Just a quick note to let you know that the site has been updated to reflect today's national tracking polls. There's nothing at all on the state side today.
Obama lost another point in both Rasmussen (bringing the race to a true dead heat) and Gallup (where he retains a 3-point advantage). It's still not yet enough to convince our model that anything serious is going on. Part of what's going on here, by the way, is that we've really had very light polling volume over the past week or so -- the whole notion that Obama's numbers are tanking is really just based on two surveys (Newsweek and the Rasmussen tracker). We should know more soon enough.
7.13.2008
Today's Polls, 7/13
@ 2:21 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
180 comments
If McCain is within 5 points the day before the election, he will win on vote day because many independents and even some Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience once they get inside that voting booth.
Rasmussen is cautioning that this could be statistical noise, presumably from a low number in the tracking poll that might be the one in twenty polls expected to be outside of the margin of error.
Gallup is emphasizing the fundamental stability of the race: "Today marks the 14th straight Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which 46% to 48% of voters favor Obama, and between 42% and 44% favor McCain."
But we will see how things develop.
Anon. You may be on to something about the race. I don't think people are quite honest if they are being polled and asked if race will effect their vote. It's something they may not want to admit, but the age for McCain is something they would not mind saying.
If the polls remain where they are now thru election day, boy o boy Obama and McCain got to keep their campaigns in tip-top shape. Obama can't afford another video, while McCain can't afford another Gramm comment.
What an election it is! But if McCain does win, Race could have been a reason why, especially for the senior citizens of this country that grew up in a racial society.
That is a sad commentary on this country but I think that you are correct. Having lived in Central Pennsylvania for the past 20 years I think that the prejudice is alive and well. It makes this a very sad part of the country in which to live but is true none the less. This means that those of us that think that Obama is the best hope for this country need to get out there to raise funds and promote him to every one we see. Obama 2008
Anonymous-- I've never seen too much of evidence to think something of a "Bradley effect" will happen here. It did not seem to happen consistently in the primaries. I can easily think there are many people in this country who "won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience" (and we could more precisely call these people what they are-- very racist), but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be honest about that decision to pollsters earlier in the process. Most polling is automated and anonymous, and the question of could you vote for a black man is no longer hypothetical the more Obama outperforms McCain. I won't be surprised by a drop in Obama's polls for various reasons, but I don't see an argument for a 5 point drop on election day just because.
I believe the Bradley effect is good for at least 3 points in the final regular polls and even in the election-day exit polls. Barack must appear to be ahead by at least 3 points to actually carry the national popular vote.
It'll be interesting to see in which states the Bradley effect is strongest. My guess would be in CA, MA, and NY (among the non-competitive states) and, among the swing states, I'd guess VA, FL, NC, GA, PA, OH, MO, CO, and MI.
P.S. And I think it could go the other way. Now granted I don't hang out with many closet racist people, but one of my good Republican friend is totally against all Obama policies but very on the fence from a purely "Wouldn't it be cool for that to happen" making-history perspective. If she or others like her were mixed on other issues, that could sway things last minute the same way a revelation of internal racism might. I guess you can call both positions "racism" to some extent.
>>even some Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience...<<
In good conscience ?
Congrats - you win today's award for unintentional irony courtesy of a bigot.
I understand why there was a lack of state polls around the Fourth of July. But now it is July 14 and there have been virtually no state polls in the last 4 days. What is going on? Are the pollsters on a month-long holiday?
Let's finally see OH, PA, CO, and VA again for Pete's sake.
The true nature of this election is now coming into focus after the bloom of beating Hillary has faded for Obama.
Voters like Obama but can't get past his total lack of experience and this is his major problem. If he had just one full Senate term or if he had one major accomplishment in his life (community organizer doesn't cut it) he would win in a walk. Obama, in truth, has no executive experience or experience of any kind other than running for the Democratic nomination.
This will be 2000/2004 all over again. Just get used to it.
There is no evidence of a Bradley effect. There was no evidence of a Bradley effect in the primaries. Chuck Todd, NBC's numbers guru, says he has seen no evidence of Bradley Effect throughout the primary. Polling in the primary campaign was often wrong, but it was wrong to Barack's advantage as much as it was wrong to his disadvantage.
The only person pushing a Bradley effect is Chris Matthews. His mom must of told him she was sneaking one by the pollsters.
Theres been a lot of talk of Bradley Effect which is to be expected. The polling in the primary was often way off and Obama is Black. Thats the only evidence. But often the polling was off for Hillary and there was no "Jennifer effect."
Is there racism, sure. No doubt. There are parts of the country where we know it exists, the rust belt being the most troubling electorally for Obama. But that doesen't mean racists are duping pollsters. We have no evidence of that.
Again I am not saying there is no Bradley effect, I am saying we have no proof. And having a "Feeling" doesn't qualify.
Just to throw my two cents in - My dad is in his seventies and harbors some racist tendencies (though he wouldn't admit to it). He definitely says things sometimes that make me uncomfortable - not good dinner conversation. He is originally from Virginia, where he lived until he was in his late twenties. He then moved to the midwest (Michigan and now, a Republican-leaning Chicago suburb). He considers himself more of a conservative independent, but he voted for Clinton and Kerry, and plans to definitely vote for Obama because he can't stand the direction that Republicans have been taking the country the past decade or so (very opposed to the Iraq war). Obviously this isn't something that can be extrapolated nationwide, but I'm willing to bet that there are indeed some 'racist'-esque individuals who will punch for Obama in the election, if only because they are opposed to some key Republican policies.
The reason why Obama won't win is because he is very, very, liberal. He views government as the save-all to everything. And those who work the hardest would get taxed the most. People don't like that sort of thing. Think McGovern or Mondale.
Here is when the state results are much more important.
Let's say that because of Obama's "move to the middle", he's cost himself 2% vote from liberals, but gained 1% from independents, for that net 1% downtrend.
Nate, can you do a "what-if" with your data and take away 2% of Obama's vote from the 10 most liberal states and give him 1% more in the next 10 states on that scale..I'm sure he improves his chances in the election.
You don't get bonus points for winning NY, CA and MA by ridiculous margins. Give up some cushion there and add half their loss to OH, PA and VA and it's a plus.
Too many 'explanations,' too few elections.
But what's missing here is a systematic comparison of what a macroeconomic model would predict vs. one based more on idiosyncratic factors such as candidates, campaign strategy, and issue framing.
Here's a useful summary of the different approaches, especially if you click on the links.
Sides' Monkey Cage
Ok, here it comes....if Obama is losing it is because we are a racist society.....its not because he has mostly far left ideas....its not because he can't be trusted (evidenced by convenient shifting positions)....it can't be because most Americans are more comfortable with the values and policies of McCain.
+And those who work the hardest would get taxed the most.+
There is some but not a lot of correlation between those who work the hardest and those who earn the most. When you talk to very successful executives they'll often talk about the hard work they put in, but also about the impossible-to-predict lucky breaks that were critical to their success paths. When you talk to the lower middle class folks struggling to get by, you'll be shocked by how hard they work, often two or three jobs to make it all work.
Is Obama a liberal? The liberals themselves are ready to strip him of the label after looking at his recent positions
What executive experience does John McCain have?
Barack Obama has legislative experience in the US Senate and the Illinois Senate. He also worked in community organizing and as a college teacher.
Barack Obama has run an excellent campaign. John McCain has not.
Now, as to hidden racists, some of which can defend this feeling by the inexperience attack: this may be present but some of these folks will simply not vote and many were voting Republican anyway. The young voters may see this as a non-issue. It is superficial, but the president in the TV show 24 was African-American and there have been others. Turn out is everything. Nat: please study turn out primary vs general election, party registrations, etc.
Oh no! More anons I agree with and anons I don't. How to address them? They're all jumbled up. How about using a distinguishing name, Anons? It doesn't have to be real; just consistent so that we know who we're addressing. Please?
i wouldn't blame a 3%+ shift towards mccain on election day to racism. i'd attribute it to diebold and es&s... to caging lists, and the justice department "nine."
that's why obama needs to have a comfortable lead to win. then their stealing won't affect the outcome.
Experience? How about McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman - real legislative acheivements absent from Obama's resume. Leadership? Refusing freedom in the Hanoi Hilton so as not to break his oath and to leave his mates behind. Executive? Commander of a Naval Aviation wing - Obama, a single staffer while he was a community organizer? Get real.
Obama is an empty vessel for change, constant change, since we don't really know what this guy believes in - Bill Clinton was right, he is a roll of the dice...
Yeah, the the scarcity of polls the past weekishas been kind of annoying. There are many swing states, like PA or VA or CO or MI or NM that haven't been polled in over 3 weeks!
Hopefully, this coming week we'll get those missing state polls, especially from the swing states, that will give us a better idea of whether Rasmussen is just noise or not.
Juris, you can adress them by their time/date stamp.
This post is full of McCain trolls, which makes the comments so pointless.
As to why there hasn't been much polling: My friend has a theory that most polling places are owned by republicans or republicans hiding as independents, and why would these firms want to release data that doesn't look good for their candidate? I also think its possible that many polling places/the media want this race to be very close right now for ratings and so we will check on their polls. I say this, because I don't know of anyone (except my mother) supporting McCain. I have NEVER seen a McCain lawn sign or bumper sticker either. I am from NJ, but people still have their Bush 2004 stickers, and no McCain ones. I smell a problem.
If people believe this flip flop nonsense, then your too ignorant to know the difference in reality and political spin. Its a political charge, it has no real world weight. McCain has changed on more issues and more important issues to win the republican nomination than Obama could dream to. This idea that changing position for political expedience shows a character flaw is a ploy only believed by the stupid. Yes it works, because many of the american people are uneducated. All this talk about the low information voter, lol, give me a break. If thats not a politically correct way of saying they don't have a clue, then I'm stupid. These voters exist and a flip flop charge works but anyone who will examine it knows its a political game that has no bearing on the character of a candidate.
There are lots of real reasons to not like Obama, but don't pretend that flip flopping is a reason. Mit Romney went from a Liberal Republican when Governor to the most conservative republican in the republican primaries. What did he have a religious awakening? No, he needed to appeal to the right.
John McCain embraced offshore drilling, a position he had opposed for decades, whole heartedly once it became politically advantageous. Has John McCain all of a sudden lost his moral compass? Has his character been lessened?
Of course not.
So lets keep the debate intelligent . Name calling and character assignations should be left up to the Olbermann's and Hannity's. We lessen the integrity of debate when we go there.
It's the economy, stupid.
Most voters mistakenly attribute the tanking economy to two factors: high energy prices and deflating home prices. The latter people will attribute to speculators and subprime borrowers; it's just not plausible to have median housing prices 10X median income. So, most voters will give BushCo a pass on that. Regarding the former, McCain wins HANDS DOWN, at least with Joe Six Pack. You can't possibly win without "drill drill drill" and nukes. McCain was able to flip-flop (quite brilliantly, believe it or not) by framing drilling as a matter of state rights and national security, which are highly valid points. Desperate times call for desperate measures, if it means revisiting your past beliefs (isn't that the main criticism of BushCo, that it's unwilling to reconsider failed policies). Nobody, except a total moron, thinks that solar and wind would be sufficient to be energy independent.
True, Barack Obama does not have executive experience besides for running the campaign, but this should not be dismissed. He certainly is doing a better job than John McCain. John McCain in total also does not have much executive experience. He has walked away from many of his positions and legislation. McCain got shot down pretty quickly and people have said his executive military experience was not substantial. Given his graduating rank in his class, it is not clear how he received a command.
Our current president had executive experience, but in many cases, he was handed a business and turned it back in worse shape. He certainly has not demonstrated the ability to lead and to judge reality.
Regarding the pollsters: let's not get too confidant. I hope they err on the side of McCain.
Experience means dick-all when it comes to being a good President.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
So stop trotting it out as though Obama having little government experience means anything regarding a potential Obama presidency. Its funny that McCain gets a pass on his experience, but Obama is run through the ringer.
Still on the Bradley discussion-- what I think is more likely is that undecideds to could shift to McCain last minute because a default response to "I don't know which way the country should go" is to vote for the status quo. That's an effect that was borne out of primary results several times-- it seemed the late breaking undecideds went more often to Hillary, she "closed" well. That might have been only a narrative that became prescient durinng her successful run in Appalachia towards the end of the campaigning, but I think there's some basis to it.
Anyway, I think if there's some reason to say Obama has to be polling extra ahead to actually win it has more to do with undecideds defaulting to McCain than secret racists feeling the need to lie to an automated poller.
I like this site more and more. The statistical discussion is unmatched, and the comments are by and large polite and intelligent.
As far as executive experience goes, neither has much so we go by the campaign's. Its not the same as running the country but these are huge organizations (Hundreds of millions of dollars)under tremendous scrutiny every minute of every day. The smallest mistake gets reported nationally, instantly ,and it all reflects on the head of that organization, the candidate. That is without doubt executive experience.
Even the most experienced republicans, the ones around since the 50's, the most ardent anti Obama conservatives say McCain's campaign is a mess. He is a great candidate with a great story , but his management skills are terrible. If he runs the country like his campaign it will be chaos.
In contrast, the most experienced, anti Obama republicans all admit that the Obama campaign is the most disciplined, well run, efficient machine they have ever seen. Yes Barack Obama has legitimate issues that he can be criticized for, but his management style cannot be questioned. For such an inexperienced, unqualified novice, his campaign has put much more experienced and qualified candidates campaign's to shame.
Don't talk to be about executive experience, we are witnessing it right before our eyes.
Long-term experience is extremely important. That Lincoln fellow was only in congress for two years and he was in the Illinois legislature for just 6 years. Heck, he even lost his bid to be senator to that Douglas guy. I don't think he has enough national legislative experience to run this country in these critical times.
I'd remind people that Obama was polling at just 15% with a month to go to the Illinois Senate Dem primary. He hoarded his money to the last month and then went on a TV blitz. He won in a landslide.
Obama doesn't have to worry about his left flank because he knows Republicans will be making the case for his liberal bona fides on his behalf soon enough.
Obama's FISA move was well played. What scares people is not liberalism per se, but tin foil hat liberalism, and there was too much of that element in the DailyKos/Kucinich/Ron Paul gang opposed to the FISA bill. People are concerned about losing their jobs, not some govt boogie man tapping international e-mails.
Two thoughts:
First, the Bradley effect, if present, works against Obama on election day but turnout issues probably work for him. Pollsters have to try to figure out who a "likely" voter is and if, for example, Obama gets formerly disinterested young people into the process then those polls could underestimate his support. Take the two together and it means that polls have to be taken with a larger grain of salt than usual this time around; we just don't know how this will play out! Even Nate's models are in uncharted territory...
Secondly, on the overall trends in the polls. Looking at the SuperTracker, I see four stages so far.
1) Obama becomes known and increasingly viable, giving him a boost through mid-February.
2) McCain clinches the nomination, while the Democratic fight drags on. This yields the drop in late February and early March, as Republicans unify and Democrats split.
3) A steady but gradual rise for Obama from mid-March to the end of the primaries. (Notice, by the way, that there's no evidence of Rev. Wright or the bitter comments in there at all. The SuperTracker shows the same steady Obama increase all through that period.)
4) A unity "bounce" in the last month.
Right now the last month looks like a classic temporary bounce on top of the underlying pro-Obama trendline. But it's a bit too soon to tell if that's the case. Obama could keep falling through the old trendline. Or the race could stabilize and the trend go flat. Or the old rise could resume.
In any case, of course, there are likely to be further gyrations due to Obama's foreign trip, the VP announcements, the conventions, and then the debates.
Dear Anon:
Addressing Anons by their date/time stamp implies that they are all individual persons each time they post. If they really want to engage in a social interaction that involves more than a single shot comment, they'd use a consistent name over all postings on a given thread. We shouldn't have to play detective to figure out whether anon 5:43 is the same as anon 2:31, etc. So I'll just rail on as I have and ask for them to have the courtesy to "sign in" with the same name on each thread even if it's a fake name.
Eventually this blog may require registration, but in the absence of that the least people can do is use a "name." From my experience, that fosters a lot more "responsibility" for opinions expressed, and a more fruitful conversation.
Re: Obama's "move to the middle."
There seems to be a tendency for people to think of independents as something between a Republican and a Democrat. In some ways that's true, but it's important to remember that the political spectrum in the real world isn't one-dimensional. "Democrat -> Independent -> Republican" makes about as much sense as "Liberal -> Moderate -> Conservative." As a rough approximation it works, but we are well-served to remember that it's just that: a rough approximation.
In reality, I suspect that many voters are independent not because they are some sort of Democrat-Republican hybrid, but because they have beliefs that are core to neither party. To support this, consider Gallup's congressional approval ratings. Over the last eight years, independents have consistently been among the harshest critics of Congress. Recently, they have often been more critical of Congress than either Democrats or Republicans. This suggests that independent voters might not be torn between Republicans and Democrats; rather, they might just be people who dislike both parties.
I mention this now because I see a lot of analysis implying that the way to appeal to independent voters is for a Democrat to act like a Republican, or a Republican to act like a Democrat. To some extent this is certainly true, but I suspect there are many independents who are looking for politicians who act like neither Democrats nor Republicans. Perhaps the way to appeal to these voters is to identify the issues that have no voice, and become the voice for those issues.
For example, I suspect that both Ron Paul and Barack Obama owe much of their early support from independent voters to the fact that they stood apart from both parties on key issues, such as the Iraq War and Patriot Act. Going forward, for both Obama and McCain, those independent voters who are upset with the actions of both Democrats and Republicans may be a demographic worth targeting. It might actually be more productive to pursue these voters, who favor neither party, then to go after voters who are already leaning towards the other guy.
Modeller: I agree with you. It will be the third party candidates, however, who are mainly trying to go after the "none of the above" voters.
I think the pollsters often don't give us, or the candidates, enough information, however, to know when an independent is a 'tweener' and when s/he's a 'none of the above' voter. In the standard survey questions in the ANES, there's a way to find such people but often the researcher just collapses the two types of voters into a single category.
anon: we've heard that argument all year from a certain 'Billary'. If you're supporting Obama you have to campaign for him -simple as that. You're on to 'nothing'.
Rasmussen seems to be doing a Gallup at the moment. However, I expect a ten-point leap for Obama after his Phileas Fogg-esque jaunt (unless he's caught in flagrante with Hagel, in which case only a 3-point rise). Can you factor the 'tenner' in now plz, Nate, or do we have to wait?
Someone said: Obama is a 'liberal' - hence he won't win! In the land of the 'free' isn't 'liberal' a good thing? Or is 'liberal' a dirty word because it has become 'land of the wiretapped'?
I must say the liberal left of the democratic party really irritates me. The Huffington post, Daily Kos, and other "Liberal" organizations like MoveOn, have become nothing more than left wing counterparts of Right Wing ideologues like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
They no more help the political debate in this country than do the cable News shows. I want a bi-partisan consensus builder in the white house, not a right wing or left wing ideologue. If by shifting to the center Obama is showing us how he intends to govern, then by all means keep it up Barack, you're exactly what I'm looking for.
"Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience" what rock did crawl out from under? Does that white hood make it hard to see the screen?
Anyone else have an opinion of Jesse Ventura?
I really like the guy. Theres something refreshing about hearing honesty and not your typical political spin every day. I happen to agree with a lot of his positions as well.
Does anyone know how he did as Gov. or Minnesota?
Nate,
You should allow only registered users to comment. Wading through the McCain talking points has made the comments section of the blog unreadable.
Jesse Ventura was incompetent as governor and pretty much ended up offending everybody. I can't say that he was less competent than Arnie was when he began, but Arnie learned from his mistakes (or rather accommodated himself to reality) while Jesse never did.
I kind of agree with the 1st anon. If Obama is up by 5 pts. before election day and the media narrative is that he's going to win, I think some people will cast sympathy votes for McCain... most people think he is a great guy (though wrong on the issues) and he has a great bio so people will feel sorry for him if he suffers an electoral blowout. To cause a 5% shift, only 1/40 Obama voters have to change their mind at the last minute.
There won't be sympathy votes for McCain. What the hell is wrong with you guys. Hillary got some from her female counterparts in the primaries and thats fine. The MSM had a field day attacking her, the women got pissed and came to her defense.
I see no reason why McCain will get any sympathy votes. I don't believe McCain has a constituency that can claim historical hardship being a wealthy white guy and all.
Juris,
Thanks for the pointer to ANES. I looked up the 2004 cross-tabs for the questions "Is there anything you like about the Republican Party" and "Is there anything you like about the Democratic party." The results:
Something likeable about both parties: 29.8%
Nothing likeable about either party: 27.6%
Something likeable about D, but not R: 25.5%
Something likeable about R, but not D: 17.1%
If I am reading this correctly, it suggests that true partisans are in the minority, and that the "none of the above" crowd is about as big as the "tweener" crowd. This is 2004 data, and the national mood has only soured since then. I suspect the "none of the above" crowd has taken the lead this year.
For those who say there will be no Bradley effect in November because there wasn't one in the primaries (a debatable point given how exit polls understated Hillary's support on several primary nights), they are overlooking the history of where the term came from.
The Bradley effect was famously observed in GENERAL elections for Governor and Mayor in CA, VA, and NYC -- not in primaries. There will be one in November.
BrianDell, Barack won the Dem Senate primary because of a last-minute divorce scandal that sank the Dem frontrunner just as a similar divorce/sex scandal ruined Jack Ryan the Repub frontrunner who pulled out. In Nov. 2006, Barack got to run against Alan Keyes, the worst Senate nominee of all time -- who alienated every demographic group in IL.
Chris and Jeanine siting Obama's superior campaign vs. McCain's as evidence of his being the better candidate is absurd.
If that were true, George W. Bush would be rated up with F.D.R.
Ahhh, but logic is not the basis of Obama's appeal - its the 'Audacity of Hope' as the good Rev. Wright so artfully sermonized....
Stephen has reminded me of something. The Bradley effect does not involve people falsely saying to pollsters that they will vote for a black candiddate.
Instead, they lie and say they are undecided when they already plan to vote for the white candidate. Then the pollsters try to explain the unpredicted outcome as "all the undecideds broke for the white candidate at the last minute."
Modeler:
Excellent point about independents. I'm a registered Independent who is most definitely to the left of the Democratic Party, to say nothing of the Republican Party.
Michael writes...
Voters like Obama but can't get past his total lack of experience and this is his major problem. If he had just one full Senate term or if he had one major accomplishment in his life (community organizer doesn't cut it) he would win in a walk. Obama, in truth, has no executive experience or experience of any kind other than running for the Democratic nomination.
This will be 2000/2004 all over again. Just get used to it.
This is a truly bizarre comment. Whatever may have been the faults of Gore and Kerry, a lack of experience was not an issue for either of them.
Better trolls please.
The same comment might apply to all those screaming about how ultra-liberal Obama is. Nate had an excellent post up about a month ago that looked at what is apparently the political science gold standard of ideological ratings, according to which Obama is (not surprisingly) in the middle of the pack among Democratic Senators, though he has been a little more liberal in this Congress than in the last one (incidentally Democratic Senators are, on the whole, a little less liberal than Democratic Congresspeople).
The problem I have with these comments isn't their skepticism toward Obama but their truthiness.
who is the only conservative still in the race ?
Barr
Re: my 4:20 post.
It turns out that about 80% of the people who find nothing to like in either party also find nothing to dislike. So it's more of an "I don't know" than "none of the above."
Ben,
Thanks. I'm also thinking of people who are lost on the "liberal-conservative" scale. For example, there are civil libertarians who consider themselves liberal, and there are civil libertarians who consider themselves conservative. They wander about without a home these days.
Bob Barr is not a conservative anymore if he ever truly was. He now favors legalization of drugs even though he used to lead the war on drugs. He now hates the Patriot Act even though he was its staunchest supporter in th a past.
And despite his opposition to Roe v. Wade, it was revealed that in 1982 he drove his second wife to a clinic to get an abortion that he paid for -- apparently so he would not have to pay child support once he married his mistress who became his third wife. Mr. Family Values.
Too much analyzing going on with all of these polls. the real polls won't come till October.
Right now if you average the polls for July Obama has a 2 point lead. Not much, but it could give him the electoral votes needed to win.
Remember John Kerry was ahead in July by 2 points. I don't think Obama got the bounce in the polls that he though he would.
His charge to the middle has caused this fall. Since Obama is not a known quantity there are to many people who think he is not telling the truth.
I think the tie in Rasmussen is a big deal. For an entire month, Obama was ahead in the Rasmussen poll, but after this charge to the middle Obama fell. Noticed I said Obama fell, because McCain didn't rise.
This tortuous move to the center has left everybody wondering who Barack Hussein Obama really is. His die hard supporters don't care. the right wing does not believe him , and those in the center are asking themselves who is Obama.
there was a great article in the New York Daily News by Michael Goodwin, everybody should read this article and ask themselves, Who is Barack Obama.
Mike H--possible, but I wouldn't be so sure. For a Bradley effect to take hold, you have to have two things happen: people have to say to pollsters they'll vote for Obama, and then not do it because of race. Classically, the idea is that they're embarrassed to tell pollsters they won't vote for Obama. (Insert various degrees of conscious/subconscious behavior as you please. For example, they may truly believe they'll vote for Obama when they talk to the pollster, but have vague misgivings in the polling booth.)
So there will be essentially zero Bradley effect from Republicans: why would they even say to the pollster they'd cross party lines in the first place?
But what about Democrats and independents? They have plenty of "cover" if they don't want to vote for Obama. They can say it's because he's too liberal or not true to his liberal causes. They can feel Hillary was robbed. Heck, Obama kind of gave them permission to say it was Rev. Wright. So I'm not sure how much pressure there is for them to say one thing to the pollsters and then do another.
On the other hand, undecideds often broke strongly one way or another in the primaries. To me, it's more plausible that a kind of Bradley effect could be at play in some of those cases: people feel compelled to tell the pollster they're keeping an open mind because they don't want to sound racist, but in reality their mind is pretty made up. It wasn't consistent; in some states the undecideds broke one way, and in some others.
So my expectation for the general? Any state where Obama is polling at 49% or more in late October I'll expect him to win. But if he's ahead, say, 45% to 40% in some state, I'll be much more nervous about it.
i see McCain trolls are telling us that Obama is black
can a black man really become president ?
yes, it can happen
i'm white & from the deep south but i will vote for Obama because McCain is BUSH 2
i sure don't need BUSH 2=$12 GAS
i pray that whites like me who are called certain names & called a racist will vote for Obama to show that there are whites that really don't give a **** about color
rural folks are invisible
nobody gives a **** about us
my friends share the same views
its getting very hard to live
i worry about my family everyday
i was going to vote for Barr but
i saw some Obama videos & decided to support him
got my wife on board also :-)
lets give this Obama guy a try
Modeler: on the ANES, there's also ambiguity on the basic "party ID" questions. I don't have exact wording here, but it goes something like this:
Q1. Generally speaking do you consider yourself to be a Democrat, an Independent, a Republican, or something else?"
Q2. (if Q1 answer was Dem or Rep) Do you consider yourself to be a strong (Democrat/Republican) or a weak (Democrat/Republican)? [respondents then fall into SR, WR, WD, SD categories]
Q3. (if Q1 answer was Independent)
Do you lean toward the Democrats or toward the Republicans? [respondents then fall into Independent Republican (IR), Independent (I), Independent Democrat (ID)].
With these three questions they derive a 7-point party ID distribution, from SR, WR, IR, I, ID, WD, SD.
But what gets lost in the mix is that in answer to Q1 there were some respondents who said "something else" and some who did not answer or refused to answer (but who were asked the question).
I haven't seen a good analysis of how large this residual category is, but it would seem to include not just people who are "apoliticals" (as they are sometimes said to be) but who reject the Dem-Repub axis as a criterion for classifying themselves. However, researchers sometimes fold this residual category in with the Independents on the 7-point scale. From some analysis I've done, these residual category voters are not really like the independents on the 7-point scale, either in the likelihood that they will vote or in who they might choose to vote for.
Whoops, by the time I noticed my post hadn't gone because of an html typo, Mike H had amended his description of the Bradley effect to match mine. :)
Anon @ 4:45: You're factually incorrect about the Rasmussen tracking polls. With leaners, McCain averaged 43.9% in the first half of June, 44.0% in the second half of June, to 44.5% in the first half of July. Obama went from 48.8% in the first half of June to 48.6% in the second half of June to 48.1% in the first half of July. The drop for Obama is almost exactly the same as the rise for McCain. Without leaners McCain went from 40.4% to 40.3% to 41.1%, Obama from 46.2% to 46.0% to 45.0%. Once again, almost exactly the same.
I think the wringing of hands over a possible Bradley effect is playing into the hands of the Rove cronies who will attempt to steal the election for McCain. Such a story will give them additional cover for an unbelievable shift in voter preference from opinion polls to the reported vote counts, but not necessarily the actual votes.
The election where the Bradley effect was assumed to have happened was in 1982. Do you not believe that we might have come some distance from there in the intervening 26 years? The percentage of people who will lie that they prefer Obama and then vote for McCain because of race is probably very small. But you can bet the right-wing spin meisters will be trying hard to convince us that's what happened if McCain pulls out enough surprises in close states where he shouldn't have enough votes to win.
Nate - good analysis as always.
I agree with a previous poster that giving up 2 pts in some very liberal areas wit hbig leads to add 1% in a number of closer swing states sounds right to me.
I am still fascinated by 2 items in all these tracking polls:
1) What days of the week are included impact the results based on whose home when...
2)Also not seeing the internals on young voters, hispanics and black %'s is hard and I suspect with the rise of cellphones
Nate - any thoughts on these variables??
I see the states in the left margin got a polish...very nice!
It's this simple: a vote for McCain is proof of a character flaw, or possibly lack of moral guidance. It's not necessarily the individual McCain but what he represents, who he has to serve and the continued and prolonged suffering he will bring to the citizens of the country and the world. I hate FISA and I hate that Obama voted for it, but I also hate that the left can't see past it's own ass and plays right into one of the most ridiculous and simple minded soundbites the illiterate, idiot media spits out: Flip-Flopper. Take out Obama and you ruin the country. It's that simple. I hope their pet projects are worth it.
yeah Mike H-- I refreshed myself on what the Bradley effect meant and I think that's a reasonable explanation of some primary results. But I also wouldn't discount the possibility of late breaking movement to Obama because of the sheer history of what his election would mean.
I know there are plenty of other factors, and I'm certainly not saying most McCain voters are racist, but-- if those two effects were the dominant factors for late undeclared voters, then all you'd really have to determine is whether the undecided group was latent racists or their opposite (wanting to see a race boundary broken). I think that is actually an answer some polling could try to answer. Once determining a voter is undecided, you could ask if the historical nature of Obama's campaign as the first serious AA nominee makes you more or less likely to vote for him. A latent racist can easily say no effect if wanting to save face, or less likely if they're feeling brazen, while the latent "anti-racist" can say more likely. Or you can predict their vote by their demographics, which is sort of wrong to say "well they're poor and white, so they're probably not voting for Obama."
By the way-- with the "leaner" question, do the polls ever ask just that? Like-- "who will you vote for," and then "are you leaning towards McCain or Obama?" My guess is people who won't say who they're voting for could actually tell you who they're leaning to most of the time, rather than having the poll guess based on one of their later answers in support of a candidate's position (like Rasmussen says they do).
Tied in one poll and people are freaking out! Sheez...
Obama has lost the bigots and will win some anti-bigots.
Bush won in 2004 because evangelicals loves him. They don't love McCain and many of them will sit this one out in November. But still, they answer the phone in July.
And there will be more AA, hispanic, young and urban voters than anytime before.
>> The election where the Bradley effect was assumed to have happened was in 1982. Do you not believe that we might have come some distance from there in the intervening 26 years?
Ever drive through rural America? Some places are not much different than they were in 1982.
I think the so-called Bradley Effect is real. Obama never outperformed his polling average in any Appalachian state. If you look at his percentage from the average of all the polls taken before the PA primary, Obama basically got none of the undecideds. The same thing happened in Ohio, and in Kentucky and West Virginia.
My suspicion is that it's going to come down to the national numbers. States like PA and MI lean Democrat in normal years by a handful of points. PA went for Kerry by about 2 1/2 points in 2004 and Michigan went for Kerry by about 3 1/2 points. Both states have high elderly populations that just won't vote for the black man. But I don't believe the Bradley Effect is going to necessarily be the kiss of death for Obama. I suspect that what will probably end up happening is that the small advantage Democrats have in states like PA and MI will be negated by a candidate that doesn't fit the profile of someone we would expect to do well in those states.
So here's what I think. If Obama wins the popular vote, he'll probably carry MI and PA. But if McCain can continue to slowly gain ground and overcome Obama nationally then he'll probably see MI and PA swing his way. I think when push comes to shove - states like OH, MO and FL are going to be an uphill climb for Obama and he'd have better luck in CO and VA - where the population is not as skewed to the elderly.
Just my hunch.
I can´t quite explain the gap between national polling and state polling. Obama leads in the biggest states with huge margins: California, New York, Illinois. Florida is barely McCain, and only Texas is a safe, big state for McCain. The 2nd-tier states are all leaning-safe Obama or barely McCain: Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania.
And yet, the national polls are close, usually closer than 5%. Does McCain catch up in the smaller states? I don´t even see that - McCain got his Oklahama, Tennesee, West Virginia - but Obama has his Maine, Vermont, Maryland. In the projection they each win 25 states, but Obama wins more electoral votes - because he wins the bigger states. And I heard that actually the small 3-vote states are the ones that are overweighted, so McCains national lead should even be lower than the electoral vote would suggest.
Obama can't lose Pennsylvania and win the election. Not possible. I seriously doubt he can lose Michigan and still win. It may be there on paper but practically speaking thats a long shot.
Theres no evidence of a Bradley effect, anywhere. Its a theory. You guys are going with a "Gut" feeling because we perceive the racial problems in this country effecting the polls. There is a racial problem but there is no evidence that it effects polling. None.
Well, because it is a secret ballot, it is very hard to prove it either way
Matt,
I agree. The problem for Democrats is that they picked a risky candidate. The demographics in PA and MI are such that any inherent edge the Democrats usually have will probably be gone for this cycle. Even looking at the numbers, Nate's projection for Michigan is Obama +3.8. Well if Obama is really winning nationally by about 4 points as the site also projects that's not a good thing. It suggests that if McCain can simply close the gap on the national level, he'll get an extra 17 electoral votes.
Obama will have 95%+ of the black vote, but it won't do him any good if that vote is concentrated in southern states. It doesn't matter if McCain wins Mississippi by 20 points or by 5 points. I'm not a Democrat so I just don't understand why the party decided to take a sure win and risk it with such an unproven candidate. I'm not sure what Obama really brings to the table. He never proved himself in a tough campaign. He never showed political strength by winning any debates in the political arena. He doesn't have any real record of accomplishment in the senate. I frankly just don't get it.
Hillary would have been a much more formidable candidate. Now I'm a realist - Obama might win anyway - but where has he shown that he can bring people along to his point of view? The Dems, in a year tailor made for them, chose the black guy when a black guy has never been on a national ticket before. The track record for Democrats since 1976 is that they never get more than 51 percent of the vote. Even if Obama wins, it's going to be because the GOP is demoralized and divided. There's no question that if a liberal like Obama comes to power and the congress is solidly in Democrat hands that the GOP won't come roaring back.
Again - i don't get it. Democrats love to point out that Rove's 2004 playbook was a short-term gain at the expense of a long-term setback. I don't see how Democrats don't see the same thing happening if Obama wins.
Ah, and something about the Bradley effect....I still remember that one number from the Kentucky primary, 20% of the voters were saying that race was an important factor in their decision. This number was so awfully high...and yet one would have to assume that this was just the visible tip of the iceberg. But does really half or more of Kentucky consist of racists?
I don´t think so, I rather think that people honestly confessed their racism, and maybe even took some pride out of it. Those 20% of voters were most of the racists there.
Race has become a rationalized issue during this campaing. People can now officially claim to be racists and gain some understanding. That was also a consequence of Obama´s Wright speech - the rationalization of racial problems...anyway, I believe the Bradley effect will be smaller than some might expect.
There's no way of knowing how big the Bradley Effectg will be. All we can go on is what we've seen in the primary contests. What we know is that in states with older populations, and in Appalachia, Obama lost the undecideds at the end. They almost exclusively swung against him. That says to me that in order for him to win in states like OH, PA, MI, MO, KY, WV (he certainly won't get the last two) he's going to have to have a polling average at or above 50 percent on Halloween. If he doesn't and if the polls look like Obama 46, McCain 45 - well, then we'll know who is going to win those states.
By the way, a similar thing happened to Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. He was ahead in some of the surveys in late autumn, but never above 46 or 47 and of course, he ultimately lost.
The statistical analysis won't mean much if there is a "whitey" tape that the Clinton supporter blogged about. I really hope that there is no such tape. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could hold such racial animus agaist any group of people. I think that Obama should directly answer as to whether the tape could exist. That way we would have a chance to nominate Mrs. Clinton before the convention. If we wait until it's too late, all will be lost.
jack-be-quick - There's a statement on Obama's fight the smears site stating directly there is no such tape and linking to a thorough vetting of the fake chronology laid out by those who are spreading this smear.
But you probably already knew that and were just trying to promote the smear via your comment.
Jack-be-quick: he has. It's addressed directly on his website, and any time he or his surrogates has been asked about its existence he vehemently denies it. The story didn't hold up at all anyway-- no one could agree as to what Michelle Obama was supposed to be talking about in the clip or where she was saying it. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're bringing it up out of concern and not just to hurt Obama, but seriously, until such a tape is produced it's speculative and stupid to talk about its potential effect. It's like the suggestion campaigns about Muslim. And it would be equivalent to me saying "Wow I hope there isn't a McCain marital affair that will surface from his past" without having any proof. Just having it become a rumor is damaging enough.
Can we have a rule for this blog that there's no place for promoting smears and an agreement that it's useless to talk about where Hillary Clinton would be in this race?
With regard to the latter, there's no way to know how Clinton would be doing right now. Just look at the claims made based on primary exit polls regarding Obama, such as his purported difficulties with hispanics, that have been proven false. There's no way to credibly project from the nomination period to the current moment because we don't know what would have happened in the weeks since the nomination was wrapped up.
adam said:
"I'm not a Democrat so I just don't understand why the party decided to take a sure win and risk it with such an unproven candidate. I'm not sure what Obama really brings to the table. He never proved himself in a tough campaign. He never showed political strength by winning any debates in the political arena."
The party didn't pick Obama; the voters did. He was not the choice of the establishment at the beginning of this process. And if you don't think he proved himself in a tough campaign, what do you call the primary campaign that he won? Bean bag? I think he won some debates in the process, too.
Definitely agree with Mainer. (Still I can't resist my two cents-- Hillary had high negatives and not much Independent appeal. Things would surely have shaken out differently in a Hillary/McCain match up, but who can say how it would have been.)
And generally-- why did the Democrats go with Obama even though the black guy was risky? I think just the fact that it was risky and new and historic was part of the appeal. Not everyone felt that way, not everyone voted that way, but he won the nomination so yes he's proven himself. (I always loved that electability argument trying to trump the actual state of the election, haha)
The tape alleged to contain whitey does not contain it. Check the Obama fight the smears site.
I think unless McCain gets his act together that his current "brand" advantage will diminish.
If Barack comes out of Denver with a semblance of unity and direction -- particularly if this has elements of an appeal to Eisenhowet Republicans of the type Susan Eisenhower represents -- there could well be an Obama breakaway, moving beyond the typical daily tracking figures.
That would move us more toward a 1964 situation.
The causes would hardly be the same but the results could be.
Obama would be regarded as a pragmatic centrist whose administration will be huge contrast to recent admins. When you get into Obama's plans as published on his site you see how much of what he intends is really a shape up and fly right targeting of governance itself -- really reforming how things are done in Washington.
We have been through the rough vetting and conflict time, and are now in the initial phase of defining the fall phase. I think when we get there Obama will be considerably stronger and better regarded than he is now and McCain may mot be able to overcome difficulties that already are apparent -- including an almost impossible tension between his maverick persona and the positions he has supported to win the nomination.
Those who read the latest polls seem unwilling to accept at face value that Obama is declining in the polls and has been for some time.
It should surprise no one that an inexperienced left of center African American of Muslim extraction is being challenged in the polls by a genuine American war hero who is widely hailed as both a moderate and a maverick.
The struggles many are having crediting these polls is that they cannot believe the Democrats are facing the prospect of losing.
It is entirely probable that Obama's improbable candidacy, coupled with his lurch to the right, has actually done something re-establish Republican Party identification.
There are two concerns about Obama: (1) he is inexperienced and cannot lead in a crisis and (2) he is too exotic and different from the people he is seeking votes from.
It is hard to see how he overcomes either of these easily.
Many seem to believe, as I do, that the Republicans have gotten on the right side of the oil issue by promoting domestic production and expansion of nuclear power.
More interestingly, an entire re-evaluation of the Iraq war and its prospects is coming.
Obama's trip there this week contains much opportunity and peril for him.
There are rumblings that Bush himself may now accelerate the pace of withdrawal -- taking the issue, to a degree, away from both Obama and McCain.
The argument will be about the past: who was right on the war versus who was right on the surge. It may just wind up being a draw.
My instinct is that Obama will take the short end of the stick; the left will demand too much from him on the issue than the rest of the country will bear.
Add to this the growing perception that he is a flip-flopper which undermines his whole ethic as a candidate. McCain can sustain it better for two reasons: (1) he has such a long history on the national stage that he has lower risk in having perceptions changed about him and (2) the electorate is center-right; in that regard McCain starts from a position of strength in terms of where he is placed ideologically. Obama, by contrast, absolutely needs to credibly move to the center because a Democrat can only win in the primary as a leftist and then must lurch to the center to have a shot at winning the ideological battle.
If McCain is smart he will come out of the box hard on Iraq on Monday and force Obama into a corner and not allow him much maneuvering room.
This may yet be McCain's biggest test of his candidacy for the entire election: Does he let Obama wriggle off the Iraq Hook?
All of this rubbish about the Bradley effect is pablum. The adherents are resorting to "proving" their argument by noting (correctly) that there is racism in rural America. Fair enough. Then they make an incorrect leap of logic by equating the existence of racism with the existence of the effect.
This is wrong. The Bradley effect is predicated on one assumption and one assumption alone; the thought that racists will lie to pollsters. And that requires a fair bit of empirical evidence to prove, empirical evidence that none here have presented in any form. There are racists in America, certainly, but I know of little evidence that those in rural areas would lie about it. It's a terribly disrespectful school of thought to so staunchly support, especially when you have no evidence beyond intuition and a few scattered anecdotes.
As for Obama's lead, it's my opinion that the polls will show the race tightening for a little while due to polling fatigue, but that we'll return to the status quo (Obama +4-6) relatively soon. In order to change the dynamics of the race in an estimable fashion, I think McCain needs to do something big and get noticed, or Obama needs to really botch things up. I don't see either happening until late August, if even then.
It's funny listening to everyone post tonight. Its all a pile of crap. It really is.Its a good thing Nate sticks to the numbers because someone has too. This is all political gossip. Its fun to read, but its all opinion. Everyone posting should end their post with "And thats my opinion and it doesn't mean crap." Hell, i feel like Joe Biden was the best democratic candidate. He's walk over the republicans. And thats my opinion and it doesent mean crap.
Adam believes theres a Bradley Effect, to which there is no evidence. He believes that Barack can't get above 46-47% which could be a ceiling without noting that McCain can't get above 43-44%, Is that a ceiling? Or is it only Obama who has a ceiling? So thats your opinion and it doesn't mean crap.
Jack-be-quick is talking about a Whitey tape and the fact that Obama should talk about the tape, only that he did deny its existence and the campaign proved Michelle Obama was not at the hotel they claim she was at on the date the tape asserted. Funny thing them smears, people tend to believe them but its hard to argue facts. Yo Jack, that news is three weeks old, gotta keep up with the latest smear.
Yup, lots of crap. Funny thing about common wisdom, it remains common, until it isn't. Like the McCain campaign was over last July, yeah that was a lot of peoples opinion.
And Hillary, yeah she was gonna walk through the Primaries. Everyone believed that, everyone on every network, every blog, it was over. That was common wisdom. How'd that turn out?
We should all agree that everything we say, including me when I'm prognosticating about the future, without solid facts to point it out, is a pile of crap. Nobody knows whats gonna happen.
McCain could forget something in the debates, thus seeming senile and lose in a landslide.
Reverend Right could come out a week before the election with a tape of Obama cursing out some crackers. Then McCain would win in a landslide.
It could remain a nail biter until election day and a huge turnout could put Obama over the top in an easy win. Or McCain could win because of a Bradley effect that nobody could predict.
Human beings are not so good at predicting the future, lets stick with the facts. Everything else is a pile of crap.
As a Clinton supporter, I still have some convincing by Obama to get me to vote for him. I don't, however, even for a second believe that the birth certificate that Daily Kos posted from the BHO campaign is a fake. Just because the certificate number is blocked and there is no imprint of certification doesn't mean he fabricated the document. It could be that he just lost it and forgot to send in for a new one before he entered the race for president. Or, he could have just spilled his milk on it when he was eating cookies.
I think those wascully Republicans will try to distract us into another war. I think the guilty rich should pay more and more taxes because it was mostly luck that they have the money. I think we should pass out 10 carbon coupons to every American. Once they are gone, people would have to pay tax for each one. People caught trading or forging coupons would be forced into prison. I for one, would feel more comfortable if we live a more simple life...less choices. To combat global warming, we need to force all poor and middle income people on to buses and mass transit.
I agree with Aaron
The national polls, like the popular vote, is irrelevant unless the movement is being driven by movement in electoral rich swing states. Obviously, if New York, California and Texas- the 3 biggest states- account for a disproportionate share of the national poll movement, it's irrelevant; no realistic amount of give or take will change those states' colors come November. The only polls I bother reading about are individual state polls.
I'm worried about Jack-be-nimble
@Pete Kent, 7:00 PM
I don't usually agree with you, but you have a solid point. This is McCain's biggest test yet. If he can maneuver Obama into a corner and hammer him on it, he can weaken him on the issue that motivates his base.
This may not have an effect in the polling (and as we all know, that isn't what matters right now), but it could have an very large impact on fundraising. I don't know what Barack's numbers are going to be for June, but one of his problems at reaching a 100 million month is that his lurch to the center has weakened his support among the huge network of college liberals that were powering his donation train.
That, I think, is one of the main reasons as to why Obama has resorted to the big donor meetings he eschewed before. He's having more trouble than he used to at making money. Still. This is McCain's only real shot to drive the debate directly into a field that will harm one of Obama's major advantages. If he can't erase the money lead now while he still has a chance and replace it with a rough tie, I don't think he's got more than an outside shot at winning. His campaign needs to show some spunk, or it'll be left in the dust.
Pete Kent: I'll be happy to accept an underdog Obama once it happens. America likes underdogs better than the favorites to win. If we start seeing Obama actually behind in the national polls (he hasn't been behind for months) or consistently behind in some battleground states he needs, then that will definitely be the case. The problem with saying "he's slipping in national polls and will continue to" is those are all samplings of a population where individuals are making up their mind. It's simply very unlikely that the American population's decision making is a slow and linear process. Realistically, I think there's probably almost no movement now-- everyone paying attention to their favorite candidate's performance has their mind made up and those that are undecided won't start tuning in til later. When I watch the Gallup poll jump a couple points every day it always makes me think how funny that that swing 1-2% changes their vote every day. They don't! People change their vote, but not back and forth every other week. And a lower poll result doesn't mean the next drop will be the along the linear fit of the last 3 polls. It's much harder than that to characterize. That's the whole point of this site!
Aaron, don't respond to the likes of him. It'll just encourage him. Ignore, ignore, ignore.
There ain't no bringing down the democratic base this year. You could put a donkey with the DNC logo tattooed on his ass and the Dems would turn out. George Bush has ensured excitement in the democratic base. The mere thought of having a democratic President after the last eight years sends jolts of orgasmic bliss shooting through them. They'll turn out regardless of how much Obama pisses them off.
On the "Bradley Effect": If you are truly concerned about it, then just follow the robo-polls such as Rasmussen and ignore the rest. There is not going to be any Bradley Effect when people are talking to a machine!
Pete Kent, a few days ago you were threatening to leave this site, that it is biased and Nate cooks the numbers, etc. And now your posts are longer than ever . . .
What has changed?
Matt J H
you're right about jack-be-nimble.....something's fishy haha
Pete Kent,
Frankly, I find McCain the exotic one. Born in a family of Admirals, father and grandfather. Obama was the one born in the struggling middle class, like most people.
Mike Barook
Obama has been in steady decline in the Rasmussen sample since his famous two Press Conferences on Iraq on July 3. Gallup has been more stable though also downward for him, and the other polls show a decline for Obama as well. This drop off is based on his unsupported move to the right.
Fundraising appears already to be a problem for Obama. The forsecast I heard for him in July is $30 million -- far from the $100 million he hoped for.
He now starts the campaign in a hole and with the need to court the big donors in the Democratic party, meaning he will spend much more of the Fall campaigning for money and not votes.
I would say the vectors have turned against him and he must await or create a development to turn them.
This has been Obama's campaign to win or lose. He has fought it to a draw right now.
Sorry--racism can't be used as an excuse if BO doesn't win.
Most people on this site decried HRC's claims of sexism.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. All candidates ultimately rise or fall on their own merits.
I think it's interesting that Obama has done (somewhat) better in the Gallup dailies this week while doing (apparently) worse in Rasmussen. The biggest shift seemed to happen on Thursday, I think, where he went up on Gallup and down on Rasmussen. The pattern has been the opposite for the last six weeks - this is the first time O's margin has been better on Gallup. So I think there's certainly good reason to wait this out. Seems as likely to be "noise" as anything else (as Rasmussen himself suggests it might).
As for the "Bradley Effect" - nah, I don't buy it. Nate's previous post on the Bradley/"Reverse Bradley" Effects is well worth review viz. this thread. Primary polling did not reveal any statistically significant Bradley Effect, though there did seem to be some evidence for a "Reverse Bradley" in the South. If this holds for the general, then "Bradley" trends should help Obama more than they hurt him, potentially boosting his numbers in (for instance) VA, NC, and GA.
wow, Pete Kent lost any credibility he had with this paragraph:
It should surprise no one that an inexperienced left of center African American of Muslim extraction is being challenged in the polls by a genuine American war hero who is widely hailed as both a moderate and a maverick.
Anyway, there was a discussion of left/right/center. I actually prefer the political compass, as you can be left socially but right fiscally, or vice versa.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Pittsburgh-- While I basically agree with the candidate's merits or flaws being held accountable, I just want to point out that HRC supporters were mainly calling out sexist portrayals of her in the media. No one really had any sense that people couldn't vote for HRC cause she was a woman, and all evidence was to the contrary. Talking about the people polled who have said they're uncomfortable with a black president seems more legitimate to me than talking about media coverage. And I'll be the first to agree that perhaps Bradley effects, etc., don't exist at all.
Pete Kent also got it wrong when he said the electorate is still center-right. The electorate is now decidedly in the center and even leaning center-left, as evidenced by the ongoing mass exodus from the Republican Party since 2006 and the greatest increases in Democratic registration since FDR.
To Pete King:
McCain has a terrible record regarding POWS and MIAS and has even assaulted constituents concerned with that issue.
Even after the Keating Scandal he countenanced his second wife earning in the neighborhood of $1 million when a lot whose purchase Keating facilitated was sold at a mega profit.
His treatment of Native Americans in the north east corner of AZ has been reprehensible.
And the man has a substantial gambling problem.
Barack is intelligent, writes his own books, has as much hands on experience as McCain when age is considered, and has developed a platform of programs that are thought through and consistent, despite the spin of the MSM that he has flipped and veered.
And $30 million was not bad during a confused period when folk did not know whether to contribute to the primary or the general, to Barack of DNC. Wait till we DO get a $100 million month.
Finally, didn't Nate suggest that the flip flop charge packs much less wallop these days than it did in 2004?
Do not mistake the present unpopularity for President Bush for any genuine ideological shift in the nation.
A candidate like Obama must be elected and govern successfully from the left for there to be a defined shift in the electoral bearings. Witness Bill Clinton’s “non-transformative” presidency.
Even the triumph of the Democrats in 2006 remained a narrow victory relating to disgust over Iraq and Mark Foley. That ground has shifted considerably since then.
Foley is gone and Iraq is by no means a winning issue for the Democrats any longer. That party might very well have seen its zenith in June in Unity, NH.
ah thanks thisniss. i hadn't found this site when that was discussed. very interesting. it'll be different in the general, but yeah you're probably right. there will be some effects of racial bias, but there won't be any sure fire rules to apply to predict it.
Stephen Rose:
Your muckraking against McCain is ineffectual. Whether true or not the public is not likely to believe there is anything much more of consequence to learn about him.
His gambling problem? You might as well argue that Obama is a bi-sexual crack user. It would be more believeable.
July should not have been a "confused" fund raising month for Obama. His "unity" rally was in late June. When do you expect the turn?
Also, I am not a big believer that money is all it is cracked up to be in today's politics. Otherwise Obama would have won handily in OH, PA, WV and KY instead of being handed his hat.
Nate may have asserted that being a flip flopper does not pack the punch that it once did, but thus far in 2008 the polls do not bear that out.
That this is a close race at all reflects the flawed nature of Obama's candidacy.
Pete Kent is correct that the ground has shifted considerably since 2006. He's incorrect in assuming that it has shifted to the Republicans, however. The shift has been entirely toward the Democrats.
For instance, here in Nevada the GOP had a 7,200 registration edge in 2004 and the Democrats had a 1,300 registration edge in 2006 (an increase of 8,500 for the Democrats between 2004 and 2006). Today the Democrats in NV have a registration edge of 55,600 (that's an increase of 54,300 for the Democrats between 2006 and 2008).
2008 will be the first U.S. Presidential election in history where a majority of Nevadans are Democrats. Other swing states are probably undergoing a similar transformation.
What Chuck Todd has said is that he doesn't see any Bradley effect in the younger voters and that he is not sure about older voters. This makes Obama's get out the vote campaign very important. I think that the polls are impacted by the constant press efforts to stress that the race is close. The press hates a one-sided race and as usual is doing its best to convince the public that this is a close race. This does impact peoples opinions and therefore keeps a lot of people undecided and soft with their opinion for either.
Whoops! I said "2008 will be the first U.S. Presidential election in history where a majority of Nevadans are Democrats."
I should have said "2008 will be the first U.S. Presidential election in history where a plurality of Nevadans are Democrats."
So McCain can probably still win NV unless Obama captures the center.
Isn't the race close?
Haha
ok I think a lot of this candidate pushing is substantially below the normal level of discours i've seen here. but i just love
Pete Kent said...
"That this is a close race at all reflects the flawed nature of Obama's candidacy."
For those who aren't as addicted to cable news-- Pat Buchanan has said that about every day for the past 5 months, first about Hillary and then about McCain. That totally makes no sense! I just want to revel for a second in the fact that if having races being close but up by a few points means candidates are flawed then McCain must be super super flawed! Or is it better to be at a solid 43% than at a sometimes +%15 sometimes +2% but consistently ahead for months?
Thats enough of the - my guy is better than your guy and my guy is gonna win and heres why.
I like this site but I don't want it to turn into what its starting to turn into.
Barack is better than McCain, na na na
NO! McCain is better than Barack na na na
get over it please.
Thanks, thisniss, for pointing me to Nate's previous discussion of the Bradley effect issue.
One more thing I'd like to say on that subject. There is often the assumption that if the Bradley effect occurs, it is a sign of secret racism. That doesn't have to be the case, at least not in the sense of "I'm going to vote against the Black guy." It can just as easily be the case that the person polled has decided between the two candidates in a way that does not depend on race. But then when the pollster asks the question, the person can think "they may think I'm a racist if I say I'm voting for the White guy." In that case, it's not that racism is suppressing the vote for the African-American candidate, it's that the fear of being thought racist is inflating his poll numbers relative to his true support.
Adam--it's exactly because the macro factors favor the Democrats this year that they can afford to take a risk. If the Democratic party (and I mean the voters, not just the leaders) had been unwilling to choose a risky candidate they believed in this year, when would they ever have done so?
I can't believe "About Flip Flopping" actually defends flip-flopping. You're absolutely wrong about John McCain. His numerous position changes show that he is nothing but a phony politician who lacks the leadership to be the POTUS.
Pete Kent --
Muckraking is honorable ( assume you know) but what I have done is well below the standards of a Lincoln Steffens or Ida Tarbell. Merely a responsible effort to see what can be said about McCain that can be documented. Without an effort to see if the sources themselves vouch for the information. Were I a true muckraker I would not avoid this last step, but I operate as an unpaid person whose main hope is that the professional MSM will occasionally examine these things.
The July 30 million comment I made reflected my own confusion. It was real. We are still in a shakedown period between the Obama Campaign and the DNC. I know Obama people were shocked by the expensive quarters of the DNC in Denver and I suspect that the austerity standards of the Obama folk will eventually affect the Party -- which, with the Republicans, has fed at the trough of gridlock for some time.
You would be a good advocate for the McCain effort. They definitely need someone.
A comment on cable news-
I am addicted to it. I smoked for a while and I compare it to a nicotine addiction. I hated smoking and yet took a long time to quit. I literally despise cable news and yet watch it religiously. Is that like human narcissism or something. I even find myself watching Hannity and colmes sometimes, thats equivalent to cutting yourself with a razor. I cannot stop inflicting the pain.
Any suggestions on how to end the madness?
My point about Obama being a flawed candidate is not about ideology or positions or even identity -- except as it might impact electoral prospects.
The flaw in his candidacy is revealed by his doing so poorly against McCain relative to what the Democratic party is doing "generically" against the Republicans. He is underperforming his party by what 10 to 15%?
There has got to be something wrong there? How do you explain it?
The "Bradley Effect"?
While no doubt there will be votes on a racial basis (in both directions), I rather doubt it is failing to show in the polls. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with his race...and surely any racist could mask his bias by citing any one of them.
But there is reason to think that if Obama does not have it all sewn up in the polls right before election day, he will lose. But the bump for McCain will be entirely a product of late deciders finding Obama just too novel and risky to take a chance on him.
Obama Versus McCain -- here is a post I did on my own blog before the close of the primaries based on how Obama did relative to McCain.
Would you believe in the possibility of a Democratic sweep exceeding 350 electoral votes? The winner must get at least 270 of these prized units. If you are for Obama, rest easy. The following bit of work may set your mind at ease. Comments and alternative notions are welcome if they are civil. Attend.
Taking completed primary contests, when the Obama-Clinton vote total is more than double the GOP total, I believe the states are reasonably certain for Obama. The DOUBLE is a cushion agaist the loss of some support. The following states fill the double vote volume bill.
California, Colorado*, Connecticut*, Delaware*, DC*, Illinois*, Indiana, Kansas*, Louisiana*, Maryland*, Massachusetts*, Minnesota*, Mississippi*, Missouri*, New Jersey, New York*, North Carolina*, North Dakota*, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island*, Texas, Vermont*, Virginia*, Wisconsin*,
Now when Obama's own VOTE TOTAL is more than double that of McCain, I believe the state is reasonably certain for Obama. The following states fill the bill.
Alaska, Colorado*, Connecticut*, Delaware*, DC*, Georgia, Illinois*, Iowa, Kansas*, Louisiana*, Maine, Maryland*, Massachusetts*, Minnesota*, Mississippi*, Missouri*, New York*, North Carolina*, North Dakota*, Rhode Island*, Utah, Vermont*, Virginia*, Wisconsin*
Now when both of the above obtain, I have honored the states with asterisks (*). I feel that when BOTH of these benchmarks are achieved, Obama wins handily. Here are the asterisk champs.
Colorado*, Connecticut*, Delaware*, DC*, Illinois*, Kansas*, Louisiana*, Maryland*, Massachusetts*, Minnesota*, Mississippi*, Missouri*, New York*, North Carolina*, North Dakota*, Rhode Island*, Vermont*, Virginia*, Wisconsin*
The electoral vote total for the asterisked states is 187. Not enough to win.
But if we add in states where the Clinton-Obama vote total is double the GOP total -- regardless of who won the Democratic primary -- we have an additional 156 electoral votes. More than enough to have a more than handy Obama sweep.
And if we think positively and add the modest number of added states where Obama doubled the McCain vote but where the Democratic vote total was not double the GOP total, we garner an added 34 electoral votes.
If the initial 187 are firm, only 83 of the 190 remaining (reasonably likely) electoral votes are necessary for victory.
Haha Matt, absolutely agree with the assessment, and I don't have any remedy. I swore to myself that once the nomination was squared away I would be at peace. But I still watch the pointless hour by hour update shows (where they report the same "breaking campaign news" every single hour as if I haven't been watching all day) and then the commentaries that recap the days news stories and what they mean for the race (mind numbing because they never mean anything to the race). I'll also even turn on Fox News from time to time, especially when I've already seen the commentary on during that hour previously in the day. haha, oh my god i'm so sad
my main problem i think is i have a summer break (between graduating and a job) for the first time in years, and this perfectly acquired addiction to fill the void. it'll all be better once i rejoin the workforce, and maybe i won't pay for cable at my new place until after november. good plan.
obama has lost some of his bounce but I'd say he still has a 2-3 percent advantage. This FISA fiasco and flip flopping has cost him a percentage point or two.
How do we know the small lead Obama holds over McCain means he's weak. The democratic advantage is for a generic democrat against a generic republican. Obama may be weaker than other democrats, but how do we know?
We don't.
Maybe people don't think McCain is a generic republican. Hillary only had a 4 point lead over McCain at the end of her campaign. Is she weak too.
If we ran Obama against Huckabee or Romney, would he have a 10 point lead. If we ran Jim Web against McCain , Huckabee and Romney would Web have a ten point lead.
In order to determine if Obama is a weak candidate electorally we would have to poll all these scenarios with multiple dems and multiple repub's to find the answer. Until we do all of that, we don't know.
Every democrat across the nation in the congressional and senate races don't have ten point leads. In minnesota where Obama has a ten point lead the republican is ahead in the senate race.
Obama may be a weak candidate, he may be a strong candidate. We don't know. It really doesn't matter.
Who was a stronger candidate, Gore or Bush? Bush won but Gore had more votes. I think you could argue both sides. In the end it doesn't matter. Bush won and spent the last eight years destroying the country.
If Obama wins 270- 268 in the electoral college and loses the popular vote its the same as winning 400-138 and by 10 points. Margin of victory is irrelevant. JFK squeaked by in 1960 and many older Americans idolize him.
The last two elections were very close. Who says this one should not be? I agree the atmospherics say Obama should have a bigger lead but thats just an opinion. And opinions aren't worth much.
Stephen:
I don't believe for a minute you will be able to abstain from your addiction! LOL At least it is a healthy one and will serve to further imporve your mind.
To Anon at 9:05 -- Per Rasmussen Obama has lost 7% since July 3rd (the day he held his two press conferences on Iraq). That is not a loss of a bounce. That is something of a meltdown over a ten day span.
I agree that there was little or no bradley effect during the Democratic primary. But that means nothing. The voters were mostly Democrats. Racism is concentrated on the right.
So any of you have an opinion on the impact the New Yorker cover?
Yes, Obama wobbled on Iraq, caved on FISA--that's going to send him down in the polls.
And there's doubt that he can recover.
No one can convince me that Obama being only ahead by single digits when a generic Dem is ahead by double is something wrong with Obama. By that argument it would presumably set a floor for him in the polls, as long as he can convince people that he's a typical Democrat, which should be easier than convincing people you're their transcendental politician who will solve all of your individual problems while never pandering or flip flopping. I think presidential races these days tend to be close-- the candidates posture to claim centrist territory while staying far enough away to criticize each other. But Obama's seen a small but steady lead for a while now, and that just can't be a bad thing from my view.
Matt and Stephen,
The easiest way to quit cable news is to educate yourself. This site is a great place to start. Once you start digging up actual facts and see people like Nate apply quantitative analysis, you'll have a hard time watching cable news talk shows without screaming at the set. At that point, just quit cold turkey and every time you find yourself reaching for the remote, do some research online instead.
Worked for me.
Pete Kent said...
At least it is a healthy one and will serve to further imporve your mind.
ooh i'm not so sure. i often find myself thinking, "you know if i could just turn off the cable news, i'd like to read a book right about now."
Good point Matt JH.
The so-called generic advantage does not mean that much. It’s purely hypothetical.
In a weak field, the Republicans managed to pick the one candidate who stood a chance of winning.
In a strong field, the Democrats made an interesting choice, an exciting one even.
Around Super Tuesday or so on the POTUS channel on XM I heard a psychologist discuss how people make choices when faced with what they feel are good alternatives and when they feel they are faced with bad ones. Typically, when faced with bad choices, people tend to pick the best among them. But when they are confronted with a broader array of palatable alternatives they tend to not necessarily pick the one would be the strongest. I think that may be a microcosm of this year.
Imagine where this race would be if Joe Biden were the nominee?
I think the Democrats would have an easier time making their arguments that it is time for a change with a safer, experienced choice at the top of the ticket.
Obama would make an excellent VEEP. His fine mind might be capable of assimilating a lot over four or eight years of a Democratic Administration.
As it is now, I think that he is a very gifted orator with a great deal of native intelligence, but he is out of his depth and is beginning to show signs of wear, of cracking even.
He has never done this before, never spent so much extended time on the national stage bearing all this scrutiny from an increasingly hostile press (and public?). He could be headed for a meltdown . . . there are already some signs . . . still developing . . .
Obama will have an Iraq problem when one of two things happens. One, he changes his opinion on withdrawing. That will really get the base pissed. He could lose the election if he dows that.
Two, if the public decides they want to stay in Iraq, like 65-70%. Then he would be in a bind.
Right now, this is all media contrived talk. The surge has dramatically reduced violence which is great. And the American public recognizes this. And the American public wants the troops to come home, about 65% right now.
Sure Obama is leaving himself some wiggle room on the pace of withdrawal. I couldn't care less if they were home in 16 months. But why would he change his position and promote staying in Iraq when 65% of the public wants the troops home.
Every pundit who says Obama has an Iraq problem needs their head examined. But its the MSM, what do you expect.
Modeler:
True. I often can't get through an episode without screaming at the tv. But I'm also addicted to online political news, polling sites, and definitely (definitely) this site*. sigh... It'll all be over.. eventually
*no offense to Nate
Pete Kent said...
At least it is a healthy one and will serve to further imporve your mind.
Pete, I disagree with many things you've said on this site, but this one might just take the cake. There is nothing healthy about watching the bad analysis and intellectual dishonesty on the cable talk shows. Watch enough of that, and it might become the standard to which you hold yourself. Next thing you know, you're online parroting the meaningless spin you heard on TV.
Stephen:
If you're at the screaming stage and still watching, I'm afraid I can't help. But you've admitted you have a problem, which is the first step. :-)
Pheh. There is no Bradley effect. There is an ANTI-Bradley effect, or what I call a Wilder effect.
Most racists have racists friends. Pretend for the moment you were a racist. Some stranger calls you up, claim to be from the "P-U agency" or somewhere, and asks who you're going to vote for. You gonna say Obama? Uh huh. And when you get to the bar tomorrow, are you going to be shocked when they tell you that you can go sit next to the ******-lovers table?
Anybody can call you up, claim to be a pollster. If you're a Democrat, you've got some cover...you weren't voting for the ******, you were just voting for the Deomcrat. If you're a Republican, well, what excuse can you give?
But in the voting booth, you really can be anonymous. And so you can really vote for Obama.
Bradley's an except. Most have been more like Wilder. The black candidate actually does slightly better than the polls indicate.
Pete Kent:
"As it is now, I think that he is a very gifted orator with a great deal of native intelligence, but he is out of his depth and is beginning to show signs of wear, of cracking even."
Nah... pretty sure McCain is showing signs of wear too and cracking (whoops, that might be ageist of me to say)-- McCain had a pretty rough week. I honestly think Obama will school McCain in debates and that's when most of the public will really tune in. And the "Why did the Dems make such a bad choice?" ::tear::, please-- you're obviously not a Democrat or a Democrat sympathizer so we'll just wait and see who comes out on top in November. He has plenty of the right experience, and a great vision for the country. I'm proud of my party's choice. Game on.
On Iraq I firmly believe the polls will show that the people will want to maintain a presence in Iraq before the election is over.
The sentiment to bug out was engendered by defeatist talk and poor prosecution of the war -- both of which have been reversed by the Surge, for which McCain receives credit.
It does not take a great deal of intellectual firepower to understand that there is a lot of oil in Iraq and in the Mid-East gnerally and that Iran is a destablizing force that must be reckoned with. Indeed its provocative missile tests last week no doubt accounted for some of the positive movement in the polls for McCain.
The support for a continuing presence in Iraq will bear watching over the next few months -- as will Obama's position on it!
You know what Peter kent, I actually totally agree with that last comment. Obama would be the best VP in the history of the country. Where he's a little risky electorally at the top he's got only upside as a VP. Name another VP ever that could bring the excitement of a Barack Obama. He would have time to get the experience needed, to mature, and be unstoppable in in eight years.
All that being said, I'm going to go against my own advice and give an opinion:
Barack Obama's don't come around every day. This might be the most charismatic guy to ever hit the political seen. Yes he's got some glaring weaknesses, but this guy is special - John McCain is a war hero and I always believed he would make an excellent president. I am not surprised he's doing well in the polls, how many war hero's do you actually get to vote for. He's honest and he has integrity. I like those qualities. I believe John McCain's story is special. Its truly American.-
But again Barack Obama's story isn't special, he is special. I never voted before. I always followed politics but never voted. I didn't believe in any of those other candidates. I have donated to obama, I have campaigned for Obama, and I will vote for him in November. He is a special candidate. Special candidates don't come along very often, and for that reason he will win. I don't usually believe in destiny, but this is destiny.
This guy is gonna win. Just like everyone knew JFK was gonna win, everyone knew Reagan was gonna win, Everyone knew Clinton was gonna win, and everyone knows Obama is going to win. Even people who hate the guy deep down know it. Some people seem to show up at the right time. This is his year. Its destiny.
Thats how I feel. Theres nothin anyone can say that will make me change my mind. I may be delusional, but there it is.
Pretty soon, I'm going to have to stop reading the comments on this site, and that's a shame.
It used to be there were about 15-20 posts and they were all about polling.
There's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in this endless arguing "McCain's better!" "No! Obama's better!"
Pete Kent! Please go away! You're ruining a perfectly good site with all your endless trolling. If you don't like Nate's methodology go elsewhere!
And take all the other trolls from both sides with you!
As for the rest of you will you PLEASE stop responding to TROLLS!! That's exactly what trolls live for! They WANT people to argue with them and get hopelessly off-track and hijack legitimate discussions into endless nit-picking idiocy.
It makes them feel important in their miserable little lives for some reason!
"BRADLEY EFFECT: The Bradley effect is predicated on one assumption and one assumption alone; the thought that racists will lie to pollsters. And that requires a fair bit of empirical evidence to prove, empirical evidence that none here have presented in any form. . . .It's a terribly disrespectful school of thought to so staunchly support, especially when you have no evidence beyond intuition and a few scattered anecdotes.
Smartest post on the entire thread!
Anyone who doesn't like Obama being black doesn't have to make excuses. They can just say "I like McCain" and point to anything they've heard people say about him that might be positive "He's a war hero," "he's a straight-shooter," "he's not a flip-flopper like Obama."
It doesn't matter that all of those statements are completely bogus, that McCain has flip-flopped 100 times more than Obama ever will. It's a perfectly legitimate excuse to support McCain if they want to.
So, there's NO REASON for a Bradley Effect. The only reason that such an effect could happen is if one candidate was unacceptable but the other was black. But, McCain is a traditional Republican, just like Bush, Dole, Bush I, etc.
The "undecided" effect might be real though. That would mean that people want change, but aren't sold on Obama as the agent of change. If they are still un-sold on election day, they could break 2 to 1 for McCain in the booth.
Whether that would provide him with a margin of victory or not would depend on how many undecideds there are in November. If there are 10% or more that will mean trouble for Obama. If everybody has pretty much made up their minds except for the usual 5% of idiots who pay no attention, then McCain will have a harder time of it.
Would that be the Labour Party, Stephen?
i now see the strangeness of responding to anonymous posters--
so anonymous who just wrote at 9:57, no.. the democratic party in fact... ........?
You tell em Cugel.
Matt JH: You are gushing -- fatal sign of a man crush!
Cugel: You will not cugel me into silence, but please tell me what a "Troll" is and why I am one?
You cannot take back your ball and go home! Nor can I throw you off my lawn!!!
And Cugel you are wrong about the Bradley effect and Sarah's Mom (?) got it right: it exists b/c people think people will think they are rascist if they don't support Obama.
The real rascists could care less. I heard a southern white man in his 40s/50s interviewed on CNN from TN the other night. He was very frank in saying: "The only black man I ever saw with change was holding a cup!" Nothing being hidden there.
i agree, hopefully when there's some more exciting statistics news to be discussed we'll all get back on track.
I see some anti-Obama posters have migrated over from RCP...
Hey Modeler, i don't know if I have the will to quit cold turkey. I do scream at the TV every night. The other night I Emailed Anderson Cooper to tell him how biased his coverage was. I have a serious problem. I had to use the patch to quit smoking,I'm not strong enough to quit cable news on my own. I'm glad to hear that someone has managed to quit though, at least theres hope.
Cugel,
I agree with your criticism of the quality of the comments, but to be clear I'm here more for the general quantitative analysis than the polling. Sorry for not posting more substantive arguments. I guess I got lulled into the fact that it's a slow news day, and I don't have time right now to do some of the quantitative analysis I'd like to do.
"It does not take a great deal of intellectual firepower to understand that there is a lot of oil in Iraq and in the Mid-East gnerally and that Iran is a destablizing force that must be reckoned with."
To Pete Kent,
The only reason we're still allowed in Iraq is because the Iraqi Shiite government doesn't believe the Iraqi Army is ready yet to contain the Sunnis. Once they are confident of that, they will want us out--or more importantly, their Itanian patrons will want us out. Maliki has already proposed setting up a withdrawal timetable.
Bush's war has will eventually result in a Iranian-Iraqi Shiite control of the Iraqi oil fields, almost exactly the opposite of what the Bush Admnistration intended when they invaded Iraq in 2003.
Adam said... "a similar thing happened to Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. He was ahead in some of the surveys in late autumn, but never above 46 or 47 and of course, he ultimately lost."
His lead dropped following that racist playboy bunny ad. The final polls showed a tossup, and exit polls showed whites voted for Ford in the same proportion as the final polls. The Ford/Corker race is sometimes cited as an example of diminished or absent Bradley effect.
2006 Senate races included several biracial contests in which the Bradley effect seemed to be absent entirely. Here is an interesting analysis by the Pew research center that concludes the Bradley effect had disappeared by 2006, and that Americas racial attitudes make it finally ready for a black president: pewresearch.org
damn it, now my curiosity is killing me-- i don't know whether anonymous poster at 9:57 PM asked me if i was in the Labour party because of something I said or because anonymous poster had checked my profile and seen that i was moving to england soon (yet will remain an American citizen).
sigh, oh anonymous poster, please satisfy my curiosity.
That should have been Iranian patrons, not "Itanian" patrons.
I use this site to help subdue my cable news addiction on weekends. Sorry if some posts get off track, I too support keeping the comments factual and too the point.
It was me, Stephen. I hit the publish button before I entered my Name. Yes, it was your profile . . . enjoy your time in England!
I leave you all to troll without me, I am going to bed!
ah mystery solved then. thank you pete kent. you can be very polite sometimes but just unnecessarily combative in lobbying for your candidate all the rest of the time.
Someone asked about the Newsweek cover-- I dunno, I like satire as much as the next person, but I do see the argument that repeating a rumor is just as bad as justifying it. The author seems to think it was clearly satirical, but I doubt it is far from what some would really draw if they had to characterize (and not caricature) Obama. He deserves the backlash he'll get.
Not Newsweek cover. The New Yorker.
whoops, of course.
Adam said "a similar thing happened to Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. He was ahead in some of the surveys in late autumn, but never above 46 or 47 and of course, he ultimately lost."
Actually the polls tightened at the end (due to that outrageous playboy bunny ad), and the race was a tossup in my spreadsheet. Exit polls showed white voters chose Ford in the same proportion as they did in the final polls.
Other 2006 biracial contests were accurately predicted by polls. Check out this interesting article from the Pew Research Center indicating that the Bradley Effect may have died by 2006 and that there are several other indications that the US is ready for a black president.
Obama said that all thermostats must be set to 80 in the summer. Air conditioning is a wastefull practice. If you are over 90 years old, you can apply for an exemption from this. It will be quickly processed by the US Postal Service. For the winter, you must set the max temperature to 65 and allow it to go to 50 at night. Any violators, acording to Obama will have to go to jail. Rewards of extra heating allowances(also know as heat coupons) will be given to heroes who turn their families and neighbors in for violation. This will solve the energy crisis. It is known as the Obama Strain.
I do not believe we have seen the last of the Bradley effect. The reason is supposedly wasn't seen in the Democratic primaries is because Democrats pride themselves in being "racially tolerant". Even so, look at New Hampshire. Obama was up by as much as 10 or 12 points the day before the primary, and, as we all know, lost to HIllary. Don't expect independents to care about their "racially tolerant" image. There will be a Bradley effect.
sshhhh
Jack-be-nimble:
Be careful. Some will read your satire and think you are being serious.
" I do not believe we have seen the last of the Bradley effect. The reason is supposedly wasn't seen in the Democratic primaries is because Democrats pride themselves in being "racially tolerant". Even so, look at New Hampshire. Obama was up by as much as 10 or 12 points the day before the primary, and, as we all know, lost to HIllary. Don't expect independents to care about their "racially tolerant" image. There will be a Bradley effect."
Yeah, but that´s because primary polling is always volatile and this one especially, because it was so hard fought and really close.
But do you dare to say that South Carolina polls overstated Obamas support there? Or, to cite a white state, Wisconsin polls?
Just pollster error, nothing more.
More than 160 posts on a poll topic without interesting polls ... I remember the first days of this blog. We had then 5 comments per post or so, 15 maybe on especially important or interesting ones...
Nate, please delete my obvious troll posts or create some sort of a system to hide rate abusive comments. If possible, please ban posts from IPs that are clearly trolling, like mine.
I no longer have the spreadsheets from 2006, but I'm sure one of my fellow dorks does and can answer this question:
How did Blackwell (OH Gov race), Swann (PA gov race), Steele (MD Senate race), and Ford (TN Senate race) perform compared to their polling numbers?
IIRC, the only result that didn't closely match polling was the Maryland Senate race.
Sarasotajoe,
Ford's problem in Tennessee wasn't the Bradley Effect, but it was rather what others coined above as the "Undecided Effect". The new, exotic candidate is going to have a tough time winning the last batch of undecideds in jurisdictions that aren't already inclined to vote for a "new" type of candidate. That's what we saw in TN in 2006 and in PA,OH,WV,KY in the Dem primaries this year.
While these contests that we're talking about may not have shown an obvious manifestation of the "Bradley Effect" - I think it's too early to say that the phenomenon is dead. It's simply never been tested on a national level. Everyone agrees that there are pockets of racism in this country. Whether or not this Bradley Effect is going to derail Obama is going to depend on the strength and, just as importantly, the geography of where this may take place.
It's interesting to note polling results and actual vote totals. It seems that Obama is overperforming what we would expect from a generic Democrat in polling of ND and MT, and underperforming in states like MI (and probably Ohio as well if you toss out the outlier PPP poll - PPP has a less than stellar reputation and their call for Obama to win the PA primary was ridiculous).
But why these results? Why does Obama seem to do well in high AA environments (35 % or more of the Dem primary electorate)? Why does Obama also seem to do very well in unusually low AA-environments (polling for ND, MT)? And finally why does Obama seem to do not so well in average-AA environments(PA, MI, OH)?
The first question has an easy answer. We'll all agree that black voters are bloc-voting for Obama. We're talking 90-percent or higher of the black vote in just about every state after the SC primary. Obviously this was Obama's ace in the hole in southern primary states.
The answer to the second and third questions seem less obvious. Obama seems to be polling quite well in ND and MT - states where George Bush won by 20 points or more. I think that whatever racial animosity exists - it tends to work against Obama more in states with medium AA populations. People like the idea of voting for the black guy because of white guilt - unless they worry about high crime rates and 6 o’clock news reports of blacks that have migrated from inner cities getting arrested in their own neighborhoods. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the types of drug raids that involve lots of teenage blacks that you see all the time across declining medium-sized industrial cities in the Northeast and Midwest aren’t so common in lilly-white MT.
That’s my candid assessment. Frankly I’m sick of walking on egg shells and being PC about how we discuss race in this country. If we’re so advanced that an African-American has a better than 50/50 shot at the presidency then we ought not be afraid to say what we genuinely think. I hate racism. I hate the fact that everyone needs to tiptoe when talking about race matters almost as much.
Travis,
http://uselectionatlas.org/
Scroll down to the bottom of the page. You'll find the polling results for the senate and governor's races. Then all you need to do is click on the maps to compare to the actual vote totals.
I'm not sure race had a lot to do with Obama's results in WV/KY. I grew up in KY (mostly) and a lot of my family still lives there. My most extreme, pronounced, openly racist relatives were the Obama supporters in the primary - and therefore in the minority. The "moderates" were the Clinton supporters. Those are the folks who are more likely to vote Dem under normal circumstances. I think they voted for Clinton in overwhelming numbers for a few reasons, none of them particularly racially based: 1) they saw Clinton as the "safer" choice - more likely to win in the general 2) they wanted to make their votes "count," especially as members of a voting public whose primaries are typically "meaningless" - the opportunity to throw the primary toward Clinton in larger-than-expected numbers meant getting more-than-usual attention for their primaries 3) the state dems, on every level, still feel a great deal of loyalty to Bill Clinton, the last real big Democratic success story in places that have grown increasingly conservative and poorer.
This is my gut-based analysis, as no one has really performed extensive qualitative analysis of the primary voting in these states. But I do know that these were the themes the Clinton campaign was stressing, as well as what would and did resonate amongst the folks I still know in the region. I also know that the Obama campaign did not make the kind of play for these areas that he did elsewhere, and that having conceded KY & WV would allow Clinton more room to drive up the margins.
Obviously what I spoke of in my 3:34 post applies to areas of the country outside of Appalachian states like WV and KY. I'm not sure what is causing the seeming unease with Obama in those states. I tend to agree with thisniss. Residents of areas hit hard by tough economic times don't have the luxury of getting worked up about abstract themes of "hope" and "change".
I apologize for posting my comment twice. How do I remove one of them?
Adam, you are right that the Bradley Effect has never been tested in a nationwide race, and that it may show up in some states more than others. However it was not a factor in statewide races in '06 in TN, OH, and PA.
All three states had polls that were just about spot on, and only TN had a move to the white guy at the end. What is interesting (and sad) is that I wouldn't attribute that move to the "undecided effect," I'd attribute it to more overt racism - the effective "call me Harold" playboy bunny ad. What's interesting is that the effect of this ad was seen in polls before the election. People in TN did not hide their racism. It was only a few percent of Tennesseans, but it was enough to give Corker the election.
So racism may yet come into play but if so, perhaps it will show up in the final polls as it did in '06.
Nate,
You have proven very competent in assembling an accurate and defensible way of tracking the polls using sound statistical methodology.
Now, do us a favor by developing another model that will show exactly how Obama's radical and incoherent policies are going to F this country beyond repair and turn us into a third world backwater.
There are comments about Obama/McCain vs. Generic Dem/Generic Republican. Of course the numbers will not track well there and Obama will be way behind the Generic numbers. Obama is a Generic Dem in most of his views, and for most of his carreer (other than the 2007 numbers) McCain has been anything but a Generic Republican. I note Obama's commercials talk about McCain voting record in that one year, with Iraq so hot, but people see through this. They read the small type.
Look at the favorability numbers. The longer this has gone on those numbers have grown tighter as well. Now in most polls McCain and Obama are dead heated, in Rasmussen McCain is 4 points ahead of Obama in favorability.
The recent Newsweek Poll has Bush at a -35 spread on favorability, and McCain at a +23, with Obama at +24. Obama's branding of McCain as another Bush is clearly missing the mark. Its almost a backlash effect, everytime it is spouted people start favoring McCain more.
"...some Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience once they get inside that voting booth."
What is "good" about that? Maybe what you meant was pointing out that when decision time comes they will revert to prejudice but still...nothing good about that. But Obama surely knew this so hopefully he has a contingency plan.
Although Obama has not gone as far as the satirical Air Conditioning comment, check out his promise on Vehicle and gas mileage. You will no longer be able to buy the vehicle of choice, because stringent gas mileage requirements will eliminate whole classes of passenger vehicles that cannot meet the rigorous gas mileage requirements. Good bye to our Trucks and SUV's altogether. Although I think it unwise to buy one, (I drive a small Chevy for gas mileage, but my wife loves her Jeep Grand Cherokee), I dont think the government should be legislating them away. Hows that for a troll?
Does Nate's model take the Bradley effect into account?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment