MO-Rasmussen: McCain up 9 against Clinton and 15 against Obama

[exopolitician]

Who exactly said they were "hoping for a terrorist attack".  I actually said the opposite but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Obamiacs are losing it.  For crying out loud, it was just one lonely poll out of one state.  Chill.

They thought he was gonna be a strong candidate and now are figuring out he very well may lose, and they will then say it was because of race.

I still think hes a strong candidate. Ontop of that I still believe Obama has a huge chance at beating McCain in November. But its fine, believe what you want.

[Tender Branson]

For comparison:

Exactly 4 years ago, Rasmussen had Bush up 7 against Kerry in MO.

But they also had Talent winning in 2006. They were the only ones ...

And they also had Clinton beating Obama by 9 in MO. Obama won by 1 ...

So did SurveyUSA ...

Maybe Rasmussen and SurveyUSA just fail in polling MO, and we should put confidence in Zogby and ARG ...

[agcatter]

Polls go up, polls go down......

I'd be really excited if this poll was done in October. 

Long, long way to go.  Just started in fact.

[Aizen]

Missouri is trending GOP probably because of the shrinking cities.

Looks like both Hillary and Obama aren't performing well here. I would guess Hillary performs poorly in the "Kansas-esque" area of Missouri while Obama struggles in the "Arkansas-esque" areas of Missouri.

[agcatter]

Exactly.  It just happens that it isn't a state with good demographics for Obama.  It's as bad for Obama as Colorado is good for him.

[Gustaf]

For comparison:

Exactly 4 years ago, Rasmussen had Bush up 7 against Kerry in MO.

But they also had Talent winning in 2006. They were the only ones ...

And they also had Clinton beating Obama by 9 in MO. Obama won by 1 ...

So did SurveyUSA ...

Maybe Rasmussen and SurveyUSA just fail in polling MO, and we should put confidence in Zogby and ARG ...

Primary polling and GE polling is hardly comparable. And the MO 2006 race was very close, IIRC.

[Democratic Hawk]

I've seen you and others pose this argument over and over again and right now it looks foolish going at it. Obama is simply not popular among these white, lunch pale Democrats.

So if Clinton fails to win the Democratic nomination, these white, lunch pale Democrats who favor her will shift en masse to McCain? Given that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, that would be foolish

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any one would think that any Democratic proposed tax increases would be levied on all Americans. Now my gut feeling is that this would be far from the case

But I can understand why many middle amd working class Americans might think it given the endless spiel that from conservative commentators that Democrats are going to raise taxes. What I never hear them say is just where and on whom any such tax increases would be levied. Yes, the same old deceit, spin and fearmongering. Nothing new there than

Furthermore, what is to say that the majority of Americans don't want investment in healthcare, education, etc? Especially in times of economic uncertainty and when voters may becoming increasingly fearful about their own personal socio-economic security

McCain, by his own admission, doesn't know much about the economy. That is going to come back and haunt him; while Democrats can use his shifting position on the Bush tax cuts, he opposed them but now favors extending them, though of course, he'd still have voted against them (something very Kerry-esque on that one) and, not only that, but his shifting rationale  for opposing them against him. Straight Talker?

Dave

[jesmo]

McCain's lead will be inflated in all states untill the Democratic nominee is decided. But for my sake, I sure hope that McCain does lead 15 against Obama in Missouri, and they made a typo and Hillary leads McCain by 9 .

[Reaganfan]

I've seen you and others pose this argument over and over again and right now it looks foolish going at it. Obama is simply not popular among these white, lunch pale Democrats.

So if Clinton fails to win the Democratic nomination, these white, lunch pale Democrats who favor her will shift en masse to McCain? Given that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, that would be foolish

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any one would think that any Democratic proposed tax increases would be levied on all Americans. Now my gut feeling is that this would be far from the case

But I can understand why many middle amd working class Americans might think it given the endless spiel that from conservative commentators that Democrats are going to raise taxes. What I never hear them say is just where and on whom any such tax increases would be levied. Yes, the same old deceit, spin and fearmongering. Nothing new there than

Furthermore, what is to say that the majority of Americans don't want investment in healthcare, education, etc? Especially in times of economic uncertainty and when voters may becoming increasingly fearful about their own personal socio-economic security

McCain, by his own admission, doesn't know much about the economy. That is going to come back and haunt him; while Democrats can use his shifting position on the Bush tax cuts, he opposed them but now favors extending them, though of course, he'd still have voted against them (something very Kerry-esque on that one) and, not only that, but his shifting rationale  for opposing them against him. Straight Talker?

Dave

See, but the Democratic Party doesn't understand that their "only tax the top bracket" type of logic is flawed.

Take my father, a police officer of 29 years. When you take his salary and his off-duty cop work, he makes nearly $70,000 to $75,000 a year. That would make him "wealthy" by the Democrats' standards...but there are many times when he is struggling financially. Take it from me...I see it first hand.

[Democratic Hawk]

See, but the Democratic Party doesn't understand that their "only tax the top bracket" type of logic is flawed.

Take my father, a police officer of 29 years. When you take his salary and his off-duty cop work, he makes nearly $70,000 to $75,000 a year. That would make him "wealthy" by the Democrats' standards...but there are many times when he is struggling financially. Take it from me...I see it first hand.

Mike,

I've sent you a pm in response rather than clog-up this thread any further

Dave

[Gustaf]

The idea that you can run a high-tax welfare state on taxing the "wealthy" is a leftist pipe dream. Apart from the fact that it is hardly feasible in terms of getting the revenue, it would hurt the overall economy too much. Highly educated people (not to mention simple capital) moves quickly and easily. If you tax them too highly they'll move. Or just move their money. In reality, high taxes must be made from those who don't have the education or time to avoid them or move. And those are the low-income people. I live in the country which has for a long time boasted the highest taxes in the world. Much of that revenue comes from taking half of every pay-check for those with the lowest incomes and having a 25% VAT. Sweden's tax on corporations, for instance, is about the same as in the US (or were until recently, anyway).

[phk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People are voting for "Clinton" and "Obama" not for their "policies".

[classical liberal]

I've seen you and others pose this argument over and over again and right now it looks foolish going at it. Obama is simply not popular among these white, lunch pale Democrats.

So if Clinton fails to win the Democratic nomination, these white, lunch pale Democrats who favor her will shift en masse to McCain? Given that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, that would be foolish

Did you just reject a possible outcome because it would entail voters acting foolishly?

IMHO, the fact that it would be folly to do so only serves to increase the chances that such a scenario would come to pass.

[TheresNoMoney]

Take my father, a police officer of 29 years. When you take his salary and his off-duty cop work, he makes nearly $70,000 to $75,000 a year. That would make him "wealthy" by the Democrats' standards...

Wrong, flat-out wrong. Your father's taxes would not be raised under either Obama or Clinton's plans.