I have to confess that I'm having a hell of a time figuring out what to make of the post-convention polling.
Undoubtedly, the Republican convention has produced a bounce in John McCain's direction. This is nothing especially unusual. Almost all conventions do so, and in most (though not all) cases, the bounce evaporates at some point in the following weeks.
But some of the internal numbers in the polls really throw one for a loop. For example, take a look at these numbers from the new USA Today / Gallup poll. John McCain has moved into a 4-point lead in their registered voter numbers, and a 10-point lead in their likely voter numbers. I do not find the latter number especially credible, as the Gallup likely voter model is infamous for overstating the effects of short-term shifts in enthusiasm. Nevertheless, even sticking with the registered voter numbers, John McCain has received a pretty decent-sized bounce.
And yet, when this same poll asked voters whether the Republican convention had made them more or less likely to vote for John McCain, the results were fairly tepid. Just 43 percent responded with "more likely" as compared to 38 percent who said "less likely". That +5 score would make the GOP convention one of the least successful conventions in recent memory, trailing only the 2004 Republican convention which scored at a +3.
Could it be the Sarah Palin factor -- irrespective of the events of the convention itself? Certainly, this seems like it must be part of the story. But, as I've documented here, while Palin receives an unusually high number of strongly favorable ratings, she also received an unusually high number of unfavorable ratings. Gallup shows her at a +8 in terms of her effect of likelihood of voting for GOP ticket, not much different than Joe Biden's +7 (although with much higher numbers expressing an opinion on either side, as opposed to people who say her selection makes no difference).
My horse sense is that the numbers are affected to some degree to response bias. Republicans, especially evangelical conservatives, are pumped now, after having been indifferent toward John McCain for most of the election cycle. They may be picking up the phone when a pollster calls when they had been screening out the call before, perhaps to the extent that they are biasing the sample. In a recent SurveyUSA poll that asked people who had seen both McCain and Obama's convention speeches to rate the candidates on various issues, the partisan identification of the sample actually tilted Republican by a couple of points. Perhaps that is a consequence of the Republican and Democratic conventions having received roughly equal television ratings, but perhaps it is also a reflection of response bias.
On the other hand, while the most recent round of polls may be overshooting the mark, I am also reminded of something called the Shy Tory Factor, a phenomenon observed in the early 1990s in British elections in which conservative voters (Tories) had tended to be underrepresented in pre-election polling, perhaps owing to response bias. It seems plausible to me that some segment of conservative Republican voters had effectively been in hiding from the pollsters, either embarrassed by the performance of George W. Bush (and therefore disengaged from politics), or embarrassed to disclose to pollsters that they support him. Suddenly, with the selection of Palin, there has been a jolt of energy within this group, a release of pent-up frustrations, and they are coming out of the woodwork. If this is the case, then perhaps the partisan composition of the electorate had never shifted as much from 2004 as it has appeared to; rather, the conservatives were either reluctant to identify themselves as Republican, or reluctant to take a pollster's calls in the first place.
This is just a theory, and by no means necessarily the most likely explanation for the recent shift in the polling. On the contrary, I sense that the McCain bounce is more broad than it is deep, and will probably dissipate to some degree in the near future. At the same time, I'm not sure that the +10's and +12's the Democrats had been pulling in partisan ID advantage weren't in part an artifact of polling methodology, and more a reflection of shifts in enthusiasm than actual changes in ideology.
9.08.2008
Response Bias and the Shy Tory Factor
by Nate Silver @ 9:16 AM...see also methodology, party identification, response bias
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

494 comments
McCain is sooo John Major.
So much for the Great Obama Landslide. I think this may look like 1988, even.
My theory is people had their minds made up that they were going to vote for McCain all along and are only now admitting it. Sorry, libs.
This is still a Republican Country.
It isn´t a Republican Country.
It´s a canter-right country, that is the difference.
Clinton won by a landslide twice but he was a centrist.
The problem is the left who destroyed the Dems.
I can't wait to hear VC crying like a little baby after his candidate gets his ass handed to him by the uppity negro.
Response bias seems likely.
This is why we need to watch polls in CO, OH, VA and NV closely. If they're moving McCain it's time to make a big move on Obama's part.
What it would mean is that the GOP really hasn't lost all those voters they had, they've just decided to hop on the GOP ticket.
Obama then needs a strategic shift heavily negative against PALIN (the reason for all this excitement). Or kick Biden off the ticket and steal the show with Hillary as VP (with the added advantage of taking Arkansas).
I wish we had the internals to see what's going on in the important states and not just these crappy national polls. This could be mean the election if we're slow to appreciate this for a major "structural shift."
I think the Shy Tory problem probably does exist here, at least with respect to polling. I wonder though if those evangelicals will actually show up at the polls at a rate that matches their poll response. Basically, if they're excited about Palin and not McCain, will they go vote for McCain? Or are they content to tell pollsters that they like Palin and then stay at home.
Also, aren't there just as many displaced students and voters without landline phones as there are shy evangelicals? We may now be seeing the preferences of those evangelicals coming out post-Palin, but we still aren't seeing the preferences young and wireless voters. Those groups should vote overwhelmingly democratic, and may well cancel out the now-reported evangelical conservative respondents.
" I can't wait to hear VC crying like a little baby after his candidate gets his ass handed to him by the uppity negro."
LOL you're delusional. People had their mind made up all along--they're voting for McCain. They're using Palin and the convention as an excuse. This country isn't going to elect a loony leftist. The 60s aren't coming back, libs. Get over it and try to win sometime.Maybe if you didn't hate and detest 55% of the American electorate you could actually do that.
Someone commented on another blog that the "likely voter" sample in the USA/Gallup poll was 40% Republican, 28% Democrat and 32% I. If so, that might explain the 10 point lead for McCain. Those %'s don't seem representative of the likely voter population at all. Nate, any comments on this?
I keep hearing this silly revisionism for Clinton once again. Let's clear this up. Clinton only received 43 percent of the vote in 1992, he won due to PEROT. He wasn't anything special, he wasn't even the most interesting candidate in the election. In 1996 he did better, with 49 percent, but far fewer voters than Gore or Kerry and running as an incumbent.
This may, in fact, still be a conservative/center right country that needs a big surge of Democratic voters to win this.
If that's the case. this isn't the time for subtle measures, it's time for a 2 month relentless siege on Palin (not McCain as he isn't the problem) or put Hillary on the ticket.
Or go with what you have, and hope she's just a blip on the radar and better organization and AA turnout will win this in OH, VA and CO.
Thanks for updating/changing the state graphics, the new ones are snazzy.
VC, Lyndon Johnson was right-wing compared to Obama.
All you guys needed was a single this year and you swung for the fences.
Joe Biden will make such a great loser, though.
Or kick Biden off the ticket and steal the show with Hillary as VP
Well, Bill and Barack are having lunch together on September 11.
I find the comment by Virginia Conservative particularly offensive. I am a democrat and this is my country too! It is NOT a republican country. Your comment is EXACTLY why we need change in this country. Divide, not unite is more of the same. Ugh!
Maybe he will say it´s a center-right country.
Jackson...
And both men know Hillary as VP Obama can't help but win the election.
No, it's not following precedent, but neither was choosing Palin.
Palin was a desperation pick and first indications all are looking like it was a gamble that may have won the Presidency absent another big play by Obama.
Let's not forget that the news media has been folowing the HRC and BHO POTUS campaigns since 2007. They have lost focus that neither candidate was campaigning against the other's ideas.
Now that there is another otpion on policy, the polls moved a lot more than anyone, myself included, expected.
Next will be withering dissection of BHO's leftist connections, and the Bill Ayers American Terrorist is going to be huge. The pain has just begun.
Realistically, what are the chances that we see the Dem gloves come off? I would love nothing more than to finally see the aggressive, ish-kickin' Obama come out swinging. I'm also thinking this Fannie/Freddie stuff should be a nice reminder that yes, America, your economy is still kinda trashed.
VC is getting more repugnant by the day. I would ignore his/her posts at this point.
"Realistically, what are the chances that we see the Dem gloves come off? I would love nothing more than to finally see the aggressive, ish-kickin' Obama come out swinging."
Don't hold your breath. Dems are wimps in campaigning, and this year is no exception.
Any idea why Gallup Tracking produces such wild swings compared to Rasmussen tracking, which never seems to move more than a point or two in either direction in a single day?
Rasmussen:
McCain 48
Obama 47
Interesting that Rasmussen shows (so far) less of a lead than Gallup. Perhaps this is because of party ID weighing? You'd imagine that the number of identified Republicans has gone up in teh last week, but Rasmussen hasn't adjusted for that. Which makes sense, since that number would fall down back to soem baseline later.
GOP ID has fallen off a cliff thanks to Bush. But those voters didn't die off. This gets tot he heart of what response bias may be showing.
A) It could over represent real McCain support with excited GOP;
B) It may have given all those lost GOP a reason for lassie to come home. ...If it's Lassie coming home, the Democrats have to do better than 2004 levels in Bush states Obama has *up until Palin* been doing well in.
VC, meet reality. Reality, VC.
Since the 2006 elections (remember how those turned out?) more than 2 million Democrats have been added to voter rolls in the 28 states that register voters according to party affiliation. The Republicans have lost nearly 344,000 thousand voters in the same states.
Perhaps its time conservatives started basing their opinions on something other than their guts.
The call screening thing must have some effect. I know I won't talk to ANYONE who calls. Those few times they get through only confirms the invasive quality of this experience.
Actually, I once was the victim of wrong caller ID (it's a sordid tale with an autodialer on the loose) and what was interesting was how many immigrants and older people call back any number that appears on their call display. These people are wanting to talk to anyone and are probably over represented - let's hope by a lot! - now that they have Sarah Darling to talk about.
But that said, Obama needs to tighten his focus on the voter and let go of a few mannerisms that just don't work on TV.
Rasmussen,
McCain up by 1.
Yes, it looks like it's because of party weighing:
For a variety of reasons, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll is less volatile than some other polls and always shows a somewhat smaller convention bounce than reported by others. This is primarily because we weight our results by party identification (see methodology). Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008.
You won the 2006 elections by nominating conservative Democrats.
This year you have a leftist running nationally who can't campaign competently.
The base is coming home, and it's going to wipe the floor with the Messiah.
I guess a lot of Democrats must like McCain/Palin since he got a 12 point surge. A higher potential than Obama, huh?
just out--
per ras,
m 48
o 47
Conservatives don't care about America, they care about power. They'll use patriotism as a tool to obtain power, but that's all it is to them.
Let's look at VC. He admits that nearly half the country (45% by his estimation) is liberal. Yet he, like the current morons in charge, sees power as a zero-sum game. Screw you, 45%, because we have 100% of power! Wheeee!
Until we Democrats learn to bludgeon them the same way they bludgeon us, we will have a hard time winning. We need to stop worrying about being 'fair', because being 'fair' quickly turns into 'getting beat up' when you're the only one worried about 'fairness'.
I believe Barack Obama is regrouping and will hit back hard. If I'm wrong, we need to seriously assess our willingness to fight in the gutter with conservatives. I'm ready.
We need to let a little time pass and see what the post-convention electoral info is. Is this bounce in swings? Or solids?
It's so much fun to watch Nate squirm to explain away everything positive for McCain/Palin, and put the brightest spin he can on anything Obama/Biden.
I do not trust his analysis at all because of the extreme partisanship of his blogging. Do you?
McCain/Palin will win by 10 points in the popular vote, and will get over 300 electoral votes. That's my prediction. Any the left will be left scratching their heads again ;0
Uh-Oh!!! McCain is only up 1 in Ras!! Oh noeees!11!!11! Better have Caribou Barbie go shoot a moose or something, since Johnny Two-Face always seems to do better when her designer glasses fill the media...
This thread is like a liberal's stereotype of a political discussion.
The liberals are all using evidence, reason and lots of numbers.
And the conservative is sharing his feelings, and repeating statements with no support.
It's not called the reality-based community for nothing, I guess.
Nothing on voter ID. Nothing on registration trends. Nothing on Likely Voter models. Just feelings.
Once Ras re-weights in October you won't be able to hold onto those numbers, either.
Again, McCain got the bigger bounce. Means he will win, more likely than not. =)
jblueep - Nate's methodology is pretty transparent.
2006 wasn't about conservative Democrats. All Democrats won. It only appears that conservative Dems won as the conservative Dems we normally run in Red states actually won in 06 thanks to horrible conditions for the GOP.
Heres my data Joe--+10 in USA Today Poll. Twelve points swing. A surge in the Gallup poll. Obama's campaign panicking. Liberals already whining about voter purges and diebold machiens and "Rovian" tactics. The more liberals whine about that, the worse they're doin!
Anecdotal-ly, my leaning-Republican friends and family are seriously jazzed up by both McCain's performance at Saddleback coupled with Sarah Palin. These two "performances" on McCain's part are all my Republican-leaning friends and family are talking about, and all attempts to point out Obama's Saddleback pluses and Sarah Palin's weaknesses are just falling on deaf ears.
These Republican-leaning people I know all were eager to jump on board the McCain campaign...they just were looking for a reason. They now have them so they are in the for the long-haul.
My fear is now that McCain has the base in the bag, he can now swing for the Independents with new-found freedom and energy...
Last week the USA Today/Gallup and the Gallup tracker used the same data. Is that true this week as well? Does anyone know?
The resumption of state polling can't come soon enough.
Not sure why people who are embarrassed by the Bush Presidency would somehow feel vindicated to vote for McCain now that Palin is on the ticket...none of us really know anything about her.
She delivered a nice speech during the convention...but she didn't get into any specifics and the speech mostly consisted of Obama bashing and biographical info.
I think it just goes to show you that most of the country votes based on who they are comfortable with or who they relate to as opposed to who they think is the most qualified person for the job. Both sides seem to be guilty of this to a degree.
Response bias doesn't work that way... people don't know a pollster is calling before they answer. It's also unlikely their willingness to talk to a pollster changes. That's conceivable for political junkies, but for the vast majority of the electorate, politics just isn't a that big a part of their lives -- a pollster might as well be a telemarketer for some people, regardless of their attitude toward a candidate.
For what it's worth, pollsters generally have formulas for adjusting for non-response. It's virtually impossible to gauge how good these are, but at a minimum they adjust for demographic discrepancies in response bias (e.g., party, gender, etc).
You right wing nut jobs should stop stroking each other and wait until next week until the polls settle before you pop the corks and celebrate.
The more I follow Gallop's numbers, the less confidence I have in them. Rasmussen has shown throughout the primaries that they understand the dynamics of the country this year. While I am suspicious of the fact that they have increased their weighting towards the Republicans twice this summer, I feel that they have had a better pulse on the race. I think Gallop is out of step this election cycle. Their numbers just do not support the anecdotal evidence around the country. We'll have a better idea of where the race stands once the state polling starts.
Liberal, we got the bigger bounce. Remember, Nate said bounces show your potential. Well, Obama's potential tops out at 50% or so and McCain's is around 54%. Sucks for you, don't it?
The more/less likely results are probably a result of response bias too. If a pollster called me or any of my friends and asked if I was more or less likely to vote for McCain after his speech I would've said a million times less likely. We would say anything we could to cast McSame in a bad light. But if asked about tendency to vote for Obama after his speech and your average WASP Republican would probably say "I wasn't planning on voting for him anyway."
A lot more progressive Democrats won in swing districts than conservative Dems in red districts in 2006. The latter got more press because of the man-bites-dog element.
I'm sure the conservatives will put some thought into whether Republicans will actually have an 8 point turnout advantage, in a year when Democrats have gained at a +3 million net gain in registration nationwide, any time now.
It's cute to see people get so excited about the topline, though.
Obama-Biden ticket is likely to recieve 243ev
CA
CT
DC
DE
HI
IA
IL
MA
MD
ME
MN
NJ
NM
NY
OR
PA
RI
VT
WA
WI
McCain-Palin is likely to recieve 189ev
AK
AL
AR
AZ
GA
ID
IN
KS
KY
LA
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
OK
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
WV
WY
Looking at the Tossup states.
CO,FL,MI,MO,NH,NV,OH,and VA.
The lean Obama- tossup states are
MI
NH
264ev
The lean McCain- tossup states are
FL
MO
NV
232ev
The tossup states are CO,OH,and VA.
Heres my data Joe--+10 in USA Today Poll.
*chuckle*
That's so cute. Oh, look, the top line looks better than I'd ever dreamed! I think I'll just stop reading now.
If you wanna talk "ground game" all the evangelicals are excited and revved up now. They will turnout in DROVES, just like 2004. They're much more likely to do so than the youth vote which may vote, you know, if it's like not raining, and after some video games...maybe...if they feel like it.
Not really, considering a VP choice was made directly after the convention and a possible Cat 4 Hurricane was on the way. The hype of the Dem convention was short lived.
Like I said. I'd wait until next week until things settle down. You're just making yourself look like a fool now if you continue on.
As far as what chances do we have to see Obama take the gloves off?
Pretty darn good.
Obama is going to do what this takes. If it means bumping Biden off ticket to shake things up, he'll make it happen (Clinton willing).
If it means a dramatic shift in highly negative ads against Palin, he'll do that as well.
My guess why we haven't seen a big reaction from Obama is due to his patience and reliance for empirical data. They're hashing over the same stuff we are, but on a district by district analysis with some focus grouping for good measure.
Obama ran because of favorable conditions in the electorate, ie, terrible GOP enthusiasm and falling voter party ID. His people are assessing how Palin has changed that, if at all, in the few states that really matter.
They don't over react...and haven't so far. But, trust me, they'll do what it takes to win this. They have amazing number crunchers and Obama is not going to lose this dignified. If he goes down it will be swinging and with guns a'blazing.
Keep dreaming and thinking that one of the most respected polls in the country is just way, way off and Obama is really in the lead. Because it has to be.
After you lose Joe maybe you can take it to the streets and show the corporate ma$ter$ at Diebold and Halliburton that they can't steal another election!
If Nate's Shy Tory theory is true, I would expect to see a post-convention "bounce" in Bush's approval numbers as well. That may be something to look at.
Guys, McCain is having a great week but hold on. he's not going to win by 10 points LOL. The election will still be fairly close but it appears McCain has the lead and the Momentum for the first time. Lets wait and see what Obama's failing campaign does. Maybe he'll grow a back bone and do something bold. Who knows.
I think some of you are getting a little to over-zelous. We should know by next week the state of the race.
Strange I had been thinking about this for a while.
In 92 the tories had tried to soften their nasty image with a new more centrist leader.
The Labour Party were winning lesser elections left right and centre, winning in places thought impossible but
They had an imperfect candidate, someone who could lose, the labour candidate went for glitz and glamour and Major went about the country on his soap box [really an actual box] playing the media are all against me card.
Also the Tories ran a virulent campaign with a couple of basic lies about Labour tax policies. the charge stuck.
the Tories cleverly encouraged some of the more aggressive media against them, the soap box was majors way of allowing the 'red' element of labour to make as much noise as possible, reminding voters of what they didnt like and what kinnock had tried to sweep under the carpet.
People were unwilling to admit voting tory, it was like admitting you had piles, but come to the crunch the people saw the opposition and said no thanks.
Any of this sound familiar?
On the other hand when the country decided they had had enough of the tories in 97 the swing of the country against them was massive with the equivelent of Texas going Labour and a number of seats were won by tactical voting, Liberals voting Labour, Labour supporters voting liberal - all to unseat the tory MP. Well beyond what the opinion polls said.
It's so much fun to watch jblueeep complain in his comments anytime he sees something that does not put the brightest spin on anything McCain/Palin.
I do not trust his unfounded, unsupported rantings at all because of the extreme partisanship of his comments. Do you?
Barr will win by 10 points in the popular vote, and will get over 300 electoral votes. That's my unsupported, unrealistic, pull-it-out-of-my-ass prediction. And then the left and right will be left scratching their heads.
talking about voter caging, throwing people off the rolls because their name rhymes with a felon somewhere, and rigging the vote with machines that are proven to be unsecurable is not whining. It's accurate observation about the deterioration of our democracy.
See, you can't even bring yourself to discuss things like party ID in likely voter models.
You're bringing a knife to a gunfight. Did you spend May through the end of the Republican convention talking about how "one of the most respected polls in the country" didn't show a Republican lead for four consecutive months, VC? Why, no, you talked about how far off the polling was.
Of course, unlike Nate, you never actually had any plausible evidence or reasons. Just your feelings, as usual.
+1 in Rasmussen...I guess Gallup might show a +4 or even +5 for McCain because of a weak first McCain bounce day falling out of the numbers, but it seems that most of the bounce phase is over. If Nate´s idea is correct Obama will know what he has to do: connect McCain and Bush on every single occasion. The Democrats need to use George Bush like the Republicans tried to use Hillary Clinton and divide those that might vote for McCain out of tradition from the Bush-fanatics.
I however, would also not underestimate the sheep-voter, voters that change their minds depending on what they see on the television, like a herd they follow the loudest voice. I know that sounds elitist, but it is happening once again. And the Republican trolls know this and yell as loud as they can to intimidate those people that are on the fence, ignoring all those "liberal" things like reason, evidence, or logic.
A four month unbroken summer lead gets you jack squat. What matters is the fall campaign. And the Republicans are good closers, and Democrats (especially Obama look at the primary) are TERRIBLE closers.
It's funny, VC, up until now I've thought you a good barometer of the person on the other side of the fence from me, and I've regularly sought out your commentary. Now that you smell blood in the water, you're turning into one of your compatriots. Thanks for revealing your true colors.
I'm not sure how much should be made of the "more likely" or "less likely" to vote because of the convention numbers. At least, it doesn't seem to make sense to do a direct comparison of those numbers with the obama/mccain numbers. Isn't it possible, say, that democrats who wouldn't have voted mccain anyway would say it is less likely while both repubs and independents said more likely? Or whatever - the point is, these "more/less" likely polls don't account for whether the respondents are already going to vote in the way they are now "more" likely to vote.
Virginia Conservative -
Nothing for you to ejaculate over yet.
It's been the same since spring.
The most recently exposed candidate gets an advantage, but Obama gets a bigger advantage when he's the most recently exposed, and suffers less when he isn't.
Obama usually runs ahead, but McCain came close to even when Obama went on vacation.
Obama went up to eight or nine points ahead in Gallup after his convention, McCain went up to a lesser four point lead in Gallup, so far, after his.
It's always fairly close, but always clear advantage Obama. It has been for months now.
The US isn't remotely a right wing country at this point, and rarely has been. It's a mainly rather liberal country with a minority rural right wing area in the former confederacy and the western states with significant Mormon populations (the rest of the inland west is simply volatile, with all extremes fairly represented). That homogenous southern block has enabled the Republicans to control the presidency a bit more than expected since 1980.
Other than the peculiar politics of the deep south, Utah, and Idaho (the former of which has not historically been characterized by hatred of federal spending, but which merely seems to hate certain other things more), there isn't much difference between the attitudes of Americans and those of Canadians or Australians.
That's about it. Obama will probably win, McCain has a decent but modest chance based on data so far, and if McCain wins, it will be a most Pyrrhic victory.
There's only one way for you guys to win.
Dump Biden and bring on Hillary.
I agree there is a Palin Effect.
I think there were a lot of voters who were actually fairly tepid in their support of Obama, him being a neophyte with a cool hauteur and remoteness about him that did not resonate with their concerns.
Still, they did not want more of the same and all things being equal, would vote for him rather than continue the perceived status quo.
Just as many thought it would, the Palin selection caused many voters to give a second, and in some cases a first, look to the Republican ticket.
What they are seeing they like: a pair of maverick reformers who can really bring about the kind of freshness and change that Obama only talks about.
McCain and Palin got huge audiences at the RNC and a lot of voters liked what they heard.
Obama has always been at best a dubious proposition. He himself has noted the improbable nature of his candidacy.
The Plain Effect has arisen and it is now peeling off votes from Obama, many of those tepid supporters and fence sitters.
This is no mere Convention Bounce engendered by the publicity of an event and a “bandwagon” effect. Rather the Palin pick has structurally changed the game and has now for the first time put McCain on offense with a pretty clear path to victory: Experienced Change.
I can't wait till Virginia CONsevative gets banned...
A four month unbroken summer lead gets you jack squat.
While polling the weekend after a convention, on the other hand, is the gold standard of political prognostication.
Still no comment on that +8 Republican voter ID in the poll, eh? Gee, what a shocker.
Feeeeeeeeelingsssss. Nothing more than...
You won the 2006 elections by nominating conservative Democrats.
Like Obama.
If Nate's theory is right, the difference between election day 2006 and today isn't who the Democrats are running, it's how ashamed Republicans are of their party. Right now, the shame seems to be at low ebb--Palin gave a red-meat speech, and besides it's been two years since the Republican leadership was caught sheltering a child molester.
People who think this is a republican country have never spent five minutes outside of their stupid red state suburbs. There are these big giant things with lots and lots of people in them called cities where people vote democrat, read books, enjoy the arts, don't believe that a magical Jewish sky man will save them when they die, etc.
Now Harold, don't go talking sense to a conservative. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Let 'em squeal for now. Then worry about how to deal with at least 4 years of never-ending attacks on President Obama by the children of the right.
Hey bede, the last time the Democrat candidate got over 50% of the popular vote was 1976. So yes, this is a Republican Country.
I think we're in danger of overthinking this right now. I'll let the folks who know a lot more about stuhtisticks than I do argue about the sampling.
I'll just go on the experience of being involved in and following Generals for a long time.
General Election polls aren't measuring the liklihood of a particular batter successfully (with the definition of "success" defined in part by the situation of the game) striking or judging the flight of a ball thrown at all times from 60 feet, 6 inches away at an elevation of 10 inches over a plate 17 inches wide and 20.5 inches deep (with sides both perpendicular and at an angle), with the object of ending up between the midpoint of his waist and the top of his shoulders and the hollow of his knee, while the batter is standing in a defined space and holding a bat of specified dimensions, composition, weight and "tackiness", all played out on a field of carefully defined dimensions and with identical restrictions on the number of opportunites that the batter has to "hit" or "judge" the ball as well as on the opportunities that the pitcher has to direct the ball to the strike zone..
General Election polls measure judgment and feelings and biases and perceptions of self, values, country and others. This is a volatile mix, which, in so called "swing" or "soft" voters changes often. Second, polls taken close to conventions are always misleading and we truly have no precedent for how misleading polls might be that are taken after two conventions separated by three days so late in the cycle.
So, I'm waiting to see where the polls that are reported next Monday or Tuesday fall out. That will give the tracking polls three full days of data after the close of the Republican convention. Even then, I'll be looking for a trend up to the first debate and over the three days thereafter. At that time, I'll take a view on who will win this election. My opinion today is that it will be Obama, but I really can't validate that to my own satisfaction now.
"It's funny, VC, up until now I've thought you a good barometer of the person on the other side of the fence from me, and I've regularly sought out your commentary. Now that you smell blood in the water, you're turning into one of your compatriots."
LOL - Remember last week when he was throwing Palin under the bus?
Somebody tell me again, what did Dukakis's big summer lead get him?
Obama already had it won, so the primary business is just silly.
The lesson from the primary should be that Obama is methodical, patient and doesn't make mistakes.
He, and anyone paying attention, knew he won the EV vote count in February. That meant simply not doing anything to really upset the apple cart.
This is not a 6 month accumulation. Obama needs all his votes on one day. His ability to close is just another silly meme the Clinton folks used to extend a primary that turned out exactly like Obama folks said it would on February 19th. The rest was so much TV.
Like the primaries you're seeing Obama take a careful, and measured, response to Palin. If she really has moved fundamentals in OH, CO, VA and NV, you'll see Obama react soon enough.
If you notice, Dem reaction it is concerned (as it should be) but not nearly the over-the-top predictions you're seeing made by GOP posters who are seeing favorable numbers for the first time ever. Maybe it will work out for McCain, but you have no reason to bank on anything yet.
VC, 2004 was the first time a Republican presidential candidate won a plurality of the popular vote since 1988.
You mean dump Biden and bring out sebelius. Wanker.
Nate, I think your intuition is right.
We had exactly the same phenomenon in a survey that I ran in Michigan in 2004. A seeming sudden shift of a pool of previously called respondents toward Bush and away from Kerry. So much so that even with our likely voter screen, we were getting a Bush victory of 3% in the state, instead of what actually happened which was a Kerry 2% victory.
My hunch about that was the activation that came about when the 527's struck back -- after first denying Kerry a bump, the ads no doubt mobilized the right. And so they were more inclined to answer our calls after that.
The problem with this interpretation in 2008, of course, is whether this will swing back to normal.
It's partly in an effort to achieve that that the Obama campaign has to demonstrate that McCain's shoot-the-moon pick of Palin was a mistake, in particular by going after the image of Palin as reformer -- by pointing out her mismanagement of Wasilla (the WSJ story from Saturday being an "authoritative" source), her pork barreling ways, and her support for the Bridge to Nowhere.
"Any idea why Gallup Tracking produces such wild swings compared to Rasmussen tracking, which never seems to move more than a point or two in either direction in a single day?"
It's because of the Party ID weighting by Rasmussen. I didn't notice anybody else quote what I thought was the most interesting sentence from Ras's article this morning w/ their tracking result:
"Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008."
Hillary is so 20th century, vc.
Hey, VC,
Magical men who rise from the dead don't exist, so, yeah, your religion is bullshit.
Sorry to break it to ya.
Tories are wankers, needless to say.
Three full days of post-McCain speech results, and McCain *still* can't get above 48% in Ras? Oh, that's too bad.
You're so cute Bede. I bet your a 18-year old college freshman who just read Sam Harris and listens to Bill Maher and is really, really excited!
Don't cry to hard when your Messiah loses.
Shy Tory Factor... interesting.
I like those British terms... another good one is Tall Poppy Syndrome, which could be applied to either Obama "he doesn't deserve his success! cut him down!" or to McCain, "he's wealthy and successful! it's not fair! cut him down!"
btw VA Conservative - you crack me up :)
Nathaniel: stick to what you don't know best. Tories = Conservative Party. Voters aren't described as being of any party.
PeteKent,
If the anecdotal evidence at my workplace is anything to go by, New Hampshire women who were cool to Obama are now firmly against Palin/McCain.
I would argue that if you were to give 1000 randomly-selected, self-identified liberals and conservatives a Meyers-Briggs personality test, you'd notice some small but significant differences.
Conservatives: more introverted, thinking, judging.
Liberals: more extroverted, feeling, perceiving.
There is no "right" way to be. It takes all kinds. In no way am I suggesting that one personality tendency is better or worse than the other. God help us if we were all alike.
However my point is this: different personality types react differently to pollsters, to potential conflict, to public engagement in political discussions.
This is the Shy Tory phenomenon in a nutshell. I happen to think it is much bigger than you suspect, Nate. I personally am an ardent conservative; my instinctive prejudice is to think that any busybody who wants my opinion on politics is a sandal-wearing slacker on a temporary gig during which he hopes to teach voters why they should vote for peace and justice.
Conservatives don't put bumperstickers on their cars in any region of the country where the race is competitive or tilts to the Democrats. Why? They don't want their cars vandalized. They don't want road rage incidents.
Conservatives instinctively avoid pollsters. That is why pollsters are always confounded come election night, and MSM news anchors are in deep funk.
My guess is the voters see McCain as not = Bush, and seeing he's a war hero, and he made a very dynamic VP selection and he is running as change now, that they like what they see.
I listened to Obama yeastrday he said " We're going to GIVE you health care, and GIVE you jobs."
Really? Your gonna give people health care and jobs?
McCain sounds authentic railing against Pork and Washington whether its real or not and Obama doesn't sound authentic talking about the economy. Obama needs to find a topic he finds appealing and stop trying to tell the voters what they want to hear but what Obama wants to say. Be original, don't try morphing into Biden or Hillary, that's not why we liked you.
When Obama was running against the divisiveness of the country, he was winning. He needs to get back to what brought him here. He's been wandering around all summer looking for a message when its right there if he would just take it.
Actually, I teach literature at Boston University, but you believe what you want to.
Don't cry too hard the day you die and your Messiah turns out to be a big fucking fraud.
I've said it before -- saying it again -- as biased personally as Scott Rasmussen is, he got every state correct in 2004, every state. He got Tester and Webb victories correct in 2006 (extraordinarily close elections) and only missed (barely) with Claire McCaskill's victory.
So, until proven to be a poor polster (aka Zogby who on election day 2004 flashed on his website that he smelled upsets for McCain in CO and VA), I am sticking with Rasmussen's numbers.
Having said that, if McCain is +1 today in the Rasmussen daily tracker, that would mean that Obama won Sunday's polling probably by a point or two. In addition, while the old man was sitting around his Sedona ranch all weekend - Obama and Biden were out capturing all the news this weekend.
I dunno what's gonna happen -- I still have this feeling that the GOP are simply masters of psychology over the american electorate and are going to pull off another win this year -- but the numbers don't prove my gut feeling to be correct.
Yes bede, and I'm an astronaut at NASA.
Bede the Youthful -
"Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess. That Jesus Christ is Lord."
matt j.h.,
Running "above the fray" will only serve to get Obama pasted. He needs to send Biden out to destroy Palin, just hammer her day after day after day. South Florida voters should be showered with leaflets talking about Palin's donation to the Jews for Jesus, one of the most insidious and antisemitic groups in this country.
Obama will give the people the sky and the sea.
hahahaha
If McCain gained 3 points in the polls yesterday, but only one point today, it appears that the bounce may have peaked. Now we get to see if there's any pullback.
Like Nate said earlier, without a significant political event to drive it, the bounce might last a bit longer, but all the same, it will dissipate at least by the time of the first debate.
virginia conservative,
Do you want me to e-mail you my syllabi? What do you prefer, Shakespeare's History Plays or a poetry survey course?
Obama will give the people the sky and the sea.
hahahaha
Bede the Youthful -
Obama claims to be a big believer in that "magical Jewish man in the skay"
Ahem, that was KERRY that Zogby predicted would win CO and VA -- not McCain. However, Zogby is so bad he may very well have predicted McCain beating Bush in CO and VA in 04.
Someone above compared McCain with the British PM John Major.
Major (Margaret Thatcher's successor) won an election in 1990 that he should have lost.
However, the "victory" was a disaster for his party. They limped on for a few years, divided and scandal-plagued. Then they lost out to Tony Blair whose party has been now in power for more than 10 years.
In politics, sometimes a win can be worse than a defeat. Sarah Palin might be better off to lose this one gracefully, then go for the full Presidential nomination in 2012, or 2016. Not that she will take that advice!
However, there is still a long way to go. I would expect that by the end of the week, the polling details will have become clearer. My firm expectation is that Obama will regain the lead.
Obama has been down before ... and come back. I am hoping they have a plan B.. they must have considered the possibly that McCain's convention bounce would give him an edge. It did for Bush last time.
I suppose an interesting question is: if McCain had picked Pawlenty & continued on the "not ready to lead" campaign, would his bounce be much different?
The last fraud i remember was in Ohio in 2004.
A college student would have a syllabus too, dipshit.
Zogby is a joke.
LOL. I love coming to this site on my lunch break to see 100+ comments with Virginia Conservative pushing the same tired narrative every three posts. It's even better watching him be ignored. He's such a persistent shit stain, must get it from his momma.
The Republicans (and, though I don't think they'd want to claim him, VC) are enjoying their best moment of the election so far, and probably their best moment as a party since they got their asses handed to them in 2006. I can't blame them.
What I can do, however, is laugh, because their party has never passed up on any opportunity to arrogantly preen. I just have to think of Ken Mehlman going on CNN in 2006 and proclaiming George Allen the winner in his Senate race, even though CNN's data (which they had just presented) clearly indicated that the race was a tie and most of the votes left to count were from Democratic areas. It was arrogance, just as saying it's a "Republican country." It's just pure arrogance, and not what America is about (at least until the last eight years) at all.
I wouldn't worry at all at this point about what any Republican strategist, or, worse, an anonymous commenter who obviously is thoroughly enjoying stirring everyone up, has to say about the race being over. They're scared to death of Obama still, which is why they're still throwing every false attack they have at him, because they know he has a plan, and they don't.
Kennyb said...
PeteKent,
If the anecdotal evidence at my workplace is anything to go by, New Hampshire women who were cool to Obama are now firmly against Palin/McCain.
Anecdotal evidence is meaningless in the face of polling that suggests otherwise. Where do you work? The Unemployment Office?
The Palin effect is very real and is whittling away at Obama's base, putting him behind for the first time and quite likely forever.
LOL rich you really got me there
LOL LOL LOL!
@cato
I would argue that if you were to give 1000 randomly-selected, self-identified liberals and conservatives a Meyers-Briggs personality test, you'd notice some small but significant differences.
Conservatives: more introverted, thinking, judging.
Liberals: more extroverted, feeling, perceiving.
No offence, but that's bullshit. Right now you think the right wing evangelicals are carefully "thinking, judging", or are they "feeling, perceiving"? All those people who think McCain is lying repeatedly - are they "feeling" or "thinking?
Again, it's bullshit.
Whatever Obama believes or doesn't believe, he certainly doesn't shove that garbage down people's throats, nor does he advocate basing public policy on his stupid religious beliefs. And I vastly prefer Obama's church: "God Damn America" is a hell of a lot more sensible and sympathetic a statement (given this country's bloody hands) than "Iraq is a mission from God" and "Give money to the Jews for Jesus!"
"And I vastly prefer Obama's church: "God Damn America" is a hell of a lot more sensible and sympathetic"
I really hope Obama hires you as a campaign consultant.
Vermont moves to McCain.
A college student would have the same professor's syllabi going back five years? You really are dumb.
Since you praised Rev. Wright when it comes to political strategy you have an IQ of 5.
On second thought, if you believe that you probably are a liberal arts college professor. I bet you're a big Ward Churchill fan, too aren't you?
I'm interested in state polling. This means nothing to me until the electoral map starts turning colors.
I guess this "shy Tory" theory really makes sense because where did all that support come from. But on the other hand what are the internals? Not that the media will talk about it. I somehow don't get the feeling that the Obama campaign is very worried somehow. Maybe because they know what the recent economic news mean to the American people. Or maybe because when the polls start coming down it will spell even bigger trouble for the McCain supporters with these superficial highs. Or maybe because Obama performs better as an underdog. I don't know. Maybe two weeks from now the narrative will be how the Palin effect is fading or something. But as someone said; Republicans are good at winning elections, Democrats are good at governing. So we never know (even though sometimes we do).
Virginia Conservative,
God Damn America is right. God Damn her for her massacre of innocent civilians, her warmongering, her acceptance of poverty and social injustice, her complicity in the subjugation of the working class. God Damn America and may she see the light and changer her ways.
Do you think the war in Iraq was a mission from God?
I'm interested in state polling. This means nothing to me until the electoral map starts turning colors.
Yeah Bede! SAY IT!
And when Obama loses, take it to the streets, man! Maybe Bill Ayers will join you. He can give you his three-fingered fork salute in appreciation!
Don't let the Corporate Ma$ster$ of AmeriKKKa steal another election, man!
RCP gives McCain winning the popular vote and Obama the Electoral College.
KKK?
Matt JH sees with clarity that Obama's strategy of tying McBrilliant to Bush is not working.
McCain has paired himself with a like-mindded reformer who has finally put the starch in his shorts and his him coming out of the box hard, independent of party and ready to lead America to a new post-partisan era.
Obama, meanwhile, as Matt JH points out only talks about giving things to people liek heathcare and jobs. Obama it seems wants to create a Cutlure of Dependency.
the problem of course is that 94% of Americans hacve jobs and while most grumble over it, are also satisfied with their healthcare. These folk do not want an upheaval of the kind that Obama claims he wants to bring about.
Rather they are looking for a new tone and direction in Washington and for it they are going to turn to the one man in the race who has proven himself independent of party and willing to say risk his career on what is right, rather than what is politic.
Palin adds an outsider's credentials along with the perpective of a real middle calss existence. Many are excited about having one of their own in the McCain White House, knowing that she will be an Advocate for them.
It's powerful and its working.
I think from a governing perspective McCain should have picked Tom Ridge or Carly Fiorina, but I recognize you have to win first. It looks like he changed the game and probably in his favor at this point, but here's the thing. If you are suddenly inspired by our hero John McCain, who just wants to do right by America and you think he can, fine that'll work, I'm not annoyed with that. But... can some of you try to imagine Sarah Palin as President. It could not be a more dysfunctional government, literally. It would be worse than Bush/Cheney. You'd have a right-wing nut job with too little experience to make decisions without help and a Congress that doesn't respect the Executive branch at all. The Congress won't be able to do anything without the huge majority they'll need to stop vetoes and the President won't have enough of the Congress to get anything done. It would be really terrible, very similar to the last 8 years. Bill's last 2 weren't so good either, so really 10.
I've bene saying for the longest time that the polls have been underestimating McCain's support, particularly in the south. Combine this with geography, which gives the ENTIRE south to McCain, along with Obama's current, incredibly ineffective campaign (gee, mom, look, no major news coverage for almost two weeks), and there is no way Obama will win. The odds of ANY nothern democrat taking the whitehouse are non-existent right now-and this party put TWO northern democrats on the ticket. Gee "enthusiasm", gee "unknown change", gee-no clue about political reality or selecting the candidate who is most likely to SUCCEED in the general election.
I was a Hillary supporter because I believed her experience and political savvy made her more likely to win. In addition, she, unlike Obama, had potential support through her husband and Al Gore in Tennessee and Arkansas-which would have broken the Republican monopoly in the South and could have carried the election.
As a disappointed democrat who has watched the democratic party repeatedly make the IDENTICAL mistakes in the past TWO presidential elections, I am sad to see that the party is clearly INCAPABLE of learning from history.
As this stage, this is all about race, personality and fear-and in this election all three are working for the Rebublicans. This is going to look almost exactly like the last two elections. And McCain is going to win. The only true "shift" from the last election may be in New Mexico-and that is not enough to win.
The Democratic party is incapable of putting together a coherent message, sticking to their guns or taking the offensive in this campaign, and so have lost the momentum. I predict McCain will win 274-278 EVs (depending on New Hampshire). Then Palin will later be president and the far right will finally have the theocracy it has always wanted.
Who the hell praised Reverend Wright as a matter of political strategy? What he said was political toxic waste. No politician could be associated with stuff like that and win.
That doesn't mean it isn't a defensible and sympathetic statement. God Damn America indeed.
I don't think VC sleeps -- just posts day and night.
It was but a week ago he was throwing in the towel ready to convert to Obamaism because Palin was getting pasted by the media. Such a weak-kneed supporter of McCain leads me to believe that VC has no heart. Talks tough when his team is in the lead and then looks to hedge when the going gets tough again.
VC, some news for you, McCain ain't winning this thing by 10 points (especially when RV is only +4 in that same poll). You better develop a stomach for roller coaster rides because that's what we're going to be on until 11/4.
I don't know who will win, I hope it's Obama but I don't know -- and neither do you -- in about 10 days, we'll have a good idea what going on and then, whammmo -- the first debate and anything can swing the vote after that because probably 80+ million people will be tuning in.
But I swear, if this thing turns up again for Obama to where he is +5 or +6 and VC starts threatening suicide again, he should be banned from posting once McCain turns it around.
I'm getting the feeling that McCain will win, we'll end up in 1-2 more wars during his term and Hillary will win in a romp in 2012.
To me it seems that Palin and the convention excited the base so they're answering phones and making noise. Combine this with a pretty weak showing by Obama in the news and on the trail in the last few days and its no longer hard to imagine McCain's ten point lead. Yet I'm really surprised that the unemployment numbers did not mute some of the republican polling numbers.
As our blogger host said in the previous post, Obama needs new ads. His have become pretty stale and the attack line "More of the Same" is tired (anyone remember that this was John Kerry's line against Bush in the debates? Didnt' work then.)
I'm thinking that the Palin shine will fade and Obama can rev up his attacks and campaign to bring this thing back to a tie. As an Obama supporter this has been a disappointing morning--my honest assessment is that both these things need to happen to make this election a coin-flip again.
A few days ago I said McCain had to do everything right to make it a coin-flip. I was wrong. Now Obama has to do everything right and hope that Palin trips up at some point to make it a tie.
VC,
I don't believe in election fraud or taking to the streets to overturn valid election results, but nice straw man. Did evangelizing teach you to bullshit like that?
By the way, who has more blood on their hands, Ayers or George Bush?
But if Obama loses it like, won't be valid because of Diebold d00d. McKKKain and his corporate ma$ter$ will have stolen it from us AGAIN!
The most interesting question is why do working class Americans keep voting for a party that doesn't really care about them? The answer has to be that they care more about moral and social issues than they do about being poor.
Geez, Nate, you had it more right before you decided to start manipulating yur own numbers because the DailyKos crowd didn't like what they said.
You couldda looked prescient, as your numbers identified the McCain surge early. Instead the wild swings in the numbers look incompetent at best and clueless at worst. And to be presently stuck with Obama at a 68% chance to win, with McCain properly having had a bigger bounce (as you initially forecast) than Obama? Incredible. Not credible.
Now, you're turning into non-quantitative political analyst, having no experience or tools to do that job.
Go back a week or two and read a couple comments sections. It will look so much more obvious in hindsight that the wild-eyed crowd did their usual illogical arm waving. And you bought into it.
My advice: stick to the numbers and let the chips fall where they may. Being a partisan analyst doesn't work any better than being a partisan pollster.
For all the hyperventilating up above, I notice Obama is still up by a 36% win percentage in Nate's model, which is the whole premise of this website
I'm sure that will close some over the next few days, but for now....
Wow, I didn't know this was a left wing board...guess we shouldn't trust the numbers, eh?
On another matter, we caught Joe Biden on MTP on Sunday. Joe belives the reason we are winning in Iraq now is because we are doing what he told everybody to do over two years ago.
Ya gotta love Joe Biden; there is nothing he has not or will not claim credit for!
Its funny to watch the comments.
Democrats are worried, Republicans are happy.
I still think that this election is leaning very slightly to obama. It's just a hunch.
VC,
You're a complete and utter clown, completely unhinged from reality. You're like one of those trolls on Baseball Think Factory that will show up in a game chatter to taunt like a 12 year old girl when his team is up by 5 but then will vanish when his team ends up losing. I don't expect to hear a peep from you after election day.
After only knowing about this site for the last 5 days, I am amazed at how obsessed Virginia Conservative is with it. I wish I had time to sit in front of the computer arguing with people on the internet every waking hour. Perhaps if you get a life and job you will be a happier person that people can not only stand in person but also on the internet (it might help if you stopped resorting to condescension at every turn). As things stand now, you come off as a vitriolic prick who likely has a mental illness thus making your opinions completely devoid of credibility.
@rudy
actually, judging from Nate's "bounce on top of a bounce" graph, it's pretty much even. At this stage he had McCain overperforming by a couple of points, and he's doing about 3-4 points better than per conventions. Overall, he's about 1 point ahead of where Nate predicted.
And? I would STILL rather see the true numbers headlining than the ones Nate was adding on. Why? Because we simply don't know if and when the bounce will fade, or indeed it's true magnitude.
Better to have the raw numbers IMO.
VC:
You Republicans got blood on your hands - American blood and Iraqi blood, Lots of it!
Where you gonna start your next war?
Ya gotta love Joe Biden; there is nothing he has not or will not claim credit for!
isn't that the definition of John McCain, "I'm a maverick(tm) so I can argue both sides of the issue and claim I was right whatever happens"
ref: GI bill which he voted against then claimed credit for.
All you gloating conservative must realize the usa poll is crap. The state of the race is pretty much where it was dead even.
Not much will change until the debates come, if someone makes a major gaffe things could change, possibly McCain shows his age or Obama calls himself a muslim again.
This is 1980 again, the election won`t break one way or the other until the last week. My bet will be people will take a chance on Obama. mcCain winning would break every precedent in political science.
Also Obama has a great ground game that isn`t being accounted for in polling.
A lot of chicken counting going on in here today. There is still a long way to go and I expect there will be quite a few turns in the road.
Rasmussen is the most reliable tracker and it only shows a fairly moderate McCain bounce. Moreover, we have yet to see any state polling. Give it another week or two and we'll see where things stand.
What Rudy @9:29 above doesn't realize, is that if Nate was still applying his convention bounce dampening, the Obama win percentage would probably rise considerably, as 'bounce' support from McCain's polling would be subtracted at this point.
It might have dampened the initial spike upwards for Obama, but we are past the point on the curve where Nate estimated Obama would still be getting benefits from his bounce. We are just entering the period that would pull McCain down considerably right now.
Think for a min, before accusing Nate of being a partisan hack. The reality is that we are in uncharted waters, and nobody is going to know what is really going on for a couple of weeks.
assmole is leaving the site to catch up on his wanking. enjoy the rest of the election.
What is the 10% Democratic Partisan ID made up of? That's the key.
If you look at history, Democratic party ID is about what it was in 2000. It's Republican party ID that has been depressed and Independents have swung to Democrats. This has been largely a result of the decline in the white voting population, and rise in minorities.
The white vote in 1996 was 82%. In 2000 it was 81%, but declined precipitously to 77% by 2004. It will decline further to around 75% this year as America continues it's inevitable rise to a minority-majority country by around 2040.
Going solely by Rasmussen, Democratic ID went from 39% in 2000, down to 37% in November 2004, but back up to 41% in June 2008, and 39% now, a rise of 3-4%.
Republican Party ID went from a low of 34% in the spring of 2004, up to 37% in November, 2004 (in what was probably a lingering response to 9-11) to a low of 31% this year, and is now at 33.2%. This may rise some as a result of the Republican convention.
But, my take on things is that the Bush administration effect on Party ID is rather like the National Hockey League lockout. The NHL lost an entire season to a labor dispute, and lots of fans were alienated. Once they resumed operations, they got back some of those fans, but not all of them. I've never paid much attention to hockey since then.
Same thing with Republican party ID. My girlfriend is a perfect example of the 6% of disaffected Republicans. She used to consider herself a Republican, and is not terribly political, but was turned off by Bush and now would answer "Democrat" to a pollster asking for her party self ID.
Most of these voters did NOT become Democrats, more of them became Republican-leaning Independents. McCain's "bounce" may be mostly due to such voters.
But, the fundamental dynamic of the race remains Democratic NOT Republican voters. The question is whether Obama can rally the base of HIS party, not whether McCain can rally the Republican base. He's already done that. There's little possible upward movement for him, because he's already got 89% of Republicans.
Obama will be fine, if he can solidify more of the Democratic base, otherwise he'll lose. He also has two other added advantages that Kerry didn't.
1) Even if Republican party ID rises slightly (not unlikely) Democrats will have an advantage they didn't in 2004.
2) GOTV. Obama has been preparing for this and invested in GOTV months ago. Republicans are trying to play catch-up now. This should give Obama a narrow advantage, since he's been registering thousands of new Democrats, while Republican registration in key states has declined.
But, nothing will matter if Obama can only get 81%-84% of Democrats while McCain gets 89%-93% of Republicans. Democratic party ID advantage wouldn't be enough to overcome such a disparity.
So, Democratic party loyalty will be the key. On the minus side, Obama still hasn't rallied his base. On the plus side, he's done better than Kerry did after his convention. With two months to go, he needs to concentrate on getting disaffected Democrats to vote for him, and not worry over-much about what the Republicans are doing.
The best news is that there's NO evidence that attack ads can affect the other party's base (2004 election results are proof of this).
Look at everyone all over reacting.
We don't know Obama will lose the south. In fact, it's one of the great unknowns in this election as many of those very red states are 1/3 African American. If they turn out in droves (which is likely) and if they vote 95% Obama (likely) Obama may win a Georgia, or, more likely, North Carolina. That would upset ALL the calculations. VA is also much more likely to go Obama because of the 20 % AA vote which will be historically represented and voting at that same ridiculous 95 % clip. As it is, VA looks though for McCAin, let alone with a massive AA turnout.
Ohio is close, as usual, but Obama has much better infrastructure and has been there all year now. He also now has Biden on the ticket. Palin NEEDS to shift this state or McCain can't win.
CO and NV, of course are other close ones to watch.
I saw early on excitement about Obama. But, ever since McCain changed his campaign manager, Obama's popularity started to fizzle. First, it was those celebrity adds that I didn't think were that great that seemed to irk the Obama campaign. I believe it was Obama's reaction and the media's reaction that made people start to question Obama. Obama surrogates charging racism, political pundits asking themselves if they are too biased gave McCain free and good publicity. Right now, it seems like Obama's campaign is not as politically savyed as the McCain campaign. McCain bates the Obama campaign into picking Biden due to a perceived weakness in foreign policy and then out manuvers Obama politically by picking Palin going after the disenfranchised Hillary supporters. In my view. both VP selections were not either canidates first choices but were political choices. McCain gets the edge up to date. Then, the McCain campaign trumps the brilliant Obama convention speech by annoncing Palin as his VP choice the next day. Stealing all of Obama's thunder. As a result, McCain campaign took advantage of this controversial pick by portraying her as a vitim of sexism, and thus her speech was the most watched speech. Finally, Obama (especially his surrogates) needs to quit reacting. Obama needs to shake up his political team. They are blowing his campaign.
PeteKent,
What are you smoking? I understand your argument of PERCEPTION and yes, perception, in some elections, could be everything.
BUT, when you are proposing NOTHING different from the last 8 years and you have a right wing NUT who does'nt know jack shit about national policy, I don't think perception will be enough.
McCain can talk about REFORMING all he wants, but his policies don't match his rhetoric.
This will be so utterly clear and shown in the debates.
Don't hold your breath. Dems are wimps in campaigning, and this year is no exception.
And if they continue they deserve to lose.
Not sure why you're baiting people. "Generic Democrat" beats "Generic Republican" by 5-10 points, which to me is the ultimate definition of a Democratic country.
Hmm a one point ras lead isn't so fantastic for McCain. Signs of the bounce dissapating already? 3 clear days of polling, all post McCain and just a 1 point lead? Gallup poll might be interesting. I think if Obama can hold the bounce lead of McCain to around 3-5 points in the Gallup poll he is in a good position.
Gameplan for the Obama camp this week- ignore Palin, unless she gives some gaffe, get back to the McCain-Bush argument, and on connecting to the needs of unhappy voters. Talk about the wrong direction/right direction numbers, and if possible try and find a good endorsement. (A joint appearnace between Obama and President Clinton in small town America somewhere might work just as well, if Clinton is free on Friday.)
I can't believe some of you people want to try to guess at response bias and adjust results for a thumb-in-the-air opinion. Response bias is only visible in hindsight and good pollsters adjust for it in their modeling.
Sure, it's OK to postulate on the numbers drivers, but it's a big danger to let your opinions twist reality. Plus, you have no idea as to how pollsters have already attempted to adjust their data to account for all of the various factors. And they're not going to disclose things they consider trade secrets.
Big picture -- shouldn't the new unemployment number (6.1%) give Obama an automatic 6.1% advantage?
Eight weeks from now, are all the people crippled by this economy really going to drag their asses to the polls and vote for four more years -- simply because Sarah Barracooter is spunky?
Are Americans really THAT masochistic?
G-d help us.
War said...
I'm interested in state polling. This means nothing to me until the electoral map starts turning colors.
Given the current environment, it sounds like McCain would probably win the popular vote, if held today at least 52-48 head to head. With that, he would win in a landslide. All of the states Obama hopes to flip that have been close totied in the polls (Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada) stay with McCain and McCain flips some of the Midwest. The electoral college would be a landslide. We have to remember, we're really flying blind here. It's really hard to guess where we are. Palin really was a game-changer. That doesn't necessarily mean Obama will lose the game, but it's a very different game now. I'm sure a chunk of McCain's bounce is real and not temporary, but let's not forget Obama had a huge bounce right before all of this. There's no catalyst I know of that will likely change the dynamics of this race for a while, but I don't think it's game over just yet.
Democrats think everything has to make sense and be logical, thats bullshit. While Obama runs a truthful campaign based on facts and telling the truth, McCain is running on amplified distortions, Maverickness, throw the bums out of Washington and the public is eating it up.
This is how the republicans always win. Even if its all nonsense, which it is, people like it and it works. While Obama is running on policy positions and "Don't character attack" McCain is doing whatever it takes, and anything goes. McCain is winning.
The deomcrats have to give up this fairness bullshit and start playing to win. It's obvious the public doesn't care who's telling the truth, just who's doing a better job selling. McCain is cleaning Obama's clock.
Heh, if Nate still used his convention bounce adjustment the Rasmussen numbers would look pretty grim for McCain, but well, we chose to dump it, and now suffer the trollification. And that´s after Rasmussen changed Party ID´s again...
Re: Virginia Conservative: this is neither a right nor a left country, it's a populist country The repubs have done a better job in calling upon those energies (anti-elite, anit-government, anti-other) for many, many election cycles now, even as they've cemented themselves as the party of (failing) government. No doubt in my mind that the Palin pick and the convention did them a lot of good with this large segment of the population (which by the way would have been so turned off by Hilary that they'd already be powerfully committed, so forget about that option); people are pissed off at the way things are, and Obama has (for all kinds of reasons, most of them out of necessity, some of them out of good campaigning by the repubs) morphed into the establishment in many minds out there. Palin gave voice to that sense while McCain got to pose as the Reaganesque good daddy out of the fray. Good, smart politics, and effective. Like Nate, I'm an Obama supporter but a realist--either O and the dems will figure this one out, and win, or they won't, and lose.
But the long term is not good for you guys--McCain is going to lose the Black, Latino, and youth vote for the repubs for the next generation. And demographically, that's where the action is at. particularly the Latino vote (which skilled repubs, like Schwarzenegger, can win--but which the base won't let them go after). So while I want Obama to win, and still think he will (tho I'm perfectly willing to believe that he might not), this is a country at an inflection point, and the first of many elections that will show a recasting of the electorate, and ultimately a push not to the right but the left. The sadness for me is that so many of the people who are moved by the populist energy to vote republican end up screwing their own economic interests--but that's the way it's been since 1968.
At any event, we shall see!
It's possible that this election will comedown to Florida if it's close at the end. We'll have to see polling, but I wouldn't be surprised if Palin is a net plus in a myriad of states including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota, but a net lose in Florida. If Obama flips Florida, big if, than MCCain would probably have to flip 2 of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, probably unlikely. I'm not saying Obama will win Florida, but all things being equal, menaing Obama gets back to running even with MCcain nationally, florida could flip to Obama. Palin was definitely a game-changer. I wonder if the campaigns have done enough internal polling in the last few days to know more than we do what we're all trying to figure out.
The problem is, no race is ever run by a "Generic Democrat" or a "Generic Republican". Races would be a lot more predictable that way.
On this date in history, September 8, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, President George Bush led John Kerry 49.8% to 47.7%.
for final results, please see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.
Nate, look at your own model results.
The national numbers are not meaningful in determining electoral votes. Energizing the base is necessary for McCain, but not sufficient to overcome Obama's lead in the electoral vote count.
My analysis of the contract prices for the states has it 292.7 for Obama and 245.2 for McCain with a standard deviation of 72.3 as of Sunday AM. That's about 10 votes less than your projection after removal of the bounce effect, and about 10 votes higher than the lows for Obama. I get probabilities for outright win (270+) of 62.3% for Obama and 36.6% for
McCain.
The state contract prices don't support the McCain rush suggested by poll results. The national contracts on "who wins?" have drifted toward parity with advantage Obama. Some smart trader should be able to profit from the mismatch between state and national contract prices.
As you say, the reporting of the tracking results is problematic, as is the manipulation of the raw data by the pollsters.
Have you tried simply correlating the tracking reports with your projection of the EV count? (maybe with and without the bounce).
Maybe lots of Palin backers went to church since the RNC and got the word from their pastor on "right" thinking , i.e."Pro-life, except after birth". Still more energizing of the base. These folks are now reporting red instead of grey to the pollsters.
My suggestion? Let it go unless you get the raw data to work with. Otherwise you're stuck draining the swamp (of bad data).
Its is obvious that Palin is what has changed this race. Its just too bad that immigrant-loving McCain is on top of the ticket.
Obama '08 Palin '12/'16
Lol, I think I am the only one here who has first-hand experience with this "Religious Right" demographic that will be responsible for inflicting McCain/Palin on the world. (If the POW/POW ticket does win.)
Let me reiterate: they are SCUM, they understand and admire nothing but blood and cruelty. Spit on them---lie to them---abuse them---and they will grovel at your feet.
It's so silly, posters on here wondering, "Who could be stupid enough to be taken in by Palin?" HELLO. Evangelicals are not being "taken in", their eyes are wide-open and they love every drop of the hatred and scorn draining off Palin's twisted lips.
How many of you knew that Evangelical saint John Calvin, burned Michael Servetus alive over a theological dispute? These people are the Inquisition in 2008, they are INSANE.
Some people here are really freaking out over nothing.
Don't Panic - 10 Reasons Why Obama Supporters Should Chill
Read it, think about it, and share it with panicky friends.
Polls taken mid-September have been right a lot more often than not. Two excpetions were 1960 and 1980. Nixon was ahead of Kennedy. Carter was ahead of Reagan. Obama is very similar to Kennedy and Reagan in many ways. Charismatic change gent in a change year where his voters are passionately behind his message. Of course Kennedy was a war-hero and had a powerful family to boot. Reagan was the Governor of California and a Hollywood Actor. So Obama is not exactly like them, but him being the change agent that millions have gravitated to in a change year might make him the kind of cnadidate that can flip the polls between now and November 4th. We'll have to see. Kennedy and Reagan won the debates, that was their biggest catalyst to flip the script in 1960 and 1980.
Not only are we a Republican country, but we're a Christian Nation. You morons are going to see more and more Sarah Palin's come to power and shape this country in God's image. You'll have nowhere to hide. Bwahahaha!
Mark, my point exactly is that Nate's numbers don't match up with the reality of the polling data. I'm not calling him a partisan hack, I'm just saying he made adjustments deliberately orchestrated to favor the Obama numbers, and now that they're going the other way, he's shown reluctance to flip them back to where they were before.
I'm all for objective numbers analysis, but that's not what's going on around here. EVERY TIME it's a rationalization about why Obama's numbers underrepresent what he thinks they should show. NEVER a rationalization about why McCain might be doing better than the numbers show.
Even when he pays lip service to something like the shy tory theory, it's just talk and not manifested in the projections. That should be the case all around, not slanted just one direction.
The biggest problem is that there aren't any fresh decent state polls, and won't be for at least another week. So. if he's going to adjust state forecasts for national numbers, as he does, it defies logic that he'd still be showing OH, VA and CO as blue.
I agree that the McCain bounce should fade a couple points according to Nate's good modeling of average bounces he did pre-convention. But it was really wrong to trashcan it in the forecasting, especially when doing so for Obama, but not for McCain.
If he was doing it the same way for both, it's inescapable that McCain would be favored to win now, or at least be in spititng distance of 50/50.
Nate, if you're around...I'm curious.
The lone scenario in which Obama loses OH/PA/MI and still wins the election...how does he do it, state by state?
Dear Democrats,
Thank you in advance for being inept as usual and losing an election in which every conceivable variable was in your favor. If you can't win an election like this where all you have to do is get to the finish line than you have no business running the country.
Sorry for being blunt. I look forward to Evan Bayh in 2012 as you return to trotting out empty suits ala Gore and Kerry as your nominee.
Sincerely,
Every Republican.
PS Alito, Roberts, and Scalia also thank you for providing them a few buddies.
Nate, isnpt the fai comparison RV to RV and that was 50-43 last week and now 50-46 McCain.
The media is all over the 10 pt LV numbers but the poll a week ago had no LV numbers.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-poll-monday_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Also see the RCP explanation a week ago on this poll but this week they are treating it like Gospel:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/a_note_about_the_latest_usa_to.html
WHat am I missing here??
VC:
yepp! and we'll see even more blood dripping from Republican hands and those of your Christian Taliban friends when you start your next Republican war.
where's it gonna be, VC?
Hotline/Diageo:
Obama 44 (46)
McCain 44 (40)
I assume they don't push leaners
Nate, you silly boy, response bias? The real answer, which you continue to ignore, can best be described as 'Occam's razor' which is the 'Palin Effect'
You have yet to talk about the massive move of white working class women (no college) from Obama to McCain as a fundamental shift in this election. This is not a bounce nor is it 'response bias'
It is what it is, a McCain-Palin victory.
The potent combination of 18 million Hillary voters and Evangelicals will put McCain way over the top. I predict an electoral haul of around 310 for McCain.
Want to know why the momentum has shifted and why it will stay in McCain's favor barring a major screw up? Here is the best article to date on the why.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/27968074.html
Hi all... would welcome any responses to a question that's been much in my mind lately.
What is your chief motivation in this election? Is it enthusiasm for your team, or opposition to the other guys?
For me it would have to be the latter. I normally used to vote for the conservative on the ticket and I have no particular love for Obama... but I'm appalled at what Republicans have done to this country and I think it needs to be stopped.
What about you all... are you voting out of love.. or hate?
Thanks for any replies.
Can you imagine what the polling would be if McCain had had the guts to say "screw you" to his party and pick Joe Lieberman?
He might have lost some of his base, but he would have picked up a lot of Independents and conservative Democrats. Instead of a base election in which he's fighting uphill, because of having a smaller base than Obama does, he would have cemented his hold on the center.
It's interesting that this was McCain's original idea, but he was talked out of it by his advisers who convinced him not to take the chance.
It's clear by now that he should have gone with his instincts. Can you imagine the media fire-storm if Lieberman were running with McCain? He's actually a moderate, while she's a partisan hack of the worst sort, underneath her "reformer" image.
Lieberman is a hawk on the war, but a moderate Democrat on social issues. It would be very difficult for Obama to attack him at all, while he would have made an effective attack dog, as he has all during this campaign.
@toby,
yep the 92 election might have been a good one to lose for the tories, given Labour would have also faced the ERM disaster that wiped the tories out.
But then again 04 might have been good for Dems to lose so Edwards could win in 08 and , oh wait no.
@ Jack Black
Final tallies for 04 arent in until the trail of death and destruction is over.
In 2006- Progressive Democrats who won in red states and red districts
1)Sherrod Brown- OH
2)Jon Tester- MT
3)Jerry McInerny-CA-11
4)Nancy Boyda-KS-2
5)Tim Walz-MN-1-
6)Carol Shea Porter-NH-1
7)John Hall- NY-19
8)Kristen Gilibrand NY-20
9)Jason Altmire- PA-4
10)Ciro Rodriguez- TX-23
11)Steve Kagen- WI-8
Subterranean...
While I agree it might eventually be necessary to go medieval on their asses, wouldn't it be safer to just put Clinton on the ticket.
That's assuming you needed to do something. ...And we're all flying blind really. If Ras is right we have an even race with Obama, likely, still in the driver's seat in the swing states. No need to change anything. If more polls validate something closer to the USAToday 10 pt LV model, things need to be changed and quickly.
One interesting tidbit is that Biden has yet to give out his medical records as I understand it. That's all the excuse needed to offer a withdrawal, Obama thanks him and promises to name him to his cabinet, and O asks for a special meeting of the DNC to accept his new nominee, Hillary Clinton. And heck, Obama is honest enough he might just say Palin is such a bizarre and crazy pick that it's changed the dynamics the race.
O might just say McCain was desperate and has gambled. Democrats can't sit back out of love for tradition and not reassess their position given such an out of left field, super conservative, unqualified pick. While Joe helps shore up Catholic voters, only Hillary offers the real game changer needed.
Added bonus is that a Hillary pick followed by Palin might not have made a difference. Naming Hillary now, would stamp out all Palin attention.
VC,
Are you part of lunatic fringe of the conservative right wing I have heard so much about.?
The republican party has the intellectual capacity and moral compass of pile of shit. The Bush adminstration has jeopordized our standing in the world to the point that american flags are being burn and people protest him everywhere he goes.
Just like a right wingnut to say this is republican country because according to your standard, nobody else exists, that is call narcissim, egotistical and narrow minded. Hey, that is the life of a conservative wingnut, Right,
The Shy Tory problem is real. In the 1993 Canadian election, the upstart Reform Party was polling at 7-8% nationally - a terrible number suitable only for a fringe party. But on election day they pulled in 19% of all votes, and secured roughly 1/6 of all seats in Parliament.
And the platform of Palin's church probably could hurt the ticket in trying to woo Jewish voters in Florida, once that story gets more coverage in the coming weeks.
I'd also like to see if the initial movements in the polls toward McCain are mostly white women flipping from Obama to McCain. This may be an overreaction of women supporting Palin (without knowing all of her views) or maybe as a defensive reaction to some of the demeaning coverage the media has given her.
If that is the case a lot of these voters are still winnable for Obama, once these white suburban female swing voters find out Palin's extremist positions on Choice, creationism, etc.
Also don't discount that the governors of OH, CO, VA, MI, NM, IA, and PA are Democrats. That definitely seems to help with machine, get out the vote strategies in the populous areas in close elections. If Obama is polling within 1-2 points in those states on election day, he still has a good chance to win them on turnout alone. Especially if some national story that neither candidate can control at this point (Iraq, economy, etc) starts going in Obama's direction.
FLA of course is a different story and I expect another election that will resemble a banana republic with people waiting line to vote in poorer neighborhoods for 8 hours again.
Palin beats Obama hands down!!
PALIN!! PALIN!! PALIN!!
Blah, blah, blah.
These are post convention polls. Just wait a few days and see what happens. McCain's lead of 1 in Rasmussen suggests that Obama was up a point or even yesterday. If McCain leads by 4 in today's Gallup, the same will be true there.
What the Repubs are soon to find out is that while it is great to have a few good polls, you then have to deal with the "GOP lose lead" headlines that follow thereafter when the bounce inevitably fades.
Nate is just as guilty for promulgating this facile discussion. There is no shy tory factor at play here. This is simply a reflection of the fact that people have heard the GOP lies more recently than they have heard the Dem ones.
Meanwhile Rasmussen plays the game by releasing a bunch of polls in the next few days doing all his fieldwork at the absolute height of the GOP convention bounce. Bald twat.
PRICELESS
"MSNBC execs boot Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews from political night duties after network finishes dead last in the ratings during two weeks of political conventions."
Maybe it has more to do with the ultra leftist tilt of MSNBC than the anchors.
Palin's position on political statements made by clergy (their churches should lose their tax-exempt status) likely softens her hard-right image among social liberals. People like the American Athiests or the Secular Humanists of America may well get behind that sort of policy.
Hey VC!
washed the blood of your hands yet?
oh and the discussion about what make up people have Conswervative/Liberal. There was a major study done somewhere which said in general terms
- liberals are more intelligent, better educated, they base their opinions more on evidence.
- Conservatives are more loyal, more instinctive, more tribal.
There is no right or wrong, it two sides of the same coin. You need both to succeed.
Anyways, the fun thing about this is that given the importance of nature in deciding your leaning [a british uni i forget which commented that you are generally one or the other]. It probably makes Jesus a liberal.... given he was on the liberal side of every debate back then. Am a non believer myself but I do like the idea of Jesus listening to Palin shaking his head.
I would be interested to know what people think of the importance of religion in the race. Is there really a sense amongst a sizable percentage that the US has a manifold destiny? - we used to do that too when we ruled the world
Post a Comment