National polls give Obama an edge

As an Independent for Obama, nobody called me for polling. That is because 90% of independent, Young(-28 years old) voters do not pay for land line phones.

Land line phones are a waste of money when the cell phone companies are already charging you for $60 a month. These polls most likely get through to older generations of voters who either don't have cell phones, or have enough money for both.

Both of these catagories are more likely to be McCain supporters, Old and rich.

This poll is obviously skewed since the Rasmussen poll has them tied.

And I don't buy his "huge" lead with women. Most women I know who were Hillary supporters have gone to McCain.

PUMA 2008!!!

We need Senator Obama in the White House !! He is our best hope to correct our wayward nation and mend its evil ways under this administration of horrific ways and means and disasterous policies taking us down an endless path of destruction.

a vote for Grandad is another term for Bush.

A couple of weeks ago, pundits were saying the 15-point lead could not be correct. Now some of the McCain lovers are trumpeting that Obama's lead has dropped from 15 points. Do they think we are stupid? Maybe they know something.

This Election 2008 IS NOT about OBAMA or McCAIN BUT ONLY ABOUT America and of course the IMPACT on the World policy. The DIRTY DISTRACTION from the real matters to personal attacks will only harm the the Country. It is PRIME TIME to get down to the real matters and demonstrate practically how the next four years will affect the US & the World Policy.
Herve Y. ACLASSATO
Germany

I'm excited about the outcome of the US presidential elections.Both contestants are of unquestioned ability and patriotism.Obama is a supremely gifted orator, his opponent hughely experienced and kind of like a national hero of sorts. One way or another the electorate willmake history- either they elect the first black president or the oldest ever. One way or another I;m indifferent. Good luck you two great patriots!

Barack Obama the clearly better choice in this election. I am a Vietnam Veteran with an Iraq war veteran son and we both concur that Barack has the war issue right to a tee. We will vote for the President who has the best interests of our veterans at heart and that is Barack Obama who supported Senator Jim Webbs GI Bill even though of course both George W. and John McCain chose to fight it until the votes in favor overwhelmed them. We are also Latinos and are seeing a wave of even Cuban Americans going to Barack Obama. As to the ladies they realize that they are giving up their right to control their wombs should they support the candidate who cheated on the wife who nursed him when he came back from Nam and calls his current wife a Cu__ in public today. Family values I dont think so Mr. senior citizen.

Who cares about PUMA!!!! Go ahead an vote Mcbush and Rush Limbaugh!

A vote for Grandad??? Let's trade racism for ageism, eh?

A vote for Obama is another vote for Jimmy Carter...by the way...Obama says change? What change? His "policies" are just old democratic throwback polices...the oly difference is that he's a black guy...there isn't any "change"...just a lame buzz word...

I am hoping our Country will find a way to quit fighting other peoples wars -- that could only be WON by turning the country we fight in into a huge graveyard. Even in those other countries that are with us and rooting us on -- most of their common people are against us.

All we have proven is that by doing this we ruin our economy with money down rat holes and alienate the World against us. Also this drives the price of Big Oil up, up, up, and makes munitions companies wealthy -- which only helps very a few here.

Seems it is out of fashion to try and negotiate -- just attack first -- and see what happens.

The people here "suffer" (they are not "whiners" like suggested by status quo advocates). Come November we have a rare rare opportunity not seen in many decades..

We need Senator McCain in the White House !! He is our best hope to correct our wayward nation and mend its evil ways under this congress of horrific ways and means and disasterous policies taking us down an endless path of destruction.

mccain too old . old ppl crazy

Herve,
Thank you for hitting the nail directly on the head. America needs to move forward as a world leader by dealing with real matters that affect us all. It does not matter who goes to the white house as long as America can become the TRUE world leader once AGAIN! I guess now our rating is burning in the BUSHES (W and H), may be Cheney is adding some kerosine.

McCain the pseudo hero is going to continue the eight years of helI we are going through—7 years of war, 4660 dead young Americans and rising, 9 trillion $$$ of debt and rising, and still no bin Laden in sight. Obama the pseudo changer is going to sacrifice his principles just to get elected—he’s moving to the right as we speak. No more two-party sell out. We need a true third party that belongs to the people, NOT big corporations. It’s time to take back the government – vote for someone who’s not afraid of taking a stand on OUR behalf, and is not into big corporate interests like the other two. WWW.VOTENADER.ORG. It’s time for a REAL change.

mccain too old and rich . maybe little kooko

There's no question that people are starting to see Obama for what he really is. He leaned way left to get nominated and now is leaning towards the center for the general election. He has contradicted himself more times than I can count and is willing to say and do anything to get to the White House. The people of this country are smarter than to fall for it, and as the rest of the campaign unfolds, Obama's true colors will become more and more apparent. McCain will be our next president... Write it down.

Obama supporters: don't get your hopes up too high. He has support among women, youngsters, and blacks. Those are the three demographics that historically have low turnout in national elections.

Inexperienced or over the hill - I'd better wait to see who will be the vice president for each of these candidates before I make up my mind.

Brook says:
"This poll is obviously skewed since the Rasmussen poll has them tied. And I don't buy his "huge" lead with women. Most women I know who were Hillary supporters have gone to McCain."

Hmm. I think the Rasmussen poll is obviously skewed, since this poll lhas them at 50-41 (hey, makes just as much sense, right?).

And I don't buy this statement that Hillary supporters are going to McCain. In 1998, at a Republican fundraiser, McCain told this joke: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

How any woman who claims to have supported Hillary Clinton could justify voting for this guy is beyond me.

No one should take polls seriously this far out. Kerry led Bush by the same margins around the same time in 2004.

we will remember the democracks in Nov for the high food prices and the high gasoline prices. polls don't elect anybody. thank a democrack in November VOTE NO

polls represent garbage-in and garbage-out. I agree that polls may be skewed by such things as land-lines vs cell phones, but it is also true that polls are skewed by sampling errors. For example, the LA Times poll put obama ahead by 14 points, but the sample only included 27% Republican voters (disproportionately low) but over-represented Democrats and certain minorities. The media are engaged in a coordinated effort to make Obama's election look "inevitable" , which may explain why this newspaper has conveniently overlooked or "forgotten" to report that Zogby has Obama leading by less than 3 percentage points and Rasmussen is the same. (In fact. one national poll actually has them even over the past week as Obama flip-flops). have we forgotten how wrong the polls were in New Hampshire just a few months ago? I am not supporting Obama simply because Obama is a straight-line party follower, and it is not possible to lead from the middle of the pack. Obama also needs to learn a few things, including (1) there are 50 states, not 57; (2) Memorial Day is not the same as Veteran's Day, (3) it is generally considered bad form to invade your allies (Pakistan), (4) "little countries like Iran" can and do threaten us and world peace, (5) socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, (6) the Constitution was not written by Karl Marx. (7) You do not help working families by reducing their take-home pay through higher income and SS taxes, or by creating indirect taxes on consumer goods through corporate taxation that, in turn, leads to retail price increases, (8) His plan to "ration health care' and deny "expensive care" to Americans after age 75 reeks of nazism, (9) America is not the "world's money pot", and illegal aliens do not have some inate right to come here and slop at the public trough and (10) illegal aliens suppress wages, hurt unions and take jobs from American workers while they use up our health care system and public education money. In other words, Obama needs to figure out what nation he is loyal to.

In response to reply #2; I know many Clinton supporters, not all are women, of course, but I have yet to speak to a single one of them who would EVER vote for mccain, which is like switching from Hillary to bush. I don't know where you live, but I think the Hillary supporters going to mccain is a miniscule percentage compared to those who will vote their beliefs and their party and vote for Obama. The idea that any significant percentage would switch to mccain smacks of racism, and i just don't believe there are that many suddenly racist women out there. This whole idea is just bogus.

I am a 32 year old white male. I'm voting for Obama because i have been waiting for a true socialist to run for as long as I can remember. I wish we lived in a political climate where he could come out and say I'm a Marxist and proud of it. of course with all these right wing fascist running around America, he has to play to the center. Obama 08

McCain is an absolute non-starter.

We get numerous telephone calls for 'polls' but we do not participate as we do not believe in their accuracy. One poll advertised is from a liberal New York college. You know that one is flawed. The only 'poll' we believe in is the one which will happen this coming November.

The first comment about land lines versus cell phones was pretty insightful. It reminded me of the first polling done when the only people who had phones were those who were well off.
Comment 6 by Herve Aclassato uses TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS. It's like shouting all the time and it loses its effect AFTER A WHILE.
I don't know if any one has said this but I think McCain is rather dull----in the sense that he is not very smart. How'd that guy ever graduate from the Naval Academy? But then again Bush graduated from Yale... Obama is much more intelligent than either Bush or McCain, that's for sure.
McCain reminds me of some people I know who just abide by a few quaint notions (duty, honor, country, courage, etc.), and they think that's all that's required of them. Unfortunately, these ideals are not sufficient in our modern world. One needs above all a high IQ; and so we ask, which candidate has the higher IQ that will lead to better choices for the nation? In this category Obama beats McCain hands down. That's why I'll be voting for Obama, though I'm not too crazy about him.

dbear
Wrong. I know scores of Clinton supports who are completely behind McCain now. And it is not race, it is about experience in government and finally a man who has served his country in war while Obama was in diapers. Is that so hard to understand???

i love it when republicans blame congress for bush's failed policies.knuckleheads

RE: Brooke #2 : Then I guess you know a lot of hypocritical Hillary supporters. To vote for a man who is anti-choice...and anti birth control...and has consistently voted against women's health issues for 20 years is a slap in Sen. Clinton's face.
Wake Up.....McCain would take the women's movement back to 1966....Wake Up

What's not being measured in any poll right now is enthusiasm. This country is much more enthused about voting for Obama, and polls like these aren't able to predict turnout, which is going to be massive on the pro-Obama side. My mother, a 68-year-old lifelong Republican who somehow voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, has already said she could never vote for McCain after what this country has been through the last 8 years. I'm sure there are many others like her.

Hmmm. Interesting comments. There are two historical realities to consider when voting for president in November. The first is the state of the economy and our position in the world during the eight years of the Clinton presidency. The second is our current state of the economy and our position in the world during the nearly eight years of the Bush presidency. Forget about the two individuals vying for president, it's the influence of the political parties that will forge policy and programs. So the choice is simple; do you want to return to economic stability, or do you want to continue the assault on the middle class of this country and our world wide decline?

McCain loses partially due to Age discrimination. No doubt

This very similar to the Kennedy - Nixon scenario. Charm and looks wins. Plus Barack is the quite the orator.

They are both good people. And McCain is not Bush nor Limbaugh, totally ridiculous.

The whole idea of Obama in the White House is insane. There is no way he will ever be elected, and from what I've seen/heard I don't know a single educated person that would ever vote for him. He lacks a backbone, he is vague when he speaks of "Change" and yet people are still saying that he should be president? Maybe the Obama supporters should be more open to listening to the facts than trying to make history by electing a president simply because of the color of his skin.

As an independent, I don't understand how people like Brooke (#2 - Puma 2008), who initially backed Ms. Clinton ostensibly because of the candiate's philosophical stand on issues, can then turn to McCain. Is it merely out of spite considering he is diametrically opposed to most of Clinton's positions?

Brooke should learn from all those '04 Bush supporters, who now grumble about their mistaken vote as the economy goes south, billions are wasted in Iran, al-Qaeda still runs amok in the highlands of Pakistan, and that nuclear nation is coming apart at the seams with no policy from Bush.

As we've seen, choosing a leader '04 meant more than jumping on the bandwagon of patriotism, and in '08 it's more than punishing a candidate with similar views simply for winning the nomination.

In response to :
Obama supporters: don't get your hopes up too high. He has support among women, youngsters, and blacks. Those are the three demographics that historically have low turnout in national elections.

That is why this election is historic because the women, the blacks and the youngsters will be coming out in record numbers.

#29 Daniel Hughes you are an incredibly insightful man. McCain definitely reminds one of Bush with his dull bumbling idiot manner. Clearly he would not be where he is if he was a complete idiot, but like Bush he does not appear smart enough to know what he does not know and seek competent counsel. How many times has he had a "McCain moment" now, where he said something way off base? People talk about not knowing the real Obama, but whats really scarey is McCain has been around since dirt and no one knows where he really stands on issues. He has come out against his own leglislation, can't remember his votes, is a foreign policy expert but does not know the difference in Sunni and Shia Muslims, ... I used to believe he was a man of limited personal magnetism but high on principals, I now see him as lacking in both areas.

I never seem to see a discussion of the 3 most powerful disabling factors for McCain. These should send a shudder through anyone who thinks his foreign policy/security experience is something that the American citizenry can rely on: 1) when was the last time we selected a president from the bottom of his college class? How sure are we that he has the brain power to lead our country in these times? 2)Why has there been little publicity about his having crashed 5 planes in a very short period of time?Fighter pilot friends of mine say that he should never have gotten out of flight school. How comfortable do you feel with someone who is that inept at the reins? 3) Finally, his temper is legendary and uncontrollable even in situations that call for diplomacy. Fellow Republican Thad Corcorane from Mississippi told about how McCain assaulted a Nicaraguan official when they were on a diplomatic mission there. Is this the kind of cool hand we want on the nuclear trigger. Be honest, Republicans if he is elected, you'll be praying that he does not explode

it is not just about IQ. There are some Neocons who off the charts. Deliberate judgment and the ability to understand the issues and listen to a variety of positions is what makes Obama the better man, did somebody say Nader?? Pleeeze.

The fact that people can't see that OBama is a fraud really scares the hell out of me. God help our country.

I am not a fan of either candidate, but would you be happy if your company was handed over to a guy who has less than 1 year experience in the upper management of the company. Obama's lack of experience is extremely concerning.

Obama was elected 4 years ago not 1. He was a brilliant student at Harvard Law School, elected president of the Law Review, and Lawrence Tribe called him the most brilliant student he taught there. Yes, I would feel very happy if the company appointed the brightest student at Harvard Law School instead of the bottom of the class of a less impressive academic institution.

Thanks to #39 for the praise....it made me blush a little.... As to #41. Yes, you are right it is not just about IQ. I think it should be about a combination of IQ, character, judgement, plus other things. But what I am saying (I think) is that in terms of character both Obama and McCain are pretty similar: they are decent people who try to do what they think is right for the nation. Like all politicians they need to bend the truth a little, otherwise they would not get elected. But both are fairly decent folks in the end---both would help an old lady cross the street, for instance. But things tilt in Obama's favor when you factor in innate intelligence, which is the abilitly really to process tons of complex information---such as a president is confronted with.

Part of Obama's high intelligence is reflected in the fact that he does not believe wholeheartedly in a lot of what the Christian right has to say: he knows that much of the Book of Revelations about the last coming is just hogwash, deluded nonsense. This means that he would probably not support Israel as wholeheartedly as some people (the fundamentalists, for example) would like. That could be either good or bad thing, depending on one's point of view. I think a lot of folks in Israel are worried about him.

I'm sure Obama does believe in the Book of Revelation (no "s" in the title, by the way), but he's not a lame-brain like Bush or Reagan who thought that it was their God-given task to bring Armeggedon about.

How anyone can listen to Barack Obama and not realize that God has handed us another Abraham Lincoln is truly puzzling. The two great pillars of Lincoln's genius for governing (the article in Time last week confirmed what I've always thought) were that he had the innate capacity to see what COULD be done in a given situation, and that he was able to refine (see today's GOP gobbledy-gook translation "flip-flop") his plans to achieve the highest quality of success for the country. Obama possesses both those traits in spades. There's nothing wrong with possessing intellectual vision, and then being able to refine details on a plan as you go in order to succeed. If Bush wasn't such an idiot, he would be capable of that, too. But he isn't as he's the quintessential addictive personality who cannot be swayed, even if he's wrong, and cannot refine his plan, even if it's not working. God help our country if McCain is elected :(

2004
Boston (CNSNews.com) - Without a formidable Republican opponent in his U.S. Senate race, Barack Obama has little reason not to take money from billionaire liberal financier George Soros, a man other Democrats keep at a distance.

When Obama takes the stage Tuesday night for a prime-time address at the Democratic National Convention, the candidate for Senate in Illinois will be introduced to a wider audience for the first time, bringing heightened scrutiny to the relative political newcomer's campaign.

Democrats expect him to pass any test he faces. They view Obama as a rising star within their party, touting his good looks and ability to connect with voters. If elected Nov. 2, 2004 he would become the first black to hold a Senate seat since Carol Moseley Braun, also from Illinois.

Obama, however, is different from most Democrats because of his willingness to embrace the controversial Soros. Shortly after Soros equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Obama joined him for a New York fund-raiser June 7,2004.

The event, held at Soros' home, boosted Obama's campaign at a time he was still facing a challenge from Republican Jack Ryan. After news broke about information in Ryan's divorce records, the candidate was forced to drop out. The Illinois GOP has yet to find a replacement.

Obama, meanwhile, has emerged as the party's young face. He was selected over longtime party stalwarts to speak Tuesday night, and Obama has seized the opportunity.

Little has been made of his connection to Soros, although it is quite unique. Not only did George Soros donate to Obama's campaign, but four other family members - Jennifer, sons Jonathan and Robert and wife Susan - did as well.

Because of a special provision campaign finance laws, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his primary challenge. Obama faced millionaire Blair Hull, which allowed donors to give more than typically allowed.

Obama is one of only a handful of candidates to get a personal contribution from George Soros. The others include Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, and former Vermont governor Howard Dean

"Why did George support Obama?" his spokesman, Michael Vachon, asked rhetorically. "Because when they met in Chicago a couple of months ago, it was apparent that Barack Obama was an emerging national leader, and he would be an important addition to the Senate."

Vachon said Obama is the only candidate this election cycle Soros has met personally, with the first powwow in March. Asked why Soros hasn't sought out a meeting with Kerry, the man he is pulling for to defeat President Bush on Nov. 2, Vachon said it was just a matter of Soros keeping his distance.

"George is a major funder of an independent 527 group, and it probably makes more sense for him and Kerry to keep each other at arm's length," Vachon said.

Those meetings with Obama have caught the attention of the Illinois Republican Party, said spokesman Jason Gerwig.

"Barack Obama and his liberal voting record have gotten a free ride," Gerwig said. "His aspirations seemed to be focused more nationally now than they do on Illinois, especially if you look at some of the money he's taken from Soros and from left-coast liberals."

On issues like health care, education, energy and the economy, Obama has articulated defined positions on his campaign website. But on other matters, the candidate hasn't been challenged to say where he stands. Obama's campaign didn't return CNSNews.com's calls.

"He's more of a socialist than he is even a Democrat," said a critic, Cathy Santos, co-founder of the Chicago-based Republican Young Professionals. "A lot of his policies have the government taking care of people. Instead of giving people a leg up, he would rather give them a leg."

Soros initially was attracted to Obama because of his vision on education and health care, Vachon said. But Santos said if Obama got his way, the U.S. health care system would be worse than what Clinton proposed after her husband was elected president. She also said voters should be wary of Obama's "any time, anywhere" stance on abortion.

Illinois Republicans have also grown frustrated with the glowing media coverage Obama has received. Three publications, The New York Times, New Republic and The New Yorker, have all written at length about Obama, who is still only a state senator from the Midwest.

"He's turned into being this darling, but he still hasn't had to talk about the issues," Santos said. "No one really knows where he stands on a lot of these issues. Until we have a Senate candidate, if we have one, no one's going to know how liberal he is until he starts casting votes."

I think anyone with a half brain can go to realclearpolitics.com and look at june 25th National polls and see Obamas 15pt lead and then look at todays and see he has DROPPED 12-14pts in less then one month, thats not suppose to take a genius to do.. lying on a blog about reality, wont change reality.. sorry..
Obama is a loser, liar and I know no one personally that would EVER consider voting for him... and I am a democrat

Even the oil companies admit, when pressed, that opening more acreage to offshore drilling will have no impact whatsoever on gas prices in the next several years. For Bush and McCain to continue to push for the drilling is one thing, but for them to try to con the American people into believing this will bring down prices at the pump is sleaze politics.

But then, every time McCain has to answer a complex question about his proposed economic policies, he rambles confusedly. Perhaps I am wrongfully disparaging him by saying "sleaze politics." Perhaps it is the problem anyone would face when trying to solve today's economic problems with answers that do not horrify ideologue conservatives.

"I know no one personally that would EVER consider voting for him (Obama)" (posted by Patty)

That's just assinine. I know several people who plan to vote for both candidates -- and I don't get out all that much!

Polls can be deceptive. Classic approach:

Pollster A: Do you believe that the US would be in a better position to combat global warming if our economy were in better shape? (gets a positive response)

Pollster B: Do you believe that global warming is a dangerous threat that needs to be dealt with now? (also gets a positive response)

Pollster A then reports that his poll demonstrates that Americans want us to fix the economy before they want us to fix the environment. Pollster B reports the opposite. It's all a matter of wording.