Newsweek Poll: Obama Has Double-Digit Lead

Newsweek released a new poll today. Sen. Barack Obama leads John McCain by 11 points, 52% to 41%.

The chief reason: the economy. Another: voter disapproval of Sarah Palin.

While 60 percent of voters think Palin would fit in well with their local community, only 39 percent of those surveyed say they believe McCain's running mate is qualified to serve as president, while 55 believe she is not.

Obama leads with almost every group of voters.

He now leads McCain among both men (54 percent to 40 percent) and women (50 percent to 41 percent). He now wins every age group of voters—including those over 65 years of age, who back him over McCain 49 to 43 percent.

88% of former Hillary supporters are now on board with Obama: [More...]

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, as many as a fifth of whom had at one point told pollsters they'd support McCain over Obama, now back the Democratic nominee 88 percent to 7 percent.

The only areas McCain continues to lead is national security and terrorism.

Update: Obama also leads McCain in a Fox News poll released today: 46% to 39%. The reason: the economy:

By 50 percent to 35 percent, Obama tops McCain as the candidate voters trust to handle the economy. Obama has the edge on all other issues tested save two on handling the war on terrorism McCain is preferred by 14 points and on Iraq by 5 points.
What about race?
45 percent of McCain supporters say race will be a factor in their vote.
As for who won Tuesday's debate: Obama 50%,McCain 17, Tie 26

The only reference to Palin is this: 40% say McCain's pick of Palin makes them less likely to vote for McCain, up from 31% in September.

< McCain Asks Base For Respectful Ferocity | Newseek: Palin May Cost McCain a Win in Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Didn't the outcome of the (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:23:48 PM EST
    Democratic Primaries/Caucuses seem predetermined from the outset? i.e. on a national scale, the process was massaged, and outright manipulated, to ensure that Obama became the nominee.

    Imo, in the primaries, the Dems took a page from the GOP playbook; albeit, the GOP has kept its game focused on fixing the outcome of the General Elections. We have the precedent of contrived GOP wins in 2000 and 2004. So, is it any less likely that the outcome of the 2008 GE is already similarly predetermined?

    The most pertinent question may be whether the GOP has geared up for a Republican or Democratic win in '08.

    No. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    But isn't it pretty to think so?

    Obama won because he got more votes -- even if only a few more -- than Clinton.

    A lot of stuff happened in the primary, and each candidate (and campaign) probably said a few things they wish they hadn't.  There was a reasonable amount of argument over process in a number of states.  But in the end, no one can fairly feel that the result was democratic.


    Absolutely correct: noone can (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    fairly feel that the result was democratic.

    Nevertheless, I'll vote for the Democrat.


    Oops. (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    Well, you knew what I meant.

    The definition of democracy is not "who I want to win, wins".


    Of course, as was discussed to (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:19:26 PM EST
    death here, nobody promised a democracy as the method for selecting a party's Presidential ticket.

    Your statement reads like an acount of the 2000 GE (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:22:30 PM EST
    *Bush won because he got more votes -- even if only a few more -- than *Gore.

    A lot of stuff happened...There was a reasonable amount of argument over process in a number of states.  But in the end, no one can fairly feel that the result was democratic.

    (*The original quote read: "Obama" rather than Bush; and "Clinton" rather than Gore.)

    I fear the outcome of the '08 GE will be describable in much the same terms.

    I don't know whether you were kidding when you made this next quip: but, personally, when I speculate about this GE outcome, I don't concur with your suggestion that it is "pretty to think so".


    No, Bush got. . . (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:29:43 PM EST
    fewer votes than Gore in the election in 2000.

    And the real question is how many votes they each got in Florida.  And, in the end, Bush got a few hundred more.  How did that happen?  Many reasons, including the presence of Ralph Nader and poor ballot design (but Democrats) in Palm Beach.  Possibly a state wide recount would have changed the numbers by an equally small amount in Gore's favor but the Democrats are at least partly responsible that a state-wide recount didn't take place.

    The numbers in the Democratic primary are quite different than the case in Florida.   First off, the winning candidate got the most popular votes, not the other way around.  Secondly there was no reasonable argument to be made that the results was do to counting error.

    The results were close -- heartbreakingly so to some -- but clear.


    You might be able to convince yourself (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM EST
    that the results were fair, but I think they were not. Most Democrats in Michigan and Florida are likely to agree that they got screwed.

    Well. . . (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    people who think they got screwed always seem to be able to convince themselves regardless of logical argument.

    There are two questions involved in Florida and Michigan.

    The first is whether the results would have made any difference.  I think the answer is pretty clearly "no".  I don't think anyone argues that any imaginable outcome of holding the primary in Michigan would have changed the outcome of the election.

    The subsidiary question of whether difficulties in Michigan and Florida would make it impossible for the eventual Democratic nominee to win there has, I hope, been more or less answered by the polling.

    The second question is whether the problems in those states were the results of a sneaky pro-Obama plan, hatched months before the primaries started, to "give" the election to him.  I reject that outright as silly.  Pretty much everyone agreed that something had to be done to reign in the states that were using brinksmanship to move the start of the primaries earlier and earlier.  At the time that the sanctions were place, I don't think anyone suggested that they would favor one candidate or another, or that they were unfair, or problematic.  The Republicans placed sanctions similar to the final version of the Democratic ones on those states without, apparently, turning the primary into a stage-managed farce.


    Rearguing this isn't very fruitful (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    but I think you are wrong. A different result in Michigan and Florida absolutely could have changed things. You'll recall that the final decision was many by superdelegates, anyway. And the states that really need to be punished are not those two, it's New Hampshire and Iowa, as Carl Levin argued in the spring.

    And in terms of general fairness, any result that includes caucuses is by definition not democratic. If you think an undemocratic selection process can be fair, well, I disagree. Not in a contest that was as close as this one.


    While I agree. . . (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    that caucuses have their problems it's a silly argument to decide that one voting procedure "isn't democratic" while another is.

    In particular you have to deal with open and closed primaries.  If one or the other "isn't democratic" then you have many more, larger states than the caucus states with troubled results.

    I think Clinton could have done a lot better in the caucus states.  That issue, to some extent, has to be laid at the door of her campaign.


    The difference in fairness (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:32:28 PM EST
    between a caucus and an election is MUCH larger than between a closed primary and an open primary. Do you need me to rattle off the significant differences? Please.

    Go to RCP (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    and look up the pledged delegate counts.  For Michigan and Florida, double those counts, since their full delegations were restored.  Then recalculate, and you will see why the roll call was called off (and I got all this from a superdelegate who was furious about it and the tactics used).  Keep in mind that several superdelegates had gone on the record as saying that if the pledged counts were within 100 of each other, it was going to go to a floor battle.

    Now, go back with the restored counts and look at it chronologically.  See what the momentum would have been. . . .

    Btw, my problem with it was not that I expect a party, even the Democratic Party, to act democratically.  It is not required to do so.  But it is required to not violate its charter, and it did that.  So it no longer exists.


    How did Bush end up with "few hundred" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    more votes than Gore in Florida in 2000? Because the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount while it was still IN PROGRESS; at a time when Gore was actually closing on Bush.

    Subsequently, a large consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes.

    NEWSWEEK reported:

    ...the consortium found that a full [manual] statewide count of both undervotes and overvotes would have resulted in Gore winning by 171 votes.

    Glaringly, the film Recount failed to include any info about what was learned after the recount was stopped. Maybe that's why it was just called "Recount", and included no epilogue.


    Alas. . (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    Gore never requested that full state-wide recount (which I thought at the time was the only logical thing to do).

    Having the news media find that a recount of several million votes would have had Gore win by 171 votes is a pleasing outcome but obviously absurd.  You cannot have that degree of certainty when counting that many pieces of paper.

    Certainly Gore morally won Florida, when you consider the spoiled Buchanan ballots and Nader.  But there's no evidence that he would have been guaranteed a numerical win under any recount formula.


    Well, there ya go again... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    Final certified vote for the state of Florida had Bush 'winning' by 537votes.
    George W. Bush (W) = 2,912,790; Al Gore = 2,912,253.

    So obviously you are incorrect to state:

    You cannot have that degree of certainty when counting that many pieces of paper.   

    The news consortium recount had Gore win by 171. I don't see why it's harder to believe the accuracy of that number.

    *I raise these issues because the same machinations may very well plague the '08 GE.


    Well. . . (none / 0) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    First off the vote count that established the 537 number was an actual count of the votes, not an estimate.  If the statewide recount was actually performed, I would have hoped that Gore would have come out ahead by several thousand.  But certainly the number wouldn't have been 171, and might not have favored Gore.

    But I also don't believe the accuracy of the 537 number.

    The problem is that in something as hairy as counting several million punched votes any result within a couple of  thousand is effectively a tie.  You'll get a different result each time you count, and the person coming out ahead will be different too.  You might as well flip a coin.

    In the absence of actual, organized, provable vote fraud then a recount might have favored Gore, or might have favored Bush.  

    The fact that it was so close in the first place was bad luck -- Palm Beach and Nader.

    But because of history (having Bush appointees control the deciding votes on the Supreme Court) and bad tactical planning (demanding a recount only in those counties believed to favor Gore) we essentially lost the coin toss.


    Recount (none / 0) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:11:22 PM EST
    the movie only concerned itself with the drama of the recount in the month plus following election day.

    I would liked to have seen an epilogue but the the movie's aim was only the drama.


    Did either of you (none / 0) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    see HBO's Recount?

    No point here, just curious.

    Well, maybe there is a point of some sort.

    We blew it because we sent in a negotiator to lead our team and the other side sent in a street brawler.

    Our side was sad and angry at the end.  Their side sent its minions into the world with talking points, most of which were simply not true.


    Saw "Recount", the movie... (none / 0) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    Well made in terms of actually dramatizing the legal wranglings and visualizing stuff like how a chad ends up hanging.

    Still, I was disappointed that there wasn't more detail and more clarity (don't ask me about what).

    I've done a considerable amount of commissioned research on the various and sundry ways and means by which the GOP manufactured the outcome of 2000 and 2004.

    For the most comprehensive analysis, I'd highly recommend the book: Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller; an NYU Professor who does ongoing investigations into the whole gamut of electoral problems.


    I don't get what you're saying.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    Is it that the Repubs have predetermined the outcome of this election or that the Dems have?

    I don't think either is true, but I do think Repubs have a huge bag of dirty tricks that conceivably could turn it if we aren't careful.

    It's clear that they are setting the stage now to contest the election if Obama wins, with all these lawsuits about "voter fraud," etc., and oddly enough, in the swing states?

    How convenient.

    Oh yes, and they control the Supreme Court....


    I agree with this... (none / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    Repubs have a huge bag of dirty tricks that conceivably could turn it if we aren't careful.

    Frankly, I'm not so sure that the GOP is actually fixing to win in '08. But they are fully capable of fixing it: whichever way they want, imo.

    How "careful" would we need to be to stop it, relative to 2000 and 2004?


    ya (none / 0) (#1)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 06:59:39 PM EST
    Ed Rollins was just on CNN talking about this poll saying he thinks its over for McCain.  He says its just a matter now of how McCain wants to go out.

    He compared McCain's Ayers storyline to being on a sailboat that's being hit with a 60 foot wave and asking, "whats for lunch?".

    True story. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST
    A friend of mine was sailing about 100 miles off shore when the curtains in the galley caught fire. The cook ran on deck shouting "getting the fire extinguisher" and the guy who owned the boat yelled "no, don't use it, it's the only one we've got".

    Remember (none / 0) (#27)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
    Rollins ran Huckabee's campaign.

    Well, Rollins only wins easy races (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:14:03 PM EST
    To this day I still wonder how McCain pulled off South Carolina.

    Because (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    he hired the right guy to run his campaign in South Carolina, i.e. the same one who smeared him in 2000.

    Personally, I think the Club for Growth (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36:13 PM EST
    went nuclear on Huckabee. And, um, oops: religious fundamentalists in South Carolina didn't want to vote for the Mormon. . .

    The only thing that's questionable (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 07:00:49 PM EST
    about that poll is the gender gap. I think the idea that McCain's lead with men is bigger than his lead with women is suspect.

    Otherwise, I think this is more or less where the race is.

    Men (none / 0) (#20)
    by themomcat on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 09:40:49 PM EST
    I work with a lot of conservative, Republican men who are very concerned about the economy. The general consensus I am getting is the McCain's judgment has been lacking with respect to the bail out, the economy in general and they think that Palin was a bad choice. I don't think that they will vote for Obama but, here in NY, they might not vote for McCain.

    Didn't (none / 0) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    you mean Obama's lead with men, etc.?

    Not trying to be picky. Just had to read it several times before realizing that I'd read it correctly and that it was just a little slip-up.


    Oops (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:07:43 PM EST