On the eve of the first Presidential Debate, Barack Obama is perhaps in as strong a position in the polls as he has been all year, now projecting to win the election 74.7 percent of the time. Both the state and the national polls that have come out within the past 48 hours have generally been quite favorable to Obama, and suggest that he may gained an additional point or so above and beyond his "Lehman Leap" from last week.
Still, there are a couple of silver linings for McCain in the state polling:
Wait, which silver linings? Well, McCain gets good numbers in West Virginia and Montana, two states that looked like they might just have been on the verge of being competitive. And although Obama looks as though he's slightly ahead in New Hampshire, it also looks to be polling behind his national numbers -- we project Obama to win New Hampshire by 0.7 points, but the national popular vote by 2.9 points. So if the race tightens up, Obama may no longer be able to bank on New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes.
Still, McCain has very serious problems in Virginia, and extremely serious problems in Michigan, which is starting to drift off the swing state list. And forget about the Pacific Northwest. But at this stage, the electoral math is starting to diminish in importance; McCain needs to make gains everywhere, which means he needs a clutch performance in tonight's debate.
9.26.2008
Today's Polls, 9/26
@ 2:42 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
347 comments
woo!!!
homunq said...
Yay! Updates! I'm glad you're OK, Nate - we worry about you.
this site is great
:-)
sadly the data Nate gets is fake
Second..LOL
Thanks, Nate.
I think you missed the recently released ARG polls that show McCain +3 in Colorado (!) and Obama +1 in Florida (!).
Pollster.com has new interactive charts. What's really weird though, is that if you choose to see only automated telephone polls, it looks like a steady decline for Obama and a steady rise for McCain. Are automated polls really showing such a different race?
And Ohio... stays tied. McCain could go on stage naked tonight and Ohio will still be tied.
Agreed. McCain needs to get a 10-8 Round in a boxing match tonight. If not, Obama may run away and hide. Virginia and Colorado's 22 electoral votes are looking an awful lot like they're headed into the Obama column. If this happens, McCain's only plausible out I see is flip Pennsylvania. An extremely difficult proposition.
Very pleased to see Obama performing so well. McCain's 10-in-1 act over the last month have not helped him.
Wow, that was about a pro-McCain a spin of today's numbers as one could credibly make without sounding outlandish. If McCain's positives are that he is likely to hold WV and MT while losing NH and VA, then he is in serious trouble. The NH numbers don't seem to move with the national numbers much, so I'm not sure that we can conclude that McCain would regain the lead in NH if the national race came back to even. That might be true in the model, but it might not be true in real life.
The model is probably over reacting a bit to the strong Obama trends in Virginia, because it now gives a slightly better chance for Obama to win VA over PA.
However, there has been an apparent structural shift in VA towards Obama in the past few weeks.
I would love for this to continue!
surveyusa also had a poll up showing McCain +2 in MO
I'm sorry, I misremembered the chart. Obama stays flat while McCain rises. Still, it's way off from what most polls are showing.
We have had polls in the last 72 hours in Michigan that were 16 ponts apart and in Colorado 12 points apart. Not to mention Virginia 11 points and Florida 8 points. Funkytown
6 hours & 87min. 2 go
6 hours & 7min. 2 go
Heres a theory
At about the same time that Obama's camp started brining up race his numbers jumped.
Could this be some realization o the Bradley effect? People were cowed into saying they would vote for Obama to live pollsters, but not automated machines.
So the bad news is that a couple of red states stay red, and a state with 4 EVs looks more competitive. I can live with that news.
JUST wait until this story hits the polling numbers....
McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."
http://www.wegoted.com/
One interesting thing I noticed is that with this most recent model run, the tie sceario has dropped dramatically from the last few days.
All this action in VA & NC leaves me drooling. But no pudding?
What is happening in Indiana?
Thomas said...
Heres a theory
At about the same time that Obama's camp started brining up race his numbers jumped.
Could this be some realization o the Bradley effect? People were cowed into saying they would vote for Obama to live pollsters, but not automated machines.
-------------
Oy vey.
How large a margin would Obama have to win in the popular vote for a likely flip of OH? Or is he already at his ceiling there?
"JUST wait until this story hits the polling numbers...."
It's just an unsubstantiated rumor, really.
Leading onservative commentator say Palin should step down
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/
WTF
Here's some detail on the R2000 NH Poll:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080926/FRONTPAGE/809260301
And Shaheen over Sununu by 9.
Reposted from earlier thread - any math geeks want to comment on this method for the daily Gallup results?
I think it is actually possible to get the Gallup daily numbers. Not simply from the 3-day average numbers, but Gallup also releases the weekly averages. If you take the 7-day average and subtract off two 3-day averages (that are entirely contained within the 7-day), you get a single day's result.
Using 2 weeks of data, you get two individual days, which can then be used to obtain all the daily numbers.
My calculations show that Obama actually had a particularly poor day on the 22nd, which just dropped off. The past three days have been relatively stable with Obama in the high 40s and McCain in the mid 40s.
On further inspection I redact my comment.
It turns out that Ras is the only automated one they really have data and that its more or less a function of their filter than anything.
Ok, nevermind, it looks like the issue with Pollster is that if you only look at automated polls, there just haven't been enough in the last week to "prove" the shift toward Obama.
Treasury Secretary down on one knee before Pelosi...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918.html
Check out Intrade. States like Indiana and North Carolina have gone from McCain 80% to win or so, to pick 'ems in the last 48 hours. Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio from McCain favored to Obama favored. Colorado from toss-up to Obama 70% and Florida from McCain 75% to close to a toss-up. How 'bout them tasty apples.
For those who briefly saw the Road to 270 - Nebraska post; we will put that up in a bit, we're in a very difficult wireless connection area (Arkansas, speeding toward Oxford) and didn't see Today's Polls go up. Look for it around 3:30 central.
guys,
I have real concerns. I've been hanging out at right wing boards the past few weeks. Keep your enemies close i guess :) (Same reason I watch Foxnews from time to time and listen to rush/hannity).
These right wing boards are absolutely convinced that McCain will win and win convincingly. They are adjusting all polls
1. party weighting. The claim is that most polls out are sampling too many dems. And therefore, the results are favoring Obama.
2. Bradley effect - figure a net transfer of 2-6 points from Obama to McCain on election day.
So my question is this. Nate's model shows Obama in a great position. Nate has stated that this may be Obama's strongest position all year. yet I'm very uncomfortable because of the reasons I outlined above.
so my ultimate question:
Is Bradley effect and party weighting taken into consideration in Nate's model?
"Pollster.com has new interactive charts. What's really weird though, is that if you choose to see only automated telephone polls, it looks like a steady decline for Obama and a steady rise for McCain. Are automated polls really showing such a different race?"
J - All but 2 of those data points reflect the Rasmussen daily tracker. So it's not a big deal.. if you balance it out the tracker averages out that way.
Obama won yesterday's polling on three daily trackers (Rasmussen, Gallup, HOTLINE) by about 10 points each.
As you mentioned yesterday, and as pollster.com is reporting today (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phone_only_households_by.php), it seems cell-phone only households seem to be a significant variable, if this isn't already included in your regression, perhaps it could be?
"What is happening in Indiana?"
IN doesn't get polled as much because there are laws that effectively ban automated polling (used by Ras, SUSA, and others) there. We are likely due for another one soon, though, since the last poll was ten days ago. I wouldn't be shocked if the race in IN is within a few points, though I expect that McCain will carry it unless he loses in a landslide.
EmonOkari said...
How large a margin would Obama have to win in the popular vote for a likely flip of OH? Or is he already at his ceiling there?
--------------
I would say a real (not polls or models) Obama +4 or greater popular vote lead nationally would mean OH, FL and MO flipping.
If Obama wins VA, he can lose CO and NH and STILL win.
VA is starting to look more and more like a blue state. I mean, if Scotty R(republican shill)'s polls are showing O+5, it's probably closer to seven when taking into account massive registration, reverse-bradley effect, and the cellphone effect. Not to mention the fact that Obama over performed the polls there during the primaries. Sirens should be going off in the JMAC campaign right about now.
Virginia is one of the first states to show it's results. If it turns blue, Obama supporters can pop their champagne, and the McCain supporters can start pouring out some Jack Daniels...
NH isn't going to budge. By now it's citizens must have automatic electioneering filters or gone insane.
On comes yet another add & their eyes loose focus.
jon in ca: That's a neat trick with Gallup. It makes sense to me, but that hardly proves anything.
"McCain could go on stage naked tonight and Ohio will still be tied." ????!!!!
Alex, couldn't you think of an example that would have been kinder to the mind's eye of other posters?
Overall the polling looks better, but I don't get MT. I can't believe the polling is accurate there. My experience in MT is (especially in Butte) a low BS tolerance.
Unsubstantiated Palin Rumor + No national exposure on which to base her ability + Cram course in Public Debate + Quick briefing in Foreign Policy + Biden's Ego + Biden's Gaffe proneness = Extremely lowered expectations for Palin + Potential decent Performance = Palin Debate win even if she marginally loses. She just needs to look as Presidential as Dan Quayle in 1988.
"Is Bradley effect and party weighting taken into consideration in Nate's model?"
The Bradley Effect has been debunked pretty thoroughly, and it wouldn't even apply to this race anyway. In theory, it states that people will lie to pollsters about voting for a black candidate when the white candidate is completely unacceptable. Since McCain is a decent candidate, no reason to lie.
The Republican argument on Party ID weight is that party ID will reflect the last few elections. They want to pretend that anti-incumbent sentiment, because of an unpopular war and a tanking economy, is real.
While you are there, ask them about the cell phone effect.
---"She just needs to look as Presidential as Dan Quayle in 1988."
Curently are 3 interviews make Quayle seem like a genius. Watch the Couric interview, it's utter nonsense. Even coservatives can no longer hold their nose about her.
If I were a Palinite, I'd be less worried about Quayle and more worried about avoiding a Stockdale.
Looks like Bush's final stake through the heart of America may well be this financial crisis.
BHO is nice enough himself, not to mention the symbolism. But wow, how is the country going to handle Bill Ayers partying at the White House?
emperorwillis said...
guys,
I have real concerns. I've been hanging out at right wing boards the past few weeks. Keep your enemies close i guess :) (Same reason I watch Foxnews from time to time and listen to rush/hannity).
These right wing boards are absolutely convinced that McCain will win and win convincingly. They are adjusting all polls
1. party weighting. The claim is that most polls out are sampling too many dems. And therefore, the results are favoring Obama.
2. Bradley effect - figure a net transfer of 2-6 points from Obama to McCain on election day.
So my question is this. Nate's model shows Obama in a great position. Nate has stated that this may be Obama's strongest position all year. yet I'm very uncomfortable because of the reasons I outlined above.
so my ultimate question:
Is Bradley effect and party weighting taken into consideration in Nate's model?
Certainly there's reason to not be overconfident, but you'd have to assume a couple of things. First off the electorate would have to look a lot more like 2004 than 2006. While that's possible, since 2006 the Dems have gained substantially in party registration numbers. It would be really hard to fathom that the Dems haven't mad up legitimate ground in the last 4 years. Certianly if you compare registration numbers state by state, ground game, primaries, etc., it would be really surprising if the Conservatives are right and the PArty IDs are all off in all of the polls. Second, "The Bradley EffecT" would have to be large enough to flip specific states. I would not guess Colorado or Virigina would be likely culprits. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, perhaps, but enough to flip them? I'd guess nt, though it's certainly possible. If the "Bradley Effect" really is 6 points, OBama will lose. The Bradley Effect specifically describes people who say they'll vote for OBama, but really won't because he's black. The folks who won't vote for him because he's black are primarily reflected in the polling, I'd doubt there's a 6% Bradley Effect within them.
If the Presidential Debate is to be a naked free for all, I think we must have the VP debate in the Nude also. Certain Palin win over Biden.
Although putting a young African American on stage naked with a Senior Caucasion may be a bit too large of an advantage to overcome, if the rumors are true.
Alex @ 1:48
Yes, OH will in all likelihood stay tied. Unfortunately, there is clearly a racist element in the state that will take a generation to go away. I have made calls for Obama for the past three weeks, and I get at least one blatantly racist democratic voter a night. It's really unfortunate, especially given the shape of their state's economy. The degree of racism in this country will decide this election, IMO.
Repubs also forget Dems have gained over 2.5 million in registration and Repubs lost 344,000.
Black turnout will be up, people are saying 20% on the low side.
Under 30 turnout was up 52% in the primaries. Won't be that high in the general but maybe half that at 25%.
Missed a few polls...
McCain up 3 in CO (ARG)
Obama up 1 in FL (ARG)
McCain up 2 in MO (SUSA)
Sedi
Don't be too sure about Indiana. The lack of polls means that Obama could have wage one huge ground war without anyone noticing.
Obama has shown that he can rack up huge swings in States that nobody bothered with before. Indiana might be up there with Virginia.
She just needs to look as Presidential as Dan Quayle in 1988.
The sheer fact her name is in the same sentence as Quayle, seems to prove the entire point that McCain made a boo-boo.
"---She just needs to look as Presidential as Dan Quayle in 1988."
"Curently are 3 interviews make Quayle seem like a genius. Watch the Couric interview, it's utter nonsense. Even coservatives can no longer hold their nose about her."
I agree. I don't see her living up to those standards. Only a Biden Gaffe will save her.
emperorrwillis:
Sounds like the standard right wing talking points.
The Bradley Effect (or "BRADLEY AFFECT!!!!" as the trolls refer to it as) is a unproven explanation that may have explained why a black candidate didn't perform as well as expected in a gubernatorial race over twenty years ago. It theorizes that some voters were uncomfortable voting for a black man, but didn't want to admit it, so they told the pollster they were voting for him, even though they weren't.
What the republiClowns don't realize is that RACISM IS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE POLLING NUMBERS. A racist has NO reason to lie to an AUTOMATED machine, because there are plenty of "acceptable" reasons to say you support mccain. Racists will simply select mccain.
If anything, there is a REVERSE-BRADLEY effect, which is to say, that some that might be criticized for "voting for a black man" might tell people they are voting for mcCain, but then secretly vote for Obama. Or black republicans who say they are voting GOP, but pull the lever for Obama for historical purposes.
In summary, there is no evidence that the bradley effect actually exists, and plenty of evidence that it will not affect Obama's poll numbers.
It's sad really. These rightards are practically jerking off to the thought of racism putting their guy over the top. They are going to be sorely disappointed on November 5th.
emperorwillis,
They're counting on people *telling pollsters* they'll vote for Obama but not do it. Does that make sense to you at all? There are plenty of reasons for disaffected Democrats or racially biased independents to freely admit to pollsters a preference for McCain. All studies have shown this effect ceased to be meaningful in the mid 90s, and Nate made an excellent post on the subject not so long ago. The right-wing posters are just grasping at the few straws they have left.
Thanks inkstain,
I guess the root of my concern is that they have hard numbers to back up their assertions.
party registration did not change much from 2004 to 2006. So why expect it now?
