Latest Gallup poll shows Obama slipping

McCain bests Obama by 6 points 48 to 42; surprisingly McCain holds only a 1 point lead over Clinton, 46 to 45. Clinton held but decreased a lead over Obama for the Democratic nomination 48 to 46. The margin of error in the Gallup poll is +/- 3.

USA Today speculates Rush Limbaugh’s call for Operation Chaos may be working.

No doubt this post will draw new comments about trends and which is the most reliable poll, discounting Obama’s bruising over the last few weeks. I tend to believe what I have always argued, that the longer this Rock ’em Sock ’em match goes on for the Democratic nomination, the better McCain’s opportunity in November.

The perfect storm to allow Democrats a win in November blew in from the wrong direction. That combined with an economy that just touched recession but will be clearly in recovery in six months should secure a Republican victory.


  1. Hi Cindy, Hillary’s statements this week relative to Iran and Nuking them was her way of going after the Jewish vote and some money to get a little more corned beef in the check book. Rush’s efforts and his well described confusion on the left is really accurate. Kind of get tired of hearing about all the bs they throw at one another. Really a mess. It certainly has the effect of helping McCain load his political guns .

  2. I’m glad you referenced me backhandedly.

    Larry is right.

    Maybe you’re right too, Cindy. But that’s assuming McCain is still around then and not calling his wife a C*nt!

  3. Shawn, you’ll do better with an argument if you can somehow manage relevant conversation.

  4. Shawn was making a point. No matter which candidate wins the Democratic nomination. They will have it easy taking on McCain.

    They only have to point out his temper, the hypocrisy, the fact that he wasn’t good enough to most Repubs in 2000, as well as this year’s primary. There’s ammo all over the right side of that is just waiting to be picked up and used.

  5. Gosh, Capper, that’s not what the current poll shows. And I guess you aren’t a strong student of politics. The candidate most towards the middle usually wins.

    It’s going to be tough to get anything to stick to McCain this time around. His own party did such a number on him eight years ago that anything he’s accused of now pretty much slides right off. The NYT tried with a fake affair, and others have tried the temper routine, but it doesn’t seem to be working.

    I think McCain has solid experience and deep roots that will let him put together a winning cabinet right from the beginning.

    Maybe you could try bolstering your candidate instead of beating on mine. Oh, what’s that? Can’t decide if you have one yet? Time will tell.

  6. That’s conventional wisdom “50+1% Strategy” Cindy. Obama is pulling together a wide coaltion (quietly) while Hillary and McCain would fight for a 51% victory.

    Obama runs strong all over the country, forcing Republicans to divert funding to play defense instead of offense in swing states.

    You’ll understand it when Justice Roberts inaugurates Barack Obama.

    Cindy, all you do is BEAT on the Democratic candidates. Hypocrisy is alive and healthy right in the gape of your mouth.

    Cindy, you’re a student of “old/conventional” politics. This election has proven to be anything BUT usual.

    Just as you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, you can’t apply an old routine to a new dog.

  7. Cindy, the polls also show that Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any president. McCain is promising more of the same. Do you think his poll numbers will hold once people pay attention to him again? I most certainly do not. Not to mention the months of ammo from just earlier this year. And Hagee, his temper, Rove, 100+ years in Iraq, not understanding the economy (his own words). Oh the list does go on and on and on…

  8. So why doesn’t this poll reflect what you are saying?

  9. Because we’re still in primary mode, duh.

  10. El gato says:

    I don’t think it’s Bush’s policies that get him so much disapproval. I think it’s that he has the personality and charisma of a dead carp!

  11. Kathryn says:

    I think it’s the policies. If personality were the big deal, we might be looking at a Huckabee-Biden race, or something like that. (Biden is not charming like Huckabee, but he can be colorful.)

  12. I loved El gato’s Bush comment. That was hilarious!

    “…he has the personality and charisma of a dead carp!”

    Man am I saving that line!

    Anyways Shawn has a point. You criticize Obama even after you openly said, Cindy, that you were exhausted about discussing him. If Obama is as weak of a candidate as you and other Republican bloggers portray him to be, you wouldn’t be talking about him every other day like the current situation.

    It almost reminds me of THE MAN on FranklinNOW, who claimed/s that my blog is irrelevant, but yet talks about material on my blog when I post an attractive story for readers. It’s pure hypocrisy.

    Either Obama is a weak bozo candidate or he isn’t. If he is, then stop wasting your blog space and time on him. If he’s not, then keep doing what you’re doing and tear him to pieces…supposedly.

    What’s the phrase you always told me….

    “You can’t always have it both ways!”

    Amen Cindy. Amen! It was the best piece of advice I ever got.

  13. Greg, when you take a breath you can point to the criticism. It’s not like this stuff is original news. It’s a Gallup poll for goodness sake! I know a few of you don’t like it, but that’s what those Gallup guys wrote about a couple of days ago.

    If you really want to look silly, you can look at the 28th were I wrote that Obama was ahead of McCain in Wisconsin.

    You’re referencing a comment I made at the end of the day…do you really expect me to stop blogging about one of three presidential candidates?

  14. No Cindy, I fully expect more negative comments on Obama and more positive comments on McCain. I’m curious about your opinion on Mrs. Clinton. I haven’t seen anything on her on this blog in quite some time (or perhaps my glasses need to get cleaned 🙂 )

    And one positive Obama post can’t even make a dent on all the negatives you’ve been giving the guy. I’d like to ask for fairness here, but I already know I can’t get it…this IS a conservative blog. Darn!

  15. El gato says:

    Greg, why in the world would you expect a conservative Republican to do anything other than point out the weaknesses of the Democrats, and vice versa? Obama has so many weaknesses and so little REAL experience, and he’s the most liberal Senator in Congress, that he has to be a target for anyone who values freedom over liberalism. If you want to pump for him you need to do it on your own website and hope you attract like-minded readers. Cindy’s doing what most of her readers like!

  16. Kathryn says:

    Introducing a tangent here: can someone explain what makes Obama more liberal than Clinton? I feel the opposite, but that’s hardly objective. They are pretty close, I think, in the ranking that the Conservative Union did (not sure I’m getting the name right–sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it?) On issues that I care about, he seems more conservative. He seems more inclined to think things over dispassionately, while she seems inclined to go with the party line, or railroad through whatever she thinks is good for me.

  17. Kathryn, review this post and follow the link to see how they measured:

  18. El gato: I fully understand that, of which I noted “darn!” as my phrase. I’d just like to see more Clinton coverage, that’s all.

    I also think Kathryn is right! Anything that makes Barack more conservative the better he’ll be on conservative sites.

  19. Kathryn says:

    Thanks, Cindy. Those numbers are pretty damning, but then there is analysis like this:

    “In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. “The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter,” said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.”

    It’s still a bit murky.

  20. Kathryn says:

    Ah hah, there is an ACU. They gave Obama a 7 and Clinton a zero for 2007, but they are very similar on the lifetime scale. So maybe my preference for Obama over Clinton DOES come down to impressions about less tangible things. Interesting. Can’t put my finger on it yet.

  21. Ok, do we really have to have this conversation again? When you rank based on votes in the Senate, there becomes a problem when someone misses a vote.

    Those sort of measures should be taken on policy positions, not votes, because 1 votes skews your entire score.

    Obama is by far not the most liberal senator. He supports the death penalty, and more gun rights than a lot of senators. Doesn’t sound like a lunatic fringe liberal to me.

    Gato, you’re obviously not a student of linguistics when you say “freedom over liberal.” Liberal comes from the word liberate, which means to free. Which is why Libertarians line up with liberals on social issues. They differ on economic issues mostly.

    Sometimes the results are bad because of bad methodology.

  22. Kathryn says:

    Just having some fun Shawn. None of us will change our vote as a result.

  23. “Liberal comes from the word liberate, which means to free.”

    i.e. To free money from hard working, tax paying families and use it for entitlements and giveaways.

  24. El gato says:

    Shawn, your definition of liberal doesn’t take into account the colloquial meaning of the word. It’s as if you would define “gay” as meaning “having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.” We all understand that today’s use of liberal in a political sense means just the opposite of your definition. I believe Libertarians stand for liberty…not liberalism! I think I’m “student” enough for this.

  25. Cheri M. says:

    I got quite a chuckle from the example in your definition. It’s not only a clever word pun, it is (unfortunately) true.