Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[Sam Spade]

Saturday-October 18, 2008
Obama 50.25%(-.09%)
McCain 45.46%(-.43%)

Tomorrow will be the most important day. A really good Mac sample will fall off tomorrow meaning that Obama should gain a point or 2 IMO.

True dat. 

Of course, it also means that the Obama +9 to 10 was not replicated in this sample.  None of the other internals of the other questions Rasmussen asked give us a clear answer as to the sample's composition.  But given the composition of the sample that dropped off before, it probably can't be higher than O+6, and is probably closer to O+4-5.

In general, the numbers would indicate that today's sample was +1 better for Obama than the one that dropped off, with most of the movement towards undecideds.

[Sbane]

Given today's numbers... unless Powell endorses McCain, we are going to be hurting as a country.

Why the doom and gloom? Today's numbers are the same as yesterday. I still think we're scrwed either way.

Powell is going to endorse Obama tomorrow on MTP.  Did you really think a black guy would not endorse another black guy?

I've just lost faith in the public the make the right decision.

Hmm you do realize most of the problems of the last 8 years have been caused by a republican, right? Why not give the democrats a chance? Especially considering the republican nominee wants to continue the failed policies of the current administration.

[Zarn]

I'm not an idiot. Even, if I did support Obama on policy (which I don't), I would not support his corruption. People are also going from one extreme to another to make up for the previous extreme.

The republic is failing.

[Sbane]

I'm not an idiot. Even, if I did support Obama on policy (which I don't), I would not support his corruption. People are also going from one extreme to another to make up for the previous extreme.

The republic is failing.

Fair enough. I just don't think Obama is going to be that much of an extremist in his governing. He needs to get re-elected in 2012 and will probably pursue centrist ideas. I have not seen a huge amount of corruption in Obama but he certainly is not faultless. He is about as corrupt as Mccain so that is definitely not a reason to vote against him. Plus we need to get away from republican ideas of foreign policy. I understand why republicans and libertarians would be wary of an economy run by a democrat, but I am much more scared of a foreign policy run by a republican. A lot of our problems today can be linked to Iraq. Although not invading them might would not mean there would be no subprime crisis, we might still have money to pay for the crisis. If we had not lowered taxes on the people who could most afford it, we would not have to borrow money from China to spend in Iraq and now Wall street. If we had pursued concrete alternative energy solutions under this administration we wouldn't be borrowing so much money from Asia to transfer it to the middle east. So I don't see why democrats scare you so much considering what has occured in the last 8 years.

[Zarn]

I am not weary of him, because he is a Dem or a socialist.

Spare me your talking points, and I don't mean that rudely. I already said I wasn't an idiot. I have my information from various srouces of various ideologies. I have do not accept someone else's words as my own.

[Kalimantan]

I'm not an idiot. Even, if I did support Obama on policy (which I don't), I would not support his corruption. People are also going from one extreme to another to make up for the previous extreme.

The republic is failing.

Whats up with the 'Obama is corrupt' talking point? Haven't heard anything on that so far?

[Zarn]

I'm not an idiot. Even, if I did support Obama on policy (which I don't), I would not support his corruption. People are also going from one extreme to another to make up for the previous extreme.

The republic is failing.

Whats up with the 'Obama is corrupt' talking point? Haven't heard anything on that so far?

That's not a talking point. Do you know what a talking point is?

[Kalimantan]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

[Zarn]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

Have you been paying attention?

BTW, how many voter registrations have you filled out? I'm up to number 186!

[Tender Branson]

Sunday - October 19

Obama: 51 (+1)
McCain: 45 (nc)

Favorable Ratings

Obama: 55% favorable, 43% unfavorable (nc, nc)
McCain: 52% favorable, 46% unfavorable (-1, nc)

This is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the final Presidential debate and shows that the race continues to remain quite stable. Polling data on “Joe the Plumber” will be released later today.

[Kalimantan]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

Have you been paying attention?

BTW, how many voter registrations have you filled out? I'm up to number 186!

Oh, you're talking about ACORN. Well thats not corruption, and Obama isn't involved with the fradulent registrations. Corruption is use of political power for financial gain, and its abhorrent. Show me Obama is corrupt and I won't vote for him.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

Have you been paying attention?

BTW, how many voter registrations have you filled out? I'm up to number 186!

You do realise how many steps are required for a fraudulent registration to actually be granted the right to vote?

This WHOLE Acorn mess has been MISreported and blown out of all proportion.

A bunch of people realised it was easier earning $8 an hour troling through the phone book than to actually go door to door. They get paid for the registration forms - but in order to be able to vote you would need that to be 100% checked and for someone with fake ID by that name to actually be able to cast a fraudulent vote.

Since you're happy to sprout propoganda, I'll add a statistic for you - out of the 270m votes cast in the last few elections, there has only been 32 confirmed cases of actual voter-fraud.

Am I the only one who finds it hillarious that people who found nothing wrong the purging of the Florida voter rolls by a company linked to the Republican party and supported for the Sec of State (and also co-chair of the Florida Bush election campaign) - are screeching about the danger to the system of democracy by a bunch of people, who, granted, did not do their job properly, but are no real threat to democracy in America.

[Kalimantan]

No you're not the only one, but good luck finding a McCain supporter that agrees with you

[Zarn]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

Have you been paying attention?

BTW, how many voter registrations have you filled out? I'm up to number 186!

