Some Polls to Ponder
NH likes McCain, loves Obama
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Clinton 43
McCain 41
Obama 49
McCain 36
SEN:
Shaheen (D) 49
Sununu (R) 41
FAVs:
Obama 62/36 (+26)
McCain 58/40 (+18)
Clinton 48/51 (-3)
Shaheen 55/41 (+14)
Sununu 47/47 (+0)
NH is a swing state. It was one of the closest states in 2004. And in 2006 it become a solid Democratic state with both state chambers switching from R to D and both R Congressmen were defeated. McCain runs ahead of most Republicans in NH and could help the Rs there. Nevertheless, the Obama approval numbers are huge and he could take this off the competitive map.
SEN Sununu is one of the most endangered Senators this cycle and being down 49-41, while not a death sentence, is a really bad place to be in a re-election bid.
[UPDATE]
Rasmussen MO:
Clinton 42
McCain 43
Obama 40
McCain 42
FAVs:
McCain 54
Obama 50
Clinton 47
Clinton 35
McCain 49
Obama 46
McCain 39
FAVs:
Obama 60/36
McCain 55/42
Clinton 44/54
So MO is a toss-up and continues to be a bell weather state. CO shows the mighty swings that can happen depending on who the D nominee is. Obama is well liked there while Clinton has upside down favs. There is a close Senate race in the state and a strong Presidential showing will help one side. The Mountain West never liked the Clintons that much, I wonder if they like Obama because they don't know his views or in spite of them.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Pennsylvania's Dem Governor Ed Rendell and his political racism — Comments (60) »
Some Polls to Ponder 50 Comments (0 topical, 50 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think there are candidates in both districts, fwiw. I haven't seen poll numbers on them.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Yes, there are credible candidates in both districts. Having McCain at the top of the ticket probably will help those candidates.
Or doesn't that figure in somehow?
Joel Pollak
Guide to the Perplexed
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com
It supports the theory that Obama lost NH because independents figured the democratic race was sewed up after Iowa and voted in the GOP primary even though some prefer Obama.
Jed Bradley is running again. He's not th greatest candidate in the world, but Shea-Porter who won in 06 is far to liberal for NH. She's a Cindy Sheehan Democrat. I think newcomer Jim Steiner may be the best shot to beat Hodes. I dont think Bass is gong to run again.
Didn't Hillary beat Obama. I suspect those favorabiles are skewed by Republicans who don't mind Obama and hate Hillary. Isn't this tellign that some of the independents that voted for McCain in NH may ahve went back to Obama.
NH polls have been way off anyway.
I still hold out hop for Sununu.
It's still early here folks...
McCain is well known in NH... Obama is not especially for his policy positions.
While NH demographics have changed over the years, once they hear what he wants to do to them (us!) those numbers will move.
NH looks lost, it is now Mass North. Its close but Clinton beats McCain by two and she has a -3 favorable rating while McCain has a 18+ rating. That tells me a lot of people are going to vote for the democrat no matter what.
McCain better hope he can pull MN if he picks Pawlenty as VP.
I don't know why everything thinks Pawlenty could actually do anything. He has no name recognition outside of MN and he barely won reelection in 2006 (yes it was a bad year but still). I don't see MN changing this year
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
Have great name recognition outside their state. Huckabee and Romney didn't have it until they decided to run for President. "It was a bad year" is an understatement. We lost by over 20 points in the other big statewide race. That wasn't against an incumbent, either. I think Pawlenty did just fine in 2006.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
going to have a tough fight and he is a senator the state and the GOP can ill afford to lose.
This is probably where McCain running will help him, because NH overall does like McCain-voters will turn out and vote for him-in great enough numbers to give him or Sununu a victory-who knows?
In general the state is still very fiscally conservative, and small government oriented-it isn't quite Mass North, but portions of it certainly are.
Presidential primary polls from June, 2006 couldn't have been further away from the actual results we've seen.
Nine months is eternity times infinity. Anything can and will happen between now and November. General election polls start mattering mid-September.
NH will be important. We will prob lose OH... so getting back NH might be the key to the whole thing.
Obama 46
McCain 39
McCain 49
Clinton 35
Colorado is still red and probably will stay that way, Senate race to succeed Allard is tied. Looks OK.
Missouri at 6 pm
How come Obama can lead McCain 46-39 in Colorado and we dismiss it as a temporary anomaly, while similar polling leads us to write off New Hampshire?
Bush largely ignored New Hampshire for most of the 2004 campaign, and only lost it by something like 9000 votes. His decision was motivated by the same sort of polling and the same sort of assumptions about demographics.
Here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. NH is historically Republican because voters are conservative on many of the same issues on which McCain is conservative. NH voters lean left on many of McCain's mushy issues.
2. NH voters currently associate the GOP with corporate and political corruption in a way that is very similar to what we are seeing in Ohio. McCain is immunized against that.
3. Even with Democrats in power the NH state government has failed to institute either a sales or an income tax. In fact, one reason Democrats won is that the local Republicans were seen as more supportive of broad-based taxation. The GOP was the party in power, and much of the Republican leadership wanted more money to enhance their power.
McCain should be able to easily win New Hampshire. If he cannot, the Democrat will win with a >40-state landslide.
....I question the accuracy of those polls this far out. They might give a general sense of the mood RIGHT NOW, but they do not give us much insight at all as to what the electoral landscape will look like in 9 months after a general election campaign has been ran.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
And NH was the one state where Hillary really had a superior ground game compared to Obama.
The polls showed Obama ahead before the primary as well, so I'm thinking the result might've had more to do with Hillary's team's better GOTV effort. Or not.
But you're right, these polls have little to none to do with what the situation will be come November.
Rather than attack McCain, Rush and his flame thrower talk show hosts need to turn their ire towards Obama. We must drive up his negatives now, not later. He's an empty suit, but he's an extremely liberal empty suit.
We have eight and a half months to go. McCain and Republicans must go on the attack. They can't run another defensive campaign as they did in 2006. The Clintons proved that attack, attack, attack works. I fwe hear Republicans talking about GOTV and money raising we're doomed.
McCain's not the perfect candidate, but he's our candidate. The Democrats understand they can't get any part of their agenda through if they don't win. I'm not sure Republicans understand that winning is the paramount.
These polls show it's time to rally around McCain and win. As Herm Edwards said, "You play to win the game!"
Many folks don't like Clinton or Obama. Independent aren't that fond of Rush and Coulter, and neither are Democrats. If the hated right wingers are demonizing McCain, he must be ok. So fence sitters and bigots choose McCain.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
"The Democrats understand they can't get any part of their agenda through if they don't win."
The problem is that they will get part of their agenda through if they don't win because John McCain will be President and he always backs some parts of the Democratic agenda. I'm glad to see he flip-flopped on Bush tax cuts, but he still has to move to the Right.
Get over it. McCain won. Stop acting like a whiney toddler who didn't get his way. We need to win. Unfortunately, I think suicide conservatives want to lose. Just look at that vapid fool, Glen Beck.
Beck, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Malkin, Levin, Hannity, Savage, ... are all vapid fools then.
I have no problem reminding McCain just how tenuous conservative support is. In fact, I feel it's my duty. It's an unwritten contract - we'll hold our nose and vote for you, but if you go astray you better be ready to feel some serious heat.
I'm not sure that you will get much of one, and I do like the use of the word vapid.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
to listen to his "Candyman" parody of Obama.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I think for the most part he's got nowhere to go but down, while McCain will move up. Once Obama has to speak to substance and defend his record the gaga honeymoon will be over. Puppy dogs and rainbows won't cut it anymore with too many folks.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
The MSM will try to continue his free ride.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
simply because the media loves him. They will turn any attack from the right around and make into something "dirty" and the race card will be pulled out in all its blazing glory.
No reason for the right not to attack, although waiting to see if Hillary goes for the throat first may be the best current tack to take.
Can anyone tell me why it is necessary for us to spend two years and hundreds of millions of dollars to determine who our *candidate* for the Office of the President might be?
Cripes - the party itself spends millions of dollars on focus groups testing messages, appeal across different slices of the electorate body and so forth.
Wouldn't it be far more efficient and yield the same result if we just skipped the caucuses and primaries and we just invited select party leadership from across the country to a convention from the start?
This is a ridiculous waste of time and effort.
BTW - why in hell should taxpayers bear the burden of administering primaries on behalf for political parties?
A lottery system would also be more efficient.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Because "random person from the phone book > Ron Paul"
Give the PaulNuts something, they know how to text spam a poll.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
To offset the spamming power of the Ronulans. It would be the highest turnout for a primary ever.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And each show the judges eliminate one of the contestants. No primaries, though we probably should have at least 1 D and 1 R the last round.
Or we could have a "Survivor - President" reality show where they have to vote one of themselves "off the island" each round. The more we start with, the merrier.
At present, Obama is a feel good candidate. When John McCain starts (in fact, he's already started) introducing the great political middle to the jr. Senator from Illinois, the great political middle is going to want answers.
The MSM may be willing to let Obama run on smoke and mirrors, but McCain's got enough stature to make sure it doesn't happen. And he's got the guts to make sure it doesn't happen, too.
Right now his rise is fueled by charisma and good feelings. We gotta drag him into the mud to take the shine off. I'm hoping Bill goes nuclear in the next few weeks and does some of the work for us. But we'll eventually have to finish the job. The trick is to do it without looking petty and bitter. Most importantly, we need to hammer him for the very real substantive ways he differs from mainstream American thought, and not manufacture bogus controversies like "ooh look, his middle name is Hussein!"
McCain will give him the KO punch when the time is right, mainly in the debates, but we (cannon fodder) need to soften him up. That's why it's so distressing to see the talk radio blowhards still engaged in a circular firing squad.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
I don't know about that. Obama is a far-left empty suit, but he is a much better speaker than McCain.
In the GOP debates, McCain has often reminded people that he served heroically in Vietnam (which of course he did). John Kerry did the same thing, but the difference is that the mainstream media was on board with Kerry and backed up the message that Kerry's service in Vietnam made him better suited to be President than W, but I think the media will sing a different tune in a McCain vs Obama matchup. If McCain and his people play up his military service like Kerry did, then the media will accuse McCain and his people of implying that those who served are superior to those who didn't. In other words, they will try to take a positive (McCain's military service and the public's love and respect for those who serve) into a negative by portraying it as a not-too-subtle attack on Americans who didn't serve.
I totally agree. Moreover, the absolute key to any plausible McCain victory strategy will be the debates. He must debate Obama (if that is the nominee) early and often. He must debate him aggressively, and challenge him again and again on specific issues. Obama has displayed key weaknesses in terms of knowledge and argumentation in all the Democratic debates, especially the later ones. McCain has been debating in the Senate for 20 years, and he needs to exploit Obama's forensic weaknesses. If this becomes a contest of stump speeches we're not going to win. If it's contest about specific policy differences and competence, we have a decent shot at winning.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
But there has to be a daily drumbeat showing the country Obama is a liberal's liberal. He must be made to flesh out his positions.
As for McCain using his service as a campaign point: He can't run on it solely, but he'd be crazy to ignore it. We live in a dangerous world. We face potential tough times at home and certain tough decisions here and abroad. John McCain choose honor over an early out from hell on earth. He supports the surge knowing full well his son (USMC) is in Iraq. He's been in the crucible (a great difference between him and Obama), and to not use that fact tactfully would be a serious error.
Obama's cult following doesn't demand specifics. Have you noticed the numbers he's putting up? The turnout?
So far, he hasn't been asked one question. His strategy could be to go through the whole campaign this way. If his numbers stay up, he may never need to answer anything except boxer or briefs.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
The middle will. The middle won't swoon until November. It'll want to hear answers.
Of course, Obama may not want to answer the hard questions. That's why McCain will introduce him to the big leagues.
it's going to be a tough race.
With the turnout in the Democratic primaries, Obama may not need to play in the big leagues.
I hope we don't underestimate just how effective Soros and Lewis' money has been for the past 6 years. It cost us 2006.
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
Is that like when a tornado is coming and they ring a bell to warn you?
You mean bellwether.
Be not afraid
.. but it seems we have the same pet peeve. (No offense to Adam of course).
absentee
I mean no offense to Adam, either. I wish I wrote as well, or as interestingly, to coin an awkward term, as Adam and the rest of the gang here at RedState. But to see malapropisms like this is, to me, like going to a concert and listening to the lead guitar hit a sour note.
Be not afraid
IMO, if the polls (national and state) show McCain is even with Obama, then I think many Conservatives will end up voting for him even if they aren't thrilled. But if he's consistantly trailing, then I think the base turnout will be dreadful and Obama will win in a rout.
BTW, why isn't McCain bringing up Obama's NO vote on FISA?
out of shape. I've been on this meme for about a month now and I'll keep at it (politely, of course :-)
We just got done going through about a year's worth of campaigning were the most important thing day in and day didn't seem to be who was our best candidate or how well they could articulate our message, it was 'look at the polls...who can win?'
There's a reason why the most conservative candidate(s) always trails in the general this far out--the MSM always gives the most fawning coverage to whoever their darling is. Most people don't pay much attention, so their view is reflective of whatever the MSM storyline is.
Polls said that Reagan hadn't a prayer against Carter, and if polls meant anything this far out, my kids would be reading about the Dukakis, Perot, Gore & Kerry administrations. Heck, take a look at the race this year. If polls meant diddly squat pooh we'd be looking at a Guiliani/Clinton race this fall.
I'm not saying that polls can't be useful to determine strategy buy Obama's been the recipient of the most drooling, rabid press coverage since....whenever. So, take a deep breath, and realize we've been here before. Doesn't mean there isn't work to do at all levels. Let's just not let it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Look at the 2006 outcomes rather than 2004. Are there no G.O.P. challengers for the congressional seats?
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill