Gallup, 6/21: Obama 46%, McCain 44%

[highplainsdem]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108208/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-44.aspx

At the start of the long summer in which John McCain and Barack Obama will hone their messages and strive to fill their campaign coffers before the crucial fall campaign season, the two are nearly tied in national voter preferences, 46% for Obama and 44% for McCain.

Today's figures, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking from June 17 and 19-20, are identical to those reported on Friday, and are consistent with the close nature of the race for the past week, with Obama holding a slight advantage.

[BOHICA06]

1. But is the 46% in the right states ....

... is 2000 a possibility again?

[FrenchieCat]

2. I don't see why.

The Republicans have a terrible candidate this year.

The Democrats have a wonderful candidate this year.

If Obama with all of that he has got going for him as opposed to McCain, were to lose.....the only reason would be because we are still a very racist country. If that is the case, it will mean that the majority of us will get what they deserve and the rest of us and the world will have to understand that we are a simple nation of fools. In other words, McCain winning the presidency would downgrade our reputation down to a point of no return. The United States will go to the way that Rome did.

[MarjorieG]

3. My first thought would be election fraud, and would be a world-wide disaster.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

6. It would mean that there are some very wrong things in the Democratic package

If Obama loses to McCain it would mean that there are a still some bad enough baggage in the Democratic Party set of ideas that prevent the formation of a winning coalition of voters to bring victory.

I would suggest that those losing positions revolve around:

-Abortion
-Affinity towards homosexuals and their issues.
-Hostility or indifference towards evangelical Christians & their issues.


Where Kerry lost it in 2004 was towards the end of the first (or second) debate. A last minute question was plucked from the internet and offered up to both candidates. Kerry's answer showed a complete lack of understanding of how to communicate to Christian voters. It showed that Kerry did not even have someone in his circle who could have coached him on handling such a basic question in a manner palatable to the 40 million voting, evangelic Christians. Kerry only had coaching to pander to the 4 million homossexuals.

The question was:
"Do you believe God created certain people to be homosexuals or is it a learned behavior?"

Kerry went on to tell how God created certain people to be homosexuals. I said right then that he just lost the election and he didn't even know it. That was the turning point in his momentum. It was a downhill struggle from there on in.

The correct response would not have offended the sensitivities of 40 million voting evangelical Christians to appease 4 million homosexuals.
The correct response would have been this:

"Whether or not God created certain people to be homosexuals is a matter presently debated amongst leaders in religion and science and philosophy. But as someone sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, a country founded on the self-evident truths that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that Governments are formed among them to secure those rights. As President I will work to secure the Creator-endowed rights of everyone in America the same - whether religious or not, regardless of ethnicity, nation of origin, gender or sexual orientation."

Though this answer might not have scored raving reviews by either side of the issue, it would not have unreasonably offended, either. Again, the fact that Kerry could not but fall straight into the trap demonstrated openly to the 40 million Christian voters that the Democrats still have not bothered themselves to understand them. And Democrats were largely denied their vote and support. A similar sensitivity to the sensitivities of the 40 million voting evangelicals regarding abortion issues is also in order.

I hope that Democrats are humbleminded enough to learn from their mistake and return to Jimmy Carter's successful appeal to evangelical Christian voters again. It is important to counter the Republican culture of death via warmaking with a genuine culture of life among the Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Do you believe God created certain people to be homosexuals or is it a learned behavior?"

There are only two answers; either you believe it's a learned behavior or you don't...No politician gets to dance around it...

If Obama loses it won't be because he's too friendly to gays...Bill Clinton was elected president nearly twentry years ago while promising to lift the ban on gays in the military...

And it has nothing to do with an "affinity" for "homosexuals"...It's extending to gay folks the respect and dignity we are all are entitled to...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

9. I am not running for office. And politicians do not have to answer every needless question

Boxers or briefs?


-------------

It is ignorant to imagine that the standard Democratic stances on issues have no impact how many voters Democratic presidential candidates get. If a great candidate like Obama loses to a lousy candidate like McCain it will be because of certain Democratic positions that are toxic and unnecessary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Hmmmmm

How can you conflate a question about one's personal choice in undergarments with a question about the origin of homosexuality?

Kerry lost becaue a bare majority of Americans thought it was more likely that Bush* would keep em safe...He didn't lose because he didn't display a requisite animus toward gay folks...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

14. Simple.

Both questions are unnecessary to answer directly to get voters.

And, like my post showed, there is no need to offend either group. A correct response satisfies the question without unnecessarily offending any group.



------------

And your after-the-fact analysis of the 2004 election is at odds with much of the analysis that occurred at the time. Even Hillary Clinton made comments similar to mine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Citation Please

"And your after-the-fact analysis of the 2004 election is at odds with much of the analysis that occurred at the time. Even Hillary Clinton made comments similar to mine."

May I have a citation where Hillary Clinton suggested John Kerry lost the presidency because he didn't show a requisite animus toward gay folks?

on edit- you do realize the Evangelicals who voted for Jimmy Carter en masse in 1976 turned around and voted for Ronal Reagan en masse in 1980...

you also do realize that Carter broke with his fellow Southern Baptists over such issues as homosexuality, choice, and the role of women...

there are just some votes that are beyond the reach of both parties...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

18. And those betrayals by Carter are exactly why he lost re-election

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. He Lost The Election

He lost the election

-because the Iranians punked us by not returning the hostages

-the Soviets invaded Afghanistan under his watch

-interest rates had spiked to eighteen percent

-he appeared feckless

That was the perception whether it was warranted or not... The Democrats are never going to be more socially conservative than the Republicants...

[Blondiegrrl]

22. Equal rights for all are toxic and unneccessary?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Wing, that is.

[cbayer]

11. Bad baggage?

A woman's right to choose? "Affinity" with homosexuals? In my Christianity these are fundamental issues of social justice. Those evangelical Christians were co-opted by Bushco pandering to their beliefs and were never going to vote for Kerry anyway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. In My Christianity I Leave Them Issues Up To God

If he has a problem with them he will deal with them... In this country we treat everybody with dignity and respect...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

16. My answer said nothing different.

My answer held no lack of dignity or respect for anyone ---> that's why I show it as a better way to answer.

But Kerry's answer showed a lack of basic familiarity with evangelical Christian positions --> and unnecessarily caused offense to 40 million evangelical Christian voters. His ignorance there cost him. A well-thought answer could have garnered him some of those 40 million Christian voters without costing him any of the 4 million votes of homosexuals.

Obama would do well to navigate more carefully. And if a great candidate like Obama loses to a lousy candidate like McCain it will be from a wrong approach regarding such matters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Kerry Could Have Cited Leviticus 19:20 And The Evangelicals Would Still Have Voted For Bush*

And many liberals would have note voted for him or not voted at all...

If Obama loses it will be because the Republicants successfully portrayed him as a out of touch elititist who doesn't have what it takes to stand up to the bad guys, i.e. the terrorists...They will have Dukaisized or McGovernized him...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

25. It would be wise to realize that Evangelicals are not an All-or-Nothing voting bloc

As close a race as it was between Kerry v Bush, every vote is helpful.

And for a Democratic presidential candidate to just give up on each evangelic Christian voter as if an impossible dream is foolish.

I have learned that those who insist on All-or-Nothing approachs too often end up with nothing.


-------------

And if a fantastic candidate like Obama were to lose to a dismal candidate like McCain it would be solid writing on the wall that there is something fatally wrong with the Democratic approach to winning the presidency.

Why learn the hard way (again and again and again...)???


Why not wake up and listen a little and find a way to secure as many voters as you can and actually win again?


(There is no Ross Perot this time to slide it to you... there is practically another Dole this time to forfeit it to you again... if you lose this time ----> it can only mean one thing. And it will not be Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. If Obama Loses

If Obama loses a race that his his to lose it will be because the Republicans were successful in portraying him as an inexperienced elitist who lacked the wherewithall to keep Americans safe...It won't be because he's pro-choice or believes that being gay in rooted in biology...

[cbayer]

17. I hope that you did not misunderstand me.

I was objecting to the writer's statements that all Christians are anti-choice and homophobic. I totally agree with your statement about dignity and respect.

[ChristianDemocrat1]

21. I think I did --- sorry...

But perhaps some good can still come from it. If anyone else makes the same mistake, your clarification is there now to guide. Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I'm A Culture Of Life Christian

I oppose the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion, and unjust wars...But we live in a pluralistic society and these values are sometimes in conflict...And one needs to make decisions on these issues in accordance with his or her conscience...

On a more fundamental level it's absurd to think Democrats can be more socially conservative than Republicans...Americans would spot the phoniness...

[Blondiegrrl]

19. Appeal to evangelical Christians? Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the preferential

treatment Christians have been getting in this country for the past couple hundred years. They need to move the fuck over on the bench.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Don't Want To Poke Evangelicals In The Eye

I don't want to poke evangelicals in the eye but I'm not going to throw gay folks under the bus for them...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

31. No need to poke anyone in the eye ... that is exactly my point

There is no need to poke evangelical Christians in the eye to get a winning coalition of voters. That was exactly my point, thank you. And, like I said, there is no need to poke anyone else in the eye to gain some of those 40 million evangelical Christian voters, either. Wisely handled, a winning coalition of voters can be formed that puts Obama in the White House ---> even by a sweeping margin, a mandate and all that.

But if a once-in-a-lifetime candidate like Obama loses to a Dole-like McCain it will only be because of unnecessary toxic baggage in the Democratic all-or-nothing package.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Every Democratic Nominee Was Already Asked That Question

To a one they all said gay folks are born that way...

I don't think it's a deal breaker...I also don't think evangelicals are the monolithic bloc you suggest they are...I don't think every evangelical looks to Leviticus and Dueteronomy for instruction on interpersonal relationships...

Again, if Obama loses to a crappy candidate like McSame it won't be because Leviticus 19:20 doesn't inform his opinion on homosexuality...

[ChristianDemocrat1]

28. Its called majority rule. You are talking about America's largest voting group

Preferential treatment of Christians in America? Perhaps.
Perhaps they just happen to deserve some of it? Hmmm. The "40 million Evangelicals" are just a subset of the group of people calling themselve "Christian" in this country. The reality of it is: there is simply not a more numerous self-identified subset of America than the "Christians." That is just the present reality and the historic one back to the country's founding. We do still believe in "majority rule" around here, right? And we believe in treating all groups with dignity and respect, even largest group, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Majority Rule-Minority Rights

Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner...

Human rights exist prior to the formation of civil government.Civil government is formed to protect them. They aren't up for plebiscite.

[jumptheshadow]

33. Not accurate

Without even getting into how un-Christ like the hatred fueled by some of these groups is, there are these points to be made:

Fundamentalist Christians represent one subset of the American populace. They are well-organized, and they certainly have the right to their point of view, except when it interferes with the rights of others. They may egotistically lay claim to God's one and only truth, but, when they do, it just makes them one of many extremist groups. Most Americans reject extremism.

Gay Americans are increasingly more organized, they turn out to vote, they are loyal to politicians who support them, they are decision makers in both the Democratic and the Republican parties, and they contribute money to political campaigns. Regions that attract gay Americans do better financially. Property values in neighborhoods renovated by gays rise while crime tends to fall. Gay Americans help provide the creative and intellectual energy that fuels American education, business and the arts.

Furthermore, an increasingly number American families are coming to terms with the fact that they have gay family members. In many cases, the spiritual and personal growth of the families has been deeply enriched as a result. These include many fundamentalist families. I have several friends and acquaintances who grew up in deeply conservative religions, then came out as gay. I have talked to their relatives, who have said that the experience of accepting and respecting gay family members has made them better people and Christians/Mormons/Jews. The guests at my wedding in Toronto included several deeply religious people along with one homicide detective and two prosecutors. I would guess that many of the weddings taking place in California now are attended by people from similar backgrounds.

The Democratic party embraces civil rights, but its support of gays is also strategically sound, given the fact that the American population as a whole is much more tolerant than they were 20 years ago and all trends point to even wider acceptance and respect for gay people and families. It is a wise strategy, due to the financial and voting power of gays and the growing number of families, friends and colleagues who ally with them.

So, in short, the premise of the your post is inaccurate and will become ever more outdated as time goes by.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. Yeah, we don't want to offend the bigots.

:puke:

[Imagevision]

4. It should be interesting after Hillary joins the club next friday...?

[Imagevision]

5. They should come out with a poll every 15 minutes and really fu*k your mind over...

[Meshuga]

7. Newsweek has Obama with a 15 point lead: 51 %to 36 %

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

Which is closest to reality?

[DemocracyInaction]

13. Hard to trust anyone these days, isn't it

I mean how the hell do you have the Newsweek blowout and Gallup within like a day of each other have such different messages. Either someone is a total asshole at doing polls or somebody is out to fix an election. This country has become a dung heap sold to us under the banner "democracy". I don't trust any of them.......show me da' money....

[Indenturedebtor]

29. I agree. And frankly if McBush wins Puke heartlands by 100%

And loses states like Ohio and FL by 2%, then how does that reflect in this poll? It doesn't. Assuming that it isn't fixed anyways.