Oh, you're talking about ACORN. Well thats not corruption, and Obama isn't involved with the fradulent registrations. Corruption is use of political power for financial gain, and its abhorrent. Show me Obama is corrupt and I won't vote for him.

That's not the definition.

You guys just don't catch on, do you?

[Zarn]

Sunday - October 19

Obama: 51 (+1)
McCain: 45 (nc)

Favorable Ratings

Obama: 55% favorable, 43% unfavorable (nc, nc)
McCain: 52% favorable, 46% unfavorable (-1, nc)

This is the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the final Presidential debate and shows that the race continues to remain quite stable. Polling data on “Joe the Plumber” will be released later today.

I guess Rasmussen is no longer a right-wing hack among Dems. Is it?

[Iosif]

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

[Zarn]

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

No, that's your imaginiation (it's very hard to tell emotion on an online forum, isn't it?) ... or maybe McCain's bitterness carried on to his supporters and makes them cling to their guns and religion.

[Iosif]

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

No, that's your imaginiation (it's very hard to tell emotion on an online forum, isn't it?) ... or maybe McCain's bitterness carried on to his supporters and makes them cling to their guns and religion.

Very, very bitter.

It's a bit ironic really. I remember when Republicans called the Democrats bitter for their rabid and often unjustified anti-Bush rants over the past 8 years. Now it's the other way round.

[Kalimantan]

You cryptically mentioned 'Obama being corrupt' in the last two threads I read (this and the non-gallup one). So I'm taking it as your new talking point.

Anyway, thats semantics - what do you mean?

Have you been paying attention?

BTW, how many voter registrations have you filled out? I'm up to number 186!

Oh, you're talking about ACORN. Well thats not corruption, and Obama isn't involved with the fradulent registrations. Corruption is use of political power for financial gain, and its abhorrent. Show me Obama is corrupt and I won't vote for him.

That's not the definition.

You guys just don't catch on, do you?

Whats your definition then, and explain why Obama is corrupt. I'm trying to have a conversation with you here, so stop speaking in cryptic soundbites. Ta.

Its only me, by the way, not 'you guys'

[Zarn]

It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.

And it is 'you guys.'

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

No, that's your imaginiation (it's very hard to tell emotion on an online forum, isn't it?) ... or maybe McCain's bitterness carried on to his supporters and makes them cling to their guns and religion.

Very, very bitter.

It's a bit ironic really. I remember when Republicans called the Democrats bitter for their rabid and often unjustified anti-Bush rants over the past 8 years. Now it's the other way round.

I don't think you're following me.

[Kalimantan]

It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.

And it is 'you guys.'

I can assure you there is only one of me.

I can't argue with your definition. How does that describe Obama?

[Zarn]

It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.

And it is 'you guys.'

I can assure you there is only one of me.

I can't argue with your definition. How does that describe Obama?

But you aren't the only one asking silly questions.

As a candidate, Obama is suppose to show the public that he can be trusted. Correct?

Obama has associations with ACORN on several levels. He has given them money (not directly), he has promised them and other community organizations (at an event organized by ACORN), and he has taught classes for ACORN. There are more, but I honestly don't remember them.

Obama also accepts a large amount of earmarks, but overall accepting earmarks is minor in comparison to ACORN connections.

There are other things I'm not thinking about, but Ayers is one thing I wouldn't count among Obama's corruption.

[Iosif]

It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.

And it is 'you guys.'

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

No, that's your imaginiation (it's very hard to tell emotion on an online forum, isn't it?) ... or maybe McCain's bitterness carried on to his supporters and makes them cling to their guns and religion.

Very, very bitter.

It's a bit ironic really. I remember when Republicans called the Democrats bitter for their rabid and often unjustified anti-Bush rants over the past 8 years. Now it's the other way round.

I don't think you're following me.

I'm following you just fine.

[Zarn]

It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.

And it is 'you guys.'

You're sounding increasingly bitter Zarn.

No, that's your imaginiation (it's very hard to tell emotion on an online forum, isn't it?) ... or maybe McCain's bitterness carried on to his supporters and makes them cling to their guns and religion.

Very, very bitter.

It's a bit ironic really. I remember when Republicans called the Democrats bitter for their rabid and often unjustified anti-Bush rants over the past 8 years. Now it's the other way round.

I don't think you're following me.

I'm following you just fine.

Afraid not.

Just be careful who you call bitter.

[Sam Spade]

Not as much movement as I expected for Obama considering the sample dropping off.  Actually, looking at one of the internals on one of the other questions done last night, I can pretty much guarantee that the best Obama's sample could be is somewhere right under 50.00%.  That doesn't mean McCain scored anywhere much higher than the 45% he's typically been getting over the past week, however.

Considering the last two days, I suspect this is the reason why Rasmussen has said nothing has changed.

Rounded Three-Day Sample

Obama 51%
McCain 45%

Three-Day Sample Breakdown

			samp goes tom	samp went today
Obama	50.73%	(50.25%	50.34%	49.56%	49.98%)
McCain	44.63%	(45.46%	45.89%	46.28%	44.75%)

Party Breakdown: Three-Day Samples

	Sunday		Saturday		Friday		Thursday		Wednesday
	Obama	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama	McCain	Obama	McCain
Democratic	86.44	10.46	86.34	11.23	85.94	11.56	86.33	11.18	86.42	11.03
Republican	12.38	86.68	11.47	86.34	10.91	87.47	9.74	88.15	9.71	87.97
Independent	47.22	42.15	47.47	42.88	48.33	43.99	46.56	45.00	47.34	40.82