Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[Dan the Roman]

If you agree, then what are you complaining about?

No-one's advocating meeting Bin Laden, the argument is over to meet with people like Adjeminihad etc.

See, but I put Adjeminihad in the same category as Osama.

Which is particularly amusing given that Ahmadinejad doesn't really even have any power within Iran.

Exactly. In Iran, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has control over foreign policy, the armed forces, nuclear policy, and the main economic policies of the Iranian state; indeed, he has the final say on all matters of policy whether domestic or foreign

Dave

More or less true, but it would be more accurate to say that Khamenei is the face of a Conservative oligarchy mainly united by distrust of the conservative faction of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani - the reformists, contrary to western media reports, are quite irrelevant - a lack of military and economic power tends to do that. Khamenei is still the same opinion less cypher who was considered pro-American and Pro-Israel when he served as President in the 1980s. In fact, he was picked as Supreme leader in 1989 precisely because with Montzerai out of the running, he was least threatening figure available. An affable non-entity. Meeting with him would not be much more productive than meeting with Ahmadinejad  and a good deal less amusing.

Real change in Iran will only come when they sort out their internal problems, which will likely occur when the reformists and Rafsanjini realize they need each other in order to stop their enemies from gaining a monopoly on power.

Until that time, relations with the US, a nuclear program so haphazard that it is not even intended to produce a bomb, support for hezbollah, and the situation in Iraq, are all political footballs to be tossed around in factional squabbles. No one has the same position they had fifteen years ago on anything, and virtually every position is opportunistic. Quite frankly the US could work with anyone provided they were in a possession to actually make deals, but that won't happen till someone has consolidated enough that they can insure that the benefits of such an arrangement(primarily financial) will accrue to them, and that they won't be accused of selling out by their rivals because those rivals will be dead or irevelent. Until such a time, talking is meaningless, except as part of a diplomatic game.

{end of rant on Iran - please return to the regularly scheduled Rasmussen poll}

[Dan the Roman]

Note that her ready to be President numbers have dropped substantially from Friday. Now its 48%-29% no, a 19 point deficit compared to a 2% one on Friday. That is the number that is going to drive the McCain-Obama numbers, not Palin's favorables. People seem to view her as a nice lady who is maybe a bit too busy to be Vice President.

[Dan the Roman]

Note that her ready to be President numbers have dropped substantially from Friday. Now its 48%-29% no, a 19 point deficit compared to a 2% one on Friday. That is the number that is going to drive the McCain-Obama numbers, not Palin's favorables. People seem to view her as a nice lady who is maybe a bit too busy to be Vice President.

Be careful.  It does not necessarily follow that because someone is unready to be president that they are also unready to be vice president.  It would be hard for her favorables to be as high as they are if people didn't want her serving in any capacity.

Count me as one of the 48 percent who doesn't want her as president but thinks she'd do a fine job at being number two.

The capcity they may want her serving in is as Governor of Alaska. My parents who were McCain leaning until Friday became solid Obama because the reason they were considering McCain is because they felt Obama was inexperienced. They felt it showed impulsive judgement on his part to pick someone as VP who couldn't serve as President.

The New Republic made an interesting point yesterday. Experience is actually more important for a VP than for a Presidential Candidate. Why? Because its possible to take a risk on a President because they are likely to have at least a degree of time to get the hang of the job and may have other redeeming qualities. A VP does not have this oppurtunity because when a VP becomes President the country is by definition in crisis. The President had died or resigned in disgrace. The nation can afford a well-educated if less experienced President for the first six months of next year if he has other redeeming qualities over his opponent(as Obama may well have in the view of the electorate). If Palin takes office though, it will be because McCain was either shot or died. Is Palin prepared to take over in the middle of crisis if McCain drops dead or is killed. Is Biden? That is the question. And if not, she fails at the most basic requirement of being Vice President no matter how nice she is.

[Dan the Roman]

Note that her ready to be President numbers have dropped substantially from Friday. Now its 48%-29% no, a 19 point deficit compared to a 2% one on Friday. That is the number that is going to drive the McCain-Obama numbers, not Palin's favorables. People seem to view her as a nice lady who is maybe a bit too busy to be Vice President.

Be careful.  It does not necessarily follow that because someone is unready to be president that they are also unready to be vice president.  It would be hard for her favorables to be as high as they are if people didn't want her serving in any capacity.

Count me as one of the 48 percent who doesn't want her as president but thinks she'd do a fine job at being number two.

The capacity they may want her serving in is as Governor of Alaska. My parents who were McCain leaning until Friday became solid Obama because the reason they were considering McCain is because they felt Obama was inexperienced. They felt it showed impulsive judgment on his part to pick someone as VP who couldn't serve as President. this may well be the equivalent of approve disprove numbers on Bush. Bush's favorables always stayed about ten points above his approval rating for most of his term. I think most people who were already going to vote against McCain are included in the unfavorable numbers. Anyone who otherwise was going to vote McCain but changed is probably in the "Ready to be President" numbers, even if a few are still planning to.

The New Republic made an interesting point yesterday. Experience is actually more important for a VP than for a Presidential Candidate. Why? Because its possible to take a risk on a President because they are likely to have at least a degree of time to get the hang of the job and may have other redeeming qualities. A VP does not have this oppurtunity because when a VP becomes President the country is by definition in crisis. The President had died or resigned in disgrace. The nation can afford a well-educated if less experienced President for the first six months of next year if he has other redeeming qualities over his opponent(as Obama may well have in the view of the electorate). If Palin takes office though, it will be because McCain was either shot or died. Is Palin prepared to take over in the middle of crisis if McCain drops dead or is killed. Is Biden? That is the question. And if not, she fails at the most basic requirement of being Vice President no matter how nice she is.

[Dan the Roman]

Beat me to it.

[Dan the Roman]

Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama 50% (nc)
McCain 45% (nc)

I really, really, really hope this is true. If McCain can narrow Obama's lead to about three points before Election day and Obama is under 50%...well...we still have a chance at this thing...

Yeah! Bradley Effect! Woooo!

Let me guess. You are one of those who assume the Bradley Effect is inheritantly racist?

The Dems always poll better than they vote, anway.

BS. See 1998, 2000, 2006.

[Dan the Roman]

Most likely. Rassmussen has a Pro-McCain outlier that just dropped off. Gallup I think will converge a bit. The convergence will probably not be that strong though until Rasmussen reweights, since Gallup changes their party id daily and Rasmussen does not. I think that is the real reason for the divergence right now.

[Dan the Roman]

I am actually starting to think that Democrats would be better off if McCain won this election, much like they would have been better off if Ford won in 1976 or George HW Bush in 1992.

From a downballot perspective losing the Presidency every year worked pretty well for the Democrats for forty years. Its only when they started winning in 1992 that they ran into problems.

[Dan the Roman]

Unchanged

Obama 52
McCain 45