Poll: Debate Made Conservatives, Independents Like Obama More

Talking Points Memo:

New polling from ABC News and The Washington Post reveals just how big Barack Obama's victory in the collective debates really was.

The survey finds that more than a third of likely voters (36%) said their opinion of Obama had gotten better because of the debates, while only 12% said it had gotten worse. By contrast, only a fifth (20%) said their opinion of McCain had improved, while more than that (26%) said it had gotten worse.

The numbers among independents are pretty interesting, too. A third (33%) said their opinion of Obama had improved, while only 19% said their opinion of McCain had improved -- significantly less than the 28% of indys who said their opinion of the Arizona Senator had worsened.

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[Inthematrix]

Once again, Obama proves that he can reach across party lines.

www.inthematrix.wordpress.com

[LemonMeringue]

I'd like to see the same poll with regard to the Dave Letterman interview.

[bob8788]

GOBAMA

http://www.barackobamacans.blogspot.com/

[Hare]

Polls polls, no need for them anymore. Obama has won. Mr President Obama for you all

[albiceleste]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. The Rethugs are very god at disenfranchising voters. If people don't vote in droves and aren't on top of things, they can still steal this thing.

[BluePride]

A Change IS Gonna Come:

http://current.com/items/89408176_obama_2008_a_change_is_gonna_come

[Pupadup4oBama]

I know this is rather superficial of me to say - but damn that man is so handsome. His smile - absolutely stunning.

[Daw8it]

Biggest welfare program in America:

Alaska Permanent Fund - https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/

[LemonMeringue]

OMG Alaskans are socialists!

[paladinroams]

BLACK MEN FOR MCCAIN endorses Obama...

http://blackmenformccain.com/

[Daly]

these guys should be supporting the best candidate regardless of color; but I have to say that the zealots that embrace McCain would make any minority group turn away from mcPalin.

Minority groups include independent thinking folks too.

[billofgoods]

Then why have the polls shown otherwise?

[LemonMeringue]

None of them have.

[expanse]

He won over everybody.

[mike53]

Since the RCP average is down from about to 5 today Obama could not have won to many conservatives.
Also if you support a marxist, can you really be all that conservative?

[OrbitOfOurOwn]

Start eating your own - the only way you folks now how. Mc.Cain was one of Powell's biggest supporters - but now calls his endorsement of O.ba.ma a "black thing".

Also, you righties have gone from democrat to liberal to socialist and NOW to marxist in just a little over a week. Can you give us some insights as to how you are going to position O.ba.ma this coming week. What comes after marxist?

[hogoza]

i think we can expect binladenism or, ahmedinajadism and chavezism. These people are out of their mind, desperate is the right word.
I wish i can have a debate with O'Really, i would just crash him.

[TheFoolkiller]

To really piss off everybody in the country and make the American people to start
turning against Obama they we stay he is a secret undercover Republican.
The worst thing you can be these days right next to terrorist .

[timberdoodle]

I am not sure of what the Conservative agenda does in the U.S. but I can tell you for certain the Conservative agendas in Canada have always led to downturns in the economy which ends up in them losing power to more left leaning politicians.

The with our Conservatives in Canada is they preach less government, lower taxes but they get in power and do the opposite raise both taxes and more government. Does this by any chance ring a bell with conservatism in America?????????

[anniegirl9]

In over the past 60 years of American history, we have with out exception done worse economically with a Republican president. Even the richest population does better under Democratic leadership. The book Unequal Democracy takes all the data and presents it in a pretty compeling way. It pretty much proves trickle-down economics to be a fairy tale.

Unfortunatly, here in America, we have relatively short voting memories. We do not look back 4 or 8 years to compare our economic growth or decline. We only look back a year or two. Republican's are known to pump money into the economy in the final year of their presidency, thus midigating the overall poor economic performance of their first three. While Dem's push through social programs early on and can not maintain high growth rates, so the final year or two show declines in economic wellness.

The result is still a net gain under Dems and a net loss under Reps, but we reward Reps for doing a little better at the end and punish Dems for not maintaining economic growth throughout.

[laire]

timberdoodle,

Why did Stephen Harper win again and the Liberals lost ground and the New Democrats gained ground? I think Canada's parliamentary system has some merits to it but it seems like it chops up the votes to much. It seems like the Liberals and the NDP's would combine to beat the Tories in your country.

[dawnbc1]

...you mean the tories and the NDPs combine to beat the Liberals. They tried that.

[neweraforamerica]

Those are decisive numbers

http://neweraforamerica.blogspot.com/

[Viper]

Reougs dont grow the Pie either...



Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here"s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover"s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html



The Republican talking points dont ever match the reality or the facts. Democrats are 30 times better for your investments per the facts.

[anniegirl9]

Exactly. We have been told that in order for us all to benefit, we had to give big tax breaks to the wealthy who create jobs, while we shoulder more of the tax burden in order to keep our jobs. The facts simply do not support this. We all do better, even the rich, by more fairly destributing the tax burden and giving more breaks to the working class. They call that socialism or wealth re-distribution, but that is exactly what conservatives have been doing with "trick down economics." It has been socilaism for the rich. At least we have the proof on our side. If you want to stimulate the economy, you need to do it from the bottom up.

[Viper]

McBUSH Spread the wealth around... now spread this around.


David Gergen, today, on CNN, said that "over the last 10 years, the middle class has lost 600 billion dollars and the top 5% has gained 600 billion dollars. That was spreading the wealth around but the direction was aimed at the very rich. Sen. Obama wants to reverse that, so how can McCain say that Obamas way is "socialism". If McCain believes that, then the last 10 years has also been "socialism", but to the wealthy, not the middle class."

[judyc]

Trickle down does not work--it just ends up in someone's pockets.

[OrbitOfOurOwn]

And what is completely absurd, is that those folks on here who are sceaming about O.ba.ma's tax plan are the ones who got screwed out of that 600 billion - none of them are in the top 5% I bet. So this isn't some financial issue - because the facts are against them - it is just plain old bi.go.try and ra.cism.