CBS Poll of Independents: Obama Won
Keith Olbermann just read out the results of a snap poll of 500 uncommitted voters commissioned by CBS News just after Friday night's presidential debate:
(The snap poll is here):
Obama won: 40%
Tie: 38%
McCain won: 22%
46% of independent voters said their opinion of Obama had improved
55% said McCain would make the right decisions about Iraq
49% said Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq
And:
' Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.
Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.'
That's a pretty impressive 20-point lead for Obama on the economy, now the most important issue in the race!
I have to say I thought the debate was closer than that and am surprised these uncommitted voters gave it so lopsidedly to Obama.
TPM has a CNN snap poll of a mixed audience that was watching the debate:
These were the statistics from this snap poll that seemed to me most interesting:
' Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Barack Obama or John McCain would better handle each of the following issues:
• The war in Iraq: Obama 52%, McCain 47%
• Terrorism: McCain 49%, Obama 45%
• The economy: Obama 58%, McCain 37%
• The current financial crisis: Obama 54%, McCain 36%
Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:
• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%
• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%
• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%
• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%
• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%
• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32% '
This audience trusted Obama much more on the economy than McCain, saw him as almost McCain's equal on security issues, and found Obama far more likeable and intelligent and strong.
Gee, maybe this really is a win for McCain.
Of course these snap polls are really flawed as social science instruments, and it will be the middle of next week before we get something more reliable. Unfortunately, the further polling will be contaminated by the bad economic news if there isn't a deal in congress soon.
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/27/2008 12:00:00 AM
|
Facebook
9 Comments:
I'm guessing that Obama won by having people actually see him up against McCain and look about even. I think he won on meeting lower expectations.
The same factor won it for Kennedy - along with Kennedy looking better on TV - in the first debate in 1960, even though, from a debating standpoint, most agree that Kennedy lost.
Debating and being President are different skills, so one shouldn't really be judged by the other anyway, beyond the candidate not making a real fool of himself.
That could be Palin's problem, while for Biden the danger will be looking like he's piling on to a woman. In fact, he could easily lose in what counts.
I wish Obama was not so polite to McCain toninght, but I believe the Obama strategy was to AVOID ever appearing like an "angry black man." That would have been death to his campaign. It is better to look overly polite and accommodating rather than look angry. Whites can look angry, as McCain did throughout the debate. But, Obama could not risk that. AND, possibly, McCain was trying to elicite an angry response from Barack knowing it would paint Obama.
BTW, Michelle Obama is still viewed by many, wrongly, as being an angry black woman for one comment she made months ago. She now smiles non-stop. They know that being perceived as an angry black couple will spell defeat.
The public loves it when white men get angry and are strong. Black men don't have that same privlege. It scares white.
Racism in America 101
We are facing a great depression in this nation again. Neither of these candidates have a clue. And yet all the political blogs and television commentators mindlessly carry on about debating style. Barack Obama and John McCain had absolutely nothing to say about what to do to get the nation out of this disaster. Who lost the debate? America.
I love how the JFK/Nixon "argument" is played every time a Democrat is better in a debate. Oh, it means nothing, the Democrat just looked better... This "argument" was deployed after the first debate in 2004 where Bush looked and sounded like an ill-tempered special ed student. Oh, Kerry just looked better on television, just like JFK in 1960!
Now we're seeing it again. Puh-lease people, get a new argument.
Senator Barack Obama was too polite. It is possible for him to remain very polite to the older McCain without becoming a victim of McCain's incessant accusations that "Obama doesn't understand this or that."
He does so by making more use of factual and appropriate phrases such as "Senator McCain fails to mention certain facts..." and "Senator McCain neglects to mention what's important ..."" and "Senator McCain might be forgetting that ..."
As one who is aware of many of the facts McCain abused last night, I fear that he "won" the debate among those who are not so aware. He lied like a dog and got away with it.
Senator Obama is so clearly superior that it boggles the mind that McCain has not ceded the contest.
On McCain's debate performance: I was disappointed that he used up a considerable amount of his time repeating stories he told during the Saddleback interviews, rather than addressing the question at hand. I interpret this story-repeating as evidence he was not prepared or willing to discuss the issues.
I had a listen over here in Australia to parts of the foreign policy debate and I just couldn't believe how bad it was. Your candidates have been so overwhelmed by your FOX news style carp that they can't discuss so many matters intelligently. Obama seems to want to do in Afghanistan what Bush is doing in Iraq. And his policies vis a vis Iran are just as implausable. What's with you guys that limits rational intelligent debate. The rest of the world just laughs at you and your dodgy election process!
Is improvisation always good?
The foreign policy side of the first debate makes a strong impression that McCain recycles ready generic themes of the GOP ideology while Obama improvises.
As a result, Obama looks intelligent and creative for those who already like him, but independents and hostiles must take this as weakness! For example, on Ahmadinejad, McCain proudly proclaims that one just can't talk to a person who wants to wipe Israel off the map while Obama mumbles something hard to memorize.
But there is nothing new about this GOP/Israeli opinion and one certainly could develop a clear answer for it. For example: you don't want talks? Fine, then how are you going to achieve long-term stability in Iraq?
Next, no talks basically mean war. Are you really ready for a big war on Iraq and occupation of this large country? What about money and other resources for this war which is going to be much bigger than with Iraq? What is the point of empty rhetoric without any material consequences?
Instead, Obama and McCain spend invaluable time on empty discussions of purely rhetorical issues like talking to bad guys and Iranian Holocaust denial.
Apparently, what happens is that dems just don't pay attention to the GOP ideological developments most of the time. They start responding only on the eve of elections when it is just too late.
We can only hope that Obama will prevail in November, but in medium and long term, this ideological recklessness is nothing short of fatal.
From the above
"Next, no talks basically mean war. Are you really ready for a big war on Iraq and occupation of this large country? "
Is there a typo here where when u said Iraq you mean Iran - or am I missing something?
Post a Comment
<< Home