Local Politics

Poll: Obama, McCain tied in N.C.

Posted October 13, 2008
Updated October 14, 2008

— A WRAL News poll released Monday shows that the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates still tied as the senators kept on fighting for the Tar Heel State.

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain each claimed 48 percent of the poll participants. One percent of respondents said they would vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, and 3 percent were undecided.

The poll, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, surveyed 1,000 self-described likely voters by phone Sunday. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

A poll conducted on Wednesday last week showed Obama ahead, 49-48 percent.

The poll indicated that much of Obama's support derives from voters' concerns about the economy, while McCain was attractive to voters most concerned about national security. Fifty-two percent of respondents said the economy was the No. 1 issue, and 26 percent said the same for national security.

Sixty-one percent of those who listed economic issues as their top concern said they would vote for Obama. Seventy-six percent who said national security was the most important issued planned to vote for McCain.

However, when asked asked which candidate they trusted more to handle the economy or national security, respondents split in much closer margins – 48-47 for Obama on the economy, and 52-43 for McCain on national security.

McCain also did well among voters concerned with cultural and fiscal issues, while Obama scored high with concerned about domestic issues.

More than 60 percent of voters who identified themselves as moderates planned to vote for Obama, while McCain polled a 3-point lead among voters who belonged to neither major party.

Obama garnered the support of 51 percent of women and 89 percent of non-whites. McCain lead among men over age 40 and women over age 65.

A majority of voters gave favorable ratings to both candidates, but McCain took a 7-point lead, 51-43, as the more trustworthy candidate.

When asked which man they would ask for advice in the toughest decision of their lives, 49 percent chose McCain and 43 percent chose Obama.

A majority indicated the would be comfortable with either presidential candidate or their running mates – Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin – in the White House.

Obama has been making an aggressive bid to win North Carolina's 15 electoral votes. He and Biden have made six speeches in the state in the past month, including one joint appearance. The Obama campaign outspent the McCain camp 8-1 on advertising Sept. 28-Oct. 4.

McCain, however, has ramped up campaigning in the Tar Heel State. In the past six days, he and Palin have both spoken in eastern North Carolina – his first public appearance in the state since the May primary.

The state has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Gucci Hippy Piggy Oct 14, 2008

    I have heard similar statistics, and I DO have European friends and many Canadian friends. They will argue that their system isn't perfect, but it's far better than the corrupt system we have here. You generally don't hear of a Canadian, Swede, Englishman or Frenchman deciding betweeen buying medicine and food.

  • wildervb Oct 14, 2008

    There has been plenty of research comparing worldwide health care systems. Here's just one of many links out there:

    Interestingly at the bottom of the study, 23% of Canadians want to completely rebuild their system, compared to 33% of Americans who would like to rebuild our system. Seems that overall Canadians are happier with their system than we are with ours.

    Of Course we don't have to build a system exactly like Canada's, there are many variations of Universal Health care to pick from. We should design a system that uses the best of all systems.

    The link also shows that the US spends the most per capita, does not lead in coverage or outcome. One interesting fact was that because of the inefficiency of our system we pay a larger percent of our budget on health care than many countries that cover their entire populations.

    Republicans accept having a second rate health care system, I say, America should be #1!

  • Gucci Hippy Piggy Oct 14, 2008

    Thank you for the enlightened post, wildervb! We can and we WILL!

  • canes017 Oct 14, 2008

    "Canes, the majority of 1st world countries have socialized medicine and I don't know a single person who would trade what they have for what we have."

    You CLEARLY don't have many friends in Europe then. France's government is bordering on bankruptcy thanks to their socialized medicine and canada's best doctors are flocking to the US so they can actually make a dime for their services, leaving mediocre at best doctors to pick up the slack back home. Couple that with some of the longest waiting lines imaginable (I know someone who had to wait TEN days for an appendectomy, 4 months for a masectomy) and you've got what I call a pathetic system. The government exists to govern the people, not run every aspect of their lives.

    I suggest you do your own research, it is very clear that you have only gone skin deep on this issue.

  • wildervb Oct 14, 2008


    There are some facts about the US health care system that Republicans don't want you to know. The number one fact is that we have the most inefficient system in the world. Administrative overhead costs consume more health care dollars here in the US than any other nation. Much of that money is going to Insurance Companies. Wouldn't it be better if our Health dollars went to health care providers instead.

    Republicans are the can't do party. They accept having a health care system that leaves 40 million uninsured, they accept having an expensive inefficient system, they accept the fact that health care costs are the number 1 reason Americans file for bankrupsy. We can fix health care, Yes We Can!

  • Gucci Hippy Piggy Oct 14, 2008

    Canes, the majority of 1st world countries have socialized medicine and I don't know a single person who would trade what they have for what we have. You're talking out of fear and not fact. There is NO reason to believe our quality of health care will suffer. We have government sponsored programs now and I would guess you are still okay with your health care providers.

  • Gucci Hippy Piggy Oct 14, 2008

    G-man, in a perfect world, people would be able to afford health insurance. I pay an ungodly amount and you know what? I still can't afford to go to the doctor because of the co-pays. It's one of the biggest rackets going.

    How many people will pay for insurance over housing, food and neccessities for their family? That is what it has come down to in this country. I'm not talking about buying little Susie or Johnny the latest cell phone...I'm talking HEALTH CARE. The most basic right I can think of. It stinks and makes me sad that there are seniors right now who aren't eating properly so they can buy meds.

  • FairPlay Oct 14, 2008

    I am concentrating on who I elect for congress and senate more. Those are the people who truly control the changes.

  • G-man Oct 14, 2008

    Why should the government/taxpayers pay for healthcare? I pay for my own and feel everyone else should also. Just think how low taxes would be if we got rid of all these wasteful programs.

  • canes017 Oct 14, 2008

    "How will Obama be worse? By guaranteeing healthcare for ALL Americans? It is shameful that in a great country such as ours that people don't have healthcare."

    Clearly you are not an economist. The lower the price, the lower the quality.

    If healthcare is made affordable for everyone, thats means that either I will being paying for those who can't afford it now, forcing me to drop down to a weaker healthcare plan, or healthcare quality as a whole will be dropped down so everyone can afford it on there own.

    Obama can make it sounds glorious and wonderful until he's blue in the face, but with every good thing come a bad thing... thats simply how an economic issue works.