Skip to comments.Rasmussen: McCain winning the trust of voters
Posted on 06/01/2008 8:58:49 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Rasmussens latest polling shows John McCain maintaining voter trust on the key issues of the upcoming presidential campaign despite getting much less earned-media coverage than his likely opponent, Barack Obama. On economics, national security, and especially on Iraq, McCain has kept ahead of Obama:
When it comes to the economy, 47% of voters trust John McCain more than Barack Obama. Obama is trusted more by 41%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that, when it comes to the War in Iraq, McCain is trusted more by 49% of voters. Obama is preferred by 37%. McCain has an even larger edge53% to 31%on the broader topic of National Security. These results are little changed from a month ago.
Obama enjoys a 43% to 39% advantage when it comes to government ethics and reducing corruption. McCain has a 44% to 38% advantage on taxes.
This shouldnt come as much of a surprise. As Rasmussen notes, a majority of voters oppose tax increases, and almost two-thirds oppose an increase in capital-gains tax rates. Both positions have been the central policy of the Obama campaign. With that in mind, the Democrats have a built-in disadvantage in November.
More surprising is the gap on Iraq. The war is not popular, and Obama seems to be on the favored side. However, Americans do not favor an immediate withdrawal and apparently dont trust Obama to get that correct. The 12-point gap on Iraq and the 22-point gap on national security shows McCain how he can defeat Obama, and it shows why the McCain campaign has emphasized Obamas lack of effort on both Iraq and Afghanistan to get his own information rather than just pandering to MoveOn.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Thanks for the ping.
Not my first, second, third or fourth choice ... but he’s NOT Obama!
And the Courts...
“Not my first, second, third or fourth choice ... but hes NOT Obama!”
(Or Hillary). And there it is, bottom line.
McCain would be a disaster on all the major issues, especially the courts. If you look at McCain’s voting record in the Senate, he only voted for constructionist judges when his vote made no difference. He would vote for ones that were going to win or lose by a large margin. If it was close, he voted against.
When Americans are asked to identify the country from which America gained its independence, 76% correctly name Great Britain. A handful, 2%, think America's freedom was won from France, 3% mention some other country (including Russia, China, and Mexico, among others named), while 19% are unsure.
Groups that have higher degrees of self-reported patriotism (see Gallup's Fourth of July release), such as older people and whites, are also more likely to correctly name the country from which America gained its independence. Only 66% of those aged 18-29 know that America gained its independence from England, compared to 79% of those aged 30 and older. The knowledge gap is even wider on the basis of gender and race:
85% of men compared to only 69% of women know that America's freedom was won from England
80% of whites vs. 54% of blacks answered correctly
Four out of Five Americans Know Earth Revolves Around Sun
Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: "As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around.
The issue is moot as I am certain that McCain would look for the first excuse to declare victory and yank the troops out before the job is done in order to fulfill what he thinks it the desire of "normal" Americans.
McLame’s positions are the same as B’roke’s. McLame is just not talking about them.
Obama on the other hand would keep us safe, appoint strict constructionist judges, lower our taxes, drill in ANWR, etc. (MAJOR sarcasm).
Neither one of them will do any of what you list.
So how would you rate Hillary?
The GOP had both branches and the US still got ‘Rat infested. McShame was the biggest reason why with his RINO-isms. There is no difference between the GOP and the ‘Rats. Both are drunk on spending.
Has McCain ever had an EARMARK?????
I believe that is inocrrect. McCain has indeed voted for/against issues when there is a wide margin, just to keep his 'conservative' credentials--but not judges. In fact, to my knowledge, McCain has voted for all judicial nominations. Can you cite a single judicial nomination that he has opposed?
All three of them rate about the same, so far to the Left that I cannot vote for them.
Thanks Ernest. There was some kind of hit job on the so-called news tonight, “McCain Wrong On Iraq” (I think that caption was actually run over file footage of him as he entered a campaign stop, and those words were being read).
Define "earmark." McCain has sponsored plenty of bills for his pet projects whether it be the Cesar Chavez Study Act or to create an environmental mediation center in Tucson in honor of his mentor, Mo Udall. (There are plenty more examples). McCain has sponsored his own pork--he just thinks it isn't pork because it fits his priorities.
The easiest ones to see are the ones his Gang of 14 stopped before they could get a vote.
As you stated, they didn't get a vote. But you said, he had voted against some... did he, and if so, when/who? I've looked for it and I can't find any evidence that he ever opposed any judge. Heck, he even liked it when Clinton was going to appoint Bruce Babbitt and made glowing remarks to the media!
I was one of the ones polled by Rasmussen for this. Never, ever been called by a major polling operation before:)
Site not allowing any viewing of the questions.
Lot's of them...?
?McCain is trusted more by 25% of Democrats.
As for the War in Iraq, McCain is trusted more by 85% of Republicans, 22% of Democrats, and 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.
Ingtar wrote “The issue is moot as I am certain that McCain would look for the first excuse to declare victory and yank the troops out before the job is done in order to fulfill what he thinks it the desire of “normal” Americans.”
You Sir, have no clue about the real world.
If McCain wanted to pander on Iraq he would never have supported the surge in 2007 when it seemed like a kiss of death to his campaign.
“Rasmussen: McCain winning the trust of voters”
LOL! I may vote for him* but trust him? Not a f’ing chance in Hades.
*conditional upon the VP pick
There is NO comparison between McCain and Obama.
Obama is a Marxist terrorist enabler, whose objective is to destroy the US.
“The issue is moot as I am certain that McCain would look for the first excuse to declare victory and yank the troops out before the job is done in order to fulfill what he thinks is the desire of ‘normal’ Americans.”
Are we talking about Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona?
The guy who agitated for years about sending more troops to Iraq, when “normal” Americans were supporting a withdrawal and telling pollsters that we never should’ve gone over there in the first place?
That John McCain is going to look for the first excuse to declare victory and yank out the troops, ensuring that all their sacrifices will have been in vain?
I think that’s the one thing we can all be sure McCain will never do, under any circumstances.
There are lots of valid reasons people might not support McCain, but this isn’t one of them.
Obama would be a diaster on all of the issues that I think are Major ...especially National Security....
And the Courts...
And McDemorat will be a disaster on all the rest.
Question was a rating as to which...
“Obama is a Marxist terrorist enabler, whose objective is to destroy the US.”
While with McBoob it will be an unfortunate consequence of his horrible policies.
Which policies would that be?
There actually were quite a few questions. They all concerned my opinion of each candidate’s handling of issues: for instance: with which candidate would we have the best chance of winning in Iraq? Just prior, the question was which is most important to you- pulling troops out immediately, keeping troops there longer, or winning in Iraq? It was quite detailed in that the questions then went down the list of each candidate more specifically. INOW, what would happen if Obama were President? Would he pull troops out immediately, pull them out more slowly, or go for a win? Same for Clinton and McCain. Questions also addressed my opinion of more specific timelines concerning the Iraq mission and each candidate. There were some questions on the economy, such as who do you trust the most, and taxes. A lot on Iraq, though.
There are quite a few folks on FR who believe McCain will be at most a one term president because Hillary will run in 2012 and the Dems will be desperate to win “at any cost” to their “principles”.
What I think the Clintons, master politicians, have realized that FR has not is that the cycles are in McCain’s favor to serve two terms if his health is good. The economy will be booming 2012 after the current slowdown, there will be a complete and total victory in Iraq by then and whatever happens with immigration will no longer be on the legislative radar screen by then. The tax cuts will have whatever compromise is to happen in place by then and health care reform will also be in place by then.
Unless oil completely runs out and throws a totally unpredictable hand grenade into the process, the schedule looks good for McCain in 2012. The Clintons may be thinking precisely that. It may very well be now or never.
Sounds like a good set of questions...thanks for the reply.
And from post #17 by Recovering_Democrat :
Obama beats McCain on surrendering, raising taxes, sucking up to terrorists, and aborting children.
>>>The easiest ones to see are the ones his Gang of 14 stopped before they could get a vote.
That’s really clueless you know. It’s no different then back in 2001 when the administration opposed the stricter arsenic regulations, and people twisted that into the meme that Bush wanted to ADD arsenic to the drinking water.
The judicial nominations were dead in the water UNTIL the Gang of 14 broke the logjam. Then stalled nominees again began getting their votes Yea or Nay. McCain accomplished what Frist was unable to do.
His attack on the 1st amendment
His policies based on his belief in the globull warming myth
His embrace of illegal aliens and the political front groups that support them.
To name a few.
Why are you even writing this rubbish?
I disagree. This post summarizes the ugly implications of McCain and his gang. The whole thing is worth reading.
...By taking the "constitutional option" (a/k/a "nuclear option" in Dem-speak) off the table, McCain and his fellow "maverick" GOP cronies doomed not only a handful of worthy circuit and district court nominees to non-confirmation, they ensured that the White House would thereafter dare not make any more controversial nominations to those vitally important lower courts. For "controversial nominations," read "demonstratedly and predictably conservative nominations just like Roberts and Alito would have been, but for the higher profile of SCOTUS nominations." ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.