As for Bradley Effect, Obama underperformed in OH and PA during the primaries. OH looks like it may not matter. But PA is absolutely critical. Most recent polling has Obama up low single digits. This can all be wiped away by a Bradley effect. I hear what you are saying about the Bradley effect only applying when there is an UNACCEPTABLE white opponent. First time I've heard that but its an interesting thought.
I watch Montana pretty closely and I don't believe those numbers.
For one thing, Ron Paul is on the ballot there, and they only polled Obama vs. McCain. The 4% or so who said "Other" significantly understates Paul's share of the vote.
Also, Montana is a big cell phone only state.
Plus O has a good GOTV operation there, and McCain's not playing.
Obama has a shot at the Tester coalition here, and a narrow victory.
emperorwillis,
I wouldn't be so concerned. The two effects you mention -- oversampling Dems and Bradley Effect -- are not likely determinative. There has been a real, demonstrable, and even measurable shift to the Democrats. Measuring partisan ID is tricky, since mostly it is done through polling which, if you haven't noticed, is far from exact. Voter registration is a more reliable, but less dynamic, measure. Democrats have made huge gains in voter registration during the past two years. While some conservatives make themselves feel better by pointing to Rasmussen's measures showing a narrowing of the gap, most of the available evidence suggests that Democrats will have more than a 5-point edge in partisan ID, possibly much more.
According to the best available evidence from those who have studied it, the Bradley Effect does not exist anymore. There is no evidence of it in post-2000 races in any part of the country. There are links off the Wikipedia entry that explain and provide evidence for this.
Furthermore, there are other factors that likely benefit Obama. First, his campaign has invested much time and effort in registering new voters, and these people are less likely to show up in polls, especially ones with a likely voter screen. Second, the cell phone effect means young voters are often undersampled, which likely understates Obama's support. Third, Obama has a massive and well coordinated GOTV effort, which could give him a big boost in certain key states. Fourth, many AAs say they are undecided when they are really for Obama. There are lots of polls with Obama only getting 80-85% of the black vote. This also happened in the primaries in many states, and in every one he ended up with 90+% of the AA vote.
Some Republicans are desperate to believe that their guy is winning. That's fine, but don't take it too seriously. Obama has led for almost the entire campaign, and he is leading now. If the dynamics of this race don't change significantly in the next month or so, then McCain has little chance to win.
In the future, I can only hope the name Palin is a punchline for bad campaigns and not a punchline for the worst Presidency of our nation's history.
"I guess the root of my concern is that they have hard numbers to back up their assertions."
Learn how to use numbers properly, how statistics work, and their assertions fall apart like a house of cards.
"party registration did not change much from 2004 to 2006. So why expect it now?"
Off-year elections aren't quite the same as presidential ones. And even since 2006, both the president and the economy have seen popularity/confidence plumment.
"As for Bradley Effect, Obama underperformed in OH and PA during the primaries."
That's what is known as "cherry-picking." It's expected that, given the small sample of polling done in the primaries, that polls will be occassionaly off by a few points here and there. You can't just pick two states Obama underperformed and say "a-ha, effect!"
And even if that worked, then Obama can expect a *huge* boost in the south and atlantic coast, where he overperformed a ton in the primaries.
"I hear what you are saying about the Bradley effect only applying when there is an UNACCEPTABLE white opponent. First time I've heard that but its an interesting thought."
The reason it's the first time you've heard it is because most people talking about the Bradley Effect don't know what it means. They just want to believe that the polls are wrong so they have latched onto a possible reason.
No one is factoring the Libertarian effect in polling. There will be 4 to 7 per cent voting for a party not called the Republican or Democratic Party.
That will matter in MT, IN, VA, GA, SC, and a number of other "red states" that are currently within the MOE.
Today's polls are EXTRAORDINARILY EXCELLENT!!! For John McCain!!
Inky,
"The Bradley Effect has been debunked pretty thoroughly, and it wouldn't even apply to this race anyway."
OK, I will stipulate to that.
What about a "reverse Bradley Effect"? People may truly believe he is not the most qualified, but tell the pollsters they are Obama supporters because they are afraid of being labeled racist.
I surmise we won't know the answer till November, if then.
wait hold on. I am not sure this has been talked about.
When there is a live pollster on pollster.com its basically a tie game. Is there any case *for* the bradley effect to be made by that?
@emperorwillis
It is not that the Bradley effect never existed. It's not that there aren't some voters who a lying to posters about their presidential choice.
It's that there almost certainly aren't enough of the latter to have a significant impact, and those are at least partially offset by older African Americans who grew up used to telling Whites what they think the Whites want to hear.
It's that recent research strongly suggests that the effect has faded into into insignificance and that McCain (at least until a few days ago) was seen as an acceptable choice and therefor not likely to provoke the effect.
Also, since there is no interviewer-respondent interaction in Robopolling,there would be no reason to anticipate such an effect in, say, Rasmussen polling.
As for the right wing faith in these things, 44 years ago the politial ancestors of those types were sure there was a "hidden conservative" vote that would elect Goldwater.
"There will be 4 to 7 per cent voting for a party not called the Republican or Democratic Party"
You forgot a decimal point at the front of those numbers.
"When there is a live pollster on pollster.com its basically a tie game. Is there any case *for* the bradley effect to be made by that?"
That would make the opposite case. Why would people lie about supporting Obama to an automated phone message but not to a person?
If McCain backs some sort of bailout, won't this significantly increase the number of votes for Bob Barr and Ron Paul? Enough where some states that seem a little too far of a reach for Obama (Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, etc.) might because back in play?
haha inkstain can you answer that previous question.
Live pollsters yield more favorable results for John McCain.
Dont know about that inkstain - if you are a small government conservative in Montana and McCain just voted for $700 billion in govt spending I would think that Ron Paul would start to look pretty good.
At the debate tonight I think Obama should open as follows:
He should say to McCain;
“Say John, I just got a message from Sarah - she wants me to pass it onto you, it says; “John, the fog has lifted here in Washington and guess what? I can see the Russian Embassy from right here in the padded room at the hotel you put me in - how COOL is that!”
"She just needs to look as Presidential as Dan Quayle in 1988."
So far, when confronted with even the most basic issues, Palin makes Dan Quayle look like Churchill.
All, I really really appreciate the detailed and thoughtful responses!
I guess we just need to be careful about overconfidence and complacency.
it does bother me to see that ABC poll that had Obama +9, or other state polls that look like outliers. They all tend to have too many dems samples. I think ABC had dem+16 or dem+9. Many polls have dem+8 or greater. So I hope that Nate has some kind of algorithm that massages those numbers down to something more realistic.
emperor you are starting to sound more and more like a concern troll.
These people don't have ANY evidence to back up their wet dream that dems ONLY hold a ~+3 ID advantage.
They were saying the same shit back in 2006 when they were SURE they were going to keep the senate.
Really only makes a difference in the swing states. With many of them having registration through the roof. Who do you think that benifits?
Even if you average the ID to be somwhere around where Rasmussen Shows it, and Where R2000 shows it, it STILL shows an ever widening obama lead.
I'm wondering about the Letterman Effect on the Indiana vote. If he keeps going after McCain, will some of the persuadable voters there tip to Obama or at least stay home? What if it all came down to those EV's, and McCain's greatest mistake was was lying to David Letterman when an honest explanation would have done just as well?
Nate,
you are in the Obama press release!!!
lol...I love the site...keep up the good work...
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/09/campaigns-try-to-set-expectati.html
AK
What's up with all the gifts Palin accepted while Governor? That chick is not only a moron, but a crook as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503988.html?hpid=topnews
Dem + 8 *is* realistic. Even Gallup, who is hardly a Democratic pollster, has it at D +9.
The lowest right now, I believe, is Rasmussen at D+6.
And the reason Obama underperformed in PA and OH was not the bradley effect, but the "Hillary Clinton Effect"
If bradley effect exists, it will manifest as 1-2 points MAYBE. The 5-6 is just something they parrot to help them keep their heads in their asses...
lmao @ concern troll
thats killed me.
"There will be 4 to 7 per cent voting for a party not called the Republican or Democratic Party"
You forgot a decimal point at the front of those numbers.
Yep...people boost third parties in polls when it's safe and harmless to declare for them, but when it comes time to vote, they vote for one of the two that can really win.
excuse me automated polls yield better results for McCain
by almost 3 points.
I am not saying it is a forgone conclusion she will look as presidential as quayle, I did not think the interviews were half bad for a newcomer. She was cleaner than Obama during his Senate Campaign definately. He was a flailing idiot back then in question and answer format. She is a quick study and is improving. The questions from say Couric focused on past gaffes and she may get some of those, but if the questions are fair and on legitimate topics I have the feeling she could make some good headway here.
"If McCain backs some sort of bailout, won't this significantly increase the number of votes for Bob Barr and Ron Paul? Enough where some states that seem a little too far of a reach for Obama (Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, etc.) might because back in play?"
McCain will not back even the most logical plan for a bailout.
Barr and Paul will be a factor no matter what. The enthusiasm level among the GOP base for McCain is less than 30% now. That gives 70% a reason to a.) hold their nose and vote for McCain, b.) not vote at all, or c.) vote for Barr or Paul.
This will happen in some key states and floor a lot of observers on election night.
A new detailed study was just released re: the Bradley/Wilder effect.
Here's a summary from the Princton EV site.
The disappearing Bradley effect
September 26th, 2008, 3:20pm by Sam Wang
A hot topic among polling fans is the “Bradley effect,” which refers to unexpected Election Day outcomes in U.S. races where a white candidate and a non-white (usually black) candidate run against one another. The lore is that opinion polls overstate support for the black candidate, for instance due to latent racial bias that respondents are unaware of or will not report explicitly.
This year it has been suggested that support for Obama might be overstated - a hidden bonus for John McCain. The topic has been mentioned in a recent article on racial bias by AP’s Ron Fournier, which contained no relevant polling data but still sparked much discussion.
Until now, the empirical evidence for the Bradley effect has rested on individual cases. Such cases might suffer from biased assimilation, our tendency to more readily accept examples that favor our position. Now comes a large-scale empirical study by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins. He finds that since the mid-1990s, the Bradley effect has disappeared. His paper is a must-read.
The Bradley effect gets its name from former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a black man who lost the 1982 governor’s race despite the fact that in opinion polls taken before the election he led George Deukmejian, a white man. Sometimes it is also called the Wilder effect, after Gov. Doug Wilder of Virginia, who had a comfortable lead in led by nearly 10 percentage points in his 1990 campaign, but only won by a whisker.
However, such cases may not be representative of U.S. races involving a non-white person running against a white person. A counterexample (see pages 487 and 490 of the PDF) is the 1989 mayoral primary race in New York City between David Dinkins and incumbent Ed Koch. There, Dinkins, a black man, led Koch, a white man, by 0-5 points in the closing weeks, only to win by 8 percentage points. Other counterexamples are available as well. Because of the mixed evidence, the Bradley/Wilder effect has been controversial. Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC news, has referred to the Bradley effect as “a theory in search of data.”
Now Dan Hopkins has gathered some highly relevant information. In a recent paper he analyzes polling data and election outcomes for 133 gubernatorial and Senate races from 1989 to 2006. One result can be seen in this graph.
Hopkins analysis of the disappearing Bradley/Wilder effect
Hopkins analysis of the disappearing Bradley/Wilder effect
Polls did show a significant Bradley/Wilder effect through the early 1990s, which includes the period when Bradley and Wilder were running for office. However, Hopkins notes that the effect then went away in races from 1996 onward. To quote the study: “Before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points.”
Hopkins doesn’t know why this is - the data are after all correlative. He speculates on possible reasons, such as de-emphasis on race identity and tension. But something has changed to remove the discrepancy between polls and voting. It could even be methodological: Pollsters could be training interviewers differently. Automated polling by robot interviewers could remove bias. We don’t know.
The paper contains other interesting conclusions - for instance, there is also no evidence for a gender effect (the “Whitman effect”). One variable that does affect poll accuracy is that support for front-runners is often overstated. This effect averaged 1.9 percentage points, and could account for some of what happened to Bradley and Wilder.
All this is not to say that racism is dead, or that people don’t use race to decide who to vote for. These phenomena still exist. However, Hopkins’s study does suggest that polls are equally accurate in predicting election outcomes for black and white candidates alike.
http://election.princeton.edu/2008/09/26/the-disappearing-bradley-effect/
LOL I'm not quite sure what a concern troll is .. but I am very concerned that the current numbers aren't what they seem to me. I need to get away from the right wing boards .. but there's something addicting about them. I really need to hear what the "enemy" is thinking.
Anyway, I'm not sure a reverse bradley effect will change anything. Most AA's are already voting democratic. So we get a few handful more, certainly not enough to cancel out the racists in Appalachia.
Also another question about party weighting. The past few elections, party turnout has hardly budged. I know every election we say that "this is a historical election" etc etc .. Can we really expect that we'll have a dem+6 or higher turnout this year? I think it was +3 in 2004.
you know what, favorable automated results don't seem to be as prevalent in the Battle grounds are they are in the Nationals.
Maybe there *is* a bradley effect in deep red states.
"excuse me automated polls yield better results for McCain
by almost 3 points."
I'd have to see a statistical workup done. I'm not dismissing it as irrelevant out of hand, but I'm not real impressed either.
Why do you think 538.com is in the Obama press release. It is clearly the most partisan of any of the major poll analysis web sites, I would be pushing people here if I were Obama too.
Keep Colorado/NMex/Iowa looking good with Virginia and Nevada as backups on N.Hamp, and I'd tell Ohio and Florida to pound sand.
Colorado, NMex, NH, and Nevada are small enough and cheap enough to see Obama saturation exceeding the level of a Iowa Caucus/NH Primary.
"Leading conservative commentator say Palin should step down
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/ "
Just look at the comments!!. That's CNN's website this time, this isn't the dailykos website, it's CNN! Those comments are brutal!
I think the game is up, McCain sir, you have made one of the all time most boneheaded political moves in the history of politics. Please, if you haven't watched the third Couric-Palin interview, do so...but don't be drinking anything at the time.
I thought R2K polls were automated. Am I wrong? Pollster doesn't categorize them as automated.
Politico's Ben Smith reporting that the RNC is making a 6-figure ad buy in Indiana.
Their internals must be bad enough that they think they are in danger.
"Don't be too sure about Indiana. The lack of polls means that Obama could have wage one huge ground war without anyone noticing."
Oh I agree. My guess is that McCain still has a small lead in IN simply based on the huge advantage the GOP has in the state. But I freely and happily acknowledge that it's possible that Obama actually leads in IN and that he could win it in November. The disparity in the ground game is probably more dramatic in IN than in any other state. Plus, Obama has the proximity-to-IL effect, which has been pretty significant so far. It's still McCain's to lose, I think, but if he continues to underinvest in the state, Obama could easily flip it. I'd still love a poll or two to get a sense about whether there has been any serious movement.
"Also another question about party weighting. The past few elections, party turnout has hardly budged. I know every election we say that "this is a historical election" etc etc .. Can we really expect that we'll have a dem+6 or higher turnout this year? I think it was +3 in 2004."
It was +3 in 2004 and +5 in 2000.
What influences party identification the most? Feelings about the incumbent party. The incumbent party will see a surge in ID if the economy is good and people are happy.
When the economy is in the crapper, as we are facing now, the incumbent party is punished.
"She is a quick study and is improving."
Wow, "abovemypaygrade", evidently you're not a very quick study. Palin actually has regressed throughout the three interviews. She sucks. She comes across as an airheaded ditz. But you already knew that.
Again you show your moronic ways.
"You forgot a decimal point at the front of those numbers.
Yep...people boost third parties in polls when it's safe and harmless to declare for them, but when it comes time to vote, they vote for one of the two that can really win."
The Libertarian candidate for Indiana governor in 2004 got 11%. They consistently get 5% to 10% when they run a candidate in any of the congressional districts in IN.
Go state by state among the close red states right now and think about their libertarian streaks. Look at how many people in those states voted for Paul in the primary when McCain had it wrapped up.
IN, MT, VA, SC, and GA become real propositions for Obama if you consider all of the wild metrics and each state's libertarian streaks of recent.
You can't keep pointing to 2004 like that, willis. Things changed drastically in 2006, and have surely changed two years after that. The trend is AWAY from the GOP.
The dem ID will be +6-9.
You've been on those right wing boards for too long. It's scrambled your brain...
If you are ever in doubt, remember, all the empirical evidence favors the high turnout/ID advantage, while the republiClowns are just parroting talking points.
"Above my Paygrade",
538.com in not on the Obama press release...Nate's article from TNR about McCain's possible debate and topic strength is quoted.
AK
"The Libertarian candidate for Indiana governor in 2004 got 11%. They consistently get 5% to 10% when they run a candidate in any of the congressional districts in IN."
Governor and congressman aren't president.
"Go state by state among the close red states right now and think about their libertarian streaks. Look at how many people in those states voted for Paul in the primary when McCain had it wrapped up."
The libertarians can probably get 4-7 points in a few states, but those are tiny states with almost no population. Nationally, they have no chance to break 1%.
Thanks to whomever posted the McCain camp figuring out Palin is clueles - you made my day.
http://www.wegoted.com/
We are finally getting to the meat of the race, and McCain is imploding just when lots of low info voters are starting to pay attention. This is great. Obama prepared for tonight's debate, McCain did not and the old guy will have one of his longest days going into tonight's debate. Watch for McCain to really wilt the last half hour or so.
My predicition, McCain makes a big gaffe near the end of the debate, Palin will be laughable. PERFECTION!
"We are finally getting to the meat of the race, and McCain is imploding just when lots of low info voters are starting to pay attention."
And don't forget that with early voting, there is much less time to turn things around.
Above my Paygrade:
Did you even read the Obama press release? It quotes Nate Silver, along with other pundits, criticizing some of Obama's debating skills.
Sure, the idea of the press release is to lower expectations ahead of the debate. But the press release certainly does not cite Nate/538 because Nate is pro-Obama or partisan, contrary to what you suggest.
Please read up before making assumptions.
WOW!
--------
1. Dow is UP now on expectation that a deal on the bailout gets done this weekend.
2. However, I give the odds of NO passage of a bailout bill this weekend at 65%, or 2 to 1.
3. House Republican Leaders will not be able to get minimum of 80 votes for the bailout bill from their side, AND it is not truly bipartisan, then it will not come up for a vote!
No way the House Republicans will support even a revised bailout bill with 80 votes from their side!
The Democrats have the House Republicans by their nuts and the Democrats in the House will not agree to most of what the House Republicans want. NO to reduction in dividend tax cut for SURE!
That's not from 538, the footnote clearly shows that it was featured in The New Republic.
Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is a quick study, isn't.
Congtrats Nate! You are going big time. Getting mentioned in Obama's press releases and getting mentions on Politico over the last few weeks atleast 3 times I can remember.
I think that Indies might get around 3% between them nationally this year, maybe even a few points more if it seems that McCain is tanking, and a vote for him is just as much a waste as a vote for Paul or Barr. I think maybe if I had to give a result to the election now I would say Obama 53 McCain 44 Indies 3% between them. Although all that might change in a few hours.
David Limbaugh is out on RCP, full force:
"The Battleground poll -- a well-respected bipartisan affair conducted by the Terrance Group, a Republican polling organization -- and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic organization, tells us 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives."
Throw the bums out! Good on Obama for coming out swinging at last!
http://ghostofvoltaire.blogspot.com/
Who is with me for a debate drinking game?
One sip for every baseball-related metaphor from a surrogate or commentator regarding a candidate's potential or actual performance. A gulp for the phrase "home run."
@shadowguidex: Please, if you haven't watched the third Couric-Palin interview, do so...but don't be drinking anything at the time.
That interview made me want to start drinking. Heavily.
Sarah Palin.
Sarah Quaylin.
Sarah Stockdalin.
Sarah Flailin'.
Sarah Failin'.
emperorwillis said...
guys,
I have real concerns. I've been hanging out at right wing boards the past few weeks. Keep your enemies close i guess :) (Same reason I watch Foxnews from time to time and listen to rush/hannity).
These right wing boards are absolutely convinced that McCain will win and win convincingly. They are adjusting all polls
1. party weighting. The claim is that most polls out are sampling too many dems. And therefore, the results are favoring Obama.
2. Bradley effect - figure a net transfer of 2-6 points from Obama to McCain on election day.
So my question is this. Nate's model shows Obama in a great position. Nate has stated that this may be Obama's strongest position all year. yet I'm very uncomfortable because of the reasons I outlined above.
so my ultimate question:
Is Bradley effect and party weighting taken into consideration in Nate's model?
________________________
Ok, my thoughts on this 'Bradley Effect'.
I think the Bradley Effect will be canceled out or overcome by the amount of younger voters and more African-American than usual who will be coming out to vote.
Also, the people voting against Palin after her horrible interviews. Me being one of them.
I think the conservatives and holding onto anything that might give them a little hope.
***The CLEANING CREW that cleans our house (50-50 men and women, from a 4 person franchised company team):
- knows more about the world and foreign affairs than Sarah Palin!
- Can speak with more intelligence and clarity than Sarah Palin!
quantman suggests 'no bailout' bill this weekend is 2-1. I think it's 2-1 the other way: compromise bailout bill is passed. Yes it will be without major House Repub support. So it will be a Demo + Bush bill basically, but it will have signficant Demo wish list items added. Result will probably be that the split Repub party gets blamed for letting the country down in financial crisis. And McCain really suffers because he contributes Nothing to a bailout bill for the country.
NATE! You were quoted in the Obama campaign memo! :) Congratulations (I think!)
QT
RCP has changed the status of some key states:
OR from Lean to solid Obama
MO from Lean McCain to Tossup
MI from tossup to lean Obama
NC from lean McCain to tossup.
WV from solid to lean McCain
We are moving to landslide territory if Obama can flip MO - MO is a state where they actually had a state-wide vote on whether to ban stem cell research. MO is crazy evangelical nutball in lots of places, so dwon to one point there means he must be doing GREAT north and east of there.
I want more IN, VA, and OH polls.
I think that the Congressional Democratic Leadership will give as much time as they dare for the House GOP to get onside, but then go ahead with a vote sometime over the weekend. I think actually it would be bad for all if nothing gets done, whereas if something is done and Democratis explain it well enough and ease worries about 700 trillion dollars and explain that it isn't just giving money to Wall Street bankers, but ensuring that it is money for your loans and mortgages and other financial needs then I think people will have enough patience to give the plan a chance through the elections.
And right now McCain is dangerously close to being on the wrong side of this, and being hte naysayer when people want hope nad want to feel that government is on there side. (Obama could do the public and the plan a huge favor tonight by starting the process of explaining how it helps us all.)
Realistixx-
I saw that to, every change RCP made is AGAINST McCain and for Obama. Scary bod for McCan't.
He needs a home run in this debate, and he has not even prepped!
MISSED POLLS!
Nate, you missed a couple of SUSA polls:
CA O+10
MO M+2
The MT numbers are still bogus!
It's been out for weeks now that Ron Paul will be on the ballot. Ron Paul has a huge following in MT - he will take a ton of votes from McCain. Alas, the only polls for MT don't include him (only Other). The MT numbers are still WAY inflated in favor of McCain.
Well, I'm clearly hopeless. I'm a well educated exec and I watched every interview and I'd still rather be voting for Palin first.
I think the difference is: you either want a regular person as President, or you say you want someone like that, but secretly still want an elite.
It's a question of what you want leaders to be good at: Palin the Expert
So in what universe is MI lean Obama while WI and MN are tossups? I thought they would be bluer than MI.
I see that Obama picked up 3 points in the daily trackers. That tells you that the public reaction to his debate stunt was quite harsh, which in turn explains why he'll be flying to Mississippi tonight.
But I'm thinking he's in much more trouble than that. If you look at what's happened over the past week and a half, McCain has just given us a preview of his behavior during a crisis. When things get tough, Obama is steady but McCain spazzes out. I think the public is catching on.
Now, let's hope Obama's campaign finds a way to drive home the point. McCain isn't a "maverick," he's Captain Queeg. When he picked Palin, he threw away the experience argument, and now he's thrown away the implicit advantage of age, which is stability.
Between the two of these candidates, McCain is turning out to be -- by far -- the more impetuous of the two. The question of who to trust in a crisis is going to work to Obama's advantage, but Obama's campaign MUST point it out.
roryburns-
Good call, they need to add the constituion party where Paul is their rep.
"It's a question of what you want leaders to be good at"
If that is really a question, the divide is bigger than I ever guessed.
vern-
If you could watch that Couric interview, where she spoke platitude after platitude and had no specifics AT ALL and that makes you want to vote Palin - YOU SHOULD NEVERBE ALLOWED TO VOTE.
Anyone who wants a president dumber than them is insane.
Observer:
- Let me see what you are saying:
1. The House Democrat Congressmen don't care about getting themselves re-elected. Because if they vote to support the Bush/Paulson bailout bill WITHOUT very significant support, the public which is 80% against this bailout will NOT vote for the Democrat Congressmen, BECAUSE their Republican opponents in each of their districts will RUN against their democrat opponent on THAT issue alone (even if the bailout is successful because 80% of the voters (irrespective of party do NOT want a bailout for the financial service industry people).
2. The House Democrats care more about Obama than they care about themselves in own districts.
3. The House Democrats are confident that the Paulson/Bush bailout they vote for (in the absence of significant Republican support) will be successful/work and show results before their election either 2008 or 2010.
Well, if you think that the above is true, then you may be right!
I wish people would pay more attention to the Blog Archive section on the left... solid gold info about the Bradley Effect and all the other things people worry about here.
Is the "In the Tank" phrase new for 2008? Anyway. I am totally in the tank for Obama, but tonight's debate is anything but a sure thing. Obama can come off as very diffident. I was at Michelle Malkin's site after 9-11 (I can't help it- I want her all the more for her evil. She is like Jadis in the Magician's Nephew for me. Irrestible Evil. I want to worship her evil Asian toes...) And she had the clip of Obama and McCain putting the flowers at the memorial. I cringed at Obama basically chucking the flowers from three-point range, while McCain knelt and placed them slowly down, reverently. And while we know he will be watching the diffident thing tonight, trying to avoid anything like "you're likeable enough" he still can come off that way. And with the placing of the flowers, I was wondering... surely someone had thought to tell him how to do it properly... but there he was, casually tossing the flowers. You can't prep for everything.
Biden/Palin on the other hand... that will be sad to watch. I think it's very very important for Biden to be kind and charitable. I think that when Palin says something confusing, Biden should explain to the audience what she meant to say, and he should agree with something, and then gently show where the policy she meant to voice is wrong. It will be good for everyone involved. I dont' want to see her destroyed. I feel badly for her and angry at McCain for putting her in this position. She is an intelligent woman who may still prove to have a big political career ahead of her. But she is in way over her head and it will be very clear in the debate.
Virginia Conservative said...
So in what universe is MI lean Obama while WI and MN are tossups? I thought they would be bluer than MI.
-------------
The universe of spotty and bouncy polling of WI/MN versus huge numbers of MI polls... even though a few are bouncy.
Only in the cesspool of the republican party could being an "elite" (read: highly educated) be seen as a bad thing...
VC,
RCP uses averages of polls
Toss up is 0 to 3.9 lead
Lean is 4 to 7.9
Solid is 8+
I didn't realize McCain's lead in Missouri had become so shaky.
"What about a "reverse Bradley Effect"? People may truly believe he is not the most qualified, but tell the pollsters they are Obama supporters because they are afraid of being labeled racist."
What you're describing IS the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect refers to Obama under-performing his polls (or McCain over-performing - same difference). There are hypotheses as to why it might be true. Yours is one (people don't want to be seen as racists). The other is, of course, that racists are also liars. But the math is the same and it's the math that's been disproven with the various recent studies.
so my ultimate question:
Is Bradley effect and party weighting taken into consideration in Nate's model?
No need to worry my Obama friend. Academic studies have shown no Bradley effect over the last decade or so. Nate and others have looked for Bradley effect in the Democratic primaries and, if anything, there was a negative Bradley effect, where Obama performed better than his polls.
As to party weighting, there's disagreement whether to even wieght polls and, if so, what are the proper weights because party ID is so malleable. But, even pollsters like Rasmussen whose party ID weights are about the most favorable among pollsters to Republicans show Obama winning.
What the polls apparently are missing however are cell phone users and ground game. Both of these suggest Obama will outperform his polls, not the other way around. We're looking real good right now!
Who wants to bet that McCain attempts some form of humor by trying to joke about the fact that he almost didn't show up, delivers it wrong, and only worsens his image?
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/greys-ratings.html
This is a link to a webpage covering the TV show premieres last night. Check out the comments. It seems like a lot of people are abandoning the alphabet networks because of the constant political sewage pipeline being spewed out by Hollyweird. This probably will have some effect on the actual election, as just like in Michigan people are getting "Obama is the One" fatigue and we're still a month plus out from voting day. What a fascinating election.
Politico reporting that McCain was doing debate prep lastnight.
This guy.
That's one thing that's to Obama's benefit. This does blunt McCain's humpor.
What people in Virginia do not get is that Michigan is quite different from MN or Wi.
1. MI auto industry and jobs are devastated. No jobs, no paychecks. no future for about 1 million in MI.
2. Due to the auto industry jobs devastation and sub prime loans, MI real estate is devastated.
3. When people's jobs and houses/house values are gone, they vote against the current President's party. History shows that.
4. MN and WI do not have that same jobs of real estate problems. Farming in WI (incl dairy) and diversified Minneapolis economy drive their growth and their economy is actually relatively well off. Total opposite of MI.
I think the structure of Wisconsin is that it would never be a landslide for either side. You've got a solid 44% probably for each side as a baseline. So, while McCain may always hover in the 3-5 range, those 3-5 may prove VERY hard to grab.
VC-
Michigan has been polled senseless this week, and Minnesota and Wisconsin have not.
Obama needs to come off as approachable tonight, and competent. That is areally all he needs to do, lets hope he does it.
Screw all of you Obamaidiots. I'm so sick of you assholes. Send me a message. I dare you.
rr.rawlings@sympatico.ca
Obama was always favored when issues were front and center. The economic crisis has forced the media to stop covering the McCain distractions and cover real issues. Real issues like the mortgage crises forces voters to recollect the last eight years and how much they hate Bush.
When the voters are focused on the good of the country, Obama surges ahead of McCain. When they are focused on lipstick on pigs, and speeches in Germany, and Alaskan moose hunting governors, Obama suffers.
Steve Schmidts sorted attempts at distracting the media, and thus the voters, has proved difficult the last two weeks and Obama has taken control while McCain and company look in panicked.
So in what universe is MI lean Obama while WI and MN are tossups? I thought they would be bluer than MI.
They are.
ummm, got a point "screwy"?
Vern,
I am always suspicious of people who claim that Presidents don't need to be experts,because they have a load of advisors. I think a President always needs a level of intelligence and knowledge. The need to filter complex and difficult information from competing sources. I have not seen anything from Palin to suggest she is capable of doing that.
Do you know something, I know a lot of people see similarities between this election and the election of Matt Santos on the West Wing. I think there are also similarities between this election and the Bartlett re-election on that show. Elitism is no vice sometimes.
A Bradley effect might emerge, whereby John McCain becomes a figure of ridicule (a process fairly well underway already), so swing voters in some locales are ashamed to admit to voting for him. But this would basically diminish an Obama landslide, not actually flip the election.
And another reverse Bradley scenario: a lot of white voters in VA/NC/FL might not want to say they are voting for Obama in front of their friends at the local watering hole, but in the secrecy of the voting booth they feel like their jobs are safer if Obama wins.
"Well, I'm clearly hopeless. I'm a well educated exec and I watched every interview and I'd still rather be voting for Palin first."
Why? I don't get it. Honestly.
"I think the difference is: you either want a regular person as President, or you say you want someone like that, but secretly still want an elite."
Would you want a regular person as your surgeon? Airline pilot? Investment analyst? Defence lawyer?
Why do you want someone 'regular' to run the country during perilous times?
"It's a question of what you want leaders to be good at"
What is she good at? Looking cute? Spewing talking points?
Why not pick Paris Hilton as VP?
"Screw all of you Obamaidiots. I'm so sick of you assholes. Send me a message. I dare you.
rr.rawlings@sympatico.ca"
Decaf buddy, decaf is your friend.
@ inkstain and sedi:
Long-time viewer, first-time respondent. I've appreciated your thoughtful comments over the past several weeks, though I have some qualms about inkstain's assertions on the Bradley effect. First, you note that the effect occurs only when a black candidate is running against a white opponent that is "unworthy"--such that one would be embarassed to admit publicly that they would vote for the white candidate, and then in the ballot box vote effectively "against" the black candidate.
That sounds like a perfect description of John McCain's candidacy right now (and over the past several weeks), and how he is perceived by a wide swath of voters.
Second, while the effect may be defined in that particularly narrow way, it seems to me that you could say the Bradley effect occurs whenever -any- black candidate is running against a white candidate. Why does it -only- have to happen in the Bradley/Wilder scenario? I'm just not convinced that there will be no such effect observed in the polling, but I sure as hell hope you're right and I've got it wrong.
Your comments on the reverse-Bradley effect, especially in a place like Virginia, are well-taken. But in OH (my home state, one I thought I knew) I just can't account for the persistent McCain lead. Same for the narrow race in PA. Obama should be blowing him out in both places, yet he's not. And if he's not, then perhaps there are a small number of voters who might be "ashamed" of admitting that they just won't vote for a black man, and there's a percent or two hidden in the Obama numbers.
I don't know how one would control for this in polling, but I think it's still worth thinking about, especially as this election is an entirely different proposition from Mayor Bradley's or Douglas Wilder's campaigns: this is the whole country we're talking about.
I look forward to your thoughts.
JUST wait until this story hits the polling numbers....
McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"
It's a sad statement that anyone might need insider validation to come to such an obvious conclusion. It's a good thing part of the McCain platform isn't that the sun rises in the West, or we'd have apoplectic Regressives running through the streets decrying Liberal-media lies about an unpatriotic East-rising sun.
The only legitimate debate about Sarah Palin is whether she was qualified to have been mayor of Wasilla at all. The evidence thus far suggests not.
"3. House Republican Leaders will not be able to get minimum of 80 votes for the bailout bill from their side, AND it is not truly bipartisan, then it will not come up for a vote!"
If the Democrats really believe in this bailout, then they need to pass it over the objections of the House Republicans. What the f**k good is a majority if you're afraid to use it?
I think the "80% of Americans oppose the bailout" meme is just flat wrong based on the poll movements toward Obama - who supports some form of bailout - over McCain in response to the latter's scuttling of the bailout. If the Dems believe in this, then they should pass it, Republicans be damned, and then go out and sell it to the American people.
WTF, Montana? If Obama is elected, the chances of Brian Schweitzer becoming president in 2016 increases dramatically. Get with it.
I still think there's a chance he could get booed when he is introduced. That alone could really set the tone for what follows.
"I didn't realize McCain's lead in Missouri had become so shaky."
I don't think anybody did. I know that I have simply assumed that McCain had MO locked up. But two close polls make me think that it is only leaning McCain right now, and it's conceivable that a good ground game could actually win the state. That said, I think it will move back to a safer position for McCain if he boosts his national numbers. He's losing ground in every swing state except NH right now, it seems. If the dynamic doesn't change, no state will be particularly important because it won't be a close election.
There has not been a w/third party national poll since the "time out", correct? When one does come out I'm guessing McCain support will be even lower with support going to both Obama AND Barr.
Blame said...
NH isn't going to budge. By now it's citizens must have automatic electioneering filters or gone insane.
On comes yet another add & their eyes loose focus.
LTL FTP (Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster).
As a citizen of the state of NH, I can vouch for quantity of ads, both on radio and television. Just the other night, my father was grumbling about how "every other commercial" was a political ad.
Mrs. Obama Whitey video out !!!
its all over for Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4
McCain Landslide !!!!!
sedi,
As I recally, Kerry just narrowly lost MO.
I don't think anybody did. I know that I have simply assumed that McCain had MO locked up. But two close polls make me think that it is only leaning McCain right now, and it's conceivable that a good ground game could actually win the state. That said, I think it will move back to a safer position for McCain if he boosts his national numbers. He's losing ground in every swing state except NH right now, it seems. If the dynamic doesn't change, no state will be particularly important because it won't be a close election.
It's Kansas City. Greater St. Louis and the remainder of the state cancel each other out, leaving KC as the swing area. Obama is now leading there.
**House Democrats have the House Republicans and McCain by their nuts!!
** Majority of the public believes that House Repubs and McCain screwed up the deal.
** So, now House Democrats have a lot to gain by taking at least 1-2 more weeks to do the deal or work with the Repubs and WATCH the markets go south!!
House Democrats: Do not agree to any deal for at least 1-2 weeks, drag it out and use that dragging rope and string around the neck of the House Republicans and McCain by SAYING they came up WITH A BRAND NEW PROPOSAL!!!
They obviously gave Palin good cover post Wasilla. You would think that leaving a town of 8,000 people (or whatever it was at the time) in debt to the tune of 22MM$ would have sunk her if that fact had seen the light of day.
I thought Missouri was losing it's status as a bellwether and becoming redder, because of it's aging population of lack of hispanics/immigrants.
Why is the debate on a Friday night? Who made that decision?
Did anyone else hear how poorly Obama did in the White House meeting yesterday? Apparently the Democrats all turned to him to represent their case and he caved. McCain sat quietly and didn't say much at all, but he certainly wasn't screaming and yelling like the Dems were.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13918.html
And why is Obama trying to sick law enforcement on people in Missouri who air videos critical of him. This sounds like the sort of thing Chicago mafias guys would do.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
"What people in Virginia do not get is that Michigan is quite different from MN or Wi."
Hey, hey, hey, watch it there quantman. SOME of us in VA know the Midwest -- I grew up in MI and am well aware of similarities and differences between the Great Lakes states. The real question is how the economic troubles in MI play out: do voters blame Granholm or Bush. I'd guess both, personally, which means that MI will likely go for Obama simply on Dem partisan ID advantage.
real joe, I prefer this version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg&feature=related
"That sounds like a perfect description of John McCain's candidacy right now (and over the past several weeks), and how he is perceived by a wide swath of voters."
He's still polling in the mid-40s. He'd have to get a lot worse than that.
"Why does it -only- have to happen in the Bradley/Wilder scenario? "
Because that's the only place it's been seen. It isn't just some theoretical effect that someone made up, it was a real result that happened in two real cases and was measured.
Blacks run for a lot of offices in this country, and they don't across the board underperform on election day. Two did for a very specific reason under very specific circumstances.
Billy Rubin:
While you are right about the Bradley affect being most prominent in PA, you hadn't need to worry.
1) Obama is FAR outperforming Kerry's results in the 04' election, and is slightly outperforming his polling results from around this time. In fact, during Sept. 2004, Bush was leading in half the polls in PA. So far JMAC has led in ZERO.
2) Youth effect WILL be more prominent this year. And if you don't believe that, the very real cellphone effect (which spans all 50 states) Will benefit Obama.
The "closeness" thing is a myth spread by trolls to try and "make the libs nervous". There is no need to worry, especially if the narrative remains focused on the economy.
We just had a regular person as president, and it was a disaster. Can we stop with the average person running the country bullshit.
If you believe Palin would make a good President then your an idiot. Its that simple.
Did you see that Couric interview. The woman is incompetent.
PS
Jack Cafferty just ripped Palin hole in her ass. He went off at her.
Did anyone else hear how poorly Obama did in the White House meeting yesterday? Apparently the Democrats all turned to him to represent their case and he caved. McCain sat quietly and didn't say much at all, but he certainly wasn't screaming and yelling like the Dems were.
Interesting spin. The reports I've heard is that Obama actually spoke up, raised concerns, asked salient questions, etc. McCain sat there and didn't say anything.
Sarah Palin's beauty pageant video
DEAR LORD.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-beauty-pageant-video-not.html
And Bruce, you own fucking link didn't support your own conclusion.
Side note on WaMU failure. The New CEO was hired on September 8 of this year. He received a $7.5 Million signing bonus and a $1 Million advance for his first year salary. He word 17 days and then signed the Bankruptcy papers which put him out of a job. Wish I could get a job like that. Alan Fishman is his name.
Matt J.H.-
Wow, a leftist media personality doesn't like Palin? No, you're kidding me.
"If the Democrats really believe in this bailout, then they need to pass it over the objections of the House Republicans. What the f**k good is a majority if you're afraid to use it?"
Pretty much everyone saying this is a hardcore Republican trying to bait them into doing exactly that.
We *all* know the second they do Republicans will be framing it as the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street Bailout and running constant faux-populist campaign commercials against everyone that voted for giving investment bankers our money.
No dice. Democrats aren't losing their massive advantage over this. If Paulson wants Congress to walk off the cliff they're doing so in lockstep or not at all.
MATT J. H. said...
PS
Jack Cafferty just ripped Palin hole in her ass. He went off at her.
------------------
Unbelievable. I just saw it. Oh! For more of that kind of honesty from the press.
He played her rambling and incoherent answer regarding the bailout.
"C'mon, she should know this stuff." "I've been following politics for many years and that is by far the worst response I've ever seen."
RNC advertising arm going up with a $5M buy next week in the battlegrounds.
Sarah Palin is beyond incompetent.
She is Joke!
This ACTUALLY tells you more about McCain thinks of the VP position.
He has said it so many times!! The pick is all spin! Trying to go the women vote wrongly assuming that women are stupid!
McCain is a fighter pilot and I am sure he thinks there is maybe 1% prob he will die in the next 4 years!
We just had a regular person as President? Since when is being the son of a former President and owner of an MLB franchise being a normal person?
Of course coming from a background where your father isn't around, being born in a small state, overcoming very difficult upbringing to end up at great Universities, then spending your life foregoing massive potential salaries to serve your community is probably a little more normal. Hmmm maybe Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are more similar than you realise.
Charles M. Kozierok said...
I still think there's a chance he could get booed when he is introduced. That alone could really set the tone for what follows.
----------------------------------
Haha, I was honestly thinking the same thing. I think he will get booed because he really upset some people down there.
I can hear the McCain campaign now, "The Obama campaign planted more Obama supporters in the audience."
This debate is going to be disastrous for McCain.
THE BRILLIANCE OF MCCAIN’S MOVE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
Debate video already available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drRWMgaFiBk
Hey, MvRed, what do you want us to "Spread the word" about, exactly?
Dick Morris was perfectly summed up by Jon Stewart- as a steaming pile of shit.
"By Dick Morris"
lols.
Way to make any argument you're attempting to make instantly lose all credibility.
*****BREAKING NEWS*******
Reports are out that JM's Bus and Planem ysteriously do not have Palin's name on it at this hour.
Jon Stewart compares Bush’s 2008 Bailout speech to Bush's 2003 Iraq/WMD speech
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/33161/1/TDS-Bush-Redux-Bailouts-092508.wmv
"Reports are out that JM's Bus and Planem ysteriously do not have Palin's name on it at this hour."
Link?
dpldust said...
*****BREAKING NEWS*******
Reports are out that JM's Bus and Planem ysteriously do not have Palin's name on it at this hour.
=========
Link?
It was in regards to a blog for a local airport to get an airline. Needless to say we came up short. We were trying to get a carrier to add more flights, didn't work out.
2000 people participated in 3 days, can't beat that!
Bruce,
First off Cafferty voted Bush twice but came to his senses about voting for right wing incompetence.
Second, McCain sat in that meeting yesterday and never opened his mouth while Obama took control and tried to push the conversation forward. The "Maverick" is showing his true selfish, incompetent colors.
Your an idiot. Most people on this blog are far beyond right wing bull shit. Go waste your Hannity inspired bullshit on someone who doesn't know better.
"Did anyone else hear how poorly Obama did in the White House meeting yesterday? Apparently the Democrats all turned to him to represent their case and he caved. McCain sat quietly and didn't say much at all, but he certainly wasn't screaming and yelling like the Dems were."
The article you linked says nothing of the sort.
Why is it really so hard to argue for a conservative candidate without lying?
anyone see Cafferty pointing to Palin's answer to Couric about the bailout? PAlin's lowest moment yet. Disturbingly bad. Much poorer response to thequestion than I would have given. Perplexing and disturbing
Post a Comment