home

The National Polls - 10/1

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:46:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

DKos/R2000 (9/28-30) has Obama up 10, 51-41. Ras (9/28-30) has up Obama up 6, 51-45. The new WaPo poll (9/27-29) has Obama up 4. Battleground (9/25, 28-30) has Obama up 2, 48-46. Gallup (9/27-29) has Obama up 6, 49-43. Hotline (9/27-29) has Obama up 6, 47-41.

Another day and McCain still needs a game changer.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Say No To The Senate Bailout Bill | Wednesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The National Polls - 10/1 | 99 comments (99 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    See? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    If you throw out the five outliers, Obama already has a ten point lead!

    Pretty clearly this a six point race.  If the combined effect of the VP and final Presidential debate, the economy, and McCain's next gaffe more the polls as much as the last Presidential debate, you're looking at nine points.  Which is the same as ten points, for small values of ten.

    There are two more McCain/Obama (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    debates. Not that I expect that to change anything.

    Parent
    Should we trust the entrail reading (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    of a guy who doesn't know the number of Presidential debates remaining?

    Parent
    Aha! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    Maybe I'm banking on McCain suspending (at least) one of the remaining debates!

    Or maybe I'm just confused.

    Parent

    This is the crucial question, though: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    Name more than one SCOTUS opinion.

    Parent
    In what respect, Oculus? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Hahahahahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    I needed that.  Thank you.

    Parent
    Easy. (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    Scalia hates Stevens.  Ginsburg hates Alito.  Alito hates Souter.  Roberts has feelings for Stevens that he doesn't want to talk about.

    Parent
    "The Nine, the Sequel" (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:37:50 AM EST


    Parent
    As the gavel pounds. (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM EST


    Parent
    It's Defcon 4 time ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    for the McCain campaign.

    They're moving to the emergency plan.

    In the next week, look for very negative new 527 radio ads in NC and VA. Something outlandish that they hope the MSM will pick up on.

    Whatever is in the file that was too risky to use, they'll use it now.

    It probably won't work.

    But McCain wants this job badly, and he'll do whatever it takes.

    Sorry, but I do not get this constant (none / 0) (#30)
    by kenosharick on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM EST
    argument of "he'll do anything to win." The same exact thing was said about Hillary repeatedly, and it was not true. So are you implying that Obama doesn't want to win more than anything? It's just a weak, nonsensical argument. The rest of what you write makes much more sense.

    Parent
    "he'll do anything to win" (none / 0) (#33)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    is different than  he "wants to win more than anything".

    Parent
    Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by BigElephant on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    "he'll do anything to win" is what Tanya Harding did.  "wanting to win more than anything" is what Tiger Woods embodies every week on the golf course (until his injury that is).

    Parent
    so you are saying (none / 0) (#96)
    by kenosharick on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    mccain would break any law, kill whoever it took, and stomp on his mother, while "the ONE" never even has a harsh thought of a fellow human being, correct?

    Parent
    I'm easy ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    The rest of what you write makes much more sense.

    Just focus on that and ignore the part you disagree with.

    ;)

    Parent

    I'd say "s/he'd do anything to win" (none / 0) (#76)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    about any candidate who is lagging behind, but doesn't want to be seen as acting desperate in any way. More of a figure of speech than anything substantive about the candidate.

    McCain's got to beg, borrow, or steal a game-changer at this point.  Something that doesn't smack of making a mountain from a molehill but something that would directly effect the average Joe.

    Two things come to mind: major terrorist attack, or major personal revelation about Obama that ties him to the Islamic community.  Anything less would pale in comparison to the financial situation.

    The bad news for McCain is this is out of his control.  He's tried to invent  game-changers over and over since the convention and they've fallen flat.  Trying to manufacture a game-changer at this point will just rehash the debacles he's been involved with since the convention.


    Parent

    his pattern is too well known (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    at this point.

    Parent
    Slightly O/T (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    But did you see the latest polls released by Quinnipiac?

    Obviously they are outliers but Obama up 15 in PA, 8 in Ohio, and 8 in Florida?  Those are HUGE swings from a relatively decent polling outfit, albeit not one of the best.

    Those numbers are going really cast a pall over the McCain campaign today.  

    FL numbers all thanks to Sarah Silverman (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by magster on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST
    The debate and the economy might have had something to do with it too.

    Parent
    That was hilarious. (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by indy in sc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    I normally don't like Sarah Silverman because I find her a little crude, but that video was very funny.  She was still somewhat crude in the video but very restrained compared to her normal comedy.

    Parent
    A 5 for that tip! (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    That video was amazing.  The Great Schlep

    Parent
    Post two down on them (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:03:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Frankly, fishy (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    but I guess they're possible.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    I doubt the numbers are that bad.  

    But it speaks to the trend that is building.

    Parent

    hey! (none / 0) (#28)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    I doubt the numbers are that bad.

    who's side are you on?


    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:14:48 PM EST
    Turn of phrase there but that certainly did come out wrong. :)

    Parent
    Bogus numbers : (none / 0) (#13)
    by az on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:40:42 AM EST
    Both their pre and post debate polls are way off from other polling outfits.

    No way was Obama at 51 - 43 pre debate in Fl and ahead by 7 in ohio .

    Infact surveyusa which is a better polling outfit and nailed Ohio in the primaries has already contradicted the ohio quinnipiac pre and post debate poll.

    48  - 47 for Mccain in ohio , same time frame from surveyusa.

    Anyone hanging their hat on these polls from quinnipiac would be dissapointed , just like the outlier post/abc poll last week that has shown something more realistic this week.

    The electorate doesn't swing that wildly .

    Those PA polls are not believeable , The Franklin Marshal Poll which is likely the gold standard has it as a 5 point race granted they pulled out of the field a day earlier than Quinnipiac..  

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    you missed where I said these were outliers.

    Franklin and Marshall has the race at 7 in PA now.

    We don't know who will be the gold standard until after the elections.  SurveyUSA did very well in the Dem primaries but may or may not be as accurate in the General.  I would lean towards them being accurate there as well but it is hard to say.

    Parent

    SUSA has an excellent track record for GEs (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST
    Their Achilles heel this year seems to be that they seem singularly incapable of measuring the black vote.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:36:51 PM EST
    but that really isn't going to make much of a difference when it comes to the GE. When you are dealing with a primary that has 50% AA's vs. a general election with much less depending on the state I would be willing to bet that their numbers are pretty accurate overall.

    Parent
    It matters everywhere (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    Especially when a race is down to a few points.

    If you think black turnout will be 9%, and it turns out to be 12 or 13, you're going to have some problems.

    Parent

    Only (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    if all the other variables are the same. If, for example, Obama loses a chunk of the white vote then an additional turn out in the AA vote won't really help.

    Parent
    Sort of (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    Depends on what you mean by a chunk.  Any uptick in the black voter turnout means 95% Dem votes.  It's hard to match that ratio in any voter demographic so I think you can reasonably say that it may have a greater effect than other groups.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    because of the numbers. There simply aren't enough blacks to make up for losing the white vote. In OH, a poll showed that Obama would only get about 75% of Democrats so I would think that would end up being a net negative.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Obama can lose the white vote in every swing state and still win.

    Check your math.

    Parent

    Obama can lose black votes, too (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    though, owing to voter suppression.  With the AG's effort in my state, for one, and joined by the DA in my city -- and after the efforts toward it in 2004 here, such as misinformation about polling places, too few machines, etc. -- I expect it.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:33:45 PM EST
    But I almost take that as a given in every election.  I mean, it can't be worse than Florida in 2000 right?  RIGHT (dear God please)?!?!  Is there some reason you think this year will be worse?  Although I guess it doesn't have to be worse, it could just be as bad as it was in the past...

    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    talking about carrying the white vote. I know he doesn't have to win it. You are missing my point. If he doesn't get enough of that vote or loses a white vote for every AA vote he gains then maxing out the AA vote doesn't help in the end.

    Parent
    Are you talking Bradley effect? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    Or just assuming that they aren't polling whites correctly?  If we are talking about turnout, 100,000 black voters makes a bigger difference than 100,000 white voters.

    Honestly, in this economy, I don't expect him to do much worse than Kerry with the white vote, he may even do better.  But there is certainly a possibility for increased turnout among black voters.  I don't see McCain increasing republican turnout over Bush.  The right-wing loved Bush in his day.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    I'm not talking about the Bradley effect. I'm talking about the fact that you guys seem to think that maxing out the AA vote is the way to winning. That assumes that everything else stays the same. My point is that increasing the AA vote may not necessarily help if he's not holding the other demographics.

    Parent
    I get that (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    I thought you were referring to the polling though.

    Andgarden mentioned that SUSA under-estimates the black vote and how it could effect the actual outcome.  If thats true, and there is no indication that they also under-estimate the spread on the white vote, then you would have a reason to suspect Obama would do better than polling suggests.

    If you are just talking in general, than no, maxing out the black vote is not going to solve anything if he also loses the white vote by more.  However, I am just wondering if you have any specific reason that you think Obama will not hold the other demographics.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:25:27 PM EST
    know whether he will or he won't hold the demographics. There's simply no way to know. However, I wouldn't assume that he will hold Kerry's numbers.

    Parent
    Marshal has it at 5 with leaners. (none / 0) (#18)
    by az on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    I didn't miss the outlier part .

    However I don't believe the Mccain camp would be bothered by the slew of polls from Quinnipiac...

    I don't believe the Obama camp is that far ahead in Pennsylvania given the demographics , rural/urban divide of the state and the philosophical divide in that state...

    Especially in such a contested election...

    The Obama campaign would probably dismiss the poll too.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    that Quinnipiac is a well known polling outfit.

    Regardless of whether the numbers are accurate the McCain campaign doesn't want these sorts of polls to build a narrative.  This is why they have already responded to them...

    "McCain pushback on Q-polls: "These polls are laughable. We hope Obama thinks they're true. The national tracking is clear: Some polls have us down 2 percent, some 4, some as high as 6. How could you have national numbers like that, but have those kinds of numbers in three of the largest, most competitive states in the country? These states are bellwethers because they closely mirror national demographics. Given the volume of campaigning in those states, we expect that they are close to the national track - if not tighter."

    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#31)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    the worse the numbers get, the more it looks like everything he does is a desperate attempt for points.

    Parent
    RE : (none / 0) (#20)
    by az on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST

    McCain pushback on Florida polls: "Our polling shows us up 7. My guess is they over sampled blacks and under sampled Cubans.

    McCain pushback on Q-polls: "These polls are laughable. We hope Obama thinks they're true. The national tracking is clear: Some polls have us down 2 percent, some 4, some as high as 6. How could you have national numbers like that, but have those kinds of numbers in three of the largest, most competitive states in the country? These states are bellwethers because they closely mirror national demographics. Given the volume of campaigning in those states, we expect that they are close to the national track - if not tighter."

    Parent

    Oh boy (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    A Presidential campaign doesn't say what its internals say unless it's panicking.

    I believe they were +7 in Florida--20 days ago. Today, I think they're at best +2-3 there. More likely, it's tied.


    Parent

    i'm sure sen. mccain (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    is counting on the veep debate to bump his #'s. :)

    I think it might. (none / 0) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    Not enough to erase a 6 point lead by Obama, but some bump.  Expectations are in the basement for her and the right is already working the refs by painting Gwen Ifill as in the tank for the Obama/Biden ticket.  If Palin manages to string 2 coherent sentences together, the people will say she won.  Pundits might decry a lack of depth in the answers, but the average viewer will probably see her as meeting the bar (since it's been set so low).  By all accounts, she's a good debater--granted she doesn't have the command of national and international subjects that she has of Alaska subjects--and Biden's improvisations are a gaffe in waiting.

    It's going to be an interesting night.

    Parent

    I don't think so. (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    If she does OK, she'll just have done OK.  She'll need to make a major gaffe to lose -- and, unfortunately, our own guy is not known as 100% gaffe-free.  In fact, perfectly reasonable statements he makes (such as his gracious words about Senator Clinton) are often pointed to as gaffes both by the media and the more crazed supporters of the top of the ticket.

    Parent
    I agree, Larry -- not losing more in the polls (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    would be a good night for Palin.  More of concern is Biden, on the front-running ticket, having a bad night.

    But even then, it's the top of the ticket that will matter most to the voters.  And neither side will see any budging in their committed voters, anyway, so it's down to a small percentage of undecideds.  And within that group, of those who even watch, only a really small percent or so would move one way or another based on this debate.  And it's still about whether, in the closing weeks, the top of the ticket actually moves such people to the polls a month from now.

    The media, of course, will give this week's debate more weight, but they just like to weigh in with their punditry and patter.  (So I actually am rather grateful to the economy, as it might reduce a thousand hours of media mutterings about this debate to only several hundred hours of wasted air time.  And as for the print media, it may reduce the number of wasted trees.)

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    The good news for Biden is that expectations are getting lowered for him as well.

    Everyone is expecting him to come out and call for a spaghetti ladder to the moon.

    Parent

    Biden's problem isn't simply "gaffes". (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:27:58 AM EST
    Sometimes he take policy positions that are absolutely terrible. 2 weeks ago Obama had to smack Biden around over the AIG issue.  Of course, good policy doesn't much matter in debates.

    Parent
    guys, (none / 0) (#98)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    i was being facetious!

    clearly, i need to learn to do better snark on here! lol

    Parent

    Given the wide disparities in the polling (none / 0) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    Do you the politicians just use averages, to get the "truth".   What is lost by doing this?

    Polls (none / 0) (#21)
    by zvs888 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    Politicians (well especially guys running for national positions) usually have their own statisticians and internal polling mechanisms.

    Most of them just use the national polls for confirmation.  Besides, campaigns have their own estimates for how their turnout operations will affect results.

    Parent

    Any insights into what the differences would be? (none / 0) (#26)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Is the Race over????? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kefa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:15:09 AM EST


    It will be over (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Faust on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    on November 4th. Right now it's still going, or at least that's what I hear.

    Parent
    Pretty much. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:41 AM EST


    Parent
    The best polls (none / 0) (#35)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    early voting

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    As of Monday, 135,412 ballots had been cast in Georgia for the Nov. 4 general election, whether by absentee or early in-person voting.
    Nearly 40 percent of those voters -- 53,160 -- have been African-American, according to the office of Secretary of State Karen Handel.
    It is this kind of intensity, driven by the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, that has worried Georgia Republicans and stirred the hopes of Democrats in the state.
    As of Aug. 31, African-Americans, the most reliable demographic in the Democratic base, made up 29 percent of those registered to vote. However, their participation rate in elections traditionally is several points lower.
    After a full week of early voting statewide, the highest performing counties are: DeKalb, with 14,560 votes cast; Fulton, 10,599; Gwinnett, 7,952; Cobb, 7,021; Chatham, 4,771. All have significant minority populations

    wooohooooo

    Um, no they're not the best polls (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    If you think 40% of the final Georgia electorate is going to be AA, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Parent
    Early voting for AAs and other minorities and (none / 0) (#41)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    disfavored groups in the Nov. 4 scrum gives the caged a chance to sustain their right to vote while there is time enought to do it. In my state, you have to apply for an early vote (absentee ballot) so you can find out if there is an issue with your registration at the time, rather than during the mob on Election Night when you may not be able to fix it.

    Parent
    All true, but not responsive to my point (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:14:23 AM EST


    Parent
    They ask the race of voters (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    on absentee ballots in Georgia?  How does the Secretary of State know this?  Not 53,159 nor 53,161 -- but exactly 53,160?

    As I hope that race is not marked on ballots -- neither by voters nor local and/or state officials, even in Georgia -- that would suggest that this is a call to ramp up the white vote.

    Parent

    Noting race on voter registration (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    is the law in much of the south. It's to comply with the VRA.

    Nothing nefarious.

    Parent

    Thanks. Wow -- (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    half a century after the modern civil rights movement?  The Civil War isn't over, is it?!

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    The purpose of taking down this information is actually a decent one: we want to make sure that no new voting regulation causes a retrogression in minority turnout or rights.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#53)
    by indy in sc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    that it helps our side in this cycle by helping us microtarget Obama's likliest voters to make sure they get out to the polls.

    Parent
    You could be right (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:15:17 AM EST
    Check out the Secretary of State's unofficial site.  Sounds like a sober, neutral public official to me!

    Parent
    They probably know the race (none / 0) (#47)
    by indy in sc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    from the voter registration applications.  As I understand it, only 4 or 5 states still require you to identify your race on your voter registration application.  I know SC is one and maybe GA is another.  When they do the intake at the polls, they can match you to your registration info.

    Parent
    This stuff (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    is worthless. Kerry was only behind by 4% in early voting here in GA in 2004. The anti Bush intensity was the same. Obama will lose GA by double digits unless Bob Barr starts to score a lot of voters here.

    Parent
    Does anyone know the biggest comeback (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    in a presidential election this close to the election? Or where to look?

    1948 (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Dewey-Truman is ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    the most famous one.

    They stopped polling in October though.

    In the Nixon-Humphrey and Carter-Ford races, the final was much closer than expected.  Though the expected winner won both of those.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#75)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:08:50 PM EST
    It wasnt really that close but Clinton-Dole had a massive shift to Dole at the end.  I think he picked up every undecided voter. lol.

    Parent
    Let's see what McCain pulls (none / 0) (#51)
    by TomStewart on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    next. I think that the desperation of McCain is starting to get the best of him and his next big move will tell.

    I mean, his next move besides attack, attack attack and lie, lie, lie...

    McCain will announce (none / 0) (#54)
    by WS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    Lieberman as his second running mate!  Two VPs, What a Maverick!!!

    Parent
    According to today's Los Angeles (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    Times, a 527 TV ad is due for CA today.  Not sure why, as "only a fool" would think CA would be in play.  

    Parent
    Am I the only one ....... (none / 0) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    ......worried that the polling trend, while encouraging, is simply too tepid to begin celebrating? As BTD says, "speaking only for myself," I feel Obama should be enjoying a blowout lead, especially with all the current events (the economy, Palin interview, new youth voters, etc.) in his favor.
       If one believes there really is a "Bradley effect," then the race is still too close for comfort. Also, I've read (sorry, I'll try to find and post the link later) that because it's still the electoral votes that matter, Obama could lead by 5-6 million popular votes, and still lose the election.

    Someone please, set my mind at ease.

    Gallup is tightening too:( (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lil on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST


    Parent
    trend (none / 0) (#69)
    by pooks1976 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    I don't think the trend is good either.  As others have mentioned Gallup has tightened to 4 and the ABC news/Wash Post poll that is +4 Obama was +9 Obama last week. I have just seen these leads fade too many times this cycle to believe the results will solidify. I don't know why he isn't further ahead, McCain has been a train wreck lately.  

    Parent
    Thanks, but (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:27:54 PM EST
    I don't feel any better.

    You just know that McCain, and the Repubs and their 527's have a "Willie Horton, Swift Boat" arsenal, locked and loaded, waiting for the opportune time to unload.

    Also, while Obama has had the wind at his back these past several weeks, just simple probability theory points to an Obama gaffe, or other negative event, waiting to erupt.

    O.K. that's it, I gotta go see if there's anything left of my business worth saving.  

    Parent

    two things crippling Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    at this point: race and race.

    I believe him to be an excellent candidate, but I also think that any AA would have little to no hope without: 8 years of W, the financial crisis, and to a lesser extent, Palin's performance.

    One thing that is helping him, increased voter registration, is partially attributable to his AA ethnicity as well -- something that tempers his disadvantages, but does not negate them.

    I bet if you substitute almost any SWM, you'd get 5-10 more percentage points and if you substitute any SWF, you'd get 3-7 more points.  IMO, of course.

    Parent

    acronym misstep (none / 0) (#83)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    damn acronyms.  Of course I didn't mean single white man/woman.  

    And I didn't really mean any WM/WF, I meant those of comparable skills/qualities as Obama.

    Parent

    You're correct -- that's what it shows (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:31:28 PM EST
    I think -- that Obama is back to where he was, while McCain is losing ground.  That might be enough a month from now, but it would be far better for Obama to be gaining ground he did not already have and lost before.

    Parent
    Oops, this was to be a reply to you (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    below, re McCain losing ground.  But the comment jumped up here.:-)

    Parent
    Gallup (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    today has it Obama 48 McCain 44.

    Yes. Obama is back to where he was (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    a month ago in the RCP polling average, at his peak, I see.  (It's easiest to see on the chart.)  

    I would think that the news of the last two weeks would have put the Dem ticket higher than it has been throughout this campaign.  But nope.  So I think that next week will be most telling. . . .

    Parent

    $ crisis is more damaging to McCain and Repubs (none / 0) (#79)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    than advantageous to Obama/Dems.

    Parent
    strangely, the electoral changes (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    are not showing up as clearly in the national polls

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    because the state polls lag behind the national polls.

    Parent
    Actually ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    They do. If you look at it logically and average out recent polls it won't show as much. Those national polls aren't averaged out though, they are a snapshot.

    If we look at state polls the same way, as snapshots, and take the most recent poll from each state to see who is leading you see a major shift...the snapshot is averaged only if the most recent state poll has more than one poll that came out the same day.

    Using just the most recent snapshot poll from each state and looking at RCP's nine toss ups states:

    If the election were today and the most recent state poll awarded electoral votes:

    Obama wins the toss up states of FL, VA, MN, NH, NV, OH, MO.
    McCain wins IN and NC

    The electoral results based on those snapshots as of today:
    Obama 349 McCain 189


    Parent

    except that (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    Cream City was saying that Obama is back to where he was previously, and he has NEVER been this far ahead in EVs.

    Parent
    As a rule... (none / 0) (#73)
    by mike in dc on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    ...with the exception of huge historic blowouts, no candidate really moves out all that far ahead in aggregate polling, until about 2 weeks before election day.  That Obama is this far ahead of McCain 5 weeks out is very encouraging.  Matthew Dowd just noted that no candidate who consistently led after the first debate has lost a recent election, so I think that's encouraging too.  
    If Obama's still ahead after the debates are over, I don't think even resurrecting the Wright stuff will save McCain (particularly since it will come across as desperate and race-baiting, and the media will eviscerate him for it).  

    Game changing no brainer (none / 0) (#74)
    by KoolJeffrey on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    Bristol Palin / Levi Johnston shotgun wedding.

    nope (none / 0) (#80)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    would smack of desperate stunt at this point.  Wouldn't sway any undecideds, either, IMO.  

    Parent
    crass (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    and it would rub people the wrong way

    Parent
    The National Polls - 10/1 | 99 comments (99 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment