SUSA Ohio: McCain by 4

[Rowan]

McCain 49%
Obama 45%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=43154ee9-1bca-4042-84df-131e90cc13ad

Party breakdown is heavily skewed towards the Democrats yet MAC is still ahead.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Seems to be the consensus that McCain is up by 3-4 in Ohio. It looks like he'll have a pretty good shot at holding that state.

[Franzl]

He has an excellent shot at winning OH if he stays ahead nationally...indeed, even if Obama wins by 1 or 2, I still think it's possible for him to lose Ohio.

[Tender Branson]

The good thing:

At "Is your mind already made up ?", Obama leads by 1.

So there's enough time to win over the ones who might still change their mind.

[Ronnie]

Obama trailing by 4 in Ohio, but leading by that same amount in VA?

Inconceivable

[Franzl]

Obama trailing by 4 in Ohio, but leading by that same amount in VA?

Inconceivable

it's highly unlikely, but I do think Palin gets much more support in OH than in VA.

[Brittain33]

Is Ohio really that much more pro-life (48%) than Virginia (39%)?

[Franzl]

Is Ohio really that much more pro-life (48%) than Virginia (39%)?

I don't know any numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, fine, we don't need Ohio if we have Virginia.

[Ronnie]

Well, fine, we don't need Ohio if we have Virginia.

Doubt it.  If McCain carries OH, he almost certainly carries VA.

Look, OH will probably be something like GOP + 1-2% against the national average.  VA will be about the same as that if even more.

[Reaganfan]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

[Brittain33]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

Did Ohio poll that closely in 2000? Gore wrote it off early...

[Rococo4]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

Did Ohio poll that closely in 2000? Gore wrote it off early...

I dont know if Gore wrote it off, but there wasnt the emphasis like there was in 2004

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

Did Ohio poll that closely in 2000? Gore wrote it off early...

I dont know if Gore wrote it off, but there wasnt the emphasis like there was in 200

I don't think Gore wrote it off, but the only state that he outspent Bush on was Florida.
The polls showed that Ohio would go narrowly Bush, Pennsylvania would go narrow Gore, and that Florida would determine the winner.

[Brittain33]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

Did Ohio poll that closely in 2000? Gore wrote it off early...

I dont know if Gore wrote it off, but there wasnt the emphasis like there was in 2004

My memory is that Dems weren't polling that well in Ohio and had no organization, and Gore made a strategic decision to focus on other states. Then, on Election Day, he did much better than expected. That was the start of the Dems' focus on that state for the upcoming election. 

[Reaganfan]

Looking similar to 2000 where Bush held this type of lead on Gore, eventually winning the state with 50-46%

Did Ohio poll that closely in 2000? Gore wrote it off early...

Gore pulled his ads out of Ohio in the final weeks.

Bush really lost ground in the last week or so of the campaign. Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and even Delaware were considered very possible Bush wins....and Bush didn't win a single one of those. Without New Hampshire...wow....New Hampshire...

[Democratic Hawk]

Republican 35% (35%): McCain 89% (82%); Obama 7% (13%)

Democrat 44% (47%): McCain 19% (20%); Obama 77% (75%)

Independent 17% (16%): McCain 45% (39%); Obama 44% (45%)

Conservative 30% (32%): McCain 80% (83%); Obama 17% (13%)

Moderate 37% (40%): McCain 44% (36%); Obama 51% (55%)

Liberal 13% (19%): McCain 17% (15%); Obama 77% (84%)

(denotes SUSA, Jun. 20-22, 2008)

Top issue: the economy - Obama 52%; McCain 44%

[Eraserhead]

White Democrat problem. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and vote for their economic survival.

[Ty440]

White Democrat problem. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and vote for their economic survival.

So White Democrats should look to Obama as their economic savior instead of picking themselves up from their bootstraps and helping themselves?

When I faced economic hardship when Bill Clinton was president.. I never blamed him or the democrats for my troubles it was due to my own irresponsibility that got me in my hardship...but you know what. I got myself out of it, all without one single handout or red cent from  the government

That's the problem with democrats their always looking for the government to save them

[TheresNoMoney]

That's the problem with democrats their always looking for the government to save them

Agreed, it's all about the free market and especially deregulation.

Hell, the housing market/mortage/financial institution collapse is a great indicator of how well right-wing economic policies and deregulation work!

[Sbane]

White Democrat problem. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and vote for their economic survival.

So White Democrats should look to Obama as their economic savior instead of picking themselves up from their bootstraps and helping themselves?

When I faced economic hardship when Bill Clinton was president.. I never blamed him or the democrats for my troubles it was due to my own irresponsibility that got me in my hardship...but you know what. I got myself out of it, all without one single handout or red cent from  the government

That's the problem with democrats their always looking for the government to save them

Well there is a difference between Mccain and Obama in that everyone making less than 100,000 or so will get a higher tax cut under Obama. Overall Obama's tax cut won't contribute to the deficit as much as MCcain's reckless tax cut for the wealthy in our society. This will lead to less inflation, a hidden tax that hurts the poor the most. So in these tangible ways democrats are better for the middle and working class. Now as for actual job creation we can argue about it all day, but the economy has grown more under democrats and there has been more job creation under democrats. That is just fact. If there is a correlation is the bigger question.

[??????????]

The idea of Obama cutting taxes is clearly campaign mythology.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

White Democrat problem. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and vote for their economic survival.

So White Democrats should look to Obama as their economic savior instead of picking themselves up from their bootstraps and helping themselves?

When I faced economic hardship when Bill Clinton was president.. I never blamed him or the democrats for my troubles it was due to my own irresponsibility that got me in my hardship...but you know what. I got myself out of it, all without one single handout or red cent from  the government

That's the problem with democrats their always looking for the government to save them

Well there is a difference between Mccain and Obama in that everyone making less than 100,000 or so will get a higher tax cut under Obama. Overall Obama's tax cut won't contribute to the deficit as much as MCcain's reckless tax cut for the wealthy in our society. This will lead to less inflation, a hidden tax that hurts the poor the most. So in these tangible ways democrats are better for the middle and working class. Now as for actual job creation we can argue about it all day, but the economy has grown more under democrats and there has been more job creation under democrats. That is just fact. If there a correlation is the bigger question.

It's statistically significant.

[Sbane]

The idea of Obama cutting taxes is clearly campaign mythology.

And you have some kind of proof? Democrats have a history of cutting taxes for the middle class so I don't see why Obama wouldn't do it either. He also has a team of respected economists advising him and they will be partial towards tax cuts. I think that is a reason why he has been a little iffy on the tax raise on the rich too. He has said he will cut taxes first and then raise taxes on the rich only when the economy picks up.

[??????????]

White Democrat problem. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and vote for their economic survival.

So White Democrats should look to Obama as their economic savior instead of picking themselves up from their bootstraps and helping themselves?

When I faced economic hardship when Bill Clinton was president.. I never blamed him or the democrats for my troubles it was due to my own irresponsibility that got me in my hardship...but you know what. I got myself out of it, all without one single handout or red cent from  the government

That's the problem with democrats their always looking for the government to save them

Well there is a difference between Mccain and Obama in that everyone making less than 100,000 or so will get a higher tax cut under Obama. Overall Obama's tax cut won't contribute to the deficit as much as MCcain's reckless tax cut for the wealthy in our society. This will lead to less inflation, a hidden tax that hurts the poor the most. So in these tangible ways democrats are better for the middle and working class. Now as for actual job creation we can argue about it all day, but the economy has grown more under democrats and there has been more job creation under democrats. That is just fact. If there a correlation is the bigger question.

It's statistically significant.

Like 940 heads and 60 tails?