Sep 26th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
CNN Opinion Research Poll
Results, according to my inbox:
Who Did the Best Job In the Debate?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%Who Would Better Handle Economy?
Obama 58%
McCain 37%Who Would Better Handle Iraq?
Obama 52%
McCain 47%
No link, but I assume this will emerge on the internet at some point.
54 Responses to “CNN Opinion Research Poll”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Germany
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Well, this really shows that David Brooks has his thumb on the pulse of America!
September 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I’m surprised by the poll.
I thing McCain won because:
-America’s political classes have decided that large scale foreign policy discourse remain at a 12 year old reading level
-McCain was the aggressor: Obama’s debate narrative was “I’m a reasonable foreign policy conservative” and McCain’s was “Obama’s a dirty hippy”. Obama’s narrative was about policy (BORING!); McCain’s message was about Obama.
Next time, Obama has to create a narrative about McCain. Find a derogatory theme and repeat it. For instance,
-flip flopping
-lying
-pro-Bush (not a maverick)
-lacking judgment
-out of touch
Choose one and reinforce it. With every rebuttle: “This is yet another example of X”. The point is to get to a place three quarters into the debate where you can credibly say “There you go again” and it will resonate. Define your opponent AND get your message across, but most importantly define your opponent.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:29 am
great polls — here is a 13 year old’s perspective on the debates…
http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/thoughts-on-the-first-presidential-debate/
September 27th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I am a huge supporter of Obama. I’ve attended rallies, donated, and volunteered. Fact is, Obama lost this debate plain and simple and that disappoints me because I find McCain’s positions indefensible, yet somehow McCain did it and Obama let him.
Here’s hoping Obama improves for the next two, which he was able to do in the primary debates.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:34 am
And a HUGE gender gap — I think they said women went for Obama by 59-31. Nastiness doesn’t play well with us girls.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:35 am
All that Obama had to do to win tonight was to look competent. That’s it. Forget about the whole winner/loser thing–the point is, nobody would claim that Obama did not pass the threshold tonight. That’s all he had to do. Barring a major collapse, this election is over.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Just an idle thought, but did anyone else notice how Obama emphasized a couple times that he planned to cut taxes for 95% of the country?
Of course everyone reading this post already knew that. But I wonder how many of the tens of millions of people who watched the debate did not.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:00 am
I’m honestly surprised when I hear people say McCain won outright. I didn’t see it, not at all. He took way more shots at Obama, but he had to because he’s the one behind. Obama got more than his share of shots in, except he could afford to look magnanimous where the situation required, and he didn’t have a palatable, seething look of contempt for his opponent, which McCain clearly did.
The difference in this debate was Obama looked Presidential which McCain often looked annoyed. Obama clearly had a solid grasp of all the topics discussed and he came across as more focused than he had in his previous debates. This had the effect of inoculating him against McCain’s “Obama just doesn’t understand” line.
Both guys stood their ground, and this fact alone was enough to make a win for Obama.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I’m elated by the polling so far on the debate. I thought Obama was slightly better at staying on point and not waffling on about irrelevant issues to the question (McCain really went off into the weeds a couple of times), but I thought it was pretty much a draw.
However, it seems that the conventional wisdom that this election will be decided by people deciding whether or not they trust Obama as president is turning out to be true. Undecideds obviously like what they saw in Obama tonight, so it didn’t really matter how McCain did. If Obama continues to pass the CinC test, which he did tonight, then he will win in November.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:06 am
BTW: Guess who wasn’t wearing a flag pin….
Will Republicans now question McCain’s patriotism??
I’m not holding my breath.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Personally, I think it was a draw. I think that the media will run on the no-eye-contact and basic forced condescension from McCain. This was sparring practice.
I also get the feeling that Obama didn’t want to slap down McCain . He passed up some BP fastballs over the plate.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Obama did what he had to do but I was disappointed in that he had many openings to exploit McCain’s weaknesses and experience and didn’t take advantage of them.
Surprised no one has brought up the old man with very thick pancake make-up versus smart college professor imagery that played out. McCain Looked ready to be wheeled in to the Disney World Hall of almost Presidents.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:12 am
And Jay: Obama’s debate performance wasn’t aimed at you He’s already sealed the deal with you, I hope.
Frankly, I thought McCain talked himself away from a stronger performance than he could have delivered. He did that all by himself. Enough rope.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Poll questions that should have been asked but weren’t:
Who Would Better Handle Iran?
Obama 50%
McCain 50%
Who Would Better Handle Afhganistan?
Obama 50%
McCain 50%
Who Would Better Handle Pakistan?
Obama 50%
McCain 50%
Who Would Better Handle Al Qaeda?
Obama 50%
McCain 50%
Get the picture?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Richard,
Yes, I get the picture. And I agree, that if one looks at foriegn policy goals, there isn’t much if any difference between the candidates. And for us non-interventionists, that is, indeed, a reason to be unhappy with Obama.
But I think it’s pretty damn clear that they would use very different methods to achieve those goals. McCain, though his belligerent statements, disdain for diplomacy, choice of crazy people for advisers, and temperament, has made it abundantly clear that he is far, far more likely to resort to force to achieve his foriegn policy goals than would Obama. Anyone who fails to see that is pretty damn blinkered.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:41 am
It was a draw. A mind-numbing draw. I was bored to tears. Luckily, though, every debate that Obama looks confident and competent in brings him closer to the presidency. I expect to see polls stay the same or a slight gain for Obama as some lose their misgivings about him.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:45 am
McCain’s main debate arguments were: “I’ve been a tourist in that country, so I know about that country” and “I know how to be a good senator and I’ve been one for a long time.” Both of those arguments and many of his other asnwers made me think that he was running for the Senate while Obama was running for the presidency.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Did anyone (beside us) notice
Obama erased the unspoken (but huge)
race issue tonight?
Tonight a black man
beat McCain in Mississippi
September 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Not only did McCain lose to a black
man in Missippi
The fact that race has not come
up shows Obama won doubly
McCain’s ancestors were Mississippi
slave owners
That should not be held against McCain,
but it remains a huge psychological
subtext to McCain’s defeat.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:55 am
LarryM: Here’s the problem, as I mention in another thread down.
There are two possible outcomes to the Iran situation:
1) Iran stops enrichment;
OR
2) the US and Israel accept that Iran can enrich.
Which one do you think is likely to happen? Because I can tell you straight up that Iran WILL NOT stop enrichment, no matter what “aggressive diplomacy” and sanctions Obama wants to engage in. They CANNOT do so. They CANNOT accept the West OR Russia or anyone else controlling their nuclear fuel cycle. And they cannot suspend their nuclear energy program because they need that energy, as every expert agrees.
So that leaves only one possible outcome – if you believe that Obama and/or Israel will not accept an Iran enrichment program. then you believe Obama is going to war with Iran.
Now he might take six months or two years longer to get around to it than McCain because he wants to play the “diplomacy game”. But he’s going to do it. Because “aggresive diplomacy” is just a euphemism for sanctions and maybe a military blockade of Iran.
Fortunately the House Democrats have shelved, for the moment, the bill to authorize Bush to start a blockade of Iran. Now Cheney or the Israelis will have to figure out another way to start the war.
But if Obama doesn’t understand that Iran DOES NOT have a nuclear weapons program, how the hell are we going to avoid a war with Iran? Especially with Dennis Ross as an adviser and Richard Holbrooke as his likely pick for Secretary of State.
Somebody give a clear, fact-based answer to that question.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Now let’s talk Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If Obama has no clue by now that Afghanistan is lost and destabilizing Pakistan is a bad idea, how can be a better President than McCain? McCain will be a disaster, no doubt about it. But how does Obama do any better if he fundamentally does not understand what’s going on over there?
He talks about a totally changed foreign policy – but as I pointed out numerous times over at Matt’s old Atlantic blog, there is not ONE single substantive statement on Obama’s Web site about HOW he is going to achieve what he claims to intend to achieve, i.e., “win in Afghanistan” and “take the fight to Al Qaeda in Pakistan”.
Because those two goals are not achievable, according to the experts in military affairs, counterinsurgency, and people with a knowledge of the history and conditions of those two countries.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:02 am
What Obama couldn’t say but should have:
Iraq: Our troops in Iraq are an inspiration for terrorists. US soldiers in Iraq endanger US citizens at home.
Russia: The fact is cooperation with Russia on key issues of national security outweighs the gains of a military confrontation with a nuclear power. And Georgia’s corrupt and irresponsible leaders brought much of this crisis on by themselves.
Oil: Off-shore drilling was a necessary compromise to an ideologically committed Republican House. As a matter of fact, the drilling that McCain and his party are committed to is in no way a solution for the American middle class; it is only a “solution” for the oil companies and their stockholders on Wall Street.
McCain: Several times tonight, John McCain will distort and mischaracterize my record as an effort to hide from his own decisions over the last eight years. I can predict this because his campaign has made a habit of dishonesty. He has insulted the American people and sought to damage our democracy. I am confident that the American people deserve better. I will not mislead you about my opponent’s record. We need a President who is capable of stating his beliefs and answering his critics while maintaining a commitment to honor and decency.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Richard Steven Hack:
I would’ve liked to come up with a dreamy talking point about Iran and Afghanistan, but as you show, one can’t really imagine Obama saying something truthful about the situation over there. And that could easily be a bigger problem between 08 and 12 than Iraq was between 03 and the present.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Obama will accept nuclear enrichment Iran. Hell, he probably would even accept a nuclear armed Iran. Book it. His military advisers will tell him that there are no sane military options to stop it (as there are not), and he will accept the inevitable. (Why do you think that your predictions regarding the Bush administration attacking Iran have been wrong? Because the generals have told Bush that there are no sane military options, and the sane imperialists, as opposed to the crazy imperialists, have been in charge in the second term.) Not at a 100% level of certainty, but at, say a 80% level of certainty.
McCain? He won’t give a rat’s ass what the generals tell him. We will most likely go to war with Iran before the end of February 2009 if McCain is elected.
The simple fact is that, whatever Obama says now, and even whatever he really believes, the sane imperialist know that attacking Iran would be counterproductive in terms of maintaining our hegemony. It’s only if the crazy people get in charge that war with Iran becomes a real risk.
And, of course, McCain’s advisers are the people who were too crazy even for the first term Bush White House. Dick Cheney is the voice of reason compared to these people. And you want to talk about Holbrooke and Ross? I mean, they are not MY cup of tea, for sure, but come on … next to McCain’s advisers, they practically qualify as doves.
Not to mention Russia. If McCain had been president a few months ago, the 82nd Airborne would have been deployed to Georgia – and not the Georgia in the SE U.S.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:28 am
He should have gone even further. The debate was the time to answer “The Surge Worked” crowd. Every time McCain blathered about defeat and victory in Iraq, I wanted him to answer.
We acheived our victory in Iraq five years ago. The next victory must be won by the Iraqis themselves. As long as we are there, they don’t need to find a way for Sunnis and Shiites to share power; they don’t need to find a way to share oil revenues equitably; they don’t need to resolve the dispute about Kirkuk; they don’t need to resolve the differences between the Kurds and Turkey. We need to step aside and let them solve their problems. Ask yourselves how would you respond to foreign soldiers in America dictating solutions to our problems. Regardless of their intentions, we could not accept them.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:29 am
I bet that this poll was influenced by McCain’s “am I gonna debate” stunt that he ran up until the 11th hour. It was sleazy and independents don’t like sleazy.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:50 am
I watched the CNN response ticker, and there wasn’t strong response for most of the debate. What was clear was there was negative response across the board to McCain when he either went negative on Obama, or started talking about his record or his past POW experience. Positives for McCain dropped off when he went to ’stories’, etc.
It was interesting that the strongest positive responses were for Obama when he talked about overarching issues regarding America’s status in the world.
Obama could have been stronger in his response to McCain’s “you don’t understand” diatribe; he chose to ignore the comment rather than confront it with “No John, I DO understand, which is why ”
Obama came off confident, and Presidential.. big enough to admit he agreed with McCain where their positions are similar,
and very thoughtful. McCain also presented well, but he never looked over at Obama, never conceded any similarities on positions, even when it would have been easy to do so..
Being generous enough to acknowledge your competitor’s good points goes a long way towards instilling people with your confidence.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:58 am
LarryM:
pretend-O-bama says re: Iran …
First of all, American and Israeli forces prevail over Iranian ones. Any Iranian aggression is a death sentence to Iran, and Iran knows it. Secondly, we must see Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a legitimate search for energy and as a part of a larger nuclearization of the region. You know, we’ve embraced the nuke-i-fication of Israel, of India, and accepted nukes in Pakistan as a fait accompli. Iranian militarists seize on our aggressive actions and posturing to further pursue their goals.
As a result of these realities, and in full knowledge that the people of Israel and America are secure from any hypothetical Iranian aggression, we must seek a nuclear free Middle East and, in our strength, remove unproductive and dangerous posturing in the region.
All peoples of the region can better seek peace and prosperity when we act to deligitimize Iranian radicals who can exploit our aggression for thier own ends.
…and then pretend-O-reilly says…
I just discovered my inner dirty hippy. Thanks, pretend-O-bama. And there was much rejoicing.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Yes. Any country in the world can enrich Uranium to fuel grade.
Very unlikely
Again wrong. Weapons have been designed specifically to destroy facilities like Natanz. With the IAEA hitting it with surprise inspections more frequently than once per month on average, we will have ample warning if Iran tries to make a bomb. I imagine that we probably managed to subvert one or two inspection personel into making a GPS map of the centrifuge area, so that destroying every last centrifuge installed will be feasible. The Iranians probably assume this too.
Iran could try building another secret facility, and installing the rest of their centrifuges there, but they are not North Korea. They are a comparitively open society with a lot of disaffected people. I believe we discovered all of their present nuclear related sites from informants, and would find any others they built in the same way, or we could use satellites. Iran would be wise to assume that they can’t build a 100 acre, 100 foot deep concrete bunker in which to house their centrifuges on the sly.
I don’t doubt that Iran would build a nuclear weapon if they thought they could get away with it. I think they were probably trying. I think they will continue to make furtive moves in that direction, but will always pull back rather than face confrontation.
It’s not an intractable problem. As long as all sides recognize everyone’s capabilities and priorities, we should be able to stall long enough for sane relations to develop.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
People are right to be pointing out McCain’s angry, condescending demeanor, but I think the point can be expanded. It’s not just that McCain was angry, or McCain was scared, but that Barack Obama was likable. This, to me, was the most striking number from the CNN poll:
• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%
John McCain came off like an old jerk who no one wants hectoring them and mocking them in their living room for the next four years. Obama seemed solid, cool, smart, and overall a calming, likable presence.
If we want to win the post-debate spin, I really think this is the argument.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Let it be remembered that Obama believes in legalized infanticide.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
His false characterization of Obama’s health plan, his total refusal to look Obama in the eye, his disgruntled impatient look, calling Pakistan a failed state on national television – I’m going to guess that maybe a president should keep that opinion in the oval office.
His stupid talk about a League of Democracies something which is really not feasible, or at least workable as a way to solve the worlds problem showing McCain does not “get” China or the fact we are going to have to work with them – possibly with a little charisma.
I was surprised to see most pundit’s call it tied, I watched it again, and I think when viewed again the more Obama looks strong, and McCain looks more like a constipated midget.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
“I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw three things: K G B”
Oh my fucking god. This was worse than “bomb Iran”, even if “bomb Iran” is easier to explain to a barely-interested audience.
Not only does the US not have good options for challenging Russia where it matters: along Russia’s borders, but the options the US has are stronger if the US can act as if it is not the provoker.
McCain’s attitude of confrontation with Russia has no upside, it is just crazy.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Best line in the post debate follow-up from Pat Lang:
“There will be those, like the oaf Chris Matthews, who will think that McCain’s attitude shows him to be a leader. I think it shows that he was not raised well. His refusal to look at Obama throughout the debate, his dismissive tone of voice when continually speaking of Obama in the third person as though he were not there, his inability to say anything good about his opponent, all showed him to be a natural bully or someone who has been taught to be a bully.”
September 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Assuming that our “intelligence” services know the locations of all secret Iranian nuclear is absurd. We thought we had satellite pictures photos of mobile bioweapons labs in Iraq but they turned out to be ice cream trucks or something.
You trust our intelligence services to locate all Iranian nuclear sites, but the same intelligence services are unanimous in telling us that Iran DOES NOT HAVE a nuclear weapons program. The arguments of those advocating military action against Iran tend toward the incoherent.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Obama’s point about McCain planning to tax health benefits was also a good one. McCain responded with the smiley face a five-year-old has when someone yells at him for farting in church. He didn’t even say Obama was wrong on that point. I bet a bunch of worried middle class Americans heard that one line and went “Oh HELL no!”
September 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The problem with believing Obama will be convinced not to attack Iran – as ALLEGEDLY Bush has been convinced – and we really have not evidence for that latter concept other than he hasn’t attacked Iran YET and the recent Guardin article, which comes from European sources, not US sources – is that ALL the information he needs to know that is known NOW – but apparently not by him.
I just can’t accept that he’s going to do a turn on a dime once he’s elected and say, “OK, Iran can enrich uranium as long as the IAEA inspectors tell us they aren’t diverting.”
That’s the situation NOW – and he doesn’t get it. If he doesn’t get it now, with all his advisers, why the hell should we believe he’s going to get on January 20th of next year or the year after?
Or are we supposed to believe he’s just LYING when he says this stuff to get elected? He said it back in 2004, too, when he wasn’t even running.
And finally, of course, what is he going to do to stop Israel from launching an attack? Threaten to nuke Israel? Bush and the Pentagon have been telling Israel not to attack, allegedly (again, very little proof of this), but Israel is proceeding on the assumption that they WILL have to attack if the US doesn’t. So how does Obama stop that? By promising to cut off aid to Israel? After swearing up and down to AIPAC and the readers of his Israeli Web site (in HEBREW!) that he’s the best supporter of Israel they ever had (which is a lie, but that’s what he’s claiming – as is Joe “I’m a Zionist” Biden)?
I don’t think so.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 5:21 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 5th, 2009 at 12:28 am
The American people trust that Barack Obama will conscientiously address issues related to the economy and/or Iraq.
LONG LIVE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!
Speaking of Barack Obama:
Barack Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:
CONSTRUCTIVE WORLDWIDE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO SCANDALS:
(I) I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention. Many people know what Bush did. And many people will know what Bush did—even until the end of the world. Bush was absolute evil. Bush is now like a fugitive from justice. Bush is a psychological prisoner. Bush often worries. In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
(II) It is opined that Bill Clinton committed terrifying, racist, hate crimes during his presidency, and I am not free to say anything further about it. Numbers 32:23: ‘Be sure your sins will find you out.’
(III) What if basically all racial-minority people would subscribe to the interpretations that George Herbert Walker Bush committed monstrous, racist, hate crimes while he was the President of the United States? It will eventually come out: it is only a matter of time.
(IV) I know it may be hard to believe. However, Ronald Wilson Reagan committed horrible, racist, hate crimes during his presidency.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are thousands of copies on the Internet (by March 29, 2009) indicating the contents of (I), (II), (III), and (IV). And there are thousands of copies in very many countries around the world.)
“BAD NEWS FROM THE UNITED STATES: ON THE HATE CRIMES AND ETERNAL INFAMIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, AND RONALD REAGAN” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
badnewsfromtheunitedstates.blogspot.com
_______________
‘If only there could be a ban against invention that bottled up memory like scent & it never faded & it never got stale.’ Off the top of my head, it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra