Freshman Senator and prospective Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has dissolved. Obama now ties McCain in Saturday’s Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and has higher negatives ( http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll ). His media-driven honeymoon is over, and the American public doesn’t believe in Obama’s “change.”

The pertinent passage:
McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, Obama by 54%. Obama receives unfavorable reviews from 44% of voters while McCain is viewed unfavorably by 41%. McCain earns favorable ratings from 32% of Democrats while Obama is viewed favorably by 22% of Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters, McCain is viewed favorably by 58%, Obama by 54%.

Obama was effectively marketed as a transcendent figure that would rise above politics as usual and “change” everything; he tapped into something powerful. He has since shown himself to be a typical politician with a willingness to sacrifice core democratic principles in order to appear as a moderate.

Take his carefully crafted image away, and what are we left with? A facsimile of John Kerry - a wavering candidate that is disliked by middle America, and whom unlike Kerry, lacks experience and has flimsy credentials to be commander in chief.

‘Community organizer’ does not cut it, and his record in the IL legislature (a part time job) is less than stellar. Has anyone even asked Senator Obama about why he killed a GLBT hate crimes bill yet?

Keep in mind folks, that this contest has come to a draw before the Republican attacks have gotten into full swing, and they have plenty more to work with. Every indication is pointing toward November 2008 being an absolute bloodbath.

Barack Obama will only have himself to blame for costing the Democratic party the White House.

"Barack Obama will only have himself to blame for costing the Democratic party the White House."


  I wouldn't be too sure about that... The headline could very well say...Republican Party takes blame with 2008 loss for nominating Mccain.
IMO Obama is getting more center votes by his changing Iraq vision..

The Democrat Party pollers never talked to enough of the uneducated racist Dems who will not allow themselves to vote for a non white..
Its going to be a close race polls or no polls

So Barry is a Democrat who speaks tough rhetoric but has reversed his position with financing his campaign and has betrayed his base on Iraq to try to win swing votes?  Wow!!  What a "change"!!!

"Obama has near unanimous support among blacks, 94%-1%, and a nearly 20 point lead, 55%-36%, among women. His lead among young voters 18 to 34 years old is even greater at 63%-31%".

If he can get African American support at 94-1%, who knows, he could even win a southern state, or two...

And Obama still has a very comfortable lead in many swing states polls including, but not limited to, Iowa, Minnesota, (Pawlenty can't save McSame in that state), Wisconsin, & Colorado....

BTW, Scott Rasmussen (of Rassmussen Reports) is a Republican.....

-- Modified on 7/16/2008 4:22:38 AM

"Uneducated racist Dems." Who knew there were racist Dems?

It had to come to this. Because race is THE key issue when a Democrat votes for a black candidate.

This country IS ready for a black President, but not a black Democrat President. A black Democrat is a Democrat because he's black, a black Republican is a Republican because he's a Republican.

The first black president will not win 90+% of the black vote. The first black president will win 50-60% of the black vote because he will win despite being black, not because of it.

White voters, and many of us who are not white are not going to trust a candidate who is all about "black" issues. Someone like a Colin Powell could have broad appeal because he is a man of his convictions first, a politician second, and a black man third. Alas he is way too smart to run, but whatever candidate of African descent that breaks through and is elected POTUS will not do so by being a "black" candidate.

if you want to show the actual quinnipiac link, why show them a link to some WSJ reporter's blog??? Here's the link to the actual Quinnipiac report. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1192&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0

Here's what they said "Independent voters split 44 - 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Sen. McCain has a slight 47 - 44 percent edge among men voters and a larger 49 - 42 percent lead among white voters."

"Sen. Barack Obama's national lead is solid - but it's not monolithic," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


"His support in the black community is about as close to unanimous as you can get. Politicians say that the only uncertainty will be turnout. Sen. John McCain leads among white voters.


"As is usually the case, the outcome probably will be decided in the middle, among the independent voters, who are evenly split at this point."


"About one-fifth of those who voted for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries decline - so far, anyway - to come home to their party."

The honeymoon is definitely over.


-- Modified on 7/16/2008 7:51:26 AM

The very fact that the "black" community is almost 100% behend him will be one of the very reasons he won't get elected.

His change of position on Iraq won't win him any votes either. For every voter that thinks he is coming to his senses there will be five that will see him for what he is, just another pandering politician.

so Obama getting 90%+ isn't that much of a surprise, & when you say:

"The very fact that the "black" community is almost 100% behend him will be one of the very reasons he won't get elected".

Non-sense...Your side will try to paint him as Jesse Jackson, when he is a complete 360 from that guy...Besides, Jackson was never a serious candiate in 84 or 88 because he didn't have support from ANYONE...Obama is a serious candiate because he has broad support from many groups...

As far as changing his mind, John McSame changes his positions on a daily basis...

Moose. I many respects JackinJesse is more acceptable than Hussein Osama. JJ is more honest about his desire to get payback from the honkies.

Or maybe his error was subconscious.

Moosie to do a 360 is to be exactly where you started, to do a 180 is to reverse your course.

Maybe that's what you actually meant, Obama has gone full circle back to being as irrelevent to the rest of us as Jesse Jackson. He is proving himself to be just like any other politician.

BTW I don't have a side. I don't like either candidate, but McCain is heads and shoulders above "your guy".

lol

Agreed Gambler.  Too bad JC Watts got out of politics,  He was one of the brightest guys in Congress and would make a hell of a presidential candidate.  Herman Cain would make a hell of a treasury secretray, the guy really understands business.  Love his radio show.

go in the voting booth & simply vote for the candiate with the R next to his/her name....In 2004, Bush won many rural areas with 70%+ of the vote, simply because he was the Republican - period, done, end of story....

So sure, while there's no doubt many blacks will vote for Obama for no other reason than skin color - let's be honest - many whites pull the R lever ONLY because the candiate is Republican & against abortion (single issue voters)....

-- Modified on 7/16/2008 6:23:44 PM

You have admitted that you are a partisan and that you have never and probably never will vote for a Republican. That makes you every bit as shallow and narrow minded as those redneck Republicans that you find it so easy to belittle.

I have said it before and I will say it again, anyone who votes strictly along party lines, and Moose this includes you, is an idiot. Idiocy crosses all racial and all party lines, and unfortunately you suffer from it badly. Why do you think so many people call you a kool aid drinker? I am sure you mean well, but you are as naive as they come.

"Why do you think so many people call you a kool aid drinker"?....

This is a very far right politics board (which is quite ironic given the main reason most read & or post on TER - to find high end ladies), so since I'm in the minority, I get bashed, even though I really make a good effort to discuss issues/topics in a civil manner...Yes, I've gotten caught up in the name calling as well, but the right wing members of this board are a tough crowd..

Maybe I could actually vote for a Republican if they all weren't so socially conservative...Seriously, Lincoln Chafee (not in office now) & Arnold Schwartzenegger are exceptions, & not the rule...

What happened to the Barry Goldwater types?????....Why did Republicans drift soo far right & let the religious right take control...

Goldwater was before my time, but I could definitely vote for a Republican like that...

it tilts a little further to the right than it did several months ago, but it is far from a right wing board. If you look at the ten nost active posters you'll find four rabid lefties, three definite righties and three somewhere in between. The make up of this board has changed many times over the years, but to call it a far right board is patently unfair.

Moose, if you are going to be honest, even you have to admit that the worst offenders when it comes to personal attacks and name calling are from the far left. I can't imagine you stooping to the level of Avenger or R2. The worst any of the righties has called you is naive or a "koolaid drinker", a far cry from the virtriol that comes from the likes of those two in particular.

Think about it, if you're honest with yourself I think you'll agree with me, on this one subject at least. I have no delusions that I am going to convert you from being an Obama supporter.

First, and overview of the polling:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

A hint, they all put Obama in the lead.

But worse for McCain is this: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Which comes to 320 electoral votes for Obama, 204 for McCain, with 14 tied. Since McCain's remarkable 10 gaffe-week performance, those 14 tied points used to be in McCain's corner.  

Meanwhile, Zogby tabulates theirs much more favorably for McCain, with Obama leading merely 273-160, with 105 undecided.

http://www.zogby.com/50state/

In other words, McCain isn't competitive. Neither does his campaign look ready for an up-hill run to make up a one hundred plus deficit in the electoral college.

Get used to saying "President Obama" guys.

-- Modified on 7/17/2008 2:21:07 PM

But it does seem like it's more anti-Obama than it was anti-Kerry....In 04, there were those here who definitely didn't like Kerry, but it seems like there's alot more anti-Obama posters...

BTW, what did you think of John Kerry?.....I guess you wouldn't be surprised if i told you I voted for him in 2004, lol..

I didn't think much more of Kerry than I do Obama. If given a choice between Kerry or Obama, I'd take Kerry in a hearbeat. I voted against him in '04 just like I plan on voting against Obama in '08.

Coming from as far to the left as you do, I can see where you might have seen this board as centrist at one time, just at a diferent time than I do. This board was once extremely left wing, I believe this is the time period that you considered it centrist.

The board today is pretty evenly divided between lefties, righties and independents. Of course there are many here that call themselves independents that are actually partisans of the worst sort.

At least you've never really tried to portray yourself as independent, I am glad that you have not tried to delude us or more importantly yourself into thinking that you are not a liberal democrat. I can not rembember a time that you have broken ranks with the Democratic party, but at least you have not made any claims to the contrary.

Yes, I was REALLY hoping for Howard Dean to win the nomination & presidency in 2004, (and I guess it's a safe assumption to say you didin't like Dean either, correct?) & I'm very socially liberal (probably bordering social libertarian), but I'm not far left on everything...

I believe in the death penalty, I'm not some tree hugging environmentalist, I'm against quotas/affirmative action....On fiscal issues, I'm somewhere in the middle..

I bet you Hugo Chavez thinks he's a moderate too.

Death penalty and Affirmative action. Not much, but it's a start. Yes you are very, very liberal on social issues, on fiscal issues you are at least, right of Castro, but still far from the middle.

If I remember correctly, I thought you were no fan of the religious right either?....

Religious Right = Republicans

Now maybe Obama had the crazy pastor, but at least Obama won't mix politics & religion like McBush probably would...If he was president, he would cave in & let the religious right run amuck.....See, if you vote for Obama, Gambler, you won't have to worry about the influence of the religious right on his presidency AND you won't have to worry about the Supreme Court....Obama would appoint fair justices like Ginsburg, Souter, Bryer, & Stevens, not idealogues like the others...


-- Modified on 7/18/2008 4:12:43 PM

Gee, why is it hard to take liberelas seriously?

How do you KNOW this?

Because he SAID so?

He has a record of reversing his opinion at least TEN times in the last few weeks.

Well your batting .250 on that one.

the only ones considered idealogues are the ones that disagree with his liberal agenda.

Cmon RWU, haven't you learned libspeak yet?

All lefties are considered moderate, and all moderates are considered right wingers, and all right wingers are considered far right radicals.

It's real easy once you get the hang of it. lmao

are far right idealouges...Those 4 never rendered a decision in any case, in their entire careers that wasn't in favor of the far right position...

Now the right likes to use fancy rhetoric like "strict constructionist judges" & "original intent", but we all know that's just code words to mean judges who support the far rights views & ideas...

Actually, the aforementioned 4 justices should be called ROBOTIC justices, since they are programmed to deliver a decision that favors anything righty...

And John W McBush has said repeatedly that he would appoint those types (Scalia, Roberts) of justcies - which again shows just how far right McBush truly is....But even if McBush won, the senate will be controlled by the Democrats, & every single one of them should vote no on any of his appointments, unless he fields a moderate (ha-ha, fat chance) candiate....

"[Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, & Ailito] never rendered a decision in any case, in their entire careers that wasn't in favor of the far right position..."

Since they have not all voted the same way on every decision you have to be wrong. Your gift of hyperbole is matched only by the simplicity of your ideological viewpoints.

Then the concept is too complex for Moosey to grasp.

Of course not. What am I thinking?

These things only occur with Republicans.

What the heck is wrong with you? lol

he's a one issue voter...

and you know full well that unlike a true lefty or a true righty, I can support the second ammendment without forgetting about the first, or the other 26 for that matter. Except for the 18th, that one just proves that government is far from perfect and that we should not blindly follow our leaders.

That's why I call you a koolaid drinker, you honestly believe that government in general and your fearless leader in particular can cure all your, and society's problems. I see government as more of a cause of problems than a solution.

Government needs to do what government does, ensure for the national defense, make sure the garbage gets picked up, etc. Aside from that I believe the less government the better. If I have to choose between the Republicans making my moral decisions for me or the Democrats making my financial decisions, the choice is not that hard especially when the choice between the characters of the two men is so easy. One has charcter the other does not.

Obama's stance on the 2nd ammendment only reinforces that opinion. It's no surprise he is an anti gunner, virtually all dems are, the level of his hypocrisy on the matter is what concerns me. Case in point, He has you convinced that he supports the 2nd ammendment when everybody with a lick of sense knows he is an anti gunner.

There you go again. . .

quoting President Ronald Reagan.

til I was blue in the face in many past posts about how I wish the govt. would stay out of people's private lives & quit worrying about trival crap like abortion, pornography, what Hollywood is producing, & what Howard Stern is saying....The social conservatives want to regulate morality, it's quite the irony that the party that talks about LESS govt. really wants to tell people what they should/should not be listening to & watching...Conservatives believe in selective 1st. Amendment - if it's Coulter or Limbaugh, then they cry "free speech, free speech"...But if its pornography or Howard Stern, it becomes "we got to censor/ban them, they are a negative influence on society"....

So the Republicans are really NOT the party of less govt., unless the religious right loses its stranglehold they have on the party, they will continue to be the party that believes in selective First Amendment rights & govt. intervention...

I think even Barry Goldwater would have agreed with me on this....