Skip to comments.Hofstra poll: McCain leads suburban vote (McCain 48% Obama 42%; Rural McCain 51% Obama 35%)
Posted on 09/30/2008 12:40:11 PM PDT by Red Steel
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain holds a slight edge over Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama among suburban voters, according to a new poll sponsored by Hofstra University to be released Monday.
The nationwide poll, conducted for Hofstra's National Center for Suburban Studies, found that 48 percent of suburban voters said they support McCain, compared to 42 percent for Obama.
By comparison, the poll found that McCain leads Obama among rural voters, 51 percent to 35 percent, while Obama is ahead in urban areas, 57 percent to 34 percent.
The results of the poll are scheduled to be released at 1 p.m. Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"Suburban voters have decided victors in not only the last five presidential contests, but control of Congress and state houses," said Lawrence Levy, director of the National Center for Suburban Studies.
The poll also revealed a significant gender gap in McCain's support among suburban voters -- suburban men favor him over Obama by a margin of 51 percent to 40 percent, while suburban women are evenly split, with both men drawing 45 percent.
The telephone survey of 1,033 suburban residents and 493 urban and rural residents was conducted from Sept. 15-21.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I just saw this and was going to post it. Good news!
So relax Republicans, don’t get excited, don’t go to the polls, everything’s going to be fine.
Liberalism/socialism/Marxism increases in intensity as you move closer to the largest buildings in any city...
If remotely accurate (and I think it is), this is pretty bad news for the Obamessiah.
Interesting that the sample sizes for rural and urban were only half that for suburban. Wonder if that was intentional (i.e., more than twice as many of us live in suburbs as do cities/rural areas)? This poll is about a week old, so it doesn't really capture the full financial fiasco. But it fell into the time period when Obama was supposedly pulling away again in national polls.
rural= poor white
One must factor in dead voters from urban cemeteries and urban voter fraud.
Yet again this another city vs. rural election. And how many of those city votes will be because of fraud? How many dead Democrats will vote for Barry?
If this is true, McCain will win.
Politico.com today said the election will be won in the Suburbs. These lefties must have written this before these numbers came out
Obama losing among ‘bitter clingers’? Surprise, surprise.
Obama’s campaign is a ‘city-centric’ campaign. At first I thought the angst expressed by the African-American community towards Obama (highlighted by Jesse J’s desire to castrate Sen. Obama) was simply astroturfing by Axeldud, but I’m not so sure. Obama seems to be ignoring poor rural blacks, with the hope perhaps that they will simply show up because this is their first chance to vote for a black president.
But when you look at the style of the campaign (other than the fascist overtones), you see a campaign geared towards city life. That is, the city life of those who can afford to live somewhere other than on the bad side of town. It’s an urbane take on a national campaign, complete with his ‘bitter clingers’ speech in San Fran, as if he was an anthropologist or dashing explorer fresh from an encounter with the natives of a distant land and delivering a lecture on the peoples of Pennsylvania.
It may be that the current political climate, with an unpopular president of his opponent’s party and economic uncertainty enough for him to overcome his lack of a connection with suburban and rural voters.
In a strange twist, the angst over the Wall Street bailout may ding Obama some simply because rural and suburban voters will be more attuned to avoiding anyone who seems “elite” or otherwise out of sync with their lifestyle and more in sync with a post-religious, urbane, effete lifestyle.
I don’t think it’s Obama’s skin color that’s his greatest problem in this campaign, I think it’s his lifestyle. Anyone who worries about the price of arugula down at the local Whole Foods isn’t going to connect with all us hillbillies out here.
Considering Hofstra is another Liberal University, this might be true.
The suburbs of New York, Chicago, LA etc.. mean nothing here.
It is Cleveland, Cinn, Philly, Denver etc... that mean everything
I doubt there's any way to lessen voter turnout among Liberals or Conservatives. Let's hope this poll is dead on. In any event, get out and vote, because the Electoral College is the only poll that counts.
Luckily these major cities mean nothing because they are not in swing states, so who cares about their fraud except for State Races.
Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Boston, Washington DC.
I think it is hilarious that the votes of the raving liberal lunatics in the 3 Biggest US cities mean squat in this election.
Well, bad news on its face for Obama.
But that depends on whether you buy into the polling corps idea that Obamassiah has moved the entire electorate 6% in Democrats’ favor in one election.
I, for one, do not swallow that tripe.
So yes, this is very good news for us.
I wish people understood how this information, concerning this one election, demonstrates the wisdom of the Electoral College.
So, i will digress to that subject with my standard rant on it.
A nation is not simply a summary headcount of “the people”.
People have identities and values rooted in their lives and their lives rooted in where they live.
A nation, most appropriately understood, is not the sum of individuals, it is the sum of communities.
I went through the data of the last six presidential elections, and what the electoral college winner won in every one of those elections was a majority in a majority of counties across the nation. It is in that type of framework that a candidate winning the Electoral College majority wins a truer majority of “the nation” than could be ascribed to any mere national popular vote.
If U.S. demographics continue their present course, a very few coastal and southern states could, independently, elect a President that majorities in all the other states (an overwhelming majority of states) in the broad middle of the country rejected - if there were no Electoral College.
Some states are passing laws to automatically void their own states “popular vote”, denying its Electoral College mandate and change their state’s Electoral College delegation to that which represents whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.
It is not enough that that effort may meet, and fail, a U.S. Supreme Court challenge. The ignorance of how the Electoral College helps preserve the Republic is spread by this “national popular vote” myth and those who seek to empower it.
A “National Popular Vote” basis for electing the President will speed the deterioration of the Republic, as a republic and as a federal republic, just as did the Constitutional change that mandated electing federal Senators by popular vote instead of, as it was originally, by the state legislatures.
Pure “popular democracy” deteriorates into dictatorship - always. The Electoral College actually helps hold the nation together because “majorities” must be collected across the country and in states both big and small. It represents a larger collection of interests than the popular vote and thus keeps those interests positively engaged in the national process. Squash that broad cross section of interests from coming together, and checking, a mere bi-coastal popular majority and the nation will pull itself apart, if a dictator does not first try to command its unity on their own.
I need some context. How do these numbers compare to 2004 and 2000? How reputable is this poll? Are other polls making similar findings. Etc., etc.
Nice news, but these college polls are small. It does, however, line up with an Ohio poll of just rural voters showing McCain up 55/36.
Again, this is nice news.