Obama’s bounce puts him at 50% or higher in some polls
September 2, 2008
The GOP has its work cut out for itself this week at the RNC, not only on account of the several controversies surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin, but also because it appears Sen. Barack Obama finally got his convention bounce. Here’s the run-down on polls:
- Gallup: Obama 50, McCain 42
- Rasmussen: Obama 51, McCain 45
- National Political Hotline: Obama 48, McCain 39
- CBS News: Obama 48, McCain 40
- CNN: Obama 49, McCain 48
Why Sen. McCain has not gone after the most pro-choice presidential candidate in U.S. history on abortion escapes me. I want to trust that McCain is going to work to overturn Roe. Could he perhaps do a little bit more to give me some confidence in him?
From the Swamp Blog at time, comes this indication that McCain is less than a true believer in the pro-life cause:
Maybe because there are so many “pro-life” people (Catholics included) that will justify voting for Obama.
That, and if he can get the votes from these crazy women why make them more angry? A vote is a vote.
Do you think the feminists are overreacting?
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/147691.asp?from=blog_last3
“Why Sen. McCain has not gone after the most pro-choice presidential candidate in U.S. history on abortion escapes me.”
Think back to your American history. Don’t shoot until you see the white’s of their eyes was an order issued during the Revolutionary War to save ammunition. Same theory applies here. We understand Obama is a pro-abortion extremist. However, if his opponent makes that a central theme months out from election day it will seem over played by November. While this is a matter that is important to us it may not be central to everyone. This issue will be known to all decent people before November 4th.
Why Sen. McCain has not gone after the most pro-choice presidential candidate in U.S. history on abortion escapes me. I want to trust that McCain is going to work to overturn Roe. Could he perhaps do a little bit more to give me some confidence in him?
It appears that Obama has decided to start that conversation himself:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13103.html
DarwinCatholic:
Don’t you love that evangelical outreach?
BTW did anyone hear Hudson and Obama’s director of Catholic outreach talk on Kresta today? I missed it.
You do realize that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, don’t you?
I’m waiting for MM to come in here and rationalize Obama’s new radio ad…
I’m waiting for MM to come in here and rationalize Obama’s new radio ad…
He won’t. This post is about the polls. Please stay on topic.
From a Chicago Tribune article (8/29):
“One thing presidential candidates hope they’ll get from their nominating conventions is a healthy “bounce”—a gain in popularity as measured by public opinion polls. Since both parties’ 1964 gatherings, candidates have enjoyed an average 10 percentage point gain in their margin against their opponent, based on calculations from figures provided by The Gallup Poll.”
“There’s also no significant difference in bounces by the party that doesn’t hold the White House—which by tradition holds the year’s first convention—and the incumbent party. The out-of-power party averages an 11-point increase, compared with a 9-point boost for the incumbent party.”
“The post-convention boost, however, doesn’t always last and is hardly predictive of election outcomes.”
From my reading, the bounce that Obama got was lower than expected.
From my reading, the bounce that Obama got was lower than expected.
Yes, it does seem to be low comparatively. What is interesting is that he seems to have crested the 50% mark. But will it last?
He won’t. This post is about the polls. Please stay on topic.
With all due respect, I was on topic – you posed the question as to why McCain wasn’t going after Obama on abortion. Darwin posted a link that proved OBama was the first one to fire away on that topic. That link quoted Obama’s new radio ad.
Back “on topic” – I think Obama failed to impress in his rock concert speech.
Comment edited by an administrator.
I suspect that as extreme as Obama seems to the pro-life crowd, if given the choice between Obama’s very solid support for abortion and the Republican Party Platform position of no abortion, for any reason, not even in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, most Americans would go with Obama. People who are ambivalent about abortion, or perhaps even basically against it, will probably think long and hard before voting to ban it in every case.
What if you or someone you care about has a pregnancy that endangers her life? Or what if you, or your wife, or your sister, or your daughter is raped and becomes pregnant? Or what if a young teenager is raped by her own father and becomes pregnant? We all know these cases are very rare, but they do happen. Nobody is forced to have an abortion, but if the current pro-life crowd gets its way, some women with health problems will be forced to risk their lives rather than have an abortion, and some women will be forced to have their rapist’s baby.
Under current law, no one is forced to have an abortion. A vote for Obama isn’t going to abridge any voter’s freedom. But a vote for McCain may be a vote to be forced to have your rapist’s baby.
Obama is basically promising to uphold the status quo, plus perhaps a bit more. McCain is proposing a radical change. Now, I know many of the people on Vox Nova earnestly hope and pray for that change, but that doesn’t mean it’s not radical. And it doesn’t mean that ultimately the American voters might find banning all abortions too extreme.
The attack on Obama’s pro-abortion position started tonight at the convention. Fred Thompson delivered the first blow from the Republican side. I hope to goodness more follow.
The attack on Obama’s pro-abortion position started tonight at the convention.
That it did. Bravo, Fred Thompson. Too bad his speech was followed immediately by pro-choice Lieberman and will be followed tomorrow by pro-choice Rudy Giuliani.
David, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with “radical change” if it’s change for the better, especially if it’s to correct a gross injustice. Abolishing slavery in the south was a radical change, but it was worth it.
And while a vote for Obama won’t abridge a voter’s freedom, it will abridge another human being’s freedom: the one who is killed.
(You posed a good question in a previous regarding my comments about Obama’s judgment in light of his obtuseness on embryology… I’ve responded, fyi.)
Karl Rove called Joe Biden a “blow-hard doofus.” Well, Fred Thompson is the Republican version. I hope that just because he initiated the rhetorical assault on Obama on abortion that he doesn’t become some automatic hero.
After watching both conventions, it strikes me how utterly “culture of death” each candidate is. The idolatrous nationalism is disgusting–from each side. McCain’s insistence on continuing GWB’s failed policies in Iraq astounds me. The military policy of “take it to the killers before they get us” is HIGHLY problematic considering Catholic social teaching. Obama’s abortion stance is something I reject.
No matter who wins the election, the culture of death will win. There is still a choice to be had. And each of us will make that choice as we see fit. But I don’t think any Catholic will be able to claim a “victory” with either candidate.
McCain’s insistence on continuing GWB’s failed policies in Iraq astounds me.
While this would have made some sense a year or two ago, in light of the fact that we’re winning — as everyone including Obama acknowledges — it seems a bit strange to try to call it a failed policy.
But I don’t think any Catholic will be able to claim a “victory” with either candidate.
But I do agree with this, Brett.
It’s been common for Democrats in a presidential year to be ahead in generic preference polls by as much as 20 points in Aug., and then rapidly start to fall by late Oct.
But the polls to watch are the 15 or so battleground state polls. Those are fairly close, but McCain should be worried.
Bush’s failed policies in Iraq were publicly pointed out by McCain himself. As an listener to talk radio of all sorts (NPR is my favorite – go figure), I can attest to the fact that McCain was getting beaten up for his vocal opposition to the Rumsfelds in (i’m sitting here in goolge news looking through news stories from almost FIVE years ago documenting McCain’s vocal opposition to the status quo in the Bush administration). THAT’S real leadership, folks. The facts are that we’re winning in Iraq, and we will be pulling out of Iraq (whether under Obama or McCain) with a large measure of success built on the principled stance of John McCain. Those are just the facts.
David:
I discussed the issue of a woman-whose-pregnancy-is-endangering-her-life with a priest-ethicist. Although he mentioned double effect, he stressed that with medical advances the need to kill the child directly in order to save the life of the mother is an extreme medical rarity. Based on my conversation with him, I don’t think anyone need consider this scenario anymore as an argument supporting abortion…
As a part of that failed Iraq policy let me include the reasons for being there in the first place. When I hear President Bush say things like, John McCain “told them he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war” it does not impress me. Winning an unjust war is not winning. This is not the place to argue whether the Iraq war was just or not, but I take the negative assessment of that question. Obviously. And for someone like me who takes such a view, repentance is a better social strategy than military victory.
McCain only opposed Bush’s tactical policies, not the rationale for the war. In that sense he’s no maverick one iota.
Obama has been critical of the Iraq conflict, instead focusing attention on Afghanistan. Of the two conflicts, Afghanistan is much easier to make a case for. And yet our mission there has been abandoned.
Let me just say now, I hate using the “we” “our” language (which I have been using freely) as if my national identity can so easily be fused to my true Christian identity.
“McCain only opposed Bush’s tactical policies, not the rationale for the war. In that sense he’s no maverick one iota.
Obama has been critical of the Iraq conflict, instead focusing attention on Afghanistan. Of the two conflicts, Afghanistan is much easier to make a case for. And yet our mission there has been abandoned”
If McCains views had been taken earlier much less suffering would have occured. THe problem here is that too many Catholics have confused the justness of the war with some bizaree legal fruit of poisonous tree doctrine.
For some the only thing that matters that matters is the day before the invasion. IN fact they ignore the US Bishops quite obvious observation that we had moved on to a whole new set of moral questions. That is how to bring stability to Iraq. As Colin Pwoeel said If you Break it you got an obligation to fix it.
THe fact taht every analysit was saying a rapid withdrawl would lead to untold deaths and genocide did not seem to matter for most people. Again they saw it through one prism.
TO be honest I was sort of shocked at the lack of critical thinking skill as to Just war doctrine that so many were applying
I have no idea what the Pope said to Bush in those private meetings. My gut reaction was he was demanding more security for IRaqis and especially Iraqi Christians. BIg HINT – A rapid withdrawal is opposed to that.
Anyway I saw first hand how the “Catholic Left” and portion of the “Catholic Right” (the Paleo and ROn Paul types) that so much talked about responsibility wanted to wash their hands of Iraq and wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and dress it ups as some grand Catholic morality.
Afghanistan has been abandoned? You’ve got to be kidding me. That’s simply untrue. It’s true that McCain supported the invasion of Iraq. So did I. So did most of the Democratic party in the Senate. I’ve said time and again that if I’d had my way in 2000 (I voted for McCain), we’d never set foot there. But the President of the United States made a compelling case (compelling enough to convince the majority of the opposition party – Obama was conveniently not in a position to vote) and McCain followed.
Much of the pretext of the war was wrong. But I still believe we have a valid mission there – to establish a strong and free government. We’ll see if that actually happens. But it’s a worthy goal. We could have pulled out when Obama wanted us to. We could have stopped funding our troops when Obama wanted us to. But lucky for the Iraqis we didn’t. Thanks to John McCain.
I do disagree with McCain on his stance that he would have invaded Iraq even without the faulty intelligence. Firstly, I don’t think that’s true. Maybe it’s something he says to support the troops who are currently there and losing their lives. I don’t know. Regardless, Obama was wrong on the surge. He was wrong on funding our troops. And frankly he’s an opportunist who tries to paint McCain as Bush III.
Whether Bush’s Iraq policy has been a failure is irrelevant. It was a moral failure from the beginning, as our Church leaders and anti-war Catholics tried to tell you all from the start.
Let me just say now, I hate using the “we” “our” language (which I have been using freely) as if my national identity can so easily be fused to my true Christian identity.
Agreed!
Well, I wasn’t Catholic then, so at least I have that in my defense. I certainly wouldn’t support a preemptive invasion of another country unless a clear and present danger to the actual homeland was as clear as crystal to everyone from Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan.
What about John McCain and contraception? If the pill, iud’s and other forms of birth control cause abortions (I am not sure personally, just wondering. Correct me or affirm me here) then why doesn’t he be the maverick he is and challenge big pharmaceutical companies? He could lead the way toward ending those forms of abortion (if they function that way at times) without having to wait to select Supreme Court justices. Isn’t that a test of conviction we would support together and challenge politicians to live up to? It seems convenient for some to take the pro-life stance, waiting dreamy-eyed for a sympathetic Supreme Court, while not lifting a voice against war, poverty, and contraception. To be selective about any one of these is problematic.
Is it the expectation that if Roe V Wade were reverse, then contraception would be a target? If not, why not? Don’t Catholics require both of these to be consistent?
Thinking out loud…
Considering how you were rationalising BHO’s pro-infanticide vote earlier, do you expect to be taken seriously?
Really?
Amazing!!!
I’m not rationalizing any particular vote. As I recall, I said voting for either candidate would be a vote for the culture of death. I also said I stand against Obama on abortion. And I never once said I’m voting for Obama.
What I am trying to do is to probe deeper on what I find to be too easy an alliance between McCain and the “pro-life” stance. In fact, the only argument I ever hear is that we have to vote for McCain because he’ll put in better justices than Obama. I agree it is likely that he’ll nominate better justices on the abortion question. But is there more to consider? I can’t help but feel that we “pro-lifers” have been taken for a ride politically by candidates who have convictions about life which are shallow and convenient reflections of their party’s base. It is convenient to have a stance on abortion which requires some future action of a Supreme Court. What is that candidate doing now? That’s what I am asking. And I am sure some of you can tell me.
If you read my words, I tried to offer them as thinking out loud. I am asking you to think with me. This implies my learning from you. I hope you take me seriously enough to teach me where I am wrong. I hope you take me seriously to read what I have said. And one thing I did NOT say, was that I was offering rationale for a pro-infanticide Obama vote. That rhetoric is uncharitable, nonsensical bluster that does not reflect the words or heart of what I have written tonight.
I have been on this board 4 or 5 times. I’m new. Perhaps I am coming in on old debates. I likely am. Perhaps I am not very eloquent. That is certain. I would encourage you Jim to take the old Benedictine adage to heart and welcome all who come as you would welcome Christ. That even includes those who rationalize contrarian positions. I’m not sure your comment has advanced this discussion one bit.
I’m not sure your comment has advanced this discussion one bit.
Nor have his comments on other threads advanced those discussions.
Just rmember there was a time in 1992 that Bill Clinton was running well behind Perot and Bush I in the polls.
Abortion is an issue, but not an in your face issue for many people. Few people’s lives are touched directy by abortion at least that we know of since most people do not brag of having obtained an abortion. But the disasterous results of Bush’s foreign, military and economic policy effect us all every day.
David, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with “radical change” if it’s change for the better, especially if it’s to correct a gross injustice. Abolishing slavery in the south was a radical change, but it was worth it.
Chris,
Yes, and I am sure many in the pro-life movement would be more than happy to have the radical change that the Republican Platform calls for. (By the way, since I wrote my message I discovered that Sarah Palin approves of abortion to save the life of the mother, but not in cases of rape and incest. It is not clear to me whether McCain is now supporting abortion in case of rape, incest, and life of the mother.)
My basic point is that the Republican Platform and much of the pro-life movement on the right seeks not to drastically reduce the number of abortions and make exceptions for the really tough cases. They want no abortions, for any reason, under any circumstances. That is a radical change from what we have now, and it is so extreme that I don’t think most Americans will buy it.
Of course, there are extremely slim odds of such a total ban being enacted (or, for that matter, any ban).
I discussed the issue of a woman-whose-pregnancy-is-endangering-her-life with a priest-ethicist. Although he mentioned double effect, he stressed that with medical advances the need to kill the child directly in order to save the life of the mother is an extreme medical rarity. Based on my conversation with him, I don’t think anyone need consider this scenario anymore as an argument supporting abortion.
little gal,
I would want to consult obstetricians and other medical professionals in addition to priest-ethicists.
Extreme medical rarities do still happen, and I think a party platform that calls for a blanket ban on abortion, without even an exception to save the life of the mother (no matter how rarely it might be needed) is an extreme position, sending the message that the lives of the unborn are so important they rank higher than the lives of the born.
That is a radical change from what we have now, and it is so extreme that I don’t think most Americans will buy it.
Oh, I certainly agree with that. I currently live in a rural, fairly conservative state (SD), and in ’06 our state legislature & governor enacted a law banning all abortions except in the case of danger of death to the mother; Planned Parenthood was able to get the law on the ballot (if you get enough signatures, you can force a law to have to pass a ballot referendum), and it was defeated, largely b/c of the lack of the standard exceptions (rape, etc.). Quite a shock to many in the pro-life community here, but not to all… we’re not as insulated from the general culture as some thought…
Anyway, this year the pro-life community decided to go the referendum route as well, and there’s a referendum on the ballot in November to ban abortions except in the case of rape, incest, and significant health risk to the mother. Looks like it’ll pass, but it’s only early September.
So I agree: the goal which the pro-life community and the Church are after is too much for the general public right now, but it’s still the goal.
Maybe because there are so many “pro-life” people (Catholics included) that will justify voting for Obama.
if the quote marks around the word pro-life are meant to indicate that those who would support the election of a pro-choice candidate are not sincere in their pro-life beliefs, the we can strike the sincerity of McCain’s claim of being pro-life, as he has supported the election of pro-choice candidates.
I’m glad to see Fred Thompson, the former lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, speaking at the convention.
If my wife were raped (something that DOES happen to people’s wives quite regularly in the USA), I would NOT want her to have the rapist’s child, and I would NOT want to raise that child myself. There would be no way that I could offer that child sufficient love to nurture it and turn it into a proper human being. Killing it in the womb would spare it a lifetime of deprivation of a mother and father’s love. Some lives AREN’T worth living.
way to go digby. No wonder you’re an Obama fan…
The comment section of this blog is disgusting. If I use the eff word will I be banned?
“digbydolben Says:
September 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm
If my wife were raped (something that DOES happen to people’s wives quite regularly in the USA), I would NOT want her to have the rapist’s child, and I would NOT want to raise that child myself. There would be no way that I could offer that child sufficient love to nurture it and turn it into a proper human being. Killing it in the womb would spare it a lifetime of deprivation of a mother and father’s love. Some lives AREN’T worth living.”
Couple items:
1. Not sure where you are getting your info from, but wives getting raped does not happen quite regularly here in the US.
2. Your mindset of killing a child to spare it from you being an unloving person is disgusting beyond my vocabulary. While I’m of course against murder, I could understand someone stating a desire to kill someone who raped your wife. I do not understand theorizing a desire to murder the rapist’s child. Ridiculous!
Not sure where you are getting your info from, but wives getting raped does not happen quite regularly here in the US.
Umm…. WHAT?!
Michael I — it’s telling that you chose to disagree with that remark, rather than with digby’s remark, “Some lives AREN’T worth living.”
Is digby the alter ego of one of the bloggers here? I have trouble understanding why you guys treat him with such kid gloves no matter what he says.
S.B. – I do disagree with digby’s last comment. I thought that would be obvious, as I have repeatedly expressed my opposition to all abortion.
Does your silence regarding the comment that wives are not often the victims of rape in the U.S. of A. mean that you agree with that bald faced lie?
Michael, I can loan you my dictionary if needed. Often is not the same as regularly. And neither is a true statement. I sure there are some rapes (and any is too many), but it is not a regular occurrence. Regularly means it is happening all the time which is not the case. Regardless, even if it happened regularly it is no reason to harm a child.
Regularly means it is happening all the time which is not the case.
Perhaps you’re the one who needs a dictionary. And for the sake of the women in your life, you might also want to study some facts regarding the regularity of abuse of women.
Does your silence regarding the comment that wives are not often the victims of rape in the U.S. of A. mean that you agree with that bald faced lie?
Um, no, because that was just silence in the face of a single post from a commenter I’ve never seen before. What concerned me (and still does concern me) is that you could count literally hundreds of similar statements from digby, and none of the VN bloggers ever seem to care; instead, the only pronouncement I’ve seen from you is that “digby is a truth-teller.” In any event, it’s a repeated pattern of indifference to or toleration of error more egregious than the supposed faults of Sarah Palin or whichever conservative is the subject of a two-minute hate in a given week.
S.B. – That is the first comment of that kind that I have seen by digby. Hundreds? C’mon. We know you are prone to exaggerate.
OK, dozens, not hundreds. Every time the Church’s moral teachings are at issue, digby says that Americans are stupid for believing in the Church, or something like that.
My comment responding to Tim has been under “moderation,” now, for a week, so I’ll attempt to repeat it, since some here have opined that my position is barbarous:
I’m sure your wife is pleased to know that, when and if she is raped, you will force her to have her rapist’s child.
You just don’t seem to get it: this is a WOMAN’s business, not the business of a male-only celibate priesthood.
If my WIFE wanted to keep and raise the child–then only would I reconsider.
I recently lived and taught very close to the Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona/New Mexico. Statistics indicat that ONE THIRD of all Navajo women are RAPED, at some time in their lives, by individuals who are not of their ethnicity.
I will NOT back down, by one IOTA, from my position that the question of aborting a RAPIST’S foetus is subject ONLY to the decision of the women involved, and not to sexist-minded men clad in the cassocks of a celibate priesthood.
And those who pontificating here that such a statement is outrageous on a “Catholic blog” have apparently never bothered to inform themselves of the agony that rape-inflicted conceptions cause EVERY SINGLE DAY to such women as those of the Navajo nation.
Some of you “Catholic conservatives” are the most odious and cruelly complacent Pharisees that God ever threw guts into!
Statistics indicat [sic] that ONE THIRD of all Navajo women are RAPED, at some time in their lives, by individuals who are not of their ethnicity.
What’s the source of this statistic?
Amnesty International, and I’ve seen it a number of times before, from sources beside the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502778.html
And thank you for correcting my spelling.
Doesn’t this statistic MEAN SOMETHING, in light of these refusals to countenance abortion under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES? Would you REALLY be willing to force all these women to bear all these children?