Alabama: McCain 60, Obama 32

Ron Burgundy · 05-29-2008, 10:21 AM

Rasmussen Reports - There are no surprises in the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Presidential race in Alabama. John McCain leads Barack Obama by twenty-eight percentage points, 60% to 32%. George W. Bush won the state by twenty-five points in Election 2004 and by fourteen points four years earlier. The state's Senate Race is also looking good for the GOP.

Nationally, McCain and Obama remain quite competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

McCain attracts 91% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats, and enjoys a twenty-three percentage point advantage among the state's unaffiliated voters.

McCain is viewed favorably by 62% of voters statewide while Obama earns positive reviews from just 36%.

Rasmussen Markets data gives the Republican candidate a 98.0 % chance of winning Alabama's nine Electoral College votes this fall. The state is listed as "Safely Republican" in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Alabama voters say it is more important for the United States to win the War in Iraq than to get the troops home. Forty-three percent (43%) hold the opposite view and say it is more important to bring the troops home. The results in Alabama are a mirror image of the national average. Alabama is the only state surveyed so far to place a higher priority on winning the War.

If John McCain is elected in November, 63% say U.S. victory in Iraq is likely. Just 23% victory is likely if Obama wins the White House. Fifty-two percent (52%) say that a President Obama would get the troops home during his first term in office. Forty-nine percent (49%) say McCain would do the same.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Alabama voters say that President Bush is doing a good or excellent job. Thirty-five percent (35%) say he is doing a poor job. Nationally, the President's Job Approval Ratings are near the lowest levels ever recorded.

The survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television Stations, Inc.

This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports May 27, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

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

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080529/pl_rasmussen/alprezelection20080529 [link]

WickedLou9 · 05-29-2008, 11:12 AM

This just in: Alabama's reputation is well earned, with only 62% of Alabama students graduating from high school
and from those students only 10% are taking the SAT's.

Rock on Alabama.

Edit:
Oh I'm sorry that was 1998 data.
in 2005 it was worse. 61.4% gradudated.

HigherEdInfo.org: Public High School Graduation Rates

Stylerod · 05-29-2008, 11:47 AM

Nice. Only dumb people don't vote democrat

motivez · 05-29-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Nice. Only dumb people don't vote democrat

The better educated people have been voting for Obama in the primaries on the Democratic side.

Stylerod · 05-29-2008, 12:11 PM

According to The Civil Rights Project at Harvard and The Urban Institute report 75 percent of White students graduated from high school in 2001, only 50 percent of all Black students got a high-school diploma in the same year.

Yet 70-90% of blacks (as we saw in State primaries) will vote for Obama.

Well, maybe the dumb ones vote for Obama too.

motivez · 05-29-2008, 12:21 PM

There's plenty of dumb people to go around on both sides, but the smart ones (and by this I mean educated, degree holding people) seem to favor Obama by a pretty large percentage.

WickedLou9 · 05-29-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Nice. Only dumb people don't vote democrat

It was more about the abnormally high approval rating for Bush.

Rouger2 · 05-29-2008, 12:30 PM

Why bother polling Alambama they are easy to read. Far right and you can bank on it.

kinggovernor · 05-29-2008, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Why bother polling Alambama they are easy to read. Far right and you can bank on it.

large African American population

David Octavius · 05-29-2008, 12:44 PM

If this is a close election and Obama loses to McCain by a slim margin but Obama wins no Southern States - which as a Democrat is very possible - there is ample evidence for blaming the Clinton's for not delivering Arkansas where they are still highly popular. Instead of bringing the party togetherm they tear him down so much that the hard core Clinton supporters in their State will more likely not vote for Obama out of affection for their fellow Arkansans

motivez · 05-29-2008, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If this is a close election and Obama loses to McCain by a slim margin but Obama wins no Southern States - which as a Democrat is very possible - there is ample evidence for blaming the Clinton's for not delivering Arkansas where they are still highly popular. Instead of bringing the party togetherm they tear him down so much that the hard core Clinton supporters in their State will more likely not vote for Obama out of affection for their fellow Arkansans

I don't know that you can say that really. I mean, she'll have played a part in kick starting this division by race (and age).. but I think it probably would have happened anyway.

Bill Maher said something interesting on his show long before Obama was doing as well as he is now.. when the "Is he black enough?" question was still going on. It was a pretty controversial, he said:

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

I have gotten some predictions wrong, but I get this one right because Barack was trailing in the polls with blacks not that long ago. And I said, you know what, they're going to come home to Barack Obama; they came home to O.J.

YouTube Video

I think it was probably always inevitable that once the black community saw him as a viable candidate they would rally around him, and as they did.. a pretty large portion of the white community in southern states, especially older whites.. would turn away from him.

David Octavius · 05-29-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't know that you can say that really. I mean, she'll have played a part in kick starting this division by race (and age).. but I think it probably would have happened anyway.

Bill Maher said something interesting on his show long before Obama was doing as well as he is now.. when the "Is he black enough?" question was still going on. It was a pretty controversial, he said:

YouTube Video

I think it was probably always inevitable that once the black community saw him as a viable candidate they would rally around him, and as they did.. a pretty large portion of the white community in southern states, especially older whites.. would turn away from him.

Don't forget - Al Gore would of won if he carried Arkansas (if memory serves me), Clinton was a sitting President and could not deliver the State to him! But Al also lost his own State too and if you can't win your own State then you probably shouldn't be President

thewise1 · 05-29-2008, 12:57 PM

This better educated thing is a bunch of crap anyway. Higher education is nothing but an indoctrination into liberalism anymore at many schools.

motivez · 05-29-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

This better educated thing is a bunch of crap anyway. Higher education is nothing but an indoctrination into liberalism anymore at many schools.

Because the only majors at schools are ones that deal with politics and economics?

I'm not sure how that charge stands up really.. and I also don't buy into the idea that those who go to college are somehow incapable of disagreeing with a liberal or conservative professor and forming their own opinion

David Octavius · 05-29-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

This better educated thing is a bunch of crap anyway. Higher education is nothing but an indoctrination into liberalism anymore at many schools.

What's the alternative? Flock to libertarianism which is not only unworkable in reality but depends upon those that have the most interest in the marketplace to be the best judge of their own actions and self correct themselves?

As flawed as reality is, I think I will stick with it and try to reconcile the best of what conservatism and liberalism has to offer

thewise1 · 05-29-2008, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Because the only majors at schools are ones that deal with politics and economics?

I'm not sure how that charge stands up really.. and I also don't buy into the idea that those who go to college are somehow incapable of disagreeing with a liberal or conservative professor and forming their own opinion

It has nothing to do with just politics and economics majors. It pervades every aspect of higher education anymore. I'm sure this isn't universally true - surely there are some opposing viewpoints or even liberal teachers/professors that are openminded/curious about other viewpoints, but in general this appears to be the case.

Thus, yes, you will have more 'better educated' people voting liberal. That doesn't mean that they are smarter, however.

thewise1 · 05-29-2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

What's the alternative? Flock to libertarianism which is not only unworkable in reality but depends upon those that have the most interest in the marketplace to be the best judge of their own actions and self correct themselves?

As flawed as reality is, I think I will stick with it and try to reconcile the best of what conservatism and liberalism has to offer

That's simply not true. It worked quite well for a lot of people - they were actually known as Bourbon Democrats back in the day.

David Octavius · 05-29-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

That's simply not true. It worked quite well for a lot of people - they were actually known as Bourbon Democrats back in the day.

Don't bring your revisionist history here please - that was NOT libertarianism

thewise1 · 05-29-2008, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Don't bring your revisionist history here please - that was NOT libertarianism

It was close enough to be considered libertarianism by today's standards.

Bourbon Democrats represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted laissez-faire capitalism (which included opposition to the protectionism Republicans then advocated), opposed imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion, fought for the gold standard, and opposed bimetallism. They strongly supported reform movements such as Civil Service Reform and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the Tweed Ring.

(From wiki, not that it's the end all be all of sources)