McCain Has Less Core Opposition Than Clinton or Obama

[GaryC 7]

Thirty-four percent (34%) of all voters say they will definitely vote for John McCain if he is on the ballot this November. Thirty-three percent (33%) will definitely vote against him while 29% say their support hinges on who his opponent is.

Barack Obama has the same number who will definitely vote for him--34%. But, more people are committed to voting against him than McCain. Forty-three percent (43%) say they will definitely reject him at the ballot box. For 18%, their support depends on his opponent.

For Hillary Clinton, 32% will definitely vote for her if she is on the ballot and 46% will definitely vote against. Core opposition to Clinton, the best-known of the candidates as the long campaign season began, hovered in the high 40s through most of the past year.

Throughout 2007, support for McCain was somewhat softer than now. As late as December, Rasmussen Reports showed only 22% definitely supporting him, 33% against, and 39% waiting to see the opposition. Between June and November, firm support for him had slipped below 20%.

There was less uncertainty about Obama during 2007. In December, only 28% had a wait-and-see attitude. Obama's support was then 29%, with 36% definitely opposed.

Thus, while the base of strong support has risen for both men in recent weeks, it's risen only slightly for Obama. On the other hand, core opposition to McCain, the least of any candidate's, is the same as in December; whereas strong opposition to Obama has jumped seven percentage points.

Rasmussen Markets data now shows McCain with a 93.7 % chance to win the nomination and Huckabee has a 1.1 % chance. On the Democratic side, the Markets give Obama a 83.9 % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 17.0 %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the Rasmussen Markets harness competitive passions to provide a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.

Just 22% of all voters offer unequivocal support for Mike Huckabee should he become the nominee, while 45% definitely oppose him.

For Ron Paul, 10% of all voters would definitely vote for him. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say it's No, no matter what.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080225...instfeb20080225

[Marc and Olga 0]

I will not vote for McCain...I find his work ethics to be lacking... lucky for him, he's not "my" senator.

I will not vote for Clinton...don't like her 1 bit!

I would vote for Obama..

so if it is McCain vs. Clinton I'll write in Mickey Mouse...if I have to!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The only scenario in which I'd vote for McCain is if he runs against Hillary - wouldn't want to have her move into 1600 Penn Ave. However, as that scenario is becoming more and more unlikely, his chances of having my support are fading rather rapidly.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who cares?

Honestly, the way a presidential election is run in the US beggers belief. It takes way too long, it involves way too much money and the waste of time that goes on with this endless speculation is just ridiculous! It's hardly suprising voters get turned off. How on earth did you guys come up with this way of doing things, really?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's hardly suprising voters get turned off.

Which would explain the record turnout in the primaries this year

Long drawn out battles such as this one favor the underdog. That's a good thing.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Who cares?

Honestly, the way a presidential election is run in the US beggers belief. It takes way too long, it involves way too much money and the waste of time that goes on with this endless speculation is just ridiculous! It's hardly suprising voters get turned off. How on earth did you guys come up with this way of doing things, really?

Bunch of guys with wooden teeth sitting around a table making #### up.

Edited February 26, 2008 by AnewKINDofFEELIN

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Who cares?

Honestly, the way a presidential election is run in the US beggers belief. It takes way too long, it involves way too much money and the waste of time that goes on with this endless speculation is just ridiculous! It's hardly suprising voters get turned off. How on earth did you guys come up with this way of doing things, really?

Bunch of guys with wooden teeth sitting around a table making #### up.

These guys?

[Cassie 8]

Who cares?

Honestly, the way a presidential election is run in the US beggers belief. It takes way too long, it involves way too much money and the waste of time that goes on with this endless speculation is just ridiculous! It's hardly suprising voters get turned off. How on earth did you guys come up with this way of doing things, really?

amen to that. In Canada, they call the election, and in 6 weeks it's done. The party with the most seats wins and their leader becomes Prime Minister. Easy peasy and done.

By that point I get tired of it, and glad it is over.

The US system of elections makes no sense to me, and is borderline ridiculous. And don't get me started on the electoral college. What the heck is that????

[Peikko 1,575]

This year after many years of voter apathy and only because there is a 'messiah' candidate. What does it matter if it favours the underdog? What is the point of that? It should favour the best candidate for the job, it should be available for any suitably qualified person not just the one with the huge purse. It's a ridiculous waste of money and people do get fatigued by it all.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Who cares?

Honestly, the way a presidential election is run in the US beggers belief. It takes way too long, it involves way too much money and the waste of time that goes on with this endless speculation is just ridiculous! It's hardly suprising voters get turned off. How on earth did you guys come up with this way of doing things, really?

Bunch of guys with wooden teeth sitting around a table making #### up.

These guys?

Are these the Angry White Men

[Peikko 1,575]

They don't look very angry.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

robin, they're the angry white men with the wooden teeth who sat around a wooden table and come up with this system that so pisses off PH.

What does it matter if it favours the underdog? What is the point of that?

Aah, a statist. Yes, let's always elect the person who is the establishment favorite with the most name recognition. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the EC and always let the big cities decide our president

Edited February 26, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm personally enjoying this election more than any I can remember.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm personally enjoying this election more than any I can remember.

It's been good!

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not 'pissed' but I do find it strange that a country would spend so much money and energy in this way. I am quite sure there are perfectly feasible methods of electing a president that do not involve this charade. It isn't suprising in this context people spend monumental amounts of time and energy compiling statistics that have little to no relevance to anything outside some convoluted rationale as to who might win given a indeterminate set of ever changing parameters.