There is no new state polling today, but I have rolled forward the numbers based on the continual good performance for Barack Obama in the national trackers and the latest several editions of the Economist/YouGov poll, which is conducted on a weekly basis but updated on the Economist's website only occasionally. The downtrend in Obama's numbers since the July 4 holiday has now completely flattened out, though we will need a lot more information to determine whether it has reversed itself. I also fixed a small bug in the model that was causing the state-by-state implementation of the trendline adjustment to behave oddly.
A few miscellaneous items:
- Perhaps the most comprehensive study I have seen on the Bradley/Wilder effect so far in this cycle was conducted by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins and is available for your perusal here (PDF). Hopkins' conclusion: the Bradley Effect may have been real in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but does not not appear to exist any more, and in fact there is some (weak) evidence of a reverse Bradley effect. This finding is broadly consistent with the (far less rigorous) studies I have done on the issue.
- I will be on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC Radio tomorrow morning at approximately 10 AM Eastern.
- Karl Rove is an occasional reader.
- Speaking of conservatives, I saw Reihan Salam on David Gregory's show the other day. He is perhaps the right's best answer to Rachel Maddow -- someone who has a strong point of view without being predictable about it -- and is deserving of more airtime.
7.27.2008
Today's Polls and Miscellaneous Thoughts, 7/27
@ 5:31 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
132 comments
I think the Karl Rove link needs fixing.
(And of course he's reading.)
I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm gonna drop it here as well.
Nate: When I see your page, it screams "Link to me on Facebook." Any plans for an app? I'd love to have a updating graphic for my page.
It would be good if there could always be a list of which polls are due to come out in the next 24 or 48 hours, so we know what's coming up. At the moment I keep logging on to fivethirtyeight.com for new polls and then somedays there aren't any. I'd like to know in advance, if that's possible.
Donate to John McCain!
Your Country needs you!
Donate online now!
Help your country!
--- CLICK HERE ---
I don't see how anyone can support Obama's income redistribution plans and raising taxes as well.
A vote for Obama is a vote for a further destroyed economy.
Maybe that someone doesn´t make over 250k and actually gets bigger tax cuts than in McCain´s plan.
I don't see how anyone can support the Bush/McCain economic policies.
We have already seen how well neocon economic policies work. They are disastrous.
McCain supporters support dishonor and yet more tax breaks for the rich. Follow John McCain's plan for financial success: Marry a rich beer heiress!
A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush, Rove and Phil Graham.
Actually some some study showed that US economy was on average much better under Democrat rule. IIRC since WW2 the only republican president ahead of any democratic president in that scale was Nixon ahead of Carter.
1) KARL ROVE WAS WRONG, BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT CURRENT POLLING, BUT NOVEMBER PROJECTION
2) YOU NEED TO FIX THE LINE THAT SAYS MCCAIN LOSES OH/MI, WINS ELECTION.....IT IS LINKING TO MCCAIN LOSES OH/PA AT LEAST FOR THE DENOMINATOR, PERHAPS NOT THE NUMERATOR............106 ITERATIONS OUT OF 10000 MCCAIN WINS PA WHEN LOSING OHIO....WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF WHAT IS STATED BELOW: OBAMA WINS OH WHEN LOSING PA--106....5801 (mccain loses oh)-5695(mccain loses oh and pa)= 106
What the LOESS curve does is take discontinuous change and turn it into continuous change. I believe that if you looked, you could find a tool that smooths out the noise in a different way. Your model should look for instantaneous adjustments - mini-landslides in either direction, whose effects are permanent - and assume a 1/f ("fractal") frequency/size distribution.
"We have already seen how well neocon economic policies work. They are disastrous."
The neo-cons have enough to answer for without blaming them for Bush's economic policies. The neo-con position centers around foreign policy and domestic security, and is relative neutral on economics. While some hae indeed gone whole hog to the right (like the switch of some Trotskyites from the 30's to rabid right wingers in the 50's) others don't really care so much. People like Doug Feith have always been hard shell Republicans; so was his father. The fact that their foreign policy is the same as the neo-cpns does not make all neo-cons hard shell anti=-welfare sate types.
Nate, have you looked at the internals of the YouGov polls at all? I just took a look at the most recent one, and the sample seems crazy. There were 921 individuals in the sample and, 768 of them where White for 83% of the population.
And going back, it's pretty similar, they all have about 83% Whites in their sample. That is way too high and makes me think it's completely useless as a poll.
Pollingreport.com has a new result (7/27) from Research2000: 1100 LV, Obama 51%, McCain 39%. This parallels Obama's upswing on Gallup and Rasmussen.
In latest YouGov poll online, out of 921 respondents the N's are 768 whites, 93 blacks, 60 Hispanic.
If these numbers were the unweighted numbers, well that happens. But in a weighted sample there should be roughly 11% blacks and 12% Hispanics, plus perhaps 3% Asian Americans and others. (Weighting could vary depending on whether there is further selection for likely voters.)
So the question is: Are the data weighted in the analysis but not in the crosstabs/toplines that are shown? I suspect so. Why?
The authors of the survey are certainly very reputable researchers: "Survey was designed by Samuel Popkins of the University of California, San Diego, and Douglas Rivers
of YouGovPolimetrix and Stanford University."
But the use of weights to correct for the undersampling of African Americans and Latinos really ought to be confirmed by others.
It's time to give up, conservatives.
No one likes John McCain and you won't be able to instill enough fear and hatred to defeat Obama.
Change is coming.
Nate,
I am glad you have incorporated the Economist/YouGov national polling.
I analyzed some of it from linking through the Pollster site earlier this weekend.
Quibbles about some data & maybe a small size [1000], but that is more than offset by the frequency [weekly] and consistency, and some methodology choices they have made.
I prefer the high rate of UNDECIDED that they allow to flow through. At this stage, pushing someone to 'lean' creates noise & unreliability.
The trends on Economist/YouGov make since for the lasy 6 weeks. Both candidates slightly up, but they draw their increases from the 'NOT VOTING' category.
Keep following them for the trends. There is also loads of non-push opinions & favorables available in their data to mine on a weekly basis.
THAT info is invaluable to anyone trying to analyze or project for this election even if not available at the micro-state level.
Thanks, Nate !
Anon@5:40,
You must be speaking to stubborn Republicans who've sabotaged conservative ideals....
One of these days, you'll no longer be able to use the "Blame Bush" and "McSame" mantra as they'll be long gone...so you'll have to come up with some constructive or original argument, which for liberal idiots is impossible. Then, YOU won't be able to instill enough fear and hatred to whomever it is restores true conservative ideals to this great nation.
Don't worry...change REALLY IS coming...it likely won't happen until at least 2012 or 2016 after the Obama presidency has further neutered this country of any social or economic relevance.
I have a bit more to add to the Loess discussion
Judas_priest I think said that the only measure on the correctness of smoothing techniques we adopt is how well they fit the data; Of course this is right in a sense but the qualification is important.
To fit the data perfectly, we could after all have had the set of straight lines joining all points - the unsmoothed spiky graph. Why do we avoid this? Not because it's unwieldy but because we *independently believe it to be false* - we assume that the underlying dynamics rule out such a spiky sequence which therefore MUST be noise to be corrected.
Any reduction of observations to an underlying curve depends on assumptions concerning underlying dynamics. And statistical tools incorporate, implicitly, such underlying assumptions.
Let me note that this entire field of statistics emerges from the analysis of astronomical observations, where the goal was (in the early 19th century) to fit observations to curves that were independently assumed to follow Newton's Laws. In a sense, Nate's curve is a descentent of them - its everywhere differentiability is Newtonian.
The problem is, we do not have yet the Newton of the presidential race! - We therefore must make informed guesses, no more, as to the underlying form of the race, the kind of TOPOLOGY the curve should follow.
TROLL ALERT
________________
> please DNFTT <
________________
Nate, help !
Reihan Salam has been doing better, and his last appearance was exceptional. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I can respectfully disagree with them.
The main reason he needs more airtime is to see if he can fill in as host. Like Rachael, he can see and appreciate both sides, and the middle, and doesn't need wallpaper thin talking points.
If Obama is elected, it will probably be mandatory to raise the quality of pundit and journalist, and Fox News will likely dry up and blow away due to lack of material from the White House.
Please write POTUS 08 at XM radio, channel 130. Your show could get picked up there and broadcast nationally.
McCain will pick Pawlenty tomorow.
Rove quotes 538 today on Chris Wallace's Sunday Show. He of course quoted the supertracker at 2% and implied it meant Obama was in a down period. I guess he missed Gallup and Rasmussen, or is he just just a lying boob? I pick the latter....
skip this post unless you are actually interested in polling & prediction
---------------------------------
RE: Economist/YouGov national polls
I had previously submitted my prelim analysis of these polls & provided some very basic summary data for the past 6 weeks of polling on a previous thread this weekend [late Friday night or maybe on Sat.] along with my personal comments.
The link Nate provides allows one to go to retrieve each individual weeks worth of data. But if you are curious & wish to see a comparative summary of the topline #'s, that is readily available on POLLSTER @
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
-------------------------------
It is easy to pick out the poll results for Econ/YouGov since they are the only ones providing "NOT VOTING" as a category.
To me that is a great trend to monitor as well as the high undecided % on a weekly basis.
Economist/YouGov
7/22-24 [current]
1000 A
McCain 38
Obama 41
Other 5
Undecided 14
Not Voting 2
--------------
6 weeks ago:
6/10-11
1000 A
McCain 33
Obama 37
Other 5
Undecided 15
Not Voting 10
with stable trends indicatesd in between on weekly basis.
also, look at the internals & loads of additional info & demos & opinions, etc.
see the trends within those questions that they ask the same every weel with no obivious partisan pushing or leading.
valuable stuff, especially at this point in the cycle.
enjoy !
So not voting is way up? Do you really belive that?
damm, I gotta learn how to type better or use spellcheck... sorry for all the typos in the post above
Brad,
not, that is backward. NOT VOTING is down from 10% to only 2 % this week.
and it has slowly trended down over the past 6 weeks with very slight changes in the other categories.
appears to be a PUMA migration ???
Agree, got the dates backwards.
But it does go to the point of my delted post - that non-voting should be treated like uncommitted? Namely it is mostly people on the move from one candidate to the other?
Obama better hope the undecideds break even like this on election day - it would be perfect!
Brad,
that is the exact value of those polled who say they will not vote at that time.
IF/when they change their minds, you can follow the trends rather than push them to 'lean' and distort the actual snapshot of the electorate.
Almost all the change has come from NV moving into O or Mc - assuming that the UN % as a population remained the same [which actually makes sense].
Why would true UNDECIDEDS make a decision in the past few weeks - except maybe the PUMAs ?
In reality most UN remain either UN or a very soft 'lean' - which is noise & disrupts prediction until the last week or maybe even last weekend/days of the cycle.
in my opinion, of course
DCM-
I think the overseas trip was genius for exactly this reason, lots of undecideds could not see a black man leading (racist and/or low info) and the trip did exactly what is was meant to do - got them over it as they saw him doing the job!
Brad,
I really doubt that any significant # of LV will really move between one candidate to the other in a matter of days or even weeks for that matter.
Anyone who does can not be counted on to actually vote, so their support is worthless at this point in time.
I mean, how do you know with any confidence they they will not move back or are only saying what the MSM is suggesting they should say ?
such soft support can not be relied upon until the last days or even hours - if they can be moved by an ad or one event baring a REAL significant development [like McCain strokes out & punches Obama during a debate...]
THEN those who change teams directly from one camp to the other might be hard support. Still even then if early enough they might flip-flop again.
Most soft support peels off - but slowly into the actual UNDECIDED. At least at this early stage. Then later the other team has a chance to pull them onboard [Reagan DEMS in the last few days of '80] BUT as history shows they also were soft support as shown when Reagan's #'s collapsed later.
Still he knew that the only time their support really mattered was on election day. In between elections support will regress or even collapse due to hard decisions by POTUS & world events.
DCM-
In a normal election between two boring bald white guys (like me) that is the only parameter. There are others. Obama is grossly underperforming the general dem vs repub numbers, and as folks come to trust himhe will move closer to those. If he does not, he will lose.
Race matters this time, it is more than party to many, and even might be subliminal. Complex, but that is what makes this one lots more fun. Right down to the loast minute - is there really no Bradlet effect? A reverse Bradley Effect?
In the poll detail column to the right please include a national polls section with the latest 10-20 polls or so.
Brad said,
"DCM-
I think the overseas trip was genius for exactly this reason."
I agree completely. Plus an columnist @ TIME [Klein, I think] had an article the other day that provided more insight into strategic moves by Obama on the trip.
A hidden agenda may be to needle McCain so bad [but subtley] to make him lose his temper & keep him off-message [economy/gas prices].
That worked beyond belief as McCain took O's bait this week. ANGRY John is back every day in front of the camera & small crowds.
That apparently explains why O refuses to admit anything close to "the surge worked" & maybe evn encouraged the MSM talking heads to keep asking him about it.
O played them all & pissed off John - but O also showed strength by not backing down to McCain [even though we all thought, just say OK & move on. The public has moved on as has Bush & everyone except McCain & Petraeus...
Rove reads this? Yeesh...can you take the site out and get it cleaned or something? Deloused?
In the poll detail column to the right please include a national polls section with the latest 10-20 polls or so.
I second this request.
Great point DCM. Did you see John on Goege "ilove hillary" Stephanopolus' show this AM? He did come off as angry John over exactly the points you lay out.
In the poll detail column to the right please include a national polls section with the latest 10-20 polls or so.
I third this request.
Brad,
Hi, my name is Dave & I am also a member of the BWG club [bald white guy].
I do not think O is really underperforming as shown in the YouGov #'s. The generic #'s are inflated since people are only given 2 choices basically. Either GOP or not GOP [DEM] on nthe generic is my interpretation.
The 'missing' #'s for O as compared to the generic are the UN's. The Not Vote crowd has now gotten off the fence.
Both have their bases lokked up according to YouGov #'s. That leaves the UN's in play which the generic implies are 'leaning' DEM.
O needs to close the sale just before the election - not too early or they may get buyers remorse.
Bradley effect is there, but small since they can say 'he is 1/2 white'... even my mom in FL feels that way. He needs to make sure to assure them that he is not only OK but he is real in November when it counts.
The media is having an orgasm for Obama right now.
New York Times is pushing McCain lobbyist problem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25868072/
Brad,
I believe from ancedotal evidence here in FL that the Bradley effect will be more than offset by a countervailing & hidden McCain effect...
The McCain effect will be 'too old' or 'ageism' as voters actually make their final selection in November.
Ageism is more un-PC & taboo today than sexism [Hillary], racism [Obama] or religion. Only 'lookism' is more prevalent in the american psyche in my opinion & observation.
Every elder I know in FL will not say out loud that McCain is too old to be POTUS for 4-8 years at 72 y/o - but they know it from experience that this job is too high stress esp. with his war injuries & temper, etc.
I am sure that a significant sub-set of the population inc. in the 65+ will tell pollsters that age doesn't matter. It does & will be the deciding [but hidden] factor that may not even be able to show up in exit polls...
watch, unless McCain sells himself as YOUNGER like Reagan in the debates in 2000, he will lose in the end.
Remember, Reagan in 1980 was only like 68 and darkened his hair & red cheeks - wonder if McCain will try that ? Fox has been using old photos of McCain to make him appear younger already.
But the elderly & middle age all recall that by the time Reagan left office he was basically incompetent & probably already had alzheimers which Nancy hid from public view for years.
The people remember but no one wants to say it outloud...
Unless O really blows up BIG [worse than Rev Wright], he will win due to the age issues in Nov.
Brad,
yes, I am seeing nothing but ANGRY OLD NASTY John McCain on every channel these days.
He looks like he will bite Wolf & George & every talking head - and the traitor stuff is so out there that he has lost his bearings.
Man, what a great strategy to make him appear irrational w/o ever having to say it outloud as many want O to do.
He is encouraging John to 'get real' while maintaining 'presidential' decorum.
Stunning to watch. The impact on th electorate will be delayed. It will not move the GOP base [see trolls] but those UN's are watching & waiting for a chance to meet O & have a beer with him [as Nate might say].
That beer will be in Denver in a few weeks then a BBQ or 2 during the debates to seal the deal.
Hard to believe that McCain's handlers cannot rein him in better... even his flacks are having trouble trying to cover up his flubs, gaffes & angry moments...
IF (and that is a big if) was the plan it weas brillainat. It made McCain look like an idiot and make O look presidential. It won't amtter if McCain wins the debates though. They need to make him mad there. Can they get him to call Cindy a c**t again?
Brad,
finally did you notice that now that O is back in USA his suit color has changed ? Just saw him in a green jacket on CNN,
Itentionally thrying to make him appear more 'real' after a week as POTUS in waiting in dark suits abroad.
Also the rolled up shirts like he wore in MT over the 4th will be showing up more & more I predict.
They are rolling out the new, accessible O - abd started on the campaign plane last week.
Now that he showed he fits in well [excellent even] with heads of state & policy makers, he is going BUBBA by home.
Also have you noticed that since O locked up the nomination, his non-scripted speech & casual banter [or as casual as O can get...lol not very] is becoming increasingly twangy & drawling !!!
Yeah, Barry is becoming a good ol' boy like here in FL. Always a backslapper, but now he drawls.
Are his image makers doing this to make him appear real & non-scary ?
The only other possibility is that his speech coach [yes, he does have speech coaches of course] is helping him learn to drawl to allow O to let his tongue catch up with his packaged thoughts.
Even a diehard DEM winces when O stammers & hems & haws & uhs rather than to spit it out contemporaneously. Drawling & other regional colloquialisms
[Still better than Mac who uses 'my friends' and his sickly off-kilter smile] to stall for time. Someone please stop that man from appearing on camera.
John should stick to radio & print... 20th century media since he can't use a computer... oops I digress !
gotta go walk the dawg
Did you see McAin react to his dogs coming into the interview today on ABC? He looked annoyed, did not pet them, and was a real prick. This would be a great youtube vid with commentary. Who could vote for a guy that does not even like his own dogs?
About his suit on CNN this AM, it was tan and it looked like crap. He needs a better tailor, the lines between the jacket and arm were terrible - lots of crimps. Looked like a third grade tailor.
karl rove - sexy bitch.
Obama's suit looked like crap, and he did not even seem able to unbutton it - go watch, at the minority journalist event this AM on CNN.
Brad,
see you also noticed ! Tan and then green, then shirt only - it is intentional as well as the bad fit - to make him REAL [I recall Reagan often wore brown & tan too]
They are following the Reagan model of persoanlity campaign sale.
because a marketing sale is really what this is in the end...
Brad,
the dog comment was great. I missed that about Mac w/dogs but I bet others didn't. NO ONE likes a person who hates or mistreats dogs - they do not trust them !
that would make a great add !!!
Even George "I love hillary" Stphan-idiot was taken aback at the dog thing. It looked like Cindy released the dogs to make him huan, and he just said to ignore them. Two dogs came, he only used one's name! SAM!
As for the suit, Reagan waore good stuff, to look like Reagan you need a much better tailor...
Much as I hate to say it, he needs to sound less "black", less black inflection and less southern inflection would be good. He has the black vote, he needs to win the mildly racist to win big, huge, gigantic.
No more King references, please.
He has my vote, he has my (maxed out) money, but....
Brad,
I really do need to walk my dog, but had to comment on what some pundits suggest is the NASCAR demo & whether O can get enough of them to win or at least force Mac to play defense in the south & midwest.
Yes, he can & there was even a proposal for O to sponsor a truck [I think] in one of the 2nd tier race series. They passed.
But NASCAR is all about marketing & the BIG crowd who want to party. They respect NOISE & stars & bigger than life personas & risk takers & love to get tribal in a hige crowd at the track. Oh & sometimes the cars race 'round & crash... luv the crashes.
Anyway, O can fit in with enough of them to matter if he tries. They are redneck - but not necc. prejudiced IF they like what you got. The big Denver speech in a stadium appeals to the demo, as does bold daring moves [like passing down the stretch]. Fan favs, yes - but they will back an newbie IF he is one of them.
Actually, I feel Prez campaign is really more like wrestling WWF or whatever. Characters are staged & bigger than life, crowds chose a side, blood will be spilled, watch the carnage & dirty tricks - the analogies are endless.
BUT O can win over a good deal of that crowd also if he plays the game to win - and his team has shown they know how to get that done. In wrestling, a superior move or position only rules for the moment. The end result when they raise the hand, the other guy is the loser & the winner gets the belt/POTUS.
That is the strategy Obama seems to use to play it close, circle your opponent, make strategic moves that will pay dividends later [like an eye gouge or knee to the groin] THEN pin your opponent...
game scenario for Nov...
ciao 4 now
Back to a conversation that actually matters,
There are rumors McCain will pick his VP tomorrow. If Romney is McCain's pick, can Romney bring McCain Michigan? And who does Obama counter with, Hillary, Biden?
I agree that Reihan Salam has well stated and interesting opinions. He also has the scarriest eyes on TV. They are amazing.
Romney would help some in MI. But not if he just talks happy talk as he did in the primaries.
It would be logical, if McC is going to name a veep tomorrow, that he'd do it not just to beat the beginning of the Olympics but also to trump Obama from getting out a major economic message, which evidently he intends to do in the next few days.
DONATE TO OBAMA !
WE NEED YOU
ITS EASY TO DONATE ONLINE
DONATE NOW !
*** CLICK HERE ***
Is Hillary a blessing for Obama or a curse. She brings instant unity, a proven campaigner, her army, and a big swing vote.
She probably hurts with independents, the message of change, and she may inspire an otherwise bush-fatigued republican party. Not to mention Bill and all that entails.
So, on balance, net plus or minus?
Hi LOESS crowd,
I just noticed your discussion. A few points:
1) It has been suggested that a model, or smoothing technique, should be judged by how well it fits the data. This is, in almost all cases, incorrect. It is trivial to create a model that fits known data. The challenge is almost always predicting new data.
2) There has been some discussion of events (such as debates, conventions, concessions) that might create a significant change in the electorate in a short period of time. I agree that such events exist, which is why I suggest that it might make more sense to consider the evolution of voter preferences as a function of cumulative voter interest rather than time. Cumulative voter interest could be tracked, for example, by integrating search frequency in Google Trends. Spikes in interest would be inidicate a rapid progression through interest space, and it should be expected that voter perceptions change more rapidly than usual at these points.
3) I think a good way to incorporate points 1) and 2) into the model would be to use Bayes' theory. In general, the idea is that given a set of polls, S, and an underlying opinion, E, we want to find the most likely E given S. Using Bayes' theorem, we get:
P(E | S) = P(S | E) P(E) / P(S)
P(S) is not dependent on E, so for our purposes it can be treated as a normalization constant. We need to determine P(S | E), which is similar to what Nate is doing with his regression model, and P(E), our prior expectation for voter opinions. P(E) can be constructed to reflect our expectation that voter preferences evolve continuously and slowly over interest space.
If I had time, I'd love to construct a model to test this, but I'm swamped at the moment.
Modeler - you can't test that, no matter how much time you have.
As for bumps. I think this one sticks. If there are no mistakes O stays up at least three to election day (unfortunately, he will make mistakes).
As for race- it does matter, and he would be up double, half the PUMA vote is simly racist.
Tomake it clean this goes in anew window-
Hillary and Bill are the most selfish people on the planet. The only reason they support O at all is their need to not be seen as not supporting the democrat. Hill is a bitch, bill is a wimpy ass liar.
Screw hill and bill, vote Obama!!!!!
Brad,
I disagree -- I think you can test the predictive power of a even a political science model. Obviously the best test is against actual elections, but you could even test the ability of the model to predict the next poll.
Modeler-
As nate has shown - what fun is predicting the next pole! The election matters...
I agree with the point about minorities being underestimated in the economist poll. If you adjust the percentages to the actual percentages in the last election, you get Obama at +6%. Not a big difference from 3 - 6 but whatever.
What the hell is up with the "will not vote" line? I thought they made sure that the poll was only of likely voters. If they didn't, isn't 2% WNV absurdly low?
The media is having an orgasm for Obama right now.
New York Times is pushing McCain lobbyist problem: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25868072/
Then explain this-
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story
It's fun making stuff up though to prove points that you want to be made.
Brad,
Predicting the next poll is a test of the validity of the model. Of course, the goal is to develop a model that can accurately predict the only poll that matters.
Odd that that Research 2000 poll is only up on PollingReport.com.
At what point do we say that if Gallup has Obama +9 and Rasmussen +5, and a new poll from a reasonably respected operation has him at +12 (and over the magic 50% line) that 538's model (still just over +2) is being a bit too conservative?
Anon@8:14
You say the media is having an "orgasm" for Obama and then link to an article that cites a study that proves exactly the opposite.
That takes chutzpah.
Amazing!!!
Modeler,
I appreciate the thought you put into attempting to track voter interest & effect of events.
But I see nothing but noise in the big polls that try to gauge intensity of 'interest'...talk about subjective & somewhat leading or push.
The only real trend that matter in the end is what are the actual UNdecided feeling & how & when do they move ?
Leave all the soft support in with the real UN's [as the Econ/YouGov poll method seems to be doing].
Then track those trends & movements while monitoring their shifting opinions.
That will decide any election.
The internals of YouGov pollling has some very interesting nuggets - but I wish the data could be better broken down by the opinions & preferences within the UN's & Not Voting demos only.
Oh, and toss in the OTHER category as well since maybe they can be moved in Nov.
Maybe the campaigns have this stuff because those are really the only part of the electorate that they have much of a chance to move for real on election day.
The 80 % they have really already decided [regardless of intensity] are not moving sides short of a truly major event - bigger than Wright which really had a small end result so far.
I want the internal trends & opinions & demos to track just within the remaining 20%. Data on the rest is interesting but represents chaff - except for understanding the base which is approx. 41% Obama - 38% McCain nationally at the moment.
Even more I would like to see this polling methodology run on a weekly basis in the individual states. Particularly the purple/swing states.
That would be most useful for prediction.
And I know that Nate has much better things to do than respond to every suggestion made in the comment section, but I agree with the commenter yesterday who said that it might be more interesting to be able to see a more detailed version of recent fluctuations in the Super Tracker than to have the January to the present all there, which makes it hard to tell what the trend is in the most recent days.
Jeffrey,
WILL NOT VOTE is an excellent category that answers many questions this early in am election cycle.
It is a read on how a RV feels at that moment. Why should a pollster discount them OR push to lean this early ?
Did you see how the NV % has been shifting ?
THat is exactly the people who can be moved early in a campaign. UN's will stay on the sideline, or if pushed move back & forth & create noise [see recent polls that show wild swings].
other pollsters should adopt this method.
whether the sample at YouGov is weighted or demos are not as expected, the tracking method yields great real time info of trends, moods, etc. w/o over-stating soft support as in other polls we are seeing.
that should all change in late Oct into Nov.
I don't see a Bradley effect in phone polls. They're probably valid. But in exit polls, there is certainly overwhelming evidence of one. The exit polls have been off in numerous states, with Obama always underperforming. I think it has to do with phone versus in-person survey taking. There is less anonymity in exit polls...
The extensive data in each of the series of YouGov polls is already useful in hazarding a prediction on the final popular vote [and implied EV result] since it shows the metrics for the likelihood of future movements & trends that are shaping up to occur - unless the demos & opinions change dramatically in the next few months anyway.
Go deep down to glean the telling data rather than the superficial hard stuff at the top.
DCM,
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I don't suggest using polls to gauge interest -- I suggest using real-world reflections of interest, such as search frequency. Although obviously not a perfect metric, I think you'll find that spikes in election-related searches tend to accompany more rapid shifts in the electorate.
Maybe Obama's getting a Bradley Pitt effect?
Interesting that Gallup's Daily Tracker Poll has gone from Obama +2 to Obama +9 (from 45% up to 49%) in a week since Obama's trip, while McCain has gone from 43% to 40%.
Rassmussen is still stuck at Obama 49% - McCain 44%.
It will be interesting to see if this continues and if Obama can break over 50%.
If McCain rushes out his announcement of a VP candidate, that could help him in the short-term, but I imagine that if it's Pawlenty it would have a bigger impact at the convention, while all Minnesota is focused on his speech.
That would probably maximize his bounce.
Although, if I were McCain, I'd pick Christ who really would wrap up Florida for McCain.
Minnesota is too blue to switch to McCain, although he can make it a lot more competitive.
The Republicans really blew it big-time by not holding their convention in upstate Michigan.
Michigan is a state that might actually be swayed by favorable local publicity from having the convention there.
If McCain gained 5% in Minnesota though, he'd only go from -8 to around -3. Close, but no cigar!
McCain might not gain even that in MN with Pawlenty: the man won the governorship in 2002 with 44.4% of the vote, and in 2006 with 46.7% of the vote. Both times there were strong third-party candidates, obviously, but the numbers don't really suggest that Pawlenty would run ahead of his party in MN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty#Electoral_history
Modeler, in terms of figuring out what may have been happening in the campaign so far, I think you have to view this as a 3-person race. But in the period from February to mid-April, it was a McCain-Clinton-Obama competition. In the period since late April it has been a McCain-Obama-Other/Undecided competition.
I would surmise that much of the Obama "loss" and subsequent "gain" relative to McCain in Nate's SuperTracker and your Google Trends charts in late-Feb thru mid-April is an artifact of "future Obama supporters" holding out for Clinton in the surveys -- not that they were ever really supporting McCain in any large numbers. In other words, their declared preferences were strategic and not sincere.
As a result, the Obama/McCain ratio was artifactually low during that period. Most of the Clintonites who said they preferred McCain to Obama at that time were never going to sincerely end up there. And during the April-June period in fact they migrated to their sincere home: Obama.
Furthermore, picking up on Scott's analysis, from late April through late July, we again have a three horse race: Obama vs. McCain vs. Undecided.
In terms of tracking what's really happening on the ground, instead of just calculating the Obama/McCain ratio I would focus on two separately estimates that are akin to what RCP and Pollster both do: what % of the likely voters are drawn to McCain; what % are drawn to Obama. And I would add a third trend line: what % are undecided.
Because there's still a significant undecided/other group of respondents, who appear increasingly come from those who call themselves "independents" (as 90% of declared partisans are saying they'll vote for the nominee of their party), there remains a reservoir of potential voters that would allow both McCain and Obama to experience net gains simultaneously. Just focusing on the ratio of McCain to Obama supporters misses movement out of the reservoir.
Furthermore, as Scott pointed out on another thread, in the RCP polling averages since the end of April the % supporting Obama has scarcely changed on net (though there has been some temporal fluctuation) while the % supporting McCain has been decaying fairly unrelentingly. McCain's loss (steady erosion since May 1 or so), however, hasn't equaled Obama's gain (since he hasn't gained in terms of overall % of voters since May 1 or so).
In sum (and to repeat): since the end of April Obama is at least holding his own as a % of total voters, while McCain has been sliding downward. But 10-15% of potential voters are uncommitted. If voters were investors, then we would say that some 10-15% of them are keeping their money on the sidelines.
Modeler,
I didn't mean to suggest that you were encouraging further polling on the 'interest' factor.
But I didn't make that clear. My comment above on pooling interest was about the current crop of data that comes from the pollsters already. I find that it is sound & fury signifying [almost] nothing.
I see some merit to your suggestion to track real time 'interest' using "the google" searches, etc.
That strikes me as somewhat useful - but I would like to narrow down the tracking to the sub-set of trying to gauge the 'interest' of the UN's & Other & NV sub-sets.
They are the only real potential swing votes - later in the cycle especially.
Tracking the full LV population let alone the entire population just creates noise. I mean, once you convert a voter what motivates them to express interest online or elsewhere [except thru donations, etc.]
Target the population that matters - but how ? If you find a solution that would be brilliant ! And you would be able to accurately predict as well as track.
For instance, I do not believe that a drop in hits at Team Obama HQ indicates anything serious. The sale is made to the one's who committed.
I want to know how many NEW hits from the Un's & OTHERS & NV they got, and what searches online those demos are doing.
But that is just me...
However, IF the field surveyors for YouGov could get that info & track it for us weekly that would yield what you & I both want to see.
Actually, I would love to see a pollster like YouGov with a model that follows the exact same population of potential voters once a week thru the entire cycle. THAT would be a winner !
And why not with interactive broadband cable, etc. ? They [or maybe Zogby] should setup such a poll and let us follow the results for trends & movements.
Even if the population was not 'perfectly weighted', the results would still show general trends & movements over time.
Like what Gallup does for TV ratings, that is the model I want to see. I wonder if Gallup is doing this but doesn't share it with us ???
They would be able to gauge everything in real time !
My counter-proposal
Juris said:
"In terms of tracking what's really happening on the ground, instead of just calculating the Obama/McCain ratio I would focus on two separately estimates that are akin to what RCP and Pollster both do: what % of the likely voters are drawn to McCain; what % are drawn to Obama. And I would add a third trend line: what % are undecided."
That is what I have been advocating. But let's toss in the 'OTHER' as well as the 'NOT VOTING' [but registered] to track the PUMAs & such.
Those are the demos where there will eventually be movement - but when & where & why ?
DCM: that's right, I meant "others" to be inclusive of those nominally supporting 3rd party candidates as well as those who are undecided/preference undeclared.
Juris,
If you locate that info or a model to produce the data we are looking for, please share it with me.
or better yet, "build it and they will come"...
my field of dreams
Are there any polls out there that have been conducted after this event?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc
That Salam guy was incredibly annoying. I think even Rachel Maddow was getting pissed off listening to him. Unlike Maddow, he has no connection with the facts, and his analysis is horrible.
Usually the right wingers on MSNBC are a bit smarter than that.
If I didn't actually have a job, I'd try to track that. But in the meantime I think it is useful for us 538 fans to look at Pollster and RCP because they're at least showing separate McCain and Obama trendlines and not just a % Obama trendline.
It would be good if Nate could in fact model the trend in "other/thirdparty/undecideds" and run that along the bottom of his supertracker. Sort of the way stock market charts run a "volume" figure as well as a "price" trend line on parallel timetables.
Nobody in Washington is more overrated than Rove-- not even Carville-- the guy's a complete hack.
I wonder if he mentioned that Nate's model gives McCain less than 40% chance of winning.
Juris,
I'm not suggesting using the Obama / McCain ratio in searches. I don' think this would be a very good metric, as Obama supporters tend to use the internet more.
Rather, I'm suggesting looking at the total interest in the election, by looking at the searches for "Obama McCain" or "McCain Obama." The more interest there is, the less you should expect today's opinions to resemble yesterday's. In other words, your curve should be less smooth. To re-iterate: This method would not predict how opinions change, just how rapidly they change. It may be possible to extract how they change from the data, but for now let's keep it simple.
This is clearly imperfect, as it samples only internet users, but I think you'll find that the spikes in interest occur near periods, such as Obama's February run and Clinton's concession, in which we also saw rapid movement in the polls. To make it better, you could also possibly include TV news ratings.
As for tracking undecided voters, I think it would be interesting to track the number of "undecideds" over time.
Wow...knock on wood, but it looks like most of the trolls have petered off in this thread...
Fingers crossed they stay gone...
Ok, I see.
As for tracking the undecideds/others, someone with some time on their hands could fish this information out of the RealClearPolitics tracker, since they give their calculated % McCain and %Obama at each date and thus one can sum them and subtract from 100%. (If you roll your mouse along the chart, the actual % for each candidate shows up at each date.)
Robby -- I think the trollbots may have been recalled to the Mother Ship, to await further instructions.
VOR
we still have one troll beatin up on Karl Rove a little bit.
The discussion of the Bradley Effect got me wondering about how much of an effect racism may be having on the election...
Scientific studies have shown an enormous bias against African-Americans among the general US population, even though many of us are not consciously aware of it.
In one experiment, for example, researchers sent identical resumes to employers... the only difference was that some of the resumes had white-sounding names and others had black-sounding names. The ones with white names got many more callbacks. In another related study, researchers found that a white-sounding resume with a felony criminal record got more callbacks than an identical black-sounding resume without any criminal record.
(jobbankusa.com/News/Hiring/hiring100803a.html)
Does anyone know of similar studies in which voters are asked to choose between hypothetical candidates, instead of hypothetical resumes? In this election many of us have wondered "why isn't Obama doing any better than he is?" and I suspect this is a big part of it...
hohho: I think the consensus of researchers is now converging toward the idea that while the Bradley effect was real 10 or 20 years ago, it may not be real now -- or its effects may even be reversed in some cases.
By some people's estimates, Obama has far more often outperformed his polling projections than underperformed them.
Given current evidence, there is no reason to assume a large such effect. This doesn't mean that race doesn't matter to many people's vote. It only means that people may not disguise their intended vote when asked their intention by an interviewer.
Also see this article and this article.
"bluedakota said...
VOR
we still have one troll beatin up on Karl Rove a little bit."
This would be the same Karl Rove who said before the 2006 election: "you have YOUR numbers, but I have THE numbers?"
When you think what a once in a 100 years opportunity the Republicans had of becoming a permanent majority party after 9-11 I think every liberal in America needs to get down on his knees and thank Karl Rove for screwing up so horribly!
All Bush had to do to become bigger than Reagan ever was is start to ACT like "a uniter, not a divider" and he'd still be around 60% in the polls. And whatever Republican they decided to run would be up by around 10% in the polls and cruising to an inevitable victory as Bush sailed off into history as the Republican equivalent of FDR, who cemented Democratic rule for 40 years.
But, no! He had to invade Iraq and run the most divisive campaign in history in 2004, then Katrina and trying and privatize social security and turning the Justice Department into a haven for partisan hacks!
And Karl Rove was there every step of the way, convincing Bush that there was NO middle ground and that all he had to do was totally polarize the country and rally the base with endless red-meat attacks on every opponent.
Works for me! But, then I'm a radical liberal! The left today is more powerful than at any time since 1972 in America, and we owe it all to Bush who dressed the word "failure" in Republican garb for a generation.
Bless his little heart!
Ageism is a two-edged sword. My 65-year-old friend says Obama is way too young to be president. Of course, she was a big JFK fan. The difference then was that she thought a 40-year-old was very old, world-weary, and experienced. This electorate is old, and just as old folks don't trust young whippersnappers who are only 50 to be their doctors, they don't want one to be their president either.
Somehow our history and civics classes gloss over the drawbacks of having a senile (Reagan) or dying (FDR, Wilson?) person at the top of our government. Despite our cries for term limits, we do distrust people without executive experience.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT...WRITE IN HER NAME SO THAT OBAMA WILL LOSE '08 AND PUT HER IN '12 AND '16
Cugel,
I don't care who is getting beat up on, please take it somewhere else. We all know you're capable of better than that.
I like Hillary but she has proven herself incompetent. To lose an election where you had every advantage as she did, should disqualify you from president, If you do not have the competance to win a campaign, you cannot run a country.
Just to piss of the PUMA-retards, I will be voting against Hillary Clinton for New York Senator.
And I don't care if her opponent is Hitler reborn.
Juris, thanks for the response. I should clarify that I was really asking about the general impact of racism on people's voting, not about the Bradley Effect. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bradley Effect has disappeared, due to the decline of political correctness since the 90's.)
Our society's underlying racism, of course, has not disappeared: the latest resume experiments I found in a quick Google search were dated 2003 and 2004. I was just wondering if anyone has done experiments similar to the resume ones that could estimate the magnitude of the effect of racism in a hypothetical political contest.
A couple of comments on things I read:
1. One poster said that although the phone polls were generally accurate, the exit polls were way off and that might be an example of the Bradley effect, since people would be more likely to lie face to face. I hadn't heard that before. I thought the exit polls during the primaries were generally very accurate, but I confess I didn't look that closely. Is there a link to an article that covers this directly?
2. The Obama stuttering tape.
I don't normally answer trolls, but... One posted a youtube link to a supposed tape of Obama repeatedly saying the word "uh" during a press conference. The tape was audio only and had no visuals. It was an obvious fake. Its poster said people had said it was a fake, but they should google it and they would see many news stories about it. It even had links to three news stories. The news stories referenced the press conference but didn't say anything about stuttering. Googling Obama stutter didn't land one single quote from a reputable news organization.
Just another smear. Here is the question though. Why? I really don't understand what they have to gain from this one.
It seems to me that the Republicans are trying to spread the rumor that Obama is really a simpleton and that his unscripted debate performances will show him to be a complete moron.
Dems tried this with both Reagan and George W Bush. It failed miserably both times. They set the bar absurdly low and when those two didn't completely embarass themselves at their debates, it looked like they had won easily. I'm not sure the "my opponent is an idiot" attack has ever worked in an actual campaign.
Modeler,
Thanks for joining in for the Loess case!
The idea that intense interest is correlated with transitions between states is very useful. It is empirically about right, but it is also interesting that it is not quite right empirically: the June-to-July transition was correlated with fairly low interest and, in fact, may have been caused by it.
Another thought related to a previous conversation we had: once we start believing in more steady states, it makes much more sense to have a regression on the polling during those periods. So could Nate please provide us with the 538 regression over the following periods:
1/27 to 3/3
5/3 to 5/5
5/7 to 6/2
6/8 to 6/30
7/5 to 7/24
I am not sure by the way that 5/6 was a major transition. From the data, I have a sense that March numbers are a bit contaminated with polls that were over-exposed to media interest around Wright, while slightly better numbers in May may represent a technical process, namely the gradual elimination of Clinton questions.
In a previous, "humanistic" and qualitative comment in the previous thread I've suggested that Obama's numbers essentially have an "on" and "off" button, "on" when there's the feeling around of the fierce urgency of now and "off" otherwise. I think the "on"/"off" button is worth about 2 points; plus, there are about 2 points in the soft PUMA vote that claimed, never quite sincerely, not to be able to vote for Obama against McCain.
Hence a simple theory:
Feb. is "On", without soft PUMA. It's at +2 Obama.
March-May is "off", without soft PUMA. It's generally speaking +0 Obama, a bit less when the news cycle is dreadful, a bit more as the soft PUMA begin to drift.
June is both "on" and with soft PUMA. It's +4.
July is "off" and with soft PUMA. It's +2 again (but the opposite +2 to February!).
There is always the possibility that there's even more to be squeezed out of the "on" button; but I suspect today's Gallup is too optimistic and that we will settle, at best, at around +4 to +5.
Cugel, I agree with much of what you say, but 2004 was hardly the most divisive campaign in history. For more, I recommend the book "Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises" by Joseph Cummins.
re Karl Rove's "I have THE numbers":
Of COURSE Rove lied about the Republicans' chances in 2006. Remember, as bad as that election was for them, it could have been worse; there were about a dozen seats (I do not remember the exact number) where the Republicans held on by a nose.
On the other hand, if Rove had said, "You know what, yeah, the GOP is screwed this cycle," yes, he would have been telling the truth, but that would have resulted in an even greater drop in GOP turnout, and a loss of several more seats.
As for Iraq, etc.: that was a policy decision. Rove was a political adviser, and you have to give the devil his due: he made Bush's absurdly boneheaded and (at times) downright unconstitutional policy decisions palatable to the American electorate for longer than anyone else could have.
Rove was by no means perfect; in 2006 he wasted a lot of RNC cash on long-shot races (e.g. Steele in Maryland, as well as several very Democratic House seats), resources that might have made the difference in VA and MO (thus retaining the Senate). But to call Rove a "screw-up" is, I think, a distortion of history.
What the hell are you talking about, you are talking out of your ass.
Anonomous Humanist what are you talking about. That was the biggest pile of crap I have ever seen in my life. Puma On and Off? The point of PUMA is they don't vote for Obama. How can they be on and off? I am stupider for reading your post.
Anonymous Humanist,
Take a look at the Super Tracker from the peak in June to the present. It's only off by about 2 points in a month, which is about 1/2 the rate of change from the previous month. During this period, the search frequency was also down.
Now compare to the previous two months, from mid-March to mid-May. This is the flattest period of the Super Tracker, and it also corresponds to the period of lowest interest.
I should be clear that I don't expect that every time there is a spike in interest, there is a rapid change in voter preferences. Rather, what I believe is happening is that a spike in interest increases our uncertainty in people's positions. For example, we can expect that the higher the interest in the election over the last week, the worse a 1-week old poll will be at predicting today's opinions on average.
@ anon 12:29
Face the facts, bub: Obama has been doing better and better with Democrats since Clinton dropped out of the race. As I said in another thread, he's now in the low 80s, which is about where Clinton was at the height of the primary.
These so-called PUMAs you're referring to are nothing more than Clinton-supporting Democrats that, as the numbers show, are rallying behind their party's nominee.
It's also worth noting that the PUMAs aren't really Democrats: the group's founder donated to (guess who?) John McCain in 2000. In other words, this phantom group of pissed of Clintonites who are going to vote for the pro-life, anti-gays rights, pro-preemptive strike McCain never really existed, at least not in any statistically significant sense.
KRANKY said...
Because of an aging demographic that is overcounted, we are now seeing a "reverse Bradley effect".
Many of the ignorant racists polled as being anti-Obama in fact, have no franchise to vote: as they are ex-cons with no franchise. Now, they are geriatric bigots that do not have cell phones, but they will lie to pollsters saying all this racist drivel that we see the anonymous trolls posting here.
At least 5% of the Repuke vote are these ex-con white supremacists.
KRANKY
Modeler, I think the supertracker is wrong about June to July (as it is in its smoothness everywhere). I think it all took place on the 4th of July weekend. We came out of it and all of a sudden polls looked down by a visible difference. I do not see evidence that there was a gradual decline during this period: merely a gradual growth in our willingness to admit the decline.
re: Cugel @ 8:54 PM
you said, "Although, if I were McCain, I'd pick Christ who really would wrap up Florida for McCain."
I disagree. Live in FL and my take on the ground here is that IF Christ gets the VP slot there will be a severe backlash AGAINST Christ thru McCain which would lose GOP votes - or push all the IND to Obama in November.
Christ has only served a few years as Gov here & made many promises to get elected. He has come thru with NONE of the big ones [lower property taxes, better hurricane insurance, better schools, etc.].
The FL electorate will punish him if he tries to move up already & leaves us in the cold. I am not even sure who the Lt Gov here is...
PLUS Christ flip-flopped in the worst way on off-shore drilling & he will be spanked for that once the initial bounce subsides. No way oil drilling will come off FL.
Then, Charlie is a confirmed bachelor. He has a beard on stand-by if he gets the VP call, but the gay rumours would really sink McCain. Not that there is anything wrong with it, except that ChainGang Charlie Christ [that is his own nickname for the past] is the ultimate hypocrite !
Everyone in FL already knows that Charlie is a friend of Dorothy, and basically made their peace with it in a "don't ask/don't tell" quaint FL cracker way...
But once it goes national & in the heat of the campaign what is the GOP base & UNdecideds going to do ?
McCain already has way too much bad "family values" short-comings to then add Charlie Christ to his side.
Plus Christ is always so over-tanned & smiling that when he stands next to John McCain it makes him look even older & paler if that is possible.
Trust me, it aint gonna happen - but I wish it would because then Obama is a total lock to win.
And on that note, there is no way that McCain will announce his VP before Obama does. That rules this week out.
I would bet that McCain announces between the end of the Olympics & just before the start of the DEM convention for a max media impact & to be able to counter-program Obama's choice.
What else does McCain have to work with that would be a big event ?
Juris @ 9:27 PM said...
"If I didn't actually have a job, I'd try to track that. But in the meantime I think it is useful for us 538 fans to look at Pollster and RCP because they're at least showing separate McCain and Obama trendlines and not just a % Obama trendline.
It would be good if Nate could in fact model the trend in "other/thirdparty/undecideds" and run that along the bottom of his supertracker. Sort of the way stock market charts run a "volume" figure as well as a "price" trend line on parallel timetables."
--------------------------------
I heartedly agree & officially second your motion to Nate to add the Other/e
3rds/UN [as well as 'Not Voting'].
choking as I type...
Rove's current map of EV projection is actually pretty good.
What gives ? Why would he be inclined to release it now ?
or am I being paranoid ???
A name is just a name. In every election, you never have 100% partisan support for a particular candidate, not even Reagan had 100% support from Republicans. The point is, as long as Obama (McCain for that matter) polls an acceptable amount from their respective partisans, the election will come down to Independents and turnout...as always.
Are people intentionally mispelling Charlie Crist's name, referring to him as Charlie Christ? At first I thought it was a kinda funny typo. Now, I'm starting to think its intentional and is very offensive.
While we are on this topic, what is up with Republicans mockingly referring to Obama as "the messiah". I find it offensive as well. There point appears to be that anybody that is really popular is suspicious. I guess this is their point, I've never really gotten it. It seems to imply that Obama thinks he is some sort of religious leader, which he has never said or implied. I think its borderline blasphemous to use this word simply as a synonym for "popular guy I don't like".
I don't get the whole arrogance thing either. I think all politicians are full of themselves. Its almost a job requirement. McCain is certainly not humble in any real sense. Obama doesn't appear to be more self-centered than average.
"I would bet that McCain announces between the end of the Olympics & just before the start of the DEM convention for a max media impact & to be able to counter-program Obama's choice."
Its the very next day. I'm not sure he'll get maximum media impact that way. Hillary will be talking the first day. Trying to squeeze between a closing ceremonies and a much anticipated Hillary speech is not the way to max the impact.
I actually do bet on him doing it this week or next week, even if Obama doesn't go first. McCain needs to get something going and I think the weird schedule trumps the desire to pick last.
Let me add myself to the Karl Rove is overrated camp.
I watched him on Super Tuesday make the prediction that Hillary would still be the Dem. nominee. Why? The Potomac primary would be a wash. Obama would carry MD and DC, but Hillary would be very popular in VA. The same Virginia that Obama ended up carrying by 29 points was going to be Hillary's defensive firewall!!! I remember thinking to myself "this guy is an idiot" Oh and he thought the week after would be Wisconsin and Puerto Rico, not Wisconsin and Hawaii. Hey they are both tropical islands, whats the difference. It appeared he hadn't even looked at a calendar.
For all his "genius", this was the guy that decided to put $20 million and the candidate's last weekend into California when everybody knew Florida was going to be a much closer state.
If it hadn't of been for some very lucky acts of incompetence by county election boards, he would have gone down as the biggest fool in political history.
As for 2004, its hard for progressives to remember but the overall country was still very hawkish from Sept 11th. I'm actually amazed that Kerry came as close as he did. Karl Rove turned what should have been a landslide into a very narrow squeaker.
On the racism front: I wonder, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, how useful those studies of broad racial bias are in a general election. Things like the job applicants with black names study mentioned above.
Because by the time of the election most people will hopefully be voting for a bit than a name: they'll be between for a specific black individual and a white individual. The more they see of Obama, the more his particular strengths and weaknesses will, perhaps, outweigh the preconceptions.
A comparison might be Margaret Thatcher: the fact she was able to win landslide election victories didn't mean the end of sexism in British politics, but it does suggest that she as an individual managed to transcend gender stereotypes.
I'm not suggesting that Obama is going to win over any white supremacists by being self-possessed and articulate and thoughtful, but with the people who have a more-or-less subconscious racial bias, the more they see of him the less significant that bias may be in deciding how they vote. Perhaps one could call it the Oprah effect.
KRANKY said...
I like that Harry! One wonders if Oprah would have been as successful if her name had been conventional? Linda Winfrey? Cathy Winfrey? It does not have the same uniqueness.
In a way, by having a very unusual name..Barack Obama, it has served to distinguish his identity. When he first started becoming recognizable, there were those repuketards that were engaging in grade school taunts and gibberish. This revealed what ignoramuses they are, and I think made the adults among us take notice.... i.e., if these idiots are against him just because of his NAME, then there must be something good about him.
A number of these complete doofs and goons still post in forums like this one as "anonymous".
I think you are correct...it is the Oprah effect. it will probably become popularly know as the Obama effect in a little over three months.
KRANKY
"If you do not have the competance to win a campaign, you cannot run a country."
I'm so tired of this line. Has anyone ever run a more disciplined or better-organized national campaign than George W Bush? How'd that turn out?
Obama at start of death spiral based off todays Rass, todays USA/Gallup and last weeks state by state. The picture show bounce is gone. "Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.
The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%."
Er, no. Obama is *well* ahead in the electoral count. The national polls are not worth much at all. Especially Rasmussen, a right-wing Republican-based poll. I know because I was polled by them a few years ago for the Virginia gubernatorial race. The questions were heavily slanted towards the Republican, specifically regarding taxes. If Obama is ahead in a Rasmussen poll, rest assured his actual lead is greater.
Anon at 5:30 PM.
I do wonder how the kinds of questions peppered into recent polls, about how the Media was besieging POOR JMc, asking the CiC question, impacts the outcome. It seems that when questions are asked, some of the more suggestible respondents then tell the pollster what they seem to want to here (the desirability effect).
What other questions were asked on the Gallup/USA Poll? Does anyone know?
BTW, I am watching Hardball right now and even Pat Buchanan says that poll is a load and that Obama is ahead by about 5 pts. I know he isn't a polling expert, but I do find it interesting that he bashed the results, too.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
Post a Comment