Gallup: Obama Hits 50% For First Time

Gallup's daily poll today:

Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.

< NYT Opinionator on Palin "Blogspat" | McCain: The Election is Not About Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For once, the various polls agree more or less (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    RCP page shows 5 polls, and for once they're all pretty close in results... That wasn't true when he had the increase after Germany, so this is a bit more solid for now.

    Notice the convention bounce (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    continues to gathes steam after a weekend of all-Palin-all-the-time.  So much for changing the game.

    10 days before we have a decent picture (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    The Republicans have to have their dog and pony show first.

    National Poll (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    Good news but I'd rather see those figures reflected  in MI OH CO VA

    Is it only over 50% if (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    you count the leaners?

    How about the stand-alone count, without the leaners?

    Gallup (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    Is without leaners.

    Ras shows 51% with leaners, and 48% without. Still a good improvement.


    But for Gustav, I would agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    Some things need to shake out--including the Republican convention--for us to see where we really stand.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JThomas on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    always insists they ignore the polls which is smart. This will be close. Elections always are now. Generic dems always run better than the actual candidate.
    Registrations is what the Obama campaign focus's on ...also smart. GOTV is next.

    Hee hee! (none / 0) (#3)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST

    Considering (none / 0) (#4)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    that this should have been a landslide year for the Democrats & the past 17 months that Obama has been on the shoulders of the media...

    More troubling than anything.  But again, with all things being equal and taking everything into consideration looking at both tickets, Bush has done a great job of lowering the bar for elected leaders in this country.

    2004 (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TChris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    should have been a landslide year for Dems but it wasn't.  I suspect there is no such thing as a landslide year for Dems in today's political climate.  Barry Goldwater would run a close race today.  In fact, the Republicans probably wish they were running Goldwater.

    How do you figure? (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:31:28 PM EST
    GWB was an incumbent President during wartime. Kerry kept him to the lowest reelection margin since Wilson, and his campaign was too Shrummy to be that good.

    He was GWB (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    The fact that he managed to win an election after how badly he managed to screw up his first term,  even against the Kerry of 2004,  is a sign that the US is so polarised that any GOP candidate is going to pick up a solid 45-48% of the electorate barring a miracle.

    go to real clear politics (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    go to their electoral votes site.

    Above the map they have electoral results for the last 10 elections.

    Look at them.

    2004 was not an isolated incident. The US of A is a sucker for Republican presidents.


    1992 as well (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    With the economy in the tank after 12 years of Republican rule.  Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote.

    Spare us the expectations game, a win is a win.


    Spare me (none / 0) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:27:20 PM EST
    the condascending tone.  You CANNOT possibly compare 1992 to 2008:

    Twin Towers were still standing
    Biggest American tragedy:  King/LA Riots

    The economy was bad but not THIS bad.  Food and gas prices were tough but not THIS tough.

    Considering the HUGE mandate the public is seeking from the Democrats and their failures since taking over Congress AND this election cycle, shows the ripe cynism that has taken hold with the electorate.  Besides the fringes of both parties, there are some, like me, have no REAL candidate of choice, save the Greens.  


    The economy was worse (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Unemployment was higher.  Economic growth in the year running up to the election was lower.

    Google is your friend, no need to spread easily falsifiable information.

    As for 9/11, explain to me why that is supposed to make this a better year for the Democrats?


    Oh okay (none / 0) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    Unemployment...you really want to give the impression that Bush43 was better than Bush41, that same Bush that said "jobs being exported overseas is GOOD for the economy?"

    With regard to 9/11, Democrats, if they could get the LANGUAGE right, could dispell the illusion of being weak on national security since 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.  This topic was too sensitive for 2004 but we can gingerly approach this in a respectful manner.  Don't accuse me of spreading false anything.  I work in the staffing industry and have since the late 1990s.  You wanna talk to me about unemployment?  I have had about 15 good clients pick up and move to Mexico and other destinations leaving the American worker to figure out what their options are.

    Remember, the Bush administration called jobs at McDonald's "production" jobs.  Their way of manipulating the data, much like the Dept of Interior saying that installing ponds on golf courses were "environmental improvements".


    8% _is_ a landslide (none / 0) (#21)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    Those who follow electoral college politics know: eight percent translates into a landslide in the electoral college.

    (And, indeed, pollster dot com shows Obama with an 84 electoral vote lead.  Yes, yes, polls don't mean a whole lot at this point -- but, still, it's better to be ahead by close to 100 than behind by close to 100).


    This same time, four years ago (none / 0) (#19)
    by s5 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    Bush +11, Bush +3

    Archived polls here.

    Sadly, (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    Obama Hits 50% For First Time
    this tidbit of info includes the primary...

    We need BTD's poll input Please! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST

    This Is Exciting (none / 0) (#24)
    by john horse on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    I know that polls fluctuate but lets take a moment to enjoy this.