NYTimes/CBS Poll: Obama Up by 14 points

The CBS/New York Times poll released this afternoon has Sen. Barack Obama leading John McCain by a whopping 14 points.

Obama has increased his lead even more among independents.

The top two reasons: McCain's negative attacks on Obama and --you guessed it -- Sarah Palin.

The Obama-Biden ticket now leads the McCain-Palin ticket 53 percent to 39 percent among likely voters, a 14-point margin. One week ago, prior to the Town Hall debate that uncommitted voters saw as a win for Obama, that margin was just three points.

Among independents who are likely voters - a group that has swung back and forth between McCain and Obama over the course of the campaign - the Democratic ticket now leads by 18 points. McCain led among independents last week.

Full poll results are here (pdf.)

< House Report: Can't Assess Cheney Role in PlameGate; Stymied by Executive Privilege Claims | A Great Mind >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wonder what changed for indies (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:33:24 PM EST
    I didn't see any justification for Palin being an issue this week vs last. I did notice that Hillary supporters have upped their Obama support into the 80s over last week being in the high 60s.

    Do you think large poll leads could work against Obama regarding turnout/newly registered voters?

    Palin over the last few days..... (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:43:40 PM EST
    She has been blasting Obama as a terrorist....Her supporters are yelling "kill him" (at least twice and most recently today) at her rallies....That kind of vocalized threat reaches deep down in the American psyche....McCain will pay a price for unleashing such a horrid monster.

    The effect is cumulative.

    Turnout will be fine....People will want to be part of the win...and beyond that Obama's campaign is running smoothly seemingly immune to the ups and downs in the news.


    The monster being the hatred (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    expressed at the rallies....

    I roll that in with the negative (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    campaigning. As in the whole campaign is responsible for that message.

    I wonder about soft or just voting for the D support turning out with a wide poll lead. Obviously those excited will turnout. And I don't think the campaign is running fine despite the news. The economy gave him the bounce he needed. They were running neck2neck before weren't they?


    No major mistakes (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    consistent theme--I'd say the Obama campaign has been running smoothly....

    Do you remember 1980?  Jimmy Carter gave his concession speech before the polls closed in California....many Democrats went home before they voted....Republicans are looking at that kind of demoralization right now.  

    Sure the economy matters and is the driving force....But Obama is making hay of it.....


    It tends to help when the press... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    ...tend to be on your side and present your best case. The press rushed to Reagan 1980, and Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 and 2004 in ways that defy an innocent explanation.  Of course Obama's making a cogent case--in part because that is what the press is saying he's doing. Of course McCain is erratic because they are presenting him as erratic. It's kinda sad really. The only bright spot is that Keynes is back in fashion among economists.

    1. Obama is a self contradiction on Iraq and foreign policy generally.

    2. McCain is a self contradiction on the economy and domestic issues.

    It's pretty obvious to me that the press is papering over the first in an illegitimate way, but being fair on the second (a gift horse I won't look in to mouth).  

    I realize that's it's intoxicating for the Democrats to have the press do this stuff after seeing how crappy they were towards Gore and Kerry and effectively being Bush's stenographers. But in the end we'll pay for defering to them in telling us all how to vote and why we should vote the way we do.  They are conditioning people to vote in Pavlovian style:

    Don't vote for the meanie.

    Don't vote for the rictus grin.

    Vote for Nicie.

    Vote for the guy who is comfortable in his skin.

    It means the left can be shut down very quickly and in ways that are meaninglessly trivial.
    McCain's no more erratic than Obama and vice versa.  And Obama's not much more consistent than Mccain on any issue.  Both suggest policy microbrews that are geared to getting elected.

      But Obama is broadly speaking a representative of peace initiatives, government intervention and regulation. That's whyhe's winning.  The rest is just the press reinforcing the fact that he's likely to be their "boss" in 2009.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    he's more photogenic.  That matters to media.  

    Broder is shooting a warning... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    ...at his chosen protege as we speak:  "The shortest honeymoon ever." he liked the Anti-Clinton stuff Obama produced in the first six months but Broder's a bit worried that Obama's more naive radical supporters and the lumpen-proletriat, are going to be listened to and granted their wishes.

    I honetsly think Obama's a hostage to these press scum already.  It's just a matter of time before the left realizes he got kidnapped.


    So true (1.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    I HATED it when Obama announced off the cuff that he was suspending his campaign. I mean, he's done the EXACT SAME thing as McCain all along.

    Now, as for the serious point lurking somewhere in the above comment, it's true that we need to guard against the media derailing progressive momentum. But guess what-- thread comments don't derail the media.

    No, see, that's why you have community organizing, the same thing that Obama used to beat Hillary in money and votes. And guess what, my little PUMA's? That organization is only just getting rolling-- Nov. 4 is just the beginning.



    Do you actually think he suspended anything? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    That was just theatricality.  

    There's plenty of dumb stuff that Obama's skated over because the media enjoy him so much.  Having his minions call Bill a racist was appauling--and then the press applified it in a shockingly accomodating way.
    That was playing with fire IMHO.  Very damaging stuff.


    Don't call it PUMAism. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    I'm just observing that the party has abdicated power to the press. Again.  and it'll hurt.

    My new favorite 2 rating (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:42:19 AM EST
    from Sher!  C'mon, emerge from your shadows -- come out and tell us why you think (a) the media do not like photogenic people, or (b) Obama is ugly?

    It is because of your knee-jerk (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:03:43 AM EST
    anti-Obama comments....

    You so don't understand (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:42:42 PM EST
    that I've just become anti-political rah rah, period.  This used to be a thinkers' blog.

    But okay, MKS, here's what you want -- cheerleading:

    Rah rah!  O-bah-mah!

    Blecch.  Most of us outgrew that in high school.


    most eagerly look forward to.

    You rarely get them, of course (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:47:19 PM EST
    because you generally stick to facts and don't twist them into total pretzels.  Your opinions can be narrowly drawn for my taste, lacking a larger context -- but not so entirely unfounded, at least from your worldview, as some here.  The 1's tend to be for others' outright misstatements, especially when repetitive despite evidence otherwise.

    Sher's 2's, though, are fascinating, c'mon.  Do they indicate that 20% of the comment is factual?  Look at the comments and try to figure it out! :-)


    Now, let me think... Seems I got a '1' from you (none / 0) (#86)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    just the other day.

    By the way, I answered my own question: Milton and Judith Viorst are married.

    To each other.

    Fire in the Streets is long out of print, I believe, but I think you would have no problems locating a copy of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day. It's a well-known kid's book about learning to deal with life's frustrations in a mature way.


    to give a 1, but they are afraid they'll get some sort of admonishment from the hall monitors here if they do.

    I don't take the ratings very seriously. If you want, you can give me 2's instead of 1's -- I'll understand and get the message. Maybe we could start some secret Blackwood Convention for the ratings: 5 could be the equivalent of a take-out double, and 1 through 4 might indicate how many Aces we hold.


    It's nice to have the press... (none / 0) (#52)
    by lucky leftie on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:55:31 PM EST
    ...on our side for a change.  But I still don't trust them.  They gave us Gore the Serial Liar, Kerry the Phony War Hero, and cheeleaded us into the war in Iraq, covered for the Bush admistration.  They said shocking things about the Clintons.  They could change their minds about Obama in an instant, just as they did with McCain. McCain used to be their boy, they loved him, until he started criticizing them.  

    No, they've deigned to favor our candidate this time but they're still the enemy.  


    That's my point. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:01:14 PM EST
    It's literally amazing that no one has thought about the election in terms of the press demonstrating their absolute power over American democracy. These are the same a-holes who painted Gore as a liar and Kerry as a friend of Ho Che Minh. what are they doing, and why are they doing it?

    I suspect many of us (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:39:43 PM EST
    noted, since before the primaries, that the press decided which candidates would get coverage and once the primaries started, which candidate would win the nomination.

    It was blatantly obvious.

    Their power is enormous and their corruption absolute.


    "Primaries?" Sounds like sour grapes (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:05:20 AM EST
    Your candidate did not win, so the system stinks....

    You think the press is doing a good job (none / 0) (#83)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    because Obama is on top?!

    Don't know. (none / 0) (#56)
    by lucky leftie on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    But it does appear to be a concerted effort at times, doesn't it?  

    By the way, is "salo" in honor of the robot in Kurt Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan?"  Just curious.


    I was assuming it was a You-Can't-Shock-Me (none / 0) (#81)
    by Don in Seattle on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    reference to "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom", Pier Palo Pasolini's notorious film about sadism and perversion.

    Plot summary, from IMDb.com:

    Set in the Nazi-controlled, northern Italian state of Salo in 1944, four dignitaries round up sixteen perfect specimens of youth and take them together with guards, servants and studs to a palace near Marzabotto. In addition, there are four middle-aged women: three of whom recount arousing stories whilst the fourth accompanies on the piano.... Following this, the youths are executed whilst each libertine takes his turn as voyeur.
    Pardon my interjection of bourgeois sensibility, but Yuck.

    the economy hasnt hurt obama but (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    McCain has only led for maybe two weeks of the past six months. Even before the economy fell apart McCain's Palin bounce was fading and there is no reason to think the race wasnt settling back to the normal Obama lead.  It's been the default position.

    When the fundamentals... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    ...of the economic system are in question it's a game changer like no other. If this bank crunch had not happened it would be a very tight race and there would be distracting culture wars to play instead of class struggles.

    Hell, Gordon Brown (RIP a few weeks ago) has revived Labour based on his willingness to embrace some rather brazen socialist policy (and left david Cameron pondering how to counter it all politically [lassez faire won't cut it Dave!].)

    how can conservatives win at a moment when capitalism is in a political death spiral?


    I have trouble with cause and effect (none / 0) (#18)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:25:01 PM EST
    arguments when all we have is correlations.  Did Sarah cause the fall in MCain's numbers? Did the stock market collapse do it?  or did Hillary and Bill's strong support on the stump (underreported by the media I might add) cause it?  Or did people finally decide the Republicans managing style was toxic?  

    I'm pretty sure Tina Fey (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST
    did it.  She threatened to leave the U.S. if Palin is elected.

    That'd do it.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    Was it only the US? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:28:50 PM EST
    I thought she said she'd have to leave the planet.

    "Earth." You're right. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:42:23 AM EST
    Oh Please..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by AscotMan on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 06:16:10 AM EST
    Yes, its Hillary and Bills's strong support on stump that's responsible for Obama's numbers; not!!
    Why do you have to attribute every positive thing that happens to the Dems to the Clintons? Please...
    It is qute obvious some poeple will never be happy until Obama bows to the Clintons and says, "All that I have, I owe to you".

    Never going to happen, so I suggest you start getting used to it.


    No, but. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 06:54:02 AM EST
    "thanks" would be nice.

    Read my post. You missed the point. (none / 0) (#77)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    OTOH the game is not over.  All Obama has done so far is to win a nomination and possibly an election, thanks in large part to the stock market meltdown. When he starts to govern, he may learn afew things or not.

    Palin (none / 0) (#7)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    Did just get destroyed in the Troopergate report, which was probably the first time most Americans had heard of the scandal.

    Destroyed? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:56:03 PM EST
    I don't recall seeing news reports destroying her. Straight up, but brief reporting is what I've seen.  They did leave out many details that could gain her favor, such as the trooper's past behavior, so you may be right. I just didn't really see much aside from the economy as a big swinger. She has barely been mentioned (aside from that) along with the negative campaigning in the past few days

    The news yesterday on troopergate (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    was the report's conlusion that she abused her power violating a specific section of the Alaska Ethics law, and Palin's bizarrely stating that she had been cleared of any illegal or unethcial conduct....

    Her hometown paper in Anchorage said her response was an embarrasment....


    Really a high number of independents (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    in that polls, from what I see -- and almost 40% registered Dems, 30% registered Republicans.  That doesn't seem to correlate with other numbers I've seen for political affiliation or non-affiliation.  

    Looks exactly right to me (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
    Party ID shifts over time. Heck, even Republican pollster Rasmussen is using about that

    So the battleground states (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:07:22 PM EST
    although ratios must be closer in those -- they simply won't matter.

    Then why the enormous expenditures, still, on half an hour of tv, etc., when it's also reported here that the Obama camp has cut back on basic yard signs.  It all doesn't quite compute, but maybe it will make sense after the poll on November 4.


    Enormous Expenditures? (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Spike on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    The margin of victory DOES matter. With a 5 - 7 point popular vote victory and 375 votes in the electoral college, Obama will justifiably claim a mandate to address the tough economic issues he'll face in the year ahead. As for not computing, it's all about turning out votes. Money spent on tv spurs turnout, while money spent on yard signs is pouring cash down a rathole. The Obama campaign is sufficiently disciplined to know how to wisely invest its resources for maximum impact. Their campaign has been close to flawless.

    All of it does matter (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    Because people don't vote their party and 40% is not sufficient to win an election.

    That is, don't *always vote their party (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    Well, then it would seem that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    polls don't matter. :-)

    I'm off to read fiction -- the stuff labeled fiction!


    You don't like the polls (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:07:01 AM EST
    showing Obama ahead.....

    Yard signs (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:12:22 AM EST
    That is actually an interesting strategy by Obama's campaign.....Poblano had an interesting article about grass roots volunteers....They will come into an office and ask for bumper stickers and yard signs and then want to go home....Obama's organizers want them to actually do some work and not have the easy fix of a yard sign.....Yard signs and bumper stickers cost money and suck up time.....Obama doesn't really like them.....

    Poblano noted that the few volunteers who came in to Republican offices in one state wanted nothing more than yard signs, were given them by a campaign worker who spent all his time just making sure people got their yard signs....

    There have been at least two articles out today talking about the strong ground organization of Obama--but you missed those, right?


    OK folks (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Faust on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    The way you avoid being overconfident is by converting your energy into not just winning, but crushing the GOP wherever they have strongholds left.

    If you are confident Obama is going to win, then find a downticket dem that is in a close race and pound the pavement for them, or donate to them if you have no one close to you. More than likely you'll be helping Obama at the same time. For me its Darcy Burner. But get out there and get active. Don't get overconfident, get excited about smashing the GOP into tiny pieces. Go for 60 seats in the senate. Go for total victory.

    Lets win by mega landslides and make a dem congress that has the power to force Obama to go hard left whether he wants to or not.

    Do something nice for your favorite downticket Dem today. Or for Obama. Whatever suits your fancy.

    get your tickets to Colorado... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    ...Ohio, New Mexico please.

    Give to the No on 8 (none / 0) (#42)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST

    Try (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:01:45 PM EST

    National polling and individual state polling up to the minute and from a full range of pollsters.

    Depending on one poll doesn't cut it.

    He's gonna win (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by carolo on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST
    I am white, old and no one but Obama has even been considered for me.  He is steady, stays on target, doesn't get rattled nor is "erratic".  He has put up with a mountain of criticism that was not warranted and has shown he has true grit.

    He picked a running mate that is awesome.  I don't know what to think of John McCain nor Sarah Palin.  I'm beginning to think they are both nuts.

    Is this really happening? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST

    Cross your fingers (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    if it's too good to be true... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:10:05 PM EST
    ...it probably isn't true.

    I suppose the public is ready for a new face to lead the nation.


    Complacency or Demoralization (none / 0) (#2)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    I'm worried of complacency on our side because of these polls.  Then again, I would be delighted if these lopsided polling margins demoralizes the right.  Demoralization could also help with our Senate races.  

    OK, how do we keep from becoming overconfident? (none / 0) (#3)
    by barryluda on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    OK, given what happened 4 years ago, I don't really believe that'll happen.

    "They" say these things usually tighten as the election nears, but it sure does feel good right now!

    You don't have to stop feeling good (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:12:14 PM EST
    Just don't let that stop you from doing whatever work you were going to do for your candidate, or voting yourself.

    Something is happening, that's for sure (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    I hope I hope I hope. (none / 0) (#15)
    by WillBFair on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:12:50 PM EST

    LA Times poll--similar spread. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:32:43 PM EST
    Article says the only issues on which voters favor McCain over Obama: national security and Iraq war.  

    National security (none / 0) (#33)
    by wasabi on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    I saw something on CNN yesterday where McCain was favored over Obama by 1% for national security and Obama was favored over McCain by a few percentage points on the question of Iraq.  Not sure who did the polling though.

    National security by 1%...  That's quite a change over time.  I think McCain was in the double digits a few weeks ago.


    The mood about the war has changed. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    Also Obama's belligerance regarding Pakistan is a salve to the USA #1 crowd.

    Oh, now I get it. All that (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:41:17 AM EST
    saber rattling re Pakistan scares me.  But I'm just the choir.

    Polling (none / 0) (#23)
    by UnderCoverGuy on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    Didn't your parents ever teach you not to always believe what you see?  Didn't anyone watch the news after past elections and watch them question why polls are so wrong?

    Plain and simple - Polls are based upon voter registration.  Democrats have a higher registration surge right now and thus the sampling rate is in favor of the Democrat candidate.  All you have to do it look at the internals on these polls.

    And what is the Margini of Error?  Give me a break.  What if there was a margin of error every time you went to the bank or got a paycheck?  It's there way of saying "these polls aren't accurate".

    Yes, Obama is in the lead but I hate to break the news to you all but it isn't by 14 points but Obama only leads by 3.6 points.  That takes the total numbers polled and uses simple math versus "fuzzy" math.  No Democrat, Republican or other weights or sampling adjustments.  No 18-25, 25-35, etc. demographics.

    Check your facts people.

    o (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by borisbor on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST

    facts, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    why don't you take a statistics class, cause you have no clue what you are talking about.

    The great Margini of Error. . . (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    a magician so powerful he can make any vestige of common sense -- poof -- disappear!

    Other things (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gustavion on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    The major news around this election have been neglecting the economy lately.  Given the state we find ourselves in, I think it is important for us, as consumers, to support 'green business.'  For example, I came across a website, http://www.simplestop.net that stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.  I hope the next President will support the effort.

    We as citizens should ;) (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST
    Slightly different argument (none / 0) (#27)
    by koshembos on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:21:59 PM EST
    People are not repulsed by negative ads; negativity, in my experience, is bread and butter in every work place.

    McCain simply lost his opportunity to be economically constructive. Like in Paulson's case, they fanatically believe in unmitigated jungle rule from the lion's perspective.

    No one sane believes in this garbage after the fall resulting in massive desertion to the guy who proposes a minimal order in the jungle (not too much to anger the Lion's fans).

    What were the final popular margins (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    ... In Johnson/Goldwater and in Nixon/McGovern?

    Here ya go (rounding) (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    Johnson 61-39
    Nixon    61-38

    That's great but don't over rejoice just yet (none / 0) (#45)
    by Saul on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    Gore was up 11 points around this time from Bush and we know the rest of the story.  

    really? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    I don't believe it. I just looked at a bunck of polls from 2000, and they were within 2 points.

    Here is a link (none / 0) (#60)
    by Saul on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    Gore was seldom ahead (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:53:59 PM EST
    here are the tracking graphs.

    It's very easy to cherry pick one poll.


    that's not a link to a poll (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:59:08 PM EST
    it's a link to a comment. And that comment does not mention the pollster or the number of respondents or anything. THere is no link. For all you know, they just made it up.

    It was brought up by CNN last night (none / 0) (#75)
    by Saul on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:44:26 AM EST
    I am not sure the exact poll they showed but it showed these exact numbers.  So I have confidence in CNN that what they are researching is authoritative

    I don't (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    Gore was up a bit (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    before the press destroyed him for sighing. After the first debate he slipped and slipped in polling. then he slid and was permanently behind in most polling. Of course, Gore also won the popular vote too. So...hmmm

    Well, Obama will have to be very, very careful (none / 0) (#82)
    by Don in Seattle on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    not to breathe too loudly tonight, then.

    Actualy, you're half-right. "Obamaism Triumphant" is the media's take on the election with 3 weeks to go; but it will not be with one week to go. They need a close contest to keep the sports fans interested. Some poll or other will show McCain gaining 3 points overnight, and suddenly the story will be: "He's only down by 7, with 3 days to go! He needs a knockout! He did it before, in the primaries -- can McCain possibly come from behind again?"

    A: No, he can't. Knock wood.


    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    There was like one outlying poll with that result.

    I think the explanation is quite simple. (none / 0) (#57)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:18:28 PM EST
    Obama is finally familiar to non-partisan voters who didn't pay much attention to the primaries.
    I am sure that for millions of people, the debates were there first exposure to Obama that wasn't very casual, and wasn't filtered. They thought he was good enough, and they want change (ugh, i hate saying that!.. heh).

    Retake USA (none / 0) (#71)
    by ReTake USA on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:11:05 AM EST
    Who Are the Real American Terrorists????????  
    As McCain and folksy empty shell, Sarah Palin, spent the last few days fear mongering and spreading lies about Obama's "terrorist ties" to Bill Ayers, (a man who committed crimes when Obama was eight, has since reformed and become a respectable member of society.  Ayers "in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution."

    *    Now, let's take a look at McCain's very own radical extremist buddy, Gordon Liddy. We now see why McCain has backed away since this information was about to be leaked out by the honest press. Considers Watergate burglar G Gordon Liddy, who served four years in prison for crimes against the Constitution and who plotted to kill journalists and kidnap anti-war protest organizers, as "an old friend"; "Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year."

    Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Watergate was one of the greatest scandals in American history. Then there was a whole messy situation about a plot to firebomb the Brookings Institution and another little plot to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention.

    Really, what a guy! And oh yeah, before I forget, Libby claims to have been inspired as a child by Adolph Hitler (note the mustache).

    Ahhh! But G. Gordon Liddy (none / 0) (#79)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    is a respected (by some) journalist and radio personality.  He has completely rehabilitated himself.

    I'm not a McCain supporter, but you really (none / 0) (#80)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST

    should read a previous post here about Ayers.  He was no Sunday school teacher and he was lucky his case was thrown out on a technicality or he too would have served prison time. He is also quite unrepentant is the other odious character G. Gordon Liddy.