8.24.2008

CNN Poll Suggests Trouble for Obama, But Omits Proper Context

A new CNN / Opinion Research released earlier this evening, and conducted yesterday and today in the wake of Barack Obama's announcement of Joe Biden as his running mate, shows a tied race at 47-47.

This is not good news for Obama, who had led by 7 points in a CNN poll released in late July. It would be nice to know why the decline occurred. However, the analysis of the poll omits several important pieces of context, and may come to a misleading conclusion about the reason for his decline.

CNN implies that the reason for the downtrend is a backlash among Hillary Clinton's supporters who had wanted Clinton to be the VP nominee:

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.

“This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain,” adds Holland.

So what’s the difference now?

It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the Senator from New York as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

“The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most although not all of the support McCain has gained in that time,” says Holland.

There is a little bit of sleight-of-hand here. The analysis begins by comparing Obama's performance in this new poll to CNN's next-most-recent one, which had been conducted in late July. However, CNN then switches to discussing a different poll, one which was conducted in late June, and pulls several pieces of information about the preferences of Hillary Clinton supporters from that June version of its survey.

Why does this matter? The hypothesis suggested by the article is that Barack Obama's support has been impaired by the negative reactions of Hillary Clinton's supporters to his VP pick. The best way to test that would be to compare a poll conducted immediately before the VP pick to one conducted immediately after, before other events had a chance to intervene.

CNN is only in the field once a month or so, and so their most recent poll had been conducted three or four weeks ago, not quite as recent as we'd like. However, this would still be a lot better than a poll conducted seven or eight weeks ago. Why didn't CNN cite the preferences of Clinton supporters from its July poll instead of its June one?

Well, there are two possible reasons. Reason #1 is that they did not identify Clinton supporters in July, but had done so in June and then again now in August. This is entirely possible; most pollsters rotate different sorts of questions into and out of their polls in different months.

But we have no way to know, because CNN has not released any additional detail on at least its last three polls: no complete set of topline results, and certainly no detailed cross-tabular information. The only information we get is the information that their analysts decide to make available to us.

Essentially every other reputable polling organization, including Gallup, CBS/NYT, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post, Fox News/Opinion Dyanamics, LA Times/Bloomberg, Newsweek/Princeton Associates, Economist/YouGov, Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Pew, Cook/RT Strategies, Public Policy Polling, Mason-Dixon, Quinnipiac, Tarrance/Battleground, IBD/TIPP, Hotline/FD and Democracy Corps, routinely makes this kind of information available. A handful of others are less consistent about it, however, they tend to strike a far less editorial tone in the presentation of their results than does CNN.

The other possibility, of course, is that CNN did identify Clinton supporters in its July poll, but chose not to cite those results because they didn't fit with its storyline. The number of Clinton-supporting Democrats will be fairly small in any given survey (probably about one-sixth of the total sample), and results from that subgroup will therefore shift around a lot, with or without reason.

All a poll really is is a series of statistics, and all statistics really are are facts, expressed numerically. As such, they deserve the same respect as any other series of facts reported in any other journalistic context. Too often pollsters think that they are making news by a conducting a poll, rather than simply reporting it.

160 comments

Citizen Grim said...

Interesting analysis.

I suspect quite a few people felt somewhat - underwhelmed - by the Biden pick.

Nate said...

Grim,

It definitely looks like Obama isn't going to get much of a bounce from the Biden pick (maybe he'll get one at the convention).

mikelow1885 said...

Obama was in a barrel over his VP selection. All the non-Hillary choices would have gotten the Hillbots upset. It's a shame that
petty identity politics is going to contribute to a McCain victory. Just wait until that first Supreme Court vacancy.

DCM in FL said...

Proper context and full disclosure is always appreciated.

CNN is shamelessly selling a narrative for marketinf\g purposes rather than just straight reporting & supplying the underlying data/facts for analysis.

Harper said...

I still think that Hilary would have hurt Obama with the independents. Remember how high her unfavorables are.

Obama is going to be fine. Wait five days and see.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

Bounces almost never show up in polls for a few days after the event. Until people get a chance to talk about it at the water cooler, they give the answer they would have given before the event.

On top of that, the nature of the Biden pick is that it should be a slow bounce. Hillary die-hards who were undecided pending the VP pick and the convention now have to decide. That will, understandably, take them a bit.

Of course, we won't be able to untangle the Democratic VP bounce from the convention bounce from the effect of the Republican counterparts. It's all going to smear together here, and people will make up their own narratives.

Dave C said...

No one wants a BUMP, they want to continually push upwards. Bumps disappear.

So while Biden won't help Obama short term, it would seem the pick of Biden was an effort to point out McCain's failings continually and nudge the Obama-Biden ticket upwards every week.

No BUMPS. Trends.

Virginia Conservative said...

So not only Fox News, but now CNN is controlled by the KarlRoveDieboldMachine?

Darren said...

Ouch for CNN, Nate. But are you saying you don't trust Bill Schneider? That guy's been doing this since before we were born. I'd hope your first supposition is correct and they didn't have Hillary breakouts for July.

filistro said...

PUMAS on the prowl in Denver.

Be afraid!

Darren said...

For those inclined to media conspiracies (you know who you are), perhaps this is CNN's attempt to maximize Obama's bounce by lowering his pre-convention starting point to show how much Hillary's speech did for him afterwards.

pluckon said...

There's not going to be any bounce from Biden, fer chrissakes. There's a reason he got, what, 2% in the primaries? He never broke through the surface.

He's an insider's choice. He'll help in certain places, i.e., with the Jewish vote in FL because he's a subsidiary of AIPAC and has been for a long time. With Catholics in a few places where swinging a few points will count. Maybe Ohio?

It'll help with a segment of the media, because he's a senior senator, is on the Foreign Relations Committee, and is easy to interview. That will at least keep them from writing the "Oh boy did he ever f*** it up" stories.

The general public? Forget about it. He's not going to hurt, but his name isn't going to help. All that working class jazz is someone's idle fantasy. Probably the biggest impact is on McCain's decision. It might push him toward Romney, or who knows, maybe toward Carly Fiorina.

But this coming week? It's the Clinton show, then the Obama show. The only way Biden matters is if he screws up, which he won't.

Brian said...

I was watching Schneider on CNN and suspected they were reading things into the polling data that weren't there. I came here hoping for an informed dissent and you didn't disappoint.

Thanks.

Matthew said...

Gah,
For all the analysis this site does, I've never once seen an article dedicated to explaining why could be performing better than polls indicate. Rather, it's always looking inside the numbers to see why things are better than the sound for Obama.

DENNIS said...

Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I guess CNN still stands for the Clinton News Network after all. I used to think that Fox was the only unfairly biased news network, but I stand corrected. Thank god for fivethirtyeight.com and their realistic and statistical look into what is really going on.

Dash Riprock said...

Yes Virginia, there is a lot of anti-Obama bias. There was a recent study about this.

The CNN poll is pure crap because of the cherry picking of polls to compare to. Taken by itself the poll is consistent with a tightening race. This one will be decided on the ground in Ohio.

PeteKent said...

Not much to the CNN poll. Are internals available?

Based on Gallup all week and statistical noise we have been seeing in Rasmussen all week, this race is tied.

Biden was a negative at least in the short run b/c his selection, particularly the process has done nothing to heal the rift with the HRC voters and in fact appears to have worsened it.

We hold our breath for the conventions. What narratives will emerge?

It is likely that at least until Thursday, the Clintons will dominate the Convention with a brief break for a spate of mixed coverage on Mrs. Obama Monday night as all her negatives are brought back into focus while she struggles in her speech to contain her sharp rhetoric. Because so few have really seen her, if she stays in First Lady mode she will win over some hearts and minds, but the bloom will be short-lived.

There will be demonstrations and tangible opposition to Obama. None of this will come from the Clintons who will appeal magnanimous in defeat and slightly embarrassed by the grass roots supports they are getting from her delegate base, who she still continues to insist be allowed to out her name in nomination, even if she has formerly released them to vote as they please.

Now, that sounds like a set up to me.

Finally, Obama must give his speech on Thursday. Journalists will be expecting something new and Republicans will be listening acutely for something to pick a part.

Obama seems betwixt themes right now: Hope and Change vs. Populism and the Lunch Bucket Issues.

Will an about face seem calculated and an obvious attempt to buy votes? A desperate move, acknowledging problems? If he keeps up with the theme of how the gloom and doom of today will be lightened by the hope and change of his ascendancy, the he risks being further and permanently tagged as a man lacking substance. Somehow I don’t think he will speak of the cessation of the rise of the oceans and the planet’s incipient healing.

How hard will they hit McCain and will they land body blows or boomerang shots that backfire and leave them sounding tone death and hypocritical of previous assurances of new politics?

Finally, the venue and the setting will captivate and dominate the night of the Acceptance Speech. Will this acceptance speech have the appearance of an Olympics’' Opening Ceremony? Will it give new legs to the celebrity and arrogance memes and leave Obama's words ignored as the story again becomes stagecraft and manipulation over substance?

So much risk. Yet still the chance for great reward. Obama excels when he is center of the stage and a significant bump is to be expected from the whole shebang even if it fades like an ice cream cone melting in the hot sun of country fair during the ensuing week.

(I posted this in the other thread but feel it makies more sense here)

Darren said...

Ironically, the June poll CNN cites for the Hillary effect is the one where they called a 5-point Obama lead a dead heat and raised Nate's ire.

Nate, I think you and CNN need to hug more often.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

pluckon: Biden could be a kumquat, and there'd still be a rise in Obama for the polls. Some undecided Democrats will realize it's time to decide, and being Democrats, more than 50% of them will migrate to Obama. Maybe not much more, but it still increases his numbers. (And yes, it increases McCain's numbers too, but by less.)

