After a slow couple of weeks, the pollsters have been very busy in the past 48 hours:
So, what's going on here? A pretty decent set of results for Obama -- but also not ones out of line with our expectations. South Carolina and South Dakota are relatively competitive? We knew that based on how North Carolina and North Dakota had been polling. Iowa looks out of reach for McCain? It's looked that way all year, with the exception of one or two polls taken during the flooding. Obama's numbers look pretty good in the CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo national polls? Those pollsters have tended to show relatively favorable results for the Democrats all year.
So what looks like a pretty interesting set of polling is really more of the same. Obama is polling a bit of his peak numbers (note that the trendline adjustment now tweaks his numbers downward in states like Florida), but he retains a meaningful lead in the popular vote and some structural advantages in terms of the electoral math.
(Full disclosure: I also caught a small bug that was failing to roll in the trendline adjustment properly in recent days and also overstating the third-party vote. This was inflating Obama's popular vote margin by half a point or so. It has been corrected.)
7.15.2008
Today's Polls, 7/15
@ 8:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
173 comments
Very much OT, Nate... but I've been wondering how much "coattails" effect there might be, and if there's any way to factor that into the Senate races. Does the presidential victor have a down ticket effect in a given state--and how much, and under what conditions? And... given what we're seeing now, how much of an effect is plausible/likely in this election?
That spike around 300 EVs is getting pretty frickin huge... is that still representing Kerry states plus OH, IA, CO, NM?
Nate, Rasmussen also has Mccain up 20 in LA and Obama up 8 in MI.
All I keep hearing from Right Wing Pundits is that "Michael Dukakis was up so many points this time in the election to Bush (41)in '88, and he still lost-big!" We'll true, BUT the significant difference is this: Bush(41) was V.P. to Ronald Reagen, whom (disagree with him or not) left office with the highest approval rating of all time. Imagine if this race was (insert opponent name here) versus Dick Cheney (or any other VP of the lowest-approved POTUS of all time). Wouldnt even be close. Unfortunately for McCain, he carries with him today's scarlet letter "R" next to him, Whether you like Obama or not, get used to "President Obama"....
Obama seems to be stuck at around 4-5 points behind McCain in NC. I'm still very surprised at how well Obama is polling in Iowa, I know that Obama ran a great campaign there and McCain pretty much skipped it but still
nate:
are you going to HOPE? I'll be there.
i wonder if your model would benefit greatly from a genetic algorithm that exploits emergence just as Torsten Reil did when he used genetic algorithms endorphin/euphoria to make far more realistic characters for grand theft auto 4... ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySRvKzZsDqw )
and more realistic motion for movie special effects, too.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ae3fgj2x1aI
it would be so cool to apply this sort of technology to polling.
McCain is going have to play defense in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Thats almost as good as winning one of those states outright.
It's interesting how few really competitive states there are right now. There are only two where Obama's odds are between 40% and 60%: Virginia, which is dead even, and Montana, which has a 40% chance of victory for Obama.
In every state in which Obama is currently winning, his odds of victory are 66% (ie Colorado) or higher. And aside from VA and MT, there's no state Obama's losing where his odds are better than 36% (Nevada).
No wonder there's that big spike on the graph!
The new national polls are showing that Obama's lead is not going away.
The CBS News/NY Times poll has Obama up 6%, no difference from their June poll.
The Quinnipiac poll has Obama up 9%. They had Obama up 7% in their May poll.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll has Obama up 8% among registered voters and up 3% among likely voters. They had Obama up 4% among registered voters in June.
The newest Gallup tracking poll has Obama up 4%, which is in line with what they've had for a while.
The newest Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama up 4% without leaners and up 2% with leaners.
It looks like the McCain comeback was all hype.
We're light years until the general election. You know what they say, a day is a lifetime and a week is an eternity in politics.
This year may be different because of the close attention payed by the voters, but these polls are very near irrelevant with regards to predicting General election results.
We have the Obama Iraq trip, the VP picks, the conventions and the debates as scheduled big events. Not to mention the unexpected events(AKA Jeramiah Right type stuff). We haven't even seen the first real attack add. The race might as well be a dead heat.
McCain may or may not have to defend NC, and I expect Obama will make him work for South Dakota, which isn't all that different from North Dakota.
But South Carolina, regardless of Nate's similarity scores, really is different from North Carolina.
Charlotte is a pretty cosmopolitan city, ditto the Research Triangle, ditto Asheville. There's nothing like any of these in SC. The cities themselves are more conservative, and they're smaller cities to boot.
Both states have a lot of small-town and rural areas with a lot of conservative voters, but there's a lot less to counterbalance them in SC than in NC.
If I were McCain's campaign manager, I wouldn't waste a dime defending SC, even if Obama threw the kitchen sink at it. Even if Obama wins >375 EVs, none of them will come from SC.
I think that some of us are getting to hyped up for the inevitable President Obama. Lets just take a few breaths, let Nate's model work, and stop screaming about how Obama can't lose.
As much as I'd like him to win, the Republicans have not even started running real negative campaign ads yet (most of what we see around now is just leftover from the primary), and Obama by no means holds a large enough majority in all the states he needs.
However, it is sort of nice to see McCain having to play defense in Virginia by starting ad buys. Hope Montana, the Carolinas, and the Dakotas follow soon. Anything that keeps money away from the real battle states.
It looks like the McCain comeback was all hype.
Reading a bit much into daily poll fluctuations? RCP average is up from 4% to 4.5% with high poll turnover. Obama is still off from his 6%+ high a couple weeks ago.
The NY Times poll says Obama gets 37% of the white vote and McCain gets 46%. It also says that only 30% of whites have a favorable opinion of Obama. I find these results low. Only 30% of whites like Obama??? And only 24% of whites like Michelle Obama. All these numbers seem awfully low, even though Obama still has a +6 advantage overall. Someone explain??
PUMA BRAKING NEWS
MCCAIN IS WINNING
WOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO !
YES WE WILL
MCCAIN 2008
HILLARY 2012
HILLARY 2016
OBAMA 2020
OBAMA 2024
THIS SITE IS SO WRONG...LOL
Moore Information is a GOP pollster and internal for Dino Rossi. Probably shouldn't be included.
Actually for the White Vote for democrats- I think thats part for the course- didn't kerry have the same numbers?
Actually for the White Vote for democrats- I think thats part for the course- didn't kerry have the same numbers?
"THIS SITE IS SO WRONG...LOL"
Wow, and to think I almost drank the Kool-Aid and listened to what was being said on this site! Thanks, Anonymous!
--fgasparini
YayMaryland----Democrats never win the White vote....Bill Clinton did not win the white vote in 92 or 96.....The last Dem to win the white vote was LBJ in 1964....Obama's 9 point deficit is less than Gore's deficit of 12 in 2000 even though Gore won the popular vote
NEW OBAMA CAMPAIGN SONG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=969ANF3GCX8
Hey Nate - What's up with Rasmussen's Bush Approval ratings? They're almost 2 weeks behind. I guess it's not that important but I long deeply to see that "strongly disapprove" break 50%.
YES Anonymous...Kerry lost white vote by 17 points, Gore lost white vote by 12 points, Clinton lost the white vote by 3 in 1996 and by 1 in 1992
That Quinnipiac +9 national lead for Obama looks on the edge of reasonable, unlike last month's Newsweek +15 outlier. But looking at the cross-tabs, you have to believe
1) McCain gets 1% of the black vote
2) Obama is +19 among women but -3 among men, a 22-point gender gap
Does anyone believe this is the state of the race?
Interesting is that even with this voter sample, McCain's Iraq plan wins 51-43 over Obama's, 17 points better than the horse race. No surprise Obama is rewriting his plan.
RCP's poll average is affected by them using the LV number for ABC/WP instead of registered voter number.
That means they have Obama +3 instead of +8.
if the party went with Hillary...we would have won already
she will get the whites, latinos, blacks
Obama is stating to have trouble
:(
will all the white people vote for Obama on election day ?
i will be voting for Obama because he's the candidate of my party
i'm also praying the he can get in
McCain is not my type
lol
Has anyone else noticed that it's been like forever that McCain actually led in any national poll. Eyeballing it, it looks to me like Obama's led in 29 out of the last 30 polls listed on RCP, tied in the other. If you break Gallup and Rasmussen into discrete samples for every 3 day period, you'd get up to about 50 straight polls where Obama is tied or in the lead. Seems to me that strongly suggests that Obama has had at least a 6 point lead over that period of time ... perhaps more like 7 or 8.
I gotta laugh at you Americans. Your in 2 wars, soon to be a third. Your economy is in the tank, Your dollar is falling apart, your middle class is getting wiped out, your jobs are going to China, your 10,000,000,000 in debt, and 80% believe your on the wrong track.
So what do you do? Elect the same party! LOL. Sure the black guy is young but come on. You guys might not like Bill Clinton much but damn, he was a hell of a lot better than Bush. If the Obama guy is any where near Clinton you'd be much better off.
I don't understand your country. Theres a reason you have 2 party's. Even if they both suck. You give the other guys a chance. It can't get any worse.
Doesn't the old guy want to stay in Iraq for a long time and keep many of the same policies as Bush? Seriously, would you guys actually re-elect the same party?
Note that the "spike" is still only 2.5% of simulations.
Anon@8:54- That exactly what I've been thinking. How can my fellow Americans elect the same party. The WORLD is rooting for Obama. Electing McCain would make everyone else shake there heads and maintain their hatred towards us. Great.
Anon @ 08.31
The gender gap is consistent with many if not most polls.
Particularly with SUSA, states where Obama has comfortable leads, like NY and MA, his lead is enormous among women and nonexistent among men.
If you beleive them (and as many as there are saying the same thing, it's hard not to), Obama has a problem among white men.
Interestingly, the female voter problem that Hillarites warned of is entirely devoid of evidence.
Anon @ 8:31 - "Obama is rewriting his Iraq plan"?
You clearly have not been following Obama's campaign very closely. He has not changed his Iraq policy during this campaign. If you want to look at someone who changed his policy then talk about McCain adopting Obama's Afghanistan policy today.
As to why McCain does better on Iraq in polling, that doesnt mean that more people prefer his plan to stay in Iraq. I think McCain benefits from the whole 'war hero' meme that he has exploited in his career. Also his white hair helps him on this question as well. But it doesnt change the fact that Obama has been right from on day 1 on Iraq, while Bush/McCain has been disastrously wrong from the beginning.
In the fall when the two are side by side in debates, Obama will at least pull even with McCain on Iraq/foreign policy in polling. Probably since he has the better ideas he will even beat out McCain on the issue. Anyway, with McCain not knowing squat on the economy, it wont make much of a difference in the end.
Mainer - RCP always uses Likely Voters when available, and includes leaners when available. If you want to look at trends over time, you can't cherry-pick one poll whose RV number you happen to like and treat it differently.
That 5-point difference between RV and LV is a bit suspect in itself. If 25% of the RV sample are not likely voters, then it implies that Obama is +19 among non-likely voters. In fact, ABC's release makes a point that likely voters as a % of registered voters have declined since March, especially among young voters, from 66% to 46%. If non-LV skew young, then Obama +19 becomes reasonable.
This raises two questions:
1) Will the youth vote really turn out higher than previous elections as the optimists thought during the primaries?
2) Will all the people Obama's campaign is registering turn out to vote, or just add to the gap between registered and likely voters? The excitement level has certainly dropped since March, will the fall campaign bring it back to it's previous level?
The Obama campaign is a great campaign at many things but I question their message control. The McCain campaign like the Clinton's run a media spin campaign where controlling the media talking points is important. You do this through having all the campaign surrogate on every network using the same attack. Its media spin 101. Bill and Hill were masters.
The Obama campaign seems to not want to engage in this. I have no idea why. They have no consistent attack. Educated people see the media spin for what it is, but a lot of people don't. If Obama doesen't get involved in this he may very well lose.
Sean - great use of Obama talking points. You're right, McCain's white hair causes voters to support his Iraq plan. Do those blinders chafe?
fyi, in the debates Obama won't have a teleprompter.
So the WaPo poll has Obama +8 among registered, +3 among likely, and the gist of their press release (including the headline) is about how much trouble Obama is in. You have to read quite a ways before you discover that he is, you know, ahead.
Nice going, guys!
Juris, I understand Exactly your Governmental system. And my point remains. The President sets the agenda, lets not kid ourselves. Electing the old guy is the same as electing the incumbent party for all intensive purposes. Your system has become more and more like a monarchy with the king being replaced every four-eight years.
Your country is in the decline. Thats not my opinion, its the opinion of your own people. Did you feel so bad about your country after the last president left?
NO!
When the President can so utterly fail, and that same party get re-elected to the highest office, you have yourselves to blame. The republican party would not win a seat in congress, the Senate, and especially the presidency in any other developed country on this planet after they're record the last eight years. You must clean out the ranks and force the outgoing party to regroup, establish new leaders, and come back stronger. This is the point of democracy. If your country will not change government now, after these last years, when?
The old guy touts his foreign policy credentials? After the utter failure these last eight years. I have seen a pole where he is considered a better military leader than the blavk guy? For what? He was a POW. What war has he won. What strategic military decision has he implemented. None.
presidents get all the same info. They have scores of generals to advise, its about making the best decision for the country. At the very least the black guy knew Iraq was a blunder. Because it goes better now in Iraq will you forget the price you paid for this blunder these eight years. I heard the old guy say that Nato needed to step up. Well, as a member of a country of Nato, forget it. You could not get us to send more troops and money to Afghanistan when you will not. How arrogant. You have let the people who attacked you get away scott free to this point. Iran is laughing at you. And you will re-elect the same gov't.LOL. Your country will never cease to amaze.
I don't understand your country.
It's full of people who suffer from:
-corporate media brainwashing
-religious brainwashing
-lack of education
-intellectual laziness
-sense of entitlement
-reliance on peer pressure
Or to put it more gently ... fat, stupid, selfish, bigoted fucking morons who wake up every morning and piss all over the honor of having been born, by dumb luck, into what could potentially be one of the greatest societies in history.
Now do you understand?
diggsb asks "is that [spike] still representing Kerry states plus OH, IA, CO, NM?"
Yes, that is 293 EV, which represents the most likely scenario, that is where Obama takes every state in the model where he has a win percentage over 50%. The state first over the 50% line for Obama is CO at 66%, going up from there.
The sad reality is that we are a hegemonic power in the sense that Great Britain was. Not in that we had physical control, but in how we will decline. We will decline with a whimper, not bang. So the Anon 9:59 is correct. I don't like hearing it from someone not from this country, but they aren't wrong. The trends as they are set in this country can not continue. Neither party, even Obama, is willing to be honest with the American people. We have an overpriced college education system that's good, but not great. We have a healthcare system that's twice the cost of healthcare abroad with half the benefit. We have a military structure that is out of whack. We have a wasteful energy economy that leads to more wasted resources than produces effieicnet allocation of resources. We have a credit market that doesn't make uch sense. A bankruptcy system that doesn't make much sense. A populance thats increasely like the ancient Romans in that it would prefer sitting around being entertained more than it would want to address any of these problems. The list goes on and on. I am not saying other places are perfect, but clearly our quality of life is decreasing. I am not even convinced govt is the entire solution. Some of these problems are the problem of who we are as Americans. For example, over the last 30 years, the number of friendships and personal relationships for the average American has declined. So , even those resources we used to go to to depend on to get ahead are decreasing. That's not theory. That's statistical fact. The mentality of our society, as it is right now, isn't sustainable. Again, I don't like hearing from abroad, and I don't think some or even half o things are subject to political solutions, but this is the reality of our country right now. Who here doesn't know this? This isn't the right site for htis, but I really wish someone would focus in the the cultural race to the bottom of this country as our quality of life (not just technological or statistical but real qualitative ) is starting to fray. You can have the best computers and infrascture in the world (which we don't by the way) and still have a crappy quality of life. That we think we are sacrifieding things for the best and still not getting the best is why I think things are headed towards a really bad place if you look at similar countries to ours in the past.
We are on the decline. Sure big business and GDP are doing well but thats nearly all exports. Excluding exports our GDP is declining and we don't even manufacture the products here anymore. Our educational system is one of the worst among the industrial world. Our Healthcare system is both more expensive and less effective than virtually all industrialized nations. The middle class is being systematically wiped out. There are increasingly two tiers economically, the super rich and everyone else. Our greatest shining bright spot is our military. 50% of our budget. More than the entire world combined. We know where our priorities are.
Nate,
I notice that the Zogby Interactive polls in different states have different weightings.
Are the weightings based on sample size? It appears to be so. If so, that is an excellent, simple method for weighting those polls.
Regardless, they all have low weighting, as they deserve.
I agree with the comment earlier. The Obama campaign has completely lost the media spin wars and is on the verge of losing the election. A narrative takes hold in an election in the MSM. This narrative is spin but it wins elections none the less.
The consistent themes in the media is
1.Obama has flip flopped
2.Is he an acceptable choice for the American people
Sure Obama has flip flopped but McCain has just as much. Its ridiculous
Of course he's acceptable. He's got more foreign policy experience than Clinton and Reagan combined when they took office. Its a silly argument.
The Obama campaign's greatest liability this election season is their not partaking in media spin. American elections are won not by the best candidate, not by the best ideas, but by the best spin. As bad as the McCain campaign is, it trounces Obama on this count. Obama doesn't even play the game. he doesn't have a media talking points strategy. Obama's best surrogates at combating the republican talking points are the Hillary loyalists still working for the cable news shows like Carville and Bigalla. Thats because they understand the game.
The Obama campaign either doesn't understand or doesn't care, and they had better start paying attention or he will lose. No ground game can make up for months of a negative media narrative. Thats where we are headed.
Anonymous @ 8:28
I love Ghetto Superstar, thanks for bringing that back. You probably meant that as a dig on Barack Obama but I'll prefer to just enjoy the song.
Anonymous who's laughing at the Americans--
Sigh, it's sort of true. It's a little unfair to blame the last eight years on "the old guy" and say we're all stupid for not liking "the black guy" but i can see why the rest of the world is scratching their head. But hey-- try to use our politicians' names in the future though, rather than this guy and that guy.
Anonymomus @ 9:33-- What's the difference between likely voters and registered voters? Does it vary by poll? Is there an official definition?
Nate-- Did your trendline fix change the previous results back to 2/14, etc? It looks suddenly very different, so I guess that must be it.
Registered voters (RV) vs. Likely voters (LV).
You can look at it this way.
Unregistered voters are unlikely voters, but registered voters aren't necessarily likely voters. Different polling firms have different rules for determining likely voters.
A LV is typically one who is (a) registered, and (b) voted in the previous election (if s/he was eligible). Sometimes a third criterion is used, (c) says s/he expects to vote in the coming election.
Pollsters may also differ in how they treat first-time voters.
back to politics:
I agree to a point, I think Obama is purposely playing less of a spin war. He certainly has his surrogates and they do a good job of being "on message"-- how many less issues have come up recently where an Obama surrogate is explicitly "off message" than McCain surrogates. The difference is they don't boil things down to things that are as easy to grasp as "I know how to win wars" or "This raises questions about Obama's patriotism." (questions? what questions? ooh, i'm not sure he's answered all of those questions yet)
But I don't think the difference in media approach is a bad thing, yet. Obama might get swift boated, he might have some label so adeptly superglued to him that he just can't shake it no matter what. But so far in the primaries and early campaign, even though the media wringed their hands over the playing out of various negative narratives, Obama was basically the "teflon" candidate. The Wright flap was brushed off and a million kitchen sink strategies had little effect.
On the other hand, I've been heartened by the way I've seen Obama really take control of the media. When he takes an issue that's being buzzed around and gives a forthright fully-written speech on the subject (the race speech, then Iraq), he really takes the reigns on the issue and looks very presidential. McCain can't use that media strategy, cause he can't give speeches. It's so clear that Obama is setting the pace and agenda of this race. Just today Bush gave his economy speech and was asked about Obama and foreign policy, Obama gives his Iraq speech where he turns it around to Afghanistan, then McCain changes the subject of his "Jobs America New Mexico John McCain" speech to refute Obama on foreign policy, and ended up agreeing with what he had just proposed on Afghanistan.
So anyway, I think it's possible that Obama surrogates could improve their use of the "spin machine", but I think the candidate himself is looking good. He can brush of all the negative media narratives by staying strong in the polls and not engaging them more than necessary. And as of now he's setting the agenda for the election discussion-- the election is truly setting up to be a vote for or against Obama, which is ironic because Obama is so far from the incumbent. But given how the "positive" candidate has fared versus the "reactionary" candidate (for lack of better words) for the past several cycles, I think he's in a pretty good media spot.
Juris-
hm so for some of them a first time voter is not a likely voter? that does seem like it would make a huge difference then..
" Nate,
I notice that the Zogby Interactive polls in different states have different weightings.
Are the weightings based on sample size? It appears to be so. If so, that is an excellent, simple method for weighting those polls.
Regardless, they all have low weighting, as they deserve.
"
ALL polls have the same weighting method. But Zogby Interactives "Pollster Introduced Error" isn´t regressed to the mean.
So it´s alone enough, that the weight of their poll is maxed out at .3, even with a sample size of 1000000.
On the other hand, a poll with a sample size of 400 gets still a weight of .2
A tiny technicality: RCP are inconsistent in their treatment of ABC. For the previous June result, they "published" the RV number, whereas now they publish the LV number. (Both times, RCP leave blank the space where they normally provide sample size and LV/RV/A coding).
Had they published LV before, it would be a shocking +1 McCain. Had they published RV now, the headline would be a strong Obama comeback.
I assume Nate didn't commit a similar error - it's a small point but it matters for the way the supertracker is calculated. (Perhaps we could help proof-read such details if Nate could "publish" somewhere the archive of National results he uses?)
Stephen, the answer isn't exactly staightforward, because it depends on the complexity of the model. If the pollster uses just two or three questions (registered, voted in last election, and plan to vote) they may discount the second question for those who are "new voters" (i.e., weren't eligible in previous election). Some LV models are much more complicated but it's unusual to ask a whole lotta questions about past voting in typical telephone survey.
Here's a link to very useful discussion by Mark Blumenthal of Gallup's LV model. If you look at links at top you'll see two follow-ups to that one as well.
Take a look at the fascinating cross-tabs from the CBS News/NYT Poll 7/7 - 7/14. This poll has been reported, but look at the details.
This poll found:
Obama 45%
McCain 39%
Undecided 12%
TOTAL: Obama +6
Democrats:
Obama 76%
McCain 10%
Undecided 11%
Republicans:
Obama: 9%
McCain: 83%
Undecided: 6%
Independents:
Obama: 38%
McCain: 35%
Undecided: 19%
Men:
Obama: 44%
McCain:39%
Undecided: 12%
Women:
Obama: 46%
McCain: 37%
Undecided: 14%
That this is really bad news for McCain. Essentially, he has already maximized his support among Republicans. Obama on the other hand still has at least another 10% he can squeeze out of Democrats since he's only at 76%.
If you use Nate's "World's Simplest Election Projection" spreadsheet, (look in the archives and download it if you haven't already, it's great!) and add the Voter ID numbers from this poll, you get almost exactly the same results that Nate's projection had almost a month ago: OBAMA +5.
That tells me that the turnout projections that CBS/NYT is using is very similar to Nate's: i.e. 62% Democratic, 62% Republican and 55% Independent.
Now, this is a very conservative hypothesis, that Republican turnout will essentially equal Democratic turnout.
If in fact Obama's ground game can really turn out more voters than the Republicans this means that his lead would be significantly larger.
This study found just a HUGE enthusiasm gap between them:
Obama supporters: 50% enthusiastic, 42% satisfied/not enthusiastic, 6% dissatisfied, not angry, and 1% angry
McCain supporters: 16% enthusiastic, 68% satisfied/not enthusiastic, 14% dissatisfied/not angry and 1% angry
To believe this won't depress Republican turnout by comparison to Democratic turnout is just utterly wishful thinking. If you compare these numbers to 2004 it's just stark!
Republicans in 2004 were very enthusiastic about Bush and they turned out in massive numbers.
It just ain't going to happen in 2008.
Here's the crusher:
Regardless of how you're going to vote for President who do you expect to finally win?
McCain:
Republicans: 52%
Democrats: 14%
Independents: 31%
TOTAL: 30%
Obama:
Republicans: 26%
Democrats: 77%
Independents: 47%
TOTAL: 52% -- Obama +22%
DK/Depends: 17%
People's belief about who will win the election is almost invariably a self-fulfilling prophecy. It definitely drives turnout.
If you are one of the 48% of Republicans who believe McCain is going to lose or aren't confident he will win, how much effort are you going to put into helping him get elected? ESPECIALLY, if only 16% of Republicans are even enthusiastic about his candidacy to begin with?
This means that if Obama can build his lead much above around 5 or 6 points, in late October, McCain support is going to really fall apart, because they're just not that committed.
And few people like turning out to help a lost cause that they don't really care much about to begin with.
cugel that is a great post- thank you for that.
it's nice to read posts that are about polls and analysis rather than political hack jobs that make me want to stop reading posts on this site all together.
This is the type of post that this site is about. Especially connecting it to Nate's approach/analysis, past posting, and to the thread makes this one of the increasingly uncommon posts that really belongs.
I wish there were much more of this and less bickering and fighting in posts.
Stephen, this Blumenthal article shows the differences in LV approaches among pollsters in 2004.
Thanks anon!
Here's the 2004 breakdown by party ID and ideology by comparison:
Pew Research Group: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103
"Conservative Turnout Rises
The electorate of 2004 was more Republican and conservative than the electorate of 2000, with Republicans matching Democrats 37%-37% this year (compared with 39% Democrat, 35% Republican in 2000), and the percentage of self-identified conservatives rising four points (from 30% to 34%)."
Voter ID right now taking a rolling average of: Rasmussen, NPR, Democracy Corps, CBS News/NYT, Hotline/Diego, NBC/WSJ, RT Strategies, ABC/WP, AP/Ipsos, USAToday/Gallup and Fox through late June:
Democratic: 38.9%
Republican: 29.17&
Independent: 29.23%
Voter ID went from 35% Republican in 2000 (-4%) to 37% (tied with Democrats) in 2004 to 29% (-10%) in 2008.
Meanwhile Democrats went from 39% in 2000, down to 34% in 2004, back up to 39% now. The real movement has been from Republican to Independent and Democrats returning to the fold.
With Obama winning among Independents, and with Independents turnout about 7% lower than either Democrats or Republicans from 2004 (per Nate's World's Simplest Election Projection spreadsheet), that give Obama a huge advantage.
As the partisan nature of this race heats up and people start paying more attention after Labor Day and partisan support among both Republicans and Democrats increases, McCain either has to close the partisan ID advantage (not easy) or else he's going to lose by a wide margin.
I.E. landslide Obama victory over +6% and +375 EV.
That's simply because there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans in this country right now.
Sorry Nate but I guess I do not understand your supertracker. Today three national polls came out all showing Obama with leads from +9 to +3 (assuming you use ABC's likely voter screen over their registered voter one that had Obama +8), yet the supertracker continues to show a declining line on Obama's numbers to just +2 (also reflected in your 49.7 to 47.6 pop vote number). Are three recent polls (indeed the most recent) insufficient to be reflected on the supertracker (oh by the way Gallup and Rasmussen's daily tracker both showed Obama at +3 or more).
Who's the foreigner that keeps bashing America and laughing at her stumbles? America is a greater country that your country (whatever it is) can ever dream of being, even if it is, as you say, in decline. I do not believe this is the case. While the economy is struggling, it has been strong for the last 6 years until the mortgage companies decided to get greedy. That is no fault of Bush, no matter how much you dislike him. Obsessed, what is wrong with you? You call yourself an American and apologize to a foreign America-hater? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Cugel and Juris,
Great posts -- thanks. You up late watching the game as well?
Cugel, allow me to play Devil's advocate. Evidence suggests that voter turnout is highest when elections are perceived to be close -- people don't get involved when they think their effort is wasted.
If that is the case, then it would seem to me that you want your base to perceive the election as being close. Otherwise, they might stay at home due to either overconfidence or despair. From this perspective, it could be argued that Republicans aren't in as bad shape as it might appear.
This argument could be taken further, to fundraising. I suspect there are basically two types of donors: Those who really want their candidate to win, and those who just want to be in good favor with the whoever the winner is. The "big-money" donors probably fall into the latter category, but many of Obama's donors are "small-money." Will these donors continue to give if they think he has it locked up? During the primaries, he seemed to rake in the most money from small-money donors when it appeared he really needed it.
If Obama's supporters really are confident he will win, I'd expect his total fundraising to drop and shift more towards traditional "big-money" donors. Of course there are other factors, but it's food for thought.
As a follow-up, here is Obama's fundraising in 2008 compared to the average monthly close of his Intrade nomination contract:
Jan: $36 million, Intrade: 38.6
Feb: $55 million, Intrade: 67.0
Mar: $40 million, Intrade: 77.1
Apr: $31 million, Intrade: 82.6
May: $22 million, Intrade: 88.0
The closer he was to about 50%, the more money he raised. I believe his two biggest fund-raising stretches were shortly after the NH primary and shortly after Super Tuesday -- both times he crossed the 50% threshhold in Intrade.
The flip-side is that if Obama does start dropping, his fundraising should pick up as the enthusiasm of his supporters starts to surpass their confidence. However, if Obama starts dropping then McCain's fundraising might pick up as well, as his "big-money" donors see him as increasingly viable.
Interesting how in Nate´s model Virginia plays the "decider of the day". As soon as the new national polls make the super-tracker rise again, Virginia will see some blue. That might not be a good sign for McCain since Ohio is likely to go blue before Virginia, and the main issue that makes those 2 states different is the economy.
While these polls alone are not terribly meaningful by now, almost 4 months until the election, they do show the scenario both canndidates have to face this year.
I tend to think that the months until the conventions are the time of ground-laying, of organizing the forces, of defining goals and analysing possiblities.
It is now that the McCain campaign has to decide if they need to deploy personnel to NC/SC. They have to think about a Pawlenty-for-VP strategy now.
In this regard, McCain´s options shrink while Obama´s options grow. That´s probably the message of these new state polls, and it´s also something we knew before. That of course doesn´t need to mean that Obama will win, it just means he is more likely to.
Something about the NYT-national poll - there is indeed a 5% gap of undecideds between Republicans and Democrats. I wonder if many of those people are Hillary-fans on the fence. If registered Democrats form about 40% of the electorate (not quite but almost correct, and easier to calculate with), then Obama could gain 2% of the vote by cutting down the number of undecideds to republican levels.
After all, Obama hasn´t got anything to fear if his female support is stronger than McCain´s male support, with women constituting the majority of voters. Women are also slightly more undecided than men. And each percent of female support going into the Obama column would improve the national numbers by about 0,55%.
America is a greater country that your country (whatever it is) can ever dream of being, even if it is, as you say, in decline. I do not believe this is the case.
I'm an American. Glad to be an American, feel lucky to be an American, and am not necessarily persuaded by the idea that America is completely in decline. Much the same thing could have been said in 1968, or 1974, but things have been going all right since then.
But this kind of shit is absolutely, 100% unmitigated idiocy. By what objective measure do you pretend to measure America's "greatness"? Gross GDP? It's a huge country, and it's the only one this large that's not a disaster area of quasi-communist fascism or very recent colonialism. How badly foreigners want to live here? Got a news flash for ya -- there are plenty of countries that people look to for opportunity at a higher rate. By our military might? What a poor measure of greatness is the ability to destroy our enemies en masse.
And as for trying to shame someone for daring to agree with, as you put it, a "foreigner" who isn't exactly in love with a country not his own, my God, just who do you think you are? Patriotism per se can be valuable, but it is easily twisted into jingoism, blind and thoughtless, and dangerous. That kind of talk is disgusting. Of course he calls himself an American. Last I checked, part of what made America great was that there was no ideological test one had to pass to enjoy the benefits of its citizenship and discourse. "You call yourself an American and yet . . ." is always, every single time, going to end up being a stupid sentence. Americans would do well do excize such crap from their vocabularies.
Look, it's possible to be both a proud American and not to feel that it is "the greatest country on Earth" in a reactionary and thoughtless way. The question "which is the greatest country" is on its face silly, much the same as "which is the greatest film ever" or "who wrote the greatest song of all time". Essentially unanswerable. But if one feels that he must try, it is also a question that cannot be usefully answered without a great deal of subtlety of thought. What do countries stand for? What do they provide for their citizens? How do they treat their poor? How do they treat their neighbors? And so on and so forth. Many questions must be asked and satisfactorily answered before you can ask the big, "Which is the greatest country on Earth?" I have to tell you, there are a lot of questions like that for which the United States receives poor grades. Of course, that is true of every country on the planet.
And now the question of whether this "foreigner" is an "America-hater". It seems to me not. Being from elsewhere and having criticisms of the United States are not synonymous with hatred of the country. I have many criticisms of Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and just about every country of which I have some knowledge; that does not mean I hate that country.
I believe it is perfectly natural for someone who does not experience our political environment to be a little bit puzzled by the fact that Obama is not blowing McCain out of the water. That is not to say that I find it puzzling; the reasons for it are many and complex, but somewhat intuitive to an American: we have two parties, first of all, but they do not rule by fiat or coalition, and are by definition huge, and a great many ideologies within each; we have a strong executive to which it is theoretically possible to ascend with no experience whatsoever, and so the question of a candidate's bona fides may be valid; we have an absolutely brutal race dynamic even to this day, one that is mirrored elsewhere in the first world but almost never equalled; this is a huge country with a great many regions that are nearly as foreign to one another as whole nations are in other parts of the world. And so on. From the outside looking in, the equasion looks simple: Americans don't like George Bush. George Bush is a Republican. The only other alternative on a party level is the Democratic Party. Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. If we despise George Bush so much, why haven't we turned to the obvious alternative? Americans know that the alternative is not necessarily so obvious in our case. People who don't live here may have difficulty grasping it.
Anonymous @ 12:49
So two wars have had no effect on the economy, right? Who's the Decider-in-Chief again?
I love reading this blog> I wish I knew more about statistics so I could contribute something of significance, but I just wanted to let all of you know how much I appreciate your insights.
Rasmus said "ALL polls have the same weighting method. But Zogby Interactives 'Pollster Introduced Error' isn´t regressed to the mean.
So it´s alone enough, that the weight of their poll is maxed out at .3, even with a sample size of 1000000.
On the other hand, a poll with a sample size of 400 gets still a weight of .2"
Rasmus, I know you were part of this thread, with Nate's original weightings.
If you review the current weightings (one week later), you will see that none exceeds 0.24, and all have been adjusted downward. That cannot be the result of time decay.
My comment was based on my faulty memory that the ZI polls had all been given the same (very low) weighting, due to the methodology concerns.
Well said Linus, thank you.
Have you taken into consideration the Congressional Job Approval polling when wondering why Obama does not have a more substantial lead over McCain? Perhaps the record breaking lows for the Democratically controlled Congress offset the Bush disapproval scores resulting in a dead heat? One could also argue that this would affect both candidates equally but I would disagree with that assumption. It would stand to reason that because our Congress has a Democrat majority that it would give more credibility to the McCain candidacy when he works across the isle AND when he stands up to that majority and Obama's bipartisanship (positive) would offset him sticking to the party line (negative) to give him no net additives to his candidacy...
So that leaves Obama with the only non-"Obama v. McCain" pole giving him a boost as Bush's disapproval rankings. If McCain could successfully distance himself from the Bush presidency (which I highly doubt he can accomplish) it would give him a slight edge, no?
I encourage people to email me at wendellmayes@gmail.com so that we could have an in depth discussion about this & maybe fill in a few loopholes in my theory during that process.
counsellorben,
again: The whole difference is that their PIE is not regressed to the mean, which causes that they can´t get more weight than roughly 0.3.
A SUSA poll goes all the way up to 7.15
At the time when Nate posted the Zogby polls, they were already 18 days old, so that they lost parts of their weight, having a weight of around .22-.28.
The whole difference is that they have a high PIE (not regressed to the mean) of 5.73. SUSA has 1.02, Rasmussen 1.3
Cugel,
Read your post on CBS Poll, obviously ODUMBO will not take majority of male vote in the election, which makes this poll very suspect.
I look to see McCain get a 10 point margin on male vote. Furthermore, the Wash. Post/ABC Poll is probably the best poll, as it is likely voter model. Don't know the breakdown of males voters, but I be McCain is winning the male vote.
You picked the poll most favorable to ODUMBO and cherry picked the internals.
"Cugel, allow me to play Devil's advocate. Evidence suggests that voter turnout is highest when elections are perceived to be close -- people don't get involved when they think their effort is wasted."
My point. Except that very few Obama supporters really believe that "he's got it locked up." Democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. Nobody is taking anything for granted.
Enthusiasm drives people to the polls to vote. More importantly, it makes people volunteer and get friends to vote and help the campaign get it's voters to the polls on election day. Voter enthusiasm is key and that requires people being passionately committed to a candidate, the way Republicans were about Bush in 2004.
You have to remember that even with "increased turnout" predictions, almost 40% of America's ELIGIBLE voting age population WON'T BOTHER to REGISTER and VOTE.
Some of this is due to the fact that we have the world's largest prison population outside China and many states disenfranchise ex-convicts, but MOSTLY it's due to pure laziness.
In addition, a number of states make it as hard as they can for new registrations in order to dis-encourage minority voting. This is nothing new either.
Worst, unlike virtually every other advanced country, voting is a royal pain in the ass. Unlike virtually everywhere else, it's NOT a national holiday from work. There are long lines in many (especially urban) places, and the ballots are sometimes confusing, filled with initiatives and many local candidates most voters have never even heard of and have little to no idea what they stand for.
So, if supporters aren't enthusiastic about McCain, some percentage of them won't bother to vote (and some will lie and say they voted if asked later).
And this will be especially true if sometime in October they start to decide that their earlier opinion that McCain was probably going to lose or might lose is looking like it's correct. If he's trailing in all the polls and they don't really care that much about him to begin with, why bother?
Even fools like Pete Kent can see it. If Republicans are mostly voting against Obama and not for McCain, then if they think Obama's going to win anyway, why bother?
Democrats throughout most of my lifetime have been convinced their candidates would lose and mostly they did. That's not a total coincidence. Americans like to be on the winning side. Even the passionately committed hate backing a loser. It's deflating.
And for the wishy-washy? "I think I'll save myself the hassle."
These particular polls are somewhat dated being that they are from 7/10 or earlier. That is the nature of state polls which always seem less current.
CO is the result that interests me. To hear the talk, this is one that Obama should have put away by now. IO is influenced by IL and Obama launched his candidacy from there and has a sentimental spot for him no doubt. It does not figure into the Republican calculus.
The southern states show that McCain remains strong, but not overwhelming. That may be good news. He is no Barry Goldwater and his candidacy has the potential to resonate more nationally than the kind of Republican who could rack up huge margins in these states. The high undecideds also show potential for him as well. Many of these most conservative republicans will have to hold their noses and vote for him, if only to avoid their biggest fear: President-Elect Obama.
Expectations can impact turnout. The “why bother” syndrome can affect your supporters and your opposition. It had best not be raining too hard in Philly or Newark or Trenton on election day.
The present spate of national polls for Obama show him in better position that I would have expected (ahem!), but the trends remain bad for him.
Iraq/Afghanistan are not helping -- these are McCain issues.
Gas prices -- he offers very intellectual pie in the sky alternatives, but won't build a nuke or drill a hole.
He is at risk of becoming defined by his race and his heritage.
His trip to Iraq will be interesting. He will surely have some 'splaining to do after it (maybe even need to redo his website –again!).
Adulation in Europe will be counterproductive in the heartland. He already has the votes of people who own passports and travel. To folks in Indiana Paris is like Mars, only worse -- there are French people there!
The convention speech will have people scratching their heads and thinking of the Nuremberg rallies.
And the debates -- McCain need only stay awake and not look at his watch and he will be accorded victory. Y'all have overhyped that one to death. It’s about expectations.
Baracks biggest problem in this election isn't McCain, its Hilliary, or more specifically her voters. They're not going to Barack but they are not going to McCain either right now.
If Barack puts Hillary on the ticket his poll numbers will shoot up 5% over night. He may not like it but Kennedy hated Johnson, and Reagan hated Bush. You got to do what you got to do.
If he doesn't pick her he's jeopardizing the election.
Rasmus,
Again: I UNDERSTAND your point about PIE and ZI not being regressed to the mean (I also was a part of that thread), but you have failed to address my point.
On 7/9, when the ZI polls were 19 days old, as an example, the ZI CA poll was weighted at 0.28. If you look to the right side of this page, you will see that, as of today, when the poll is 26 days old, it is weighted at 0.24, a decline in its weighting of roughly 14% over 7 days. The same appears to be true for all of the 6/21 ZI polls.
This CANNOT be explained solely by the time decay function. THAT was my point.
Would you please respond to this issue, as opposed to re-stating a point with which I agree?
Matt J.H.
You say that his poll numbers will jump off.....but independents hate the idea of her on the ticket....what will that do to them?
- Matt
Morning. Three things:
1. What a pleasure to wake up to the excellent comments by Cugel and Juris. The game was way too intense for me to be thinking about this stuff. Which is why baseball is the only antidote to the doldrums of summer presidential campaigns. (Remember, the doldrums aren't just boring times; they're winds, or lack thereof, that are v. dangerous for oceanic passage. Right by the equator. Don't get stuck.)
2. Cugel: Is there a breakdown of 2008 self-identification by philosophy (conservative, etc) rather than by party that we could compare to the 2004 data you put up? Am fascinated by notion of "self-identification." As in, I am more moderate than I used to be (age and living in Texas) but still call myself a liberal (use the L word, people!). Would love to compare apples to apples between 2004 and 2008.
3. Pete K: you know that I adhere to a strict "Don't engage with Pete--it'll only make him post some more" policy, but there are two things I'd like you to know. One, I found it completely pathetic, infantile, and sexist when people called you a girl yesterday. You were right to point that out. Thank you. (Yes, you read that right--I just thanked Pete Kent!)
Two, I'm a little concerned about the long-term prospects for the GOP having read your remarkable paragraph that both states that McCain is no Goldwater and that having a lower level of support in the South may bode well for McCain's prospects nationally. Wow. I was feeling a little worried when it seemed like you and I were starting to see things eye to eye. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nothing could be worse for Obama than putting Hillary on the ticket. He will gain little by it and pick up all the Clinton baggage. It will be a sign of weakness in his campaign, as the very notion of putting her on the ticket is a move to shore up support that should already be his.
Interesting, according to a new rassmussen poll Hilalry actually does better against McCain in a hypothetical match up. This may say more about Obama than Senator Clinton at this point.
I think Obama will go with Evan Bayh. Obama wants this election to be about him. There is a place for only one peacock in the room.
McCain is more likely to make a bold choice. He needs to bring excitement to a very dull campaign. I am betting on Carly Fiorina these days. Having her with him would give a lot of disgruntled women voters who seem instinctively to dislike Obama (you know what I mean, sweetie) a place to go.
Read Maureen Dowd on how humorless a man Obama is. How you can't even make a joke about him. It fuels my narrative that his candidacy is too charged with personal identity and has created a discomforting hyper-sensitivity that many voters would best want to avoid, even if they might otherwise be inclined to opt for change.
Pete Kent said:
"He is at risk of becoming defined by his race and his heritage."
If you believe being half-Caucasian and half-African American is a negative characteristic, then you truly do not love America. I suppose you'll tell us that "it's OK with me, but, you know, the rest of America..."
Go ahead and play that card. It exposes you as someone who truly deep-down does not believe in what America stands for. And is why the Republican party under Bush/McCain has failed to attend to the issues America needs addressed, even when blessed with years of uninterrupted power.
Just as 538 becomes back to normal with legitimate discussion of the polling the partisan hacks like Pete Kent and Republican come out. Sigh. Gentlemen, please leave your viewpoints out of this. Republican, if you want to bash Obama the fine folks over at Hillaryis44 would love to welcome another nutbag to the mix.
Pete, your commentary is not only insight-less and base upon your personal guesses with no substantive backing (I am from Indiana, the y'know, heartland and see 0 of the sentiment you speak of).
You got bashed here yesterday for what is just blatent trolling on a site that has no place for bias, much less hackery. Ideology is NOT relevant to this site, and post is as useful as a splinter in the eye to those who come here for numerical insight.
"
This CANNOT be explained solely by the time decay function. THAT was my point."
OK. Now I got it, sorry.
Simple answer: It IS solely explained by the time decay.
Polls lose 50% of weight in 30 days (half-life of 30 days), so 14% in 7 days is entirely ok )it´s a rough number, for you couldn´t track the other decimal places and I didn´t.
But for example, the CA Zogby poll has a weight of 0.238469095 (here is some rounding error, too, but the first decimal places should be correct.)
In one week it will have a weight of 0.202857828, a decline of about 12.7% or so.
Rasmus,
Yes, I saw my initial calculation error. I ran the decay on my calculator when I was tired, and made an error. Now refreshed, I re-ran the time decay, and the difference between day 19 and day 26 results in a 15% decline.
One follow-up. You had stated the theoretical max for the ZI polls at 0.3. CA was weighted at 0.28 at day 19. Wouldn't that mean that the ZI CA poll would have started at approximately 0.43 weighting on 6/21, assuming it had been entered into the model on that day?
Rasmus,
Sorry, I just had the thought that you might have included the time decay in setting your theoretical maximum. If so, I apologize for overlooking that.
I am betting on Carly Fiorina these days.
It's probably a good bet. McCain will look even worse if the Veep nominee is more competent than he is. With Carly, who couldn't even run Hewlett Packard properly, there's no danger of that happening.
Hey P Grey:
You wrote:"Two, I'm a little concerned about the long-term prospects for the GOP having read your remarkable paragraph that both states that McCain is no Goldwater and that having a lower level of support in the South may bode well for McCain's prospects nationally. Wow. I was feeling a little worried when it seemed like you and I were starting to see things eye to eye. Thanks for clearing that up."
The point is simple if McCain were a Bob Barr type he could rack up Bush like numbers in the South, but lose everywhere else as his extremist views would turn people off. Right now he is the true moderate in the race and has a shot of winning because of it.
Obama can only ape at moderation, but his liberal slip is showing at every turn and flounce.
To Anon @932: you like many here refuse to hear me. I am not saying that his race or ethnic background is a bad thing. What I do not like are his politics and the hyper racial consciouness he has brought to the election. He ran as a post-racial candidate but every where you turn he throws the race card. Partially as defense and partially as offense.
I think Obama belives or has been advised that Amercians who are by and large not racist can be brow beaten into voting for him if only to prove their non-racist credentials.
Me? I suspect a backlash. Not that we are racist, but we resent being told that oppostion to his candidacy is akin to being a racist. Will we have to hear that for four years? How will we accomplish anything as nation if all debate is framed in terms fo a racial divide?
Hi,
I am new to this poll stuff but I do have a question regarding the "accuracy" of state polls compared to national polls. Most of the state polls that I have observed would indicate that Obama is leading by enough enough to win the election easily. Your projections show only a 2.5% difference in popular vote. If you normalized all your state projections to electoral votes would your electoral projection be that close?
Pete Kent:
As long as you keep acting like a racist, you will be accused of being one.
You, sir, by the content of your posts, are clearly a racist.
New Zogby national poll showing Obama leading McCain 47-40. Note that this is regular Zog poll, not a Zogby Interactive, with 1039 likelies polled.
Carly Fiorina would be a really bad choice for McCain because it would undercut the experience argument they are trying to use aganst Obama.
She has no qualification to lead this country, possibly a cabinet job but not vice president.
It would be a hail Mary and show how desperate he is, it would be acknowledgement he has no chance.
Rasmus,
Sorry, I just had the thought that you might have included the time decay in setting your theoretical maximum. If so, I apologize for overlooking that.
Oops. Yes, if there is no time decay, the max is =.43 . However, when the polls were added, the max was .3, sorry.
And the Cali sample size is so big that there is no huge difference between the maximum sample size and that of Cali.
Jim S.,
You just proved Pete Kent right, and your blind accusation is exactly what he's talking about. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.
People resent having the cloud of racism hovering over their personal beliefs. Why is it not plausible that some people do not like Barack Obama because of his policies? But if people feel "attacked" by smears that their anti-Obama sentiment is purely based on racial attitudes as oppposed to actual social and political debates, it only makes a mountain out of racial tensions that was previously a mole hill of isolated biases.
Yes, there are some people (whites, namely) who won't be voting for Obama simply because of his racial identity. That's disgusting and ignorant, but in this country, people have the right to their own personal beliefs. I find it equally disgusting, though, when people try and have well-informed political beliefs that aren't race-based only to have people of differing opinions charge them with race-based idealism.
That is what Pete Kent is speaking of, and it's something people don't want to get entangled in this election cycle.
Anon @:57
"Your projections show only a 2.5% difference in popular vote. If you normalized all your state projections to electoral votes would your electoral projection be that close?"
That's basically what Nate does. He runs 10,000 simulations for each state and his popular vote totals are simply the sum of his state estimates.
The reasons why his popular vote estimate is as close as it is are two-fold: (1) state polls are adjusted based on when they were taken to tie to the general state of the race today - that's what the "Super Tracker" measures (note that it's been moving in McCain's favor for the last few days), (2) history tells us that races tighten over the summer/fall, so Nate projects the final result to be closer than current polls (that's the "Projected" line of the Super-Tracker).
Obama will not be elected because he thinks Christians cling to their bibles; a true Christian would not say such a thing.
Notice he didn't say this about the Koran.
Furthermore, and you want hear anyone speaking about this in the media or anywhere else....
If we find racists so deplorable in their opinions and accuse them of being ignorant and racist to not vote for Obama or vote for McCain simply because of Obama's race and not a politically informed opinion, is it not equally deplorable, ignorant, and racist for someone (black or otherwise) who DOES vote for Mr. Obama simply because of his race and not any other politically informed opinion. The race-based preference works both ways. Let's not hide that fact. It's sickening to suggest otherwise.
If you cannot comment civilly without being a racist, then no one wants to hear that crap.
ridiculous.
Jim S. said...
Pete Kent:
As long as you keep acting like a racist, you will be accused of being one.
You, sir, by the content of your posts, are clearly a racist.
Jim, you are clearly an asshole! He never said anything to suggest being a racist. You simply don't like what he has to say, do you label him with what you think can be the ugliest thing you can- a racist.
Fact of the matter is there will be millions who vote against Obama because he is black, because they think he is a Muslim ( I do), because he is a left wing liberal, because he is for gun control, etc.
Labeling people because they differ from you is the ugliest form of racism!
Anon @10:26:
Sorry... I did post assuming most people have tracked the last few days in the comments section. His posts (just do an alt-F for Pete Kent in the last few days posts for a sampling) all have racist undertones and most have outright racist statements.
If you want to talk about policies, I believe any Obama supporter welcomes that debate. If you want to talk about the color of anyone's skin, for any reason, we do not want to participate, because in the end, the prejudices of ignorant people help only one person in this election. Whether you like it or not, McCain stands a lot to gain from racism in this election and his supporters (specifically Pete Kent on this site recently) are very clued in to this fact.
Again... nobody's calling you a racist for wanting conservative justices on the Supreme Court. If that's your true reason for voting McCain, I fully support your right to the stance and think you should have every option to persuade people into aligning with your view. However, the second the color of anyone's skin becomes an issue, it's very clear that people are preying on the ignorance of the masses and that is not something I think people in this country ought to stand for in this day and age.
Talking about the color of Obama's skin, even when referring to how other people might react to it, is playing into this racism strategy.
"Fact of the matter is there will be millions who vote against Obama because he is black" - these people are racists by any reasonably definition of the word "racist".
"because they think he is a Muslim ( I do)" - these people are stupid, by any reasonable definition of the word "stupid". They're also bigots by any reasonable definition of the word "bigot".
Sorry but uh, when your post is "Race race race, race race race, race race race race race" (Read while imaginging Jingle Bells, catchy tune), you become a race-ist in the classical sense of the use "ist" or "ism", much in the same way you become a communist, neoclassicalist, etc. by espousing or focusing on those things.
You're useless Pete Kent, please leave so people don't have to hyperfilter through the BS to get to polling and statistics related comments.
HELL FOLKS. Judging by all these comments, OBAMA IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT!!!!! Why the hell should we even go vote and see how close it will actually be!
Calm Down Obama fans, the magical 538.com model and the polls here in July are predicting an Obama blowout!!!! Forget about the fact we have about 110 days left til the election, MCCAIN HAS NO CHANCE BECAUSE THE DEMS ALWAYS FIND WAYS TO WIN THE ELECTION!!! How about their fabulous job of winning with Gore and Kerry!!!
Forget about voting, He already has it won!!! NOBAMA 08!!!!!!
Though I love the discussion of bigotry on here everday now (not), on a less controversial note-- if Obama selected Evan Bayh for running mate, I would assign Kevin Kline to play him in the movie of his life (though if that project waits 10 years to come about, he'd be too old). Spitting image.
The most ignorant and racist idea surrounding racism is that it's a problem only within the white/Caucasian community.
Well, this thread is toast. I'm not positive, but it seems that the trolls come out to play when Nate/Sean start a qualitative thread. Or when BHO advocates go off topic. As long as we stick to quant stuff they seem to be either intimidated by the discussion or don't like the results. They also will reply to any post and feed on criticism. God knows what motivates trolls, but they are everywhere.
Pete Kent is very bright and knows all the debating points. One would think he would also know that he's not influencing anyone here. I suspect it's an ego thing.
Please don't feed the trolls! (which I probably just did! :-( )
The trolls have begun. McCain has security escort disruptive protesters from his events. These trolls are disrupting good conversations with lies, innuendo, and racism. We need moderation to remove the trolls just like removing disruptive protesters. They have more than enough sites on the internet where thier blathering is welcome.
Anon at 1026 and 1035 has kindly come to my defense. I am not a racist by any stretch of the imagination. To even answer that question is akin to being asked: When did you stop beating your wife?
As has been pointed out, just because I am willing to discuss the impact of race on the race does not make me a rascist. People vote not purely on the issues, but often on intangibles.
If we are not willing to explore and debate (civily -- which I try to do, even if I can be a bit snide (I learned that from Obama, I guess))then we will learn nothing from this campaign.
We are being offered a great gift to study as it happens the first serious campaign by an AA for President of the US in history. Let us not lose the opportunity by some false scruples or squeamishness. We must be willing to call a diamond a diamond!
And Please Jim -- find me one racist comment I have made. I think Obama has a fine mind, a great gift for oratory and a charismatic way about him. That he is inexperienced and has a leftist agenda that is bad for this country is also part of my calculus.
I do not care to debate the issues per se. I get bored by blowhards who think they know anything about the economy or drilling, but I will debate the impact those issues may have and how they are perceived.
Again, I challenge Jim to find my racist commments . . .
Fiorina's leading qualification for the McCain ticket would seem to be that after she was canned from HP, the company's business really took off. She would fit right in with the Bush legacy of mismanagement.
Her second leading qualification is that when she ran HP she supported an effort at spying on her own board members. A perfect match to the Bush-Cheney legacy.
Cugel,
I'm not sure that "nobody is taking anything for granted." I just don't see that in the numbers. Let's see if this enthusiasm translates into small-donor fundraising.
BTW, where did you find the cross-tabs for this poll? I couldn't find them.
It might be instructive to consider how important it is to voters that their candidate wins:
McCain supporters:
Enthusiastic about McCain as candidate (according to Cugel): 16%
Extremely important that McCain wins (taken from here): 24%
Obama supporters:
Enthusiastic about Obama as candidate (according to Cugel): 50%
Extremely important that Obama wins (taken from here): 37%
The enthusiasm gap definitely favors Obama, but I don't think it's as large as you make it out to be, and I do think there is real risk of overconfidence among Obama supporters.
On another note, this part of the poll was eye-popping:
80. Just as your best guess, about what percentage of all Americans are black?
Less than 10%: 1%
White: 1%
Black: 4%
10% - 20%: 21%
White: 21%
Black: 24%
20% - 30%: 32%
White: 33%
Black: 26%
30% - 50%: 32%
White: 33%
Black: 24%
More than 50%: 9% <--- WTF?
White: 8%
Black: 17%
Actual answer: About 12%. From these numbers, we can estimte that approximately 90% of Americans overestimate the size of the black population of this country.
It reminds me of the 2002 poll that showed that the median percent of the budget Americans think is spent on foreign aid is 25%.
I really wish pollsters would ask more of these types of questions, and provide cross-tabs so that we knew what other opinions these people have. It would be very instructive.
I first came onto this site two months ago. It was--and still is--the best site regarding political data and polling. The comments that were left were all related to polling and the data. Now the right wing trolls have arrived and they have done to this site what they have done to the entire political narrative in this country. Instead of looking at issues and data, they have resorted to coarse attacks and taunting. Instead of statistical analysis they are engaged in juvenile rhetoric. What has happened to fivethirtyeight is symbolic of what has happened in our country. Everything from science to education is treated as an opportunity for partisan advantage, much to the detriment of our country. Let us ignore these people who look to destroy American and it's core values with their worship of partisanship. Let us only respond to the quantitative issues at hand and restore the dialogue that has made this site so great.
My gift to the Quants:
From 7/15 Quinnipiac Poll
“But by a 51 - 43 percent margin, voters support McCain's plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq without a fixed withdrawal timetable, rather than Obama's plan to begin an immediate withdrawal with an 18-month timetable.”
Also of the economic issues over 50% worry most about gas prices.
These snapshots bode ill for Obama . . . discuss
This years political season only reminds us how far we have to go as a country. We cannot have a black guy with a Muslim sounding name run for political office without these types of smears, innuendo, and fear mongering. I admit the Democrats are probably more to blame than the republicans, however its sad coming from anyone.
What does it say about our country that any candidate has to endure character assignations regarding whether or not they love their country enough. Questioning their patriotism. Questioning the fitness of a politicians wife, depicting her as angry. Which we all know is a vialed race attack. We don't call white spouses angry. Nor have we ever.
Lets look at some of the absurd beliefs that the Obama campaign has had to fight:
1. He is a Muslim
2. He went to a Muslim school
3. He was sworn in on the Koran
4. nearly half question whether or not he loves his country.
5. He is a radical
6. His wife is angry at our country
7. His wife was caught on tape making racial slurs towards white people
We should not be having a discussion about where these falsehoods came from, but why they exist. The MSM talks about the political consequences of these when the discussion should be how they are not acceptable in society. These smears would not be spread if society rejected them entirely. But society does not. In fact there are segments of the population that refuse to believe otherwise even when they are shown evidence to the contrary.
Hillary Clinton faced entirely unseemly sexism as well. And it should be repudiated just as harshly. The sexism attacks on her were much more openly accepted however because many of the MSM male pundits were the ones exhibiting the behavior. Sexism is obviously more acceptable by society. The attacks on Obama are through Emails and rumor so they cannot be traced. The attacks on Senator Clinton were often laughed at and applauded by the on air staff.
Hillary and Barack have had to face obstacles others do not. Hopefully they are paving the way for future candidates so they do not endure the same treatment. I do not know when that day will come but I will gladly embrace it when it does
I have a technical question which I hope the technically-minded will notice in all this noise.
Facts:
1. The lowering of the supertracker meant that the amount of downwards discount went down considerably.
2. Downwards discount is distributed more or less equally between the States, especially when it is so low.
3. Thus the recent *reduction in the downwards discount* (please give a second to understand what I'm talking about) was more or less equally distributed between the States.
4. Reduction in the downwards discount is fundamentally a plus for Obama.
5. Now, the lowering of the supertracker projection advantage for Obama does not get reflected equally between the States: some States happen to have polls from dates that are moved down by the trend adjustment, some happen to have polls from that dates that are moved up from the trend adjustment.
6. The distribution in 5 above is essentially orthogonal to electoral "reality" and reflects instead the random (i.e. random for our purposes) distribution of polls across time.
7. Thus we have the situation where the lowering of the supertracker raises Obama in all States equally, through the reduction in the downwards adjustment factor; and lowers Obama only some States, depending on the random distribution of when polls were conducted.
Now I vaguely wonder if this may not represent a bug in the model, as we have effectively some random upwards State trends resulting, paradoxically, from lowering the National numbers.
I liked the equal distribution of the downwards discount when it was introduced. What I am saying now, briefly, is that while it is in principle valid to distribute such downwards discount equally, this leads to artifact consequences *when the downwards discount changes over time*.
Technically minded people, help! Am I right?
Modeler - that's some crazy stuff!
But when you say "I really wish pollsters would ask more of these types of questions, and provide cross-tabs so that we knew what other opinions these people have" I think the word you're looking for is "delusions", not "opinions". :)
Anon @:19,
I don't think it's a bug in the model at all. As I understand it, the "Trend-Adjusted" poll numbers are Nate/the model's estimate of what a poll of that state would look like if the poll was taken today. That's Step 1 of the process - what's the current state of the race? The "downward adjustment" that you're talking about is Step 2 of the process - what do we expect the race to look like in November? We expect, all other things being equal, the race to get closer by November, so we damp down all of the various Trend-Adjusted State Polls.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "this downward adjustment" favors Obama - what it says is that the current trend that we see in the polls away from Obama doesn't affect our projection as much as we might have thought it would, because we already expected it - we were already expecting the race to tighten, which, in fact, it has. All of which, to some extent, simply confirms the appropriateness of Nate's model.
Reading over this, I'm not sure that I exactly addressed your questions, but hopefully I at least helped to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of this thread.
Peter Kent@11:16
No doubt you missed Krusty flip-flopping three or four times to end up adopting Obamas position on Afghanistan. In his senility-tinged style he first had 3 brigades transfer from Iraq, then he changed to NATO troops, then a mix of both. three separate pressers. So if the dim bulb is now taking on Obamas positions "whole cloth"...
Oh, NYT poll white voters two to one think Obama will improve image and relations with the rest of the world.
52 to 30 whites think Obama is more capable of essential changes in Washington.
Discuss...
The American people are hurting right now with high gas prices , and the presidential candidates are scrambling to come up with solutions. The Democrats pursue Renewable Energy and conservation while the republicans advocate more oil drilling and more nuclear. Politically it appears the republicans have the democrats on the run. But what is the best solution going forward?
Enter Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Mr. Lovins an expert on energy and energy policy was recently on the Charlie Rose show where he laid out the facts.
Fact #1.
Nuclear is the worst of all possible choices going forward. Not because of environmental concerns but its way too expensive compared with Renewable and oil. Nuclear, not so good.
Fact#2
The next worst energy is Oil. It too is very expensive. Expensive to find , and increasingly expensive to drill and deliver to market. Mr. Lovins states ANWR is barley worth it for the oil companies because of the cost to deliver it to market. Secondly, even though we are constantly criticizing oil companies, they are finding it more and more difficult to find cheap oil. Thats why the price keeps going up. More expensive to find, more expensive to drill, more expensive to refine, its expensive period.
Fact#3
The fastest, cheapest, most economical way for America to become energy independent is through "Market driven" as opposed to "Governmental Driven" renewable, micro renewable and conservation technologies. Mr Lovin states that its not even close. We can become completely energy independent on renewable energies in 40 years, by 2050. And as a bonus, have near 0 emissions of fossil fuels.
Apparently, Drill,Drill,Drill is the exact opposite of the best way to move forward. Nuclear is even worse than oil and renewable s is not only the way of the future, it is here for the taking now if we do it right. So, lets stop spewing spin, have both sides put the politics aside and do it right the first time.
New Rasmussen Poll in Oregon has Obama up 9. About what should be expected I would say.
John H,
Good point.
I am happy to see John "Flip Flop" McCain has changed his mind ("flip Flopped") on Afghanistan policy and decided to agree with Barack Obama's overarching strategy to combat global terrorism. It appears although Obama was wrong about the Surge he was right about everything else.
Senator Obama has been calling for a re-emphasis on Afghanistan for years and finally the republicans and their Presidential Nominee is agreeing. The Illinois Senator has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and proves someone with his unique background and world understanding can move American foreign policy in a new smarter direction based on results and not incompetence.
Moondancer:
i will give the Obama campaign credit for good spin of Afghanistan. It is of course ludicrous to think that Obama is better able to handle that war than he was Iraq on which his tactical position is now so demostrably wrong that he has had to "refine" his website!
I'd like to see him go toe to toe with McCain on military strategy . . . of course he wont and that's why he has avoided all of thsoe townhall debates that he flipped flopped on.
The otehr results you sight do not surprise me. i question the amount of importance Americans place on the degree to whci we are liked by foregin nations. To some that might not be a good thing . . . Obama will never capture the xenophobic vote!
That he is still considered the change candidate makes sense. He changes his positions more often than he changes his underrware. In truth, he owns the change brand. But the question remains what kind of change will it be? For th moment it seems ill-defined and ever shifting. The flip flopping he did hurt him in the polls and has tagged him.
I am still waiting for Jim S to provide back up for his racist smears . . .
After a week where a few national polls showed Obama dropped a couple points, Rasmussen's tracking poll is creeping back to its equilibrium level and other national polls are maintaining the same lead they've shown before. I find it ironic that many of the partisan hack commenters here blithely ignored Nate's post on 7/12 when he said people use the polls as a sort of Rorschach blot test and project what they want to see.
Also, what many people are missing is that the model predicts the probability of a victory. So if for example we see these exact same numbers on November 3rd, the model might predict a 90% chance of an Obama victory. That means there's still a 10% chance of a McCain win. It would be a small, yet non-negligible, chance but if McCain did pull it off against those odds that doesn't mean the model is wrong.
In fact I think the model has proven itself to be accurate because it has been predicting future polls. That's why we don't see any significant change in the win percentages even though the polls have been favorable for Obama.
Pete - Stop talking about race in every other post as you have been for the last couple of days and people will stop calling you a racist.
Simple, really.
anon@:19
You're not thinking about it right. A drop in the Super Tracker will be a net negative for Obama everywhere. That's because every poll is trend-adjusted according to the last point of the LOESS curve. If that curve drops two points, every post-trend-adjustment poll will be two points less favorable than it would have been without a drop -- whether the poll was taken last week or two months ago.
Also, the regression is then calculated on the trend-adjusted polls, so it will be two points lower on average.
Finally, the "depreciation due to projecting to November" will be reduced by about half of the drop, applied to all states. So the net result is downward everywhere, by about half of the amount the LOESS curve drops.
Mason--I suppose the whole discussion of race was ended by Obama's famous (but now inoperative) speech in Philadelphia?
To simply wish to discuss race (if you are (presumably) white?) is to brand you a racist.
Let's ignore the 500 LB Gorilla in the room: Race is playing no role in this election.
And if it is, it is impolite to bring it up.
I get it now! Thank you for clearing that up.
Ahem!
Nate, et al.:
Is there any way to factor in the effect of structure, ie staffers, campaign mobilization, etc, from looking at past elections, and of course controlling for other factors?
Given that these are, as has been said, the doldrums of summer (and the doldrums of incompetent all-stars), I think it's easy to forget that as we speak an unprecedented level of organization is being built up in every state.
Of course, maybe this doesn't matter at all. But it seems likely that supposing a tight election, the campaign that can come back for door-knocking #3 and answer the questions someone had is going to have a pretty big advantage.
Pete: Race should play no role in this election as race will play no role for the POTUS. To continue to bring it up plays upon more base natures.
That you think it's a 500 lbs gorrilla says a lot about you.
Pete Kent says
These snapshots bode ill for Obama . . . discuss
Hardly as even the poll it self says in the next paragraph:
"The overall numbers show a big partisan split on the war in Iraq. Almost three-fourths of Republicans think it was the right thing to do. Democratic denunciation is overwhelming," Carroll said. "And by the slimmest of majorities, voters back McCain's plan to keep troops in Iraq as long as it takes."
A vast majority of republicans means either low electoral college states or wasted opinions in massively blue states. This poll results is good news for Obama.
The same poll shows the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake and of distance secondary importance behind the economy.
That you think a near 50:50 split on the exact mechanics of how to disentangle ourself from Iraq is even close to a deciding issue of the election shows more desperate your wishful thinking has become.
Thanks Lilnev, you're right. My fact 5 was wrong. Even though for any given position of the supertracker the trend adjustment is different from state to state, the net effect of any change in the supertracker is equal in all states.
You may see, by the way, why I like to be anonymous!
A.D., Connecticut:
I don't believe the model directly accounts for those effects because it's nearly impossible to accurately estimate the force multiplier effect of a strong ground game.
However, there is a variable that looks at the per capita donations. Money donated corresponds to voter enthusiasm, and enthusiastic voters are more likely to become directly involved with the campaigns. It's not the same thing as what you're asking, but maybe it's at least some indication?
Lilnev, you wrote: "A drop in the Super Tracker will be a net negative for Obama everywhere. That's because every poll is trend-adjusted according to the last point of the LOESS curve. If that curve drops two points, every post-trend-adjustment poll will be two points less favorable than it would have been without a drop -- whether the poll was taken last week or two months ago.
I can't seem to find where he wrote this, but I recall that after Nate first introduced the use of national polls in his state estimates, in response to some advice/criticism here he relaxed the assumption of an equal percentage point adjustment across all states associated with a given percentage point change in the national poll(s).
Instead, he did some kind of adjustment to his model that allowed for differential state sensitivity to the national trends.
In addition, in the last week, he further modified the model so that state estimates are affected by the movement of polls in "most similar" states (applying information from his "nearest neighbor analysis"). So his state estimates are affected by poll trends in "similar states," not just by the "national" poll trends.
Nate has not yet put all of his changes into his FAQ. I think it would be hairy for him to do it all in a simple document on the website, but at least he should explain the series of operations. What I would love for him to do in addition would be to find time to write a full monty version in the form of a paper, perhaps something he could present for review by a journal or at a professional conference.
Listen, Obama is a Muslim. End of story.
Two nit-picky questions about the Scenario Analysis:
(1) It looks like there are 3,232 instances (in current version) of Obama losing Ohio. Except that "Obama loses Ohio, wins Colorado" is out of 3,231. Is this a typo or is there really one case excluded from this set for Colorado only for some reason?
(2) I genuinely don't know the answer to this: does 10,000 simulations give you enough certainty to merit 2 decimal places, or does that introduce false precision? (This is a frequent issue in my own work because I usually have not enough hard information -- don't know how it applies to a more scientific method like Nate's).
One interesting but largely unreported ABC/WaPo tidbit is that Obama leads McCain by 3 in LV by 8 in RV and by 12 in adults (registered or unregistered).
While the obvious conclusion is that Obama's ground stuff has tonnes of work to do, I wonder whether most opinions on Obama among highly likely voters are formed and the only people left in play are independents.
Nate what do you think?
You're not Pete Kent@1:04. You are a coward projecting lies to someone who hasn't said any such thing just because you don't agree with his other posts. What a d-bag.
Can anyone hear me or see me on here?
Modeler: here's the entire CBS News/ NYT poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/
JUL08a-Campaign08.pdf
"There is a large enthusiasm gap: Obama’s voters are more than three times as likely as McCain’s voters to be enthusiastic about their candidate.
Half of Obama’s supporters say they feel enthusiastic about him; just 16% of McCain’s supporters do.
Although 68% of McCain voters are satisfied, 15% of those now voting for him are angry or dissatisfied. Sizable percentages of those dissatisfied voters are conservatives or evangelical."
Thanks Anon at 112, that was not this Pete Kent @ 1:04.
Obama is not a Muslim. If he were it would be interesting, but not disabling. My experiences in the Holy Land taught me of the abiding faith and reverence that the Muslim people have for the Jewish and the Christian faiths. It is a story that does not get told often enough. We are fruit of the same tree.
Obama is undeniably of Muslin extraction. A courageous man would not shun his roots, but embrace them and heal an awful divide that has descended on the world.
That Islam has been perverted and is being used as a sword against the West cannot be denied. But we must not be intolerant or ignorant of any faith or any one.
Such is the lesson of Jesus Christ and what he taught us on his way to Glory on Calvary!
"(2) I genuinely don't know the answer to this: does 10,000 simulations give you enough certainty to merit 2 decimal places, or does that introduce false precision? (This is a frequent issue in my own work because I usually have not enough hard information -- don't know how it applies to a more scientific method like Nate's)."
Nope. One decimal place is roughly ok, but even the last decimal place is subject to random error (not that a result of 50.0 could be 50.6 or so, but I think a range of 49.85-50.15 is possible)
New Field poll of CA: Obama 54, McCain 30. http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2276.pdf
While McCain lost five points from two months ago, his unfavorables also dropped, from 45 to 38. The enthusiasm gap is as much of a chasm as elsewhere; 51% of Obama supporters are "very enthusiastic" compared to 17% of McCain supporters, and 27% of McCain supporters are "not enthusiastic" compared to 5% of Obama supporters. I really wish that they'd polled about drilling.
I find it rather hilarious at those who post on here who complain about the "right-wing trollers" who do nothing but interrupt discussion with their partisan diatribes and make life miserable for all the regulars while practically "ruining" the site (538.com).
Yeah, I guess it's not very courteous and a little bit disrespectful for the right-wingers to "trespass" on a left-leaning site with their rantings, but what they do is certainly no more ludicrous than a bunch of radical liberal loons sitting around analyzing pointless polling data after pointless polling data, all while stroking each other's egos and wallowing in their smugness as they anticipate the inevitable victory of their party's candidate (Mr. Barack Obama), all of this while hiding behind regression analysis and statistical modeling as a guise for actual impartial analysis of the election.
This is too funny!
Disregard the false Pete Kent at 1:21.
Obama is a Muslim and if you ever read the bible you would know that Jesus would want McCain to win the Presidency.
The only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ, all others shall burn in the lake of fire.
Would you really want someone bound for Hell to run the country?
All of this statistical data is being pored over and pored over. That's great. It sounds like there's at least an attempt to figure out accurately who will win. But that's just it. It only figures out who will win and make it to the White House. I'd say anywhere from a 4-8 point lead for Obama nationwide is probably about right.
However, I want more statistics. Specifically, I want statistics (using the same sound methodologies, of course) that will show just how Barack Obama's policies will affect this country. Quantify that in statistical terms, please. I can't provide a number, but my gut feeling is that he's going to F things up pretty good. So, essentially, a bunch of statistics telling me he is going to win the election doesn't really do much good when, in all actuality, his election is going to seriously devastate this country socially and economically.
Unfortunately, McCain is not a great option either. As Paul Harvey said a couple of months ago, "Where have all the giants gone?"
This may seem outdated, but I like to compare the policies of today's politicians with what I think were the fundamental issues addressed by our founding fathers - Washington, Jefferson, et al. If a modern candidate seems greatly at odds with the founding fathers, then he is toast.
There are now two Pete Kent's: I have a Mr. Hyde!
Let me say that I cannot say with any certainty that Obama is going to hell or heaven, but I know he will have quite a chat with Saint Peter over his oppostion to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while a member of the IL State Senate. Don't ever fret over Obama's devotion to the sacrament that the left has made of abortion!
Nice comeback, Truly Independent!
New Ras poll, Obama up by 9, 46-37.
With leaners it's 49-40.
No change from last month.
Tuly ind said:
However, I want more statistics. Specifically, I want statistics (using the same sound methodologies, of course) that will show just how Barack Obama's policies will affect this country. Quantify that in statistical terms, please. I can't provide a number, but my gut feeling is that he's going to F things up pretty good. So, essentially, a bunch of statistics telling me he is going to win the election doesn't really do much good when, in all actuality, his election is going to seriously devastate this country socially and economically.
Don't worry about that gut feeling. That's probably just indigestion. Take two alka-seltzer and you'll feel better fast.
But seriously... You're missing the point of this site by a wide margin. It's basically a statistical discussion of the election, and people's "gut feelings" on the election would seem to have very little place other than to act as a sort of smell test. People's gut feelings on what these men might do as POTUS have none at all.
It's akin to going to a stats seminar at a SABR convention and saying "Jeter deserves his Gold Gloves because he looks good."
Cugel,
Thanks for the link.
Truly Independent,
If you want to start a quantitative discussion of policy issues, I'm sure many here would be happy to participate. However, my guess is that you might be more at home at a social science blog. The crowd here is more of the political science type.
The poll Anon @ 1:41 mentions is from Oregon.
Nope. One decimal place is roughly ok, but even the last decimal place is subject to random error (not that a result of 50.0 could be 50.6 or so, but I think a range of 49.85-50.15 is possible)
If Rasmos is right about this, then I think the Scenario Analysis should only show one decimal place. Otherwise it's overstating its case.
Modeler,
Anytime you're ready for a fact-based, quantitative discussion on policy, I'm right here waiting. Don't think, though, that because I've denounced Obama's policies means I'm in any way supportive of several Republican/Bush/McCain policies. I like to be an independent thinker. Especially since I've been able to take a step back and see just how much BOTH parties have been wrong on so many issues.
No, Mason, I haven't missed the point of the website. I have it spot on...it's just that my assessment was delivered firmly tongue-in-cheek.
Tounge-in-cheek, eh? Forgive me for saying so, TI, but you've planted it so firmly that you've mumbled your message.
Biden is winning in the last round of the MSNBC veepstakes competition!! VOTE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24764369/
Go Biden! =)
TI said,
Anytime you're ready for a fact-based, quantitative discussion on policy, I'm right here waiting.
And that misses the point of the site. Nowhere on the FAQ is there any mention of policy discussion. Not that it's always a bad thing to go off-topic, but when doing so you've got to realize you're doing it.
I hope my link works... if the guys start talking about Romney....scroll down and click the "launch" button to get to the Democratic contest.
Pete Kent, I don't know whether you are a conscious racist, but you certainly are a fabulous bore. I assume you come here seeking attention that your tedious personality denies you in the real world. You have nothing positive or insightful to contribute - just a rusty door squeaking in the wind.
Not a single post for the day at 4:00pm EDT. Really?
"If Rasmos is right about this, then I think the Scenario Analysis should only show one decimal place. Otherwise it's overstating its case."
Sure it is, because if just the last simulation was replaced by another one, it would show different results.
But are you sure what it´s "case" is? I could imagine it´s just for playing around with the numbers, and the ANALYSIS (not projection) of the last simulation run. And with analyzing past numbers you don´t have any random noise -.-
Nate can speak for himself, but I believe he reports to the 2nd decimal place, because what he's reporting is data (which is what I think the post right above this is saying). Those percentages are the percent results of his simulation. There is no error in those numbers. There's error in the results (i.e. the data behind those numbers), but the % representation in each set of 10,000 simulations is a simple counting exercise and represents no source of error in and of itself.
He's not saying that Obama has a 4.66% chance to lose the Popular Vote, but win the Electoral Vote with that number... he's saying that 4.66% of his simulations give that result. I do believe that he believes those numbers to be representative of the relative chances of those events happning, but he's not claiming to have 0.01% accuracy in determining them. In reality, every number here, being based on polls, has a huge error bar attached to it (though smaller than the error bars on the individual polls themselves if you can follow).
Good. I think all of the nutty right-wingers are gone. Now maybe we can rule the world!
I want Obama to win in a landslide!
I want him to beat the pants off of those sorry-*ss, uppity, white, sumbitches who've ruled us for way too long....the Repukes!
I want socialism!
I want abortion legalized with no limitations!
I want guns gathered up and incinerated!
I want 'under God' taken out of EVERYTHING!
I want every Mexican who can to come up here and work the jobs that lazy-*ss white trash won't work!
I want the United Nations to control our outdated Constitution! Obviously, we need some kind of overseeing body or else we'll declare a unilateral military action against people we don't like.
I want full nuclear disarmament and the reduction of 90% of our military!
I want Social Security expanded, as well as other entitlement programs!
I want no taxes on any income under $100,000 and a tax liability of 70% or more on anything above $1 million!
I want it all!
The time is now! Obama will bring these things, thank goodness!
Go Obama in '08/'12! Pick Biden as your VP, please!!
Yay!
Yes, of course it's precise in the sense that the last simulation run had exactly this output, and these are the percentages of that output.
I think broadly it has some predictive value, and that whatever that value is, it can't be quantified to the basis-point level -- but your point that that probably isn't its main purpose is a good one. That is why I like this site, I often learn something.
Hey, Left Wing Zealot: Get offa my lawn! Damn kids!
Did y'all notice that I called Jim S out at 11:11AM asking for proof of the racist statements I have made (per his post of 10:06) and he has supplied NOTHING!
I guess he was do busy penning his quantitative theory on the existence, vel non, of God.
How very insightful and a bit sad, really.
Hey, you kids! What did I tell you about my lawn???!!!
McCrankey for Pres.
PS: McCain narrowed Obama's lead to 3% in today's Gallup tracker --YIPPEEEEEEE!!!!
new rasmussen KS poll mccain winning by 20% now.
Pete Kent said 38 times...
"I have a gut feeling that the numbers are all wrong! BTW: You liberals suck!
McCain really has got the Stupid Vote...
jim.s,
that´s exactly what I wanted to say in the post above yours.
and the new Ras poll is what I meant with Rasmussen always screws its poll memos up:
Kansas: McCain leads Obama by ten
Republican presidential candidate John McCain leads Obama 52% to 32% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Kansas voters. When “leaners” are included, it’s McCain 58% and Obama 35%.
...
nothing to say to that, except that Rasmussen apparently just copies its poll memo from the last survey of a state and changes the percentages.
This time they forgot to change the headline.
lol well, he changed his headline for it now. it's mccain regains 20 point lead or somthing like that.
Seriously Nate, can't you ban a couple of these racist fucks? I doubt you'd want your website to be used for vile propaganda dissemation by the likes of Pete Kent.
90% of Americans overestimate the size of the black population of this country.
Probably because they are so loud in movie theaters.
Considering how quickly Iowa has returned to the Democratic fold, it really is a testament to how awful a campaign John Kerry ran that he was able to let that state slip.
Hey, EnzoValenzetti:
Show me the racism in what I have said.
I think you are all just afraid of me and my provocation which is meant to focus all our thinking. Especially mine!
Now watch your language and get off my lawn!
McSame '08 (Because what you don't know can hurt you!)
Ok, Pete. I was attempting to ignore you for the good of the site (because it's the only way to make it stop), but ask twice and you shall receive. I know you will claim none of this is racist, but just saying something a thousand times real loud does not make it true. Pete Kent quotes in italics.
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.
Descriptors used for the black guy here "inexperienced" "of Muslim extraction" (not saying this to bait people who might fear that fact, are you?) vs. descriptors used for the white guy here "genuine" "war hero" who is "widely hailed".
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.
If you identify him being "too exotic and different from the people" as being a concern with the electorate and fail to point out how this viewpoint itself is racist, then base your argument off that stance... racist. Incidentally, you believe this point so strongly that you posted it identically in two locations. I understand cutting and pasting to avoid having to retype things, but you clearly must believe this one if you said it more than once.
You might as well argue that Obama is a bi-sexual crack user.
I'm sure you just picked crack as a random drug here...
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.
Would someone have said Kennedy is "out of his depth?" Native intelligence?
It would not have been there unless it spoke to an unconscious level of mistrust about the Obamas. Again, we simply do know who they are. And they have not revealed themselves.
While we have their words of assurance (more from him than from her), their past associations (which need not be detailed here) suggest a plausibility to the accusations that somehow they are not patriotic enough, not American enough, not opposed to our enemies enough to satisfy the concerns of a segment of the population out there.
I am one of those skeptics. While I do not really believe that Obama is an agent of Muslim forces, he has yet to define his peculiar brand of patriotism to me and I am not sure if he would truly put American interests first. My suspicion is that he is some sort of globalist out to advance the interest of the entire world.
Basically they're un-American because they're black here... same old, same old. You are talented at covering yourself from admitting you believe this stuff by saying things like "the concerns of a segment of the population out there," but by lending credence to racist ideas, you are supporting them yourself.
The American people are by and large not racist and this election will not be fought over the hearts and minds of such benighted fools as they.
However, the great mass of people want a President of the United States of America and what is emerging about Obama's campaign is that everything about him and it, and presumably his administration is being seen through the prism of race.
I do not think even Black people enjoy all this attention being placed on racial identity. It is constant and it is a distraction from issues.
Instead of laughing and shrugging off the silly stereotype of them on the New Yorker cover, the Obama’s contributed to the firestorm and added more gasoline to the fire, further assuring that his is a candidacy firmly rooted in his racial identity.
With so much that the next President has to face, he can ill-afford to be distracted by constant race baiting, whether by his own campaign/administration or those who would attack it.
I think the election was lost for Obama last night, as it became clear to me how wearying all this racial discussion and politics are.
Many, many people, including those who might be inclined to vote for Obama in the abstract will shun his candidacy because he brings with him a lot of baggage.
That he cannot help it, does not excuse it.
To imply that the Obama campaign has done anything but try to avoid discussion of race is borderline insane. Your pace really picks up here.
It is becoming clearer by the day that Obama will bring a hyper level of race consciousness to the national scene, the likes of which we have never witnessed.
Unsubstantiated claim based around race and how Obama's race will be a problem if he becomes President.
As far as the race baiting goes. It is true that it is Obama and his folks bring it up constantly. They began this in the primary in SC and have never looked back. Their miscalculation will become manifest when it is revealed that America does not want a Black President. It simply wants a President.
Far from ushering in a post-racial era in our politics Obama is now intent on creating the first racial era. Dangerous ground, and if this drum beat keeps up will it will make the flip flopping seem like a foreshock to an earthquake that will shatter the foundation of his candidacy.
Ditto.
The man's very idenity has become a huge distraction and he has become "the Black candidate". He cannot get elected from that perspective.
Who painted him into that corner is largely irrevevant, although I think he must bear some of the blame.
This one's a good one, because you say here it's irrelevant who paints him as "the Black candidate." Well... since it is his opponents trying to use it to gain votes, I believe it's relevant. You see the relevance yourself, obviously, or your whole posting strategy here wouldn't be based around it.
The American people don't "dislike" Obama's reaction to the cover. They dislike having to deal with it all.
Again here, you're blaming the victim for the problem. You have a major problem with causality in your race relations viewpoint.
The whole thing supports my thesis as relayed elsewhere that all of this race and Muslim baiting is enervating the public and they will soon tire of the baggage that Obama will bring to the Presidency.
Another unsubstantiated claim that the color of his skin will bring baggage to the office.
Obama is bogged down by racial issues everywhere he seems to turn.
Ditto.
Obama's race is a fact and how he and we deal with it are determinative factors int he election.
To ignore it is folly.
Here you just accept that racists exist.
Barack Obama has consistently made race the force field around himself to protect his candidacy. I dare not delve into his own personal history which has caused such consternation among large percentages of voters for fear of you all lopping my head off. But facts are facts.
His policy failings aside, his lack of consistency in his positions negated, Barack Obama has asked Americans in my view to cross a bridge too far.
They do not want the next four years to be a dialogue about race relations and racial identity and for racial politics to be the focal point of the next four to eight years.
There is too much important business to be done.
That he has been tarred as the Black Candidate is as much his doing based on his past and his present and the bell once rung cannot be unrung.
This is the fatal flaw in his candidacy and I fully expect it to track in the polls over the present cycle.
Obama's racial identity has become the focal point of the present news cycle and that bodes ill for him.
Obama is asking Americans to cross a bridge too far? And again you make a lot of unsubstantiated race-based claims here.
(and Obama their new and improved Adolf Hitler)
Comparing Obama to Hitler. Cute.
Unlike Barack Obama (and the Muslims) I feel no need to cast aspersions on homosexuals
First you link him with Muslims here (on accident... not to scare the ignorant people who are scared of a religion) and then you claim the Obama's a homophobe? Did you remember the Republicans trying to make it illegal to marry another person of the same sex, so much so that they tried to get it into the freaking Constitution?
electing a racially charged candidate like Obama to the presidency will be seen as risky and distractive to many people
You're substantiating racist views at an astonishing clip here.
4) There is a segment of the AA population that fears his election b/c it will forever end the culture of entitlement and the underpinnings of affirmative action on which many of them falsely believe they depend.
This was a good one. Here you claim that black people not only have a culture of entitlement due to affirmative action, but it's only based on them falsely believing that they depend on affirmative action.
What the Revered Wright revelations made plain is that there is a lot of aberrant thinking in the Black community and its values and thought processes are vastly different from those of the majority culture.
What about southern whites... would you say southern whites have values and thought processes that are vastly different from those of the majority of culture? Everyone I know would say this. Yet, you've just pointed out the people who have different color skin.
You may think my comment or reasoning to be dispicable, but there are many in the AA community who like the leg up they have been given and don't want Barack Obama pulling the ladder up behind him.
More of the same.
All this constant race talk will take its toll on Obama and he will badly lose moderate/independent white voters of both genders if it keeps up.
Here you actually hit the nail right on the head, but you again still seem to blame Obama instead of the white voters who are basing their decisions on this stuff.
Read Maureen Dowd on how humorless a man Obama is. How you can't even make a joke about him. It fuels my narrative that his candidacy is too charged with personal identity and has created a discomforting hyper-sensitivity that many voters would best want to avoid, even if they might otherwise be inclined to opt for change.
Obama's fault again.
Me? I suspect a backlash. Not that we are racist, but we resent being told that oppostion to his candidacy is akin to being a racist. Will we have to hear that for four years? How will we accomplish anything as nation if all debate is framed in terms fo a racial divide?
More of the same.
Anyway... I'm not sure if this site has a page limit, but that should take up at least a few pages. All of these are direct quotes. All of them will be claimed as not racist and just trying to stir intelligent conversation. All of them are part of an effort by YOU to bring race to the front and center of the discussion. You condone having these opinions by emphasizing them and taking them as matter of fact.
Again, your viewpoint disgusts me.
We are being offered a great gift to study as it happens the first serious campaign by an AA for President of the US in history. Let us not lose the opportunity by some false scruples or squeamishness. We must be willing to call a diamond a diamond!
My diamond is younger, smarter, and has better ideas. Your diamond just has skin-color closer to most of the people in this country. Hopefully, people think for themselves and can see that.
Thanks Jim S. That needed to be said.
SInce this is a post about polls...
There is a new Rasmussen poll in the Oregon Senate race; the first one to show a tie. They had Franken up by 2 in MN the other day too (though SUSA had Coleman by 13 the same day).
Thanks, Jim. I really enjoyed re-reading my colorful and insightful prose.
You try and equate my discussion of race as racism and simply does not wash.
Again, I suppose only Obama can bring up the topic and discuss it -- the rest of us must stand mute in awed silence I suppose.
Virtually all of your commentary is grounded in some silly notions of political correctness.
I am not here to defend or correct the sins of racism. If I were here to preach I would spend my time decrying the moral horror that is abortion and the genocide that it has visited upon the the AA community all in the name of "choice". Now there is a Holocaust for you.
Obama and his campaign constantly bring up race in order to deflect criticism. He did it the week of July 4th by talking about his candidacy in the third person. Perhaps you missed his comment: "Oh and by the way he is a black man."
Nothing I said was racist at all. it was a political-sociological discussion. Your hyper sensitivity should not disuade any of us from discussing the most historic aspect of Obama's candidacy and learning from it.
JC Watts 2016!
On likely voters:
Does anybody understand why almost all pollsters use all-or-nothing LV screens, rather than probabilistic weighting? Except for pollsters who don't bother to ask the 'who' question of non-LV's, this makes no sense. Dropping anybody who has some probability of voting increases the statistical error bars. It also ignores information that will enter into the election outcome, i.e. votes from the pool of less-likely voters. Setting the probabilities of all who make the cutoff equal very slightly reduces the nominal statistical error- but dishonestly, since the probabilities are not quite equal.
Is there some historical reason for what appears to be a highly irrational technique?
Jim S. looks prescient, as he said "I know you will claim none of this is racist, but just saying something a thousand times real loud does not make it true."
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,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,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
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