Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lt_Ripley

Gallup poll shows Obama-McCain gap widening

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

July 28, 2008

Gallup Daily: Obama 48%, McCain 40%

No further gains for Obama in latest update

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's lead over John McCain has settled back slightly to a 48% to 40% margin among registered voters in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted July 25-27.

Gallup poll shows Obama-McCain gap widening

10:45:07 AM July 28th, 2008 Permalink |

After being in virtual dead heat with Sen. John McCain throughout most of July, Sen. Barack Obama is pulling ahead again in the race for the presidency, the Gallup Organization’s latest polling shows.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Obama seems to have gotten a bounce off last week’s tour of Europe and the Middle East, Gallup concludes.

Based on a three-day rolling average of national registered voters, Obama, D-Ill., was leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a 48%-to-40% margin for the July 25-27 polling period. The results show that Obama has steadily widened his lead since the middle of last week, when he was only ahead by a 45% to 43% margin.

Obama’s numbers settled back a bit from Sunday, when he held a 49% to 40% lead. Both margins represent the biggest cushion Obama has held since at least July 6, Gallup said.

“A key question remains as to whether this ‘bounce’ is short-term (as happens to bounces in some instances following intense publicity surrounding a convention) or if his lead will persist — the answer to which will become evident in the next several days,” says the poll’s author, Frank Newport.

The Gallup poll interviewed 2,692 registered voters with a margin of sampling error pegged at plus or minus two percentage points.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008...n-gap-widening/

neck and neck.. not to mention so far the electoriate is split.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is evidently in response to the thread mentioning the Gallup poll showing McCain leading BHO among likely voters. Interesting that Gallup posts contemporary polls with opposite results. One needs to decide whether a poll of likely voters is more meaningful than a more poll of more generalized respondents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polls are used to sway public opinoins really. The funny part is the last 2 Presidential election the Democrats always have won in the Polls but not the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polls are used to sway public opinoins really. The funny part is the last 2 Presidential election the Democrats always have won in the Polls but not the election.

exactly........ same for carter. he lost in the polls but won the presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly........ same for carter. he lost in the polls but won the presidency.

Really now, then that is really strange how he ever became the President. Were there hanging chad then? :ph34r:

For he lost in a landslide after one term, shows the poll was correct, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really now, then that is really strange how he ever became the President. Were there hanging chad then? :ph34r:

For he lost in a landslide after one term, shows the poll was correct, huh?

Bush Sr. was leading Clinton, too, remember. Lost big after only one term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope not, i think i and many of us dont wanna see an old warmonger in the white house,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush Sr. was leading Clinton, too, remember. Lost big after only one term.

Lost Big??? Clinton got 43% of the vote, and we all know he owes it all to Ross Perot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lost Big??? Clinton got 43% of the vote, and we all know he owes it all to Ross Perot.

Perhaps it is just you that does?... care to enlighten us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is just you that does?... care to enlighten us?

You are wasting your time with me again, just a reminder. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presumptive Democratic nominee Obama seems to have gotten a bounce off last week’s tour of Europe and the Middle East, Gallup concludes.

How obama could possibly get a bounce after making that speech in germany, and choosing to 'work out' instead of visiting injured soilders...

i fear the public is massively ignorant to anything but what the biased news media tells them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to have McCain as my president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How obama could possibly get a bounce after making that speech in germany, and choosing to 'work out' instead of visiting injured soilders...

i fear the public is massively ignorant to anything but what the biased news media tells them.

enough of this crap. He DID visit the injured soldiers. You're just mad because McCain didn't get any traction for his many more and embarassing foreign visits of late. The reason is obvious now to even most republicans. Grandpa McCain is a terrible candidate with the same policies as W and with even less of a mind to manage the two beans in his head. IF for no other reason than Obama will talk "intelligently" with people outside of the US and not embarrass us. If he does something wrong, he takes responsibility. The "public" has finally woken up to the insanity of the last few years. The "biased" news media supports Grandpa McCain, so the "public" appears to be not paying much attention to the MSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enough of this crap. He DID visit the injured soldiers. You're just mad because McCain didn't get any traction for his many more and embarassing foreign visits of late. The reason is obvious now to even most republicans. Grandpa McCain is a terrible candidate with the same policies as W and with even less of a mind to manage the two beans in his head. IF for no other reason than Obama will talk "intelligently" with people outside of the US and not embarrass us. If he does something wrong, he takes responsibility. The "public" has finally woken up to the insanity of the last few years. The "biased" news media supports Grandpa McCain, so the "public" appears to be not paying much attention to the MSM.

You're just a bigot. Please take your silly hatred elsewhere please.

Age Discrimination

No different then saying something about Obama being black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just a bigot. Please take your silly hatred elsewhere please.

No different then saying something about Obama being black.

I don't hate Grandpa. I dislike him. I don't want him to be president for a lot of reasons. I do, in fact, feel that his age IS an issue. Both physically for the rigors of being president and for his beliefs living in the ancient past. Bigot maybe. Like saying something derrogatory about blacks, not so much. You may not agree. But that's how I see it. And I'm ooooolllddd myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't hate Grandpa. I dislike him. I don't want him to be president for a lot of reasons. I do, in fact, feel that his age IS an issue. Both physically for the rigors of being president and for his beliefs living in the ancient past. Bigot maybe. Like saying something derrogatory about blacks, not so much. You may not agree. But that's how I see it. And I'm ooooolllddd myself.

Good gawd, I tend to think "Grandpa" is the better candidate, but regardless, you'll not catch me bashing and making ridiculous statements about BHO. One needn't tear down one candidate to make the other more seemingly desirable. Nor does one have to berate "cons" in every posting about the differences between candidates (I'm referring to Ripley).

Geez, tell us the good qualities of the candidate of your choice, that's admirable. But to needlessly and wrongly tear down the opponent merely makes you look rather childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

you'll not catch me bashing and making ridiculous statements about BHO.

That's good but not the usual case of many who post here and certainly my opnions about McCain are not so ridiculoous. He is very old. I never want a repeat of Regan faltering in the last years and ceding control to others. We need a president who leads. Older people ARE more suceptible to health problems that aflict the elderly. He is elderly. He is 71. Health problems at his age can occur rapidly with little to no warning. Just look at Ted Kennedy (or my own mother - she was 72). McCain's mind already seems to be going. The verbal faux pas are accumulating to the point that either he has a real problem or the simple stress of the campaign is getting to him and he is not even president. Finally he just seems to be living in the past rather than the present. IMO.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are wasting your time with me again, just a reminder. ;)

*Yields to the mighty debating power of Aro :w00t: ces---NOT*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's good but not the usual case of many who post here and certainly my opnions about McCain are not so ridiculoous. He is very old. I never want a repeat of Regan faltering in the last years and ceding control to others. We need a president who leads. Older people ARE more suceptible to health problems that aflict the elderly. He is elderly. He is 71. Health problems at his age can occur rapidly with little to no warning. Just look at Ted Kennedy (or my own mother - she was 72). McCain's mind already seems to be going. The verbal faux pas are accumulating to the point that either he has a real problem or the simple stress of the campaign is getting to him and he is not even president. Finally he just seems to be living in the past rather than the present. IMO.

Verbal faux pas? How about knowing what it is youre going to say, a quote from obama: "uhh..ehhh.ahhh, uhhhh..ummmm" Could it be that he is always at a loss for words because in the face of one crowd or another, he does not know what they may want to hear and scrambles for a position, then flip flops on it later? I think so. If you want a man to lead as much as you are touting it, id rather the man know where he stands on issues and policies, rather than make it up as he goes along. I think age is a beneficial factor, considering the experience that comes with it.

And as far as living in the past... Cant say i see what you mean. Unless of corse you are against drilling for oil so that we may actually become energy independant, rather than energy *******ed as obama would have us. (edit I used the word r etarded correctly and it still gets starred out. go figure)

Quit watching mainstream news ie: MSN, NBC..etc Those news conglomorates are clearly biased, considering their campaign contributions for the democrat party outnumber their contributions to the republican party 100 to 1. Dont believe me? Now you think, if someone gives money to a campaign, its because they want them to win... How could you possibly be fair in reporting, if you have an agenda?

Edited by -Scratch-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has never "scrambled" for a position or flip flop as readily as you rant about. His positions on issues are long, detailed and available on his website. He speaks about them constantly. In fact you're actually describing McCain. His position varies depending on who he is talking to. If he's talking to gays - he's pro gay. IF he's talking to the religious right - he hates gays. I could go on an on. In fact his campaign recently has started "correcting" his positions after he's made them publicly. He repeatedly does not know that czechoslovakia is not longer a country. He repeatedly can't tell the difference between shia and sunni. He is living in the cold war in his mind. In fact, based on statements he made today, he just has a "war" mentality when referring to domestic problems in New York City.

I'm not against drilling for oil and Obama is not either. Considering that we already have huge tracts of land that are available NOW for drilling and are NOT being drilled - your whole republican argument for drilling is ludicrous. Why not rant at the oil companies for not drilling in existing leases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has never "scrambled" for a position or flip flop as readily as you rant about. His positions on issues are long, detailed and available on his website. He speaks about them constantly. In fact you're actually describing McCain. His position varies depending on who he is talking to. If he's talking to gays - he's pro gay. IF he's talking to the religious right - he hates gays. I could go on an on. In fact his campaign recently has started "correcting" his positions after he's made them publicly. He repeatedly does not know that czechoslovakia is not longer a country. He repeatedly can't tell the difference between shia and sunni. He is living in the cold war in his mind. In fact, based on statements he made today, he just has a "war" mentality when referring to domestic problems in New York City.

I'm not against drilling for oil and Obama is not either. Considering that we already have huge tracts of land that are available NOW for drilling and are NOT being drilled - your whole republican argument for drilling is ludicrous. Why not rant at the oil companies for not drilling in existing leases?

Frankly, I don't like either one . . . . from a nation of 300 million people, this is the best we can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly, I don't like either one . . . . from a nation of 300 million people, this is the best we can do?

Sad isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i fear the public is massively ignorant to anything but what the biased news media tells them.

How could you possibly be fair in reporting, if you have an agenda?

Sort of like... Fox news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you see teej, one would have to watch fox news, and then every other news broadcast to have a full and fair view on this election.

The problem i was pointing out which you so graciously avoided was the fact that ALL major mainstream media has contributed to one side of this election, causing a bias in their reporting. Which would fit their agenda of altering your opinion even if you do watch or read both sides.

I'm not against drilling for oil and Obama is not either. Considering that we already have huge tracts of land that are available NOW for drilling and are NOT being drilled - your whole republican argument for drilling is ludicrous. Why not rant at the oil companies for not drilling in existing leases?
The problem with the existing leases, is that oip companies already know how much oil is in those reserves, and the manpower to extract those amounts is more than the reserves are worth. That is to say, yes there is oil in existing land leases, but not enough to make an impact on our energy crisis.

What obama is against is offshore drilling, where the reserves are far larger, much more worth an effort. Not to mention the fact, that oil seepage alone, along the california coast puts into the ocean as much oil as the exxon spill in the arctic over a period of 5 years. Drilling, and using that oil would effectively stop that seepage by relieving pressure. We already have platforms out there and have the drills set, which itself has relieved enough pressure to have slowed the seepage process. It had been far worse in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you see teej, one would have to watch fox news, and then every other news broadcast to have a full and fair view on this election.

The problem i was pointing out which you so graciously avoided was the fact that ALL major mainstream media has contributed to one side of this election, causing a bias in their reporting. Which would fit their agenda of altering your opinion even if you do watch or read both sides.

I just find it interesting that someone who claims to understand the bias of each and every news station seems to have views that fall exactly in line with perhaps the most biased of them all. Maybe it's just coincidence, but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have such a problem with all this "unfair" media coverage if there were more stations that did fall in line with your views. It's impossible to report news without a bias, just the act of reporting (or not reporting) represents a bias towards a particular candidate or issue. If you understand this, then get over it and continue forming your own opinions (which is what I was doubting in my first reply).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.