MyDD :: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40

Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40

by conspiracy, Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:12:10 AM EST

This is a genuine poll not that Zogby interactive garbage.

Including Barr and Nader the lead is 10 points, 46-36-3-3.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN ews/idUSN1535315320080716

Obama has 7-point edge on McCain: Reuters poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama has a 7-point lead on Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race, and holds a small edge on the crucial question of who would best manage the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

More than a month after kicking off the general election campaign, Obama leads McCain by 47 percent to 40 percent. That is slightly better than his 5-point cushion in mid-June, shortly after he clinched the Democratic nomination fight against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But Obama's 22-point advantage in June among independents, a critical voting bloc that could swing either way in the November election, shrunk to 3 points during a month in which the candidates battled on the economy and Obama was accused of shifting to the center on several issues.

Obama had a 44 percent to 40 percent edge nationally over McCain on who would be best at managing the economy, virtually unchanged from last month. Among independents, the two were tied on the economy.

"There has been a real tightening up among independents, and that has to be worrisome for Obama," pollster John Zogby said. "It doesn't seem like Obama is coming across on the economy."

The economy was ranked as the top issue by nearly half of all likely voters, 47 percent. The Iraq war, in second place, trailed well behind at 12 percent. Energy prices was third at 8 percent.

The faltering economy had been expected to be a weakness for McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise.

McCain has portrayed Obama, an Illinois senator, as a proponent of higher taxes, while Obama has tried to link McCain with President George W. Bush's unpopular economic policies.

Tags: Obama, McCain, National polls, General election (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

It should be 20% (none / 0)

I'm tired of his failures!!!!!

Snark

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST

Seems about right (none / 0)

The latest string of polls shows:
WaPo: Obama up 8
NYT: Obama up 6
Quinnipiac: Obama up 9
Zogby: Obama up 7

Consensus: Obama up aroud 7 or 8. Also, Obama leads the important state polls.

Internals are always fuzzy. One poll gives Obama a huge advantage on the economy, another pegs it close. One poll sees a big advantage among Independents, and another sees it closer. One poll shows the Democrats consolidating behind Obama and Republicans staying away from McCain, and another shows a different picture.

But the end result is fairly constant.

by elrod on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:20:50 AM EST

Re: Seems about right (none / 0)

And Pew had Obama up 8.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

I'll only give this poll any credence because it's within the range of the last few. I don't mind Zogby as reinforcement, but I will never trust their outliers.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

Is this likely voters, registered voters, or all adults?

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:26:23 AM EST

Fom the article: (none / 0)

''The national survey of 1,039 likely voters had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.''

by conspiracy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

Looking good, Obama!

And keep in mind that those tracking polls don't call back folks when they're not home. This affects the polls because people who are out more are politically different from those who stay at home more. In other words, they are missing Obama voters.

These other polls are done over a few days and they do call people back if they're not home to include them in the sample.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:35:02 AM EST

Expect more numbers soon from AP/Ipsos (none / 0)

For the moment, 16% Right Direction, Bush approval 28%, Congress just 18% approval.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25700328/

by conspiracy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:37:03 AM EST

I'll take it (none / 0)

A 7 point win is a 7 point win. Seems reasonably consistant with the other polls. As long as we don't sit back on our laurels and proclaim it over in July, we should be fine.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

If that held, it would be a huge win in the electoral college.

But ultimately the ground game is critical. If you haven't participated in registering new voters, time to start.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

But that's not what pollings mean. This "leading by X points" stuff has become fetishized as inherently meaningful during Obamamania.

Undecideds are rarely as neutral as pretended and often enough break for one side by 4:1 and 8:1 kinds of numbers.

I don't see this race as having changed. It's a 48-43 with at 4-5% 'Undecideds' leaning to McCain. They're former Bush voters holding out on Obama, and Obama is not going to become any more attractive to them during the next couple of months.

by killjoy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (none / 0)

Obama might not become more attractive to them, it's true (but he also might; I don't know), but McCain isn't exactly doing anything compelling for them, either. Voter enthusiasm for the Republicans is through the floor, and that will probably drive down voter turnout for them.

I agree that we can't just look at these numbers and say, "Well then, mission accomplished!"

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps (none / 0)

McCain can pick up 2-3 percent with VP selection

Obama can't.

Obama will drop base with VP selection because he picked his base poorly or had it picked for him via Hillary picking base before him.

Obama has Greens, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and his non Democratic base was 1,000,000 larger than Hillary's so these numbers are not small.

How do you pick a VP that keeps greens, pacifists, libertarians, Republicans all happy?

Answer you don't. Any VP selection loses him support so he is likely to stay steady once VP is added while McCain will likely go up.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's been a long time since VP mattered (none / 0)

The only reason McCain's VP might affect his numbers at all is because there's an excellent chance that he may die during his first term if elected.

I don't recall Bush Sr., Quayle, Gore, or Cheney really affecting their boss's votes significantly.

In the end, I doubt anyone who was for Obama is going to suddenly stop voting for him if he selects Random Democrat as his running mate. Even Clinton is shown in most polls to be a wash, with about the same numbers gained and lost in response.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

Do you ever use facts to bolster your opinions or is it all just subjective?

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

Where are your facts in rebuttal?

At least I can spell.

by killjoy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

No, you're the one making the incredible claims, you're the on who needs to back them up.

By the way troll, which words did you think are spelled incorrectly?

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take it (none / 0)

I guess he/she meant "want's"

by interestedbystander on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Still waiting... (none / 0)

...on Todd's mea culpa for trumpeting a pair of low-ish polls as undeniable evidence for his personal narrative. Polls that have now shown to be outliers compared to the overall trend.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:40:30 AM EST

Re: Still waiting... (none / 0)

It could be that there was a brief dip, perhaps because the polls missed people who took vacation after the 4th or because there was a response to issues like FISA. If the latter, it shows a real maturity among Democrats to realize that there are two people who can become president in 2008 and Obama is far, far superior.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (1.50 / 2)

http://wonkette.com/401171/hillary-clint on-will-never-stop-running-for-public-of fice#more-401171

A daily Rasmussen tracking poll shows that if Clinton were still running she'd be up by eight points against McCain, while an imaginary Al Gore would be beating John McCain by seven. The actual (presumptive) nominee leads McCain by only FOUR percent.

by strongerthandirt on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST

OH WOW THANKS FOR THIS NEWS (2.00 / 2)

by JJE on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They forgot a couple (2.00 / 1)

How would JFK be doing against McCain?

How would Batman be doing?

by Neef on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They forgot a couple (2.00 / 1)

I would take JFK in his present state over McCain.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (2.00 / 2)

Yes, but the last proper Rasmussen poll showed Obama up by eight. You're using a tracking poll.

Nice cherry-picking.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny that (2.00 / 2)

Imagine that people who have not been the target of a recent smear campaign would be doing better than someone who has? It's nigh unbelievable!

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (2.00 / 1)

Can you stop spamming this everywhere, please? It's not relevant becase she's not actually running, much like Gore.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

According to Poblano (none / 0)

A 1% polling edge translates to a 79% chance of a win.

A 3% edge is something like a 99% chance to win.

by Neef on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST

Re: According to Poblano (none / 0)

true for the popular vote.

But its more complicated in electoral votes

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody has ever lost the electoral vote (none / 0)

while losing the popular vote by more than 3%, and in the case when that happened, 1876, there was controversy since Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana actually voted for the winner of the popular vote, Samuel Tilden, but their state legislatures, controlled by the opposite party, threw out enough Tiden ballots to hand the states over to Rutherford B. Hayes, thus giving him the electoral vote win.

The only other times it happened, in 1888 and 2000, the margin of victory in the popular vote was .8% and .5% respectively.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody has ever lost the electoral vote (none / 0)

Obama could win California by 1 vote or 30,000,000 votes and he would get the same number of delegates.

30,000,000 would eat up his margin if it all came from there.

Between Chicago, New York, California you can put a lot of winning the popular vote without changing the electoral votes at all.

There are a handful of states that matter this cycle

Ohio, Michigan, Pa, Virginia, Indiana, its likely that only these states really matter as the others are not likely to change.

I may have missed a state or two but you get my point.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And that is the problem (none / 0)

with opinion polls. They're unweighted relative to the electoral college, and so represent an ideal election we'll never have.

I tend to watch electoral maps much more closely than tracking polls.

by Neef on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and that (none / 0)

is unprecedented where someone wins a big margin like 3% and not enough states to win the election. No reason to believe it will happen this year, especially since recent polls haven't put him up that much higher in New York and California than Gore and Kerry were.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

so, is the MSM's meme still that O is losing his momentum?

"Katie, i'd like to use one of my lifelines, i'd like to phone a friend." "governor Palin"

by Doug Tuttle on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (2.00 / 1)

It's looking more and more like an Obama landslide.

Mooseburgers? Careful Sarah. Moose bite back!

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

I love the way the MSM was crowing about the NewsweeK Poll, but has remained mostly silent about Pew, Zogby, CBS, ABC, and Quinnipiac.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

does anyone think the flip flop attacks against Obama is the reason MCcain is closing the gap on Obama ? rush thinks its operation chaos II ....he is such a tool

"How long have I been at this, like five weeks?" -Simple Sarah 08'

by wellinformed on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

The premise is incorrect, he isn't closing the gap on Obama. Five recent polls give Obama a solid 6 to 9 point lead.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

by pollbuster on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

I am sorry I should clarify meant the newsweek poll after HRC dropped out I beleive he was up by 15 pts if I am not mistaken now McCain is within 3pt margin of error which is virtually tied ..but I could be wrong

"How long have I been at this, like five weeks?" -Simple Sarah 08'

by wellinformed on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unacceptable (none / 0)

this is a Democratic year, he should be up by a gazillion percent. No excuse! Democrats nominated an unelectable candidate!

Why is Obama losing Utah? Because he's unelectable.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST

LOL (none / 0)

The real question is, why isn't McCain winning Rhode Island, he's supposed to be such a strong moderate candidate who appeals to Democrats right?

by Skaje on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (2.00 / 1)

I mean Rhode Island elected a Republican Governor and had elected a Republican Senator as recently as 2000.

And Clinton won the state big. If Clinton supporters won't support Obama, then why isn't McCain winning Rhode Island?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

Here's my concern: It's looks like there are twelve percent who are telling pollsters that they are undecided, perhaps because they don't want to admit that they are going to vote for more war with McCain, or perhaps because they truly ARE undecided, but truly undecided candidates tend to break for the conventional candidate. In the United States, which has had a 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency, McCain remains the conventional candidate even if he gives his speeches in his underwear.

So, split the undecideds evenly, it gives you 53:47. But, if McCain gets 75% of the undecidedes, then the race is really a dead heat. Consider the fact that McCain is a white man and will play the "race" card, otherwise known the a color-aroused appeal to the systemic denigration subjugation, and exploitation of Black people on the basis of color and ethnicity, and McCain may actually be ahead.

It's clear to me that Obama has to demonstrate, via McCain's own violently explosive personality, that McCain is simply MUST NOT be president, no matter who he is running against.

This is particularly so because the polls cannot predict the amount of Republican vote suppression and then any help that the US Supreme Court will ultimately provide to McCain.

Because of America's history, and McCain structural advantages, McCain is actually leading in the race no matter what the polls say at this point.

by Manic Lawyer on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST

Thank God (none / 0)

someone is willing to admit they're concerned about racism being a major factor.

All this crap about Obama being unelectable but no one is willing to give a reason why. His race and name is why he's "unelectable"

I do think there's a chance the undecideds are no more than closet racists who just don't like McCain, and if that's the case, then Obama was doomed from the moment he entered the race and there's little we can do about it.

I know that's what some Clinton supporters are thinking and I won't be surprised if that's what Clinton herself is thinking. She's not wrong, she's rightfully concerned, I just wish someone would admit it and let's figure out a way, anyway, we can combat it.

It's a legitimate concern to be concerned the country isn't ready to elect an African-American.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They may even just be undecided though (none / 0)

by conspiracy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very true (none / 0)

they may be. It may be a more rectifiable issue like Obama being unknown. It could just be sore losering.

For whatever reason, they are undecided Democrats who would vote for Clinton but are holding out for Obama.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reuters/Zogby: Obama leads by 7, 47-40 (none / 0)

All valid points. I will be very worried if Barack does not have at least an average lead of 3 points on election eve.

by conspiracy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.