Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (Are the purists happy yet?)

[Gman]

The race for the White House is tied. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a statistically insignificant 47% to 46% advantage. Today is the first time that McCain’s support has moved above 45% since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3. It’s also the first time the candidates have been tied since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day (see recent demographic highlights).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[madura]

1. no way they are tied - Obama is way ahead

but the CNNs etc., like us to think it's a dead heat or close so it's stealable in the fall and they're all doing hteir best to paint Obama in the wrong light.

no fricken way McCain is even with O, not in this universe.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Because you say so

One of the most sickening things about the schtick of many Obama supporters is that they are living in a faith-based universe, ignoring anything that doesn't fit with their worldview.

Somehow, all the moves to the right aren't the reason for the closeness of the race; it's the fault of the tiresome lefties who snivel about creeping theocratic fascism. But then again, that can't be true because he's really way ahead anyway. The spinning is so wild and frenzied that it makes me want to just sit down and watch the frothing zealots spin right off the face of the earth into deep, cold space.

The circular thinking is a vortex of self-delusion.

What should be a walkover is now at least close by any measure, but even this is dismissed by many of the faithful because it simply couldn't be true in the world they've constructed out of thin air and thick enthusiasm.

I want this guy to win, but the obliviousness of many of his core supporters and the lunkheaded OLD-STYLE POLITICS of this guy himself are digging a hole that they can't seem to acknowledge if they happened to see fit to mingle with the concept of reality.

What sheer folly.

[Political Heretic]

52. No, because reality-based evidence says so.

State by State Polls have him with a pounding electorial win.

CNN's Poll of Polls (that would be an average of all national polls, not just one poll) has Obama up by EIGHT as of July 10th, a gain of two points. Funny that it didn't get much headline on their site or their news reports. hmmm...

Real Clear Politics, has Obama ahead by nearly FIVE points at of 7/11 in their average of national polls from 6/26-7/11

And can I say again, in state by state polls, Obama is whipping ass here he needs to?

Electoral Vote, which updates its map as new state polls come in, has Obama with an even more Crushing win if the election were held today:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[jobycom]

57. The state by state polls are from June

The latest I saw in your link was June 25th. There were some from early June. This was much closer to Obama's primary boost, and long before his latest troubles.

As for CNN's average of polls, you can't average polls, that's like averaging baseball scores to see who has won the most games. The poll formulae vary drastically, so some are more relevant than others, and since the variance between poll formulae isn't random but is created by the formulae, there's no expectation that they would vary from each other in an equal distribution. That's not even taking in time variance. So, averaging is useless.

Same with RCP's average.

This was expected. Once the primaries were over and both candidates began to get somewhat equal time, and once the media bias for the conservatives kicked in, McCain was bound to rise, and Obama to fall. Plus, people have seen so much of Obama that they have started to see his warts. McCain has been invisible so long that he looks new. Whether they are genuinely even or not, I don't know, but you can't take two week old polls as proof they aren't.

The trend is usually that both candidates will peak around the conventions, and then one will take a lead, and then they will begin to tighten until just before the election. By then we'll have an idea whether it's a blow out or a close race, at least.

Hopefully when this is all over we'll laugh about how easy it was. Until then, though, we should think of this as a close race. The team that takes the field sure that they cannot lose is often the one crying in the locker room three hours later.

[Political Heretic]

61. That's not true.

Pollster.com Polls include state polls from July - it is basically whatever is most currently available in any state.

RCP and Polls of polls, have strengths and weaknesses just like an individual poll. The difference is, an individual poll is not every accurate. Poll averages, even with slight variances in methodology, still paints a more accurate picture.

Rumor's of a close race are just that - rumors, perpetuated by a media that has a vested interest in making the race appear close -- ratings ratings ratings ratings!

[jobycom]

62. Yes it is.

I used the link you provided on the states. Roll over it, there's very little from July, if anything. None of the states I looked at.

And averaging polls is meaningless. Anyway, there have been a couple of polls showing a close race, so if you average those, you have a close race. Your RCP average, you said, had polls going back to June averaged with recent polls. That's a meaningless number.

[madura]

64. you know whats sickening - that the same damn corporate game can be played

over and over and idiots still believe 'the polls' and 'the t.veeeeee. poondats'and that there is no such thing as election fraud.
polls and pundits will only reflect what corporate america wants, I thought most everyone here was clued into that.
Obama knowsthis - that is why he's got a lot of people out of their laz-y-boys and working on registration and local politics. He knows the only way to do this is with a MASSIVE showup landslide record breaking victory.He wants the full stadiums to be seen, he wants to be heard on the media every day, many times a day - evenif its not so flattering sometimes because he is prepared and comes right back and makes a retort which shows him prepared and always logical and reasonable compared to whatever ridiculous charge that was laid against him.

p.s.
Obama doesn`t do schtick.
he does the Whitehouse
Tell your lady friend better luck next time
she should have been working instead of eating her `bon bons la confidente`` last fall

[PurityOfEssence]

69. News flash: Obama does schtick; watch a speech

I'm not, and never was, a Clinton supporter. I was a stalwart Edwards supporter in both 04 and 08, but after he dropped out was merely looking for who of the two appeasing corporatists was the most electable. After awhile, I backed off to the level of background chatter out of a feeling of disconnect: if people were so damned dead-set on two very flawed candidates, I thought it best to leave them to decide among themselves.

Obama is a VERY old-style politician: risk-averse, careful to tell people what they want to hear and playing to the cheap seats. I hope it continues to work, but I think people are beginning to clue in. Worse than anything else, I think his assumptions aren't true: he doesn't have to race to the right to win.

Troubles though I have with him, I have many greater ones with many of his blinkered zealots, and this kind of oblivious fantasy is no good for anyone.

[Arkana]

71. It must be lonely up there on your pedestal.

[ShadowLiberal]

47. It's no surprised given the biased news coverage, they're way harsher on Obama then McCain

[davidwparker]

2. The only way Mc* can win is to steal the election. The only way to make that

plausible is to make it within the margin of error. Not possible if Obama has a huge lead.

To answer your question, no, I'm not happy yet. However, I will be voting for Obama on election day. Obama being the lesser of two evils.

[depakid]

3. So progressives are responsible for the Obama campaign's ill considered "strategy?"

Pandering to the right has been losing elections for 15 years now- why would anyone expect it to be any different this go around?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. 15 years now?

How did running to the left with Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern work out for the Democrats? Isn't it funny the only two Democratic presidents elected since Johnson's landslide victory were moderate Democrats from the south?

But I keep hearing people say Democrats need to flank themselves to the left, it's the only way to win. Yet no examples. Remember, Kerry was painted as a far-left liberal, which hurt him in many moderate to right-leaning states like Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Had Kerry carried just Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, he'd be running for reelection right now and I can tell you he didn't lose those states for appearing to be too moderate.

[depakid]

7. There you go again making disproven assertions.

This so called "move to the right" has been analyzed extensively by experienced and credible observers and academics- and they find the same sets of things time and time again.

That this conventional "wisdom" is repeated over and over by the punditocracy on the so called "mainstream" media doesn't make it so- though as I've noted many times in the past, Americans seem to be uniquely susceptible to propaganda that people in other nations would see right through.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Show me the last successful presidential candidate who ran left of center.

Dukakis ran a fairly liberal campaign, not bending on abortion and the death penalty. Bush won 400+ electoral votes.

Mondale ran a fairly liberal campaign, talking about taxes and how the Democrats would raise them. He lost in one of the biggest landslides in electoral college history.

McGovern was painted a left-winger and he lost in one of the biggest landslides in electoral college history.

If people are going to make a claim that running to the center has cost the Democrats, they have to show evidence that suggests running to the left has helped them nationally. I see no evidence of this and until I do, I won't concede the party needs to be MORE left to succeed.

[woolldog]

17. Remember how Dukkakis bragged about being a

card-carrying member of the ACLU? I think that was in a debate. That sure worked out for him. Also his liberal answer of the death penalty question also killed him.

I can't think of any democratic president in recent history who moved to the left after the primary and won the election.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Not even FDR ran a liberal campaign.

Remember, he talked up LESS government spending against Hoover.

The poster who said Wilson just might be right, he was probably the last liberal candidate to win the White House.

Obama can run to the left and he'll alienate support in states he needs to win. The electoral map does not favor the Democrats and hasn't since they lost the south. And what I mean by that is while they can win without carrying southern states, they need to do well in conservative-leaning swing states like Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Some here like to believe every state's ideology is the same, but it isn't. If Obama has a prayer in Virginia, he'll need some cultural conservatives supporting his campaign. It's the same with Georgia and Florida and especially out west, where there isn't a huge black population.

If Obama runs a left of center campaign, you can kiss goodbye the following states:

Florida
Ohio
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Wisconsin


And any hope of winning:

Virginia
Montana
Georgia
North Carolina
North Dakota

If McCain wins all those states, plus Republican strongholds, he wins the electoral college 338-200, or a Dukakis-like loss for Obama.

Many swing states ARE trending blue and becoming more liberal, but it still is going to take a couple of elections before they are safe Democratic and left of center. Until that happens, Democrats need to play to the base in those states and right now, many are conservative. Especially out west, where Obama says he wants to do well.

[woolldog]

27. I agree with you.

Let's also not forget the racial hurdle Obama faces. I don't think some on the left appreciate this but there are a lot of voters who are predisposed towards viewing him negatively, not trusting him, or soft in their support of him because of his race.

That's why attacks from his own party are particularly damaging.

He's also less well known than other candidates.....which makes attacks from his own more damaging as well.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. And his name.

Obama runs the risk of being branded an extremist. He's already walked that line throughout, especially with Rev. Wright and any hint of him being a radical could kill his campaign. It's better for him to be branded as a slight flip-flopping moderate than an unwavering radical.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. No, you misremember

George H. W. Bush attacked him in a debate for being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU".

[woolldog]

79. what was D's response?

Didn't he embrace that characterization?

[Buck Rabbit]

18. Woodrow Wilson, A new century progressive.

(though not by modern standards on many issues.)

[depakid]

19. It's not all about "left" or "right."

If it were, then Republican extremists who consistently have unpopular (sometimes profoundly unpopular) positions on the issues (as reflected in multiple polls) wouldn't keep being elected.

What influences voting behavior much more than issues is how a candidate is perceived in terms of sincerity and willingness to stand up for their principles. In that sense, there is something of a dichotomy: "weak" or "weasely" vs. "strong" and "steadfast."

Here's a specific example of that dynamic in action:

Republican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican, and split its vote 49-49 for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the “false choice between war and civil liberties.” Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy’s opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, such as this one:

Rep. Nancy Johnson, a 12-term Republican who ran a tough-on-terror campaign and touted her co-authorship of the Medicare prescription drug legislation, lost her re-election bid Tuesday to anti-war Democrat Chris Murphy.

Murphy had 56 percent to Johnson’s 44 percent with 12 percent of the precincts voting. Johnson was the longest serving representative in Congress in state history.

Johnson’s final margin of defeat was 12 points. Despite continuing to represent a tough, split district, Rep. Murphy — as he runs for re-election for the first time — recently voted against passage of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill, obviously unafraid that such Terrorism fear-mongering works any longer.

That pattern has repeated itself over and over. In the 2006 midterm election, Karl Rove repeatedly made clear that the GOP strategy rested on making two National Security issues front and center in the midterm campaign: Democrats’ opposition to warrantless eavesdropping and their opposition to “enhanced interrogation techniques” against Terrorists. Not only did the Democrats swat away those tactics, taking away control of both houses of Congress in 2006, but more unusually, not a single Democratic incumbent in either the House or Senate — not one — lost an election.

<snip>

The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because — for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves — there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should “move to the center” and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak — because it is weak. It’s the definition of weakness.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9990/

Interestingly enough, in a piece defending Obama's actions and urging progressives to be cautious in their reactions, Robert Creamer recounts this little anecdote, which I think is instructive:

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."

People want leaders who are firmly committed to their values. The key thing that affected the New Jersey cabbie's view wasn't the positions or views of the candidates. It was whether they stood up for what they believed. There are many independent voters just like him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/progressives-must-guard-a_b_111098.html

[Drunken Irishman]

24. I already swatted down your claim in another post.

The example you gave comes from left-leaning Connecticut. Now you do know there is a big difference ideologically between Connecticut and say Virginia, right? How many senate seats did the Democrats pick up by running liberal candidates? Answer: one.

Look at the Democratic Senate gains in 2006:

Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat, defeats Jim Talent, barely, in Missouri.

Jon Tester, a moderate Democrat, barely defeats scandal plagued Conrad Burns in Montana.

Sherrod Brown, a moderate Democrat, beats Mike DeWine in Ohio.

Bob Casey, Junior, a moderate Democrat, kills Rick Santorum.

Jim Webb, a moderate Democrat, beats George Allen in Virginia.

The only gain from a "liberal" was when Rhode Island, a Democratic stronghold, elected Whitehouse over Chaffee -- a liberal Republican.

I have a question for you, had the Democrats run a progressive, someone who was to the left of Obama is right now, would they have picked up Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Virginia? No. And if they hadn't, they would not have won control of the Senate.

[depakid]

37. You didn't swat down any claim

All you're doing is making assumptions and looking for instances that reinforce your beliefs (in psychology that's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias) without doing any analysis.

If you could try to look beyond the "left" "right" pigeonholing, you might see what researchers like Lakoff are getting at.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. You took an example from a liberal state as evidence.

I could also make the claim America is turning rightward since Congressman Chris Cannon, a fairly conservative Republican, lost his primary a few weeks ago to an even more conservative Republican here in Utah.

[depakid]

50. The example is from a solid Republican district that they'd held since 1982!

and they didn't lose it by a scandal or a fluke- but because the opposition candidate stood up for and didn't waiver on traditional Democratic values.

[Drunken Irishman]

56. And a solid Republican district in Connecticut is still fairly liberal.

Give me more proof from a more moderate to conservative leaning state and maybe I'll buy your argument. But one district from a fairly liberal state will not cut it.

[CTyankee]

73. Nancy Johnson basically just fired up her same old campaign

even with the same droopy dog voice over that I swear hadn't changed in years. Murphy's ads were exciting and he really went after her.

I don't live in that district (I'm in Rosa deLauro's district) but I suspect two things: some demographic changes in Murphy's district and disgust with the same old politics and people just fed up. I am old and I hate to say this but Nancy's campaign just looked old and lame, sort of like she was on autopilot.

[Drunken Irishman]

75. Good enough.

Regardless of what happened there, it still does not prove it'll work in a national campaign. In a small, liberal state like Connecticut, it isn't a surprise a liberal Democrat ousted a Republican, who was fairly moderate. Now if this were to have happened in Virginia or Missouri or some other right of center state, I'd believe the overall reasoning by the poster. However, it hasn't and I still do not believe America is at the point where it can openly embrace a candidate who flanks their campaign to the far-left. Every time the Democrats have done that in the past 10 elections, we have been burned.

Do I think it's better today than it was in 1988 when liberal Michael Dukakis got his ass handed to him by the boring, semi-moderate George Bush? Yes. However, we ain't there yet. Even John Kerry had troubles breaking away from the liberal perception and I believe it hurt him out west, where I often heard "Kerry is just way too liberal for me".

[CTyankee]

76. I'm with you on this. It's why Obama is tacking towards the center.

I reckon that Obama is a tough cookie, very realistic about what he has to do to be elected. Our good guys get boiled in oil for saying things that we think are simply grand and then it turns out the rest of the country is vehemently opposed. BTW, watch for Obama's "sister Soulja" moment soon if this weekend's event where the black comic started making jokes about "ho's" and referencing prostitution gets some traction. It was in the NYT today.

[Drunken Irishman]

77. Yeah, it's on the front page of Yahoo.

Obama was already being painted as a radical, especially with his weird name and "Muslim" background. People forget Obama is battling two fronts here, the fact he can be defined as liberal and the fact he's black, has a Muslim name and the belief he may actually be a radical. If Obama is successfully defined as a radical, he will lose this election in a landslide. So Obama probably looked at the options and decided it would be less disastrous to be called a flip-flopping moderate than an unyielding radical leftist.

[CTyankee]

78. What is really bothering me about this election for us is that Obama is black.

And there are people in this country who will NOT vote for a black person. They won't admit it, but it may be why the polls are so tight. Still, I'm glad we're the party that put forth this historic first in American history. I have some faith that there will be more of us than of the bigots.

[4themind]

26. I guess the question that

voters are going to have to address about Obama is what are his values. According to this author, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/have-we-missed-the-key-to_b_112289.html it seems to be less of a laundry list of proposals than it is about about adherence to a method/process of problem solving that seeks to generate increased utility ,perhaps as referenced by reactions of the voting public (even if it doesn't necessarily square up with what I or you may want at times). If he can successfully argue that these variant outcomes are however based upon a steadfast principle of negotiation, he may avoid the fate of other democratic contenders and gain the electoral success that clinton did (and hopefully with better outcomes in governance, which I HOPE for but certainly don't know one way or the other). At the end of the day I'd prefer to be way ahead in the polls but I'd even take a narrow margin of victory in November over losing of course. We'll find out for certain on Nov. 4th

[cliffordu]

46. This is EXACTLY right.

:patriot:

[Gman]

8. LOL! Those three went down in flames

and people want to keep doing something that doesn't work!

As I've been saying, without Hillary to add some gravitas to the ticket, Obama loses 40 states.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

14. Hillary brings 40 states?

I think that dems ignore just how much republicans and independents hate the clintons, so much so that they would never even consider voting for a ticket with her name on it. Without her on the ticket, many who are pissed at the republicans will at least listen to Obama and his running mate.

[krispos42]

45. I doubt it

The handful of die-hard PUMAs that would come out to vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket would be dwarfed by the turnout of conservatives who, otherwisde dispirited by Grampy McMavrick, would latch on to voting against Clinton as a reason to go to the polls and pull the lever against the hated Defeater of Bush and Dole.

[NorthCarolina]

10. There's always a First Time for everything

and besides, I firmly believe the majority of the electorate to be far more Liberal/Progressive than the MSM, the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party would like us to believe.

[madura]

65. if you want to talk about panderng to the right, sheeshkaboobs look at Hillary.

and Bill
OBama is a hard core, with a heart bleeding profusely liberal compared to them, them all cuddled up with their corporate buds.


sometimes I have to shake my head

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

9. Let's be honest OK?

Some prefer not to be right wing enablers. Others would have no problem selling their own mothers down the river for their own shallow assessment of political expediency and short term gain.

The electorate (particularly independents) see right through that sort of thing- and they don't like it one bit. Hence Congress' single digit approval ratings.

The bottom line is that DINO's are their own (and sometimes all of our) worst enemies.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

30. That is the single

most stupid statement I've seen written on this board. How's that for honest?

McCain supporters are people that are voting for him, who are actively trying to get him elected. Just because someone disagrees with you about the most effective way for BHO to win an election does NOT make them a McCain supporter.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Obama leads 47-43 in today's Gallup poll...

Just sayin'.

[DarthDem]

12. Which is the real poll.

Rasmussen is silly. Does anyone really think McCoot is going to win this thing? There is. No. Way.

[totodeinhere]

21. Yes, Gallup has Obama only slightly outside the margin of error..

That's too close for comfort as far as I'm concerned.

[Gman]

40. No way?

You must be new.

[DarthDem]

49. New to what?

Presidential elections? No, not exactly. McSame is the new Bob Dole. He is going to lose. No one needs to be obsessions about the tracking polls at this point. November 1, sure.

[Blondiegrrl]

53. I don't put much stock in polls, but I think I get the gist of the above poster's

snark. Four years ago, most people thought there was no way in hell that such an upopular and massive failure of a president such as GWB could beat Kerry (or any Democrat, for that matter). Yet here we are. It seems that many people in this country are incapable of learning from their mistakes. Yes, in a world of smart, informed voters, Obama would win in a landslide. But that's assuming a lot about the voting population.

[DarthDem]

58. You're right.

Well put - - but although I may be misremembering my own thoughts from four years ago, I thought Kerry was a flawed candidate from the beginning, one who would be cowed too easily by the inevitable wingnut attack poodles. I don't think Obama has the same issues. And although this may sound odd, I think an incumbent - - even one who was selected by five traitors - - made four a stronger candidate than a ridiculously old, out-of-touch senator.

However, you're certainly (and sadly) right about never overestimating the intelligence of a substantial amount of American voters.

[Blondiegrrl]

74. You make good points as well. And I do think Obama is a stronger candidate than Kerry was. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

11. Congratulations, purity patrol! You're doing a great job of defeating Sen. Obama!

[depakid]

13. The results are entirely predictable

and consistent with data and patterns from past elections.

Unfortunately for some, it's easier to blame others than accept that the beltway consultants are wrong.

[Youphemism]

20. What is predictable is that independents and centrist votes determine who wins...

This is true both historically and intuitively. Very few people who are as far left as you are going to vote for McCain or even withhold a vote for Obama out of anger. You know what that would do for your causes.

So, you become the squeaky wheel, like your are now.

On the other hand, the independents and centrists who historically determine the winner -- because they represent a much larger and more volatile voting bloc than any difference between the number of registered Democrats versus registered Republicans.

Obama knows all this. It's why he's ignoring your strategy rants. And it's one of the reasons he's going to win.

When you run for President, you can try it your way.

[depakid]

28. Well, that opinion has been PROVEN wrong, time and again

You can stay in denial if you wish- that's the all too American way after all- to ignore the science in favor of cherished beliefs- framed and reinforced by the corporate media.

But don't expect different results based on them.

[Youphemism]

29. I expect that you and your theory will not be President and Obama will. /nt

[depakid]

33. Obama may well win for a lot of reasons despite making strategic mistakes

(though some down ticket candidates and issues may still suffer). McCain isn't exactly a great candidate. Then again, neither was Bush.

Nice thing about theories and understanding dynamics is that they're not limited to one race or another- the principles often have broader applicability and aren't limited to politics.

[Youphemism]

41. True, the principles apply elsewhere -- You always do worse on the shallow end of the bell curve./nt

[depakid]

59. Different set of principles, but let's look at the mean

Hint: it's not where the corporate media leads you to believe that it is.

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007

a massive twenty-year roundup of public opinion from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, tells the story. Is it the responsibility of government to care for those who can't take care of themselves? In 1994, the year conservative Republicans captured Congress, 57 percent of those polled thought so. Now, says Pew, it's 69 percent. (Even 58 percent of Republicans agree. Would that some of them were in Congress.) The proportion of Americans who believe government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep is 69 percent, too--the highest since 1991. Even 69 percent of self-identified Republicans--and 75 percent of small-business owners!--favor raising the minimum wage by more than $2.

The Pew study was not just asking about do-good, something-for-nothing abstractions. It asked about trade-offs. A majority, 54 percent, think "government should help the needy even if it means greater debt" (it was only 41 percent in 1994). Two-thirds want the government to guarantee health insurance for all citizens. Even among those who otherwise say they would prefer a smaller government, it's 57 percent--the same as the percentage of Americans making more than $75,000 a year who believe "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person."

It's not just Pew. In the authoritative National Election Studies (NES) survey, more than twice as many Americans want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" as want fewer services "in order to reduce spending." According to Gallup, a majority say they generally side with labor in disputes and only 34 percent with companies; 53 percent think unions help the economy and only 36 percent think they hurt.

A 2005 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 53 percent of Americans thought the Bush tax cuts were "not worth it because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs." CNN/Opinion Research Corp. found that only 25 percent want to see Roe v. Wade overturned; NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard found the public rejecting government-funded abstinence-only sex education in favor of "more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives" by 67 percent to 30 percent. Public Agenda/Foreign Affairs discovered that 67 percent of Americans favor "diplomatic and economic efforts over military efforts in fighting terrorism."

Want hot-button issues? The public is in love with rehabilitation over incarceration for youth offenders. Zogby/National council on Crime and Delinquency found that 89 percent think it reduces crime and 80 percent that it saves money over the long run. "Amnesty"? Sixty-two percent told CBS/New York Times surveyors that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to "keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status." And the gap between the clichés about what Americans believe about gun control and what they actually believe is startling: NBC News/Wall Street Journal found 58 percent favoring "tougher gun control laws," and Annenberg found that only 10 percent want laws controlling firearms to be less strict, a finding reproduced by the NES survey in 2004 and Gallup in 2006.

You suspected it all along. Now it just might be true: Most Americans think like you (assuming you're actually progressive that is). Nearly two-thirds think corporate profits are too high (30 percent, Pew notes, "completely agree with this statement...the highest percentage expressing complete agreement with this statement in 20 years"). Almost three-quarters think "it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer," eight points more than thought so in 2002.

If only there was an American political party that unwaveringly reflected these views, as a matter of bone-deep identity. You might think it would do pretty well.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

Note: the synopsis above doesn't even touch on environmental, regulatory and consumer protection issues- which also enjoy major progressive majorities.

[Youphemism]

60. Nice, but off-topic...

Your argument was about FISA, remember? Doesn't get mentioned in there. Terrorism doesn't even get mentioned in there. War doesn't get mentioned in there.

Still, it's nice reading. Thanks.

[BzaDem]

66. Um, can you name one Democratic nominee who ran to the left and won the POTUS in recent history?

You talk quite a lot, I'll grant you that. You post lots of stuff about "political values" and "core attitudes." Yet when multiple people ask you the question I'm asking you, you refuse to answer. You instead cite some random congressional race in Connecticut as if it were evidence that somehow proves your point about presidential politics.

The facts are that people who follow your strategy lose by the biggest landslides in history. See McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. The people that ignore you actually win (see Carter, Clinton, and yes Gore), or come much closer (see Kerry) than the ones who lost by the biggest landslides in history that followed your theory. You can continue to claim that I'm in denial, or that everyone else is in denial, or that other people are making false assumptions, or that if only people listened to you we would live in a utopia, but until you answer the above question please don't expect to be taken seriously.

[depakid]

68. Except for Clinton, who was aided by Perot's attacks on Bush- there aren't any Dem presidents

:think:

If you accept Pew and others' extensive research- and apply Lakoff and others' analysis (to all national elections- and many statewide elections) you'll see the pattern is one of perceived weakness, not ideological divides.

And it's been quite a self destructive (self loathing?) pattern at that.

You'll also notice that Republicans don't engage in the same behavior. Instead, they stand firm on unpopular issues- and :gasp: they've won election after election (even though the data shows large majorities of people disagree with them.

[BzaDem]

72. Didn't McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis try that? n/t

[depakid]

80. The ghost of McGovern has had otherwise decent Dems fearing their own shadows

far too long.

That was 36 years ago.

We could go into the Hart v. Mondale deal with Reagan (got some thoughts on that) or as to why Dukakis failed.

Hint: it wasn't ideology- especially as pigeonholed into a left wing right wing thing.

[karynnj]

83. You can make your case even stronger

as Kerry, pretty much stayed where he was in the primary on the environment, health, and economics. On Iraq, he shifted from "Bush mislead us into war, without exhausting diplomacy, without .... Not as a last resort" to the more succinct "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" He also continued to say it was not a war of last resort and he did (less frequently) use his primary line. All and all, he stayed pretty much where he was. The media distorted that.

But, I would caution that the three best years for Democrats after 1964 were 1976, 1992, and 2008. In 1976, the country had been shocked by Watergate and Ford pardoned Nixon. Carter was not an exceptional candidate though he fit the times - for a short while. By November 1992, GHWB was at 33%, not much higher than his son now. ANY Democrat would have won. 2008 has looked just as good. So 2 of your examples are in these years.

Gore actually would have been the third term of the Democrats - and though on many things the country was happy - there was a reason that Bush, an admitted drunk until he was 40, could fun on restoring honor and dignity.

In reality there was no race in this whole interval that could be called an "upset". The closest is Gore "losing", which can be explained by the fact that he really won and the shift of large parts of the MSM to the right. Had Kerry won, it would have been a major upset - and he was close.

[charlyvi]

15. I doubt that a group of people on DU can actually influence a Ras poll. n/t

[woolldog]

25. It's not just people on DU

it's the liberal blogosphere, and the progressive media that's been hammering him. The MSM picked up on this and used it to feed their own negative narrative of Obama. Voters are taking notice and it's clearly hurt Obama.

It's similar to the primaries when he was being attacked by Hillary and also McCain. There were some brutal stretches where it hurt his numbers. Same thign is happening here. He's being hit on both the left and the right, using the same narrative and that narrative is beginning to sink in and hurting him.

[politicasista]

32. He is taking some hits. He did in the primaries, but

persevered. However, we can not let our guard down and take things for granted.

I agree with you about what's going on. :thumbsup:

[charlyvi]

39. But the post I was replying to

referred to the "Purity Patrol" on DU. Not the liberal blogosphrere or progressive media.

I was against Obama's FISA vote, still am. I didn't think the hit he would have taken by voting no, if any, would harm the campaign nearly as much as a yes vote. But vote yes he did and it's a moot point now. I am voting for him, he's our nominee. I resent being called part of a purity patrol almost as much as a McCain supporter--I am neither. I've never voted Repub in my long life. Hell, I was born when Truman was president.

Sorry, but I don't think it's the liberal blogosphere or progressive media that is hurting Obama, if he's being hurt at all. This far out, I don't think the numbers mean much. The media loves their horserace, and will slant many a poll to achieve it.

Thanks for your courtesy. And I see your passion, and think it's great!

[crankychatter]

42. you set a record mr(ms) bondage

six ignored responses

[AtomicKitten]

23. Polls will fluctuate if a moth farts 60 miles away, doesn't mean it's responsible.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

34. That rather puts it right in perspective

thanks for making me smile :)

[AtomicKitten]

36. cheers

and welcome to DU

:hi:

[snowbear]

35. Ali Velshi on CNN said that because more than 16% of Americans only use cell phones now...

...not just at work, but at home too...

---That a massive section of the population are not being polled --- ever.



He thinks that until pollsters who phone voters for data (which is all of them right now).. can figure out how to access cellular phone users, that polling data will never be accurate.

I think he makes a great point.

[RainDog]

44. Your post title is nothing but flamebait

Two days ago when I was driving home from work I heard Latino women on NPR talk about how Obama was a muslim before he was a christian, or how Obama had left both his muslim faith and then his church over the whole b.s. about Wright.

they are forming a group to support McCain based upon their stupidity. Even when they were informed that they were wrong, they didn't care. They still insisted he was a muslim when he was a boy and therefore was brainwashed. (insert irony here.)

is that also b/c of the "purists" that some here seem to love to hate?

Why don't you try to understand that all of the "purists" are not to the left of where ever you are? That wouldn't be convenient tho, would it? You might actually have to back up your assertion about "the purists" with some fucking facts.

otherwise, stfu.

[paulk]

48. I don't feel it's the "purists" that account for Obama's fall in the

polls. Obama campaigned as some new kind of politician - yet his recent moves to the right - done in the name of what can only be seen as political expediency - show him to be more of the same.

This strikes at the core of his appeal and walks him, face first, into the attack the Republicans are launching - that Obama is just another politician, not the transformational figure he sold himself as.

[Political Heretic]

51. That's ONE poll - try looking at RCP or other poll averages.

So much more accurate.

Daily tracking polls are NEVER good indicators of anything in the first place.

[uponit7771]

67. Right, they swing on a story or two and have lag in them. RCP is my source also, aggregate looks are

..the best

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. Not all polls agree.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3391651

[AmericanUnity]

63. LOOK KIDS, GET REAL WOULD YA? FISA WAS GOING TO PASS. YOU WANT MC CAIN? KEEP IT UP THEN. HILLARY'S

supporters are flaky enough. We don't need to point to one bill that was going to pass anyway to get up on a soapbox.

Want 100 years of war in Iraq?

Want a war with Iran?

Want more GOP years on the WH?

Want a senile old man as your President?

Want every decent SCOTUS candidate beaten down?

and so on....

Keep it up if you do

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

70. Insane post. The problem is voting for FISA, not complaining about FISA

Voting for FISA=Actual action by the actual candidate, widely covered on the news

Complaining about FISA on DU=Somebody saying something somewhere that is not on the news

Which of the two do you believe is likelier to account for a move in polls?

[AmericanUnity]

81. HAD HE VOTED AGAINST IT THE GOP WOULD HAVE BASHED HIM OVER THE HEAD AS 'WEAK ON TERROR' GET OVER IT

[FredfromSpace]

82. I am not sure if the poll numbers are significant, but even if they are...

Might it not be the campaign strategy itself that is doing the damage?

The reaction to Obama's FISA reversal was predictable.

The candidate and his campaign made their decision and should be held accountable for it.

The timing and sequence of this and the other "refinements" (let us call them that) on campaign finance, guns, death penalty, et al has offered a rich supply of fuel to the MSM-Repub "flip-flop" narrative.

A well-run campaign would have, should have, anticipated this.

If these are serious wounds (and we do not know this for sure yet), then they would seem to be largely self-inflicted.