Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[Zarn]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

[Ronnie]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

The enthusiasm and viewership of Obama's speech would indicate otherwise.

[Zarn]

I never said it wouldn't give a short burst.

[Brittain33]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

That is rather the opposite of the Palin experience; she got points for delivering a strong attack speech.

[Torie]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

That is rather the opposite of the Palin experience; she got points for delivering a strong attack speech.

One man's "content" is another man's pablum.

[Lief 🗽]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

Yes, which is why Obama's speech was better.

[Zarn]

Brittain and Lief are examples of those who think Obama has content. They will stick with him.

It won't stick, because many do not believe it is content.

It's why the July bounce dropped quickly.

[Lief 🗽]

Brittain and Lief are examples of those who think Obama has content. They will stick with him.

It won't stick, because many do not believe it is content.

It's why the July bounce dropped quickly.

Obama's speech had more concrete policy proposals than the entire Republican convention.

[J. J.]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

Yes, which is why Obama's speech was better.

Barely.

[Sbane]

Sorry but Obama gave much more specifics in his speech on what he will do while Mccain just elaborated on energy and schools. Everything else was just platitudes. I think he is getting a decent bounce because of his character, which people like, but he will have to do well in the debates and have some substance. We already know democrats will have substance since the public basically agrees with them on the issues.

[Torie]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

[Sbane]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

[Ronnie]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

McCain's energy policy is all of the above.  I can't see how that is "shortsighted".

[Sbane]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

McCain's energy policy is all of the above.  I can't see how that is "shortsighted".

"Drill baby drill" repeated a million times. WTF was up with that? I will grant you that Mccain's energy policy is better on one regard and that is nuclear. But he didn't even talk about anything specific with wind and solar, two technologies that could revolutionize energy. Here in california almost everybody with a house could produce all the electricity they need from solar. It just needs to be made cheaper which the government could help with by subsidyising it now for consumers which will lead to an overall reduction in solar panel prices later.

[Torie]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

I love questions like this. Thank you for asking! 

Here is the deal. As one goes father out in time, the present value of the financial event declines. Dollars saved now are worth more than dollars saved later, so one would have to posit that drilling when you are an old man, will generate a hell of a lot more dollars then to overcome the harsh mistress of the discount rate.

The idea is to use oil to tide us over, as we transition to nukes, and shale, and fusion, and much more efficient solar, more efficient consumption, etc. Plus we will never run out of oil: it will just get increasingly expensive to extract. The idea is to reduce the cost of the transition, both in financial terms, but also in national security terms, so that we (we including Europe and Japan here) can be less dependent on, and indeed, de-fund, actual or  potentially hostile powers. Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi, etc.

[Ronnie]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

McCain's energy policy is all of the above.  I can't see how that is "shortsighted".

"Drill baby drill" repeated a million times. WTF was up with that? I will grant you that Mccain's energy policy is better on one regard and that is nuclear. But he didn't even talk about anything specific with wind and solar, two technologies that could revolutionize energy. Here in california almost everybody with a house could produce all the electricity they need from solar. It just needs to be made cheaper which the government could help with by subsidyising it now for consumers which will lead to an overall reduction in solar panel prices later.

Sure, he put plenty of emphasis on drilling, but I heard plenty of talk about geothermal, solar, and wind.

Here's a page on his website: http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

[Sbane]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

I love questions like this. Thank you for asking! 

Here is the deal. As one goes father out in time, the present value of the financial event declines. Dollars saved now are worth more than dollars saved later, so one would have to posit that drilling when you are an old man, will generate a hell of a lot more dollars then to overcome the harsh mistress of the discount rate.

The idea is to use oil to tide us over, as we transition to nukes, and shale, and fusion, and much more efficient solar, more efficient consumption, etc. Plus we will never run out of oil: it will just get increasingly expensive to extract. The idea is to reduce the cost of the transition, both in financial terms, but also in national security terms, so that we (we including Europe and Japan here) can be less dependent on, and indeed, de-fund, actual or  potentially hostile powers. Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi, etc.

Leaving some easily accessable oil for the future is not exactly a bad idea imo. I favor drilling more in the gulf while I do not support it here in california and I am confused about ANWR. And if the idea is to use oil to "tide us over" then why isn't the government doing anything to create innovation. Why aren't more subsidies given to consumers who switch to solar and are rather given to huge oil corporations that just use it to drill more. If the oil companies aren't going to take responsibility then fine, but somebody has to. My problem with Mccain's speech was where he gave emphasis, on drilling and where he did not give emphasis, wind and solar. I think many republicans think of wind and solar and go "omgz thats pussysh**t". Gotta change that mentality.

[Sbane]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

McCain's energy policy is all of the above.  I can't see how that is "shortsighted".

"Drill baby drill" repeated a million times. WTF was up with that? I will grant you that Mccain's energy policy is better on one regard and that is nuclear. But he didn't even talk about anything specific with wind and solar, two technologies that could revolutionize energy. Here in california almost everybody with a house could produce all the electricity they need from solar. It just needs to be made cheaper which the government could help with by subsidyising it now for consumers which will lead to an overall reduction in solar panel prices later.

Sure, he put plenty of emphasis on drilling, but I heard plenty of talk about geothermal, solar, and wind.

Here's a page on his website: http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

But even on his website it's just one paragraph while he talks much more about other things like the battery challenge or whatever. I guess he is putting all his eggs in the nuclear basket but I do not know if that is a very good idea. We can have more nuclear power but it cannot increase exponentially. Wind, solar, biothermal have to be the future.

[Torie]

I am not sure what "biothemal" is, but what if the wind stops blowing, or the sun doesn't shine?  I suspect both have somewhat limited application, and would be surprised if they ever make up more than a quarter of the mix. Those sources won't help with transportation I don't think.

[Sbane]

I am not sure what "biothemal" is, but what if the wind stops blowing, or the sun doesn't shine?  I suspect both have somewhat limited application, and would be surprised if they ever make up more than a quarter of the mix. Those sources won't help with transportation I don't think.

LOL I meant geothermal. Also the wind won't stop blowing and neither will the sun stop shining, especially in your backyard. Of course every house will still be connected to the overall grid and on especially sunny or windy days could actually turn the meter the other way. That does happen to many current users of solar in the summertime. When the wintertime comes we will be more dependent on coal and nuclear but in certain parts of the country that means more wind. Construct some wind turbines along the oregon and northern california coast and trust me those will produce massive amounts of energy in the wintertime. As for transportation natural gas is a good alternative. It is much cleaner than diesel as well and has probably saved thousands of lives in New delhi already. In the end though everything, including our cars, will have to go electric I suppose. Which is why the government should encourage producing those kinds of technology as well and actually Mccain has taken a lead on that issue so I am satisfied.

[Brittain33]

People do not want a good speaker. They want actual content in the speeches.

That is rather the opposite of the Palin experience; she got points for delivering a strong attack speech.

One man's "content" is another man's pablum.

You and Zarn misunderstand or draw the wrong conclusion from my post. Zarn described a speech people wanted, I responded that many were quite pleased with Palin's speech and she didn't deliver what he said they wanted. Obama's not in the picture.

[J. J.]

Is to seem with  pie in the sky or false  specifics better than not to seem with  no specifics at all, that is the question.

Speaking of pie in the sky what do you think of this love affair that republicans have with drilling. They must understand it will do almost nothing to solve our energy problem since that oil was going to be drilled out one day anyways. And the more we drill now the less we have for later so aren't we just playing into the hands of the speculators? The energy policy of the republicans is extremely shortsighted.

McCain's energy policy is all of the above.  I can't see how that is "shortsighted".

"Drill baby drill" repeated a million times. WTF was up with that? I will grant you that Mccain's energy policy is better on one regard and that is nuclear. But he didn't even talk about anything specific with wind and solar, two technologies that could revolutionize energy. Here in california almost everybody with a house could produce all the electricity they need from solar. It just needs to be made cheaper which the government could help with by subsidyising it now for consumers which will lead to an overall reduction in solar panel prices later.

Actually, he did mention a litany of a alternative energy sources, including wind power.  That was a bit more specific than just saying "alternative energy."

[Gustaf]

Like Torie says, it's generally better to use resources now than later, contrary to what many think. Of course, this presumes general growth of the economy, something which isn't necessarily true if we run out of energy.

[ChrisFromNJ]

McCain: 48 (NC)
Obama: 47 (-1)

[CPT MikeyMike]

Monday - September 8, 2008:

General: Head-to-Head

McCain: 47% / 48%, including leaners (+1, nc)
Obama: 46% / 47%, including leaners (nc, -1)

Favorability

McCain: 60% favorable, 38% unfavorable (+2, -2)
Obama: 55% favorable, 43% unfavorable (-1, nc)

Last Tuesday, Obama’s bounce peaked with the Democrat enjoying a six-percentage point advantage. Before the two conventions were held, Obama had consistently held a one or two point lead over McCain for most of August.

McCain leads by four points among men while Obama leads by three among women. On Tuesday, when Obama’s lead peaked, he had a fourteen point advantage among women.