Kyyote's Den
May 25, 2013, 12:06:29 PM *
December 09, 2012, 09:15:32 AM kyyote - Use the board. 
December 09, 2012, 09:15:25 AM kyyote - Use the board. 
December 09, 2012, 09:15:17 AM kyyote - Use the board. 
December 09, 2012, 09:15:10 AM kyyote - Use the board. 
December 02, 2012, 07:35:16 AM kyyote - Use the board.

View All


Login with username, password and session length
News:    
The first ever Kyyotes Den Haskins Award Official Prediction Thread Championship has been awarded to SisyphusMiner who led all others with four wins of the Official Prediction Thread competition, during the 2012-2013 Miners basketball season.

Julian Washburn was the runaway winner of the Haskins Award for the Most Valuable Player on the Miners basketball team.
 
  Home Forum Help Multiplayer Arcade Calendar Gallery Gallery Chat Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: OT: Poll Finds Attacks by McCain Turn Off Voters  (Read 1311 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Austintacious
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 387
Posts: 3459


Patience, Jackass, Patience


« on: October 14, 2008, 07:01:31 PM »

New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

October 15, 2008
Poll Finds Attacks by McCain Turn Off Voters
By MICHAEL COOPER and MEGAN THEE

The McCain campaign’s recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Senator Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Senator John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.

Over all, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said that they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for Mr. McCain.

The findings come as the race enters its final three weeks, with the two candidates scheduled to hold their third and last debate on Wednesday night, and as separate polls in critical swing states that could decide the election giving Mr. Obama a growing edge. But wide gaps in polls have historically tended to narrow in the closing weeks of the race as the election nears.

Voters who said that their opinions of Mr. Obama had changed recently were twice as likely to say that they had gotten better as to say they had gotten worse. And voters who said that their views of Mr. McCain had changed were three times more likely to say that they had gotten worse than to say they had improved.

The top reasons cited by those who said that thought less of Mr. McCain were his recent attacks and his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. (The vast majority said that their opinions of Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, and Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, had remained unchanged in recent weeks.) But in recent days, Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have scaled back their attacks on Mr. Obama, although Mr. McCain suggested he might aggressively take on Mr. Obama in Wednesday’s debate.

With the election unfolding against the backdrop an extraordinary economic crisis, a lack of confidence in government, and two wars, the survey described a very inhospitable environment for any Republican to run for office. More than 8 in 10 Americans do not trust the government to do what is right, the highest ever recorded in a Times/CBS News poll. And Mr. McCain is trying to keep the White House in Republican hands at a time that President Bush’s job approval rating is at 24 percent, hovering near its historic low.

While the poll showed Mr. Obama with a 14 percentage-point lead among likely voters, when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, were included in the question, the race narrowed slightly, with 51 percent of those surveyed saying that they were supporting Mr. Obama and 39 percent supporting Mr. McCain, with Mr. Nader getting the support of 3 percent and Mr. Barr 1 percent. Other national polls have shown Mr. Obama ahead by a smaller margin.

The poll suggested that the overwhelming anxiety about the economy and distrust of government have created a potentially poisonous atmosphere for members of Congress. Only 43 percent of those surveyed said that they approved of their own representative’s job performance, considerably lower than it has been at other times of historic discontent. By way of comparison, just before the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, 56 percent of those polled said that they approved of the job their representative was doing.

And after nearly eight years of increasingly unpopular Republican rule in the White House, 52 percent of those polled said that they held a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent who said they held a favorable view of the Republican Party. Voters said that they preferred Democrats to Republicans when it came to questions about who would better handle the issues that are of the greatest concern to voters — including the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Monday with 1,070 adults, of whom 972 were registered voters, and it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for both groups.

After several weeks in which the McCain campaign sought to tie Mr. Obama to William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground terror group, 64 percent of voters said that they had either read or heard something about the subject. But a majority said they were not bothered by Mr. Obama’s background or past associations. Several people said in follow-up interviews that they felt Mr. McCain’s attacks on Mr. Obama were too rooted in the past, or too unconnected to the nation’s major problems.

“What bothers me is that McCain initially talked about running a campaign on issues and I want to hear him talk about the issues,” said Flavio Lorenzoni, a 59-year-old independent from Manalapan, N.J. “But we’re being constantly bombarded with attacks that aren’t relevant to making a decision about what direction McCain would take the country. McCain hasn’t addressed the real issues. He’s only touched on them very narrowly. This is a time when we need to address issues much more clearly than they ever have been in the past.”

Marjorie Connelly and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Logged

                                         
3rdGenerationMiner
Mine Worker
*

Karma: 4
Posts: 518


Email
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2008, 08:24:29 PM »

The stock market crashed a month before the election and we are supposed to be in a worldwide financial crisis.  McCain is toast.  It is beyond his control. He might as well go down fighting and point out all  the negatives that the mainstream media will not.

I now wonder what would be the story if Mitt Romney had won the Republican nomintion.  Those of you who are of a progressive/liberal/Democrat persuasion, who would you rather have seen as your opponent: John McCain or Mitt Romney?
Logged

GO MINERS!
Wilmer Grey
Mine Foreman
*

Karma: 149
Posts: 1851


« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 08:55:38 PM »

McCain. 

No doubt.  His weakness on the economy greatly hurts his chances. 

Though I disagree that Romney is some kind of economic guru, he certainly has that reputation and would have been formidable for that reason during this economic crisis, either at the top of the ticket or in the VP slot. 

I don't dispute Palin's effect on the Republican base, but Mitt would have helped McCain in the past month, and probably put Michigan in play. 
Logged

11.04.08
minerfan0506
Guest
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2008, 09:29:14 PM »

McCain. 

No doubt.  His weakness on the economy greatly hurts his chances. 

Though I disagree that Romney is some kind of economic guru, he certainly has that reputation and would have been formidable for that reason during this economic crisis, either at the top of the ticket or in the VP slot. 

I don't dispute Palin's effect on the Republican base, but Mitt would have helped McCain in the past month, and probably put Michigan in play. 

Although I do agree with you (I advocate Mitt for the VP slot, but McCain holds grudges to the extreme) I believe that if Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were fixed in 2003 (as reported in a New York Times article) things might very well be different.
Logged
3rdGenerationMiner
Mine Worker
*

Karma: 4
Posts: 518


Email
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2008, 09:40:18 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I hardly remember anything about Adam Smith and all I remember about Keynes is my economics prof at UTEP was in love with him.  But isn't the free market response to what is happening "let 'em crash and recover on their own."  How much will the public invest into the private, especially if a Democrat takes the White House?  Aren't Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems recommending spending another 90 Billion on the economy? Are we going to see General Motors employees become "wage grade employees "of the Federal government?

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

Logged

GO MINERS!
minerfan0506
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 09:52:01 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I hardly remember anything about Adam Smith and all I remember about Keynes is my economics prof at UTEP was in love with him.  But isn't the free market response to what is happening "let 'em crash and recover on their own."  How much will the public invest into the private, especially if a Democrat takes the White House?  Aren't Nancy Pelosi and the House Dems recommending spending another 90 Billion on the economy? Are we going to see General Motors employees become "wage grade employees "of the Federal government?

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)



All I remember about Keynes is that when the government is that you reduce interest rates and have the government spend, spend, spend on the infrastructure. 

Didn't really work for most of the time that FDR was president.  Unemployment still was in the 20% range before WWII started for us in 1941.
Logged
Colominer
Mine Worker
*

Karma: 89
Posts: 599


« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2008, 10:37:59 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.
Logged
MinersFight
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 66
Posts: 4950


« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2008, 07:33:37 AM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.
Logged

It's not that I'm apathetic.

It's just that I don't care.
el mero
Prospector
*

Karma: 9
Posts: 204


« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2008, 05:34:11 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.

Buchanan has been considered historically as the worst President ever, but not any more.

George W. Bush has now overtaken Buchanan as the worst President ever and that is why the Buchanan family is so happy!!!

That's what the guest was alluding to; that according to all polls, Bush, has the lowest rating ever for any sitting President.
Logged
zyxwvutsru
Mine Board of Directors Member
*

Karma: 87
Posts: 6337


"I walk the line between chaos and the man"


« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2008, 08:31:47 PM »

yet congress is polling lower than him. . .thats gotta suck.
Logged

Eric Cantona once called a press conference, saying only, "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea," before getting up and walking out.
minerfan0506
Guest
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2008, 09:30:00 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.

Not a good analogy.

Buchanan presided over the Union dissolving.

Would be more appropriate using Hoover's family.
Logged
jobu
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 203
Posts: 3334


MFFL: Miner Fan For Life


« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2008, 07:41:28 AM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.
I heard that, too, but I think it was William F. Buckley's son -- who lost his job with The New Republic for touting Obama -- who said it on Hardball.
Logged



minerfan0506
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2008, 10:05:56 AM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.
I heard that, too, but I think it was William F. Buckley's son -- who lost his job with The New Republic for touting Obama -- who said it on Hardball.

He resigned as editor of National Review (the magazine his dad founded) because he does not know what the modern conservative movement is.
Logged
MinersFight
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 66
Posts: 4950


« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2008, 12:44:51 PM »

McCain. 

No doubt.  His weakness on the economy greatly hurts his chances. 

Though I disagree that Romney is some kind of economic guru, he certainly has that reputation and would have been formidable for that reason during this economic crisis, either at the top of the ticket or in the VP slot. 

I don't dispute Palin's effect on the Republican base, but Mitt would have helped McCain in the past month, and probably put Michigan in play. 

by-the-by, didn't the repugs pull out of another two states?? wisconsin and one other??  i thought i heard that last night on one of the political commentary shows.

the happy news is they only have 47 more to go.  they should be able to do that in three weeks, don't you think??
Logged

It's not that I'm apathetic.

It's just that I don't care.
minerfan0506
Guest
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2008, 12:47:48 PM »

McCain. 

No doubt.  His weakness on the economy greatly hurts his chances. 

Though I disagree that Romney is some kind of economic guru, he certainly has that reputation and would have been formidable for that reason during this economic crisis, either at the top of the ticket or in the VP slot. 

I don't dispute Palin's effect on the Republican base, but Mitt would have helped McCain in the past month, and probably put Michigan in play. 

by-the-by, didn't the repugs pull out of another two states?? wisconsin and one other??  i thought i heard that last night on one of the political commentary shows.

the happy news is they only have 47 more to go.  they should be able to do that in three weeks, don't you think??

It's not going to be a 49 state landslide genus
Logged
MinersFight
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 66
Posts: 4950


« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2008, 12:54:27 PM »

I don't know about Mitt after we were hit with this Wall Street Crisis.  What a Republican administration has done because it feels it must do is amazing to me.  The bail out and now the buy out are so New Deal-ish.  It is simply the worse time to stick strickly to free-market ideology. 

I just think Mitt Romney would have been in a very tough position, just as W. and Paulson are, to stick to his economically conservative beliefs.  Even if McCain somehow wins, he will probably have to raise taxes just to pay for all this Government intervention in the private markets.   (Buy individual homeowners' bad loans? Sheez.  'Ta loco.)

 Whatever W. is, he isn't a free market kind of guy. Never was, in spite of his popular image.

i can't remember who the guest on Countdown was the other night who said "James Buchanan's heirs are ecstatic".  but his point was well made.

Not a good analogy.

Buchanan presided over the Union dissolving.

Would be more appropriate using Hoover's family.

no one presided over the dissolution of the union.  it wasn't intentional.  his reputation is poor because he did nothing to stop the split or assuage the northern and southern radicals.

btw, he's commonly regarded as being light in the loafers, or si vouz prefere, putting from the rough.  not that it has anything to do with his historical infamy; just throwing it out there.  you be the judge.

our lines are open.
Logged

It's not that I'm apathetic.

It's just that I don't care.
MinersFight
Mine Engineer
*

Karma: 66
Posts: 4950


« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2008, 12:56:43 PM »

McCain. 

No doubt.  His weakness on the economy greatly hurts his chances. 

Though I disagree that Romney is some kind of economic guru, he certainly has that reputation and would have been formidable for that reason during this economic crisis, either at the top of the ticket or in the VP slot. 

I don't dispute Palin's effect on the Republican base, but Mitt would have helped McCain in the past month, and probably put Michigan in play. 

by-the-by, didn't the repugs pull out of another two states?? wisconsin and one other??  i thought i heard that last night on one of the political commentary shows.

the happy news is they only have 47 more to go.  they should be able to do that in three weeks, don't you think??

It's not going to be a 49 state landslide genus

who could argue with that??
Logged

It's not that I'm apathetic.

It's just that I don't care.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.0.4 © [SiNaN]
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!