A new Gallup Poll of likely voters has Democrat Barack Obama with a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain.
That puts McCain closer in the presidential race than other polls, which have Obama with leads of between 3 and 14 percentage points, according to the Real Clear Politics average.
McCain has sought in recent days to sharpen his economic message and questioning Obama’s ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers. The Gallup poll was conducted among 2,100 likely voters.
This would be a large McCain leap, granted this poll is not an outlier. Last weekend the same methodology produced a 51-41 percent lead for Obama. The latest poll does not include Wednesday’s night “town hall” debate.
UPDATE: Rasmussen confirms the upward McCain trend with their new poll showing only a four point advantage for Obama.
The Palin Factor with Unlikely Voters: A large segment of her supporters can handle a tough political fight.
Palin herself, and the left slanted media’s relentless attacks has produced an unintended but interesting consequence for McCain: they energize a large group of conservatives, mostly workingclass, which stayed at home in previous elections. This is very significant because people in this voting segment are not considered “likely voters.”
However, trying to factor or measure this bloc may prove impossible. This is because these Palin supporters do not disengage themselves as the political debate moves more negative, as political models suggest should happen — they fight back with a stronger resolution to vote — and support the candidate. They identify closely with Palin, thereby taking attacks on her, well, personal.
This hurts Obama on another front because the supporters on his side, that typically do not vote, have engaged with the political process because they thought Obama would bring a new style of politics. However, his own ads and Wednesday’s night debate prove otherwise. Obama did more time talking about trivial matters than he did talking about core issues, at the expense of his unlikely voters. However, his group of unlikely supporters may already be tired of politics-as-usual.
The third debate had fewer people tune in than any of the others. However, Fox News recorded the largest viewer increase, from the second debate to the third, than any other network. Conservative interest is increasing; while the nation, as a whole, is slowly tuning out. Furthermore, most tuning out are Obama supporters, in search of change, which Obama is banking the election on. Current trends suggest they may not come out and vote because “change” we kinda-sorta-used-to-believe-in can’t even get them to turn on the television – even with endless text message reminders.
More and More People Realize Obama is not the Candidate for change.
Additionally, large doubts remain with a core group of independents because Obama has failed to adequately explain why he broke a pledge on public financing. These doubts are agitated by the lack of any kind of response from Obama in Wednesday night’s debate to why he broke this pledge:
In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing, so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
As the voters become more serious approaching Election Day, a new level of scrutiny is applied, and many will ask: Is this “change we can believe in” or more of the same? The fact Obama cannot stick to his personal plans is troubling. How can we believe he will keep plans that include 300 million people?
Republicans Finish Strong Because It’s When Voters Get Serious
The last two weeks are historically trouble for the democrats. In 1976 Carter saw a 15 point lead, a month before the election, turn into a slim victory of two percent. Reagan should have never had a landslide victory if you believed the polls. That’s because just days before the election, both Carter and Mondale were within striking distance, behind only three to five percentage points. Bush beat Dukakis, and the final results showed a twelve percentage point discrepancy. Clinton enjoyed double digit leads going into Election Day; he won by single digit numbers. And finally, the elections of 2000 and 2004 only worked to solidify the coined term “October Curse” for the democrats.
The primary reason republicans finish strong is because the average busy family only gets serious about the election a week or two before voting day. It’s the time when most people really start paying attention. The average liberal democrat will continue to promote the same ideas and talking points friendly to the early political adopters, but are at odds with a centrist-right America. We saw this in last night’s third debate. Obama promoted abortion and a government-controlled healthcare plan. He also advocated a socialist philosophy based on the redistribution of wealth.
However, families are cautious and pragmatic. Obama’s plan for national healthcare may let government decide if someone can get expensive treatments based on their statistical calculations for survival. Life support may only be approved for people who have a chance at a normal life, as defined by Uncle Sam.
Obama’s eagerness to tax will guarantee an increase in the size of the US government. His income redistribution plan, a.k.a. welfare, will grant something for nothing to millions of Americans. Tempting and enticing, yes. Nevertheless, establishing this cleverly disguised welfare plan for the masses is a downward spiral in and of itself.
As an American Indian, I’ve seen the something-for-nothing philosophy destroy reservation communities first hand. If we establish this culture en mass, our great nation will lose a generation of people that can truly make America great through the satisfying pursuit of happiness. We will gain the first generation of Americans that expect a guarantee of happiness – and the wise founding fathers understood no government can ever provide that.
—
Click here to get the second part of this article by email when it is published and other news and political option from ButAsforMe!
{ 2 trackbacks }