Why can't Obama break away from McCain?

B

Bruxley

New member
A number of threads keep veering into noting how, despite touted inevitability and wild popularity, Obama can't break away from McCain in polling. His bump from the much acclaimed over seas trip is already gone and he's back to where he was before the trip already.

The only data that can be taken as a lead for Obama is in Rasmussen Reports' Electoral College Balance of Power Summary that has Obama projected to be ahead in Electoral votes by 45. But with 163 still toss-ups that doesn't exactly live up to this hype of 'Obama Mania'.

An article in the Washington Times had this to say about it:
But the questions about the Obama phenomenon persist. Why hasn't he pulled away? With adoring press coverage that Elvis would envy, with an opponent derided as an old man well beyond his sell-by date, with Republicans fractured and fractious in a way few living men can recall as precedent, and with a media obsessed with airhead celebrity having crowned him as the permanent American Idol, Barrack Obama looks vulnerable, vincible and almost as inevitable as Hillary Clinton.

A look beyond the pollsters' exciting horse-race number yields clues. The Conway polling finds Mr. Obama with higher negatives than John McCain, and Mr. McCain is regarded as superior in "strong leadership qualities" (by 11 points), "more consistent in standing up for his beliefs" (by 8 points) and "more experienced" (by a remarkable 34 points). These are just the measures that voters, particularly the independent voters on whom this election turns, will employ in the final days and hours before Nov. 4.
Click to expand...

A backlash of the media saturation is just beginning. People are quickly bored with their entertainers and Obama's shine is dimming.

More from that article:
One Rasmussen finding to make Democrats fretful is that more than half of the voters now think we're winning the war against the Islamist terrorists. This is the most optimistic poll finding on terror in more than four years. His handlers and his acolytes in the media insist that Mr. Obama will break decisively ahead once voters learn more about the freshman senator with the unfortunate and misleading Muslim name who sprang 99 and 44/100 percent pure from the cesspool of Chicago's racist politics. But others, some of them fervent Obama men, concede that the more voters learn, the more uneasy they seem to be. He has yet to break 50 percent in the polls in what the media is telling us is a slam-dunk year for the Democrat.
Click to expand...
 
He hasn't pulled away because he is an ultra-liberal, has no experience, has a questionably Muslim past, has a preacher who is anti-American, want to take away guns, wants to raise taxes, is black, etc etc...

The amazing thing is not that he can't break away from McCain. The amazing thing is that McCain can't break away from Obama.
 
I cannot attest to how big a factor this is having but I did read an article at the airport the other day that did not deal directly with Obama but with phone polls. It was saying how people under 45 are being sorely under represented in phone polls because fewer and fewer of them have conventional land lines. The story said that in some major markets, only 25% of people 18-40 has traditional phone service. It jumped to 90% in the 50+ catagory. The current phone polls only use published directories for contact information and cell phone numbers are not published.
 
PBP, the Ron Paul folks already tried explaining his poor poll results with the cell phone excuse. It didn't fly then, and probably won't fly now.
 
PBP, the Ron Paul folks already tried explaining his poor poll results with the cell phone excuse. It didn't fly then, and probably won't fly now.
Click to expand...
The article I read claimed that polling centers can only use published directories and that it was illegal for them to call unpublished numbers. I know that is true in oregon and Washington. I also know it is true that the majority of people under 40 do not have land line service.

What reasons were cited by the Ron Paul people and how were the reasons dispelled?
 
The RP people said that RP voters were under-represented in the telephone polls because they had cell phones mainly and not land lines. Ron Paul was running less than 10 percent in the telephone polls. Thats what he ended up doing in the elections as well.
 
The RP people said that RP voters were under-represented in the telephone polls because they had cell phones mainly and not land lines. Ron Paul was running less than 10 percent in the telephone polls. Thats what he ended up doing in the elections as well.
Click to expand...
I truly doubt Ron Paul supporters where mostly under 35 years old. I might be wrong.

Plus, just because people were not being represented, which they clearly are not, does not mean they were supporting Paul so it does not dispel the likelihood that an entire age group is not being represented. It just trns out that very age group no being represented in the polls is the same one tha turned out in record numbers for Obama.
 
We'll see. But if I was Obama, I would not be counting on that, it didn't work out earlier this year for RP
Click to expand...
Yeah, we will see. I think Ron Paul supporters were just using the facts to promote wishful thinking. I do not think the facts in this case actually support them. I just do not think Paul has a large 18-35 following. Obama, however, is getting a huge amount of his support from this under represented demographic. :)
 
The Ron Paul people disagree with what you say, and claim to have a wide following of younger people, which is why they say Paul did well on the internet, and why he did well on the text message call in polls after the debates.
 
The Ron Paul people disagree with what you say, and claim to have a wide following of younger people, which is why they say Paul did well on the internet, and why he did well on the text message call in polls after the debates
Click to expand...
That obviously was not true since young people did not vote for him. Young people did vote for Obama and are not represented in the polls. The interview was with a Zogby muck-a-muck who was being asked why they were not representing proportionate numbers of people under 35 so the problem is a real one. The issue is whether this under respresented group favors McCain or Obama. I think I know where I would place my bets.
 
I would agree that if the younger age group is under-represented, it would favor Obama.
Click to expand...
There is no if about it. Even Wolf Blitzer talked about it on his show several weeks ago. Younger voters are not being represented in phone polls because of cell phones. The segment dealt with the downsides of the modern age as it relates to gathering reliable information.
 
I suspect young people typically don't vote for anybody, regardless of whom they support.


But many have suggested that telephone polls are meaningless for a variety of reasons. One thing I think I see over and over: The Democrat never does as well on election day as the polls suggest. There are undoubtedly reasons for this.


If Obama does better on election day than the polls predict, it'll be the first time I'm aware of that this has ever occurred for a Democratic presidential candidate. Happens every time for the Republican, though.
 
Well, damn, if you had just told me your info was from Wolf Blitzer, I would have just accepted it as scripture and not questioned you.
 
Well, damn, if you had just told me your info was from Wolf Blitzer, I would have just accepted it as scripture and not questioned you
Click to expand...
I do not blame you. The man is amazing. He is a modern marvel in the journalism world and a true professional. A professional ass that is...I hate that guy. I just watch his show so I can see that old cranky guy that does segments on there. :D

Still, the information is pretty legit and the circumstances make sense. Only time will tell.
 
Imagine how great it would be if there wasn't another poll conducted from now until the election and people had to make up their own minds without being able to whet their finger and hoist it into the wind?

One of my aunts is undoubtedly the liberal member of the family on my mother's side. She teaches learning disabled kids in inner city Atlanta. A few weeks ago she shocked the family when she admitted she was considering voting for McCain.

I wasn't there and I didn't get a chance to ask her to elaborate, but I wonder how many more like her are out there. I seriously doubt she's ever voted Republican in her life and Obama is making her consider it.
 
We'll see. If you remember from last time, every single face on the TV practically called it for Kerry midway through election day. Even the less Liberal Fox news were sheepishly conceding Kerry had won.


Kerry's campaign manager asked him "May I be the first to call you 'Mr President'?"


And yet Bush won by a comfortable margin.


2008 may be siimilar. Everybody knows Obama's got it in the bag, ask the the Europeans. At 2:00 pm on election day, Obama may the the President-elect. By 10:00 pm, he may be just an apprentice Senator who's got a lot to learn about being a Senator.
 
Part of that might be because the second most under represented group was not an age group but an income group. People that had a household income over $150k (I think that was the figure) a year did not tend to have published numbers either.

Or, it is because of fixed voting machines if you listen to Randy Rhodes. :)
 
There is a conventional wisdom in politics. That is there is a word for candidates that depend on the youth vote, that word is 'loser'.

The youth vote is illusive. They'll turn out for the party but are used to others 'making things happen' for them. They either figure their guy is a shu-in and they can skip voting, or they figure their guy can't win and so they skip voting. Someone else will take care of it......

A big deal was made about the youth turnout in Iowa. 17,000 under 25 voters for Obama. They were attributed to taking it over the top for Obama. But that number is tiny. Big for youth turnout but not for deciding demographics. More kids of voting age turn out for the party at University home games.

I think it's the far left, not the youth, that got Obama the nomination. Even if I'm wrong neither far left campaigning, or counting on the youth vote will get Obama any daylight between him and McCain.

Unregistered is right BTW. Paul was counting heavily on the youth vote. They were not only a factor in Paul's campaign, they were Paul's campaign. His liberty message resonated with them but his long record of lacking leadership ability prevented the larger Demographics from taking him seriously. What mature adults found to be 'kooky' about him the youth found profound.

Obama is cranking hard and all hands are on deck that support him. Yet he still can't do better then a statistical tie with McCain. It's more then cell phones giving him fits. The more people find out about him the more people realize his lack of depth. His slippery or 'refined' positions also have a Clintonian ring.

When candidates are so close a good indicator of who can influence more to their side is more their negative ratings then their positives. People are much more likely to stop liking someone then they are to stop disliking them. Hillary had the same problem. At this point Obama has higher disapproval ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top