Rasmussen Poll on Candidates
 

I'm not sure if Rasmussen polls have an agenda or not, but for your considerations: McCain Seen as Candidate Most Likely to Reach Across Party Lines


"McCain Seen as Candidate Most Likely to Reach Across Party Lines

If John McCain is elected President, 61% of voters say it's at least somewhat likely that he will reach across party lines and work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats. Fifty-two percent (52%) say the same will be true if Barack Obama is elected President. The two candidates remain very competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans believe McCain would reach across party lines effectively. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats say that about Obama.

However, 47% of Democrats also believe that McCain could effectively reach across party lines. Republicans see Obama in a much more partisan light ust 25% believe he would function effectively on a bi-partisan basis.

Among unaffiliated voters, 61% see McCain as able to work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats. Fifty-six percent (56%) of unaffiliated voters say the same about Obama.

McCain is seen as the more uniting candidate by men and women, young and old, white voters, conservatives and moderates. Obama is seen that way by African-Americans, other minority voters, and those who are politically liberal.

Some of this perception may stem from the fact that McCain is perceived as closer to the political center than Obama. The Republican candidate is perceived as politically conservative by 45% of voters, moderate by 31%, and liberal by 17%. Obama is seen as politically liberal by 72%, moderate by 19%, and conservative by 3%.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) see Obama as Very Liberal. Twelve percent (12%) see McCain as Very Conservative.

Those perceptions of McCain have shifted only modestly since early April. For Obama, the numbers suggest that he is seen as further to the left than he was just a couple of months ago. In the previous survey, 54% viewed Obama as politically liberal.

The numbers are not precisely comparable to earlier results because earlier surveys offered respondents a choice between conservative, moderate, or liberal. This survey offered voters a choice between very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, and very liberal. With the wider range of options, the number labeling either candidate as politically moderate declined.

The national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports May 26-27, 2008. Margin of sampling error is +/- 3.5 with a 95% level of confidence. Methodology.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information."

Rasmussen is pretty well respected. I personally haven't heard them accused of bias, but if CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC and ABC are all considered unbiased, I certainly see no reason why Scott Rasmussen's polling should be given less weight.

I just want to know who those 3% are that see Obama as conservative!

I'd like to see the 12% who consider McCain VERY conservative!

Extremists to the left.

Extremists to the left.

^^^Okay, I am giggling that nate and nittany are having the same thought on anything.

Is that a first???

Ah, GC never fails to deliver.

Yeah - Rasmussen is always where I go for the polling numbers.

McCain has some pretty conservative views - his people have just done a fantastic job of PR work on his image.

For what it's worth Rasmussen has been on Fox News several times the past few days with their polling data.

Does it surprise anyone I watch Fox News. Hannity & Colmes is where its at.

Great comments, especially the last few posts. I love Fox News, too. I spent some time this past Saturday inside watching Fox News - Fox does a nice job covering politics. Snap on Hannity & Colmes- hadn't seen them in awhile & forgot how good the show was. I remember watching Hannity & Colmes 8 years ago when the whole Bush/Gore recount in Florida episode was going on & they were really exciting to watch then. :)

As much as it pains me to say it, I think McCain will be our next president. I don't think America is ready for anything else.

I don't think it's as bad as you make out. I would vote for either a woman or a person of color who embraced the ideals I find important. I will NOT vote for someone simply because of which public restroom s/he uses, or by which box s/he checks under "race/nationality".

What I would really like is to vote FOR a candidate, to really believe and desire the same concepts as he or she. I'm sick to death of voting for the better or best of all evils.

^^^^^100% agree.

Republicans are bad for my livelihood. I am pretty sure I'm voting for Obama and I would be voting FOR Obama...not against someone else (as was the case for me in the last presidential election). As much as I dislike Clinton, I'd rather have her than McCain. But, I have a sinking feeling that when Democrats and independents have an opportunity to vote privately, they may not vote for the candidate they publicly support.

I'm not a Democrat and have never voted for a Democrat. This year will be the first time.

Nader, anyone?

Eh, no.

Then who did you vote for? Surely not Bush? and not Kerry.

1. Explain.

2. God help us. I don't especially like any of our candidates....but I would rather a giant turd be voted into office than that heinous, cankled bitch.

My cousin had detail in the white house during the Clinton administration, he noted that Hillary was one of the most evil people he'd ever met, and that she had a particularly profane mouth.

I always vote Libertarian, even at the local level.

I'm in human services. I work for a non-profit that is funded through a nation-wide federal grant that goes to individuals seeking employment or training. When Republicans are in office, the funds dwindle significantly.

LOL

That's hearsay but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Jeni, you vote libertarian, but Republicans are bad for your livelihood?

I'm no expert on libertarian policy, but I dabble, and I can't imagine they through a lot of support behind increasing funding to social welfare programs.

my cousin flies charter planes for high profile clients. he has flown the Obama's and Hillary, and is quick to point out the same thing: that she is a handful.

then again, compared to whats in office now, how much worse can it get? im tempted to start a last minute campaign with my two kids as nominees :D

There are different types of Libertarianism. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative (really, fiscally responsible), but not as fiscally conservative as most Republicans I know. I don't have a problem with social programs that are effective, but I do have a problem with government officials favoring personal friends over those who are truly in need and I have a problem with mismanagement of funds.

ETA: Libertarian candidates are generally moderate and don't call for the entire deconstruction of our system.

And what are your impressions regarding the overall scope of the Libertarian Party on this issue? I can understand that particular libertarians may not be damaging to career, but I can't imagine the Libertarian Party really meshes with it.

The Libertarian Party is not against social welfare programs. However, the party calls for reforms and increased responsibility. I would say that many Libertarians believe that non-profits (like mine) are better equipped to handle local social issues than is the government. The party proposes such alternatives as supporting private/public charities by providing tax incentives to those who donate. It would then be the private/public charities that fund programs (like the one I work for) instead of the government. I'm personally in favor of that option, but I'll take what I can get.

Republicans, from what I can see, are anti-social welfare. That's why I said what I said.

I think the idea that the Libertarian Party isn't against social welfare is somewhat arguable. I don't think they're broadly against the concept, but I certainly think their emphasis on private solutions to social problems and lessened government intervention would damage (what I thought were) your interests.

I actually libertarians take a stronger stance on social welfare that the GOP. As a more mainstream party, the GOP recognizes practical problems with ending social welfare programs, and thus the efforts are merely to curb. I think a lot of Libertarians in this country would take a much more drastic stance. That said, I think in your situation regarding the funding of non-profits, there is some history of Republican administrations (primarily Reagan, I believe) making things "difficult" for entities receiving federal funds. I know a lot of law non-profits (many of whom are politically liberal) were significantly burdened by these restrictions. I find the restrictions pretty reasonable, but I can see how people with different political leanings wouldn't be fond of them.

Dang, I was going to guess welfare recipient!

Nope, but I do support impoverished people through personal giving. While my paycheck my come from a non-profit, a large portion of my income is from other sources (such as investments, profits, etc.) I believe it is my duty as a Christian to give to others. I'd rather be destitute on the side of the highway than withhold the blessings God is working through me for humanity.

I think Christians have the duty you describe. I don't think it should be forced, however.