Continue to Spread the Word!!! said...

Obama picked a person that is good for his overall ticket, but didn't unite the base, hence no bounce in the polls.

IF McCain picks a pro-life candidate, his base will run behind him, and the classic Catholic swing voters, the church going ones at least, may lean toward McCain, meaning he may get a 2-3 point rise in his numbers.

In the end these polls will be a roller coaster for the next two weeks. No liberal should get excited to see Obama up 8 and no conservative should see McCain up 2-3...

The true judgement will be in 3 weeks.

Sedi said...

To me, the whole idea of this poll is silly. Who cares whether Obama gets a bounce now? Obama doesn't need a bounce, he needs an effective VP candidate who will attack McCain relentlessly and who reassures voters who worry about Obama's perceived inexperience. And someone who could credibly be president. Obama already leads in almost every major poll EXCEPT this CNN poll, and he doesn't need more percentage points. He needs to shore up soft support and convince the undecideds who hate Bush that he won't ruin the country.

This poll also was conducted entirely on a weekend, which clearly skews results. Also, even if there was a Biden bounce, it wouldn't show up in the polls until tomorrow, most likely. This poll would get relatively little attention if it wasn't done by a cable news network that needs to drive a story to get rating and loves to constantly repeat its own polling results. As little as I think of the tiny (sample-size) M-D polls out west, I'd say that they are more worrisome for Obama than this CNN poll.

L. Hand said...

Can someone find out who we contact at CNN regarding this poll? This is not just coverage that favors one side or another. This is doctoring poll results to keep selling a storyline. I know it sounds pretty ineffective, but I say we get the name and email address of the relevant parties, and launch a massive letter wring campaign.

OTF said...

The illogical thought of the Clintoninas people was on display the other day. They had some Clintonina mkaing a fuss on one of the cable channels and the commentator asked what issues do you disagree with Sen. Obama and agree with Sr. McCain? They had nothing,and went silent and then went in to some Clintn tirade not answering the question. Reporters need to be real reporters and just ask this simple question. Maybe these people will finally see what fools they are nkaing of themselves and realize that she lost bn/c she ran a bad campiagn that went broke twice and still has 22 million in debt.

Nate said...

I like the vast majority of CNN folks, including Bill Schneider, Roland Martin, John King, and the American Morning team.

My critique is pretty specifically of Keating Holland, who always seems like he wants to move to the editorial desk, and some of the other folks in their boiler room who seem to take after him.

AxmxZ said...

pluckon:

I disagree about Biden's name not elping with the general public. He didn't flop in the primaries because he's some nobody noone cares about - he flopped because he a) can't fundraise worth ass and b) said some dumb things, in particular about Obama. But he is quite popular among working-class oldsters around OH-MI-PA-VA area, and that's a segment where Obama's standing could stand some improvement. Also, even if Biden's name doesn't ring bells with these folks, the fact that he's a) old, b) white, c) experienced and d) working-class should be quite a positive. It's as if they had been looking at a pretty house but doubting its foundation - now they know the foundation is rock-solid.

MATT J. H. said...

I have no problem with Nate questioning CNN. The most trusted name in news has often irritated me with bullshit. Their nearly as caught up with Hillary Clinton as Fox. But I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Secondly, Biden wasn't a "Bounce"VP. He's a strategic one designed to sure up Obama's weaknesses and attack McCain. Hillary was the bounce VP. Biden is more of a Cheney. (Just saying that word sends shivers down my spine, its like being in the presence of evil) We won't know for a while how Biden works out.

The Mason Dixon polls are as useless as McCain in a brothel. Their results are inconsistent with what we know. New Mexico is more blue than CO, and AZ is more red than NV. If I didn't know better I'd say these are Zogby Interactive numbers.

The undecided Hillary voters won't vote for McCain. It's Obama or Nader/Barr or not at all. Polling has suggested these folks are very anti-Bush and like Obama's policies, but are upset with the Obama campaign. If there is indeed a Cathardic moment in Denver, (Which is entirely possible) as much as half of them will come home to Obama. We must keep in mind, much of the undecided vote are democrats not ready to support Obama, but are more likley to support him than McCain. The closin g of the polls the last few weeks is mostly from Obama voters moving to undecided. They'll come home.

OTF said...

The Clinton drama is a "good media sell" for all the networks. They will be selling it till election day. The Clintons=Drama for 20 years now and the media love it. The Clintons and Clintonians are always more than willing to play victim to rightwing, leftwing conspiracies, sexism, or anything else that deflects from the real causee of their short comings. I mean the Whitewater scandal, Jennifer Flowers, travelgate, BJ w/ Monika, Bosnia sniper fire, or any other Clinton problem is always the fault of anyone and everyone but them and their lack of honesty and morals.

Lo said...

McCain will probably announce his vp choice on Friday. At this point he's got his base shored up.

Do you think he might get much of a bounce? 45% seems to be his high-water mark so far.

PeteKent said...

Network bias exists across all three of the major cable news networks.

A recent study showed that about 65% of the folks that watch MSNBC and CNN vote Democrat and about the same on Fox News vote Rep.

The difference of course is that Fox had far higher viewership numbers.

Of the three, Fox seems to wear its bias most clearly on its sleeve and tries hard to present counterviews. MSNBC has ostensibly become an organ of the Democratic Party with its principal shills being Olbermann and Matthews and the increasingly biased Dan Abrams. Rachel Maddow will serve to throw red meat to the lesbian-feminist wing of the party and will do nothing to add balance, As a conservative, MSNBC is becoming unwatchable to me as it is seems to skew matters in such a pro-Obama way as to rival Pravda's powers of managing the news. Countdown is the avatar of this mode, thanks to the ravings of Olbermann aka Bathtub Boy, a man who seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality.

CNN is the most insidious of the three. They try and pretend to play it straight up but lean heavily Democratic and regularly stack their panels with lukewarm Republicans like Gergen and Huckabee's old campaign adviser (whose name escapes me). There is simply no balance. Lou Dobbs is a natavist nut job and Jack Cafferty makes McCain seems like a kindly old man handing out change to kids in the park. Anderson Cooper is a goofball, but his shows is perhaps the most important on the network, esp. considering its competition.

Darren said...

Forget that the poll was taken after Biden was picked. If you just look at it as a comparison of Hillary supporters in June, after Obama won the primaries, and today, it shows that 9% have flipped from Obama and McCain. Nothing manipulated. It's a valid observation.

That 9% could have drifted away over 2 months, or after key moments like Berlin or Celebrity or Georgia or Biden. However it happened, Obama can certainly win 9% back (and more). But if he can't, it will be almost impossible to win states like Ohio and probably the election.

Sedi said...

Lo,
I think that you have hit upon a very interesting question. Clearly, McCain has brought around much of his base. Of course, it's a smaller base because the GOP party brand isn't faring well right now. I sort of wonder whether he will get any bounce at all. His support will definitely go up amongst right-leaning independents and the few Republican holdouts who aren't Obamacans, but appearing with Bush and company will probably hurt him with more centrist or left-leaning undecideds. I'm sure he will get SOME bounce, but it could be quite small. Then again, it could be huge...what do I know?

LAT said...

Nate you rock---you really doand forgive the criticism because what you do is essential-- but your comment that 'Obama is not getting a bounce from Biden' sort of reminds me of the comment you made at the beginning of Obama's trip saying he was not getting a and getbounce. Days later he did get it.
But sincerely I would prefer instead a trend from the solid work Biden will do in specific states and with target demographics. For example instead of asking about Hillary why not let the demographics speak. Have we seen any data about voters over 60?

I also want to note that the earlier poll (was it ABC?) which had Obama ahead by 4LV and 6RV is given scant attention but the CNN poll is the news? And why is that--because they made it all about Clinton! Didn't Gallup post some interesting data overnight on the Biden choice? Their data is very different than the CNN data and not as doom and gloom about the PUMAS. So for those here extolling the virtues of CNN, why were you not so gleeful this morning?

Virginia Conservative said...

Obama can't win Ohio, and can't win Florida.

He has to bet on Virginia and Colorado together. Very risky.

Peter said...

CNN's a bitch.

PeteKent said...

Schenieder on CNN is reasoable and fair as is Gloria Borger. Roland Martin just spouts the Obama party line and he is useless. There is something captivating about Donna Brazile. John King is annoying; he could barely conceal his glee over the houses thing on Thursday night. As far as his big map goes, he is not fit to carry the bag of Fox News Michael Barone, the man who knows the electorate precinct by precinct better'n anyone. If you want to know on election night how a state is going to turn listen to what he has to say.

Tito said...

CNN twisting the numbers of a poll to sell the Obama vs. Hillary narrative on the eve of the Democratic Convention? What? Come on. Next thing you're gonna tell me that the White House sends talking points directly to Fox News. Get outta here.

De Montfort said...

@VC

And yet, only Rasmussen has McCain ahead in Ohio(and is the only one who has had McCain ahead in months). Ohio is tailor made for Mccain, and he can't get a poll lead from anyone not named Rasmussen.

NC_voter said...

Of course CNN would do something like this. They will do anything they can get away with to stretch and fudge the numbers (and the context) to fit with whatever narrative they think well generate ratings.

Remember folks, CNN is a network operated by just another business. Higher ratings = Higher revenue. If this means trying to shamelessly shove an exaggerated narrative upon the viewers in an attempt to INCREASE those ratings, then so be it. If they have to use fuzzy math and dishonest statistical interpretation in an attempt to justify this narrative, then they will in a second.

Just like in july where they cherry-picked and misconstrued certain polls to make it seem like the election was alot closer than it actually was (and believe me they will continue to do so, because close election = higher ratings)

------------------------------------------

The big narrative for at least the next week will be "dem party unity" of course. The PUMA stuff = drama (which they LOVE, because that's the best way to increase ratings), so they will exaggerate and play it up as much as possible. They'll continue to ignore the fact that these "radical" members of the party are a very small portion.

Notice how the republiClown concern trolls over the last week have been shedding crocodile tears about poor poor hillary and the divisive effect on the Dem party, which will now certainly lead them into defeat...

What they FAIL to tell you (and what CNN seems to purposely ignore) is that the loss of "bitter" HC-supporters is easily offset by the independents that Obama will keep - and gain - as a result of NOT picking HC. Remember how high her unfavorability ratings were?

What these clowns don't realize is that even WITH only 75% of the party united so far, Obama is STILL leading this election, even if only slightly. Sure some pre-convention polls taken right after hillary was not named the VP will show that "11% of HC supporters switched", but the actual number 2.5 months later after wounds have healed, hillary has (hopefully) thrown her support behind Obama, and that mccain has whored himself as a pro-lifer? Not all of them will line up behind obama, but plenty will come home to the DEMS, and at this point obama can only GAIN the support of former hillary dems.

Believe me, the RepubliClown trolls on this site would have been ECSTATIC if HC has been picked. Their concern-troll posts only continue to verify this. It seems many of you have forgotten what Operation Chaos was all about.

This is still Obama's election to lose. And the fact that McCain for the most part has already unified his base, and that OBama still is at only 75% pre-convention is a GOOD sign for the dems. THey can only continue to gain support. Mccain will piss some group off with his VP pick.

The lesson to be learned? The media will twist whatever numbers they need to, to generate "evidence" for their narrative, and the republiClown trolls will always be here to spread it.

Stephen said...

Ugh. I find the most annoying media meta-spin to be the love of the tied race. Sure the race is close to tied, but the average is pretty assuredly and consistently at least +1 or +2 Obama. It sounds extremely close, but it's a winning margin in terms of the popular votes we've seen lately. (Not that popular votes matter here). To say that a +2 average margin (down from a +8) means that Obama has basically already lost is just ludicrous to me.

This is why the media sucks. I'm sure if it were reversed they'd do the same thing to push up Obama to make it look like he was doing well as the underdog. Maybe I shouldn't complain-- it's basically what they did for him as the underdog in the first half of the primary too, which is why they developed the biased reputation they had.

But, for serious-- wtf.

The Rho Set said...

Duh. Obama's in free-fall. So the Dems offer up as a veep candidate the senator they think looks most like McCain. Obama - whose "compelling" speeches have long since gone stale, and whose extemp responses always varied between inane and arrogant - lays low for a while and lets the two old foreign-relations senators duke it out.

Voters will quickly forget about Obama. Once they grow weary of the DC dinosaurs-as-usual routine, though, he can pop back up in October as the rejuvenated wonder boy. "You do have an alternative to McCain-Biden," he can say. "I'm Barack Obama, and I stand for change." He'll be his own October surprise.

Theme song for next week's Dem convention: Tom Petty's "Free Falling."

Rahul said...

Why can't he win OH?

@Darren
What's the MoE of the Hillary subgroup? Democrats who still support Clinton for the party's nomination, it is plus or minus 7.5 percentage points. I'm sorry but you cannot make valid claims with a MoE that high. There very will might be some Clinton backlash in the near term but how can you make a trend of anything with polls 2 months in between?

OTF said...

Obama doesn't need both CO and VA though he will take both, he only needs one.

It's funny how some as still are fighting 2000 and 2004 OH and Fla or bust, despite the fact that Obama has made that blatantly obvious that this isn't the strategy. They are bonus or 2nd options.

The base is Kerry states 252(the illusion McCain is wining PA or MI is wishful delusion)
IA=259
NM=264

Then winning in any one of the 6 of CO, NV, VA, OH, Fla, IN are game set and match.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

I do miss the old MSNBC evening line up of Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Joe Scarborough. That was a good mix of viewpoints and fairly intelligent commentary. I was a little scandalized in 2006, when they had Olbermann and Matthews anchor their election night coverage; the writing was on the wall which audience they wanted to appeal to.

And I'm a Democrat!

Darren said...

NC_voter wins for most gratuitous use of the phrase "republiClown trolls". If I were 15 years younger I'd start a drinking game.

Virginia Conservative said...

He can't win Ohio because he can't win white, working class whites.

He can't get solid polling in the Appalachian corner of the state, hes too exotic for them. They'll go with whats safe--McCain.

jeremy said...

Hillary was a lock on the election. If you're going to pick an establishment senator as your running mate why not pick the one who can deliver you the missing 25% of the party instead of the one who will hold Pennsylvania which Obama could have done without Biden?

LAT said...

LOL Tito.
Great post NC_Voter

SarahLawrenceScott said...

OTF: I basically agree with your list. But Romney might put Michigan in play, although it's looking less likely. I agree PA is out of reach barring strangeness. But NH is at risk.

That's it for Kerry states. On the Bush side, add MT as a real possibility. Indiana, on the other hand, seems to be drifting out of reach.

I could even envision a situation where libertarian-leaning independents move toward Obama, and he wins MT, ND, and AK in a non-blowout.

Lo said...

I noticed Pete Kent didn't link to that recent study he mentioned. Perhaps he meant this one by Rasmussen. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/news_you_watch_says_a_lot_about_how_you_ll_vote

Crosstabs here http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/07/mccain-backers-watch-fox-obamas-watch-cnn-msnbc-nets

87% of Fox viewers will vote McCain. 9% for Obama. Yeah Pete, I'm quite sure Fox is the more balanced of the three. They sure know where their bread is buttered.

Darren said...

rahul - you're right, the margin of error prohibits reading much into this number. But almost all internals have high error so same goes for working class voters, college grads, hispanics, Catholics, etc.

Perhaps someone knows of a pollster than consistently publishes internals on Hillary supporters so we can cross-check.

MATT J. H. said...

I question the capabilities of everyone working at FOX. I'm sure some of them are very good and fair, but when your entire network was founded on being a propaganda machine for conservatives, you lose credibility. That old Australian goat who owns the place admitted as much.

CNN has totally sold out to prophet. If they have a legit news story thats informative but boring, or two "Political analysts" arguing about who's flag pin is bigger, the flag pin wins every time. I like Gergan, I believe he's honest. More analysis and less partisan bickering would be good.

MSNBC is a special case. The NBC part of the network, Russert, (Rest his soul) Todd, Mitchel, O'Donell, and the reporters are first class. The MSNBC side leans left no doubt starting with Olbermann who's an activist, and Chris Matthews who's a democrat but not an activist. He rarely says anything negative about McCain rather discusses the good/bad of Obama.

The Rho Set said...

Quoting OTF: "Then winning in any one of the 6 of CO, NV, VA, OH, Fla, IN are game set and match."

In other words, this election comes down to Colorado - exactly as Nate's data indicate.

James said...

I know it's sort of off topic, but is New Mexico really this close. I'm a McCain supporter, but I question this NM poll. I know CNN and the other networks consider it a "toss-up" but I'm not buying it. Karl Rove (like him or not he's a political genius) considers New Mexico Democrat and I tend to think the same way. What do you guys think?

Virginia Conservative said...

Chris Matthews is essentially the typical white working class conservative AFL-CIO Democrat, or at least of what they think.

He did cream his pants over the Biden selection, but I don't know if that's the pundit side (they love Biden) or the Irish Catholic side of him.

PeteKent said...

It Huirts, Ma! It Huirts!

We will never know what HRC would have done for the ticket, but we do know that McCain has improved over the past month b/c he has shored up his support within his own party. Now he can concentrate on building his coalition among independents.

Obama by contrast has moved rightward trying to capture the independents and has wound up angering the anti-war, anti-FISA vote while doing little to bring the 18 million HRC supporters into the fold. Worse uncommitted voters in the middle seem unimpressed at this writing.

The Biden pick, both in terms of the who and the how has not helped.

“Among unaffiliated voters, 25% are more likely to vote for Obama while 33% had the opposite view.”

That is how Rasmussen reported the impact of the pick. NC Voter seems to think Hillary would have hurt with independents. As of this writing it appears that Biden has done the same.

Obama may very well begin his convention behind McCain in the Gallup tracker tomorrow, a situation we have not seen since what, February or March?

Regression to the mean?

Or just a mean regression?

Sedi said...

Stephen,
You couldn't have captured my sentiments better. It should be obvious that the +2 lead is NOT a tied race after the last two presidential elections we've had. Yes, polls are uncertain, but tied is tied, and a +2 lead is a small lead. It doesn't seem that complicated.

The Rho Set,
Hmmm, this is the first post I've seen from you. Let's see: claiming that Obama is in free-fall, providing not a shred of factual support, makes claims that fly in the face of well-established evidence...yep, you're an annoying troll. You might not have noticed, but this is a site primarily about polling and data-based analysis. We have political discussions, but we also look at evidence. We already have a few folks who post mindless drivel, and we don't need any more. If you want to participate in a meaningful way, that would be great though. Thanks for your dire warning. Bye!

De Montfort said...

@VC,

Thanks for not answering my point. I'm going to assume you can't.

Virginia Conservative said...

"And yet, only Rasmussen has McCain ahead in Ohio(and is the only one who has had McCain ahead in months). Ohio is tailor made for Mccain, and he can't get a poll lead from anyone not named Rasmussen.
"

I assume toss ups are McCain because people tend to break for the better known, safer candidate against an unkown quantity like Obama. The undecideds will break for McCain, just like they did for Hillary in the primary.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama had some real bad numbers last week, they seem to have stabilized for the time being. This election may very well turn out to be all about Colorado. It's probably a 1-2 point red state but with the convention there and stuff, 1-2 points may be within reach for Obama if its organized properly.

LAT said...

those hillary numbers--more context
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808240006

OTF said...

Pete Kent,

You are truly hilarious your obsession with national polls when the election is decided by the electoral college. Even funnier is you citing of Gallup, proven to be one of the worst national pollsters in the country. Do you even have a clue what Galllup crosstabs are..Dem, Rep, Ind. Do you know how many people from each state they poll? Any poll that doesn't show this is garbage and even some that do are garbage. We all know Zogby is usually garbage, but atleast they release their crosstabs.

Jack said...

I am tired of media cherrypicking their polls to fit a storyline. Even when they don't do this, they will go around misinterpreting data, or reading too much into the result of one poll (ooh, one poll has Obama down three in Colorado. Is this the beginning of the end?) taking things out of context, or saying that something is surprising, and therefore meaningful, when it really isn't. It's gotten to the point that whenever I see anyone reading a story from CNN, I feel compelled to analyze it and point out all its flaws.

Thank goodness for sites like this.

Sedi said...

"The undecideds will break for McCain, just like they did for Hillary in the primary."

Careful with this. It depended on lot on how long before the primary. Those deciding in the last week generally broke solidly for Obama, those in the last 3 days split fairly evenly (slightly more to Clinton in some states), and those in the last 24 hours broke heavily for Clinton. The election is more than two months away, not two days, so there is plenty of time for undecideds to decide.

Virginia Conservative said...

Why did Obama pass over Clinton?

If you're going to pick someone who ran the same year as you, shouldn't you pick the runner up to unify the party? Big risk of lack of unity there, or annoyance at the least.

MATT J. H. said...

Reagan was thought a radical in 1980, and he blew it open the final week when the country was very dissatisfied. Just something to chew on.

The fact is we have no idea whats going to happen the next 10 weeks, its all conjecture based on partisan opinions and speculation. It's unlikely either side will open up much of a lead, but the environment favors democrats and obama has had a steady lead most of the summer. Obama is still the favorite but we'll know a lot more over the next few weeks.

eponymous said...

NC_Voter,


That's an interesting argument to make, that having space to get more support in you own party is better than having space to expand among indepedents. (Correct me if this wasn't the argument you were making but that's what I got out of it) I'm not entirely sold on it, though, because it seems that indy support would be more likely to change from one candidate to the other than party support. If this were true, then Obama would in fact have a shakier coalition than McCain, not to mention a harder time attracting more voters.


However, I don't have any data to back up that assumption about voter groups. Do you know of any sources that might provide insight into the question?

NC_voter said...

You republiCon (see, I can mix things up) really don't get it, do you.

McCain has shored up his base, while Obama has NOT, and Obama is STILL leading McC's sorry ass.

Obama can only continue to BRING IN MORE DEMS at this point.

McCain WILL piss off some demographic with his support. Despite what you trolls make think, A romney pick WILL alienate a certain amount of evangelicals into staying home (yes, mccains VP matters alot more than Obamas, because age IS an issue even if you deny it. Even the possibility of a mormon president WILL scare some voters), and maybe even some undecides into voting obama now that Biden is on board. This fantasy that he can somehow "put michigan in play" just because his daddy was the governor 40 years ago is just a 'Clown talking point. A quick reminder of MI voters by the dems that Romney is the same kind of guy who shipped jobs overseas would put a nail into that sorry coffin.

Petey and the rest of the trolls can continue to flaunt some early poll by ScottyR (the "R" stands for republican by the way) all the want - because it's all they have. Boy I wish Mccain would pick Romney just so I can flaunt the polls that show that independents are turned off to Romney MUCH more than biden.

You can stick a finger in your ears and pretend that Hillary wouldn't have turned off independents all you want, but that doesn't hide the unfavorability ratings. You 'Clowns must really be sweating, as evidence by the spike of concern-troll postings lately.

PeteKent said...

OTF:

I am old school, Gallup was the premier pollster of its day. Their poll I know heavily favors big states and has no likely voter screen. I thinki it is interesting for trend line analysis.

I'll post subsequently my recent anaylsis of state polls, I am afraid you won't like it either.

Virginia Conservative said...

Hey NC_Voter, how does it feel to be a member of a party that hasn't gotten 50% (and only then, just barely) in a national election for nearly 32 years?

Darren said...

OTF -

You're right that it comes down to electoral votes from states. Mark Halperin has an interesting article today questioning if Obama is targeting too many states.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Hey, got a question for you polling peeps.

I've got a question regarding the recent behavior of the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls.

More often than not, Gallup seemed to track better for Obama than Rasmussen. If I remember correctly, of the two, Rasmussen is the only of the two pollsters ever showing McCain in the lead in recent times.

This past week, it seems Rasmussen has seemed a bit more steady and I didn't see the usual mid week losses in Barack's weekend lead I was accustomed to seeing.

On the other hand, you've got Gallup polling virtually the same as Rasmussen at times and as we can see today, quite a bit lower. Take into consideration that up until around the 15th of August, Gallup would poll Obama up by anywhere from 1-3 more than Rasmussen. If we compare the polling up to around the 15th, to today's poll, that would equal a 4-6 % drop for Gallup polling, while Rasmussen remains virtually the same and like I mentioned before, not experiencing a mid week drop.

What would account for something like this in how the polling is being performed, without the talking points please?

Thanks.

PeteKent said...

For OTF and those who missed this on another thread . . .

The Quinnipiac CO Poll and The Mason-Dixon Polls

Quinnipiac CO poll is interesting when you get into the sub questions and shows a patter. While the race appears close on the horserace, the internals suggest an advantage for McCain.

Check this out: : “This latest survey might have more good news for McCain than might appear at first glance. Despite the closeness of the horse race numbers, he is viewed favorably 53 - 34 percent compared to Obama's 48 - 39 percent. "

There is latent support for McCain in Co and you see this in other states where McCain outperforms his horserace number and vaults over Obama in terms of favorability.

What does this tell us?

If you like him better why not tell the pollster you would vote for him?

If there are reservations what are they?

Unfortunately, Quin did not ask the leadership/commander in chief questions, instead concentrating on issues.

Obama does pretty good on energy (surprise?) and on handling a domestic crisis like Katrina (not so surprising, although McCain has used Katrina a lot to criticize Bush). He barely outpolls McCain on the economy -- within the margin of error -- and that is a surprise.

McCain's strengths are on terrorism and international crises and here his leads are huge.

Similarly, The Mason-Dixon polls uniformly shows the biggest challenge for Obama is contained in his Favorable/Unfavorable numbers relative to McCain. Even in CO where he loses to Obama, McCain has statistically significant better favorable/unfavorables that Obama.

I am not sure how he improves that. I don’t think the easterner from Scranton and Wilmington is the answer the Chicago pol was looking for.



It remains to be seen how rounding out the tickets and the reaction to the convention affects all this, but going into the weekend, you cannot deny that Obama enters this period weakened and on the decline.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

James--Here's what Chuck Todd had to say the last time the MSNBC map was updated:

"Not all toss-ups are equal: If this were October 26 instead of August 6, we probably wouldn’t have this many toss-ups states on our map. Florida, Missouri, and Nevada would move into the Lean McCain column, while Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania would move into Obama’s. That would give Obama a 260-232 electoral lead over McCain, and it would leave us with four pure toss-ups: Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia."

So at least one of the networks sees New Mexico as a pseudo-Obama lean.

Sedi--I think I misread VA Con's post the first time too. I believe he was talking about the undecideds in Ohio. They did break pretty heavily for Hillary, as I recall.

NC_voter said...

@epy



Post-convention, I would tend to agree with you sentiment.

I think it's ridiculous to assume though that Obama Won't sure up more party support, especially after the conventions, and after the "undecided bitter former HC supporters" calm down a little bit.

The point I was trying to make is that McCain is almost at a ceiling with his own party (which at this point he could lose support if he picks the wrong VP, ala lieberman or some type like that), and that he needs to gain support among independents. That is going to be hard if he continues this trend of pandering further and further to the right (while obama goes toward the center), and nearly impossible if he picks another wrong VP as well (someone like huckabee, which although would sure up evangelical support, would basically kill any chance he had of NH - due to the Indys - and really harm him in the western states)

PeteKent said...

NC Voter:

There is one VP pick for McCain that will do none of the harm you suggest: Rob Portman.

I continue to come back to Rob Portman, the telegenic family man from Cincinnati whose quiet authority and laser like intelligence will assure that he will hold his own in any conversation. His coming from Ohio will help and draw the contrast with Biden as the Eastern pick. His stones in the budget and trade and economic matters generally will stand him in good stead.

That Portman is a former official of the Bush Administration is his only problem. But I wonder how much this guilt by association goes. Portman survived his stint in Washington with his reputation enhanced. He is likely to get a media honeymoon. His personal likeability assures that. In truth the Republicans do not lack for attack dogs against Barack Obama. Besides he is better attacked abstractly through the media rather than directly, personally.

McCain has the chance to go for a game changer and a dark horse who the media will be forced to cover and discover, it should be good for substantial coverage right through and passed the convention.

McCain-Portman ’08!

eponymous said...

Hey VACon,

How does it feel to believe that the number of people who hold a proposition to be true and truth of that proposition are necessarily correlated?

(logic diss)!

Virginia Conservative said...

eponymous,

"The important thing, you see, is to win"--Richard Nixon

OTF said...

Portman would be a gift to the narrative of McCain=Bush. McCain has already got the Rove proteges running the campaign, he has chnaged to take on every Bush position in the last 8 months, make the transition complete and tap former Bush admin people for VP. The tranformation to Sith Lord would be complete. I love the narrative..go with it!

NC_voter said...

@Petey


I am not to familiar with Portman, except for the fact that he is former-bush administration. I believe that this is something that could potentially alienate a few indys. But...


How this would play out of course would depend on how the Obama camp reacted to it. If their was lukwarm response to it (such as how they reacted from July to mid august), then sadly I would say you are right and may be the one pick that wouldn't really harm McCain. if they are more aggressive, who knows, things could be a wash.

Again, I don't know much about him myself. Is he even interested in the VEEP position? Does he have name recognition in Ohio simply because he was congressman of one district? Could he possibly have any skeletons in the closet?


I'm sure you'll be here to provide us unquestionably honest and unbiased analysis of him, though...

Virginia Conservative said...

I have a feeling Biden is going to try to shank (verbally, that is) whoever McCain nominates unless its a woman.

PeteKent said...

OTF: The exception may very well prove the rule. The whole McBush thing is so July. It doesn't work.

Darren said...

defender -

I've got a question regarding the recent behavior of the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls.

I noticed back in June and July that Gallup favored McCain, more often showing a tie or close race than Rasmussen. That changed when Gallup gave Obama a larger Berlin bounce, and since then Gallup has trended more Obama than Rasmussen.

Unless anyone knows the questions or unpublished details of their methodology, I will have to attribute this to statistical randomness. Gallup may start to relatively favor McCain again.

edmundintokyo said...

liberal_defender_of_freedom: Unlike Gallup, Rasmussen weights by party ID, using data they gather over several months. As a consequence:
1) Rasmussen's numbers are relatively stable, whereas Gallup's bounce around a bit due to sampling error.
2) If there's an actual change in party ID - ie more people say they're Democrats or Republicans - the effect of that won't show up in Rasmussen for a while.

The differences you've mentioned are small enough that they might still just be sampling error and we shouldn't read too much into them. But one explanation might be that the Republican brand has been getting stronger (slightly lower gas prices, relatively good news in Iraq?) and Gallup have been picking that up while Rasmussen have been weighting the change away.

Juris said...

Nate -- you could write a book about how badly CNN handles election numbers. Maybe you should. But of course none of the mass media do a good job with numbers -- electoral, financial, or sports!

Regarding people's feelings about Biden, some people are underwhelmed because of the great buildup. But it's really still all about Hillary. She would have been the true wow factor; but of course she has her critics all over the political spectrum.

People I know are very pleased by the Biden pick (they have no love for Hillary or Bill). For sure he's a "known known," but he's a good known and fit the campaign and the job. But will this allay the concerns of my elderly Pa and Ma about Obama? Haven't asked them yet. But there's zero chance they would vote the McCain.

Sedi said...

On OH late deciders: yes, they did break for Clinton in OH. Here are the numbers:
Last 24 hours: C=54, O=43
Last 72 hours: C=63, O=37
Last week: C=54, O=43
Whether the same pattern would hold in a general is debatable. I wouldn't automatically assume that Clinton voters would opt for McCain, but it's possible. Still, we aren't anywhere near the last week of the race yet. OH is up for grabs.

Darren,
Thanks for linking to the Halperin article. I saw him this morning and thought much less of him than I have before (not that I ever liked him much). After reading that article, I have almost completely lost respect for him. This is August, and he's suggesting that Obama is playing too wide of a field? He's within striking distance in a number of states, but Halperin advocates focusing on just a couple. Folks here have talked about saturation and diminishing returns on ads when played repeatedly. Obama has the money to compete everywhere, why not do it? This strikes me as simply idiotic advice and I'm glad that the Obama camp isn't following it.

Furthermore, Halperin includes this throwaway line: "Analysts believe that the two red states in which Obama has the best chance -- Virginia and Colorado -- will be tough for him to win." What analysts? Why do they think that? The polling certainly doesn't suggest that Obama can't win them. Comparing Obama fighting for states where polls show a dead heat with Bush making a late, ill-advised play for CA in 2000 is either foolish or disingenuous. Stunning, Halperin lists NV as a key battleground but practically claims that CO as a pipe dream. Very weak analysis. Maybe he's just trying to sell more magazines.

OTF said...

Peter Kent,

Right. That's why when a McCain surrogate was asked how McCain differs from Bush on policies as of right now there was silence for 5 seconds, followed by studdering and recitation of old positions that he changes that are now the same as Bush. McCain has changed to appease the base and his lockstep with Bush and the 28% ers.

OTF said...
This post has been removed by the author.
PeteKent said...

Portman is not associated with any scandal and has been a faithful public servant throughout his career. He is well-known in Ohio and is rumored to be THE choice to run against Strickland in 2010.

He is youthful and well spoken with a disarmingly intelligent demeanor that inspires confidence without betraying any arrogance.

His choice would confound both the media and the Obama campaign and leave them scrambling. The Campaign would have a great chance to define him before the attack machine ever geared up.

The only thing I am worried about: Nate has already tipped off David Axelrod of my prescient boostering over the past several weeks!

Darren said...

edmundintokyo - Gallup doesn't weight by party ID, but they show it being remarkably consistent. Still allows day-to-day fluctations, but they shouldn't show a longer-term bias versus Rasmussen.

eponymous said...

VACon,

And that is where Mr Nixon and I disagree. If you are put into office by an ignorant public (and make no mistake, they are ignorant: for example, almost 1/3 of the voters in 2004 believed there was a significant connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda) and enact policies which harm the lives of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, you should not be proud. You should be ashamed.

But that's why I've never been a believer in democracy, to tell the truth. I would be much happier if you had to not be profoundly ignorant about the world, and the country, in order to vote.

But alas, that will never happen. We're consigned to a system where the best manipulator wins, and the best manipulator is not necessarily the best person for the job (of which no-one should need reminding after the past eight years).

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Thanks.

I still can't make sense of Obama having no mid week dip. The seven ad deal didn't hit till around Thursday so that has 0 to do with it.

I'll probably never know.

Virginia Conservative said...

See, I always use that quote in this situation because it basically makes liberals come out against democracy, since they always lose. ;)

PeteKent said...

OTF:

I think the surrogaqtes have gotten the aprty line down now on Bush v. Mcc

Sam said...

CNN is a business that's the reason that context is left out. They have an agenda and more so then other networks because news is all they have going. News of a close election, drama and such. is what they thrive on. They act like they have an objective view on things but it's more likely that they are as subjective as they can get away with to aid their ratings. The theme of disunity in the Democratic party and angry Hillary supporters is what they want so that the underdog McCain is doing better in the polls.

The media uses polls in a way to indicate bumps and drops even though the error margins are usually bigger than the changes in the polls. Not to mention that each poll tells a different story and sometimes the same polls says a different story (Likely voters vs Registered voters in the same poll). They will go from saying it's close to saying that one candidate has it in the bag only to use a bump to call it a comeback. CNN is like a stock broker that thrives on news to ensure that people are buying/selling and paying attention. CNN in my opinion is more prone to doing this because these moments are what they basically live on. Nobody cares for politics as much as around elections.

Virginia Conservative said...

BTW, eponymous, we've won in Iraq. Good luck turning that into a negative.

Darren said...

sedi - agreed, Halperin's not living up to his reputation today. Still, Bush's California daliance is a warning not to expect you can overturn demographics. CO and VA are good bets for Obama, but he should probably cut his losses in IN, NC, ND, AK, and MO (not to mention GA) by late September.

eponymous said...

VACon,


On the contrary, I'm against democracy because I am a logician, and the idea that the most popular position is the right one is a well-known logical fallacy.

By the way, I will take the "liberal" label as a complement, but I'm really more of a social liberal and an economic conservative (which means I hate Bush across the board).

Also I had heard we've won in Iraq. It reminded me of a story: recently a man got into a car accident on the highway in which he ran right into an SUV carrying four people. Three of them were killed instantly, and one just had several of his limbs broken. After thinking about the situation for a few hours, he decided to use a first aid kit and managed to help him clean up his wounds a little bit. He then rode on the ambulance to his intended destination, considering the trip to be a success.

I assume you find nothing about his mindset ridiculous in the slightest.

Virginia Conservative said...

Gee, eponymous, whatever happened to "consent of the governed"?

OTF said...

VC,

Yes George the Lesser declared victory 4 years and 3,000 US troop deaths ago, but that didn't make it true.

Btw, define win? The goal posts change daily. Now we have time tables, that nasty little word that was not utterable just 2 months ago.

Besides the US oil companies getting back into Iraq and getting oil field bids after Sadam kicked them out 25 years ago. Define winning?

James said...

eponymous,
As Ann Coulter says, we love liberals that actually say how they feel about America and in your case democracy. You've shown your true colors. Do you know how many people in the world would practically die to live in a democracy. I would say you don't deserve to vote, but I believe that right belongs to all people, regardless of how inferior they may be in your view.

James said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Sedi said...

"CO and VA are good bets for Obama, but he should probably cut his losses in IN, NC, ND, AK, and MO (not to mention GA) by late September."

Darren,
I generally agree, though he shouldn't give them up entirely. He just shouldn't add any field offices or spend a lot on local ads. I wouldn't give up on MT, though, and I might even consider keeping the heat on in ND and AK if the advertising is cheap enough and if polls (I'm sure they have some internal polls) show them within 5 points. October is when he should decide what he can win and focus more narrowly, but who knows what can happen in a few months. Maybe one of the states you mentioned will be in play.

I couldn't believe how much Halperin was ready to write off for Obama. I mean, if he had been writing about McCain's campaign would he have suggested pulling out of PA and MI because he hasn't led in any polls there? I mean, you can't base a campaign on winning one or two key states. Well, you CAN do it, but it's dumb, especially in August. I guess it filled a column, though, and probably sounded good to most Time readers.

NC_voter said...

@VAcon


What's it like to be a member of the party who's president in the last 7.5 years has run up the deficit by trillions, engages in torture, substantially lowered the reputation of the US abroad, is corrupt on almost every level, and all the other countless number of disasters bush has brought this country?


You seem to be under the delusion that the Majority is always right. A democracy maybe the best system we have now, but well, Churchill said it best:

"the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."


So we've won in Iraq now? I thought it was five years ago when bush said "mission accomplished".

Hey, maybe now that we've "won", we can come home? So Obama's timetable idea doesn't seem so horrendous now, does it?

But please, keep telling people that the war has been won. Maybe now that Joe Six-pack (of PBR) doesn't have to be afraid that Obama would surrender to those trrrrsts, he will actually look at his bank account, paycheck, and mortgage and realize how much he has suffered economically under Bush...

Virginia Conservative said...

No American soldiers are being killed anymore.

The sectarian violence is gone.

The central government is functioning.

Al Qaeda has been wiped out.

Do you need more?

We're out within two years, and this time I support getting out. Because the war is over, thats why Iraq is such a non-issue this year.

eponymous said...

Hey, I never said logicians are a practical lot...

Just saying that the lack of an alternative system in which decisions are not based on faulty logic does not mean our system is not fundamentally flawed.


Also I'm assuming you're just yanking my chain right now ("we won in Iraq" kind of gave it away) but I love to talk logic so I'll play along anyway.

Virginia Conservative said...

eponymous -

I was yanking your chain with the Nixon quote, yeah.

I'm quite serious about Iraq. You do know Al Qaeda has been eliminated there and Al Sadr has totally disarmed and submitted to the central government, right? And you also no we haven't had any troop deaths there recently from hostile fire?

eponymous said...

Uh, VACon? Maybe you weren't yanking my chain...

You do realize that all of those "accomplishments" are solving problems WE CREATED.

Virginia Conservative said...

So, when we create problems, we should just say "hey tough shit" and leave behind a mess?

Because that's what your side wanted to do in 2006. Luckily, we didn't.

Sedi said...

"The sectarian violence is gone."

Whew, that's a relief. I had been thinking that the suicide bombing today that killed 25 people and wounded at least 29 others in a mostly Sunni Baghdad suburb might have been religiously motivated. I'm glad to know that it wasn't.

Virginia Conservative said...

Also, you honestly believe Iraq is a worse place today than it was under Saddam Hussein?

OTF said...

VC,

If the war is a non-issue you should tell McCain that b/c that's the basis of his campaign. Your quote does explain while unless McCain is talking about war he's talking about Obama. McCain has no issue he likes besides war as he is still trying to fight Vietnam and redeem it.

NC_voter said...

Don't bother wasting your time, epy. I realized that VaClown was a full fledged FOX talking-point parrot the second he claimed that we had "won" in Iraq.


The republican definition of "success" is getting lost, and driving in the wrong direction until you finally turn your car around and start heading in the direction you intended to...

Virginia Conservative said...

NC_Voter--

So, if you got lost, you would keep driving until you go off a cliff?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Darren said...

sedi - what I find interesting is the common argument that Obama has plenty of money, so he should spread it around. Well, it looks like McCain, thanks to the RNC, will be roughly competitive financially, but you don't see him pouring money into medium-blue states like Maine, Oregon, Washington, Delaware, and New Jersey, or into defending red states like Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, or even Florida. Instead, he's gone all in on Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, with defensive spending in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia (NH and NM are in there somewhere too). So his universe is about 340 EVs whereas Obama's is about 400 EVs. McCain is finding a way to concentrate his money. I guess we'll find out in November whether this makes any difference.

OTF said...

VC,

Oh boy we have it's a better place now argument. The last defense of this ,isadventure to avoid the lies it was based on and the screw up it has been. What was the reason given for the invasion? Try again to justify Boy Blunders Misdaventure.

The Rho Set said...

Sedi,
Fair enough to object to mindless drivel - I'll try to stay clear of it. But have you picked up on the trend in the Super Tracker over the last six weeks? Because most of these comments, along with Nate's qualitative analyses, strike me as amazingly contrived efforts to wish away the reality of what's happening to the Obama candidacy. Why does every bit of "bad news" on this statistically sophisticated but left-biased site get rationalized away as an anomaly or outlier or measurement error or selection bias in the data?

Wouldn't it be more in keeping with the spirit of a "a site primarily about polling and data-based analysis" to look objectively at those data and try to understand the underlying factors, rather than explaining why in this case, the data can't trusted? You don't need a degree in time series analysis to see the trend since the primaries ended - it's staring you in the face.

What I'd like to see, in place of nit-picking and sniping about CNN and Fox, is some continued discussion of the sensitivity of these projections to the model specification - a discussion that ended abruptly on June 28. How does the projection change, given the weight placed on recent vs. older events in the polls? Other than revealing (by implication) that this is some sort of ARIMA model using a LOESS smoothing process, Nate has told us little lately about the robustness of the underlying model - and therefore left no way of assessing its biases.

So, the discussion turns to speculation about CNN and the Clintons, and to the "mindless" assertion that Obama's in freefall. For which of these do we have better data?

Virginia Conservative said...

I'm going to love NC_voter talking about the Republican/Diebold conspiracy the morning after the election.

Get your "THEY STOLE IT AGAIN!" talking points ready now, bub. I'll enjoy laughing my ass off.

Dog Knows said...

.
Break out the popcorn...

This CNN/WarChannel poll is reminiscent to me of the skewed poll conducted by Gallup a while back for USAToday. Made to drive a story. This Clinton/Biden/Obama portion of the poll is designed to sell that story. Whatever sells Hondas, Toyotas, Viagra and all the other pharmaceuticals, oh well.. And speaking of Viagra, someone mentioned Bill Schneider? Even if Nate "likes" Schneider, was Nate even on the planet when Schneider was doing his first "call to duty" back in the 60s? That old fart was a cub reporter then reporting that we'd be out of Vietnam before the election in '68. He's a corporate tool. He's so "inside" that he'd never be able to find the exit. He knows who signs his paychecks.

The reality is, if this race doesn't appear close to those tuning into the media outlets or there isn't enough dirt and crap slinging to report, people tune out. A lot of people are already tuned out to cable and satellite, they can't pay their damn bills. And anyway, I hate to put it this way, but I wouldn't crap in the hat of anyone at CNN.

And for PeteKent -- Hey! Pull that butt-plug out of your piehole it's hard to understand your rants when you're mumbling.

Silly as it Seem ... That is all . . .

jean q. publique
.

Jon said...

Virginia Conservative:

Obama is polling well in Florida and Ohio was always going to be a close race. How can Obama not be able to "win" Florida when both candidates have consistently polled within of each other the last few weeks? Obama has taken 7-10 point Florida deficits and now has been within the margin of error or even leading in some polls.

Obama was not obligated to pick Clinton because she was the "runner up". By this logic, McCain has to pick Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, and he might not do either. Also, if Romney is the pick, expect Obama ads with footage from the Republican primaries/caucuses where Romney slammed McCain daily and McCain called Romney the "candidate of change" (flip-flopper). Since the GOP stupidly put out such an ad about Biden, expect the same treatment. The DNC will also dig up all of Romney's positions where he has flip-flopped, and show them 24/7. He couldn't even win the NH primary over McCain this year, even though much of the state has the same media market and is filled with Massachusetts transplants. How is he going to help McCain carry the state in the fall?

The Democratic party has added millions of new voters to its rolls, so they can easily cancel out these insipid Clintonites/PUMAs who won't support Obama. Obama is leading in most polls, even with only 75-80% of Democratic support. He can only go higher with more support from within the party. McCain is maxing out at 80-90% of the Republican base and is still largely behind or tied (which shows his ceiling).

NC_voter said...

VAClown, you're one of those 28%ters, aren't you? Just admit it.


It is telling (and quite amusing) how you equate not actually "driving of a cliff" after getting horribly lost to be "success".

I'll be off to sleep now, and hope you get some too. Make sure to keep your shotgun handy in case some of the trrrrrsts try and attack you in the middle of the night because they "hate your freedom"!

eponymous said...

NC_Voter, you may have a point, but let me just get this out.



If you support the war as a good idea you can argue only one of two things:
1. It was in the US' best strategic interests to invade Iraq.

Which is just a plain lie, evidence abound. No nuclear weapons, no connections to Al-Qaeda, no threat to the US or its allies.

2. We invaded to oust a dictator perpetrating human rights violations.

In which case the army'd better pack their bags, because they're going to Sudan! And then the DRC! And then Turkmenistan! And then Zimbabwe! etc...

The simple fact is that US military might can only reasonably be used in US interests, if we start to intervene militarily in the name of "justice" or "democracy" it will be impossible to achieve anything.


And no, for the love of God, pulling out in 2006 wasn't a good strategic idea, but saying "hey, we made this catastrophic failure slightly better!" and claiming victory is fucking idiotic and ignores the fact that tens of thousands of people have died, and more have been displaced, for limited progress that has no guarantee of being permanent.

Matthew H said...

VA Con, you're not serious, are you?

Al-Sadr's disarming because he's WON. He had a whole list of demands, and we caved. In two years, we'll be gone, and he'll be in charge. If you think that this was al-Sadr vs. the U.S., we just lost. Luckily, it wasn't.

There's been a huge spate of bombings lately in Iraq. They just haven't been getting headlines. Meanwhile, the election this fall in Iraq...isn't happening after all. No purple thumbs.

So let's go through this slowly:

-When al-Sadr demanded timetables, and the U.S. said no, we caved.

-This has been one of the worst months for Iraqi civillians in almost a year.

-We've lost 18 Americans this month, with a week to go. If we don't lose any more, that'll be more than July, about the same as May, but less than April or June.

-No elections this year.

And how exactly is this a victory?

Oh, I forget- the Olympics was on! Clearly, this is a great victory for America.

Stephen said...

blah blah-- no offense, but can we stop the side show argument happening about Iraq and logic and cars? it just clutters the comments and no one's going to convince anyone else.

Here's a new conversation topic!-- in looking at the crosstabs on the ABC poll out today, I realize I'm really looking forward to the point in the race where Likely Voter models can be like theirs. They ask registered voters: "How likely are you to vote? Certainly vote, Likely vote, 50-50 chance, Probably won't vote." Then they can report the registered vote opinions, and just the certain or likely vote opinions. That's soo much more reasonable than the voodoo you have to do to predict whether traditional voting groups are going to actually vote and whether you're over counting or undercounting some of them.

The same way I don't believe in the Bradley effect, I don't see any reason why someone would lie about whether or not they're going to vote. They might not be quite sure yet, but they have a much better idea than Scott Rasmussen!

Discuss! ;)

hosertohoosier said...

eponymous,

I opposed the war in Iraq, but you have presented a false dichotomy, which really comes out in your response to number 2.

Richard Nixon, in one of his books, argues that the US should promote democracy, AND protect American interests. A regime like Saudi Arabia, while unsavoury, is acceptably because they largely toe the line. A country like Iraq is not.

Iraq is different from Sudan, Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe, because it is strategically relevant - it has oil, and the demographic potential to be a regional power within the middle east (as it was in the 80's and early 90's). A pro-US Iraq would be of use in reducing the conventional military threat to Israel, such that Israeli governments can make bigger concessions to the Palestinians (which was beginning to happen before Sharon died). Additionally, in a future US-China conflict, it could help to starve China's war machine from oil.

The notion that the US should never use force to protect human rights because we cannot do so everywhere is simply foolish. That is like saying we should help no poor people, because we can't help all poor people. Of course, given limited resources, if you are going to ration humanitarian interventions, doesn't it make sense to make those interventions in the places where such interventions will most serve the national interest. Simply because one's goals are idealistic, doesn't mean one must pursue them in an unrealistic fashion.

(for the record I don't give a rat's ass about spreading democracy, and am quite happy to prop up dictators that toe the line).

Darren said...

Jon -

Obama was not obligated to pick Clinton because she was the "runner up". By this logic, McCain has to pick Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, and he might not do either.

I think the difference is how strong a runner up Hillary was. Look at all the primaries that had a strong runner-up, who got the VP nod, and how the ticket fared:

1960 - Kennedy/Johnson - Yes - Won
1976 - Ford/Reagan - No - Lost
1980 - Carter/Kennedy - No - Lost
1980 - Reagan/Bush - Yes - Won
1984 - Mondale/Hart - No - Lost
1988 - Dukakis/Jackson - No - Lost
1988 - Bush/Dole - No - Won

Johnson, Reagan, Kennedy, and Hart all came close to taking the nomination. Bush, Jackson, and Dole not so much. Other elections the runner-up dropped out early or was a non-factor in later primaries (case in point: Buchanan 92 and 96, Tsongas 92).

For the very strong runners-up, when they were picked the ticket won, when they were shunned the ticket lost. Same for the less strong runners-up, except for Dole in 88.

Sample size is statistically insignificant, I admit, but the message is that ignoring a candidate that enjoyed a wide base of party support has not been a proven success strategy.

realistxxx said...

Funny this idea that VP selections can immediately help or hurt in the polls. There are really only two examples in the last 40+ years where there has been an obvious effect on the election (maybe not the polls)... both Dems. LBJ in 1960 is widely credited with delivering TX and Eagleton with his electroshock therapy revelation, pretty much stuck a fork in an already moribund McGovern campaign.

I'll say it again. The key advantage of Biden is that he is truly loved by the punditocracy and press in general. Today Mary Matalin challenged Sean Insannity about why he didn't like Biden. She was basically saying, c'mon Sean, everybody likes Joe Biden what don't you like about him? Sean basically stuttered and said that he just didn't.

Also, an interesting aside on the Clinton News Network. John King and Begala apparently had quite a significant dustup off air. King accused Begala of fomenting discord and Begala took offense. Ummmm, of course, Begala and CNN in general are fomenting discord. King was just saying, don't make it so obvious, dude.

Finally, I'll leave you with a poem that all of the Obama VP speculation literally drove me to write.

Jeepers Veepers...

By Realistxxx

------

I'm deadly Sebelius, heed the words that I preach

But Kansas it seemed was way out of reach

There was no need to Warner Virginia's in play

Yes we Kaine, didn't fly although easy to say

Perhaps Clinton a horse like a great cowboy flick

But the Bill to be paid put a block on that pick

But no one would Bayh any DLC hack

Who sponsored the bill for invading Iraq

We were Biden our time while the presses were stopping

Senator Joe! From the state of taxes free shopping!

---------

For some reason I couldn't get those puns out of my head.

... sorry

stop_the_stutter said...

Jon,

I speak in fear of you calling me braindead, but did you consider, in your numbers, the fact that many people who newly registered Democrat did so because of Operation Chaos(TM)?
I know this type of thinking might be a little beneath you, but I was curious

Darren said...

From Wikipedia's description of the 1988 election:

Jesse Jackson's campaign believed that since they had come in a respectable second, Jackson was entitled to the vice presidential spot. Dukakis refused, and gave the spot to Lloyd Bentsen.

Bentsen was selected in large part to secure the state of Texas and its large electoral vote for the Democrats. Because of Bentsen's status as something of an elder statesman who was more experienced in electoral politics, many believed Dukakis' selection of Bentsen as his running mate was a mistake in that Bentsen, number two on the ticket, appeared more "presidential" than did Dukakis.

Replace the names and this could be 2008 (except Biden doesn't bring a state).

stop_the_stutter said...

hosertohoosier,

are you saying that tax-free shopping is bad? I don't think keeping some of my own money is bad. Especially when I am still paying more than 40% of what I make at the end of the day.

stop_the_stutter said...

darren,
neither did Bensten...(bring a state)

DCM in FL said...

ALERT all those who wondered if a pollster really has their thumb on the scale [as it were]

Go over to Pollster for a fine analysis tonight By Charles Franklin - 'How Pollsters Affect Poll Results'

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php
-----------------------------------
read the entire article, but guess who has the most 'house effect' [aka polling bias] toward McCain ???

[pause for effect]

RASMUSSEN Daily Tracker !!!

@ McCain +3

[meaning averages +1.5% HIGH for McCain with -1.5% LOW for Obama]
proof that we are not delirious !

Gallup Tracker is near the bottom also @ around McCain +2, or at the outer edges leaning toward McCain.

Harris Interactive leans furthest toward Obama @ +4.

Also the subject of how the numerous sheer volume/quantity of Rasmussen's polls leaning toward McCain therefore skews the entire data set toward McCain is in the article [again]

Find your favorite pollster & see got yourself how their polls average out in terms of weighting... FAUX & USA/Gallup lean McCain is no surprise, but some others may be but their quantity or consistency may not be as much as appears to be indicated.

Again, don't just read the toplines, study the entire analysis & charts then we csan discuss...

CNN's position may surprise - but remember they have only produced a few polls & I am do NOT believe today's CNN poll made this analysis.

NATE - please do an analysis & post on this subject/article ASAP !

Tito said...

I just want to give a shout out to all the concern trolls. I know you have only our best interest at heart. Obama should have picked Clinton, indeed, it is the only path to victory. Which is exactly why some of you were so concerned back in the spring and participated in Operation Chaos. You thought Clinton was our only hope for getting elected. It had nothing to do with you guys regarding her as a polarizing figure with high negatives, someone that would drive up your fund-raising totals and bring out the base. No, not at all.

And the advice on what campaign messages to pursue, gosh, thanks! Of course the "houses" issue won't play. I mean what working class person doesn't want to be led by someone who is so wealthy and so... blessed. And you guys, damn you are right about McCain/Bush being so last month. No one's gonna pay attention to the fact the McCain voted in lockstep with President Bush. Information like that is so irrelevant.

I just wanted to say thanks. Without you, we wouldn't know what concerns you, what is working, and what choices our party should make in order to defeat you guys in November. Thanks for looking out for Number One! I would be bored without some of you. And some of you guys are actually pretty decent to talk to, usually when not doling out your sage advice though. A word of advice in return: don't ever play any high stakes poker - a blind man could read you.

DCM in FL said...

TITO,

PETE KENT will be devasted that his never ending concern postings did not sway you to vote for the heroic POW or convince you that it is better to sit this one out because Hillary would want you to stay home...

Dunno How Many Houses said...

Wow. You leave for a while, and then come back to this stuff, and you just have to shake your head and laugh. There guys are amazing.

Virky, we'll put you in touch with the families of the 18 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq so far this month to let them know that American soldiers are not being killed anymore. I'm sure they will be very comforted by your authoritative announcement. Seriously, sir (or madam), we all know that you're a paid McClown operative; but you need to maintain plausible deniability by seeming at least somewhat intelligent. Consider that bar, uh, not met with that particular gem.

Nate? Hello? The CNN poll was a flash poll done on a Saturday night with landline calls, with a 3.5% MOE. I know you're ripping the poll because you know that it was just manufactured to force a narrative (an increasingly prevalent practice - - see Rasmussen, Scotty), but you might want to mention the inherent unreliability of one-day flash polling, and the high MOE.

Anyway, my "poll" of the status quo has a very simple metric. How desperate are the Republican trolls commenting on 538? And tonight, the Desperometer needs a new needle and a new plastic covering. Get a job, Pete and Virky! I mean, besides working for the McSame campaign. LOL.

I smell fear!!

P.S., where was McCain today? Napping? At one of the houses he forgot about?

Just John said...

Nate-

Simple piece of advice from a simple guy, take it or leave it or don't even read it. Split your excellent site into two branches. One branch: pure statistical analysis with moderated comments (sort of the pre-fame 538.com).

Other branch: political-themed "discussion" with free-for-all comments, sort of a repository for name-calling, lying and trolling.

Just a suggestion. Please continue the unabashed media whoring and keep up the outstanding work.

-John from Seattle

Jon said...

stop_the_stutter said:

"I speak in fear of you calling me braindead, but did you consider, in your numbers, the fact that many people who newly registered Democrat did so because of Operation Chaos(TM)?"

Well that's something to consider, but a lot of states don't register by party so it would be harder to assess nationwide. Also, I think most people (90%) who changed affiliations did so independent of Rush Limbaugh's urgings. It may have been lower in more conservative-leaning states like Texas and Indiana. I personally think HRC would not have won these two states if it had not been for the Chaos voters. However, in places like OH and PA, Clinton clearly won and any difference would have still had her ahead.

And no, analyzing "Operation Chaos" isn't "below me".

Alex S. said...

Ah I missed that poll... just a few things I want to say:
David Gergen is the best pundit I have seen during this election.
And the poll itself surely creates suspense for the upcoming conventions (live on CNN).

MrInsight22 said...

Sunday's poorly-rated Columbus Post Dispatch Ohio poll showed McCain up by 1 point in Ohio with many undecided. It's done with mailed out paper ballots returned between 8/12 and 8/21.

Tito said...

stop_the_stutter said:

"I speak in fear of you calling me braindead, but did you consider, in your numbers, the fact that many people who newly registered Democrat did so because of Operation Chaos(TM)?"


That's not something I would dismiss out of hand. You could have a point there. But, registration and turnout numbers were already pretty strong before Operation Chaos came about, which if I remember right was in mid-to-late February after Super Tuesday and Obama's string of February victories started. If OC is responsible for increased registration, it would only be in the states who had later primaries. Either way, I don't think it's a group whose numbers are that high.

Dunno How Many Houses said...

P.S., where was McCain today? Napping? At one of the houses he forgot about?


He was on CBS talking about Biden and the "Houses" issue. For anyone who has criticized Obama for nuanced answers, please watch McCain's answer on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHrz__CvBL4

Personally, I think he dug himself deeper. First he used the POW card as a defense for this, again. But after saying he's "blessed" to have four houses, he quickly noted that the other homes were for "investment purposes". Along with having 3 more homes than the average American, the McCains are also real estate speculators - one of the factors in the swelling of the housing bubble, which the collapse of has furthered our economic downturn. McCain is looking pretty boxed in on this issue so it will be kept in play for a long while.

newyorker2874999 said...

Darren at 12:10AM This is probably the wrong site for advocating Obama/Clinton.

This is a site for statistical analysts and other assorted mathematical geniuses, whereas Obama/Clinton was merely a no-brainer.

Dunno How Many Houses said...

New Colorado poll by Suffolk University, just out this AM.

Obama 44
McCain 39

Only 450 respondents, high MOE . . . but a pretty good polling outfit, and a pretty big lead. Oh noes, Cons! Colorado is slipping away fast!! LOL.

Tito said...

Geez, and simulations have already been run including that Suffolf CO poll. Something else must have changed, maybe just the aging of polls, but Obama has a 5-6 EV bump from just a few hours ago.

assmole said...

Obama will get a bounce when Biden stops being a wanker.

Jackson said...

I like the vast majority of CNN folks, including Bill Schneider, Roland Martin, John King, and the American Morning team.

I like pretty much everyone on the CNN political team except for Blitzer. Why someone so inept is their anchor for just about everything, I can't fathom. I like their election coverage the best, but I cringe when Wolf gets the camera, which is too often.

Juris said...

Wouldn't ya know it? Joe Scarborough put up a chart from CNN on "Morning Joe" today showing the deteriorating support for Obama among former Clinton supporters.

This is a case of truthiness as newsiness.

John Nail said...

Nate, thanks for jumping on this. The other odd thing here is that the Clinton supporter MOE is 7.5% vs 3.5& for the main poll.

How is that possible.

Clearly getting out base vote to 85% is the key to winning and the Hillary folks are a big part of that but this "editorial" poll is maddening.

Yes things have tightened but all the other nationals have 3-4% spread (pre Biden). Also we are now in the 47/48% range and McCain still is stuck at 44-46%.

The state polls also from late week and today are positive including another CO from Suffolk/

"Housegate" is working and I think McCains is now faving a really tough choice for VP. A hail Mary like Whitman would be crazy and Fiorina is easy fodder - she f'd up HP. Pawlenty will look like Dan Quayle compared to Biden and Romney scares the hell out of evangelicals. Lieberman alienates the base.

capt said...

Why use garbage?

Did we all forget the GIGO system?

If CNN's data is not clear why even entertain the BS?

Seems a but curious to have Nate use crud - say it is crud - then talk about the effect of crud.

You are losing me Nate.

Expose the BS and skip the M$M narrative piffle and BS peddled by CNN.

tkondaks said...

Did Obama have a Jimmy the Greek moment?

http://pledgednotbound.com/racialist.htm


.

jps said...

CNN is the Hilary channel. They cater to Hilary supporters in the same way Geritol concentrates its advertising on the soaps. I expect manipulating poll numbers in order to cheerlead simply supports their business plan. Fox has set the pace of cable news.

Marlon said...

The reason why CNN won't release those cross tabs. Is because they know, the cross tabs won't hold up to scrutiny.

Also Nate. I was getting quite conscerned recently about your over-reaction to some of the latest polls. I'm glad you corrected your numbers. But please be aware of that. Many of the latest polls, have questionable cross tabs, trying to fit a media meme. I expect more judicious thought/reaction from this sites numbers.

Lastly. Did you ever cover the ABC/WASHPO Poll, where Obama leads 49to43%. How come I didn't see that one?

Keep up the good work.

Marlon said...

Also Nate.

Why doesn't the media (we know why, lol) ever point out that, most of the people that they cite who voted for Hillary, who won't vote for Obama wasn't going to ever vote for Hillary, Obama or the democrat in the first place.

Many of them were cross-over republicans who voted for Hillary, after McCain received the nomination. Others (especially in the south) were Dixiecrats, though still registered democrats, vote GOP for president.

In other words, many of these people are fake Hillary supporters and democrats, pretending to be.

Also. Many true Hillary supporters, when questioned a certain way by pollsters, will say they support Hillary, in hopes that it could still help her candidacy or Vice presidency. These pollsters must have to know this.

Why isn't most of this stuff de-bunked, mind you any poorly conducted polls.

applecrispbetty said...

The PUMA's need a new acronym. How about RADEMAC's? (Racist Democrats for McCain). All these quibbles they have about Obama's unsuitability are just a euphemism for racism, in my humble opinion. They are just too dishonest (or too afraid to be politically incorrect) to come out and say this.

JoeSteeL said...

I strongly supported Obama through the primaries, even going so far as to put up flyers and canvass for his campaign. First there was his FISA vote that was pretty shocking and then he said that offshore drilling is acceptable...he lost my support and my vote.

情趣用品 said...

愛情公寓,情色,舊情人,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,色情聊天室,色情小說,一葉情貼圖片區,情色小說,色情,色情遊戲,情色視訊,情色電影,aio交友愛情館,色情a片,一夜情,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊,視訊美女,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,情人視訊網,影音視訊聊天室,視訊交友90739,成人影片,成人交友,美女交友,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人貼圖,成人電影,A片,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,UT聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,男同志聊天室,UT男同志聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,6K聊天室,女同志聊天室,小高聊天室,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,同志聊天室,聊天室交友,中部人聊天室,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,寄情築園小遊戲,AV女優,A片下載,免費A片,日本A片,麗的色遊戲,色色網,情色論壇,嘟嘟情人色網,色情網站,成人網站,成人論壇,成人小說,微風成人區,色美媚部落格,正妹牆,正妹百人斬,aio,伊莉,伊莉討論區,成人文章,成人圖片區,免費成人影片,成人遊戲,成人影城,本土自拍,自拍,癡漢俱樂部,AV,做愛,做愛影片,av片,a漫,av dvd,線上a片,日本美女寫真集

情趣用品 said...

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,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情境坊歡愉用品,情趣用品,情人節禮物,情惑用品性易購

免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,A片,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

A片,色情,成人,做愛,情色文學,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,言情小說,愛情小說,AIO,AV片,A漫,av dvd,聊天室,自拍,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,色情A片,SEX

情趣用品,A片,免費A片,AV女優,美女視訊,情色交友,色情網站,免費AV,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,成人影片,情色網


情趣用品,A片,免費A片,日本A片,A片下載,線上A片,成人電影,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,微風成人區,成人文章,成人影城,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,臺灣情色網,色情,情色電影,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,麗的色遊戲,情色論壇,色情網站,一葉情貼圖片區,做愛,性愛,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,美女交友,做愛影片

av,情趣用品,a片,成人電影,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,aio,av女優,AV,免費A片,日本a片,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,聊天室,美女交友,成人光碟

情趣用品.A片,情色,情色貼圖,色情聊天室,情色視訊,情色文學,色情小說,情色小說,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,情色電影,色情遊戲,色情網站,聊天室,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊交友網,免費視訊聊天,免費A片,日本a片,a片下載,線上a片,av女優,av,成人電影,成人,成人貼圖,成人交友,成人圖片,18成人,成人小說,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人影城,成人網站,自拍,尋夢園聊天室

徵信社robin said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 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, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 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, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信

徵信, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, , 徵信公司, , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, , , , , 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, , , , 徵信, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 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,

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,

平平 said...

^^ very nice

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,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,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,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,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

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~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,