Aug 20 2008

Obama Crashing In The Polls Part II – UPDATED!

Published by at 8:18 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Previously I posted on some terrible polling news for Obama as he slid 12 points against John McCain in the last month in the LA Times/Bloomberg poll. Now a Zogby Poll (forever unreliable, I know) shows a dramatic shift towards McCain as well:

McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month – in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%.

That’s another 12 point drop for Obama. Clearly something is seriously wrong in Obamaland has he limps into the Democrat Convention next week.

Update: The latest Battleground Poll out shows McCain with a 1% lead. Also noteworthy are numbers on Iraq. 56% says things have gotten better in Iraq, up from 32% since just May. 15% say things are worse, down from 30% in May.  So the negative/postive gap went from 2% to a whopping 41% just since May!

30 responses so far

30 Responses to “Obama Crashing In The Polls Part II – UPDATED!”

  1. KauaiBoy says:


    You left out what a peach Edwards has turned out to be….no wonder women don’t trust us. And he has such nice hair and is a man of the people.

  2. WWS says:

    Latest Veep Rumours:

    Obama takes Evan Bayh from Indiana. Safe and dull, the hope is for an edge in the midwest. Nutroots will be mad, but does Obama care? Who else will the left vote for?

    McCain takes Tim Pawlenty, to counter Bayh’s selection. (midwesterner to counter a midwesterner)

    If those do turn out to be the picks, then we are looking at Landslide McCain!!!

  3. Terrye says:


    Where as people who use the term Chimpy Bushitler and McShame deserve to be treated like the serious political commentators that they are.

    In case you did not guess I am being sarcastic.

  4. Terrye says:


    I have not seen any Obama stickers or signs, but I have seen a few McCain. But this is Indiana, people around here play this stuff pretty close to the vest.

  5. Terrye says:


    Bayh was a popular Governor here in Indiana. I really can’t imagine Obama carrying this state, Hillary beat him here in the primaries, but Bayh might help Obama here. When Bayh was here he was a moderate politician, he has gone left since he went to Washington. But he and his father are popular here.

  6. Redteam says:


    davem: “I have tried to get “serious” pollsters to discuss why this poll is so different from MSM polls.” Try acting like you’re out of junior high school, and see if you get any better results.


    “For the 15% that makes up the hard left, things ARE much worse in Iraq – the US has won!” ZOMG – AWESOME!!!!1111!!eleventy-one!! So – when can the soldiers come home?

    So when is your junior high graduation?

    Victory in a war has nothing to do with bringing troops home.  They’re still in Germany and Japan and Kosovo, why would Iraq be any different?

  7. breschau says:


    Is anybody shooting at them or setting off suicide bombs in Germany or Japan or Kosovo?

    I’d say that’s one thing that’s just a little different.

    Oh, and here’s another – I don’t recall the elected leader of any of those countries recently calling for a timeline of when our troops will leave.

    But other than that, you’re right – those situations are EXACTLY the same.

  8. breschau says:


    Where as people who use the term Chimpy Bushitler and McShame deserve to be treated like the serious political commentators that they are.

    In case you did not guess I am being sarcastic.”

    Really? Gosh – hadn’t noticed.

    I ignore people on any portion of the political spectrum who insist on using made-up names – it’s just childish. I thought “McSame” was mildly amusing, but only to use once mockingly, not as a replacement for the man’s actual name. That’s no better than the GOP’s insistence on using “Democrat” as adjective instead of “Democratic” – it’s petty, and just reflects poorly on the person saying it.

  9. […] this is no way to limp into your party’s convention! I posted earlier (here and here) on a slew of polls showing Obama slipping against McCain. Even more polls are out this evening […]

  10. conman says:


    Apparently, you have absolutely no idea WHY we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Kosovo (or any other locations in the world.) I’m guessing that is the reason why you don’t understand why your comparison is so ridiculous.

    In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military has a significant troop presence in the following countries/regions: Europe (100,000), Japan (35,000), South Korea (32,000) and Kosovo (1,500). We keep these troops stationed there for specific strategic purposes, not because its customary to keep thousands of troops in countries we have defeated in war long-term just for kicks.

    The US maintained troops in Germany (and other European countries) and Japan since the end of WWII primarily as a deterrant against the former Soviet Union and now Russia. Ever heard of the Cold War? We keep our troops in these countries as part of our NATO obligations to deter Soviet/Russian aggression.

    The US maintained troops in South Korea since the Korean war as a deterrant against North Korea. These troops are there as a direct result of the fact that we did not win the Korean war, and therefore now have to keep a permanent troop presence there to deter North Korea from taking over our ally South Korea.

    The US maintains troops as part of the NATO contingency in Kosovo to serve as peace-keepers because there is still ethnic tensions. In other words, the troops are still there because the underlying problems that led to the conflict have not been resolved.

    Let’s compare to Iraq, where we have more than 140,000 troops plus 10’s of thousands of private security contractors. Bush’s official reason for the surge and keeping a large military force in Iraq was/is to provide security so the Iraqis can get there act together and take over. If we achieved “victory”, then there is no reason to maintain our troop levels. Unlike Germany, Japan and North Korean, there is no external threat that requires us to keep our troops there to serve as a deterrent. Moreover, we are maintaining this huge troop presence in Iraq notwithstanding the fact that our military commanders in Afghanistan are publically demanding more troops because of the deteriorating military situation in Iraq.

    I suggest you go back and read General Petraus’ most recent testimony before Congress to educate yourself. While he testified about significant security improvements, he never used the word victory because he is smart enough to realize we haven’t achieved victory in Iraq yet. In fact, he described our security gains as “tenuous” and “reversible”, recognizing that the security situation will not be sustainable without the necessary political and economic achievements.

    One would think that you people would be more careful about declaring victory in Iraq after prematurely doing so in 2003.