US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080417/D903LAEO0.html

AP-Yahoo poll shows McCain winning back unhappy Republicans


By Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.

Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago - before either party had winnowed its field - the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.

Of those who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds voted for President Bush in 2004 but are now unhappy with him, including many independents who lean Republican. The remaining one-third usually support Democrats but like McCain anyway.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.

David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq.

"It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset."

By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold - along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders.

The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties.

The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.

Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.

"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.

Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty - meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush.

For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.

Among the unhappy Bush supporters whom McCain has lured back to his campaign, about half say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain - for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing.

"He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better."

Most of the Democratic-leaning voters now supporting McCain backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November.

"He is more open-minded" than Obama and Clinton, said Darlene Heins, 46, a Democrat from North Brunswick, N.J., who has moved from undecided to backing McCain. "He directly answers questions, which tells me he's listening."

Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain - his age.

"Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency."

Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about.

"McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of."

Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama.

"The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said.

The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.

The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
 
I’ve been perusing the comments at ABCnews.com and while a majority of the comments are negative, most seem to be written by Obama supporters. They’re mostly akin to disgruntled fans bitching about a call that went against their team the night before.

Obama was asked a few tough questions and he answered them poorly. Blaming ABC looks bad. If Obama followers think last night was rough, the impending GOP evisceration of Obama will make the ABC debate look like a tea party. Even if one thinks the questions were biased, petty, etc., Obama is the candidate who is claiming he will transcend this type of politics. He didn’t last night.

Regarding the uproar with Stephanopoulos moderating…my guess is that the Obama campaign had prior knowledge of it. Why didn’t they make a stink before the debate?

If Hillary wins PA by 8-10% on Tuesday, I think DEM leaders and superdelagates will begin to swing back to her.
 
it wasn't that Stephanopoulos was moderating, it was the manner in which he moderated. it's well documented that he got the bogus William Ayers question from Sean Hannity, and ask yourself, do you really think this question belongs in a debate:

[q]"Does Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you?" [/q]

i wonder, does obama shed one tear when he hears the national anthem, or many tears?

the public needs to know these things.

as for the impending GOP evisceration of Obama ... i agree, the GOP fights dirty and nasty and their attacks have nothing to do with governing the country and it shocks me that people fall for their tactics and allow themselves to be bullied like they were in 2004.

but the Clintons are not to be messed with, as we have seen. she is far, far tougher competition than any of the GOP candidates were.
 
Irvine511 said:
it wasn't that Stephanopoulos was moderating, it was the manner in which he moderated.

a lot of the comments I've read are arguing that Stephanopoulos shouldn't have moderated due to his ties to the Clintons.
 
MaxFisher said:


a lot of the comments I've read are arguing that Stephanopoulos shouldn't have moderated due to his ties to the Clintons.



he's had a fairly public falling out with them, but true, he might retain some loyalties, like Paul Begala and James Carville.
 
10 million viewers last night...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/top-ratings-for-penn-debate/

Top Ratings for Penn. Debate
By Brian Stelter

More than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday’s Democratic debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season.
The debate, the first to air on a weeknight on a broadcast network, attracted an average of 10.7 million viewers between 8 and 10 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research.
Viewership of the debate peaked between 8:30 and 9 p.m. with 11.8 million viewers, topping the “reality” fare of “Deal or No Deal” on NBC and “Big Brother” on CBS. The broadcast faced stiffer competition at 9 p.m. when “American Idol” appeared on Fox and netted 22.7 million viewers. Still, ABC averaged over 10 million viewers in the second hour of the debate.
The presidential candidate debates have repeatedly broken viewership records during the hotly contested primary season. The bar was previously set in January when a Saturday night debate shown on ABC averaged 9.4 million viewers. CNN attracted almost as many viewers (8.3 million) for another Democratic debate in January.
 
I read George Stephenopoulos's book "All Too Human" several years ago...it was fascinating, and based on that alone, he and Hillary don't seem to get along very well, but for people who haven't read the book or aren't as aware about that relationship, it's understandable that people assume that his being there is unfair. However, as per usual, I agree with Irvine that it wasn't the fact the he was moderating, it was how he moderated, which focused on issues of patriotism and lapel pins rather than the economy, iraq, environment, healthcare, etc.
 
HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE!!! :dancing: :dancing:



http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481


Released: April 17, 2008
Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Deadlocked in Pennsylvania!


UTICA, New York—With just five days left before Democratic primary voters go to polls to decide who they want to be their presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are locked in a battle that is too close to call, the latest Newsmax/Zogby telephone poll shows.


The survey, which was conducted April 15-16, 2008 and came out of the field midway through Wednesday's contentious debate between the two candidates in Philadelphia, shows Clinton at 45% and Obama at 44%, with 12% either wanting someone else or left undecided.


The telephone survey, conducted using live operators working out of Zogby's on-site call center in Upstate New York, included 601 likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania. It carries a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads by a wide margin in western Pennsylvania, including Pittsburgh, while Obama leads by a large percentage in eastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. In the central part of the state, including the state capital of Harrisburg, Clinton leads by eight points.

Pennsylvania


Clinton
45%

Obama
44%

Someone else
3%

Not sure
9%


Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Pollster John Zogby—"This is not a year for negative campaigning and Clinton's pounding of Obama on his controversial description of small town voters in Pennsylvania does not seem to be working. Obama leads in the Philadelphia and eastern part of the Commonwealth, among African Americans, and Very Liberal Pennsylvanians. He also has a slight lead among voters in union households and has an 18 point margin over those who have lost a job. Clinton maintains her lead among whites, Catholics, Liberals, and Hispanics.

"The gender gap is huge with Obama leading among men by 15 and Clinton leading among women by 15. But Clinton holds a wide advantage on the question of understanding Pennsylvania (58%-27%) and handling the economy of the country (47%-38%). She also is ahead in understanding the personal financial situation of individuals (41%-35%).

"On the other hand, Pennsylvanians by a two to one margin (60% to 29%) are more likely to agree with supporters of Obama that voters in Pennsylvania are bitter about their economic situation than with Clinton and critics of Obama that he is an elitist who does not understand working people.


"On the key questions of who they would rather have a beer with: Clinton 38%, Obama 39%—with 15% undecided.

A key demographic group that has changed its mind in the last week is Democratic voters age 35 to 54, who just one week ago favored Clinton by a 45% to 40% margin. Now, Obama leads among those voters by a 47% to 41% edge. Clinton leads among voters older than age 54, while Obama leads among the younger set.

Among men, Obama holds what has come to be a predictable advantage, leading with 50% support, compared to 35% for Clinton. But Clinton makes up for it among women—also a predictable support group for her—leading by a 53% to 38% margin.

Among the very liberal Democratic Party voters, Obama leads, while Clinton leads among mainline liberals. Among moderates, the two are deadlocked, while Clinton has an edge among conservative Democratic voters.


Among whites and Hispanics, Clinton holds double-digit leads, while Obama holds a huge lead among African Americans, winning 82% support.


Two issues were dominant in the minds of these voters—with the economy far and away the most important to voters in deciding whom to support—54% said it was at the top of their list. The Iraq war was a distant second, with all other issues winning just a passing notice from the likely voters.


Asked which candidate was most likely to improve the respondent's personal financial situation, Clinton won 41%, compared to 35% who said Obama would be tops. Six percent identified someone else, while 19% said they were unsure.


Asked which candidate would be most likely to improve the U.S. economy, Clinton also held an advantage, winning 47% support to 38% who said Obama was most likely. Men favored Obama, while women favored Clinton.

Voters Believe Clinton Understands Pennsylvania Better

The Newsmax/Zogby survey asked likely Democratic primary voters which candidate they believed understands Pennsylvania better, and Clinton was seen to be far more understanding of the state. While 58% said she better understood the Keystone State, just 27% said Obama had a better grip on it. This comes nearly a week after Obama, speaking to an audience in San Francisco, said that Pennsylvanians cling to their religion and to guns out of bitterness over bad economic times. The comment has drawn a significant backlash, and Obama has been explaining his comments ever since.

But the issue has apparently had little impact on the broader head-to-head contest, as Obama has closed the lead Clinton has enjoyed for some time.

The survey also asked specifically about the controversy, asking likely voters whether they agreed with the Obama critics who have said the comments show he is an elitist who does not understand working people and their problems—29% agreed. But 60% said they agreed with Obama supporters who have said he is simply telling the truth about these people who are suffering from the results of economic policies in Washington.

For a detailed methodology statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1294

(4/17/2008)
 
I think a lot will happen between now and November

but I also think it is getting easier to see how the Dem nomination will play out

Obama has a decent showing in Penn, wins IN, NC handily,
and many more of the super delegates that are politically motivated (elected officials) will feel safe in going with Obama
his numbers will get better and he will have 250-350 lead over Hillary

her only option would be a full frontal
Nuclear destruction attack on Obama

and Nuclear, we all know is MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction,

Cllintons may do anything to win
self destruction, is not winning.
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
That debate was a farce. I kept waiting for a real question, I was channel surfing trying to watch other things but somehow I don't think I missed any real questions. I liked the color of Senator Clinton's jacket.

They could have had the various female Fox anchors asking the questions and it would have been the same debate :wink: George and Charlie (es) would have just had to wear skirts, cause women have to wear skirts to be real women (*official Fox News manual, page 2)

:yes:

I couldn't believe they brought up the flag pin thing again.


I liked Clinton's earrings :reject:
 
I feel sorry for you bleeding heart liberals.

I hope you all make a list of who of you will move out of the country if McCain is elected.

I remember a bunch of you promised this at the last election and never fulfilled your promise.

This time I'd like a full list and the absolute promise to move!!!

Canada and France are looking good for ya!

Sorry. The Dems have no chance this election.
 
NEW YORK (AP) ― Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has decided against his own White House run, said Thursday that his endorsement will go to the most straight-talking candidate, adding that "at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and can accomplish something."

Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, later ducked a question about whether he was taking a shot at President Bush, and cracked a joke instead.

"He's not a candidate for office. There's a Constitutional provision that prevents him from running for a third term, and last I checked, he wasn't trying to change it, nor was anybody advocating that it gets changed, as far as I know," Bloomberg said.

The billionaire mayor made the comment during a question-and-answer session with his political pal, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, at an annual luncheon he hosts to discuss his political agenda.

In making a decision about whom to endorse, Bloomberg said he is not trying to decide which one of the three matches up with him ideologically, but wants to know which one is "willing to face reality and say 'We can't have everything, and there are costs and we've got to make choices."'

"Some of the things they'll be in favor of, I'll agree with, some of the things they'll be in favor of, I won't, but at least we'll have an adult in office who can lead and can accomplish something," he said.
 
The Democrats’ Wimp Factor

As Obama's patriotism is questioned, he's starting to look more and more like John Kerry in '04.

Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 4:00 PM ET Apr 17, 2008

The specter of John Kerry in 2004 is beginning to haunt the Democrats in 2008. It is the specter of wimpy campaigns past. It showed up, like Banquo's ghost, at the debate Wednesday night in Philadelphia, particularly when Hillary Clinton joined with ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson to nip away at the edges of Barack Obama's patriotism. Between the questions about Obama's meager association with William Ayers, a former Weatherman, and the suspicions raised by his lack of a flag lapel pin, the likely nominee is slowly being turned into John Kerry. He is becoming, in other words, a candidate who may be mostly right about national security but who will lack the Red State street cred to carry his point—and the election.

Once again timorous Democratic advisers behind the scenes are hoping they can run mainly on the ailing economy. While their candidates are urging an end to George W. Bush's war in Iraq, they are terrified of questioning the larger premises of his "war on terror" or John McCain's redefinition of it as the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century." Today's Dems are, in other words, proving unequal to the task of reclaiming the party's mostly honorable heritage on national security. This view is sadly out of touch, today more than ever. To little notice, Obama's tough, clearly stated position on Bush's war—that it was disastrously misdirected toward Iraq when Afghanistan was always the real front—is becoming conventional wisdom, even among the Bush administration's top security officials, like Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During two days of nearly impenetrable testimony on Iraq by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker last week, one answer rang out as clearly as an alarm bell. Under questioning from Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Crocker admitted that Al Qaeda poses a greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan than it does in Iraq. No one knows more about this than the ambassador, an Arabic-speaking diplomat who previously served as envoy to Pakistan and whose career practically tells the story of America and the age of terror going back to the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut.

Yet the region that poses America's number one threat is getting little in attention and resources compared to Iraq. What Obama is arguing on the stump is pretty close to what Gates and the Joint Chiefs have been quietly hearing from their military advisers: that the best the United States can do with its scant NATO force of 37,000 in Afghanistan is to hold off the resurgent Taliban and their Al Qaeda guests in a stalemate. Under current conditions Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief culprits of 9/11, will continue to have plenty of room to roam, unharried by any large-scale U.S. or Pakistani effort to go after them. This is even truer today; next door to Afghanistan, Pakistan is transitioning into a post-Musharraf era and seeking to negotiate more with the extremists. Obama called last year for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan, and last week he was joined by Biden, who told an audience at Georgetown University that "the longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago." Biden added that Gen. Dan McNeil, commander of the international force in Afghanistan, told him during a visit in February "that with two extra combat brigades—about 10,000 soldiers—he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on move. But he can't get them because of Iraq." Even Hillary Clinton has been tacking, very quietly, in Obama's direction.

No one, in other words, has a better case to make on national security right now than Barack Obama. John McCain is still out there contending that Iraq is the central battlefront and quoting Osama bin Laden favorably to justify his argument (not to mention mixing up Shiites and Sunnis). Under normal conditions this position might saddle McCain with a real "vulnerability"—to use a term the Dems like to employ about themselves—but it doesn't seem to hurt him much now. The Democrats are too afraid of his all-American "story," as Hillary put it. John Kerry, a winner of the Silver Star in Vietnam, spent most of his 2004 campaign defending himself against vague suggestions of treason based on his antiwar testimony in 1971, when as a young officer returning from Vietnam he asked, penetratingly and relevantly for today, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Obama is being placed on the defensive on flimsy grounds as well, and there he's likely to stay, rendered permanently suspicious by association thanks to questions about Ayers and the "anti-American" statements of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As Clinton said helpfully during the debate, "It goes to this larger set of concerns about how we are going to run against John McCain." She's right, but her fears are self-fulfilling. The more damage she does to Obama, the harder it will be for him to take the offensive against a bona fide patriot and war hero like McCain. Safer just to talk about the economy and health care.

Insecurity over national security has been eating at the Democrats ever since Vietnam destroyed the party's proud self-image, which was forged by FDR, Truman and JFK in World War II and the early years of cold war containment (both Democratic success stories). Obama, by most accounts, is confident of his ability to reclaim this grand tradition. "Of all people I've dealt with on foreign policy issues, this guy takes to it like a duck to water," one of his top advisers, Greg Craig, a former State Department policy planning chief, told me recently. But the party's peculiar pathology could yet drag Obama down. He's getting Kerryized. At a time when he should be taking on John McCain, he's being forced to talk about lapel pins.
 
MediaMatters reports that on his radio show this morning, Don Imus said that Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than [Hillary Clinton]." From the Media Matters summary:

During the April 17 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than" Sen. Hillary Clinton. While discussing the April 16 Democratic debate, Imus said he thought that co-moderator George Stephanopoulos was "great" and that the debate was "fine," adding: "I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other." News anchor Charles McCord interjected, "But then," and Imus continued: "And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is."
 
Obama's between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't hit back on attacks hard he's considered a "wimp", but if he does, people jumped on him for being a typical politician and not rising above the attacks :shrug:

As for national security, there's little either Hillary or Obama can do to compete with the perceived knowledge and expertise of John McCain, the best they can do is offer their plans and continue to link McCain to Bush.
 
U2democrat said:
Obama's between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't hit back on attacks hard he's considered a "wimp", but if he does, people jumped on him for being a typical politician and not rising above the attacks :shrug:


Obama is a typical politician. He doesn't "transcend" anything. He looks bad because he's complaining about getting tough questions, when he has things he clearly needs to answer for. He's going to have a lot of hard decisions to make as president, and he can't just whine all the time. Obama needs to attack back if he wants to do better, even if it means destroying the facade of him being "different than other politicians." People can't just expect him to coast to the Oval Office without being challenged.
 
Obama DEFINITELY needs to answer "does your pastor love America as much as you do?"

I must know whether he has the ability to ascertain the emotions of another man before I can vote for him to make an economic decision on my behalf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom