There's not a lot of action in state polling today, but national numbers point toward some movement toward John McCain.
The Gallup national tracker is tied at 44-44 -- the first time it has been tied since August 1st, and a downtick from the 3-6 point lead that Obama had held in the Gallup tracker in recent days. The Rasmussen tracker has Obama with a 2-point lead (actually a point improved from yesterday), and the Economist/YouGov poll has Obama ahead by just a single point.
As for the state numbers, Rasmussen has John McCain ahead by 6 points in North Carolina, up from 3 points last month, but Obama ahead by 14 points in Maine (which we previwed this morning), an improvement from 8 points last month.
I'm not going to attempt a ton of analysis beyond what I articulated yesterday: these are encouraging numbers for John McCain, but we know very much about the breadth, depth or length of whatever momentum he might have. And frankly, it may not matter very much, since once Barack Obama names his VP candidate sometime next week, we're going to be on a roller coaster until the election, with sleepy August afternoons like this one long since forgotten.
8.15.2008
Today's Polls, 8/15
@ 6:41 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments
McCain doesn't have a lead in any trackers, so why is the point below the Obama +0 territory... ?
See the FAQ. The tracking graph is NOT just a complication of national polls. It also accounts for state polls, and polls like Obama only being 4 points ahead in Minnesota imply an election in which he is probably trailing.
It's looking like the Republican base is consolidating and the red state/blue state divide is alive and well. This means of course that Obama's task is to the hold the Kerry states and win 3 out of the four states of Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico. There are more combinations of course, but these seem the most likely for Obama to actually win. Indiana is probably wishful thinking.
Iowa is pretty much a lock. New Mexico looks good for him. Colorado and Ohio are problematic. But as we saw from Nate's analysis, the Obama ground organization is a hidden advantage in those two states.
It conceivably makes a case for picking Clinton to try to cement Ohio, although that would be a left field pick of mammoth proportions at this point.
Picking Clinton would mean Colorado is gone, but it may help Ohio and Florida.
I don't think it will and we'll end up fighting for Ohio in October again.
Yeah, I thought Obama could change the map, and in a way he has. He's going to do a hell of a lot better and help the party immensely in states Democrats have written off in the past, but once again, it comes down to Ohio.
Lincoln couldn't change this map.
Counting down until the conventions...
McCain seems to be shoring the base up, but picking a pro-choice like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman would pretty much destroy all the base support he has gotten the past month or two.
I still say McCain should go ahead and pick one of the 4: Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, or Crist. All 4 of those are conservatives that appeal to the base and are solid politicians.
If I were McCain and had to pick one, I would pick Palin. She would help the women vote which McCain is trailing in, has a good conservative record, and would generate excitement for the GOP. Her mini-scandal isn't a big deal anyway.
Looking at the latest polls, McCain would win this election tomorrow. He is now ahead in every state Bush won in 2000, it looks like a 274 EV win for McCain. Although his lead is small, he is ahead. Could this be another EV win for the Rep's and a popular vote win for Obama.
By the way Nate, I have been hearing about the enormous turnout of the young and AA population. I wonder, do you think the older, white population will turn out in greater numbers than anticipated? Also, can you elaborate on any ex-presidents that depended on the young voter to win the election.
So Natey doesn't think the 'faith forum' will have an impact on polling? Some are suggesting it might be a disaster for McLoserman (here's hoping).
"It's looking like the Republican base is consolidating and the red state/blue state divide is alive and well. This means of course that Obama's task is to the hold the Kerry states and win 3 out of the four states of Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico."
Boy, you see one poll where you're down by 1 point (with leaners) and you're ready to just abandon Virginia?
The keys to victory haven't changed here. McCain's got two roads to victory:
1) Win CO, OH, and VA
(he'd also need to win several other states - NV, FL, IN, MO, NC, GA, 2 of AK/ND/SD/MT - but these are much lower probability wins for Obama and almost certainly would be associated with McCain losses in at least one of the big 3 states)
2) Win MI, and win at least one of the states in 1)
What's changed is that McCain's probability of 1) has gone up quite a bit and Obama's probability of being able to win without MI has gone down similarly.
A few days ago, Obama was a slight favorite in all 3 of those states - the odds of winning three states where you're a 45% underdog is only 9.1%. The odds of winning three pure toss-ups (50%) is 12.5%. So, McCain gains about 3.5% to his win probability from this.
(note: all of my numbers assume perfect independence across states. I know Nate's #'s don't assume that, but the math ends up getting you to almost the exact same place)
This also has the effect of lowering the odds of Obama being able to offset the loss of Michigan. If Obama's a slight favorite (55%) in all three states, his odds of sweeping them (and thereby being able to win without MI) is 16.6%. If they're pure tossups, his odds of being able to pull that off falls to 12.5%. So, Obama loses around 1.2% off his win probability here (the 4.1% change times the 30% chance of losing Michigan).
Add those up and they drop Obama's win probability be around 5% or so, or from just under 65% to just under 60%.
But the shape of the race is the exact same, all that's changed is the probabilities.
tom thanx for the dissertation. tres helpful.
Kerry States plus Ohio equals a magic number 272. The play for NM, IA, NV, CO is for if you can't get Ohio. You plan for close, if it goes good for you you take it. I said two weeks ago that Obama should enroll his children in Ohio for the fall and then he could see them 5 nights a week because that's where he should be night and day. The important states are Ohio, Ohio, and Ohio. The VP candidates that win the election for you are Clinton, HRC, or Hillary. If Obama puts Clinton down in Ohio he can see the rest of the country. Bayh is an irreplaceable vote from Indiana, NY can be counted on to replace Clinton with somebody rock solid. We need a president and a majority. We all need to get serious; they fight dirty and brag about it. I thank Fractal for his wake up post of Thursday morning. One excerpt: (Greg Palast's article) “In swing state Colorado the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color." I don't want to wake up in 2009 and have to mossback my way into Canada.
"Looking at the latest polls, McCain would win this election tomorrow. He is now ahead in every state Bush won in 2000, it looks like a 274 EV win for McCain."
Actually, Bush won New Hampshire, which Obama's led in the polls consistently. But NH is only 4 Electoral Votes, so that'd still be a win for McCain, although by the narrowest margin possible, 270-268.
So cowbat,
What do you think Obama is going to say when they ask him about bitter Christians, who cling to their bibles-or why his church that he was a member for 20 years apparently had a problem with, whites, jews and well, the entire United States of America. I know, he'll change subjects to abortion, you know the bill that he refused to support that required Doctor's to save the life of babies born alive from a botched abortion. That ought to go over well with born again Christians, but then again since they are clinging to their Bibles maybe Obama can save them, since he does sit at the Right Hand of the Father, or so he says. I am the one you have been waiting for!
"Looking at the latest polls, McCain would win this election tomorrow. He is now ahead in every state Bush won in 2000, it looks like a 274 EV win for McCain"
At this point in 2004, John Kerry was ahead. For the final polling results of that election, see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.
It is an interesting dilemma McCain has, to even consider not taking a pro-life VP candidate.
He may play chicken with the base, figuring they have nowhere else to go because they so badly want to keep all three branches out of Dem hands. He may be right.
But his margin for error is non-existant, and he'd certainly lose some base to Barr. Would he pick up enough incremental Dems to make up for it? When push comes to shove, I don't see it.
Just as McCain used to be every Democrat's favorite Republican, being in favor of abortion carries along very few one-issue voters. He's finally showing a pathway to victory after taking some more conservative positions. He can't chance tossing that away.
Shap,
How true. This election is shaping up more and more to be like the 2004 election. Kerry was never ahead in any state polling that would have put him at 270, but now McCain is where Bush was in 2004.
For final results, Presidential Inauguration, January 2005. Thanks for reading!!
I haven't run through all the numbers yet but the economist poll basically confirmed my previous thoughts about undecided voters and how the whole race is likely to center around Bush's approval ratings. McCain needs to do two things.
a) Win 90% of Bush approvers
b) Win 30% of Bush disapprovers.
The current numbers are
a) 88-5 McCain among Bush approvers
b) 64-21 Obama among disapprovers
Slightly better for McCain but he is still behind and there are 4 times as many disapprovers left as approvers.
I'm sure its comforting to McCain that he is within a point and I admit its a little disconcerting to me, but its undeniable that the battle for the undecided 12% will be fought on Obama friendly turf.
With basically all of the Bush approvers already in his column, McCain has to feel a little nervous at 40%
Here's where Kerry was four years ago around this same time. But this was around the time that it began to slip away.
jacqueline blacq: it's one thing a God-fearing fellow like yourself talking to the nation about his faith but it's hardly John McEnroe's strong suit, is it? Now, I don't like to see people embarrass themselves as a rule so I may have to give this whole thing a miss. Please tell me how he got on.
josh putnam: if only kerry had had a Sebelius in the ranks, eh?
Josh
Four years ago, the Dem convention had already happened and the Rep hadn't.
Its a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison to compare today and then without adjusting for convention bounce.
excellent point of fact CLARKE.
comparing rasperries to blueberries - not comparable, just berries.
lots of noise until post-convention bounces settle in around mid-September...
trends worth watching only for any movement of the real Undecideds & soft leaners & Other/not voting demos...
Chuck Todd pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the polls always seem to start the week with Obama having a five or six point lead, and tighten up by the weekend. Any thoughts on why this is happening?
Nate´s proyection in Ohio is Obama 51, McCain 49. The Nate´s Electoral Vote proyecion is Obama 287, McCain 250.
One poll that McCain lead in Ohio and the Electoral Vote proyection here is McCain 270, Obama 267.
Picking Clinton would mean Colorado is gone, but it may help Ohio and Florida.
Picking Clinton and Iowa is gone too.
It even puts Kerry states like Oregon, Wisconsin, and possibly Minnesota at risk.
"Darío said...
Nate´s proyection in Ohio is Obama 51, McCain 49. The Nate´s Electoral Vote proyecion is Obama 287, McCain 250.
One poll that McCain lead in Ohio and the Electoral Vote proyection here is McCain 270, Obama 267."
sorry bud,that is not how things work on a projection site that is based on real data-driven statistical analysis.
I will presume you are not planting this misinformation as a troll, so I will politely attempt to explain how Nate's computer simulation perform projection analisis.
On the mosy recent Nate post - 'LeftOvers' tonight, I have posted a simplistic explanation FYI. Hope it helps.
But at the moment, the race is statistically close although the EV projections still slightly favor Obama 288 +/- as calculated by Nate's computer today.
CO is already slipping away as McCain is leading in 2 of the last 3 polls in the state. Really, McCain has the easier path to victory at this moment in time as there are only 6 Bush states that he has even a moderate risk of losing: IA, NM, NV, OH, VA, CO of which he can lose the first two and still win and only CO will he be the underdog out of the remaining 4.
Conversely, McCain has a moderate chance in MI and NH and if he can keep either NM or IA red, the math becomes very daunting.
Obama will win or lose in the Rust Belt so Clinton is the obvious pick. Even if it costs WI, winning OH and IA brings him to 269 and victory.
NJ_moderate
You don't list FL as a state McCain has even a moderate chance of losing despite the fact he is up by only 3.6 but you do list Iowa as a state he has a chance of winning despite the fact that he is down by 4.8.
There are other clear state examples, but ultimately this is the reason why everybody calls you a "concern troll".
You keep pretending to be a moderate objective observer but you repeatedly only point to evidence that already supports McCain.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions and if you are a McCain hack that for some reason believes the polls in Florida but not the ones in Iowa, feel free to post why.
But pretending to be an objective observer stating simple facts is a routine that is getting a little old.
Well said, cj. NJ Wingnut is actually pretty amusing, but only because he thinks he's actually snowing people with his routine. I wish I'd thought of it - - I should have posted as "Reagan Revolutionary" or something, and then posted constantly about McSame is the worst presidential candidate since Bob Dole, or even worse, actually.
CLARKE - you are wasting your time trying to point out factual inaccuracies with NJ MOD & those trolls.
You know that they are intentionally planting that BS to clog rational discourse.
DNFTT
NEO,
let's all try to pass on taking the troll bait tonight, OK ?
Neoclown, you said that you´re a libertarian and independent.
Obama will win or lose in the Rust Belt so Clinton is the obvious pick. Even if it costs WI, winning OH and IA brings him to 269 and victory.
Clinton doesn't win him Iowa. Or Virginia.
NJ Moderate, putting Clinton on the ticket could cost Obama Iowa too.
Putting Clinton on the ticket could cost Obama the elecion.
I know. I know. Its frustrating because I really don't want to get into an echo chamber where its just liberals building up Obama.
Sometimes, we're guilty of posting only supportive polls and ignoring other ones.
I really do want to remain objective as possible. I am really open to hearing objective contrary evidence from Republicans.
The troll stuff is just annoying. We're all political junkies on this site. You're not going to change anyone's vote by posting here so just save the talking points.
Why do they bother with it?
Just to annoy us?
Kind of a pathetic way to use their time.
DCM: possibly a good call, but sometimes I just can't resist. It's NJ Rightwingmaniac who really cracks me up and inspires me to get into it. :)
Dario, I was, um, joking. Sort of plays into my larger point: you can't take what people say about themselves at face value around here! Truly amazing, but accurate. :)
What I find interesting about this site and Nate, is that it went from a totally numbers based site, to slightly partisan to ,now we know where Nate Stands site.
Because of his declared Obama status, I don't know why Nate just won't say (I will), "that most of the current state and national polls are questionable, because these polls continue to push Party ID towards the republican's, re-align demographics and/or use likely voter models (instead of registered ones)".
I guess Nate decided not to criticize these polls, because nothing switched dramtically, but he shouldn't of dropped the win % so dramtically ("But I thought he was biased").
Unfortunately, I take all these polls, with a grain of salt, until I see consectutive trends or decent internals..
There really isn't any movement toward McCain. Maybe away from Obama. But McCain can't get more than 44 percent in pretty much any poll. That's why no matter the fluctuations in the margin, I expect Obama to win.
Not A Neo... it's hard to keep all the Cons and Mods separate in here, but my impression is that NJ Mod is a true PUMA... loves Dems, hates Obama, thus supports McCain.
(It hurts my teeth even to type that, but there we are.)
To Jack Black (like your movies): If you go to electoral-vote.com you can see that at this point in August 2004 Kerry was indeed ahead in electoral votes according to state polls and doing much better than Obama is now.
Obamaphiles should be nervous though not panicking this early.
After months of excitement from the media and the Obama campaign about expandng the map, we're left with Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, and Michigan? The first 3 are perennial squeakers and Colorado was won twice by Bill Clinton, so all that's new is that Obama has a shot in Virginia and McCain in Michigan. Even that is no surprise given Virginia's changing demographics and Michigan's historical swing state status.
Obama might pull an upset in a periphery state like Montana or North Dakota thanks to McCain ignoring the red states, but this is a far cry from the 50-state campaign he promised. That was supposed to be Obama's key advantage over Hillary, who was just going to re-run the 2004 election, only better. But barring a major shake-up in the race - and Obama has been doing everything to avoid that - it looks like Obama will have to play the 2004 game anyway.
As for Hillary winning him Ohio but losing him Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, or anywhere else, can anyone name an instance of a VP candidate having a negative effect on a particular state? The VP may drag down the ticket nationally (see Ferraro, Geraldine), but the idea that Iowa voters who like Obama will switch to McCain because he picked Hillary is absurd.
Have to disagree with your comment NJ_Moderate. A 269-269 win for obama is a disaster and would probably result in a huge swing back to the republicans over a 'stolen' election. A loss may be better for the party in the long run.
Wow.
A lot of pulling analysis out of the ass on this blog, isn't there?
It's already been said that there is little point in comparing August 2008 to August 2004, since August 2004 was during the post-convention bounce, and the Dem convention has yet to happen.
As for the rest of the arguments, most of them are idiocy like reading a two point swing in a week as somehow indicating the inevitable momentum for a certain candidate.
As for Clinton, she's not going to be the VP choice. That possibility went out the window when she said "hard-working, white Americans".
And Lieberman is not going to be McCain's choice. Too many Republicans work too hard to sit back and let him pick a non-Republican. This "unity ticket" nonsense happens every four years because the media love it, but it has nothing to do with the reality of how politics works.
As for Hillary winning him Ohio but losing him Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, or anywhere else, can anyone name an instance of a VP candidate having a negative effect on a particular state? The VP may drag down the ticket nationally (see Ferraro, Geraldine), but the idea that Iowa voters who like Obama will switch to McCain because he picked Hillary is absurd.
If it drags down the ticket nationally, its clearly going to have an impact in individual states. Some more than others.
A VP won't swing a state (for you or against you) by themself, but I do think that the pick can have a decisive impact in a state that is already very close.
I don't think that Hillary by herself would be enough to swing WA, IA or WI but she might make them closer than they should be.
Obama up by 8 in Harris Interactive poll. That poll isn't mentioned much here... is Harris pooh-poohed by the poll gurus here?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=941
@wimpy: Online poll.
"This Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between August 1 and 7, 2008 among 2,834 adults (aged 18 and over). "
We don't use online polls.
@whoever said: "Looking at the latest polls, McCain would win this election tomorrow. He is now ahead in every state Bush won in 2000"
Eh? Iowa? Obama is still up by 5 there. Bush won Iowa. Obama is taking it this year.
Wimpy: Harris is an online poll. We pooh-pooh all online polls. They show a consistent Obama bias, and aren't really very informative at all.
As much as I wish Obama was +8 nationally, there's no way in hell he gets that result unless McCain tries to strangle him at the first debate.
cj - Let's game out a voter's decision tree to see what effect the VP candidate should have:
If I approve of Candidate A but not Candidate B, then I do not care who A's VP is, I will vote for A regardless.
If I approve of both candidates (or disapprove of both), but approve only of A's VP, I will choose Candidate A, all else being equal. (In reality, other factors may be more compelling than the VP in breaking this tie.)
If I have equal views on the candidates AND equal views on their VPs, I decide on some other factor.
So the VP only affects voters who approve of both candidates or disapprove of both, and who approve of only one VP candidate, and where the VP choice is a compelling factor to them.
So the question is whether Hillary is more popular than McCain's potential VP and other potential Obama VPs among groups that equally like or dislike Obama and McCain. These voting groups are primarily
1) true independents (who like both Obama and McCain)
2) PUMAs (dislike both)
3) conservatives (dislike both)
Hillary clearly helps with PUMAs.
For conservatives, Obama could certainly find a VP more acceptable to conservatives than Hillary, but he almost certainly can't pick one more acceptable than McCain himself. And if a conservative rejects McCain, why would he embrace a less conservative Democrat? So this group is moot.
True independents remain, but they are not monolithic. Hillary did best with the working class, seniors, and rural folks in this group. Still, Obama could probably find a VP that was overall more attractive to independents.
However, can Obama find a VP that brings in more independents than Hillary brings in PUMAs? Independents are less likely than PUMAs to see the VP pick as a deciding factor. Plus, there may actually be more PUMAs than true independents.
Since there is little evidence that Hillary repels independents and some evidence she may help, if Obama wanted to maximize his expected vote given imperfect information he would choose the safer course of pocketing the PUMAs and choose Hillary over an independent-friendly VP that may or may not sway a larger number of independents.
michael>>We pooh-pooh all online polls<<
Okay. I see comments about underpolling younger people who have cell phones but not landlines. But increasingly cell phones are web-enabled. Seems like landlines skew older, internet skews younger. Maybe there's an optimum mix of the two.
Maxwell @ 10:18 PM said...
"Have to disagree with your comment NJ_Moderate. A 269-269 win for obama is a disaster and would probably result in a huge swing back to the republicans over a 'stolen' election. A loss may be better for the party in the long run."
Sorry folks, but either this is the definition of a concern troll - or the post is just plain 2 stoopid...
How can anyone digest this ? At least post it as an IMO, but still get real...
Did Rush or Hannity or Billo spout this nonsense ? It makes no sense, so maybe it is a typo ?
Maxwell, I do not recognize you as a troll so benefit of the doubt. What were you trying to explain ?
Are you saying that a loss would be better for WHICH party & in what way ? Like Gore's loss/stolen victory turned out to be a blessing for the DEMS - is that your model after 8 disasterous years of Bush trashing not only the USA but the entire world was a blessing in disguise ???
sorry, I am just incredulous. Maybe something got lost in translation ?
Darren @ 10:16 PM said...
"After months of excitement from the media and the Obama campaign about expandng the map, we're left with Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, and Michigan? The first 3 are perennial squeakers and Colorado was won twice by Bill Clinton, so all that's new is that Obama has a shot in Virginia and McCain in Michigan. Even that is no surprise given Virginia's changing demographics and Michigan's historical swing state status.
Obama might pull an upset in a periphery state like Montana or North Dakota thanks to McCain ignoring the red states, but this is a far cry from the 50-state campaign he promised."
------------------------------
Darren, that is sorta a short list of state you list above. You left out at least a dozen other states where Obama is already not only advertising heavily but also putting feet on the ground. You may not think they are in play, but the O team is in the game in AK, FL, NC, GA, MO, NH, NV, SD besides MT & ND and others [that is just off the top of my head at this late hour.
Obama of course will actually have different levels of intensity in every state [look he is even locking up sure thing Hawaii this week], but every state will get more attention than ever before. Approximately 18+/- states will receive the most but there will be bleed over & the national ads like the Olympics forcing McCain to match him. Think they bare sytopping there ? That alone proved they will mount a national campaign, but with some states of course getting extra attention.
GOP has won in modern times by cobbling the small states that have disproportionate EVs which count BIG in a close election [ask Gore about NH 4EV].
Obama can win by peeling off some RED 3, 4 & 5 EV vote states + IA + CO & then FL & OH are no longer deal breakers but gravy.
Do you trolls just think we can't read the state poll results to the right when you say McCain leads in every Bush 2004 state???
Other than Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico and New Hampshire, you are right, and Oh, is there one Kerry state McCain leads in???
answer: No
Is there one Bush state where McCain is NOT underperforming Bush?
answer: no
Is there one Kerry state where Obama is not equalling or outperforming Kerry?
Answer: no
f***king trolls...at least make up stiff not so easily checked on...
Oh, and can SOMEONE besides Scott "Mr. Republican" Rasmussen do some state polling?
Hillary Clinton for VP is not an instant fix.
What little polling there is shows her bringing in a few PUMA's and loosing a few Indipendants. There is NOT a strong case to be made from polls.
Ignoring the polls the case is poor. There is a stack of atacks available for the GOP for both Clintons. Her experience is nothing special, unless you include being Bill's wife.
Finaly who will believe that a Barack/Bill/Hillary team will be harmonius enough to get anything done? People ARE going to vote for the candidate that (they beleve) will get things done.
Kathleen Sebelius may well be the pick, and a good one because in the end "It is the economy stupid". She has a good rep for handling a budget(and after the primaries Hillary has a poor one).
Given the state of the board I would choose a 2% improvment in National Vote above 5% in a swing state, and I believe that is about what Kathleen has to offer (made up of femanists & fiscal conservatives).
But Kathleen has to be sold...
1) "No Woman but Hillary". I have never been convinced by this argument. It is only logical as an attack on potenial rivals.
The full argument goes "Choosing another woman would be an insult, choosing another man would be sexism, so choose anybody but Hillary at your peril.
There is an easy solution. Hillary must give her full support & blessing (or loose any chance of Super Delegate backing in 2012 or 2016).
2) Partial Birth Abortions. Gop has amunition here, just as they have for Obama. The current work in defining the DNC stand on choice may be just an attempt to define Obama, but it may also be for both of them.
The point is that Kathleen does not open up Barack to new attacks. Abortion is all the GOP have been able to find on her after 6 years in office!
3) Foreign affairs. Barack & Kathleen are both weak but the solution is not necesarily solved by choice of VP. If Barack unveils a top rate Expert for his team then that will do the trick just as well. I am betting that the Public would rather have a Presidency that focuses on the Economy rather than Georgia.
Colorado has a unique mix of environmentalists and evangelicals but I'd predict a McCain win there unless Barack has a sweeping victory nationwide.
Clinton carried CO in 1992 because Perot siphoned off lots of conservative votes. Clinton lost CO in 1996 though (when Perot was more minor).
NV will also go to McCain, especially if Romney is his running mate. NM is the most likely Western pickup for Obama.
For Obama,IA + VA = the new Ohio.
McCain will not hold all of the 2004 Bush states. Obama will hold all of the Kerry states (yes, even MI, albeit slightly). Obama will net IA + VA for a sqeaker win, which is all he needs. Anything more will be landslide territory.
This is why I can't worry about Obama or any of these "so called" polls.
Check the Gallup regional poll below (Reproduced from a Daily Kos diary).
Note: It mirrors their previous regional poll in July, and the previous Research 2000 national poll, which had similar regional results/breakdowns (which resulted into a 13pt national lead for Obama).
Gallup: McCain Continues Strong In the South, But Nowhere Else
by DemFromCT
Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:16:06 AM EST
Well, this is interesting. While the Gallup does its periodic undulation (McCain and Obama are now tied at 44%), the site also breaks down particulars.
For example:
Candidate Support by "Red," "Purple," and "Blue" States
Aug 4-10 (last week) Obama McCain
Red states 40 (41) 49 (48)
battleground/purple states 47 (46) 41 (42)
Blue states 54 (49) 35 (39)
and the fascinating
Candidate Support by Region
Aug 4-10 (last week) Obama McCain
East 51 (46) 38 (41)
Midwest 50 (46) 38 (42)
South 40 (42) 50 (48)
West 50 (47) 40 (42)
Here's the Research 2000 topline number, with breakdowns and electoral counts after.
Research 2000 for media clients. 7/25-27. Likely voters. MoE 3% (No trend lines)
McCain (R) 39
Obama (D) 51
Barr (L) 3
Nader (I) 2
DEMOGRAPHICS:
Men 516 (47%)
Women 584 (53%)
Democrats 407 (37%)
Republicans 276 (25%)
Independents 320 (29%)
Other/Refused 97 (9%)
White 792 (72%)
Black 154 (14%)
Latino 143 (13%)
Other/Ref 11 (1%)
18-29 209 (19%)
30-44 352 (32%)
45-59 308 (28%)
60+ 231 (21%)
Northeast 242 (22%)
South 331 (30%)
Midwest 297 (27%)
West 230 (21%)
Research 2000's electoral college projection as of July 27 is:
Obama 322
McCain 216
Remember R2000 is one of the best pollsters this season (and note that RCP does not include this poll in their average).
How is it possible that Obama could lead in the East, midwest and west, and be down 7 in the south, and be tied in the latest Gallup poll? It makes no sense!
It's obvious (as Pollster.com has indicated), that the Gallup poll is weighted towards Republican demographics. Because by these numbers, Obama should be up by at least 6%, with equal ratings of regions.
Most of the current polls are shams, and all the Good ones (proper demographics, etc.), are either excluded or forgotten.
No wonder Chuck Todd says, that Obama's people are very happy with their internal polling.
MSL
August 16, 2008 1:04 PM
Hey Darren. Here's what you said earlier.
"As for Hillary winning him Ohio but losing him Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, or anywhere else, can anyone name an instance of a VP candidate having a negative effect on a particular state? The VP may drag down the ticket nationally (see Ferraro, Geraldine), but the idea that Iowa voters who like Obama will switch to McCain because he picked Hillary is absurd".
Ok. If you believe what you just said, conversely speaking, "can Hillar as a VP pick, really bring Obama Ohio"?
Think about it. The logic works both ways.
Also I think Obama will win both Michigan and Ohio. I wouldn't even be suprised if Michigan was a little tougher than Ohio (I know that's suprising to most, but it wouldn't be by much, and remember, the democrats are having a lot of problems in MIch). But the conditions in the states, along with democratic leadership, will push it over for Obama.
Remember McCain supporters, when Bush won Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, he had GOP governors, secretaries of State and K.Rove, screwing things ups.
This time, things will be in the democrats favor.
tomthress said...
Actually, Bush won New Hampshire, which Obama's led in the polls consistently. But NH is only 4 Electoral Votes, so that'd still be a win for McCain, although by the narrowest margin possible, 270-268.
BUSH LOST NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2004, HE WON IT IN 2000.
Hey Mrinsight.
It's not 1992 my friend (ala McCain).
Colorado is changing, the country is changing, while McCain is changing (but unfortunately for him, not for the good).
But most importanly. The democratic convention is in Colorado. Why do you think the Obama campaign wanted his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 (I know the media/pundits tell us, its because of Obama vanity). No! The reason why he's speaking there, is to recruit 50,000 more "juiced" volunteers from the state of Colorado, to register/get out the vote dozens more of their fellow Coloradians.
Obama will win Colorado, barring any "game changing" scenarios.
Write it down!
According to the Obama supporters on here, they got:
Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and New Hampshire in the bank....
Good Luck..... You guys are awful confident in winning like you were in 2004....
Like many have noted: John Kerry was up by a larger margin on this date in August than Obama is winning now.
Final Result: See Inauguration in January 2005.
Hey Michael.
I think Obama "got", Colorado, Ohio, Michigan and New Hampshire and New Mexico , Minnesota and Iowa (the last three you didn't mention)".
I think Obama has a good chance in Virginia, but it depends what's happening on the ground, and the registration polling is not picking up.
Nevada will be tough, but I wouldn't be suprised if it stayed red (or flipped).
Also, don't forget about Montana and Alaska. I wouldn't be suprised either way with those two states.
Lastly.
Stop lying.
Kerry never polled as well as Obama did in 2004. Right now Obama's electoral vote/polling ranges from 285-350 (2-6%).
Everyone knew that Kerry was going to have a squeaker and rarely polled over 2 or three percent.
I think you should be really worried about the regional polls, which show that Obama's crushing McCain in three regions of the country, and McCain is merely leading in the south.
The second question you should ask yourself is (besides how/why), "how's it possible for Obama to be up so largely in three regions of the country, but be in a close race". The answer, is because "he's not".
Once any of the pollsters have to expose their internals, it's easy to see (if anyones paying attention), where this election is going, besides any tomfoolery, or horse-race-like coverage.
I guess another question that McCain supporters, will have to deal with after the eleciton is, "why is it McCain can't crack 45%, win a poll, or take a big lead in one"? That's the real question. McCain's range is limited from 38%-45%, and he never took a lead (except from that bogus/debunked Gallup poll, and a Fox poll).
But Obama has had numeous polls (yes I said numerous) where he's cracked 50% and has ran up leads of up to 15% against McCain.
When/where has McCain ever run up any type of lead, or big lead on Obama? That's the question that McCain supporters shoul ask themselves.
That's how you know where this election is going. But the media (and McCain supporters) conveniently always seems to forget about this stuff.
When have you ever seen a poll, where McCain is up 6, 13, 15, 8, 9, 12, etc, etc, etc.
There's a reason for that McCain supporters. And you will all find out during the election.
McCain has a very low ceiling!
---"Like many have noted: John Kerry was up by a larger margin on this date in August than Obama is winning now.
Final Result: See Inauguration in January 2005"
Actually you once again have no clue what your talking about. However, you follow the RepublioCon motto og if you say a lie long enough some idiots, as yourself will believe it. In 2004 from August to Nov only one state changed and it worth 5 EV's. Bush was always and consistently ahead in Fla, OH. The states that decided it.
On August 16, 2004, Kerry was leading in states worth 327 electoral votes on electoral-vote.com, including FL, MO, WV, and OH. He ended up losing back a net of states worth 65 electoral votes by election day 2004.
Today on electoral-vote.com, Obama is only leading in states worth 275electoral votes. That should terrify Obamaphiles, given the historical tendency of Dem nominees to lose projected electoral votes between August and November. Since 1976, that has happened in every year except 1992 (and possibly 2000 of which I'm not sure).
Hey Mrlnsight22.
Electoral-vote.com is notorious for using their latest poll, to tabulate their electoral counts.
You can do better than that. Secondly, I couldn't find the Kerry numbers, but I'll take your word for it. Which is what happned now.
You may want to try a more stable site or polls. But I'm sure when the next batch of polls come in and the move Obama up +50 points, you want be pointing that poll out anymore.
I just find it interesting that If Obama leads convincingly with blacks, Latino's, Christians, women, youth, 50-65yr olds, whites making under $27,000, and the Eastern, WEstern, and Mid-western regions. How does John McCain win this election. He can't!
He would need to win over 70% of the white vote, and so far he's not polling no where close to that with the white vote (McCain).
All these various polls, better get their internals to match up with their top line numbers better.
Because the internals are just not looking good for McCain.
Just think about that?
---"According to the Obama supporters on here, they got:
Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and New Hampshire in the bank...."
You people take pride in being ignorant. OH and Fla don't matter, they are icecream on the Sundae.
Obama will win all Kerry states 2004 which is 252 EV's.
IA is a flip to Obama=259EV's
Since 2004 IA has gone from +4400 registered Voters from Rep to +90,200 for Dems(July 2008 IA board of elections numbers). Party ID is +5% dems. Obama has a huge ground forces, won the caucus while McCain came in 3rd and has few forces there. McCain has conceded IA. Obama is up comfortably with the correct party ID which rasmussen isn;t doing as has been shown before.
NM is a flip to Obama=264EV's
Dems have +17 Party ID in NM(according to NM board of elections). Pollsters such as SurveuUSA are using +12 Party ID and showing Obama +3 to +6. With the correct party ID Obama has a high single digits lead in NM. Btw, Obama is winning Hispanics overwhelmingly and Rasmussen and others are cutting Hispanicss in their demographics which is funny since Hispanics turned out huge in the primaries.
Now let's look at CO.
Rep advantage in voters dropped by 50,000 since 2004 to 2008. They have just +4 advantage and the independents have increased to 35% CO has had influx of Hispanics and , they are 15% of voters..Obama is winning them 2:1, CO.
Now lets go to NV.(
Since 2004 NV has gone from Rep +4400 to Dems +55,560. Dems now have +5 in Party ID. Hispanics are over 20% of the electorate and Obama is winning them overwhemingly.
Btw here are the Margins of Bush wins in these states.
NM 5,988
IA 10,059
NV 21,500
CO 99,523
Kerry ran out of money by his own admition and vut campaigning in NM, CO, NV, to bet the farm on OH and Fla. Money is not going to be a proble mfor Obama and he has overwhelmingly ground support in all these states.
Btw, VA and IN are in play. IN is even and McCain refuses to open offices to defend it. Obama has 15-20 offices open. IN NW corridor is part of the chicago media market and heavy Democrat area. There is ahuge voter drive going on and ground roots efforts. Living In Chicago there have been numerous articles from IN journalist saying Dem voter turnout is going to be huge b/c it's the first time in 30 years Dems have actually cared about IN. People turned out low for ems in the past b/c the state was never contested so people were lackluster in turnout. IN is going to be close.
VA is a highly likely flip. The Voter registration drive is huge. Obama is going to register more new voters than Bush's margin. Now, the historic avertage for new registered coters is 65% turnout. VA demographics are also more favorable eith huge expnasion of the em leaning N. Virginia outside of DC, the state has 3 popular Dems to campign for Obama.
Obama is going to flip IA, NM, NV defintely. VA and CO are highly likely and IN is going to be nail biter.
MrInsight22,
You do realize that Kerry only lead in a poll in MO once and that was in Zogby 5/23/2004
Kerry lead in 3 polls of WV all of 2004 and none after July.
Kerry lead in less than 1/4 of the polls in 2004. And outside the margin just twice in Quinnipiac polls. Bush was consistently ahead and outside the margin of error.
Ohio was nevr outside the Margin for anyone. A true toss up in 2004.
The myth of Kerry having a big lead is the bioggest bunch of RepubliCon garbage. Ofcourse, it follows the motto, if your repeat a lie long enough some people will believe it.
otf, that was an interesting analysis. I think the take on CO may be a bit optimistic, but there enough other states in play to cover that.
And, it's true that the PID (D/R ratios) have been skewed terribly. The pollsters seem stuck in 2004 for some reason, and all of the Republican analysts seem to be there with them. I am reasonably confident, as you seem to be, that he picture is much better for Obama than the polling paints it.
Much has changed since 2004. The Iraq occupation is not nearly as potent a weapon for the GOP as it was. Many people were still giving the Republicans the benefit of a doubt on the economy back then. No longer. Evangelical support has softened in deeply qualitative ways since then. Most significantly, however, is that the Republicans have lost the status of the default "patriotic" Party, which they could use to edge so many undecideds to their candidate. The issues of vote manipulation and caging have seen spotty improvement - better in some states than in others.
In any case, the newly-acquired Democratic voter data will be a formidable advantage in the mid-terms.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
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,
^^ 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,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment