home

The Polls - 10/2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

DKos/R2000 (9/29-10/1) has Obama up 11, 51-40. Battleground (9/28-10/1) has Obama up 5, 49-44. CBS (9/27-30) has Obama up 9, 50-41. Gallup(9/28-30) has Obama up 4. WaPo (9/27-29) has Obama up 4, 50-46. AP (9/27-29) has Obama up 7, 48-41. Ipsos/McClatchey (9/26-29) has Obama up 3, 48-45. Time (9/26-29) has Obama up 7, 50-43. Hotline (9/28-30) has Obama up 5, 47-42. Ras (9/28-30) has Obama up 6, 51-45.

Another day and McCain needs a game changer. Starting tonight with the Palin-Biden debate, continuing to the Obama- McCain debate on October 7, these 5 days may be McCain's last chance.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Political Rhetoric: The Right To Privacy And Roe | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Polls - 10/2 | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    well (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:28:57 AM EST
    Those are brutal polls.  The McCain camp has to be in worry mode.

    Here's hoping Palin has at least one Dan Quayle moment.

    the media will find one, (none / 0) (#22)
    by sancho on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    dont worry. amazing to watch an election where the media is tilted toward the dem candidate. when did that last happen? it makes me feel less happy that i thought it would. but i dont want to see mccain as president so i guess i should be grateful.

    quayle was part of a winning ticket, of course.

    Parent

    It makes us less happy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    because we know we are a nano-second away from being on the short end of the stick.

    Parent
    I don't understand the emphasis (none / 0) (#30)
    by Prana on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    to just National polling numbers this close to the election. Electoral maps become increasingly more important at this point.

    Rasmussen has this to say:

    Obama leads in states with 200 Electoral College votes while McCain is ahead in states with 174 Electoral College votes. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 255, McCain 185. (98 still a tossup)

    RCP has it:

    171 to 158 advantage Obama. And 259 t0 163 with leaners - with 116 still a tossup.

    So this race is still incredible close without the unpredictable leaners. And even with leaners Obama is not yet at the Presidential threshold.

    National numbers at this point mean less and less and the individual state numbers/Electoral map means more and more.

    Parent

    If you think it's possible (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    to win the Electoral College with a 6 point national deficit, sure.

    I think it is almost impossible.

    Parent

    I don't know if you base (none / 0) (#39)
    by Prana on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    your post on any real data or if is just an opinion. If it's an opinion then fine it is an opinion. If it's based on some kind of evidence you haven't presented that.

    Parent
    Your opinion is that we should not (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    look at national polls. You are the one who hasn't given any "data" on why, with such a gap, we shouldn't.

    Parent
    Because we don't pick presidents (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    by a national election, much as I wish we did.

    Parent
    What is the largest popular vote gap (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    that any winner of the electoral college has surmounted?

    There is a very strong relationship between winning the national popular vote and winning the electoral college. National polls have acted as leading indicators for the direction of state polls all this year, and with good reason.

    Parent

    Please don't put words in (none / 0) (#60)
    by Prana on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    peoples mouth. it destroy the credibility of the person doing so.

    What I said was"

    I don't understand the emphasis to just National polling numbers this close to the election.

    Key word is JUST. That does not mean we should not look at them.

    I also said:


    National numbers at this point mean less and less and the individual state numbers/Electoral map means more and more.

    Why do I say that? Because election after election that is what people focus on not the national vote. Election night the national vote is hardly mentioned if ever. It is all about individual states and the electoral votes they bring and how close a candidate is to reaching the electoral total needed to win - not if they are living up to the national popular vote totals. As of now Obama does not have the electoral votes needed with many states still a tossup. That is noteworthy to experienced voters.

    Now that said if you have some kind of evidence for your position you haven't presented that as of yet. But if it just an opinion of yours fine, just say it is an opinion not backed by evidence.

    Parent

    Well because no one I know (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    looks ONLY at national polls, it seems to me that you don't have a point at all.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Prana on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    Well my original point of my post was that we don't see much of electoral maps on this blog. Do I need to explain that post to you also? And I certainly don't recall you ever mentioning electoral map polling.

    Other than the one Jeralyn posted a few days ago I  don't recall seeing any electoral maps in the last month or so, if ever.

    So I take it you have no evidence for your opinion or you would have posted it by now instead of wasting time jousting, putting words in people mouths, and avoiding providing evidence.

    Parent

    You've never seen us talk about the map here? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    Jeez, all of these new people after the primary.

    Seriously, search if you want.

    Parent

    Just like I thought (none / 0) (#73)
    by Prana on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    You got nothing.

    Parent
    Oh really? (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    Here's me in February talking about state polling.

    There are hundreds of other examples since if you bother to look, both in posts and comments.

    Parent

    Hi BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:44:14 AM EST
    Just, hi.

    On a related note (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Nate Silver complains that RCP has credibility problems. heh.

    He's right they do (none / 0) (#14)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    I noticed the ARG thing too and said to myself, "wait one cotton pickin minute," as my mother used to say to me.

    Nate makes a very good point, you can be partisan all you want just don't let it infuse your numbers because you lose credibility.  One thing I will say about Nate is that he takes numbers seriously and is not willing to lose his cred.

    Parent

    Apparently you haven't been paying attention (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    to the fully history.

    Question: What's the history between Dick Bennett and Nate Silver?

    You think Silver has complete credibility?

    For me, this is a "pot, meet kettle" moment.

    Parent

    In defense of Nate (none / 0) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    He doesn't claim to be objective.  And he provides a great deal of his data.  

    The article also was pretty open about his bias and obvious conflict of interest.

    I see nothing wrong with those sites criticizing each other.  As long as they are using technical criticisms I think it makes them all better.

    Parent

    Saying that he doesn't (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    claim to be objective is a pretty weak excuse.

    But in my opinion he's neither better nor more interesting than either Zogby or ARG.

    Parent

    How is he comparable? (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    He isn't a polling outfit nor does he claim to be.  

    He's a stats geek that is aggregating polling numbers and providing analysis on it.  You can say his analysis is worthless but his data is pretty good.

    Parent

    His data all comes from somewhere else (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    Does he improve upon the other polling averages we have access to? It's frankly not clear yet.

    During the Primary he got some things right and also made some major mistakes.

    Parent

    Not to be rude (none / 0) (#34)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    But I don't think you understand his methodology.  He got quite a bit of primaries right and the only one I can recall him missing was South Dakota which he gave caveats about given the polling out there.

    Nate's data not only includes polls but he has his own demographic method that he factors into the results. That methodology on its on with the combination of the polling data is how he was rather accurate.

    He makes a very valid point about RCP and the reason why it is important is because RCP is used by many and can set a narrative.  People just assume that RCP is factoring in all polls and not cherrypicking when they are doing the opposite.

    Pollster may throw in all the polls but if there is enough polling going on, the good ones will outweigh the bad to give you a far more accurate reading on the state of the race.  RCP does not and they should disclose that otherwise their credibility will be in jeoporady.

    Parent

    Frankly, I don't care if you're rude to me (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    You've already proven your incompetence on this subject.

    Parent
    And you? (none / 0) (#42)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    What competence have you proven? You have yet to present a fact to back up your statements.  Silver is wrong because he hates ARG!

    Your argument that by being ahead in the national polls means that you have to be ahead in the state polls is ridiculous. You act as if demographics isn't destiny.

    Parent

    You should have been here during the primary (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    when we actually hashed this out. Demographics v. polling was the subjecting of discussion here for the better part of six months.

    But how does Nate use demographics? We don't know anything more than he tells us. QED.

    As far as I'm concerned I don't have to present anything to you.

    Parent

    And how is he comparable? (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    for one thing, he feigns objectivity (oh yes he does) while actually acting as a pundit. Just like Zogby.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    In the article in question he says....

    "Look -- I'm not going to tell you that my site is completely devoid of spin. I am a Democrat, and I see the world through a Democratic lens. But what I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore."

    In his faq he says...

    "
    What is your political affiliation? My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama."

    What else do you want from him?  

    Parent

    Want from him? (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    Oh, nothing. But I think he's being entirely hypocritical about RCP and ARG.

    Parent
    How is he being hypocritical?!?!? (none / 0) (#35)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    Numbers don't lie no matter how you try to cherry pick them.  Nate may not care for ARG but he isn't simply going to pick and chose which of their polls he is going to use.  Being biased from an editorial standpoint is acceptable, being biased based on the math is not.  What are you going to tell me that 2+2=5?

    Parent
    How do you know he isn't biased on the math? (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    He has his "model" but don't tell anyone quite how it works.

    Nate is an Obamabot with a statistics interest. And he blew his credibility at various times during the primary, none of which are especially worth revisiting.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#44)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    Have you not read his site? He has made very clear how his model has worked on numerous occasions.  He is very open about it.

    Using the term "Obamabot" just explained where you are coming from.  You can't see that he can be objective with math (how can you not be?) because he is a strong supporter of Obama. It's ridiculous.  

    Facts are stubborn things.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    You think you know exactly what's in his model today? I think you imagine knowledge that you don't actually have.

    Parent
    My goodness (none / 0) (#48)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    He has even listed the damn formulas for his model. Have you not been paying attention? Wait, I just answered my own question. NO!

    He is not just a "statistics junkie" it's his damn job! I do not think he would be willing to put his job on the line by pumping out bogus crap.  You forget that his day job relies on many of the same statistics and that in many ways by being so open about his background on his widely read site he is putting his own livelihood on the line.  Let's forget that he is an Obama supporter and just look at the numbers please. Geesh!

    Parent

    Show me his current formula (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    I'm serious.

    Parent
    Go on his website (none / 0) (#68)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    and do a search. I'm not going to do it for you. This just goes to show that you haven't been paying attention to his postings which is fine you don't have to. However, you are making claims that he is not objective and that he has an ax to grind with ARG and that he is somehow fudging "the math." Those of us who read his site on a daily basis and know of his background know that your argument is baseless.

    You called him hypocritical and you seem to present your statements as fact. Prove it.  I have no problem with you not liking him because he is in your words an "obamabot" but to discredit everything else he does based on who he supports is bad.  Not to get to general but this is the same type of thinking that gets us into unnecessary wars and crap. He makes some very valid points about RCP and I think what he is saying is rather important given how the lazy media uses RCP without questions.

    Parent

    No, you show me his formula (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    I think you can't find it.

    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#75)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    You were the one that has made such definitive statements regarding Nate the "Obamabot" which you are presenting as fact and shooting down anyone else who challenges you. You have obviously been following somewhat of his site since the primaries which is why your statements make no sense. You don't gain national credibility by making numbers up out of thin air. RCP is about to lose the credibility that it has built up if it doesn't start explaining. So if you truly have been following his site rather just criticizing him because he has made opinion posts which you don't really care for then you would know that he is very open about his methodology.

    I'm not going to do the search for you but I find your arguments rather ridiculous if we have been reading the same damn site for months.  Just because you don't like his personal opinions doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he is doing. Until you can prove that he is wrong wrong wrong with some facts, then all that you say regarding his site is opinion and should be stated as such. That is my point and I think the point of other folks here regarding Nate and 538.

    Parent

    To begin with, let's be clear (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    Silver has never given a complete and comprehensive picture of his formula. He is constantly tweaking it and has at various times promised that he wouldn't anymore.

    I don't have any problem with him giving his opinion. I just don't take him any more seriously than other people who introduce lots of noise into their numbers (like Zogby), and find it funny that he's attacking ARG and RCP for doing more-or-less what he does himself.

    Parent

    This is what I figured (none / 0) (#78)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    This is my opinion and I could be wrong but you seem to not understand why he is attacking RCP.

    He is fine with RCP being a competitor as he states doing things their own way but they stated that they are not going to factor in just any poll and especially those that have yet to have a proven track record. RCP decided that ARG did not have a proven track record and thus they would not include them in their polling. That's RCP's choice and it seems appropriate since RCP has bragged about how their average of polling was the closest to the 2004 results which is how they established their credibility.  

    Now RCP has decided to infuse their right leaning biases into their numbers now without giving any explanation and the evidence has shown that they are doing this because those numbers favor McCain whether or not they are bogus undermining their own credibility that they have established.  This calls into serious question about their credibility and the issue should be raised given that RCP is used by many so-called fair media outlets.  

    This is why Nate has a problem with them because they are basically selling propaganda but presenting it as credible information. I agree and I think that many others would agree also.

    You also gave voice to why Nate has established himself as credible, he tells you when he is tweaking his model.  RCP doesn't and to not is inappropriate when you are basically selling a "product" on people's assumptions that you are being open.  

    People can complain that Pollster is ridiculous because they include all polls but at least they are consistent and not cherry picking which in itself allows them rightly to be considered objective.

    Parent

    You identify Silver's slight of hand (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    when you say:

    You also gave voice to why Nate has established himself as credible, he tells you when he is tweaking his model.

    But tweaking form what exactly? We don't know, because he's never told us.

    Parent

    I really don't understand (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    why you seem to so determined to chide Silver.  I don't recall the problem with the primary numbers.  

    He's not going to release his formulas as he is trying to run a commercial service and if he releases that then he really has no product.

    He gives an overview of his process.

    While there is no reason to treat as gospel, or any other polling analysis.  But I don't get your derision of the guy.

    Parent

    Easy (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    I think he's attacking RCP hypocritically.

    At least with RCP, we know exactly what they're calculating. So they have a partisan approach to what polls they use? We can easily see that and adjust for it.

    But Silver? Who know exactly what goes into his Demographic model.

    How are his constant model "adjustments" any different than RCP choosing to use or not use ARG?

    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    I think you are being a bit unreasonable but to each his own.

    Parent
    glad to see this (none / 0) (#98)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    all resolved in the few hours I was gone.

    Parent
    LOL Daily Kos has a tracking poll and (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by bridget on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    it has Obama up by 11? All the way up to eleven?

    Tap The Spine.

    He's not getting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:07:56 AM EST
    a game changer on the economic front, terror alert anyone?

    The debate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mikeb302000 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:43:13 AM EST
    I predict Palin will hold her own tonight, but her star is fading nevertheless.

    Obama by a landslide is my bigger prediction.

    If by hold her own... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    ...you mean not pick up a single undecided voter for him, then I agree.  Our expectations are so low, all she has to do is show up without a booger hanging from her nose and, it seems, most people will think she's accomplished something.

    Parent
    I think... (none / 0) (#5)
    by prose on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    that Palin will have a hard time losing tonight.  She won't win, but I don't think she'll lose.  Personally I don't like her at all, but I kind of hope she doesn't totally blow it.  This week's news cycle has been lame.  Palin and bailout non-stop.  We need to be able to get past meaningless things (like Palin) and talk about the economy and broader domestic issues facing our nation (education, health care, etc.)  Palin as Ms. South Carolina is a funny narrative, but it doesn't help progressive causes.

    New Ras daily tracker (none / 0) (#6)
    by rdandrea on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    9/29-10/1.  Obama widens lead to +7.

    BTD...the debate is on the 6th not the 7th...FYI.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    And Hi!

    GRG

    Different read (none / 0) (#8)
    by koshembos on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    Most polls have Obama up 3-5. that a minor advantage and may not withstand the hidden race factor. All McCain has to do is a slight notch up and he is sailing home.

    Don't count your chickens too early.

    I love our resident Chicken Littles (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Reading comprehension (none / 0) (#28)
    by koshembos on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    Look again at the numbers. You typically delete outliers and than look at the rest. I cannot change the numbers to make you, andgarden, feel better. Since it's a democracy, still, you can ignore reality and look at Kos' poll which, of course, is not biased at all.

    Parent
    I think Larry has you by the hooks (3.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    and you're just being ridiculous.

    Anyway, um, go McCain!

    heh.

    Parent

    Different read? Get new glasses. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    Most polls have Obama up 3-5.

    The polls are 11, 9, 7, 7, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3.  You seem to have excluded fully half the polls as outliers and then shaded the average of those remaining.

    Any lead can, of course, disappear.  But Obama looks to be in pretty decent shape right now.

    Parent

    Check out 538's analysis of RCP 's bias. (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html


    Parent
    Really, you just make yourself look (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:28:43 AM EST
    like an Obamabot when you link to Silver. Especially with that entirely hypocritical post.

    Parent
    Wow. That was insulting and uncalled (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    for.

    Parent
    Think about how it would look (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    if Zogby wrote that post, then get back to me.

    Parent
    you are really unhinged on this topic (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    and I don't wish to engage you in it any longer.

    Parent
    I think some people just grant (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    Silver a higher level of credibility than he actually has. And that pisses me off.

    Parent
    apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    But I have no idea why you feel that way, because all I am hearing from you is vitriol.

    I don't appreciate being called a "bot" of any kind.

    You owe me an apology.

    Parent

    I believe you are not one (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    which is why I am surprised at your uncritical link.

    Parent
    perhaps because I just discovered (none / 0) (#62)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    538 post-primary, and did not observe what you did ? Also, I have read, maybe, 6 of his posts, no mas. I mostly look at the model projections. I also look at RCP and pollster.

    I am still waiting for that apology.

    Parent

    You are right, you did not observe (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    what you probably should have.

    I don't think I owe you an apology, because I am sure that I was right in the first place.

    Parent

    You do. Because you were being a jerk (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    not because you were or were not correct.


    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#13)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    Yes, Sen. Obama has opened up his greatest lead, but I don't think he's threatening to blow it open.  Gallup, you'll notice, has had it much closer all along, and there remain an awful lot of Republicans in this country.  

    Plus, there's a whole month to go.  There's a good possibility of movement going back to McCain some time in that month, in which case the story-line changes, and everything is up in the air again.

    True but (none / 0) (#16)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:20:14 AM EST
    The problem for McCain is that early voting has started in the crucial states. If there is any indication as to how early voting is going take a look at Georgia where as of Monday, about 150,000 people have already cast their votes.  I really don't think McCain can turn this around fast enough to have a real difference. After the VP debate there is a town hall which will most likely focus on domestic issues and then the economic debate.

    McCain's people should have fought for the FP debate to be last.

    Parent

    Do you actually know what early voting is (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:24:13 AM EST
    good for in a Presidential election?

    I'll give you a hint: it doesn't make the slightest difference with undecideds.

    Parent

    That's not the point (none / 0) (#36)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    Early voting is for weak supporters and unreliable supporters. If you catch them when you are at your high point you can spend far less time having to woo them in the crucial 72 hours before election day which frees you to work on the few undecideds.  Think about the CA primary. Obama started to surge but it was too late to get enough folks on board because so many people had already voted for Hillary. When polls were taken after the CA primary there was a complete reversal as to who would have won.

    Early voting will make the difference in crucial states.  

    Parent

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by rdandrea on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    Early voting is for weak supporters and unreliable supporters?

    Interesting.  That's not how I've treated early voters in political campaigns over the years.

    Early voters are typically high-information voters and highly-opinionated voters who are sure they won't change their minds no matter what.  News junkies and true partisans.

    In campaigns I have worked, we typically get out a direct mail piece to hit people's homes the same day mail ballots arrive just to reinforce the opinionated ones.  Then we ramp during early voting, mailing only to people who have not yet voted (we get daily statistics from the County Clerk).

    Typically what's left at the end--Election Day voters--is a mix of traditionalists (in our rural county, voting can be a social event), low-information voters who haven't really thought about the race, true undecideds who were waiting for an October or November surprise, procrastinators, or busy young families with school-aged kids who just haven't had time to vote early.

    Parent

    Forgot to add (none / 0) (#83)
    by rdandrea on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    In our county, more than 2/3 of the people vote early, either at early voting polling places or by mail.

    Parent
    What polls taken after the CA primary (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    show Obama would have won w/o absentee ballots?

    Parent
    IIRC (none / 0) (#80)
    by bluegal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    SUSA did a poll that asked if the primary was held on x-day, Obama would have won handily. This was towards the end of the primary even as Hillary was surging again.

    California was one of the few primaries where Obama won the day of voting but because he got swamped in the early voting it didn't make a difference.

    Early voting counts if you can build up a significant advantage in close states and if your opponent starts to surge towards the end.

    Parent

    The asked months later (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    But their poll the week of the primary showed what was really going to happen.

    Maybe if there were no early voting Hillary would have only won by 5-7, but she would almost certainly have nevertheless won.

    The historian in my despises this mythology.

    Parent

    "Mythology." (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    Generous.  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#101)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:57:15 PM EST
    Gallup had Obama up 8 last saturday but now he's around 5.

    Parent
    I still think it will be fairly close (none / 0) (#15)
    by kenosharick on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    but it is looking better and better for Obama with every bit of poor economic news that comes out. There are also a fair number of undecideds out there. Look for the mccain campaign to make a big move (no idea what).

    Georgia (none / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    New InvAdv poll has McCain only up 6 in Georgia.

    States that were only a few weeks ago unimaginable are getting within striking distance.  Regardless of whether Georgia is really competitive or not McCain is going to have to stop the bleeding in these states.  

    The problem is (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    I just don't see a groundswell for Obama. It's more like a revulsion to McCain, and that makes the polls less robust than if people were flocking to Obama.

    It's almost like people are looking for a reason to go to McCain, but he's not giving them any.

    I Don't Know About That (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by daring grace on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    At the presidential level, I've never ever been as enamored of the Democrat I was voting for as I was (as you put it) revolted by the Republican alternative. That revulsion--particularly in the case of Reagan and W and now McCain was probably even more powerful an urge to vote than the moderately admiring stance I have for Obama.

    If people are turned off by McCain or have already started having doubts about his effectiveness as a leader and have even a tiny sense that Obama might be good for the economy I think that will be hard for McCain to overcome this late in the campaign. Not impossible, but almost so with each passing day of no appreciable polling gains.

    Parent

    The reason I'm a little worried (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    Is that the polls had been hovering around Obama +4-5 for a long time until the financial crisis took over the front pages. The incompetence of the McCain campaign (not giving us a single reason to vote for him) throughout it all is a Godsend for Obama.

    It's just my feeling ("opinion") with the economy tanking, that if McCain pulled another rabbit out of his hat, like replace Palin with Romney, it might have a dramatic effect.


    Parent

    that is the worry. (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    yup. I agree with that.

    Parent
    you do? (none / 0) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    ...........  :)

    Parent
    yes. because Obama can be (none / 0) (#94)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    5 points ahead for months, but if Mccain gets a blip right at the end, he wins the election.


    Parent
    PS (none / 0) (#95)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    nice smiley face.

    The part I don't agree with is the notion that people are not liking Obama they are just disliking McCain. My opinion is that it's a mix, but there are lots ofpeople that are excited about Obama.

    Parent

    The other day.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    ....I watched a program (forgot its name) where a cabbie holds a quiz/contest with his passengers on the way to their destination. The contestants that day were four NYU students (all girls.) They had gotten every question wrong, even the easy, first "give-a-ways." Finally, the consolation question was, and they showed a video, what U.S. President had a huge dam out west named after him?  Duh, duh, duh, and duh. But as the four little "new youth voter" dejectees were leaving the cab, they fist pumped the sky and yelled, "GO Obama!"

    Other than those mensa candidates, I think the support is luke warm.

    p.s. The results would have been the same had they been boys


    Parent

    Hee hee (none / 0) (#97)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    that has nothing to do with nothing!!!!

    We made $5000 at a bake sale for Obama filled with middle aged moms.

    Lot's of grown-ups are excited about Obama.

    (I was also excited about Hil, it was a difficult choice for me to the end)

    Parent

    boy, that is an unsupported opinion (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    if ever I saw one.

    You could make up any number of similar opinions supporting Obama or McCain and they would all be equally valid.

    Parent

    Actually, it's supported by poll numbers (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    When you look at Obama's peak numbers, he's basically back to but a bit above, on average, where he was a month ago.  But McCain has been slipping badly.  So when you see the "+7" sorts of numbers, that means the gap between them is widening, but it doesn't necessarily mean Obama has gained "7%" more of the voters.

    Of course, we only a require a majority of the voters.  (Plus a cushion against voter suppression.:-)

    Parent

    OK...that is one step up from opinion (none / 0) (#63)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    it is one "explanation" of the numbers.

    Still, there are many other explanations of the numbers.

    Parent

    If it wasn't "opinion" (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    It would be "fact."

    Now, that wasn't hard, was it?

    Parent

    My point exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    What you are "seeing" is exactly inside your own head.

    Maybe it's real, maybe not.

    (I am smiling as I type this)

    Parent

    "Maybe it's real, maybe not." (none / 0) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    Maybe it's an "opinion."

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST


    Parent
    semi colon or colon (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    followed by one parentheses ( or ).

    "a bake sale......... (none / 0) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 03:04:01 PM EST
    ...filled with middle aged moms"

    Middle aged moms make for a better filling than merangue, that's for sure!

    You got me on that one.

    The Polls - 10/2 | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment