home

NYTimes Poll: Obama 50, McCain 44

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:52:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes Poll (9/21-24) says Obama 50 - McCain 44.

Why? 52% say the economy is the top issue, up 4% from just last week. Just 16% approve of George Bush's handling of the economy (26% approve of Bush generally.) 46% says the economy is very bad. 34% says it is just bad. 2% think the economy is getting better. 70% think it is getting worse.

And here is my HOLC moment of this post: "Do you think the federal government should provide financial help to home owners who are having trouble repaying their mortgages because their rates went up or shouldn't the federal government do this? Should 58, Should not 34."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin Attacks Obama, Gets Kissinger's Position Wrong | Thursday Night TV and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NYTimes Poll: Obama 50, McCain 44 | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Seen today (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:00:34 PM EST
    13-point lead for Obama in Michigan.

    Even if it's a bad poll, I'd settle for being ahead 13 in a bad poll!

    Talkin to people (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    In Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills- we are up by a good 11 points in these districts.  

    Parent
    Oakland County (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:35:36 PM EST
    has become so much bluer.  50/50 in 2004.  I love it!

    Parent
    Do the auto execs. still live in Bloomfield (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    Hills?  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    Though they probably live in Birmingham as well.  I think they are the 2 wealthiest cities in Oakland county?

    Parent
    And some comforting numbers (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:15:20 PM EST
    out of Pennsylvania. Obama seems to poll better there than Kerry did.

    Parent
    Who the heck are the 26% (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    still in Bush's corner?

    We know (none / 0) (#7)
    by WS on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    John McCain is one of the 26%.

    Parent
    Not today (none / 0) (#26)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST


    Parent
    I want to meet the people (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    That make up the 2% that think the economy is getting better.

    They are (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    Pawn shop owners, bankruptcy lawyers and repo men.

    Parent
    ... and the Governor of Alaska. (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:40:49 PM EST


    Parent
    I want to sell them some prime swamp (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    property

    Parent
    The shareholders, their families, and employees (none / 0) (#42)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:39:54 AM EST
    of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and companies like them, who have profited from buying failed enterprises, probably constitute part of that 2% who think that the economy has improved. J.P. Morgan was able to increase its holdings, and in general, expand its franchise after buying most of the operations of Washington Mutual, Inc. after it was seized by federal regulators. Just sayin'.

    Parent
    Still think. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    ten points is impossible?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    But 9 seems in the realm of the possible.

    Parent
    I think he'll win by 3-5 (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    But that's enough.

    Parent
    Yeah, that's my guess as ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    to where this will end up.

    But I hope Obama is humbled by this victory.  He's candidacy is probably going to be saved by a financial crisis.  

    Parent

    Is there any chance that Obama could (none / 0) (#8)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    win the popular vote and lose the electoral college vote?  Tonight I am sponsoring my first forum on the National Popular Vote (SB 37 here in CA) and there has been some concern that it could happen again if the vote is really close.

    Parent
    Come on! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    That could never happen!

    Parent
    Possible, but not probable (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST
    It would probably involve McCain squeaking by in Pennsylvania because of a lot of bitter white people exhibiting the Bradley effect.

    Parent
    Is there a Bradley effect? (none / 0) (#24)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:59:01 PM EST
    Some think that it exists and is worth 5 or 6 points.  Others think that it no longer exists.  I readily admit that I don't know, but I do worry about it.  

    Parent
    It's probably gone (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:00:43 PM EST
    But we're pretty much betting the Presidency on the hope that it's gone.

    Parent
    Did it ever exist? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:03:11 PM EST
    I have never seen any persuasive evidence for the "Bradley Effect" whatsoever.  It's never been anything but a bunch of people assuming that the only plausible reason for a disparity between polls and results must be racism.

    Heck, just today the WSJ had a take on the Bradley election (from a conservative perspective) that was a lot more persuasive than the "Bradley Effect" theory.

    Parent

    That's a good counterpoint (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:05:20 PM EST
    I think it probably did into the 80s, but it's damn hard to prove.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    don't you think there would be some empirical evidence of it, if it existed?

    Parent
    There have been studies on it (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    but I don't have them at hand.

    The real problem is that you're counting on people to tell you the truth. There's no what to compare what an individual says in a poll to what he does at the ballot box.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:19:15 PM EST
    if your point is that the theory is inherently unprovable, should you really be believing in things that are unprovable?

    With a total lack of solid evidence, I don't get how you could say "gee, I think it existed until the 80s, but maybe not any more."  I mean, what is that based on, your gut feeling about how 300 million Americans have collectively felt about race over the last 30 years?

    Parent

    As you know, there are some high (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    profile supposed examples of it in the past.

    But knowing what I know about polls, I'm willing to attribute the instances to bad or meager polling. I'm far more comfortable saying that I don't know of a recent example.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#35)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    If the Bradley effect is 5%, then Obama just needs to poll higher than McCain by 5%.  That's already happening in many states.  Right?

    Parent
    It's possible (none / 0) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
    but if you look at 538 Nate's simulations, it's actually more likely that Obama would lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote rather than the other way around.

    Partly because, while the south's population has grown, the Electoral College doesn't get rebalanced until after the 2010 election.

    Also, Obama has about 5 different state combos that would win the EV for him.  Kerry states + OH or +FL or +CO,NM,IA or +IA,VA, etc.

    Parent

    Silver is like Zogby (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:38:16 PM EST
    Too many people give him too much credibility IMO.

    Parent
    I know some people don't like him (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:44:50 PM EST
    because he was pro-Obama/anti-Clinton, but I'm pro-math, and while his methodology is too new to be shown historically accurate, I find his approach to be superior to the RCP or even Pollster.com model.  Time will tell.

    Parent
    When Dick Bennett from ARG (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    can reasonably  make fun of you for being worse than him, you're a joke.

    Parent
    Sure, it could happen. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:39:22 PM EST
    Fivehundredthirtyeight.com currently rates the chances of this happening at slightly less than 2%. They think the opposite result -- Obama losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college -- is much more likely: almost 6%.

    This sort of thing could easily happen in any close election. If you wanted to fix it, you'd need to amend the Constitution. Not easy.

    Parent

    Not really. Read about the National (none / 0) (#41)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 01:09:49 AM EST
    Popular Vote which is an end run around all of these constitutional conventions.  Those will not happen, but the NPV is much more doable.

    Parent
    Is there really that much difference in your mind (none / 0) (#10)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    between 10% and 9%?

    • Obama/Biden 55%, to McCain/Palin 45%, versus
    • Obama/Biden 54.5%, to McCain/Palin 45.5%.

    I'd happily take either result.

    Parent
    BTD is being funny. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    He just doesn't want to say I was right.  It happens so often it's become burdensome to him.

    Parent
    More SUSA sez: (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:36:46 PM EST
    Missouri:

    McCain 48
    Obama 46

    New York poll (none / 0) (#37)
    by delacarpa on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:21:42 PM EST
    How can anyone be exicited about only a 6 point lead in New York. Obama should be ahead at least by 12 going into Nov.

    Um, this is a poll by the New York Times (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:31:54 PM EST
    OF THE NATION.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:20:26 AM EST
    You mean NY, NJ, and CT then?

    Parent
    The world as seen from 9th Avenue, yeah? (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST


    Parent
    NYTimes Poll: Obama 50, McCain 44 | 43 comments (43 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment