There is a veritable orgy of polling out today, so let's give you the numbers first, and then take a gaze from 30,000 feet.
There are certainly some hints that Barack Obama has gained back a couple of points' worth of ground in the past 24-96 hours, although so far this remains more apparent in the national trackers than in state polling. Our model is designed to react somewhat conservatively to new information, lest it mistake noise for signal. I know that a lot of Democrats out there -- including myself, frankly -- believe that the movement is real, as the country reacts to the Wall Street crisis and other news from the campaign trail. But there have been other points -- such as following Obama's Berlin speech -- in which the polls changed sharply for a couple of days and then settled back down.
One of the disadvantages of the method we use to model our trendline curve (LOESS regression) is that there is no a priori answer as to just how sensitive the curve should be in terms of reacting to new information. My attempts to come up with an empirical answer were mostly fruitless, although there is some evidence that the curve should become more sensitive as we get closer to the election. A week or so ago, as the model was slow to recognize the McCain bounce; I tuned the sensitivity up slightly then, and I tuned it up very slightly again today. I will also make the curve quite sensitive in the week or so before the election, such that we can adequately capture any late movement. But for the time being, Obama is either going to have to sustain his relatively strong tracking poll results for a couple more days, or get some slightly more consistent results from the state polling, before we are again ready to call the race a tie or an Obama lead.
The other thing that's happening is that, even as the popular vote gap has narrowed, the gap between the popular vote and the Electoral College -- which had been working to Obama's benefit -- has also diminished. We now show about a 7 percent chance that Obama would win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote; a couple of days ago, that figure had been as high as 12 percent. This is mostly because the state-by-state polling has been frankly very difficult to interpret in the post-convention period. There are four key states in which Obama is hoping to play offense: Colorado, Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Winning any one of those states will probably win him the election. But in each of these states he has had a mix of good and bad polling. In Colorado in particular, which is probably the most favorable to him of these states, the two polls out this week (ARG and Rasmussen) have shown him slightly behind.
***
Much of today's polling is from American Research Group, which has numbers out in 25 states and the District of Columbia. ARG, as regular readers of this site should know, is not the most terrific pollster, but with that said most of these results look pretty reasonable. The results that have caught people's attention are McCain's relatively strong performance in Illinois and Obama's relatively strong performance in Montana and West Virginia. Some of these -- particularly the Illinois number -- are probably outliers (ARG also had some very weird results in Illinois during the Democratic primaries). But if a pollster puts out 20 or 30 polls, mathematically outliers are bound to happen in at least a couple of states. Fortunately, our model has numerous ways to hedge against the results of outlier polls, and so this isn't something you should spend a great deal of time worrying about.
CNN/Time also has some very favorable looking results for Obama, particularly in Florida and Ohio, where he leads by 4 and 2 points respectively with third-party candidates included. (This is the version of the polls that we prefer; other sites will use the version without third-party candidates). These CNN polls are very recent, so it's possible that they're detecting some kind of very current shift toward Obama. On the other hand, our model also identifies the CNN/Time polls as having as having a Democratic lean of a point or two, and hedges slightly against these numbers as a result.
9.17.2008
Today's Polls, 9/17
by Nate Silver @ 5:41 PM...see also arg, california, colorado, district of columbia, florida, hawaii, indiana, north carolina, ohio, oregon, virginia, wisconsin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

647 comments
The *huge* disparities for McCain in the reddest states is another hint, to this neophyte at least, that those states are pushing up his national number out of proportion to his support in swing states.
Random(ish) question: Has anyone polled Nebraska recently to see if there's a real possibility of an electoral vote split?
Read your last posts' comments, n.s., this is old diddly news.
Before anyone asks (a lot of people asked on the other thread) Christopher Newport University, or CNU, is a legit state school. I don't know about their polling, but it's not a degree mill, or some fly-by-night institution.
This is my first time posting, although I've been checking this site occasionally for a while. It looks like if you throw out or minimize the CNN Florida/Ohio polls (even Nate says they have a Dem bias) nothing much has changed. Obviously, most of us think the economic news will help Obama, but what do you guys think the potential is for small things like Palin's email getting hacked will be for giving here more sympathy like she enjoyed after the US Weekly/General Media onslaught of a week or so ago? Also, what about the new Obama video taking Rush Limbaugh out of context about Hispanics? That smacks a little of desperation, doesn't it? Where is the "new kinder, gentler" Obama we all supported a few months ago?
Wisconsin seems to have tightened a bit. This morning on Morning Joe, Chuck Todd was saying that he thinks the election could come down to WI. I think Todd is one of the smartest analysts on TV, but i dont know if I agree.
WI has same day registration and typically some of the highest youth turnouts in the country. At liberal UW-Madison, they've just started registering students again at their new addresses.
Actually very reasonable across the board at this point. The battle is still centered on OH/CO/VA/FL with Obama just needing one to win -- due to the securing of IA and NM.
Whistle in fall air
momentum builds, fades away -
the train turns around
Obama would win the elction if held today. No ratinal person would argue that point. But, McCain would've won if the elction were held a week ago. 7 more weeks, a lot will happen. I do believe Carville mightr be right McCain saying the "economy is fundamentally sound" might have ended it for him. The economy is front and center, advantage Obama. I have no doubt the current administration is in the process of trying to get foreign policy front and center again for the sake of their party. Going after the bad guys for real for the first time in 7 years (2500+ days) with 49 days to go until the election. Hmmmmm?!
Obama would win the elction if held today. No ratinal person would argue that point. But, McCain would've won if the elction were held a week ago. 7 more weeks, a lot will happen. I do believe Carville mightr be right McCain saying the "economy is fundamentally sound" might have ended it for him. The economy is front and center, advantage Obama. I have no doubt the current administration is in the process of trying to get foreign policy front and center again for the sake of their party. Going after the bad guys for real for the first time in 7 years (2500+ days) with 49 days to go until the election. Hmmmmm?!
Nate, don't forget the RI Rasmussen poll.
Are we now coming to a point where the convention bounces will soon be *officially* over? And does the recent turn of economic events have anything to do with appeared the sped-up erosion of said bounces?
Virginia Conservative said...
Before anyone asks (a lot of people asked on the other thread) Christopher Newport University, or CNU, is a legit state school. I don't know about their polling, but it's not a degree mill, or some fly-by-night institution.
Regardless, their poll is crap, that's for sure. It's not even in the ballpark and they shouldn't have published it.
that was beautiful, w.w.
Looking at the dates on the polls released today I noticed that some are close to a week old. A lot has changed in the past week so I give more credence to the ones that were done in the last day or so.
The Illinois number is very strange. Obama got about 40% of the Republican when he ran for Senate. I don't see him getting less than a 10 point victory there, and expect it to be closer to 20.
CNN, even after the GOP convention, has showed numbers heavily favored to the Dems, how surprising!?
ARG's polls, although I am skeptical of IL-MT-WV, are pretty believable as a whole.
Rasmussen shows this race tightening with OR down to 4, and WI down to 2...
MN and WI are up for play, and Obama needs to get on the defense here, or his election night may be ruined by an upset blow in WI or MN, losing him the election.
so we've got polls today for places like KS, RI, DC, UT, and WY...but nothing for MI and PA.
Grrr....
Their Senate race number was on track, though. I don't know what's up with CNU. They shouldn't be weighted that highly unless other polls show that kind of lead.
I presume the if he wins CO/VA/OH/FL he wins the election theory is predicated on the notion that he doesn't lose MI or PA.
Christopher said...
Actually very reasonable across the board at this point. The battle is still centered on OH/CO/VA/FL with Obama just needing one to win -- due to the securing of IA and NM.
Aso fo today this probably accurate, Nevada might do it for him also, but if McCain gains about a point from where we stand today nationally, I think it might be hard for Obama to defend all of the light blue (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin)
If he wins Ohio, no way he loses Pennsylvania or Michigan.
McCain should bet the house on Michigan and defend Colorado and Virginia.
As I said in my first post, the conventional wisdom is that the economic news hurts McCain. However, Obama seems more closely tied to Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, and even Lehman Brothers. So it really seems to depend on what the media chooses to cover and how much the populace distrusts them after the past few weeks. Drudge has an interesting reference to the ABC News Blotter and the imbalance of critical pieces on the four major party candidates.
I am so glad we finally got a poll out of DC, I was worried it would go red this year!
Vernon,
1. Palin's hype is over in the media save Fox. Using Yahoo was pretty stupid. Obama was not involved.
2. Limbaugh accusing someone about race baiting is about the stupidest argument that could be made. The add is basically a response to McCain's spanish language add which was a complete misrepresentation.
Somebody's desperate, but I don't think it is Obama
Nate,
I'm only an amateur, but the Ras party ID filter seems to be having a real effect since the last adjustment. Does it seem to you that the Ras polls of tossup states are redder than the other contemporaneous polling? Also the tracker over the past few days, for that matter.
L.
Also, if you follow Nate's advice and consider all CNN polls to have a +2 Dem bias you see that they're in line with Rasmussen in Wisconsin. There definitely seems to be a minor trend for Obama's improvements but looking at just the state polls it's nothing like what you would think if the general populace was turning away from McCain and to Obama as a new FDR to fix everything.
Eric: When did Obama secure NM? Didn't the last poll taken there show McCain with a lead? Certainly you can say that a win in one of OH/VA/FL would give Obama the election, but there is still the possibility that he could take CO and lose both NV and NM.
538 reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote:
"No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded"
Every thread seems to hit over 500 comments, and most of that is probably partisan name-calling, and it is driving the serious posts away.
That being said, the news is that there is no news, which I have been saying for a while. The election still comes down to four, maybe five or six states, and they are not going to have any massive shift between now and election day.
Of course, with all the financial problems going on, anything can happen.
On poll missed: Rasmussen Rhode Island--Obama 58, McCain 39.
Not going to change anything very much.
The CNU poll appears to be on the mark since it showed the Senate race (Warner way out front) where everyone believes it is. It shouldn't be surprising Virginia would show a big McCain lead. Bush beat Kerry by 8 pts in 04' and with Palin bringing back the Christian conservatives, McCain's Navy background, and moderate image in N. Virginia - that's where it will end up. Obama's organization, while good, just won't be able to overcome McCain's advantages in a state that hasn't gone Democratic since 1964.
Also, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are going to be tough for Obama to retain. He better start spending some dough up here, if not, he could be toast.
"However, Obama seems more closely tied to Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, and even Lehman Brothers."
Yes, but trying to make this point bogs the campaign down into "boring" financial muckery that most people find too dense to understand.
Contrast that to:
1. McCain advocating for deregulation for years and now suddenly changing his mind.
2. McCain being associated with other deregulation advocates, including his "top economic guru" Phil Gramm, who also has the gift that keeps on giving in his "nation of whayners" gaffe.
3. Keating Five, of which I am sure we'll all be hearing much more in the near future.
All of these are far easier to get across to the public than obscure efforts to link Obama to this crisis, which I don't think will stick.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
If you see someone post something stupid here using my name, it’s an imposter. Click the name to go to the person’s profile, and check the blogger ID in the address line: mine is #10019303035321620019, and my profile contains a link to my blog, AABW.
Not a single ARG poll has a weight above 0.95 in Nate's model. That ought to tell you something about the strength of the poll.
"The CNU poll appears to be on the mark since it showed the Senate race (Warner way out front) where everyone believes it is."
It's pretty hard to screw that one up in polling.
I'd like to believe McCain is +9 but I don't buy it.
About time for a Senate update? I see Rasmussen also released OR Senate with Merkley within 1 pt. of incumbent Smith. Great race to profile as Smith has run what it likely the most negative campaign in OR history. (While also boasting crossing the aisle to vote with Obama & Kerry.)Recent "Willie Horton" style ad was condemned by poopular for Gov. Barbara Roberts as "appaling" and out-right lie.
Matt W.
Thank you for your response. Palin certainly has faded from the major media of late. Maybe the media is deciding to just ignore her as so many pundits have recommended. I agree that many will discount anything relating to Limbaugh, but if his words were taken out of context (he claims they were twisted and can provide transcripts) then this could smack of desperation. Still, it just seems like Obama has given up the moral high ground and that it's going to validate all the claims of "corrupt Chicago politician". Looking at some of these polls you can imagine targeted 527 adds in some of these purple states dropping Obama by several points like the Swift Boat adds in 2004. I'm just curious how it's all going to play out, that's all.
Obama winning FL by 4, WI by only 2/4, and IL by only 6? Seems unlikely. If FL goes his direction, the others should be even more so.
Clearly, there's a lot of volatility going on right now.
And apparently, CNN/Time today have McCain +1 in NC!
Further proof, my friends, that the state is friggin' unpollable.
Stick with PPP/Civitas, here, for now. You've got one Dem, one Rep firm, both in-state, both very attuned to local demographics and very careful about geography. NC is still in play. We won't know how the state is going until mid-October when early voting begins. (Side note: Michelle's in Greensboro tomorrow!)
DC is actually closer than you'd expect. When the democratic candidate, the black candidate, and the better candidate (esp. on economy) are all very strongly one and the same, that candidate should probably get close to 90% in DC.
If Palin is what's holding McCain in the VA race, then McCain is in trouble, because she's in a nose dive.
Palin did not help here. I don't know if it's her accent, or what, but the race here was amazingly stable even during both convention bumps.
shma said...
Eric: When did Obama secure NM? Didn't the last poll taken there show McCain with a lead? Certainly you can say that a win in one of OH/VA/FL would give Obama the election, but there is still the possibility that he could take CO and lose both NV and NM.
That poll was done at McCain's peak, the 3 days after his convention. It's wrong. The most recent poll has Obama up +7. An accurate representation of where we are today. I think today Obama would win nationally about 49-46%, though that could easily change soon. Obama will almost certainly not win Colorado and lose New Mexico.
I think we're still seeing the Republicans losing their Palin bounce. It was only at the beginning of this week that her numbers turned South.
Remember, several of us said weeks ago that picking Palin would put Florida back into play. She doesn't have the same appeal there as in some other states, and I don't find it hard at all to believe that Obama may be further ahead there now than he is in a state like Ohio.
err...previous post would be former and "appalling"
No, Florida is a red state becoming redder.
Yeah I agree.
I hope the best for McCain/Palin but Illinois? Seriously.
"No, Florida is a red state becoming redder."
Still in denial I see. Your problem, really.
You've got a mistake in there, the CNN poll actually has both of them tied, 48-48... still pretty good for Obama, most polls show him losing by 5-10.
...and "poopular" would be popular...after all, she is not a Republican...(got to get a better keyboard or new fingers ;) )
538 reminds me of that old Yogi Berra quote:
"No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded"
Every thread seems to hit over 500 comments, and most of that is probably partisan name-calling, and it is driving the serious posts away.
Yeah, and I blame that fucking meathead, Mule Rider. He has single-handedly ruined this site, or at least the comments section.
He hijacks nearly every thread, name-calling and just being an outright ass, and he is bringing this site to its knees.
That fucking dickhead needs his ass obliterated.
No, Charles, it is. Virginia is way more likely to turn than Florida.
CHARLES. Your blog sucks. Stop trying to get traffic for it, it's the worse than those webpages you go to when you mistype a domain!
If you were any bit credible, you'd have a job with the far left NYTIMES!
Charles- FL IS RED. Damn you people... Say what you want about the Jews, but they certainly pushed Gore to a massive victory in Florida in 2000!!! hahaha!
You've got a mistake in there, the CNN poll actually has both of them tied, 48-48... still pretty good for Obama, most polls show him losing by 5-10.
With 3rd party candidates, Obama leads.
When the US markets are in turmoil, nobody is going to trust a novice like Obama.
Think about it. If things are really this bad, people want an adult, not an inexperienced Chicago Hack politician.
Vernon,
I really don't see how the Rush quotes were taken out of context. The copy of the add focuses more on the ad that McCain ran and immigration reform. It might not be an example of a clean political ad, but it certainly is not the worst that has come from Obama or worse than McCain.
Point taken though, and it would be nice if Obama could stay above the fray, but hey, this is presidential politics.
If you look at the details for those ARG polls, a lot of them were done during the period of 9/10-9/13. If there has been a real shift towards Obama during the last week, they would have missed a lot of it.
First, good to see Va Con back posting....might not agree with everything posted, but cause for good reading.
Second, nothing in today's polling seems to indicate that Obama's Kerry + IA/NM/CO path is not intact. FL and OH still probably leans McCain, but since it is close, we all won't really know until 11/4 so McCain will still need to spend a lot of time and money there over the next 7 weeks. IN and NC can be medium odds upsets, but again McCain will need to use some resources to defend. What this means is that Obama can spend a little bit more time out West in CO/NV/NM. VA is a true toss up - I don't care what the polls in VA say regardless of who might be in the lead. VA will be a cliffhanger. 49 days is an eternity in politics. Can't wait for the debates!
The CNU poll was dated Sept 10-14. It polled 500 likely voters over 4 days. There were 13 percent undecided in the poll. On the flip side, they have had a decent track record in the past.
Note that the CNN polls use "registered voters" while most of the other pollsters use "likely voters". Could that account for the so called "Dem bias"?
One thing that bothers me is that we have know insight into the likely voter screening for some of these pollsters. How can we assess their methodology? Do they change their methodology from time to time?
No, Florida is a red state becoming redder.
Well, it's a swing state turning redder, but I agree, it's one of the few states that's moving in that direction.
Louisiana, too, because of the diaspora. I can't think of any others.
The states are very hard to gauge right now, but one thing is certain, the momentum has swung hard into Obama's column. He would win in an electoral landslide if the elction were held today. Can he hold on is another question. I'd guess the mo will change back and forth over the next 49 days, but today undecideds would not want to vote for McCain/Palin. They've just had a really, really bad week or so. It doesn't mena they'll lose the elction, but if it were held today, I think Obama gets all of Kerry states + Iowa, New Mexico, Virginia and possibly Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Montana. I don't think they're safe by any stretch. In fact, if McCain makes up a little ground, he could flip back most of those and possibly some of the Midwest, but I don't think there's any question all of the momentum is on Obama's side. He wins most of the battlegrounds in an election held today.
Maybe the CNU poll didn't push undecideds very hard. Thirteen percent is a big number for this late in the game.
Good news if Virginia is the cliff hanger--we have one of the earliest poll closing times in the country.
Mule Rider was nice to me yesterday. He just wants to win.
"Louisiana, too, because of the diaspora. I can't think of any others."
At the federal level, West Virginia.
Gus,
Nate uses the numbers WITH third party candidates
Good news if Virginia is the cliff hanger--we have one of the earliest poll closing times in the country.
Florida - extreme Western panhandle excluded - is also a 7 PM closing time. I found that kind of odd.
When the US markets are in turmoil, nobody is going to trust a novice like Obama.
Want to bet, jack-be-nimble?
If Obama's numbers rise over the next week, you don't comment here for a month. If they fall, I won't.
Are you game, or are you just talking trash?
Nate, regarding the sensitivity of the LOESS regression:
I would argue that during the recent convention period (and going forward) the LOESS regression should be even more sensitive than it is set at right now. I would propose a "time constant" or "characteristic time" on the order of 3 days or so. I say this not because of concern over the model being slow to react to new information (actually, I think this is a good aspect of your approach). Instead, I say this because I think it will lead to a more accurate model in the coming weeks. The problem, as I see it, is that the trendline underestimates the convention bounces of both Obama and McCain. As such, the trend adjustments of polls taken during the bounce periods will be inaccurate. This is particularly problematic for data over the last couple of weeks during McCain's bounce where there has been a large amount of state polling.
Also, there has been so much polling recently that it seems that the daily points almost form a trend on their own.
By the way, it is interesting to see how the scatter in the Super Tracker points diminishes with time...before April it was very high, then it seems to tighten up more after June, and since the conventions the scatter seems drastically reduced. I assume this is due to the large increase in polling data.
Yes, but trying to make this point bogs the campaign down into "boring" financial muckery that most people find too dense to understand.
Damn, Charles, you provide daily evidence of your stupidity and double-standardness.
But yeah, I guess you're right that trying to make that point bogs the campaign down in muckery...kinda like
-hammering away at the Saddlback "cone"-gate (non)-issue
-beating the Palin address at the AIP into the ground despite it being part of her duties as governor
-twisting the "100 years in Iraq" comment and milking it for every damn thing you could get out of it.
I could go on and on, but you get my drift. Yeah, why get bogged down in pointless shit, right?
"No, Charles, it is. Virginia is way more likely to turn than Florida."
Uh huh. And what were you saying about Virginia last week, hmm?
--
Charles M. Kozierok
If you see someone post something stupid here using my name, it’s an imposter. Click the name to go to the person’s profile, and check the blogger ID in the address line: mine is #10019303035321620019, and my profile contains a link to my blog, AABW.
We have the 7 pm poll closing time thanks to the Harry F. Byrd machine. It was designed to suppress voter turnout.
We also have a host of other weird-ass rules like open primaries, off-year state/local elections, no registration by party ID allowed, and the one term limit on Governors for the same reason.
"Uh huh. And what were you saying about Virginia last week, hmm?"
I thought it would break towards McCain by this time, I was wrong. Sue me.
You were wrong about Florida bolting for Obama because of Palin, so get a grip.
I know the current financial crisis will obviously help Obama.
But that's funny to me because it's clear that the problems inherent in the system were the direct result of the Clinton administration's direct meddling in the lending policies of the nation's biggest home mortgage brokers.
The mutual cronyism between the executives at these companies and Democratic legislators with the approval of the Clinton administration.
It is not, as it will surely be cast by the left, a result of conservative economic policies which give too much freedom to business. That doesn't make any sense, because it was only government pressure to offer high-risk loans and government assurance of financial protection, that caused these companies to pursue the hubristic, highly risky paths they took.
While it is true that these companies and their government cronies made lots of money from these policies, they weren't strategies that would have been taken in a truly free market without government meddling and influence-peddling.
I should note that McCain is not prone to being on the right side of these issues. He seems to think that more regulation is the solution to these problems, when in reality they were the problem in the first place.
At the federal level, West Virginia.
Ah, right, of course. I guess I've already got WV firmly in the Red column, but it flipped pretty recently.
I guess there's an argument to be made that Michigan is becoming less Democratic, but the only evidence is this year's presidential election. Not Gov, not Congress.
Maybe Missouri?
"I thought it would break towards McCain by this time, I was wrong. Sue me."
Not going to 'sue you', just pointing out that your contentless assurances that "FL is red, trust me" don't mean anything. Sorry.
Aw, Nate posted the updates before the previous thread cracked 1000 posts...
Maybe this one will get there for a new 538 'high' water mark.
Missouri, sure. It's not longer a bellwether demographically. Too old, and no immigrants.
Chris Matthews, James Carville, and John McCain hit the nail on the head. McCain knows nothing about the economy. The people he'll turn to are trickle-down economics pushers and deregulators. He says the economy is fundamentally sound and his plan is out of the Bush/Gramm playbook. That is a deal-breaker for the American public.
John Peterson,
I would agree with much of your analysis, but good look sharing that in this room and not getting hammered and called every name in the book.
You get a gold star for bravery (and trying), though.
Matt W.
You're right that this new Spanish ad for Obama is no lower than some of McCain's, although it seems like they intentionally twisted his words. For example, let's use McCain's ad about the Illinois Sex Ed bill. It sounds audacious on it's face, but when you read the actual bill it was indeed legislating Sex Ed for kids as young as kindergarten (trust me, I'm a teacher and former principal and I've looked into it--I was appalled. Rich Lowrey also has done a story on it you can Google). In contrast, the two statements taken from Limbaugh (who as far as I know has nothing to do with any official GOP capacity) were made by him to represent the attitude of others. Like you or I saying something an opponent of ours might say in a mocking voice. I wish both of these candidates would stay above the fray, but I think Obama has much more to lose by taking this route (re: Ayers, Wright, et. al.) I'm just curious how these new types of vicious (and perhaps dishonest) ads will affect the polls and ultimate electoral outcome.
"Chris Matthews, James Carville, and John McCain hit the nail on the head. McCain knows nothing about the economy. "
Yes, let's trust Obama. The guy who is in the back pocket of Fannie and Freddie. Suuuure.
GALLUP tracker seems likely to spread further toward a larger Obama lead.
Obama trend has been 45-45-45-46-47-__ ? [my guesstimate = 48 minimum tomorrow]
McCain 5 day trend is 47-47-47-47-45-__ ? [my guesstimate = 44 maximum tomorrow]
so that means Obama probably polled at least a 48 [maybe even a 49 today [for the single day] to pull his 3 day average up +1 again, and tomorrow another 45 day drops out.
bad news for the GOPers as Mccain appears to have polled a paltry 43-44 today & he will drop another 47 day from the 3 day average tomorrow. Odds are he will poll another 43-44 and drop to a 44 average on Thursday.
Gallup prediction: 9/18 = O48 - M44
geez that will look very much in line with R2000 & Hotline.
wonder if RR will continue to try to maintain their McCain bubble is still real by additional massaging of the data...
Scottie R. is nothing if not persistent in pushing his agenda driven narrative however FWIW
Charles is worse than Mule Rider. And now he's trying to pimp his blog too. Ugh.
DCM:
Today's polls on 9/15 got over 1100 comments.
To those asking about NM-I do think Obama will take things here, and I live here. I don't have any real "scientific" support for this, but....
The biggest Republican strengths in NM here have always been in the southern part of the state. The big reasons for the recent Republican success in what is demographically a blue state have been Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici (who even this sort of conservative sort of liberal always liked). They were big bonuses to the Republican party in this area, particularly Heather, and they both helped carry the north and the center of the state-particularly Bernalillo county.
If you look at the local scene now, most judges are elected democrats, the state legislature is democrats, the governor is a democrat, and Heather and Pete are both GONE. If you look at the current local candidates, Darren White and Steve Pearce are not as strong as Heather and Pete were for the Republican party. This favors the two democrats, Martin Heinrich for the house and Tom Udall for the senate, both of whom are polling well.
My gut instinct living here is the boost from the senate election and the house election, coupled with the lack of any truly strong Republican contenders at this point is likely to shift Bernalillo county in the center of the state to a far more "blue" vote than in the past elections. That shift, given that Albuquerque is in Bernalillo county, will likely be enough to push NM over the edge to Obama.
McCain can't win New Mexico. Not because of anything he did, but because of the Tancredotards ruining the image of the GOP among Hispanics.
And as I've argued all along (piggybacking on John's post), in a truly free market, you wouldn't have had the government interference that got us in this mess.
Pressure from the government made obtaining capital/credit too easy.
In a truly free market, where all parties are responsible for their own behavior, and knowing that if you fail means nobody is there to pick you up, there's no way on God's green earth that 90% or more of those loans are made. Loans that went and are going bad. No we are seeing the fruits of these atrocious decisions.
Re: NM, I live here as well, and I just can't imagine it going to McCain. (I'm a conservative conservative.)
Virginia Conservative said...
"Chris Matthews, James Carville, and John McCain hit the nail on the head. McCain knows nothing about the economy. "
Yes, let's trust Obama. The guy who is in the back pocket of Fannie and Freddie. Suuuure.
So you're suggesting that keeping the same policies that have failed us miserably makes sense. Or are you trying to say we should hire the same people that broke our economy to fix it. They don't know how to do anything else.
Charles... if you want a successful blog you have to wrap it up into something interesting.
Like a election polling site.
You should go create one.
Eric--
I'm saying Obama and the Democrat Congress (led by Chris Dodd) pressured Fannie and Freddie to lend capital to poor people who were not reliable enough to pay it back. There was a bill to stop this mess, but the Democrats in Congress killed it. Now we're stuck with the bill.
And who is advising Obama on economic policy? Why, it's the former CEO of Freddie Mac!
These polls fit the general narrative of this thing going either way. However, there are a lot of shoes still to drop on both sides so I don't think anyone can project for certain what will happen. My projection at this forty-nine or so day out point would be that things will be very, very different by the time it comes to actually vote. The economic issues could swing things drastically in favor of Obama or some of the skeletons in his closet could cause all of the swing states to go for McCain. Regardless, it still seems to be a referendum on Obama. Some of the internal questions like who is more prepared to be president, etc. compel me to think that if I had to place a bet I would bet that McCain wins it but there is a lot of play in this campaign, as evidenced by these polls today.
Am I the only person who felt like the ARG polling dump was a waste of time? Too many polls from too many states that aren't in play, and then some data just being screwy. It kind of takes away from the more serious polls that have come out today.
We used to hear a lot about McCain winning Hispanics.
We used to hear a lot about Hispanics not voting for a black candidate.
We used to.
so mule_rider - was that you? thot you were'nt going to post under your own name any more
Yeah, and McCain would have gotten 40-50% of the Hispanic vote and secured the southwest if Tom Tancredo, Romney, and DOCTORRONPAUL didn't talk about mining the border every chance they got. Thanks, guys.
darien: Thanks, but I don't take blogging advice from racists.
Virginia Conservative said...
McCain can't win New Mexico. Not because of anything he did, but because of the Tancredotards ruining the image of the GOP among Hispanics.
Sadly I agree with you 100% VC
The mexicans really are hard working people... victims of a corrupt government. They are strong family people, mostly Catholic, hungry for true democracy.
With this war on terror... we need all the friends we can get.
I agree with VC that Florida is red and getting redder. I don't know why so many people think that Obama can capture it, anyway.
I still can't wrap my mind around Obama flipping VA before he flips OH, but such appears to be the case. I say again, if Obama wins VA on election night, I will have to sit there stunned for a spell, looking at my TV, before I start celebrating.
"In a TRULY free market..."
You know, communism didn't fail in Russia, because that wasn't TRUE communism.
No, look here, I can explain the difference between TRUE communism (which has never actually existed) and Stalinism quite easily. Why, I can even show you that all of the problems were the result of the communists abandoning TRUE communism, and not the consequences of TRUE communism itself.
TRUE communism has never been tried.
I know this song, Mule Rider. I didn't like it much the first time.
prairiecomm,
I thought I was leaving for the day but found my way back....I don't recall saying I wouldn't post under this name anymore.
In my country, the polls are open everywhere until 10pm. I find it a little strange that the polls close so early in some states such as Kentucky at 6pm. Even New York is only open until 9pm.
My Electoral Count...
McCain: 247
Obama: 197
BUT a majority of the new swing states still favor Obama... I do not do a pure guess result, only confident projections of states going red or blue, the big one is Ohio going red.
Read it at MVRed.com
You know what McCain should have done with this financial meltdown, but didn't?
Come out against all the bail-outs. Rail against them. Say they're socialist, that they're putting our children in debt because of a bunch of asshat CEOs.
That would have separated himself from Bush AND tied Obama to Bush.
Virginia Conservative--
That's absolutely true. But how will anyone know if the media keeps the narrative on "Blame Bush". Remember, these are the same people who believe he caused a hurricane in 2005, and many believe he was responsible for 9/11. Most of the recent financial issues can be hung on the democrats and republicans equally (Clinton signed the deregulation bill but Gramm was the one pushing it, Dodd and Countrywide, etc.) but I would bet you the media will try to pin it solely on Bush. Unless McCain gets out in front of this, Obama's people may be successful in trying to paint him as Bush 44. Notice how they've stopped chasing Palin (for now) to remove the sympathy vote from McCain and are now trying to control the news cycles in very Rovian fashion.
VC,
You are full of it. The forclosures aren't b/c poor people got homes and loans. Go look up the areas with the highest forclosures they are in 300,000+ areas. It's not in the inner city where poor people would be buying 70,000 homes. It's middle and upper middle class who got ARM's they couldn't afford and quite a bit of speculation also. Blaming poor people is insane.
joe,
You haven't a clue what communism or a free market are.
Curious that all the pollsters do not track the 3rd party votes.
ECON/YouGov does & although it is interactive I have found they follow the trends better than the MSM trackers have all cycle, plus they allow UNDs to remain as UND rather than push as 'soft' leaners which distorts the data IMHO.
Also in certain states the polls are hiding the potential 3rd party impact. Mant here thought that Barr might be enough to put GA in play - and time will tell if it might in the end combined with a extraordinarily high AA turnout.
BUT now in FL the Barr & Nader impact might allow Obama to 'steal' the state. 2 party polls consistently favor McCain by a narrow margin.
Look at today's CNN/Time FL poll results. 2 party is a 'tie'...
Multi-party ends up Obama +4. I like those odds - go Barr & Nader. Also, if Barr can have this impact in MT, CO, NV & a few other states out west or maybe NC & VA on the atlantic then Obama can win many more states with 48%.
----------------------------------
CNN / TIME / ORC
9/14-16/08
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
(source)
Florida (907 RV, 3.5%)
McCain 48, Obama 48 [even]
Obama 48, McCain 44, Nader 4, Barr 1, McKinney 1 [Obama +4] <<<<<
------------------------------------
I live in FL & this scenario seems reasonable that Barr & Nader might cost McCain this state in a close election which would be the ultimate irony after the 2000 debacle here. As Palin fades & McCain stumbles daily, more soft GOP & INDS may peel off from McCain for the 3rd parties.
Trying to point fingers at the Democrats for this economic mess is ridiculous. I understand you Republicans are in a position where you don't have a choice,but give me a break. The Republicans are the party of deregulation, small government, sometimes a little oversight isn't a bad thing. Congress has been in control of Republicans for 12 of the last 14 years and we've had a Republican adminfor 8 years. Please give us a break. Your one hope is that this admin is doing everything in their power to catch the bad guys in their caves for the first time in 7 years so they cna change the subject back to foreign policy, but dn't try to argue somehow this financial crisis is the Dems fault. It's not.
OK, so re FL poll.
Any theories why McCain takes the 4 point dive when 3rd parties are included? seems really wierd. Obama stays the same, Nader gets 3, Barr 1, and McCain loses 4. How is that possible?
I'm saying Obama and the Democrat Congress (led by Chris Dodd) pressured Fannie and Freddie to lend capital to poor people who were not reliable enough to pay it back
That's bull. The loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act have LOWER default rates than other loans in those same neighborhoods. The CRA isn't the cause of defaulting mortgages, the CRA involved all sort of efforts, from strict credit and affordability checks to financial counseling. Google "Don't borrow trouble."
What is ARG's history? I've followed polling for a long time but am not very familiar with them. They seem to be getting a lot of bad press.
Virginia Conservative said...
Eric--
I'm saying Obama and the Democrat Congress (led by Chris Dodd) pressured Fannie and Freddie to lend capital to poor people who were not reliable enough to pay it back. There was a bill to stop this mess, but the Democrats in Congress killed it. Now we're stuck with the bill.
And who is advising Obama on economic policy? Why, it's the former CEO of Freddie Mac!
Um, what's your point?
You blame Congress for Freddie Mac's problems, then you have a problem with Obama having a former head of Freddie Mac on his staff? If it's Congress' fault, then why not? You're contradicting yourself.
Besides, Johnson was the head of Freddie back when it was working (sort of).
The real problem here isn't the low interest loans. It was the "derivitive" effect of some of the packages. The effect of a single foreclosure was multiplied 30 times or more. That wasn't Fannie and Freddie's fault.
"Trying to point fingers at the Democrats for this economic mess is ridiculous."
Yes, well, what do you expect from a party that says issues don't matter, facts don't matter, and that it's their prerogative to lie at will if it helps them win?
The CNN poll that has Nader getting 4% and it all coming from McCain doesn't make sense. They have polar opposite views.
"You should go create one."
With blackjack. And convention bounce adjustments!
Ughh another lost post...
Too bad the real narrative of the financial crisis will never see the light of day. It will be all "BUSH'S FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES" and "FINANCING A MISGUIDED WAR INSTEAD OF AMERICA'S FAMILIES" and all that. And of course the media can't be relied upon to investigate it, because they're too busy trying to get Obama elected.
And I love that "The people he'll turn to are trickle-down economics pushers and deregulators." is a criticism of McCain. If only it were true, I could vote for him enthusiastically!
GregM seems right, I second his worries about risks of inaccuracies of the trend adjustments.
"The CNN poll that has Nader getting 4% and it all coming from McCain doesn't make sense. They have polar opposite views."
It makes more sense when you think about it from a "I don't want to vote for the negro/Muslim/whatever" standpoint.
The ARG polls were ridiculous and should probably be left out of Nate's model.
"I'm saying Obama and the Democrat Congress (led by Chris Dodd) pressured Fannie and Freddie to lend capital to poor people who were not reliable enough to pay it back."
Are you really suggesting that a Democrat congress is responsible for this? When the foreclosures started in 2006?
The problem was not that loans were made to borrowers with poor credit, it was that they were predatory. The industry is at fault, and the government is at fault for allowing these predatory loans to be made.
mule rider,
I could probably give a better 2000 words on the history of libertarianism in America than you could, and I'm not even a libertarian. Just somebody who makes a point of knowing his enemy, rather than telling himself pretty stories.
Don't get in my face, son. Wrong guy.
It makes more sense when you think about it from a "I don't want to vote for the negro/Muslim/whatever" standpoint.
QFT
I would caution, though, that it's a lot easier to SAY you will vote for Ralph Nader than to actually do it.
joe and OTF,
Okay, then by your narratives, it is primarily people who are plenty well-off who got in over their heads and have too much house that is declining in value.
By your arguments, it was mostly middle-upper income families being greedy and wanting way more house than they could afford...
Kinda goes into the "housing mess was more a factor of easy money and greedy homeowners" narrative instead of "a deregulated banking system f-ed the little man with sleazy loans."
You people need to get a grip and stop contradicting yourselves.
Wow, even ABC News thinks that the new Obama Spanish add is false:
"There are some real factual problems with this ad, which is titled “Dos Caras,” or two faces.
First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.
Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.
Railing against NAFTA in 1993, Limbaugh said, "If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans. "
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
joe,
I'll get in your God-damn face any day, boy. Don't even try and stand tall to me. I'll bitch-whip your ass from Bakersfield to Baltimore and make you like it.
Trickle down economics and deregulation might be good for a change of pace, but we have a $10 trillion debt. That would be more than $30,000 per person. Middle class folks incomes are going down and costs are going up. Close to absolute deregulation has almost destroyed our economy. It's the wrong time for more of those policies. This a lot more like 1932 than 1980.
GregM said...
"Today's polls on 9/15 got over 1100 comments."
Greg, you are correct. I guess I didn't post that day. This one is likely headed there depending on whether the guys do a later update or trip post...
But the traffic on the posts has been growing almost exponentially in recent days.
And who knows how large the threads would grow if it was not so difficult to follow after 200 - in fact many new users have still not figured that out...
The real economic problem is a decline of FORDISM
Wages have not risen with productivity. Purchasing power declines relative to goods produced. Enter Greenspan manufactured housing bubble and AJR sub primes. With stagnant wages, the bubble burst and with stagnant wages foreclosures followed.
THE PROBLEM IS A DECLINE IN THE WAGES. IT trickled up to the investment banks. This is an issue the Dems will win on. period
BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA IN OHIO
Two Ohio Democrats Say All Independents and Democrats for McCain are Racists
That one is going to hurt Obama..
Yeah, I'm an Obama supporter and I think the ad is just terrible. Rovian in its deceit and utter stupidity.
Can an ad count as a gaffe? Because I want to know what Obama was thinking when he approved it.
DCM in FL said...
And who knows how large the threads would grow if it was not so difficult to follow after 200 - in fact many new users have still not figured that out...
How do you access it after 200 or so?
Virginia Conservative said...
You know what McCain should have done with this financial meltdown, but didn't?
Come out against all the bail-outs. Rail against them. Say they're socialist, that they're putting our children in debt because of a bunch of asshat CEOs.
That would have separated himself from Bush
And sane people.
If AIG goes, every bank in the country goes, due to collateral requirements. If McCain argued that AIG should be allowed to go bankrupt, he shouldn't be allowed to be mayor of Wasilla, let alone a Senator.
Close to absolute deregulation has almost destroyed our economy.
You don't have a clue, do you, shit-ass?!
We have the government mucking around in more shit than you can shake a stick at....and you act like they're nowhere to be found!
BULLSHIT!!! They're in EVERYTHING!!
Eric- Click on "post a new comment". There will be an option there to look at "newer" posts.
@ Vernon:
*Please* give it up on the sex ed bill ad. Having heard a McCain policy advisor on Lehrer insist that we should "go read the bill," I did. Anyone who reads the bill with the least bit of intellectual honesty (and attention to what the legislative sponsors said at the time) would conclude that the clause the McCain campaign so loves to quote out of context (about all "comprehensive" sex ed including info on STDs) is meant to be interpreted under the control of the clause insisting that all sex ed be "age appropriate."
Think about it this way: any parent who had filed suit to get the STD info included in the K classes would have been laughed out of court by any honest judge in 2 sec.
This ad was a despicable, malicious lie, and true conservatives ought to be ashamed that the campaign was unprincipled enough to run it.
L.
Okay, then by your narratives, it is primarily people who are plenty well-off who got in over their heads and have too much house that is declining in value.
No, the CRA doesn't target neighborhoods that are merely not "plenty well-off." It targets neighborhood that are poor. There were plenty of middle-class (not John McCain middle-class, real middle-class) and lower-middle-class people who got in over their heads, too.
Kinda goes into the "housing mess was more a factor of easy money and greedy homeowners" narrative instead of "a deregulated banking system f-ed the little man with sleazy loans." But the two are not in any way mutually exclusive. Regardless of the motivations and situations of the buyers, the lenders were 1) making stupid loans, and 2) selling and bundling them so that some other chump would get stuck with the worthless paper when the loans failed, not the original lender.
Libertarians and conservatives like to talk about government backstopping creating a "moral hazard" to make bad loans - which is true, and a makes it even more important to have standards and oversight when there is such a backstop. The completely private act of creating garbage real estate derivatives, rating them as if they were legitimate real estate bonds, and then selling them off created a huge moral hazard by itself, and the only fault of the government was in allowing it to happen; ie, not providing enough regulation and oversight.
People threaten to vote third party out of disgust for the behavior of the candidates and their surrogates during the campaign. However, after Gore losing due to the Nader factor (among other things) I doubt many will "punch a chad" for Nader or Barr. There really is no third party option in this country, which is part of the problem. At best statistically you can say the third parties will be a wash with maybe a percent going from Obama to Nader and a percent dropping from McCain to Barr.
There are two problems McCain can't change.
1) Palin is a joke
2) McCain knows nothing about the economy
These two things are close to irrefutable and virtually impossible to overcome. I think the only chance he has is if racism/"Bradley Effect" is bigger than we currently think.
mule rider,
I'll get in your God-damn face any day, boy. Don't even try and stand tall to me. I'll bitch-whip your ass from Bakersfield to Baltimore and make you like it.
That is so f*cking hot. What are you wearing while you whip me?
Continue to Spread the Word!!! :
Your blog link didn't provide any proof, it just made an assertion. Care to follow it up?
Eric said...
"How do you access [the thread] after 200 or so?"
----------------------------------
Use the 'post a comment' link to access the comment window.
Then use the 'newer/newest' link in blue near the top right.
that will take you to each successive level by 200 [1-200, 201-400, etc.]
then you can scroll down through the 'comment' window to read the ongoing posts rather than just submit a comment.
tedious but the only way that I am aware of to access the long threads.
hope that helps
CBS News/NY Times National (Sept 12-16):
Obama: 48 (44 last week)
McCain: 43 (46)
Obama +5
The problem was not that loans were made to borrowers with poor credit, it was that they were predatory. The industry is at fault, and the government is at fault for allowing these predatory loans to be made.
This is a misunderstanding of the problem. How does this make sense? The industry makes "predatory" loans that people can't pay back, so the industry in a credit crunch can't collect on them, and goes bankrupt. How does that make sense at all?
The truth is, all loans are in terms favorable to the lender, just less favorable the more competition there is for that type of loan.
Government regulation in this area does two things. First, it reduces competition for loans, allowing the companies to give terms more favorable to the lender (interesting in itself, since this would seem to be the opposite of the government's intent), but second (and this is crucial), they required lenders to give loans to people to whom they would never have given loans, no matter how favorable the terms.
Opening up vast markets of under-capitalized individuals and families makes money for both the lending institutions and their cronies in the government (ie. Dodd, Obama), but it also carries with it the underlying assumption that these practices increase the risk of ruin exponentially, and that in the case of ruin the government has to be there to save the companies.
This is an unnatural system that has the liberal feel-good stated goal of "putting people in their own homes" but in reality makes the bigger companies in the industry, lobbyists, and their government allies rich and passes the risk on to the American people.
" At best statistically you can say the third parties will be a wash with maybe a percent going from Obama to Nader and a percent dropping from McCain to Barr."
You really have no proof of that, you just sort of made those numbers up.
vernon,
First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue.
Now McCain opposed McCain on that issue, too. We can't criticize his position, because he flip-flopped before adopting it?
"The truth is, all loans are in terms favorable to the lender"
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that mortgage brokers, eager to get commissions, issued mortages that weren't good for either side.
Mule Rider said...
Close to absolute deregulation has almost destroyed our economy.
You don't have a clue, do you, shit-ass?!
I work in a deregulated industry. Gotta have checks and balances or greed will destroy the economy as it's pretty much done.
Nicholas said:
CBS News/NY Times National (Sept 12-16)...
Interesting...now the RCP two-way race average is exactly tied with the new poll.
Nicholas said...
CBS News/NY Times National (Sept 12-16):
Obama: 48 (44 last week)
McCain: 43 (46)
Obama +5
-------------
RCP average tied.
Bounce? What bounce?
On to the debates!
Interesting...now the RCP two-way race average is exactly tied with the new poll.
And according to RCP, Obama goes up to +6 with 3rd parties.
the only fault of the government was in allowing it to happen; ie, not providing enough regulation and oversight
I disagree. And we'll just have to agree to disagree. The fault of the governemnt was meddling by hinting (through past examples of doing so) that these companies had the green light to engage in investments and business practices that were unsound and unsafe and very risky (moral hazard), and that if they were to fail, they'd be there to pick them up.
If the government had been clear way back when that that kind of behavior was despicable and they wouldn't be there to pick up the tab in case of a failure, you'd have seen much more efficiently run businesses making sound decisions that didn't impair the economy.
Obama is probably up nationally today at least 3 points, maybe more. He'd win almost all of the swing states if the elction were held today, though that is subject to change over the next 7 weeks.
"Interesting...now the RCP two-way race average is exactly tied with the new poll."
And that's mostly because of older McCain-friendly polls about to slip off, and their choosing to ignore R2000/Kos.
Nicholas said...
CBS News/NY Times National (Sept 12-16):
Obama: 48 (44 last week)
McCain: 43 (46)
Obama +5
A change of 7 points in a week.
Makes those Time/CNN polls make a little more sense in context, doesn't it?
That's not my understanding. My understanding is that mortgage brokers, eager to get commissions, issued mortages that weren't good for either side.
That is true in some cases, I believe. But on the whole, opening up vast markets for lending was very good for the industry (or so it thought, until the risk chickens they hatched came home to roost).
An interesting sidebar to that CBS poll... identical results (+5) between LV and RV. Haven't seen that often.
Obama's path to victory is simple and clear:
Get to debates with this newfound lead intact.
Survive the foreigh policy debate.
Play it safe to the end.
NICHOLAS
thanks for the further confirmation that the McCain bounce has dribbled out oficially now. Obama +5 in CBS from -2 last week confirms that Hotline & R2000 are more accurate this week than Rasmussen tracker or Gallup.
Gallup is starting to show the trend today. RR is still 'resistent' to this trend at least in large measure due to Scott R's manipulating the party ID #'s - sure makes one wonder though...
BUT ALERT - now that CBS poll is in the RCP data, they have the as a 'tie' finally !
Obama is trending up fast in past 2 days even at RCP...
Superstar-
I wondered that too. Maybe it's a good scare tactic for Latinos in states like New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. However, I interact with many in that community in a fairly blue state and I don't think they're buying what Obama's selling yet. Perhaps it's an attempt to really vilify McCain in their eyes, but if it causes a ruckus (such as Limbaugh suing or something) that keeps it in the media for a while that could cause a backlash as they won't like having been "lied to".
lanier-
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. If you had the curriculum design background that I have (perhaps you do) you might perceive it differently. The ideology of teaching Sex Ed to children younger and younger is common in larger city school districts and is offensive to many parents, whether you like it or not. Actually, it was Byron York who wrote an article about the topic (I initially mistakenly stated Rich Lowry was the author):
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY
Almost all of the numbers are looking pretty bad for McCain lately and the trend is quickening.
I bet he wishes he had a real running mate that could go on the talk shows, field questions and change stump speeches based on rapidly changing events.
...And one whose negatives weren't rising so quickly.
Will Ras and Gallup follow suit or are they going to continue to use their cooked numbers?
It'll be interesting!
We have the government mucking around in more shit than you can shake a stick at....and you act like they're nowhere to be found!
BULLSHIT!!! They're in EVERYTHING!!
Yes, yes, TRUE communism has never been tried. We know.
But whether it meets your standards of Libertopia or not, there was massive deregulation of the financial industry under the Republican Congress and Presidents Bush and Clinton. All sorts of novel arrangements that were verboten under the New Deal-era regulatory regime were suddenly allowed - allowed, yes, in an atmosphere that wasn't Libertopia, but you know what? We don't live in Libertopia.
There was massive deregulation, pushed by ideologues like Gramm and Greenspan, and lo and behold, we start seeing the type of cascading financial-sector collapse that hasn't been seen since before the New Deal.
Also, and I'm done with it after this, I think the government regulation of the mortgage industry, which results in a mutually beneficial relationship between government legislators and officials in charge of oversight and the heads of the biggest firms in the industry, helped bring about the situation where F+F were "too big to fail."
Regarding early voting - is there any way the model can work with that to predict stuff? For instance - if we know in advance that some states get as much as 20% of the vote during early voting, can we make their daily polls during early voting periods a little weightier? I ask, because this model predicts results out to November 4, but some of the voting will have happened by then, and will be influenced by earlier events.
It's not tied. Last night's polling
Diageo, Obama +3
Gallup, yesterday Obama about +6
Research 2000 Obama +4
Rasmussen, probably about even
CBS Obama +5
Reuters Obama +2
This will probably shift some, but Obama's out in front right now. It's not tied.
"The truth is, all loans are in terms favorable to the lender"
Not when the lender is then turning around and selling off the mortgage. What do they care if the borrower is a default risk? This is the fundamental problem. If the company issuing the mortgage was actually taking the loss when the borrower defaults, these kinds of loans wouldn't be made.
You seem to think that the Democrats were okay with people getting loans that they had no chance of paying back, and I think that's totally unfounded. My wife and I bought our first house last year, and I think it's appalling that even for adjustable or interest-only loans, the initial monthly payment is really the only easily discernable quantity describing the loan.
It's a corrupt industry, and I have no doubt that everyone deserves blame for this, but for you to pretend that the Democrats are all to blame and the deregulators like Gramm have no responsibility is laughable.
"Nicholas said...
CBS News/NY Times National (Sept 12-16):
Obama: 48 (44 last week)
McCain: 43 (46)
Obama +5
September 17, 2008 5:47 PM"
Damn, Nicholas. How DARE you post something about polls on a polling post. So much better to read the hard right foamings and insults. Today is Obama's best national polling day since Tuesday of the GOP convention...seems like we may have moved beyond the Palin for now
vernon - did Obama's bill include a provision that allowed parents to opt their children out?
Obama is probably up nationally today at least 3 points, maybe more. He'd win almost all of the swing states if the elction were held today, though that is subject to change over the next 7 weeks.
Are you even looking at the polling data? What planet do you live on? WTF?
You just like to make hyperpartisan, ridiculous posts, is that it?
-Bush has f-ed everything up.
-Obama is great.
-McCain has never told the truth.
-Obama is up by 20 points nationwide and headed for a landslide.
-Karl Rove is Satan.
-Joe Biden is my hero.
-Ronald Reagan was an asshole.
-Kansas will turn blue.
There you go, dickbag...your next 8 talking points.
INTRADE is taking notice of the confirmation of the Obama UP trend.
Obama is back over 50% once again & rising while McCain [and Palin slips awaaaaayyyyyyy
Nate, I'm curious about "ARG is not the most terrific pollster." The Pollster Ratings page doesn't list ARG at all, and Our Campaigns shows ARG as being very reliable, at least at the end of a cycle, which is all that can ever be measured anyway.
That last point makes me wonder about someone like Scott Rasmussen, who rates pretty highly on both your page and Our Campaigns, but keeps tweaking his model. I understand that there are legitimate reasons to do so, as has been thoroughly explored here, but someone with such a partisan tilt could be expected to adjust his model to favor the candidate of his choice until the last polls of the cycle so as to create the bandwagon effect (gee if candidate x is doing well then he must be good). He could then adjust it to where he expects it to be most accurate at the end of the cycle, so that he can maintain his reputation as an accurate pollster. I'm not saying he does this, but it is certainly a reasonably easy scenario to imagine. I imagine partisans of any stripe could use their polls in this manner.
I'd be wary of people predicting further moves for Obama, other than in the tracking polls.
I've never been a big believer in momentum.
Palin did nothing for McCain in VA or FL but lots for him in MN and WI.
Coincidence?
I think it's the accent.
The Pollster Ratings page doesn't list ARG
American Research Group is at +2.32 in his rankings; they are a little worse than average on his polling; by comparison, "Unknown Pollster" pulls a +2.11.
The fault of the governemnt was meddling by hinting (through past examples of doing so) that these companies had the green light to engage in investments and business practices that were unsound and unsafe and very risky (moral hazard), and that if they were to fail, they'd be there to pick them up. Yes, backstopping can create a moral hazard. I just said that. It is precisely BECAUSE backstopping can create moral hazard that enforceable standards become so important.
If the government had been clear way back when that that kind of behavior was despicable and they wouldn't be there to pick up the tab in case of a failure, you'd have seen much more efficiently run businesses making sound decisions that didn't impair the economy.
There was no backstopping in the 19th century, and "bank runs" and "panics" caused by cascading failures in the financial industry happened about every 20-30 years. They only ceased to be part of our economic landscape with the adoption of the New Deal's system of oversight, which included backstopping.
Think about that, mule rider - the thing you said was CAUSED by backstopping actually fell off the table at the same time backstopping came into existence. It was regulation that did that, and it isn't remotely surprising that deregulation brought those things back.
John Peterson,
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that government regulation created this problem. That is precisely the opposite of what I've read and heard from a number of sources: that DE-regulation allowed lenders to pursue more and more dubious loans that they then sold, leading eventually to the collapse that we have today. Given that lenders expected the real estate market to continue rising and interest rates to remain low, these loans made sense. Plus, they sold bundled the loans so that the issuers no longer held the risk.
What makes you doubt this version and instead suggest that the government intervene to force companies to loan money to low-income people? I'm not an expert, so I'm happy to concede the point in light of evidence to the contrary.
McCain's convention bounce will disappear soon. (Before everyone goes off in their hand, I only look at electoral college. You can amuse/abuse yourself with popular vote, but it is immaterial) Day 13
#1 Palin is a joke
#2 McCain knows nothing about the economy.
These cannot be refuted. These are McCain's downfall. No way around it.
hey, notice that the posts are more on point tonight ???
a nice change, but most of the worst neo-con trolls seemed to have retreated to their caves after 2 weeks of non-stop gloating & mindless blather.
they had their 2 weeks in the sun during the 'bounce' & before the Palin bubble started to deflate...
pppffftttt - GOPer bubble leaking...
There must be a balance between regulation and oversight and over-regulation and inhibition of business. The country was at the right barometer in the past.
Energy deregulation led to massive blackouts in CA and a major collapse in North Eastern US and Canada.
Deregulation of financials and home lending led to massive banking collapse.
There is a pattern here.
Most Americans want stability in Electricity and Financial Markets.
God Bless Regulation.
#1 Palin is a joke
#2 McCain knows nothing about the economy.
This is not something that can be refuted or overcome.
Shmenge said...
Palin did nothing for McCain in VA or FL but lots for him in MN and WI.
Coincidence?
I think it's the accent.
If you're joking, you shouldn't be. It's partially true.
"What makes you doubt this version and instead suggest that the government intervene to force companies to loan money to low-income people?"
A dogmatic belief in the utter infallibility of the market.
"a nice change, but most of the worst neo-con trolls seemed to have retreated to their caves after 2 weeks of non-stop gloating & mindless blather."
They'll be back the moment the stock market is up 10 points for the day.
I wonder if Joe remembers what life was like in 1980 under Jimmy Carter and a liberal Democrat Congress?
High interest rates, high unemployment, gas lines, etc. That's what your wonderful New Deal/Great Society left us with.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Complete deregulation= absolute power for lots of greedy folks= total mess
90% Republicans fault, McCain offers more of the same
I've never been a big believer in momentum. Me neither. It's a made-up concept by the political media, who want to create a narrative that links together disparate bits of data.
Remember the primary race after Super Tuesday? Before Super Tuesday, everyone was saying "after this, there are a bunch of contests in a row that favor Obama, and then a stretch where there are a bunch of contests that favor Hillary."
But as soon as Obama wins a few of those contests in a row, they're all saying, "Wow look at the momentum!" Then when his stretch of favorable states ends, and we get Texas-Ohio-Pennsylvania, the same people to told us two months before that these states were Hillary's home turf say "Wow, look at how the momentum has changed!"
Tools. The lot of 'em.
oct,
Read up on what really happened in CA. They said the industry was "deregulated" when in fact the government was still there meddling and mucking up more than before. Go ahead. Do your research instead of listening to one-liners from media sources 2000 miles away.
Sedi,
Ready The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert P. Murphy if you want a quick/handy guide to regulation, gov't interference, et al.
Please. It might not change your mind on everything, but it's a quick peak at a lot of economic issues and presents the case for a free market in an appealing, thoughtful, and factual way.
sarasotajoe
I totally agree with your post on the Rasmussen 'tweaks' mid-cycle.
also how he chooses his targeted releases for partisan purposes, as well as the narrative of Q's asked & his partisan commentary within the text as well as the toplines.
plus RR discounts the 3rd party votes & pushes the undecided into 'soft' leaners that are basically worthless in mid-cycle polling.
then the party ID shifts under his thumb - but can be readjusted endlessly to try to end up close to the final results.
Nate & others say his record is good - but in fact it is poor in comparison for mid-cycle since he relies on 500 state samples for his robo-calls.
past FINAL performance is no indication of future MID-cycle estimating.
but his individual state poll finalresults in 2004 were NOT particularly good at the micro-level. He may have gotten the final national result corre3ct or close - but he performed poorly on the internals & micro-state projections IMHO. Including in MN.
Looking at CO/NV/NM, 3 states with high Hispanic populations, with 2 arguably being battlegrounds (think NM is getting close to be a safe Dem state), can McCain win this election if he doesn't get the Bush Hispanic support of 2004?
Yes, Obama will get vast majority of AAs (Dems normally do anyway - Obama just has potential to increase turnout 5+ %), and about 35% of the white vote (40% + in CO and NV), and majority of the under 40 vote (thus getting Obama's white vote in the mid 30s). Won't 55-60% of the Hispanic vote put Obama over the top in these states?
What will be the October surprise for the Repubs this year.
They have the nuclear option in the works I bet.
What about the Fiorina comments on Palin and McCain being unable to manage a company. What a big fat gaffe. I guess she is fired--for speaking the truth.
Arguing against momentum because of how the Democratic prmaries played out is really silly. That thing was over after South Carolina. The general is 51 separate contests. I guarantee you if Obama is up nationally by as much as he is today he'll win almost all of the swing states and vice versa.
From the viewpoint of an 'On-The-Ground' Obama Campaign Volunteer in Central Florida:
Palin selection brought a lot of interesting responses from women here. Many being disgust and paraphrased quotes similar to, "She doesn't represent what I stand for". Furthermore, it boosted local donations and volunteers. Weeks later, that 'Anti-Palin' buzz hasn't changed a bit from the base here. However, talking to undecideds the previously-familiar response of: "I need to re-look at the campaign now that Palin is on the ticket" has eroded away. Self-described Social Conservatives are sold on McCain-Palin emphatically (and most of them actually want the ticket reversed). Self-described moderates (large majority) are telling us either, "I still don't know" or admit "I'm now leaning Obama, but I'm not sold. I still need to hear more about how he's actually going to fix things."
Note: VAST majority of voters we spoke to were actually upset about the distractions of the previous couple weeks. Can't count how many times we hear an impatient tone, "Can't the candidates just get to the issues?" and "Why vote for Obama when all he does is say McCain is Bush? I get it, but I want to know what OBAMA stands for."
Overall: there is still a VERY energized Obama ground-game and Democratic Base in our area. McCain's ground-game is still completely invisible. However, the airwaves (up until this week) contained a McCain majority in ads. Of course, thats completely changed as Obama is now hitting VERY hard on heavy advertising in both TV and Radio. And folks are taking notice with whats happening in the Stock Market.
Now, I'm not a smart guy. I don't have a degree. I never attended college a day in my life. And there's plenty of different demographics in other parts of the state of Florida. So my opinion doesn't really matter. With that stated, I project a HUGE opportunity for Obama to at least run up the vote in Central Florida if he can just 'close the deal' with undecideds between now and 11/4. Will it be enough to win the state? I have no idea. However, a large number are ready to cast their vote for him, if only he can 'connect' with them first. Their votes really are his to lose.
"Won't 55-60% of the Hispanic vote put Obama over the top in these states?"
In NM, yes. In NV/CO, maybe.
I can assure you if McCain loses this election because we lost the Hispanic vote there's gonna be a hella lot of soul-searching in the Republican Party on immigration/Hispanic outreach.
Yeah, how'd the government handle the energy crisis of the 1970's?
Price celings on fuel?
Oh yeah, that's right. Anybody who understands a simple freaking supply/demand chart knows that when you put in a ceiling when there's an imbalance in the equilibrium price, you're going to have a shortage. Hence, the lines. Hence that chaos.
Free market doesn't work, huh? Yeah, the government does so much better.
virginia conservative,
I'm not actually old enough to remember the consequences of Nixon's wage-and-price controls and Vietnam spending, which put the national economy into such a tailspin in the late 70s.
But I've read enough about the period to know that nobody, not even the Democrats, want to adopt in 2008 the sort of policies that had such broad bipartisan support in the 70s.
Nate, you seriously believe that CNN's Ohio, FL, and NC numbers are really reliable? I strongly disagree that they are accurate. I think they are the outliers.
Question about October surprise. Bush is trying hard to find some bad guys in Pakistan for the first time since before the Iraq War started. This would be political strategery.
Post a Comment