Working Class Whites, Suburban Whites lift McCain to slim lead over Obama in poll

[EV_Ares]

I don't understand why this group votes against their own interest. Its such BS. Obama will give working class whites a tax break where McCain continues the policy of continuing the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. Such BS, he is trying to help this group and make the playing field fair for all concerned. They deserve what they get but the problem is the rest of us suffer as well:

---------------

WASHINGTON - An overwhelming advantage in experience and lopsided support from working-class and suburban whites have lifted Republican John McCain to a slender lead over Barack Obama less than two months from Election Day, a poll on the presidential race said Friday.

The Arizona senator has a 13-percentage-point lead over his Democratic rival both with men and senior citizens, and a 23-point advantage among rural residents, according to the Associated Press-GfK Poll of likely voters. He's also doing better than Obama at consolidating support from party loyalists: 94 percent of Republicans back McCain, while 83 percent of Democrats prefer the Illinois senator.

Obama has good news, too. He's preferred two-to-one by those who say the nation's economy is in poor shape — a strong position on an issue many surveys say is the public's top worry. He also has an 18-point advantage among voters who look more to a candidate's values and views than experience, and his weak showing with whites is generally no worse than Democrat John Kerry did in his losing but close 2004 race against President Bush.

The poll is in line with others showing that in the days since both parties picked vice presidential candidates and held their conventions, Republicans have gained momentum and erased a modest lead Obama held most of the summer. McCain leads Obama among likely voters, 48 percent to 44 percent, according to the AP-GfK Poll.

rest of the article @ link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080913/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ap_poll;_ylt=AuM48yMvZ_4l89eflikcyOes0NUE

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Because they're white. Again, this election is demonstrating that race *does* matter

:shrug:

[treestar]

2. But he's doing no worse than Kerry

with that same group, so that's actually a good sign. If he can be black and do as well as Kerry did, maybe it's not a big issue with those voters.

Men - maybe there's a female Bradley effect - men saying they'll vote for McWar so they won't be seen as sexist but not actually willing to do it when it is time to vote.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. That's why I have a hard time believing these polls. He is performing better in every demographic

than Gore or Kerry. White women voted against Kerry as well, but there may be some Bradley Effect happening. Those who couldn't admit their racism were waiting for a reason not to vote for Obama. That reason is Palin. They are hiding behind her skirt, just like McSame and the Republicans. Cowards!!! x(

[EV_Ares]

4. I like your analogy and it makes sense. Possible. Also, if you look at things

state by state, Obama wins. Not sure about this daily tracking poll. Heard someone say the other day it is possible the way the states look that this time around, Obama could win the election by the electoral college and McCain win the popular vote. Who knows?

[cali]

15. um no. not a good comparison.

Kerry was running against an incumbent president in wartime- before the war became so deeply unpopular and while the sitting president still had a degree of popularity. And 9/11 was a much rawer wound. This is a year where the repuke brand is as tarnished as it's been since Nixon and Watergate.

[1corona4u]

7. No, it's because they are afraid of him, and they are racist.

Let me remind you, there are a LOT of white people who have made it possible for Obama to be where he is.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. what about suburban whites with cell phones?

[bigdarryl]

6. TOTAL BULL!!!!! Clinton didn't win the majority of working class whites when he beat G. Bush Sr.

[Burma Jones]

8. Clinton needed Perot in order to Win, both times

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Ignorant fucking freeper lie, but thanks for spreading it

[Burma Jones]

11. No it isn't, Perot picked up almost 19% in 1992 Clinton did not get over 50% in either election

call me all the names you want, but those are the facts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. I apologize for the name calling. Sorry... easy to forget there's a person on the other end sometime

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Perot took away roughly the same amount of votes from both Bush and Clinton

Remember that Perot was pro-choice and to the left of Clinton on NAFTA. The biggest difference that Perot made was that he took away more votes away from Bush than Clinton in some states which likely allowed him to get more electoral votes than he otherwise would have. He probably would've gotten closer to 300 electoral votes rather than the 370 he got with Perot.

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. True. Obama should pick up Pat Coate's "renegotiate trade" agenda.

It was very popular with all parties' callers on C-SPAN recently. Choate was Perot's running mate in 1996. It would be nice if Perot got involved again (as a spokesman I mean) b/c he's not a McC fan at all.

Both Perot and Nancy Reagan were very close to McC's first wife Carol. Nancy said good things to Ron Jr. about Obama during the convention too.

Those would be some powerful endorsements to pick up, if Obama could swing it.

[EffieBlack]

10. Whites who vote for McCain "lift" him to a slim lead. Blacks who vote for Obama are engaging

in blind and polarizing bloc voting - supporting Obama solely because of race - and are the only reason that an inexperienced candidate such as Obama is running ahead in the polls.

At least that's what I keep hearing . . .

[SnoopDog]

14. You missed the most important bias remark...

"An overwhelming advantage in experience"??? The republicans???? What the fuck?

The Associated Press is so biased - just another article to proved the media in this country is nothing but propaganda for the corporations and the republicans.

[freespirit5]

16. Have these polls ever reflected voting trends? NO

They are never predictors of the voting results