Rasmussen 7/18: Obama 44%, McCain 42% (with leaners, 47% to 46%)

[highplainsdem]

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

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46% (see recent daily results). McCain is viewed favorably by 56% of voters, Obama by 55%.

-snip-

There has been much discussion about the potential demographic changes brought about by Obama’s historic candidacy and the fact that he won the nomination by ending Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy. Rasmussen Reports reviewed data from our July polling and found somewhat surprisingly that Obama’s support looks a lot like John Kerry’s. The only big difference is that Obama is currently doing about five points better against McCain than Kerry did against George W. Bush.

Four years ago, exit polls showed Bush defeating Kerry among white men by a 62% to 37% margin. Today, Obama is doing four points better than that and trails 58% to 37% among white men.

The tale is the same among white women. Bush won that demographic by eleven percentage points, 55% to 44%. Obama is doing five points better and trails by only six, 48% to 42%.

Among non-white females, Obama leads by fifty-four points, up three from Kerry’s margin of fifty-one points. However, Obama lags a bit among non-white males. This year’s presumptive nominee leads by twenty-nine points among that group, down from Kerry’s thirty-seven point margin.

[On the Road]

1. The Discrepancy Between This and

the recent state-level polls is astonishing. Olberman showed some states just last night with unbelievably good numbers for Obama.

I suspect what's happening is that these national polls are being weighted by party, and that the number of self-identified Republicans has dropped substantially. That leads to erroneous re-weighting.

[Mist]

2. Since it's Rasmussen, there's probably at least a 5 point spread between

Obama and McSame.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[highplainsdem]

4. What is your motive in questioning me? I've been posting polls all along, and I posted here to

point out that the recent Newsweek poll that showed such a great change from last month's had oversampled Republicans.

Stop trying to drive out former Clinton supporters. You're working against unity, and that harms the party and Obama's chances.

[agentS]

5. Let's be honest with ourselves here.

The former Clinton supporters aren't going to run to McCain. Not after 'cunt-gate' or 'birth-control gate' or 'equal-pay gate'. They got more common sense than that.
We can razz them all we want, but it's July after all. It's kinda pointless now that Clinton is supporting Obama.

Back on Topic
Rassmussen's poll is clearly saying things the other polls are as well. This is a close race due
a)race
b)ignorance/undecideds.

Give the Activist block more time to get the word out on McCain to the low info voters. Then you'll see those high margins of working class Whites supporting Obama in larger numbers.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. We are destined to learn NOTHING

How do you boil this campaign down to those two issues? From my vantage and conversations with others, the closeness is due to creeping dismay with Obama's policies and character. Moving to the right was not necessarily the political genius that so many claim every action of his is. The disconnect between portrayal as someone "new" and "above it all" and the actions of primal and cynical politics is also taking its toll.

Still, if we manage to lose what should be a walk away of an election, so many will just carp "race, race, race" all day long and learn absolutely nothing. The alarming need of so many in this campaign to blatantly IGNORE anything that doesn't fit their rosy worldview is precisely why Jib-Jab has him gallavanting about with unicorns and Disneyesque animals.

The very idea that people here are constantly attacking people for posting disturbing polls is beyond ridiculous; it's sad.

There's still time to make this the resounding victory it should be, and there's still a very good chance of losing, but it doesn't bode well if we unquestioningly fall in line behind any silly move he makes.

[JackORoses]

6. don't play dumb. this isn't your only post.

I'm not trying to run you off.
I just would like to know why you do it?

Can you answer that honestly, or are you just going to keep pretending that your posts have no collective aim?

Do they really serve Party Unity?

[highplainsdem]

9. What part of "I am posting a poll" don't you understand? Do you think it serves party unity

NOT to post the polls? Have you told other people who post polls the same thing, or do you only target former Clinton supporters?

I'm tired of these stupid accusations, which I've heard before, and responded to before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6452085&mesg_id=6452168

I'm sick of this crap from Obama extremists.

Now, show me where you've attacked anyone else for posting a poll.

I doubt you can. And the fact you can't shows just what your motivation is.

Go try to bully someone else. I'm not impressed. I'm disgusted by the bullying tactics I've seen used by some Obama supporters here, who IMO should have been banned long ago.

And if you think it helps Obama's chances if Democrats aren't aware of the polls, you're delusional.

[JackORoses]

10. you know it's not about a poll

do you really want me to make a catalog of your concerning posts?
I don't think that's necessary.

I don't even ask that you stop. You have a right to be here until the Mods say otherwise.
I would just like to know why?

You don't have to answer. That is your right.
But don't get all bent out of shape and accuse people of bullying just for inquiring as to your overarching motivations in all of this.

[highplainsdem]

11. I'm here because I'm a Democrat, I first worked for a Democratic campaign 40 years ago,

and I've been a member here for years. I have every right to be here. I'm planning to vote for Obama as I've voted for every other Democratic nominee.

I am not going to apologize for supporting Clinton as well as Obama. I am not going to pretend that I don't think a unity ticket is our best chance of winning back the White House.

I have posted a lot of positive topics here about Obama which have generally been ignored by the people here who hate Clinton and her supporters. I am not going to pretend to like everything Obama says or does, though -- that isn't required, and I'm not blind.

I have watched, to my sorrow, as more and more former Clinton supporters have been driven from this forum, deliberately targeted by Obama supporters who apparently don't want any former Clinton supporters here. Especially if, God forbid, those former Clinton supporters believe that Obama's best chance of winning in November is if Clinton is his running mate.

I've been attacked here for posting that opinion by Obama supporters who never had ANY problems with other possible VPs being recommended. They just shriek if someone recommends Clinton, and try to drive away anyone who supported her. They don't seem to realize that the primaries are over.

I don't have any "overarching motivations" here. But you obviously do.

Again, go try to bully someone else. Or, better yet, grow up and stop wasting people's time.

[JackORoses]

12. thank you for a real response.

again, I am not trying to run you off.

I have read alot of your postings and wondered if you wanted Obama to win, or would still rather have Hillary.
It is clear to me now that you realize the Primaries are past and want Obama to win.

"I've been attacked here for posting that opinion by Obama supporters who never had ANY problems with other possible VPs being recommended"

I think I know why this is happening.
To some, a Clinton campaign for VP seems a continuation of the Primary, as if Obama's Victory was never wholly accepted.
It appears as if Clinton's position on the ticket is being bargained for, rather than being decided independently by the Democratic Nominee.

I hope you can see how in this environment of PUMAs, Denver Groups, etc. that your posts may get mistakenly identified.

It's good that we can both be in the same Party and yet have different ideas about what is best for the Party.
You won't find this diversity of opinion in the Republican Party.
It makes them easier to line up, but then they all fall down together, too.

Well, now time passed and now it seems
Everybody's having them dreams.
Everybody sees themselves walkin' around with no one else.
Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,"
I said that.

-Bob Dylan

[Median Democrat]

8. Could Be Worse If It Was Hillary Due To Her Debt

At least with Obama's fundraising he can keep things competitive. Overall, regardless of who was the Democratic candidate, I countinue to believe the Democrats are the underdogs due to RW control of the MSM. With money, at least Obama can get his message out. Without money, Fox News would pound him into the sand.

Even with Obama's fundraising, it is still difficult to contend with Disney (ABC) and News Corp (Fox News, WSJ). With News Corp's purchase of the WSJ, the WSJ went from mere RW bias, to GOP propaganda wing. This is why Democrats will need to work twice as hard and give twice as much to have a chance.