Zogby Poll: Obama 47%, McCain 46%

Zogby ^

[Chet 99]

Zogby Poll: Obama Narrowly Won First Debate, But Race Remains Too Close to Call

Likely voters give the Democrat a slight nod on his debate performance and in his overall handling of the current financial crisis

Utica, New York – Likely voters nationwide who watched Friday’s debate in Mississippi between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain gave Obama the win by the slightest of margins, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows.

The poll shows that 44% believed Obama won the debate, while 41% said McCain did. Another 16% said they watched the debate but were unsure who came out on top.

The Horserace

9-26/27

Obama/Biden

47.1%

McCain/Palin

45.9%

Other/Not sure

7.0% Data from this poll is available here

Women gave Obama the nod, while men said they felt McCain won the first face-off. But some partisans had doubts. Just 78% of Democrats felt Obama won the debate, and just 80% of Republicans felt McCain won. Independents, by a four-point margin, said Obama won the debate.

By a 47% to 34% margin, debate-watchers said they felt Obama was better prepared for the event than was McCain. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that both candidates performed better than expected.

A Zogby Interactive survey before the debate showed that, by a 4-3 ratio, likely voters believed Obama would win this first presidential debate.

The online poll included 2,102 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points.

[jveritas]

I worked for Ken Blackwell when he was 10 points behind and lost by 25.

Yes, the Wilder/Bradley effect.

[Chet 99]

Look, I'll explain this again. I have no doubts about Palin if she can speak for HERSELF. But she can't. That's a huge disadvantage in a debate. It will cause her to look unsure (because she will often know the right answer and can't say it---cause it's not McCain's answer). And I know some of the internals don't seem to support the overall numbers, but at some point you have to say all the polls are wrong, and I think we tried that in 06. Fool me once, . . . .

There's a difference between whistling past the graveyard and ignoring "the polls" and cherry picking certain poll results to bolster your case for pessimism.

Your point is why I think Palin needs to be taken "off the leash". If she contradicts McCain's position, so what? She's already done that on ANWR, abortion, and maybe some others... better to go with a "Team of Mavericks" that don't agree on everything than have a wound up machine puking talking points that she doesn't even believe. It doesn't seem to hurt Obama when Biden contradicts him.

[fantom]

Thats it. She is surrounded by some bush debate coaches ( according to Kristol ) who are telling her not to screw up. If that is true she is in trouble here . On the stump she is Sarah on tv she is reserved and simply plugs Mccain. These rino fairies are setting her up to fail. So far they are seceding. Sorry to say .

[MinorityRepublican]

It doesn't matter if McCain's the better candidate, as the Slick Bill Clinton once said, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

So Obama may have lucked out and as a result, he's the next POTUS.

[LS]

Right. But my point was, I don’t care what the polls say. But we should be realistic.

[LS]

Chet, go to realclearpolitics, which gives you a) the most recent poll, not only nationally, but in almost every critical state; and b) the average of all of them.

I defy you to put together a winning McCain scenario as of today. Go ahead: tell me what optimism you see in the CO or VA polls. You can say, "Well, Obama isn't up much in PA or MI." And that's right. But I'd say, we have ALWAYS been told that those states were "winnable" in two previous elections and they were not---nor has McCain led in either one except for one single poll in MI, by a single point.

So whether it's averages or most recent, it flat-out doesn't look good.

And, no, my point isn't that Palin needs to be taken "off the leash." My point is that if she is "off leash," she will be pilloried for contradicting McCain, and if she is "on leash" her answers will be guarded, and likely confusing, because she won't be speaking from common sense or her heart. She was great for solidifying and energizing the base---but now we have a ticket where the ideological differences between the pres and veep are the greatest I think I've ever seen in my lifetime.

[LS]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are setting her up to fail. I would say she stepped into a no-win situation in which if she gives the RIGHT answers, she will contradict the front runner, and if she gives his answers, she’ll have to think about them-—making her look unsure (which, I know, she isn’t). G. H. W. Bush had the same problems as Reagan’s running mate, only they really agreed on the biggest issue of all, the Cold War.

[LS]

Even the term "better candidate" means that you explain things to the public in terms they LIKE and in terms that brings them over to your side without changing your fundamental positions. By not immediately bashing the bailout, McCain appeared to be just one of 100, in the public's eyes, no different than Obama.

His only chance was to pull a Clinton and blame the WHOLE THING on Obama, which was out of character for him, but, alas, a loser not to do so.

[jveritas]

I agree that we need to be realistic. However the same Wilder/Bradley effect that took place against Blackwell will takes place against Obama. I project that around 15% of the White voters who voted for Kerry in 2004 will be voting for McCain.

[Norman Bates]

McCain has dropped off the campaign trail for four days and announced so. He’s back at it tomorrow. Give it a few days - this race will tighten back up.

[Norman Bates]

“Americans say they don’t like negative ads, but they work.

Americans say they know media bias, but it matters not, public opinion always follows what the media says.”

It only goes to follow that Americans must largely be idiots!

[rep-always]

I agree with you. We must always remember that many people are just “not sold” on Obama. For whatever reason, people go with their gut when they are not as informed as the rest of us here on FR.

Therefore, if I was Obama I would not count my chickens before they hatch and if I was McCain I would let everything out against Obama. Palin needs to come out swinging in her “sweet” way and McCain needs to start putting out ads about all the associations of Barak Obama. That, I believe, should take care of the election.

Also, let us not dwell on the polls. Work hard and donate. I just have a feeling things are not what they seem.

[Chet 99]

Go ahead: tell me what optimism you see in the CO or VA polls.

CO and VA have consistently under polled Republican support the past few elections. In 2002, Wayne Allard consistently polled in the low 40%, and won comfortably. Polls show VA much closer in 2004 than it ended up being. States with a mix of one or two large urban areas mixed with huge rural populations are hard to poll.

Also, every election cycle produces polls showing New Jersey to be close, and some Republicans actually believe them. A sucker's bet. Same goes for any Dem counting on VA.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>There’s a difference between whistling past the graveyard and ignoring “the polls” and cherry picking certain poll results to bolster your case for pessimism.<<

Chet, either the major polls mean something or they don’t. If they do, the fact that at this point McCain is behind in most of the major national polls, would show he is at a disadvantage. That could very well change, but if it doesn’t and these polls mean something, Obama wins. Sometimes the polls are wrong.