rssPolls: Ohio Slipping Away From McCain
Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 11:39 am
- 6 Comments
A pair of polls released today indicate Sen. John McCain’s prospects for victory in the absolutely must-win state of Ohio may be growing dimmer.
The results of Quinnipiac University‘s newest battleground surveys show McCain trailing Sen. Barack Obama by a whopping 14-percentage points in the Buckeye State, by a margin of 52 percent to 38 percent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent. In the same survey earlier this month, Obama led by seven percentage points.
The Big 10 Battleground Poll — a survey of the Rust Belt and Midwestern states represented in the NCAA’s Big 10 Conference directed by pollsters at the University of Wisconsin-Madison — found McCain trails by 12 percentage points in Ohio, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percent.
A couple of caveats about this poll: It had a relatively small sample size and thus the relatively high margin of error. Also, the pollsters surveyed registered voters and “those likely to register to vote before the election” — but the deadline for registering in Ohio passed Oct. 6, 13 days before the polling took place, so it’s unclear what exactly this means. The bottom line is that only a fraction of those surveyed could be considered likely voters.
That said, the two polls paint a picture of a state that is trending away from McCain. Indeed, RealClearPolitics classifies Ohio as “Leaning Obama.” The Website’s polling average in the state shows Obama is leading by 6.0 points, and is pulling away from McCain. Ohio is famously known as the “bellwether state,” having sided with the winner in every election since 1960.
Buried in David Broder’s column today in The Washington Post today, in which he examines the race in Ohio, is a nugget that may provide a glimpse into why McCain is falling behind in Ohio: a shocking lack of organization.
Even after Barack Obama was soundly beaten by Hillary Clinton in the Ohio Democratic primary, losing Wayne County in the process, Democrats insisted that Ohio would be in play in November — and Republicans said they were rising to the challenge. So I was eager to see what was happening on the ground.
I drove down to the McCain-Republican office, across from the local newspaper on a downtown street, and walked in about 2:30 after my lunch interview with Amstutz.
I was greeted by two ladies of my own generation, Judy Dichler and Roma Nicholac, who told me that the office had opened on Sept. 22 and that “this is the first Friday we’ve stayed open.” While we visited, a half-dozen people stopped by to pick up McCain-Palin yard signs. None was asked to do anything else for the campaign.
Just as I was preparing to leave, a third woman arrived and silently began hand-gluing mailing labels to a pile of brochures.
Broder contrasts this with the scene at the Obama office two blocks away:
Sixteen people were at their desks, talking on phones or working on computers. Two of them were imports: Alain Hankin, a corporate trainer from Northampton, Mass., and father of two who decided to give the campaign five weeks of volunteer time; and David Litt, a New Yorker who graduated from Yale in May and, finding the job market bleak, also volunteered for Obama. Both were sent to Wooster to bolster what was already a vigorous local effort.
With the electoral map shrinking for McCain, he can hardly afford to lose Ohio and its 20 electoral votes — which President George W. Bush narrowly won in 2004.
McCain can theoretically lose Ohio and still win the election, but he would need to run the table on Pennsylvania (where polling shows a bleaker situation than Ohio), Virginia (where it’s not looking particularly good, either), Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Colorado.
The obvious question is, why aren’t all McCain’s Ohio field offices buzzing with activity less than two weeks until Election Day?
6 Comments
Comment posted October 23, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth.
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
OR IS IT………REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA…………..or just a fool's political game !!
Comment posted October 23, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Really you being a smart a** and buying the latest republican talking point of socialism since nothing else has worked makes you feel smart?
Hmmm lets goto McCains own words in a town hall meeting
Audience member: Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor?
John McCain: I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more.
Audience member: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism 'n stuff?
McCain: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
Why are republicans so easily manipulated by your party? Do you believe everything they put out? If they asked you to jump off a bridge would you?
Look at our tax rate system and understand basic 101 that any 3rd grader could – we tax progressively so that the tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, it imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the rich than on the poor. In general, the U.S. income tax is progressive, at least with respect to individuals that earn wage income.
Keep irritating your wait staff and hopefully next time they spit in your food. Thats because they are redistributing their spit so idiots like you can share in its glory…
Comment posted October 23, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Scott,
As a third grader I do not like your tone. I am making humor out of a political situation, but if you want to act like a militant liberal by all means.
Comment posted October 23, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
to tommy:
certainly feel free to redistribute your wealth as you wish. I am confused, though. The entire concept of a government that taxes is a redistribution of wealth. For example, take taxes from me and pay soldiers to fight overseas. Take my taxes and pay police-officiers and firefighter. Take my taxes and pay teachers.
So, can I assume you are against all of this?
(The progressive tax structure is a wealth re-distribution system. The IRS tax code that makes mortgage interest tax deductible is a wealth re-distribution system. So too with 401Ks. And, clearly, Social Security and Medicare are huge ones.)
It is easy to cut taxes. It is hard programs. It is hurting the economy for the government to spend too much on credit, because at some point we will need to raise more taxes than ever before to pay down the debt. And, if that doesn't happen, a devaluation of the dollar will.
Comment posted October 27, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Look at the Great Depression. Government spending – Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennesse Valley Authority, etc. etc. etc. got the economy moving. When people have money to spend they buy. when they buy companies have to produce more. in order to produce more they have to hire more people. McCain's economic plan doesn't cut it. Obama's plan won't work unless we open a New Deal ecomony driven by production – even if the production is first done by the government.
Comment posted October 27, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Look at the Great Depression. Government spending – Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennesse Valley Authority, etc. etc. etc. got the economy moving. When people have money to spend they buy. when they buy companies have to produce more. in order to produce more they have to hire more people. McCain's economic plan doesn't cut it. Obama's plan won't work unless we open a New Deal ecomony driven by production – even if the production is first done by the government.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
