

"There were no wild swings, there isn't one group that is radically different than last month or even two months ago. It was just a steady decline for Obama across the board," Zogby said.

Obama's support among voters between the ages of 18 and 29, which had been one of his strengths, slipped 12 percentage points to 52 percent. McCain, who will turn 72 next week, was winning 40 percent of younger voters.

"Those are not the numbers Obama needs to win," Zogby said about Americans under 30. The 47-year-old is counting on a strong turnout among young voters, a key bloc of support during his primary battle with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

It made little difference when independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who are both trying to add their names to state ballots.

McCain still held a 5-point edge over Obama, 44 percent to 39 percent, when all four names were included. Barr earned 3 percent and Nader 2 percent.

Most national polls have given Obama a narrow lead over McCain throughout the summer. In the Reuters/Zogby poll, Obama had a 5-point lead in June, shortly after he clinched the Democratic nomination, and an 8-point lead on McCain in May.

The telephone poll of 1,089 likely voters had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The poll was taken as both candidates head into their nominating conventions and the announcements of their choices of vice presidential picks. The Democratic convention begins on Monday in Denver, with the Republican convention opening the next Monday, September 1, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

(Editing by Patricia Wilson and Patricia Zengerle)

[The Reaper]

Saw that.

Maybe the Saddleback performance is starting to register.

Also, if you look at the toss-up states electoral votes on RealClearPolitics.com, McCain now has the lead in electoral votes, and in many states, a significant lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mccain/?map=10

TR

[USANick7]

I like to say that a Democrat needs to be leading in the polls by about 5 points, to feel comfortable that they have a chance. That is just to make up for the Bias.

Go to Real Clear Politics and look at the state by state polls for each candidate.

What you are going to find is very interesting. Almost every state that you would imagine going for Obama is going overwhelmingly for Obama. Every State you would imagine is going for McCain, is going somewhat solidly for McCain.

Then look over to the column on the right which features how the vote actually turned out in previous elections and what you find is a huge skew in favor of the democrat. The one poll democrats have the hardest time manipulating (the actual vote) shows a much different picture.

For instance...a poll might show that McCain is leading in a given state by 5 points. But if you look at what Bush carried it by it will be closer to 8-10.

A poll might show Obama carrying a state like Wisconsin by 7 points, but if you look at what Kerry or Gore carried it with, you find its closer to 1 point.

Now granted, this could be coincidence, but I doubt it. It is actually very encouraging.

It demonstrates that polls tend to inflate the chances of democrats, and down play the strength of republicans. While this is not new to anyone, it is very interesting to be able to go and see it all on one page. I highly encourage everyone to check it out. Its subtle, but there.

You can use the same link Reaper posted, just scroll down for the comparisons I mentioned.

[Paslode]

In the weekly AOL Straw Poll McCain has been beating Obama by 10 to 15 point per week.

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...poll-aug-18-25

AOL has several other performance polls that show Obama tanking as well.

I am crossing my fingers.

[Defender968]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed, I hope McCain can really open up the lead and put an end to this BHO madness.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Why do you believe it would keep them home in droves? Even if Obama loses the lead, why wouldn't they still vote for him...?

For the same reason why Gary Hart and Howard Dean lost them. Most (not all) young kids (under 25) lack the ability to see the big picture. Their interest in politics is only skin deep, and they tend to only focus on the here and now if you can get them to focus at all. If it becomes apparent that Obama is steaming head on towards defeat most of them will go back to worrying which song to download to their Ipod next.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I wish the media would stop wording it like that and I wish the general populace would realize that, the Presidency does not "manage" the economy. The economy manages itself for the most part. All the government can really do is sit back and watch. The only things the President can do is, if taxes and regulations are very high, they can lower them (as Reagan did), essentially taking the government's boot off the throat of the economy, or if taxes are low and regulations low (as they are now), they can increase them, which tends to screw things up. The President also needs to work to keep spending in check so as not to run chronic deficits.

I disagree with that and I will give you one recent example of a President using his office to totally screw up the markets. Back in the late 90's I was a NASDAQ market maker. At the time stocks traded on both the exchange and the NASDAQ traded in fractions not decimals.

In those days the spread between the bid (what buyers were willing to pay) and the ask (what they were willing to sell for) was typically an 1/8 or $0.125. With really liquid stocks it might be as low as a 1/16 or as high as several dollars on thinly traded issues. The spread between the bid and ask was a function of efficient markets. The more risk assumed by the person committing capital the bigger the spread. The less risk obviously the smaller the spread. When it operates perfectly the risk of capital is offset by the opportunity to make a profit. If either one of those two gets altered the market no longer is efficient and bad things happen.

So along comes Bill Clinton and his boot licking Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. They see that the investment banks are making a killing (what today would be called windfall profits) in the capital markets and decide that it is unfair to the working man. Using the power of the Presidency through the treasury they managed to strong arm the change over to decimals. Now that wouldn't have been the end of the world if they didn't also demand that the change over be in increments of $0.01.

Firms that used to commit millions of dollars of capital daily now suddenly found that after clearing charges that they were either breaking even or losing money on 70-80% of the trades they processed daily, and only making pennies on their profitable trades. So what do you think happened next? They stopped committing capital like they did before the change over. There was no longer the balance between profit and risk and the unbalanced markets began to behave as any inefficient market would. There were wild swings in the intra daily price of stocks. It wasn't uncommon to see the price of a stock swing as much a $70 in one day. It was ugly as many working class people who had invested heavily in the market lost billions of dollars in equity in the span of six months.

So yes the President can really screw up the economy what he can't do is improve it. All he can do is ensure that his administration doesn't tamper with the natural order of things.

[Razor]

At what point did the President get the power to unilaterally raise and lower taxes and alter economic law and regulation?

In addition to the fiscal policy wielded by the government, as rubberneck pointed out the President can conceivably influence the Fed Chairman, who can sway the board to alter the money supply (interest rates, bond sales, etc.) to nudge the economy one way or the other.

[USANick7]

You can thank FDR and the "New deal" for allot of the economic misconceptions we face today.

Not because he invented them, but because FDR, with a great deal of help from the intellectual "elite", made them popular.

Books like "FDR's Folly" and "The Forgotten man" are giving a hard analytical look at the effects of FDR's socialist policies; and the findings aren't good.

[nmap]

I wonder if the following will bear fruit?

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.



LINK

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Razor

At what point did the President get the power to unilaterally raise and lower taxes and alter economic law and regulation?

People don't know any better....

Stay safe.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by nmap

I wonder if the following will bear fruit?

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.



LINK

You know what's sad, this will probably turn out to be true, but the Dims will nominate him anyway, I am constantly amazed at how shady this guy is, and how many warning signs there are, and yet the dims and libs will just blindly dance along behind him, just happy freaking sheep headed to the slaughter.

[Defender968]

Though I'd love for this one to be true, I can't find anything that's not a blog reporting this, I have to believe if this suit had been filed at least Fox would be covering it, it sounds great, and would bring BHO's campaign to a screeching halt, but I'm going to guess no such suit has been filed.

[nmap]

Points well taken.

However, here's a link to another site. Note the PDF documents at the bottom. Those appear to be the actual filings....

LINK

[Defender968]

I saw that site while using my google fu, I'm not saying 100% for sure it's not true, though none of the paperwork was signed which makes me skeptical. Making PDF's and typing a little paperwork isn't difficult, hell I've seen LEO's I've worked with type up affidavits (paperwork to have sworn to get a warrant) on other LEO's as a joke, they were never signed as that can be a big deal (falsifying official documents and all), or submitted, just something done out of boredom as a joke and left in an officers box to be promptly shredded. Admittedly this is more complex, as they've done a little more work, but again if this were the real deal, and I would love it if it were, one of the major networks would be reporting on it, the ratings would be to huge to pass up even with a story affecting their Messiah. Plus you know at least Fox would run with it were it true, but I still haven't seen a thing on any of the networks, so my gut says it’s a hoax, I'll keep my fingers crossed, I'd love to be wrong in this case, as I think it would put an end to BHO’s campaign.

I will be the first to admit I don’t know jack about filing a lawsuit, but I’m sure there’s someone smart with a law degree on PS.com who can do a BS check on the docs on hillaryproject.com and see if what they’ve got are even plausible to file a suit with.