7.31.2008

Today's Polls (AM Edition), 7/31

Quinnipiac is out with polling this morning in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Barack Obama holds a lead in all three: he's ahead by 7 points in Pennsylvania, and 2 in each of Florida and Ohio. But also in all three states, his lead is diminished from last month, when Quinnipiac had shown him 4 points ahead in Florida, 6 in Ohio, and 12 in Pennsylvania.

The media is likely to focus on the near-term trendline -- one that shows movement toward John McCain within the last month. The last set of Quinnipiac polls were conducted near the peak of Obama's post-primary bounce, and there is no doubt that he has lost a little bit of ground since then.

We like looking at trendlines too. But focusing on only the last month risks failing to see the forest for the trees. Fundamentally, the news is that Obama is ahead in all three states -- two of which are states that Democrats have made a habit of losing. Moreover, if you compare his performance not just to the most recent number, but to all other instances of the Quinnipiac polls -- this is how our model looks at things -- the results are pretty decent for him:

Month      FL       OH       PA
Feb M+2 M+2 O+1
March M+9 O+1 O+4
April M+1 M+1 O+9
May M+4 M+4 O+6
June O+4 O+6 O+12
July O+2 O+2 O+7
This is a weaker performance for Obama than in June, but a better performance for him than in any month but June. Our model weights those two factors, and concludes that the status quo has more or less been preserved. As of last night, our model gave Barack Obama a 68.0 percent chance of winning the election in November. With these polls rolled in, he has a 67.7 percent chance.

There's nothing really dramatic here, in other words. And to the extent there's any news at all, it's that Florida and Ohio continue to move toward one another in the polling, which has a lot of implications for resource allocation going forward.

EDIT: Here's the other type of spin to watch out for. Quinnipiac's Peter Brown implies that the movement in the polls reflects a negative reaction to Barack Obama's overseas trip:
"The $64,000 question is whether Sen. John McCain's surge is a result of Sen. Obama's much-publicized Middle Eastern and European trip, or just a coincidence that it occurred while Sen. Obama was abroad," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to fill their gas tanks," Brown added.
This might be a perfectly valid point of view -- if Quinnipiac had conducted polling 10-14 days ago, immediately before Barack Obama embarked on his trip to Europe and the Middle East. But it didn't; the last time the Quinnipiac polls were in the field was six weeks ago. In the period intervening mid-June and Obama's Iraq trip, a number of different things happened: Obama took a lot of criticism for flip-flopping, the McCain campaign began to champion offshore drilling as a wedge issue ... the campaigns really picked up their advertising spending. Our model sees some decline in Obama's numbers over this period. But it also thinks that the decline has halted -- and has possibly begun to reverse itself -- since that time.

292 comments

Hugues Fournier said...

Thank you Nate for this morning effort.

Just a suggestion (that some others have already made) : it would be really interesting if you could make available a csv file of the distribution.(and some other datas at your convenience, possibly).

joel said...

looks grim for McCain. I don`t see how he wins without Florida and Ohio. I think Pa. is out of reach, he ought to give up there and use resources elsewhere.
I still have my doubts Obama can take Florida but if he does it will be a 35 state landslide for him because if he wins Florida I would think he takes Missouri and possibly Va. and maybe Indiana.

Arnaud said...

The fact is than McCain can't win without OH or FL.

If he can't win OH or FL, it's the end for him.

Only PA is a must win for Obama and in every polls, he leads.

dwbh said...

Nate, I was wondering about the validity of taking all polls from this year into account instead of just last month and this month. Obviously, the big difference between the last two months and the months before is Clinton was still in the race. Does this skewer the results towards Obama unnecessarily?

W. Mayes said...

Nate, do you get any sleep at all? ;)

Thanks for the update!

It makes me quite nervous that McCain's state-by-state numbers are improving while the national lead is (in general) moving towards Obama.

This now takes your position that McCain stands a higher chance of losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote and shoves it into the forefront of, hopefully, both of the campaign's minds. Maybe then will they allocate resources properly (McCain putting into Florida while Obama needs to win the air-war in OH and PA).

unertl said...

Regarding Florida: how can the polling average, regression, and snapshot all be at around M+1 but the projection to be M+2?

babagaia said...

Didn't small Obama leads in primary polls translate into landslides?

Alex S. said...

Good numbers for Obama.

Nice to see some kind of clarification on the state of the race in Ohio. It seems (just as we had guessed) that the truth there is somewhere between the -10 of Ras and the +8 of PPP. If you take the size of these two polls into account you get pretty close to the +2 of Quinn as the median.
The +2 in Florida looks very good. It´s just like Ras, that´s very assuring. I guess the model will soon turn Florida into a toss-up, once the May results drop out.
Pennsylvania looks slighty worse for Obama, ok, but still out of reach for McCain. And the differences between these and the previous Quinnipiac polls are the Flip-flop "story", Obama´s trip, and the regression of the unity-bounce to the mean. If Obama consistently wins every big battleground state (MI, OH, FL, VI, PA) by a few percent (1-5%), McCain has a lot to worry about. He will need a convincing national message, not state-focussed targetting.

babagaia said...

Plus, one must agree with nate for 1nce: a lead is a lead is a lead.

Andy said...

Obama can win this election without Ohio or Florida, because all he needs is Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado. But I still think he can win Ohio and Florida.

DU said...

The fact is than McCain can't win without OH or FL.

And as we just saw the other day, he's spent $0 in FL while Obama's been flooding the state.

So it's down to OH, but only for McCain. He has to win it, but Obama doesn't. That's not a great scenario for the GOP.

joshua said...

mccain has nothing to worry about in florida really,

for one there's lot's of older american's who favor mccain heavly

and also the cuba's however small of a lead the republican's have over there is still a lead. all in all florida will slide back to mccain.

ohio obama might have to worry about alittle more the last 2 out of 3 polls, has obama either really close to what he was or behind and now for them to be closer is pretty bad i'd figure for him.

PA, really no different mccain should push to hard here.

Arnaud said...

The pollsters has no idea what the Obama campaign will make between now and October for register voters and the turnout.

The grassroots will be historical and unprecedented.

read this story.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/31/obamas-phone-bank/

Bryan said...

for one there's lot's of older american's who favor mccain heavly

and also the cuba's however small of a lead the republican's have over there is still a lead. all in all florida will slide back to mccain.


McCain leads in 55+, 51-41, up eight points from last month-- but Obama leads among Hispanics, 56-36 (no trendlines). It doesn't break it down into Cubans and non-Cubans, but if it's any indication, both of the Diaz-Balarts are in danger of losing their seats.

(Friendly advice: Proper capitalization and punctuation is usually helpful if you want to get your argument across.)

The pollsters has no idea what the Obama campaign will make between now and October for register voters and the turnout.

Yeah, this sort of thing is probably going to confuse a lot of LV screens. But then again, it's hard to take it into account until after the fact.

micah7 said...

Obama runs better when he runs as an underdog. So in some respects, I think the Obama campaign is better off seeing the polls tighten. It's sort of a blessing in disguise to make their campaign more efficient in the long run and ward off against complacency.

Nick said...

Wally O'Dell and Ken Blackwell are no longer in charge of counting Ohio's votes, so maybe this is an invalid feeling, but I'd still be a lot more comfortable with predicting Ohio if I knew the vote tallying would be on the up-and-up.

RL said...

Love the statistical analysis, Nate - it's your strength and you're doing it better than anyone else.

If you will excuse my tinfoil-hattery: given the occasional disparities between a state's polling data / exit-polling data and its tabulated results (e.g. Ohio, 2004), I am worried that a statistical model is only good at predicting vote-casting and not vote-counting. I'm especially worried about states using paper-free electronic voting machines.

Is there a large enough sample space, over the first decade-or-so of electronic voting, to demonstrate any tendency of paper-free ballots to produce results that differ from exit polling?

Which states are using paper-free electronic ballots, anyway? And who controls vote certification in those states?

Thanks,
RL

PeteKent said...

Extremely interesting set of polls. I wonder when precisely they were taken. The closer to Sunday the more they would favor Obama and be less reflective of his drop in the polls all week.

They do show movement away from Obama and towards McCain.

Reading the poll’s internals it seems that the energy issue, especially support for drilling and nukes which Obama opposes, is helping McCain. While the voters narrowly give Obama the nod on who has the better energy policy, I suspect that this reflects their lack of knowledge concerning the candidates diametrically opposed positions on drilling and nuclear power and suggests that McCain can continue to make inroads with this issue.

McCain also can take heart from the fact that large majorities of voters favor his position on troop withdrawals over Obama’s.

Finally Mrs. Obama seems less popular than Mrs. McCain. I am not sure why the beer heiress from AZ should be more popular than the self-made lawyer from Chicago, but their relative popularities may be an indicia of covert support for McCain (the love that dare not speak its name) and could be evidence of the Bradley effect, perhaps the greatest unknown in this election and in polling today.

Nick said...

For the last time Pete, every single recent study has shown the Bradley effect DOES NOT EXIST (anymore)
If anything, the primaries showed us there was a reverse Bradley effect, with some black voters being reluctant to declare support for Obama.

Jackson said...

RCP absurdia now appearing at 538...

tesaar said...

48-46(45-43) in Rasmussen tracker today.

PeteKent said...

Please, Nick. There has never been a black candidate for one of the two major parties. I do not think past history is any guide. Perhaps in the end one of us will be seen as indulging in wishful thinking, time will tell.

Intersting to note the current Rasmussen survey showing that large marjorities of Americans believe race is not a factor in their votes, but as far as their freinds go, they are not so sure. Interesting that they would acribe to others that which they would not acribe to themselves.

I am a Fractal said...

The curve on your supertracker seems to clearly predict that obama would be slightly less ahead in July than in June, when he got that big bump. the chart is starting to take on a pattern, and perhaps there will be another similar bump now, which will also subside, but the overall trend is obama breaking away from mccain towards the generic.

Jay said...

New polls in Kentucky, Montana and Texas later today. The latter two in particular should be interesting.

madahnuc said...

Continuing along with this meme, it is interesting to note that the Super Tracker has a rather striking characteristic, namely:


It is a superposition of two gaussian bumps on top of a linear progression.


The linear portion has a slope of about 1 point per month, since at least the middle of march and possibly back to the beginning of this year. The gaussian bumps correspond to waxing and waning of support for Obama in the post-big-primary-win period in late Jan. and the post cliniching of the nomination period in June.


If we are to believe that past performance is a prediction of future results, the Super Tracker would predict a 7-8 point win for Obama come November.

jack black said...

On this date in history, July 31, 2008, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 48%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.

John said...

jack black said...
On this date in history, July 31, 2008, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 48%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.


You do realize that this was after Kerry's post-convention bounce, right?

Let's wait for the conventions to begin comparing numbers.

MATT J. H. said...

Is it just me , or does the McCain camp seem belligerent about spending money in states they don't want to. First it was Virginia, where the entire voting universe knew it was going to be a battle ground but McCain refused to acknowledge the reality until recently. Now its Florida.

McCain should still win Florida but he has to spend! He can't ignore the state and hope to win it, unless he's putting Crist on the ticket which doesn't seem likely. Ohio looks real close as usual, and Pennsylvania looks solid democratic. These polls enforce what we already believed, its a close race , Obama has a slight lead.

Theres been no oversees drop in the polls, only a surge and reversion to normal. Obama lost a couple points nationally earlier this month with the flip flop deal but Obama probably figured he'd take a hit on FISA and stuff.

On another note, forced registration before commenting has greatly improved the discourse, great decision. Even though Peter Kent keeps spitting nonsense, I guess you can't get rid of them all.

Due to sites like this one I find we interested observers are more informed than the pundits in the MSM. We have a better handle on the race and I often find myself scratching my head wondering why the "Experts" are so far behind. The internet has leveled the playing field for voters allowing them to bypass the garbage on cable news and get informed themselves. Nate has provided a first class site with info not found anywhere else and interesting commentary to spark debate. Well done Nate, keep up the good work.

nkpolitics said...

Obama's base state is all of the states Al Gore carried in 2000 (including IA,NM and PA)excluding MI.
243 ev.
McCain's base state is all of the Bush 2000 states (including FL,MO,and NV) excluding CO,NH,OH,and VA. 232 ev.

Assuming Obama loses MI. Obama's 270 strategy is winning VA,CO,and NH(due to competitive US Senate races which Democrats are strongly favored to win.)- That gives Obama 269 ev.

McCain has to win all of the Bush 2004 states excluding IA and NM. (274 ev. CO and VA are the two battleground states Obama is targeting aggressively. Assuming Obama wins CO and VA. McCain needs to win MI and NH to get the 270 threshold.

This means if Obama wins Florida or Ohio- The Election is over- Obama wins.

Darío said...

Pennsylvania isn´t swing State. It´s a blue state.
Oh and Fl are swing.

Laura in WA said...

The Ohio result could be better, but it's nice to see after that McCain +10 poll in Ohio! (Though I suppose we all suspected that was an outlier...)

I notice these polls are of likely voters, which seem to consistently show a tighter race than polls of registered voters. I guess we'll see which turns out to be more predictive of the actual result on election day.

Bob said...

Considering McCain's advertising blitz in these states Obama looks like he is holding up well. Assuming that advertising closer to the election will trump older advertising Obama should surge when he gets into the Sep-Oct period. Lets just hope that he survives the RNC and 527 hate ads.

MATT J. H. said...

Your analysis is accurate, however I still consider Michigan Blue until I see proof otherwise. I sincerly doubt Romney will help much in Michigan, he's not even from there anymore and he's a VP. This is the media getting carried away with nonsense again. If McCain has to win Michigan to win, he's in trouble. McCain is more likely to hold on to Colorado and Virginia.

Bryan said...

Minor request re the super tracker: can we get vertical lines for the two-week markers?

DJ said...

jack black said...

On this date in history, July 31, 2008, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 48%.


TODAY is July 31, 2008. Although I wonder if Kerry would lead Bush by two if that poll were cast today.

babagaia said...

who writes the cnn political ticker? Must be a complete donut- they describe Obama's leads as 'statistically insignificant' as if these are the only polls ever done for these states.

PeteKent said...

Matt JH;

I see VA, FL and OH as must wins for McCain. But he can win in MI and lose in the west and he might do so if current secular trends paly themselves out. I think MI remains fertile ground for MI, particulary b/c of drilling and the unpopularity of their Democrat governor.

stevie314159 said...

On this date in history, July 31, 2004, John McCain was 4 years less old than he is today.

Laura in WA said...

Mat J.H. -- I know what you mean about the CNN "pundits". The other week, I wanted to yell at the TV when Bill Schneider was going on about the McCain +2 poll in Colorado without mentioning the more recent Obama +3 Colorado poll. I mean, if I know about those polls, surely he does! Why is he being selective as to which ones he tells viewers about?

(And is it me, or do the pundits only seem to consider a 2 point lead "insignificant" when it's in Obama's favor?)

Jackson said...

Pete Kent:

I think MI remains fertile ground for MI

Congratulations...you made a gaffe almost identical to the Israel one Obama made.

Rob said...

It is custom to only report polls which the networks themselves commission.

Rob said...

jackson - people do make typos, you know.

DarcyPennell said...

Laura in WA:

(And is it me, or do the pundits only seem to consider a 2 point lead "insignificant" when it's in Obama's favor?)

It's not just you, and it is infuriating, but I don't see a pro-McCain conspiracy or anything. Pundits and reporters are in a business. They need news that people will tune into, and a nail-biter is much better news than a blow-out.

I think that's the reason so many tend to downplay good news about Obama and trumpet good news about McCain. It makes the race seem closer.

On the bright side, when the pundits describe the race as closer than it is (or, if it really is that close) Obama supporters fear that McCain may catch up and work harder/donate more. So the media bias has benefits for both sides in a way.

Virginia Conservative said...

McCain is in the same position Bush was in in the states that count--Ohio and Florida. Dems always have a tough time cracking them in Presidential races.

If McCain would just shut up and give Obama enough rope to hang himself, he can hold on to all the Bush states.

Virginia Conservative said...

BTW, if McCain wins this election, it will be because of off-shore drilling. People want to drill here, and drill now.

Rob said...

Virginia Con. - One of the good points about selecting Palin for VP. Although the mini scandal surrounding her refuses to dissapear.

Kennyb said...

CNN's Bill Schneider is an absolute moron. He is my least favorite political talking head.

Stephen said...

i've got your rope right here, VC.

MATT J. H. said...

CNN should no longer allow Lou Dobbs on air. He's turning into Bill O'reilly and Shaun Hannity right before our eyes claiming "The liberal media is in the tank for Barack Obama and trying to get him elected."

Lou has had a grudge against Barack ever since Obama called him on his obvious race bating towards Hispanics. I thought I was in the twilight zone last night watching this nonsense being spewed on "The most trusted name in news."

I find it funny that the McCain campaign wanted this election to be about Obama, they succeed, and then complain when McCain gets less coverage. Obama does get most of the coverage, however as stated in the George Mason study last week, the majority of Obama's coverage is negative. Just because Obama gets more coverage doesn't mean thats a good thing. Contrary to republican spin, All coverage is not good coverage. CNN should not allow an anchor so obviously biased against one side. Leave that for FOX and Olbermann.

Virginia Conservative said...

BTW, the economy grew today. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth. How can you say we're in recession?

benjvinc said...

1) The federally published statistics are always inflated by about 1.6%
2) Will someone please poll WV? The last poll had Obama down 8 but it was before Clinton's drop out. I think it could be a sleeper state.

Nick said...

virginia conservative:
The latest Rassussen poll on off-shore drilling:

"A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important. "

Brad said...

Drilling is McCain's only issue. LEts move right and take it away from him. How about a discussion of how safe drilling is, and even after Katrina no rigs leaked, and then move the decision to the states.

TAKE AWAY HIS ONLY ISSUE!

Virginia Conservative said...

"1) The federally published statistics are always inflated by about 1.6%"

So its a conspiracy? Give me a break.

tomthress said...

"We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth."

Actually, they revised 2007Q4 today to show very slight negative growth (-0.2%, I think) . But the 2008Q2 number was better than I expected.

Jackson said...
This post has been removed by the author.
CoolBlue71 said...

virginia conservative,

McCain won't win.

Look to elections of 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, and 1992. All elections dealing with terrible economy and/or unpopular war. (1932: Great Depression; 1952: Korean War; 1968: Vietnam War; 1980: Inflation; 1992: Recession.) Not once did U.S. voters reward the incumbent party with the White House for the following four years.

This thing about oil is, well, nonsense. It's about jobs, and everything else tied into economy.

There ain't nothing like disastrous conditions to get people to say, "I don't think the current party should be re-elected at this time." And I'd tell you this if the Bush administration were Democrats.

Jackson said...

VC:

The majority of leases already cleared for drilling aren't producing. They can get drilling there.

Matthew H said...

Arrrrgh.

Let's say the numbers in Michigan were:

April 1: M +10
May 1: M +5
June 1: Even
July 1: O +5

And let's say the number in Ohio were:
April 1: O +20
May 1: O +15
June 1: O +10
July 1: O +5

Which state is Obama more likely to lose?

Well, according to your projections you just listed in this thread, it's Ohio that's in trouble. And I think that most people can see that Ohio is in trouble.

But your actual state polling would show *Michigan* in trouble. It would show Ohio at +7 or so and Michigan at +3 or so.

It should be obvious why that's wrong.

And yet, go look at Michigan. You've got two polls at about 1.2 weight with Obama +4 and Obama +3. You also have two polls with weights of about .6 with Obama +2 and Obama +8. So that's easy math:

4+4+3+3+2+8/6=4.0.

All of these were in the last few weeks, so the national tracker shouldn't be a factor. And yet, the average is 3.8 and the projection is 3.5.

Why? As far as I can tell, the "why" is because McCain was up by 4 in May. So Obama has gained 8 points in the last two months, and while your trend adjusted includes that, your bold number go backwards- they count the gain of 8 points as a negative. But they should count it as 0.

Please stop giving significant weight to old polls when there are a sufficient number of more recent polls available. Especially when it's a 600 person survey from over 2 months ago.

Oh well, I'm sure you won't read this either.

Virginia Conservative said...

Coolblue-

There is no recession. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth. See 1979 and 1982 for what real recessions look like--massive negative growth and near double digit unemployment.

If what you say is true, why is McCain tied with Obama both nationally and in the important battleground states despite running a terrible campaign?

NC moderate said...

"BTW, if McCain wins this election, it will be because of off-shore drilling. People want to drill here, and drill now."

It is laughable that McCain's main campaign point is an issue he flip flopped on in May after Big Oil wrote McCain big checks. This clearly shows to voters that McCain is being driven by special interests.

Obama,on the other hand, wants to rein in the unregulated speculation that helped drive the price up. According to a Rasmussen poll, more people favored Obama's approach than McCain's.

joel said...

Hoping Obama wins so I can see lou dobbs racist head explode. Also Hannity and O`reilly.
My guess is Rush is hoping Obama wins,great for business. He needs a democratic president to kick around. the bush years were tough on him especially when he has a gop congress.

CoolBlue71 said...

virginia conservative,

Recession is specifically defined. I didn't say the current 2008 is a recession.

Right now it is a bad economy. And this is an unpopular war.

The two are connected with the past elections I had mentioned.

Virginia Conservative said...

30% of conservative Democrats say they will vote for McCain, according to Rasmussen.

What were you guys saying about that great Party ID advantage again?

Sean said...

Virginia Conservative

The GDP was just revised to -0.2% for Q4 compared to the previous figure of +0.6%.

Check your facts.

Alex S. said...

@ madahnuc:

Yes! Even more, the Super Tracker looks like an object of technical analysis which is used in the financial sector to predict stock market indices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis


Look at the vertices of the trend tracker, the high ones (Obamamania around 2/20 ; Unity-bounce around 6/19) and the low ones (pre-primaries January ; Rev. Wright 3/27 ; the stagnant May 5/22 ; the flip-flop-meme 7/17).

You can connect the 4 bottom-points with a steadily rising line that almost parallels the line we get when we connect the 2 apexes. I just did that myself using Paint, and it shows that the trendlines are narrowing from a 7-point gap in January, to 6 pts mid-Feb., to 3 pts at the end of June.
These 2 lines show the maximum and the minimum support Obama can expect "on a technical level" until those two lines cross roughly mid-October.

Now, how useful is that? Technical analysis is quantified psychology. It measures which prices are considered high or low by market brokers. For example, it could predict that a certain stock can not drop below a certain price because that low price would be a too good opportunity to buy that stock. The price is also determined by the market fundamentals, i.e. the economic climate. However, if the stock still breaks through that border it will likely drop even further because the stock has lost market support and is obviously regarded less valuable than it was before.

To draw the parallel to the election, Obama´s fundamentals are quite good. The Democratic party has a generic advantage this year - just like a favorable economic background is helpful in increasing stock prices. However, Obama is not where he "should" be. And there is a reason: his appearance onto the national scene. Obama´s January numbers were rather low, simply because he was unknown to a lot of people. His numbers have been heavily influenced by revelations about his life, image, and policies - towards the positive and the negative.
The Obama-"brand" is still under construction, but as he gains stature the volatility shrinks. He is slowly moving towards the generic Democratic candidate and will continue to do so as long as the trend continues and he makes gains among low-information voters.
However, that trend is about to end mid-October, the point when the two trendlines meet and every somewhat-likely voter knows more than just rumours about him. He will then be in the national +6 region, and will either rapidly jump to the generic demoratic party advantage, or have reached the maximum of votes available to him.

This probably oversimplifies a lot, and it only makes sense as long as the McCain image remains intact to measure Obama´s "price" with a stable currency, and as long as Obama continues to stand for Democratic Party values. But well, I just had to post it...

Virginia Conservative said...

I'd like to see a link to that.

Tybalt said...

VC, don't you know how to use Google? Or do conservatives not believe anything unless they're told?

Reuters story is here.

MATT J. H. said...

You supply siders don't get it. Yes the economy grew over the last 7 years, but the majority of the growth came from exports. The multinationals make products in China, and export them to the world. This is great, only one problem, our countries middle class is being destroyed.

The engine that moved our country since the great depression is dying. Manufacturing jobs are going, and being replace with less paying jobs with less benefits. How long will our country remain fiscally strong with a dwindling economic base.

For the first time in history, we had an economic expansion where the middle class did not benefit at all, they lost wages when adjusted for inflation. All those clowns at CNBC can tout supply side economics al they want, while most countries are broadening their middle class, ours is being destroyed. Less people are coming out of poverty and more are going in. Supply Side economics has failed. It was necessary in 1980 with the over taxation, but that no longer is the major threat.

This election is a fight for the future of the middle class of this country. McCain wants to continue a policy of helping big business assuming that will lift the workers of this country and everyone will benefit. However, due to globalization, the benefits of Corporate profits is no longer the US people, its only the corporate share holders.

Supply side economics are destroying our country. Democrats do not believe the strength of the country is based on how corporations and Wall Street does. We believe its how the core of this country does. When Main street prospers, everyone prospers. It appears the opposite is not true.

humanist said...

Once again I find that, thinking about it, I don't really understand the supertracker. Can anyone help please?

Nate explained the supertracker, and he quasi-publishes it, as if it were a single curve representing the margin.

However this is used for trend adjustment purposes and I just can't understand how you can take a single margin number to produce your adjustment. How do you decide in a principled way how to divide the adjustment between Obama and McCain? I think this is a meaningful question given that Nate does account for 3rd party in his final projections.

The only thing I would understand was if Nate in fact produced, behind the scenes, TWO separate supertrackers, one for Obama numbers and the other for McCain numbers. Then of course it would be straightforward to adjust based on those curves. Is this what he's doing (so that the published super-tracker is merely a shorthand)? Or do I miss something elementary?

Kennyb said...

I agree with Matt J.H.

How anyone can call CNN a part of the "liberal media" when they have Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News and Lou Dobbs on CNN at the SAME TIME (Prime Time, mind you) boggles the mind.

Virginia Conservative said...

"[The U.S. economy] bounced back to record modest growth in 2008, avoiding back-to-back quarters of decline that would have met a popular definition of recession."

Thanks.

filistro said...

A data point that seems not to be getting enough attention... the Gallup site shows Obama has led McCain among independent voters for the entire month of July.

Doens't that one fact mean this race is pretty much decided?

Mr. Nice Guy said...

This is a lot of useful information, and I just want to say Thanks for the effort it takes to run this.

Virginia Conservative said...

"
The engine that moved our country since the great depression is dying. Manufacturing jobs are going, and being replace with less [sic] paying jobs with less [sic] benefits. How long will our country remain fiscally strong with a dwindling economic base."

Thats such bull. The wealthiest places int he world (New York, Hong Kong, London, etc) are based on the service sector, not manufacturing.

Prematurely Grey said...

VC,

And just what % of Democrats are "conservative?"

Will look it up if you're not able to shed a little light on your suggestion that lots of Democrats are going to vote for McCain.

filistro said...

Re: Lou Dobbs... he is positioning himself for a third-party presidential run in 2012. His frothing, stuttering "a pox on both their houses" rants seem quite popular with a certain disaffected portion of the popualce.

A good drinking game is to take a shot every time Lou says "disgusting." Gives you a nice glow in the early evening.

humanist said...

Technical analysis guys, I have a question.

The curve you're looking at - the Loess red curve - is already a heavily manufactured, smoothed curve.

Is this what stock analysts work with, or do they work more with raw daily closing numbers?

The equivalent in our case would be the blue dots, but then the problem is that "this market has low liquidity" - the dots derive from very few data points and are volatile through sheer error and the accident of the states selected for polling at that date.

Virginia Conservative said...

Lou Dobbs is a populist, and populists are xenophobic, economically illiterate jackasses.

js said...

Brad,

Offshore drilling isn't safe. Katrina caused about 130 different spills that contaminated the waters around New Orleans and parts of the Mississippi. Unfortunately, the McCain campaign and Congressional Republicans have repeatedly lied about this issue. What Democrats need is to point out the fact that the Republicans are lying about the environmental and economic impact of offshore drilling, while refusing to take part in developing an effective energy policy.

counsellorben said...

Virginia Conservative said "BTW, the economy grew today. We haven't even had one quarter of negative growth. How can you say we're in recession?"

VC,

You are correct, the technical definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth.

However, GDP grew last quarter at an annual rate of 1.9%.  US population increases each year by an average of 3%.

When GDP growth is less than population growth, real GDP per person declines.  Real GDP per person is a better measure of each person's "pocketbook" than overall growth.  It's not a technical recession, but the slowness of growth indicates that people in general are worse off now financially than at the start of the year.

That sounds like a recession to me, regardless of the "technical" definition.

yiannis said...

Nate:

Your model seems to be the best around, but still has a fundamental flaw: it is waaaay too sensitive to individual polls.

The idea that OH and VA can be colored pale blue, or that Florida and Missouri could be pale red at this stage is problematic, mostly because your model predicts what will happen in November and not what's happening now.

All these 4 states, perhaps including Michigan and Colorado, as well should remember white until many polls show a consistent and above the margin of error increase as well as an agreement with your 538 regression.

There are two wildly unpredictable unknowns in this race that will make it wildly unpredictable till before the last two weeks of the election: The impact of race and Obama's ground effort in key states.

Nobody can measure the impact of either. I think you should take a more cautious approach in some states

CoolBlue71 said...

Michigan's voting record over the past 10 elections (1968–2004) have been identical to Connecticut and Maine. They voted for losing Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, switched to the Republican side in the 1970s and 1980s, and back to the Dems in (and since) the 1990s. (It is such a swing state that, over six consecutive decades, Mich. backed the GOP in the 1950s and the Dems in the 1960s and, thus, far in the 2000s.)

Sen. Obama's home state Illinois has mirrored California, New Jersey, and Vermont. They disagreed with Mich., Conn., and Me. In 1968, they voted for elected Republican Richard Nixon—but all seven have been in agreement since 1972.

If Mich. were to go for Sen. McCain, take a look at the New Englanders, Calif., and N.J.

For McCain to pull this off, he'd really have to be winning Mich…and beyond.

No, Mich. will be won by Obama—and this will happen even if Mitt Romney gets selected as McCain's running mate (keep in mind: it was Mitt's late father who governed the state; Mitt governed Massachusetts—which has only been red in the last ten presidential elections twice, both for Ronald Reagan).

Darío said...

McCain isn¨t Bush. He¨s not a conservative. He¨s a liberal/moderate republican.
If Bayh or Kaine was on the Dem ticket, Obama win.
Mac isn´t the canidate of conservative valoues.

ajbeecroft said...

Insider Advantage Georgia
McCain 45
Obama 41
Barr 5
Undecided 9

Actually a slight deterioration for Obama from their last poll, but all-in-all another poll suggesting that Obama's play in Georgia isn't totally outlandish.

I don't think he'll win GA, but, then again, it's not like he needs to.

http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/restricted/2008/July%202008/7-31-08/Georgia_Prez_Poll73119643.php

stevie314159 said...

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy shrank at the end of 2007 and grew less than forecast in this year's second quarter, signaling that the country is in worse shape than investors had anticipated.

``We're in a recession,'' Allen Sinai, chief economist at Decision Economics Inc. in New York, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. ``It's going to widen, it's going to deepen.''

The economy may weaken further as the temporary boost from tax rebates, which aided a pick-up in gross domestic product last quarter from the previous three months, fades. Stocks and the dollar dropped, Treasuries rallied, and traders reduced bets that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates this year.

``This confirms the general picture of weakness, but it is surprising that GDP declined,'' said Martin Feldstein, who headed the National Bureau of Economic Research until June and serves on the group's recession-dating panel. He added that today's figures underscored his estimate that a downturn began in December or January. The last time the economy contracted was in 2001.

PeteKent said...

The problem for you, Cool Blue is that public sentiment on the War is turning around. American's like "victry" along with the smell of their coffee in the morning. And the economy too looks to be gaining traction. You cannot compare current condtions in Iraq to Vietnan (in 2004 you had a better shot) nor can you compare our present economy with the downturns that you allude to.

As Nate suggests in another post, the theory that just cause something has never happened does not mean it won't.

It is sheer hyperbole to describe the current state as "disastrous". You may wish it to be so because to you the election of Obama is so much more important than the comfort and convienience of the people.

To the other poster: Obama may get the slight advantage on who has the better energy policy but that will diminish when folks realize that he is only in favor of alternative energy and conservation and rejects further reliance on proven technologies.

As far as Obama and energy goes, I must correct my post from yesterday when I suggested he was either "STUPID" or a "LIAR" when he said that drilling would take seven years to produce more oil. Yesterday in MO he claimed that it would be TEN YEARS perhaps TWENTY! His co-conspirator on CNN, Roland Martin, dutifully echoed the party line, saying "seven to ten years". The actual time is much shorter, as little as one year for wells dug next to contiguous existing leased space.

humanist said...

Conspiracy theory:

Am I imagining things, or is the yellow curve falling short of the red one, Nate prefers not to show it for today?

Also, the red curve is ever so slightly short of 4, and the trend adjustment appears to be 0.6. the position of the yellow should be at about 3.2-3.3.

The popular margin however stands at 2.8.

Are we in one of those phases where the supertracker calculates a different result from that predicted by the aggregation of the individual states?

This is quite possible as the supertracker incorporates Berlin bounce information via national polls (very few State polls at the time) which is only indirectly implemented in the individual states.

Virginia Conservative said...

I wish someone would do an Indiana poll to put to rest the notion that Obama is competitive there (unless he puts Bayh on the ticket, anyway).

Darío said...

30% dems conservative vote for liberal McCain?.
A lot of friends who are conservetive republicans said they vote for Obama. McCain isn´t republican, he´s a liberal pro-choice.

CoolBlue71 said...

algbeecroft,

Florida and/or Georgia have been won in the last 25 elections (1908-2004) by elected Democrats.

Woodrow Wilson carried both (1912, 1916). Franklin Roosevelt also won both every time (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). So did Harry Truman (1948). John Kennedy won Ga. (1960). Lyndon Johnson carried Fla. (1964). Jimmy Carter prevailed in neighboring Fla. with his home state of Ga. (1976). And Bill Clinton won them separately (Ga., in 1992; Fla., in 1996).

All in all, I'm predicting Sen. Obama to win the 2008 election. I'm more comfortable at this time predicting the Illinois senator to prevail in one of the two—Florida—while waiting to see if he closes in on Georgia as well.

Prematurely Grey said...

Here's what I found, VC:

18% of the 14,000 dems surveyed *before July 24* identified themselves as conservative. Of this 18%, 30% "say they're voting for John McCain."

30% of 18% is less than 6%, right? Help me out here, people. I'm a historian, not a statistician.

If we read, "Less than 6% of Democrats say they'll vote for McCain," how does that sound? A little less scary. A little more likely.

Please correct me if I'm not reading the numbers right.

What I really want to know is how these "conservative Democrats" voted in 2004 and 2000.

AnotherMike said...

(And is it me, or do the pundits only seem to consider a 2 point lead "insignificant" when it's in Obama's favor?)

The media seems to have a STRONG bias for hyping the race as competitive. Also, any interesting story line is favored such as the underdog coming back from a deficit or minor polling changes correlating to current events. IMHO, Nate is dead on in his analysis of the Q polls--they are right about where we would expect them to be, Obama continues to have a slight edge, and nothing much has changed.

Jackson said...

""What Democrats need is to point out the fact that the Republicans are lying about the environmental and economic impact of offshore drilling""

The recent accident and spill that not only contaminated but also closed the Mississippi River down entirely for days will help that sentiment along.

Cugel said...

You can see that Obama is barely ahead in Ohio in this poll because his support among Democrats is softer:

Total Obama: 46%
Total McCain: 44%

Obama Dems: 84%
McCain Dems: 11%

McCain Reps: 89%
Obama Reps: 8%

Independents: Obama 43% - McCain 45%

That means that, barring a movement to Obama among Independents, Obama's ceiling in Ohio, at least according to this poll, is around a +7%. He can and should consolidate around 5% more Democrats before election day (to reach 89% the same percentage that Kerry got).

McCain meanwhile is unlikely to get much above 89%. Republican voters are NOT as enthusiastic about him as they were about Bush (who got 94% of Republicans nationwide).

What we don't know is the VOTER ID of this poll, so we can't tell how accurate it is compared with other samples.

As with all "Likely Voter" screens in July, it's not worth spit as a real predictor. Who knows who's a likely voter right now? NOBODY!

And trying to pretend you do is just B.S.

That's why I don't place much faith in Rasmussen's daily tracker. A RV tracker is a much better model right now.

Of course, RV polls exaggerate Obama's lead, but at least we can see the trend and we can compare one RV poll to another without having to wonder if the difference is poll induced NOISE because of differences in the "Likely Voter" screens they use.

Tybalt said...

New Senate poll in Alaska by Rass done Wednesday night has Mark Begich up 13 over Stevens, 15 over Cuddy, 33 over Vickers.

Darío said...

Prematurely Grey, conservative democrats vote Bush in 2000 and 2004, but NEVER vote for liberal John McCain.

ajbeecroft said...

Premature,
The exit polls don't do crosstabs for "conservative Democrat," unforunately.
But, looking at Democrats in both 2000 and 2004, 11% voted for Bush.

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

In default of further evidence, it seems plausible that at least half of the Democrats who voted for Bush were conservative.

Stephen said...

Just for fun, everyone should go through the 2004 archives from electoral-vote.com, and see how often Kerry was ahead of Bush in Ohio and Florida. In the end, Florida wasn't even one of the closest states. This is probably a similar situation.

sdf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Virginia Conservative said...

" Just for fun, everyone should go through the 2004 archives from electoral-vote.com, and see how often Kerry was ahead of Bush in Ohio and Florida. In the end, Florida wasn't even one of the closest states. This is probably a similar situation."

Yeah Obama is really similar to Kerry int he polls right now. Not a strong position re: FL and OH.

VegnaBlitz said...

Matthew H:

Your example has some common wisdom...But not all people are the same. If people in a state were once likely to vote for Obama, then switch, they're more likely to switch back supporting Obama than for solid McCain supporters to suddenly switch to Obama. And vice-versa. Especially if the candidate with momentum is spending more resources on the state...The candidate on the losing side can win back support by increasing their spending.

That's why I think the regression model has more merit than simply looking at where trends are currently headed. Case and point, Florida. Obama has spent a ton of resources there, moving the state from moderately-strong McCain to slightly in Obama's favor. If McCain spends at least half as much as Obama is, I bet he can take back the lead.

-Rhode Island X

MATT J. H. said...

Forget the short term economic news. This recession, or slow down was started by cooperate greed with regards to the sub-prime lending. We'll be past this some time next year. It's the long term structural imbalances that threaten our economic viability. Globalization has taken a toll on our country. Wall Street has benifitted and Main street has suffered.

Main street is in economic straits and the problem is significant parts of the Rep. party believes the country is fine, enter Phil Graham. They really believe the problem is mental because the cooperate balance sheets are relatively good save financial firms. The republicans BELIEVE the country is in good shape as long as wall street is in good shape.

While this has been true in the past it is not now. By every measure the middle class has suffered greatly under Bush's rule. In 1980 the economy was out of balance with over taxation and too much government involved in business. Reagan corrected it. Now, we have swung too far the other way with the rich getting too much of the pie while the middle class gets squeezed. Obama will turn the tide in the right direction however he must give great care not to go too far. If he can achieve balance in the economy it will grow and the country will prosper.

sdf said...

Let's try that again.

Joshua said:
"and also the cuba's however small of a lead the republican's have over there is still a lead. all in all florida will slide back to mccain."

The Pew Hispanic poll last week showed Obama leading among Cuban Americans 53 to 28. Given that this was a small subgroup within the larger poll, it probably has a relatively large MoE, but if it's even close to being accurate, McCain is in very, very deep trouble in Florida.

-- Stu

filistro said...

"What Democrats need is to point out the fact that the Republicans are lying about the environmental and economic impact of offshore drilling"

Yes, indeed.

But imagine how awesome it would be if McCain were scheduled to... say... visit an offshore oil rig to push for more drilling... and then fortuitously was forced to cancel his trip because of a big, damaging oil spill! The press would just go NUTS over that, wouldn't it?

Sigh.

MrInsight22 said...

At this point in 2004, Kerry was ahead in the polls in OH and FL. We all know how that turned out.

ajbeecroft said...

Actually, VA Con, the polling for Florida from 2004 is pretty similar to this year, as you say, with the lead flipping back and forth frequently throughout the year.

In OH, by contrast, Bush was ahead for most of the summer, with occasional individual polls showing a small Kerry lead.

As we all remember, Kerry ended up doing better in OH than in FL.

So even if we make the questionable assumption that this election is like 2004, Obama's position in FL is comparable to Kerry's, but his position in OH is better.

Sounds like a good place to be to me!


http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/states/florida.html

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/states/ohio.html

sdf said...

Comparing Kerry's position to Obama's position in FL makes sense unless as I said above, we are about to see a dramatic and historic realignment of the Cuban American vote. Exit polls showed Bush winning 70-76% of the Cuban vote in FL in 2004. That could be very, very different this time around if the Pew Hispanic poll is even close to right.

-- Stu

Virginia Conservative said...

If there is such "dramatic re-alignment" why the hell isn't it showing up in the polls? Why is he in the same position Kerry was in? Whats going on then?

He has a lead in the Cuban vote and he STILL can't do better than Kerry?

CoolBlue71 said...

PeteKent said...
The problem for you, Cool Blue is that public sentiment on the War is turning around. American's like ["victory"] along with the smell of their coffee in the morning. And the economy too looks to be gaining traction. You cannot compare current condtions in Iraq to Vietnan (in 2004 you had a better shot) nor can you compare our present economy with the downturns that you allude to.



Pete Kent,

No problem on my part.

I draw comparisons to five previous elections—within a 60-year period—and find it an interesting pattern. (This is history I will not ignore.)

As for trying to convince me of conditions in the Iraq War and the U.S. economy—you oughta to try it on someone else.

Thank you for your concern.

tomthress said...

"At this point in 2004, Kerry was ahead in the polls in OH and FL."

At this point in 2004, Kerry was also still enjoying a polling bounce from the Democratic convention that had just ended two days earlier.

Because of the difference in schedules, I think apples-to-apples comparisons aren't going to be particularly valid until probably mid-September (giving enough time for McCain's convention bounce to stabilize).

dwbh said...

New Research 2000/Daily Kos poll out for Idaho:

McCain 53
Obama 37

link

Virginia Conservative said...

Why poll Idaho? WHY!?

Poll Virginia and Indiana, please.

tomthress said...

"New Research 2000/Daily Kos poll out for Idaho:

McCain 53
Obama 37"

Nate's regression for Idaho is 52.8 to 37.8 for McCain. That's amazingly accurate for a state that hadn't been polled since February.

(Oh, and I have to agree w/ VA Conservative here, why are people polling Idaho?)

satiradical said...

There are fourteen close states, fifteen now if Alaska is in play due to Stevens being indicted.
These states have to be looked at on parallel trends of candidate specific sentiment, but also party identification and recent voting trends in downballot races.

PA has a D guv and elected a new D sen in '06. Trend D
NM has a D guv, D sen, and is favored for a new D sen. Trend D
NH D guv, D sen, favored new D sen.
Trend D
MI D guv, 2 D sens. D sen favored re-election. Trend D
OH D guv, new D sen '06. Trend D
VA D guv, new D sen '06, new D sen favored. Trend D
CO D guv, new D sen '06, new D sen favored. Trend D
MT D guv, new D sen '06, D sen favored. Trend D
MO R guv, new D sen '06. TU
NV R guv, R sen, D sen. TU
IN D guv, R sen, D sen. TU
ND D sen, R sen. TU
FL R guv, R sen, D sen re-elected '06. TU
NC R guv, 2 R sen. Trend R

That's eight states that are trending Democratic with 92 EV's.
One state trending Republicanwith 15 EV's.
Five states that are toss-ups with 57 EV's; six and 60 if Alaska is included.

The projection at this time would indicate not as close an outcome as many polls are predicting.

dwbh said...

Va Con: apparently, the poll was mainly to see how LaRocca was doing in his senate race up there, and the presidential numbers were a throw-in.

LaRocca is within 10, which is quite a surprise in itself.

PeteKent said...

Don't count your chickens in OH. Mrs. Clinton staged a surprisingly large win on the backs of rural voters who are unlikely to have suddenly warmed to Obama. His raw vote in the primary may be about the most he can get, give or take a few more points.

Also, if McCain picks Rob Portman who has big name recognition in the state and a great deal of respect, he can help hold it.

FL may flirt with Obama, but the smart money knows its lost.

I like the theory that Obama's ad buy in FL was just a feint designed to manipulate McCain into picking Crist.

Not gonna happen.

sdf said...

Today's Quinnipiac FL poll has Obama up 56 to 36 among Hispanic voters but does not break it down into particular subgroups.

The information that I have been able to find googling around is that Bush won somewhere between 46 to 56% of the FL total Hispanic vote (including Cuban Americans) in 2004. So McCain (according to this poll) is very much underperforming what Bush was able to get last time among FL Hispanic voters as a whole.

VA Conservative, I don't have an answer to your question except to speculate that perhaps it suggests that Obama's support/chances are not as soft as Kerry's was.

-- Stu

Darío said...

Cuban-Americans are republican. But McCain isn´t republican, so they´ll vote for Obama.

VermontDem said...

Dario- McCain is far from a liberal- look at his voting record and its correlation to Bush.
With the swing states the polling that will really matter will come after the VP selections. Right now what is really important is that there have become a set of swing states that could change depending on the VP selection (and of course trends in the overall national polling).
To me those swing states are:
NV- maybe Romney helps McCain here- otherwise this will shift with the national polling
CO- Romneys help in a state with 2% mormon pop. is overblown- this is likely Dem unless McCain gets a solid bump IMO
MT- Schweitzer isn't getting picked- hard to see any VP selection really changing the outcome- needs more polling to see how the state is shifting- Republican until it trends closer
ND/SD- some close polling but same as MT analysis except they are much less likely to go Dem
MO- polling has been hectic- midwestern VP could help for either side- needs more polling to really tell
IA- safe Obama
IN- Bayh would help- otherwise Republican until polling shows Obama may be leading
OH- unless there's a curveball VP pick it seems to me that OH will continue fluctuating. McCain needs a little bump in polling to get it- Obama needs to remain constant- or surge a little in polling to feel comfortable.
PA- safe Obama
MI- not sure why Romney helps so much because of his dad-MI could be a Rep trap- but then again its polling is looking ok for Republicans- need to see polls go Republican before you call it anything except lean Obama
NH- safe Obama- unless there is a huge shift to McCain- but if that happens he'd already take MI and OH, and likely CO.
VA- Dem VP pick of Kaine could help- looks slightly Dem now, McCain would need an Obama slip up or a bump of his own here to win
NC- not buying the registration arguements yet- especially not to make up a consistent +3-5 lead for McCain.
GA- same as NC- until polling shows it closer (and consistently not +1 or +2 McCain followed by +10) it has to go fairly safe McCain
FL- like OH- as a Dem close leads don't feel good. With the last two elections and a Colbert like gut instinct- until polling shows a consistent lead of anything over 2 this has to be a scary tossup. Goes Republican in mind unless Obama gets that consistent lead

Tybalt said...

VC : As indicated above, DKos polled Idaho at the request of Larry LaRocco. (Poll has Risch 42 LaRocco 32 Rammell 5)

As for "Not a strong position re: FL and OH."... I love these people who say things like "McCain trails Obama in must-win Ohio and Florida? This is excellent news... FOR MCCAIN!!" You're all nuts.

humanist said...

The reason to poll Idaho is to test Nate's model.

It's a stunning success.

Based on regression and February polling alone!

jeanine said...

Nate,
Do you have anything relating to the 'older women' not liking Obama?
As a woman of a certain age, I can't imagine voting for McCain and think the PUMA phenomenon is a Republican hoax. Do you have any data?

ajbeecroft said...

sdf,
We don't even have to break out Cuban-Americans in Florida. Look at Hispanics in FL generally:


2000: Bush 49 Gore 48
2004: Bush 56 Kerry 44
Q-Poll: Obama 56 McCain 36

White voters broke 57-40 for Bush against Gore, and 57-42 for Bush against Kerry, so today's 53-39 for McCain against Obama is consistent, and if anything indicates greater weakness for McCain than for Obama



http://msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=fl

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/P/00/epolls.0.html

Rob said...

Or they might not have polled anyone and made the result to be like Nate's regression ;-p

Virginia Conservative said...

The guy who did the Q poll was just on and said Obama is having a real rough time with white voters in FL and OH.

Darío said...

Pools from Virginia and Indiana. Of course:

RealClearPolitics Media:

Virginia: Obama 47.3%, McCain 46.3%
Indiana: Obama 47.0%, McCain 46.5%.

Indiana is a very red state.
Bush leads Indiana July 2004 for 20points.

AnotherMike said...

jeanine, I recall seeing Dick Morris talking about the Fox national poll that came out recently. Apparently the crosstabs on that poll showed Obama significantly underperforming Kerry among older women--doing much worse with this demographic group relative to Kerry than any others.

I tend to think the PUMA phenomanon (those who only will support Clinton) is bogus, but do believe there's a lot of older women voters who are hesitant about Obama and that his support among this demographic lags Kerry's.

Virginia Conservative said...

Dario-

There haven't been any polls since right after the primary which inflate Obama's numbers in Indiana.

Darío said...

Pools from Virginia and Indiana. Of course:

RealClearPolitics Media:

Virginia: Obama 47.5%, McCain 46.5%
Indiana: Obama 47%, McCain 46.5%

Indiana is a very red state.
Bush leads Indiana in 2004 for 20 points.

Darío said...

Sorry for the exactly two posts.

Jack-be-nimble said...

45-44 Obama lead down to 1 point in Gallup daily tracker. Besides the tightness in the race, the fact that Obama is down to 45 is quite significant.

Jackson said...

ND D sen, R sen. TU

ND has 2 Democrats for Senators.

NC moderate said...

"NC R guv, 2 R sen. Trend R"

Actually our governor, Mike Easley, is a Democrat. The governor's race is close here between Pat McCrory (R) and Bev Perdue (D). NC tends to elect Democratic governors and give its electoral votes to the GOP, but this year may be different.

Virginia Conservative said...

"45-44 Obama lead down to 1 point in Gallup daily tracker. Besides the tightness in the race, the fact that Obama is down to 45 is quite significant."

We will still here a lot of BS from the liberals here about how party ID and youth turnout is making it a landslide. Except, its not.

ajbeecroft said...

Well, VA Con, the numbers also show Obama running even with Kerry and Gore with whites in FL. If Hispanic support for the Republicans in FL is down as much as this and other polls say it is, McCain will need to overperform among whites to compensate.
I'm not saying he can't. But if McCain wants to rest easy in FL, he needs either to return to Bush levels of support among Hispanics, or improve on Bush levels with whites.

Virginia Conservative said...

You guys keep telling me about this huge lead Obama has with hispanics.

So, if thats true, why are the Florida numbers so tight? What demographic group is breaking for McCain to compensate?

Mason said...

VC said:
"You guys keep telling me about this huge lead Obama has with hispanics."

We're not telling you - the polls are.

"So, if thats true, why are the Florida numbers so tight? What demographic group is breaking for McCain to compensate?"


Uh... Non-hispanic whites? They make up 60.1% of the poplulation, with 8% "American" ancestry. That's about half of the latino population.

Alex S. said...

@ humanist:

Stock analysts work with the closing numbers. But the results apply to intra-day numbers, meaning that the trends break during the day no matter what the closing number is (and because of the techincal effects it´s extremely unlikely that the closing number would be within the trend if the trend was broken during the day).

The difficulty with the Super Tracker is that it takes state polls into account and measures their deviation from the assumed national trend (well, thats how I think it works). But in contrast to stock numbers, a state poll is only a snapshot of the whole picture so the difficulty is to construct a national trend with regional numbers - made even more difficult because different regions react differently.

But.... congratulations Nate on the Idaho-prediction! That just looks awesome.

Virginia Conservative said...

CNN says the new polls show "Warning Signs" for Obama and says McCain is "gaining".

MATT J. H. said...

This ain't 2000 and 2004. Why do you think the republicans are going so negative so early? Why is the Obama campaign so confident? They can read the tea leaves.

Chuck Todd mentioned on Morning Joe yesterday that senior members of the GOP are very worried about the polls. McCain is losing by only 2 or 3 points which looks good on paper however Obama's advantages are hidden and they always were.

Obama has huge turnout advantages. The cell phone issue is +2. The African American turnout is +2 or +3. And youth turnout is expected at +2 or more. Thats +6 or more there alone. There are no groups that excited about McCain.

Evangelicals who put Bush over are unsure, conservatives don't trust him and to try and keep the base together he's alienating the independents. Wheres McCain's extra votes gonna come from? This is the worry of the GOP. Even being 1-2 points ahead in the polls on election day might not be enough.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Uh... Non-hispanic whites? They make up 60.1% of the poplulation, with 8% "American" ancestry. That's about half of the latino population."

But I was just told Obama matches Kerry and Gore among non-hispanic whites in the polls.

ajbeecroft said...

Nothing is breaking for McCain, VA Con, at least in these polls.
FL went 52-47 for Bush over Kerry, and this poll is 46-44 for Obama. that's a net 7-point swing statewide, about half of which comes from a 20-point drop for the Republicans with Hispanics, who are about 1/6 of the voting population, and the rest from slightly weaker numbers with whites, and also with blacks (Bush got 11% of the black vote in FL in 2004; McCain's getting 2% of it now).

Mark said...

CNN is full of shit.

And we really need some new polls out of Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. New polls from the Dakotas would be nice too, but no one seems to care about them in the polling business.

John said...

PeteKent said...
Don't count your chickens in OH. Mrs. Clinton staged a surprisingly large win on the backs of rural voters who are unlikely to have suddenly warmed to Obama. His raw vote in the primary may be about the most he can get, give or take a few more points.

Haha. Right, because turn out in the primaries will never be dwarfed by turnout in the general. And because all of those DEMOCRATIC voters are suddenly going to abandon the party because they didn't get their nominee. That's why McCain is leading in PA, NY, CA, MA, NJ, RI... well, you get the point.

Virginia Conservative said...

"CNN is full of shit."

Because they don't conform to what you expected this year (an Obama landslide?)

tomthress said...

"But I was just told Obama matches Kerry and Gore among non-hispanic whites in the polls."

Right, he matches what they got in the November election. But Kerry lost to Bush by 5 points, so this poll result for Obama is 7 points better than that (thanks, apparently, to doing much better among Hispanics).

Alex S. said...

By the way.... if one was able to continuously watch the past 2 months of TV election coverage one would come to the impression that McCain did nothing but gain in the polls and basically every step of the Obama campaign actually hurt Obama.

Mason said...

VC-
"But I was just told Obama matches Kerry and Gore among non-hispanic whites in the polls."

Right. And they lost narrowly. It's not that hard to figure out that holding steady with a large group and improving with a small group will lead to small imporvements in overall numbers. As it happens, that's exactly what we're seeing in current polling. Now if it were the reverse - if BHO were way ahead with non-hispanic whites and holding steady with hispanics - he'd be ahead by a much larger margin.

Jackson said...

McCain's big counter to Obama's "hiddens" are the undecided vote.

People who decide who gets their vote in the last 72 hours or so aren't going to vote for chage...if they wanted changed they'd have decided that much earlier.

Last minute deciders will vote for familiarity. That's why they broke strongly for Hillary in the primaries...she was the more known commodity. McCain will reap that benefit too. I expect McCain to win voters who decide their choice in the last few days or so before Election Day by perhaps a 2 to 1 margin.

Christopher said...

Virgnia Conservative, maybe you should write your own blog. You really seem to be filibustering around here.

ajbeecroft said...

Another fun fact from the Q-Pac Florida Poll:

Looking for the best way to address the energy crisis:

* 51 percent call for renewable energy sources such as solar power, wind power and fuels;
* 22 percent support drilling in Alaska and currently protected offshore sites;
* 8 percent back nuclear power;
* 6 percent say mandate higher mileage standards for cars;
* 5 percent say release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Yet again, even though lots of voters support offshore drilling, they don't think it's the best or most important part of an energy policy.
These numbers suggest that if McCain really wants to capitalize on energy as an issue, he should make a major play on wind and solar power to complement his argument for offshore drilling.

Mason said...

AJbeecroft said:
"* 51 percent call for renewable energy sources such as solar power, wind power and fuels;"

Seriously. They live in Florida. Give these people a tax credit to stick some solar panels on their roof to offset the A/C usage.

BruinEric said...

I'm in agreement with a prior poster on this thread -- I prefer pure RV polls to think about at this time. That's why the Gallup Daily Tracker has to be seen as the gold standard right now. It's an RV poll, is great for seeing fluctuations over time, and each survey is a rolling average of 3000 respondents!

It has also shown a consistent lead for Obama, sometimes big and sometimes small, so the partisans for him here won't mind the data.

I do see the value in LV screening done by Rasmussen, et al. If a respondent is RV but hasn't voted in the primaries, or several past elections, then it is probably not worth weighing their verbal pledge the same as a respondent who hasn't missed a vote in 30 years. So that is informative too.

Given the large numbers of respondents in both of those polls in addition to their daily nature, these are just both great things to have for a political fan like myself. Both seem under-emphasized in the comments here for some reason as if familiarity is breeding neglect of some sort. Perhaps the smaller sample size polls such as the CNN one Showing BO at +7 from yesterday and the Gallup LV one with +4 for JM are just more fun for argument?

Just so you don't have to guess, I'm a Republican partisan and acknowledge that the political climate is very favorable to the D's this year.

Virginia Conservative said...

McCain supports wind, solar, AND offshore drilling.

Matthew H said...

On the economy:

4th quarter '07 was originally listed as positive, and was adjusted to negative (and adjusted further negative this week).

I expect that after they get done adjusting, 1st quarter '08 will also be negative. Inflation was undercounted for both quarters, and GDP is discounted for inflation.

So even by the technical definition, we were very possibly in a recession. And while technically it's over now, the economy isn't restarting properly due to the credit crunch.

Quick prediction: 2009 will be a bad year (but probably not negative), 2010-2012 will be very good years, no matter who is President. The government's effect on GDP is mostly long term.

stevie314159 said...

I understand now. ALL polls are GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN McCAIN!

If Obama is leading, why isn't he leading by more?

If Obama is leading by less than the last poll, McCain is surging (but never seems to catch up).

If Obama's lead is holding steady, he's having problems winning the 70-year-old white women named Harriet vote.

If his state polls are doing well, the 3-day trackers are more important.

If he's pulling away in the 3-day trackers, he's arrogant.

Boy, that McCain's just in the catbird seat.

MATT J. H. said...

Gallup is not having such a good year. They may be the gold standard but that tracker is like a yo-yo. I it cycles through a tie to an Obama 6 point lead. I haven't seen todays yet but it's probably down to Obama +2. It'll base line and bounce in Obama's direction again.

ajbeecroft said...

Well, of course he supports wind and solar. But he doesn't spend much time talking about that support. In terms of the message he's trying to get out on energy, it's practically all about offshore drilling.

On this issue, and on many others, the argument in this new book by David Moore seem relevant. Opinion polling usually tells us what opinion people have on a subject, but not how intensely they hold that opinion (which is at least as important to figuring out their vote).

For example, let's say a free-trade agreement with Brazil suddenly emerged on the campaign horizon. Most voters would have an opinion almost instantly (because most voters have an opinion about trade in general, and would apply that opinion to the new issue). But how many voters would change their minds about who to vote for based on that one issue?


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/07/30/the_opinion_makers.html

Mason said...

Before anyone asks, this is what Matt H. is talking about.

Jackson said...

@ Stevie:

LMAO!

You realize where it all started, right?


His being in first place in the delegate count made him eligible in Hillary's judgment to be her VP.

PeteKent said...

Obama lead down to one point in the Gallup tracker. Next day to drop off is a 6 pt lead day. Could we McCain move ahead of Obama in tommorow's poll?

It will depend on how the news cycle spins tonight.

Is the narrative Obama's arrogance or McCain's negativity?

Still developing . . . .

MATT J. H. said...

The Mccain camp just said Obama is using the race card. I can't believe it. That campaign is the scum of the earth. All republicans should be ashamed of this tactic. First he's a traitor. Then he hates the troops. He's no more than a Brittney Spears celebrity and now they inject race right in the middle. I cannot believe they're this desperate. Are their no attacks that are off limits. After the McCain has a black baby froman affair smear by the bush people in 2000, I am surprised John MCain would go this far.

Virginia Conservative said...

Are you serious? Never explicitly mention race, unless your opponent explicitly mentions it first. Its a third rail.

Mason said...

Don't worry VC-

At least they didn't call him a Macaca and welcome him to America.

tomthress said...

"Next day to drop off is a 6 pt lead day."

Gallup doesn't look good, no doubt about that. But what's dropping off tomorrow is a 6-pt 3-day average that happened on the heels of 8-pt and 9-pt 3-day averages. In other words, the day that's dropping off was clearly below 6 pts but was still being held up by Obama's Berlin bounce (that was apparently a transient 2-day thing).

Looking at the trends, though, it looks like McCain must have won Gallup last night, which is definitely not a good trend for Obama.

John Peterson said...

Hopefully (for America), the June-to-July shift reflects an increasing distaste for Obama and not a regression-to-the-mean.

MATT J. H. said...

Lol, every time the gallup gets near even you hear how Obama's support is falling. Then it bounces and you don't hear it again until the next time it gets close. Come on. It's been doing this dance every week for 2 months. Just look at the graph. The bounce will come over the weekend and dissipate during the week.

BruinEric said...

IMHO, that the Gallup tracker has shown fluctuations and movement doesn't degrade its credibility one bit. They make the calls (even cell phones), they record the results, they give us the results. Good stuff.

I would expect movement like this throughout the ebb/flow of events and the very nature of a pure-RV poll. Some days you'll get out of proportion party representation, and that's sure to skew it.
But taken together a large-sized polling chunk like this is a great platform for people to apply their own turnout models to it.

I think the change from +8 BO to now +1 BO over the past week is part statistical noise and part a return to the current state of the week following a brief eurotrip boost.

If you can supply any information which would suggest the Gallup tracker methodology itself is flawed so I have reason to doubt their credibility, I would accept it gladly. It is quite plausible that question order, or leading policy questions prior to presidential preference questions can skew results. Or if you find the data is being modified in a way to change the results, I would certainly heed these objections.

Sean said...

What all you conservative don't realise with your speculating about poll positions is this: Bush won in 2004 because of a superior ground game in key states. His base was motivated and they turned out the vote.

This year, Obama is polling better than Kerry did 4 years ago and he has a ground operation that is bigger than the Bush one 4 years ago. McCain is struggling in the field operations and enthusiasm gap versus Obama. That will make the difference on election day. Oh and polls really don't matter at this time. The public isn't really paying attention. Wait to the veeps are picked, the conventions happen and the debates take place. Then we can talk about polls.

Becky Sharp said...

Two points:

1) The same people who were declaring Obama sunk in Ohio after Rass. put McCain up 10% there are just as delighted when Quin. had Obama up 2% Ho figure.

2) The oil drilling thing maybe costing Obama votes...but its the biggest canard in the entire campaign.

From http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/mccains_oil_drilling_hoax.html

"The department's Energy Information Agency released a study last year predicting that granting access to new offshore leases would not begin to produce any actual oil until around 2020, and would have no "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," if ever."

Obama and team need to get a better message out. If he flip flops on oil drilling, rather than telling folks the truth then I'll be hugely disappointed

Stephen said...

After McCain puts Lieberman on the ticket, watch how his numbers among Jewish voters in Florida go up. It's not really a toss-up state, and Obama will be lucky to lose by less than 5% there.

Kennyb said...

It's not the Gallup Tracker that lacks credibility, it's those that use the day to day variability to draw conclusions that lack credibility.

Jeffrey said...

There is so much talk about Cubans in Florida. I think that people think they represent a much larger percentage of the overall population than they do.

The thing on Cubans that people don't realize is that there is an enormous generational divide between first generation Cubans that came here in the 60s and their children and grandchildren. The first generation is still obsessively anti-Castro. They have no other issue and they've been voting for the GOP since the Bay of Pigs. The second generation still leans towards supporting the embargo but they are a little more divided over it. They are also more likely to describe themselves as American and pay attention to other issues. The older generation is dying. More second and third generation Cuban-Americans are turning 18.

In other words, Cubans are turning into just another group of swing voters and not a one issue
Republican bloc.

I think its a mistake to think that Cubans will always swing Florida to the GOP. If you think about it another way, they didn't provide that much of an edge for Bush even right after the Clinton/Gore Elian issue. A lot of demographic changes have happened in the last 8 years.

Virginia Conservative said...

"After McCain puts Lieberman on the ticket, watch how his numbers among Jewish voters in Florida go up. It's not really a toss-up state, and Obama will be lucky to lose by less than 5% there."

If McCain puts Lieberman on the ticket, hes toast. I will not vote for him, neither will many, many Republicans. There would be blood at the convention. No way we let a liberal be one heartbeat away from the Presidency with a guy in there as old as McCain. I HOPE hes not that stupid.

3reddogs said...

I live in northeast Ohio and in the last month or so I'd estimate I've seen 3-4 McCain ads for every Obama ad. The fact that Obama's lead is slipping in Ohio shouldn't be surprising given the number of ads McCain's running. (Though his ad placing the blame for high gas prices squarely on Obama is so ridiculous it should be losing him votes, not getting him votes!)

And a note to PeteKent who said:

"Don't count your chickens in OH. Mrs. Clinton staged a surprisingly large win on the backs of rural voters who are unlikely to have suddenly warmed to Obama. His raw vote in the primary may be about the most he can get, give or take a few more points."

Don't forget or discount the number of Republicans who voted for Hillary in the Ohio primary just to "game the system". Those same Republicans will either stay home in November or hold their nose and vote for McGrampy.

Kennyb said...

Please, Stephen! Putting Lieberman on the ticket would be even better than Crist for lowing McCain's evangelical support in VA, NC, MO and MS. Yes, PLEASE, McCain!!

BruinEric said...

Sean,

If polls don't matter at this time -- then I think you took a wrong turn on the intertubes. Because this site is mostly about polling and projecting the election based on polling. So a bunch of us on both sides of the aisle like looking at the polls here.

I look forward to discussing them with you after the conventions and debates.

PeteKent said...

Good point Thomtress, about the drop off day. It is only an average of declining poll numbers. Indeed that day might have been a good one for McCain.

MattJH:

You apparently don’t ever hear Obama's stump speech. For several weeks now he likes to declaim about how implausible his candidacy is: His funny name and how he doesn't look like those Presidents on the Currency. It is a variation on the theme he commenced around the 4th of July when he stage whispered in one of his speeches, speaking of how his opponents talk about him: "Oh and by the way, he's black."

Obama has been throwing the race card since the SC primary.

It might work among the Democrat electorate, but the people at large resent his attempt to racialize the Presidency and how his administration will be the first in history to be filtered though a prism of race.

Think about how the heritage of Condi Rice and Colin Powell seems irrelevant to who they are and how it seems integral to who Barack Obama is.

Indeed he came upon the national scene decrying the notion of a "Black America" and a "White America" and got all warm and fuzzy about how there should only be a "United States of America". It brought a tear to my eye and sent a thrill up some folk’s legs, I am sure.

Then we met Rev. Wright and Mrs. Obama and we began to understand.

AnotherMike said...

People who decide who gets their vote in the last 72 hours or so aren't going to vote for chage...if they wanted changed they'd have decided that much earlier.

Last minute deciders will vote for familiarity. That's why they broke strongly for Hillary in the primaries...she was the more known commodity. McCain will reap that benefit too. I expect McCain to win voters who decide their choice in the last few days or so before Election Day by perhaps a 2 to 1 margin.

IIRC, this is not exactly correct. In general, Obama did fine among those who decided more than 1-7 days out. Clinton did tend to do well among those who decided on election day itself. Many theorized that this simply was a name recognition advantage among the most low information voters. I'm skeptical that McCain will have a name recognition advantage in the general. Regardless, even if we accepted the questionable assumption that McCain will match Clinton in winning late-breakers, Clinton never had anything like a 2-1 advantage in these voters.

Higglytown said...

Day three of my Gallup Tracker review. My speculation that the big bump to +9 in the daily Gallup was a bad polling day may have had merit. It should take 3 days to correct one bad day. Today we are at +1 Obama, actually a little below where it all started.

MATT J. H. said...

I know Peter kent, He's a Muslim radical terrorist. We have now found the truth.

Virginia Conservative said...

Pete-

Race is a third rail. Its not wise to touch it, ever. Its how Hillary went from splitting the black vote with Obama to losing it by 89 points--because Bill made smart ass remarks about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina, too.

MATT J. H. said...

Condi Rice and Colin Powell have never run for office. We know nothing about them compared to elected officials.

AnotherMike said...

Even McCain's inept campaign is not stupid enough to put Lieberman on the ticket. The wingnuts' heads would explode (and I wouldn't blame them since Lieberman is a liberal on almost all domestic issues). Besides, Lieberman wouldn't do anything for McCain in Florida--Jews have a much more favorable opinion of Obama than they do of Lieberman, while it would certainly alienate some evangelicals. The only Jews in Florida who like Lieberman are already voting Republican.

PeteKent said...

AnotherMike said: I'm skeptical that McCain will have a name recognition advantage in the general.

McCain’s name may not be quite as well known as Clinton’s, but remember it is not as exotic sounding Barack Obama’s either. If there are five percent undecided on election day look for McCain to swing about seven to eight points from where he is polling. Don’t forget to factor in the voter intimidation factor practiced by the Obama campaign and its supporters (many of whom who post here), who accuse anyone not voting for Obama as being racist. These people are afraid to tell a poster or even punch a button on their personal phones that indicates they may not vote for THE ONE.

Another example of the Bradley effect: HRC won the TX primarily handily but lost pretty bad in the caucuses. Folks were plain intimidated at those things!

Stephen said...

Lieberman isn't a "liberal" -- the guy is a movement Neoconservative. He's far-right on foreign policy, and generally center-right on domestic policy. Lieberman has been wooing evangelical power-brokers like John Hagee for some time. Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani, so the pro-life/pro-choice thing isn't the litmus test. McCain-Lieberman does *almost* as well among evangelicals as Bush-Cheney in 2004, while doing better among Jews, senior citizens, independents, Democrats. It's a bad year for "the Republican brand" which is why Romney would be a disaster on the ticket and Lieberman would almost ensure victory. Florida goes from toss-up to likely McCain, Pennsylvania and NH go from likely Obama to toss-up with the inclusion of Lieberman on the ticket.

Jeffrey said...

I see a lot of discussion on these boards about whether we are in a recession or not.

The GOP talking point answer to this question this year appears to be:

No, we're not. The stats show it isn't that bad. Phil Gramm was just using an extreme version of these talking points.

I don't want to get into the whole debate over whether we are or we aren't. We can do that on an econ forum. On the strategy forum, I want to talk about the Rep strategy of denial.

It seems to me like a bad strategy. I think the vast majority of the country thinks we are in a rec even if the stats say "just barely not yet". Plus emphasizing the statistical "not yet" just makes it a bigger story when the stats change later this year and make the recession official.

It also makes the average struggling swing voter feel like the GOP is out of touch and just doesn't get it. I think its a horrible idea. If I was in their position, I'd say "yes the country is in a recession. Its a fact of life that business cycles happen. Here is our economic plan..." Denying the obvious is never good strategy.

Of course, I hope the Republicans don't take my advice. Keep denying the recession right up until election day. It worked for Poppy Bush.

Virginia Conservative said...

"He's far-right on foreign policy, and generally center-right on domestic policy."

Having a zero rating from the NRA, a perfect rating from NARAL, wanting to raise taxes "on the rich", and favoring socialized medicine is not "center right". Its standard Democrat domestic policy boilerplate. You would just love the kind of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court.

DarienCrow said...

If you want the real picture you have to go to the guy that called 2004 correct when everyone else was in the tank for Kerry like this place is in the tank for Obama. His name is Scott Rasmussen.

"Other polls have now confirmed what Rasmussen Reports was the first to report on Monday--that Obama’s Berlin bounce faded as quickly as it came and the Democrat enjoyed no gain from his world tour."

"New data released today shows that 30% of conservative Democrats plan to vote for John McCain. Nineteen percent (19%) of White Democrats say the same."

Stephen said...

McCain and Lieberman are the two senators most closely linked to the Neoconservative movements. It would be equivalent to a Cheney-Cheney ticket on foreign policy matters.

Giuliani was the front-runner even among conservatives at one point, and it's difficult to make the case that Lieberman is in any significant way "to the left" of Rudy.

Lieberman has intensely courted the evangelical demographic for years now, for *some* reason. I'm pretty sure it's not in order to keep winning Senate races in Connecticut. Again, as with Robertson's Rudy endorsement, the leaders of this movement have made clear that "the war on terror" is the foremost issue in their mind, not abortion or gay marriage, and there's no more extreme a champion for them on this issue as Lieberman.

Plus, these people generally consider Mormons to be heretical cultists, while they support Judaism as a legitimate predecessor to Christianity. Don't underestimate the impact of religious irrationalism on our culture and politics. Read some Chick tracts, watch some Hagee sermons, then realize how many followers these people really have.

Lieberman quoted from the Torah in Hebrew to compare Hagee to Moses.

tomthress said...

"It seems to me like a bad strategy. I think the vast majority of the country thinks we are in a rec even if the stats say "just barely not yet". Plus emphasizing the statistical "not yet" just makes it a bigger story when the stats change later this year and make the recession official."

I agree with this. The technical argument that we're not in a recession, based on the classic definition of recession (which is true) misunderstands the role of economic statistics, I think. Economic statistics don't DEFINE reality, they attempt to explain reality.

For voters, the issue is how they feel about THEIR economic situation. When unemployment goes up, we can infer from that, that more people are in a worse economic situation, not so much because people react to the official unemployment rate (although this does have some effect), but because the official unemployment rate tells us something about reality. More people have lost their jobs, which in turn means that more people know people who have lost their jobs and more people are now worried about losing their jobs.

The "recession" that cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election officially ended 20 months before the 1992 election (in March, 1991). People vote based on their personal feelings about their personal economic situation, not based on government economic statistics.

ajbeecroft said...

Stephen, VA Con,
I think you're both right in a way, and that's why Lieberman is so toxic. Conservatives think of him as an old-school liberal Democrat; liberals think of him as a neocon Bush apologist. In other words, everyone thinks Lieberman is on the other side.
The fact that he has a net negative approval rating among Jewish voters suggests he wouldn't be that much help on the ticket.

Bryan said...

PPIC-CA: Obama 50, McCain 35 (buried deep in the report, but it's in there). Previous PPIC-CA was Obama +17, back in mid-May.

Stephen said...

Try going to:
mccain-lieberman.com

Then try the same thing replacing Lieberman's name with that of any of the other commonly discussed potential McCain VP choices.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Giuliani was the front-runner even among conservatives at one point"

Yeah, when it was a name recognition contest. He flamed out once Republicans realized how liberal he is.

Virginia Conservative said...

Again, I will not (and I think I speak for a lot of conservatives) under any circumstances vote for a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

ajbeecroft said...

tomthress,
Agreed that it's less important whether we're in a recession or not than whether or not voters think the economy is doing well. Which they clearly don't at the moment. Even if the economic indicators magically improve, public opinion about the economy is unlikely to shift between now and November.

The flip side of '92 is 2000, when the economy was actually on the brink of recession by election day, but the public voted as if the economy were still booming.

Mason said...

Darien:

That 30% of conservative Dems is 30% of 19% of Democrats. That's also know as 6% of all Democrats. I'd be willing to bet money that most "conservative" Dems are also white and over the age of 50.

All told, they're not an interesting group because there just aren't that many of them. Even Bush in 2004 "only" got 94% of Republicans, but I don't think you'll hear him or Karl Rove (Hi Karl!!) cry over it.

MATT J. H. said...

I think Chris Matthews is the only person pushing the Bradley effect, its a symptom of having a black guy in the race. Every time a poll is wrong it's the Bradley Effect. All the latest studies show there hasn't been a Bradley effect in years.

20% of people are willing to admit they are not voting for Barack in the Democratic primaries in exit polls face to face with a person, but they are afraid to tell a pollster on the phone? That doesn't add up. Theres some racial tension out there but people are honest about it.

I doesn't sound logical that people would tell a pollster that they are voting for Obama because they are afraid of being called a racist. As if voting for McCain means you are a racist. The media loves running with race stories because of the emotions it invokes. There was a lot of racial politics in the primaries but the candidates stayed away from it for the most part.

This has been provoked by those Emails and whisper campaigns claiming Obama is everything from a Muslim extremist to a Bin Laden sympathizer. McCain certainly isn't responsible for this crap but some on the right have been issuing rumors like the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape.

When the argument is made that Obama is "Risky" whether theres a racial tinge or not, it can certainly be implied. The McCain campaign who have not involved themselves in this nonsense yet may be approaching an area they don't want to enter. Certainly Obama doesn't want race to be a part of this campaign because it costs him votes. If this election turns into a racial war, it won't be Obama's doing, he wants to win. The McCain camp is treading on radio active territory. This election will go in the history books regardless of who wins, we don't want it to be remembered for the election the GOP used racial politics to win.