The Polls - 10/29 - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

The Polls - 10/29

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:13:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Republicans are coming home to the GOP candidate. As a result the spread between Obama and McCain is smaller. The differences in the polls seems easy to explain - some pollsters are sticking to a tight likely voter screen - others are not. Among those hewing to a tight screen are Ras, which now shows a 3 point Obama lead, 50-47, Battleground, which also shows a 3 point Obama lead, and IBD/TIPP, which shows Obama with a 4 point lead, 48-44.

The pollsters with an expanded voter screen show Obama with a more comfortable lead. Among these are Hotline, which has Obama by 7, 49-42, DKos/R200, which has Obama by 6, 50-44, and ABC/WaPo, which has Obama by 7, 52-45. The tight vs expanded effect is well illustrated by Gallup, which has a foot in each camp. Its traditional LV screen garners a 2 point Obama lead, 49-47 while its expanded LV screen shows Obama by 7, 51-44.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Election Fatigue Setting In | Turnout >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Polls - 10/29 | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ugh! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by atlmom on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:24:35 AM EST

This is killing me

National nothingness (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM EST

CO, NM, PA. nuff said. FL, OH are bonuses at this point and irrespective of "nat'l" polls, O is holding CO NM and PA which give him enough electorals. He leads and has lead in OH and FL for some time and most pundits agree that O will win, the question is whether or not he will have 350 or greater electorals.

50 state strategy doesn't seem so foolish any longer now does it? Great ground game and building for the future of the party, hat tip to Axelrod for his ground game....

The 50 (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST

state strategy functions to help and encourage candidates running for lower-level public office. Ideally, it should be of service to presidential candidates when they run, but supportive of local candidates all the time.

The long primary doesn't seem foolish now either. That in itself was a 50 state strategy.


you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM EST

and more poignant. Those who ridiculed the 50 state strategy lacked vision. I don't think anyone thought or professed that 50 states were winnable, but if you can move 2-3 states for pres, and 6-7 states for reps that is a tremendous accomplishment and speaks to axelrods strategy acumen.


The problem with the long primary (5.00 / 0) (#30)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST

though, was the level of vituperation by Dems aimed at Dems. It is unprecedented to call out voters you need as racists, bitter, clinging -- and to then tell them that you don't need them, after all.

Whether that strategy, especially aimed at some of the 10 states to decide this, will nullify the 50-state strategy is yet to be seen. And even if Dems win this time, whether that attack aimed at some Dems will be a problem in times to come will not be evident until 2010, etc.

And in the interim, whether the support will be there for a White House administration won by Dems who ticked off other Dems -- well, it may not be a mandate for the tough times ahead. Over all, the question may be whether it was worth it to divide the party to conquer the other party.


It does remain to be seen (none / 0) (#31)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM EST

what kind, if any, damage occurs from the splitting of Democrats into real and fake, true and Reagan. It depends upon Obama's governing style I think. But if the economy gets better because of him even that won't matter much.

The two comments you mention - Bittergate was not great. But the other comment was from Nevada and doesn't have anything really to do with the length of the primary. I think the primary turnout speaks for itself, and that Obama now has 88% of Hillary's supporters on his side is also suggestive.

Also good - I haven't seen any ads of downticket candidates running away from Obama (the way that guy in the South did...Childers maybe?). I'm glad that's done with.


If by "the other comment," you mean (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:10:32 PM EST

the one dissing diehard Dems, that was from an official of the DNC, Donna Brazile, among others.

I have heard it discussed again and again by some of the diehard Dems here -- including one who was a pledged delegate to the Dem convention, and her description of what they endured was just awful. And to deny delegates the roll call will resonate for a long time to come (especially now that many can see, as they suspected, how close the vote would have been). They remain committed to the Dem core . . . but they're not sure where it is now.


: I think it is definitely (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST

too soon to say that the party is "healed." Luckily we have formed a coalition for Obama that includes most Dems. But that seems to be a creation mostly of a crappy economy. The Party still has a lot of things it needs to sort out in the interest of fairness and respect...I wonder how their coffers are fairing.
Anyhoo, I think I see your point.
And yes, Brazile and everything she touches pretty much suck.

Two important states (none / 0) (#27)
by lilburro on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM EST

that enjoyed the exposure and primary campaigning of the late primary: PA and NC. Possibly Obama doing so well in both has to do with his touring the two states early on.


Bingo. (none / 0) (#29)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST

On the 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM EST

The reality is on the Presidential level it reallty was not.

Obama expanded the map in Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina. Other than that, the battlegrounds are the same.

That said, Obama is winning in these expanded battlegrounds and out West, nothing to sneeze at.


The financial crisis (none / 0) (#7)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:52:14 AM EST

helped in a big way in many of the "swing states" and having the ground game there well established was brilliant. Now if they can build and expand into NC and GA and other southerns, the plan will be regarded as brilliant for decades to come. We will have to wait and see if they can move the indictment of 8 failed years into 8 years of growth in those states.....


You are so wrong. (none / 0) (#16)
by coigue on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST

It may not have actually included 50 states, but Obama's wise rejection of public financing allowed him to advertise in markets that Dems haven't had a snowball's chance since the 60s.

The long-term consequence, I hope, is that the success of the southern strategy will finally start to wane.


How can you say he's wrong (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST

if the substance of your comment is to agree with him?


Because the strategy is a good one (none / 0) (#19)
by coigue on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST

and it has worked in the larger aspect of long-term presidential politics.


The "he" I'm referring to is BTD (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:39:44 AM EST

go back and read his comment, then compare it to the one you wrote, and tell me where you disagree.

I'll tell you where I think the disagreement is: in tone. You like your facts with a kool aid shine.


Don't be a jerk. (none / 0) (#21)
by coigue on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42:11 AM EST

That is uncalled for.

Most of the time, like 99% I agree with BTD.

I did look back, if you can''t see the distinction, that is your efing problem. But I am not talking to someone who calls me a mindless kool-aid drinker.

Jesus Christ, what a piece of work you are.


Try again (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:44:05 AM EST

What part of:

Obama expanded the map in Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina. Other than that, the battlegrounds are the same.
That said, Obama is winning in these expanded battlegrounds and out West, nothing to sneeze at.

Makes BTD "so wrong" ????

Seriously.


apologize (none / 0) (#24)
by coigue on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST

and I will continue this conversation.

Else you are cut off.


: heh, whatever (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:48:14 AM EST

buh bye.

2004 vs. 2008 (none / 0) (#3)
by bluegal on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST

That is what this is all about. If you think that turnout will be equal to 2004 then John McCain has a chance. If you think there will be increased turnout given that there is a black man at the top of the ticket and democrats are more enthusiastic about their candidate then Reps, McCain is done.

Does anyone really think that turnout is going to be equal to 2004?

This is over.

The early voting numbers (none / 0) (#9)
by MKS on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM EST

are not as dominating as one would think...depending on the polls one looks at.

The Colorado numbers are almost even for the mail-in voting.....Maybe that is an improvement....Republicans have often dominated the absentee voting in the past....


Exactly. Early voting and absentee voting (none / 0) (#11)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST

are not the same thing, and often swing differently. Heard a good discussion and explication on that on some network last night. So with the early voting tied between parties in some states where voters have to register by party (of course, they can vote differently), but with absentee ballots not as well reported that I've seen -- and, yes, it was pointed out that those tend to skew elderly, wealthy, and GOP -- it's too soon to predict how those will go.


Actually in CO it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by bluegal on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST

GOP in CO usually have a 60-40 absentee ballot advantage going into election day as Dems usually vote in greater proportion on election day but because of the GOP's absentee advantage in the past, the dems have never been able to catch up.

Things have changed in CO and for absentee ballots to be even right now in CO means that they are most likely not going to prevail on election day.

There is a reason why McCain has all but given up on the state.


Again, I read that it's mail-in voting (none / 0) (#18)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST

that you're discussing in CO -- or, it seems, that they're one and the same there. (I think we may need some new terms to fit some new laws.)


: Yes, mail in (none / 0) (#22)
by bluegal on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST

They usually have a HUGE mail in advantage to offset the in-person voting by dems on election day.

Gulp (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST

Wake me when this is over, yeah?

: Making calls is good antidote (none / 0) (#10)
by MKS on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST

I like the Obama website--it is easy--with easy scripts and prompts and real time reporting....
I like to make calls rather than stew and fret...

McCain was never going (none / 0) (#6)
by MKS on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:51:48 AM EST

to get only 42%. The undecideds have broken for him....He has gotten the low-hanging fruit....The key is whether he can make up the really hard ground....

I believe Obama will win where he is at 50% or more--places like Penn, Colorado and Virginia....Where he is below 50%, it will be very close.

I will make more calls today....

Q poll (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:54:00 AM EST

here:

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania Tighten Up In Final Week, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds; Obama Out Front, But Florida Is Too Close To Call --- FLORIDA: Obama 47 - McCain 45; OHIO: Obama 51 - McCain 42; PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 53 - McCain 41

Just keep harping on . . . (none / 0) (#12)
by Doc Rock on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:04:41 AM EST

. . . how it's a "slam dunk" for Obama and maybe the real vote will be even closer!

Republicans are Republicans. (none / 0) (#13)
by liminal on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST

They always come home. All of the Republican guys I know - the ones who claimed they would've voted Democratic in 2004 had we had a "better candidate" or who flatter themselves by claiming that they are swing voters or that they would absolutely consider voting Obama but are "scared he will raise my taxes. I know that's not what he says, but..." are Republicans, and are Republicans for a reason.

They're coming home now, and IMO, were never really in play. Chasing them has always been foolish. Now they're playing fast and loose with jokes about socialism (seriously! after the Republican economic policies necessitated la bailout gigantica) and are dancing like tightly-strung marionettes whenever the Chamber of Commerce sends out another e-mail blast about the Employee Free Choice Act (cos unions are scary, doncha know!)

"among those who plan to vote but (none / 0) (#14)
by Cream City on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM EST

say something might come up," according to Rasmussen, Obama is ahead by five points.

I, for one, can count on something coming up on any day, whether an election day or not. Such is life.

Polls Worthless??? (none / 0) (#34)
by suntos on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST

From what I know, all these polls, including early voting numbers, figure in the percentages of people registered in each party to skewer their numbers one way or the other. I remembered a phenomenon in the primaries and found this article; It explains why all the candidates have been flooding pennsylvania even though the polls seem to have obama in a solid lead. I just don't believe these polls anymore. I fear this election is going to be razor close - here's why

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4527837&page=1

What you think you know just ain't so (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST

Most reputable polls don't weight to party registration. The best ones weight to "party ID." The question asked is something like "No matter how you intend to vote, do you usually consider yourself to be a Democrat, a Republican, or something else?"


Are you Sure? (none / 0) (#36)
by suntos on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST

I keep hearing differently on TV when they talk about poll numbers. I always hear about how the massive increase in new democratic registrations is what is giving obama all the poll bumps? Don't they figure those percentages into the formula? And I definitely read that the early voting is only tallied according to party registration. Is that wrong?

I just keep looking at North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia and repeatedly think to myself that something doesn't look right. And I keep thinking the republican's tinkering in the dem election is the explanation.


Well, here's how it works (none / 0) (#37)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST

The best and most expensive polls use a process called "random digit dial" ask people the essential questions, and then weight to the census. Rasmussen does weight by party, but he conducts a rolling sample of party ID info.

The only way you can weight to registration is if you call the phone numbers from the voter registration database and only count those whose reported party matches their registered party. Lots of cheaper polls (PPP, for ex) will call the voter registration database but still not weight to voter registration.

Essentially, the problem you think you've identified is non-existent.

It is, indeed, a fairly controversial topic in polling.

more here.


early voting? (none / 0) (#38)
by suntos on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST

And what about the early voting numbers? Do they use voter ID or just registration numbers?


When the states report (none / 0) (#39)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST

early voting, they do so by registration and/or race. When the pollsters report on early voting, they're just reporting on a crosstab of the people they talked to who report having voting early.


yikes (none / 0) (#40)
by suntos on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST

That means I can't believe the early voting numbers.


: Cool it (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 04:49:35 PM EST

The polling comports with the released numbers. You are freaking out over a non-issue.

The Polls - 10/29

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment