New polling this morning from the Big Ten polling consortium and Quinnipiac University present a view of what the world might look like if Barack Obama wins in a landslide.
The Big Ten polls have Obama ahead by double digits in ten Midwestern states: he leads by 10 in Indiana, 11 in Pennsylvania, 12 in Ohio, 13 in Wisconsin and Iowa, 19 in Minnesota, 22 in Michigan, and 29 in Illinois.
Quinnipiac has Obama ahead by 14 points in Ohio, 13 points in Pennsylvania, and 5 points in Florida.
The thing to recognize about polls like these is that they may tell us less about the individual states and more about where the particular pollsters are calibrating the horse race. The numbers you see in our current state-by-state projections assume that Obama will ultimately prevail on election day by about 5 points. But what if Obama were to win by 10 or more points instead, where several pollsters now have the race? You'd probably see results which look something like these.
So the best way to regard these numbers is in the same way that you might have regarded the Pew poll from earlier this week, which had Obama at a +14 nationally. If you regarded that number as an outlier -- and I wouldn't blame you one bit if you did -- you should probably regard these numbers as outliers too. If you regarded that number not so much as an outlier but as a best-case scenario -- and that's how I tend to regard it -- you should probably regard these numbers as a best-case scenario also.
With that said, the trendlines in these polls are interesting. Quinnipiac has had a slight (1-2 point) Democratic lean this election cycle, but only in the last month or so have they started to produce some of these "shock and awe" numbers for Obama. And when the first round of Big Ten polling was conducted in mid-September, it had not been particularly favorable to Obama.
10.23.2008
AM Polls Show Surprisingly Large Leads for Obama
@ 9:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
360 comments
OK. I'm just gonna say it. Yay. I know, democrats have a hard time being optimistic. But I'm starting to feel good ...
first
1st?
dammit. Should have posted the comment THEN read the article!
McCain's win percentage slipping below 5% once the full update is done?
Rasmussen is a bit late this AM
Oh how I hope these are real. I want to see a blue Indiana so very bad.
Ras O 52 M 45.
I think they are real.
They have registered and likely to register voters BUT note this...
"The sample of registered voters and those likely to register to vote before the 2008 Presidential election for the state and national surveys was selected by random digit dialing (RDD) of landline phones. Cell-only households were not included in the sample."
I think the no cell phones negates that.
Obama's going to win states we don't expect him to.
Montana has Ron Paul on the ballot, polls don't ask about him.
That alone would make it a swing state right now.
Well, McCain says he likes being the underdog, and he's got them right where he wants them. So let me be the first to say...THIS IS GREAT NEWS...FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
They should rename it the "blue" ten.
I'm not surprised to see Obama ahead, but a +10 in Indiana? That's an obamanation!
- See what I did there?
Ohio by 10%?
I don't believe that any more than I believed the AP poll that had Obama up by 1%.
I just don't see Ohio getting more than 5% off center for either candidate.
Woah, I wonder if I can find Nate's old post on possible turnout scenarios if AAs and youth turn out in massive numbers. This almost seems to be what's happening.
Nate, is there a way to explain these numbers? Indiana O+10 while other polls show M+8? I'd like to believe this, but, I mean, come on! Are these some kind of pro-McCain polls that are trying to make Obama voters stay at home?
Jesse: I'm obviously optimistic, but the thing about Montana/Ron Paul... speaking as an 18 year old college student, Ron Paul and Obama appeal to very similar demographics. It's surprising, I know, but it's pretty apparent from what i've seen. I would be surprised if he pulled more from mccain than obama.
Is there any way to see graphs showing the history of the "electoral vote" and "win percentage" numbers that appear each day as pie charts?
Wouldn't that be a more informative graph in some ways than the "Super Tracker" -- e.g., how long has Obama been above 50% in "win percentage"? and was there a particular period when McCain's win percentage plummeted from roughly even to its current levels?
Is this a function that exists? Seems like these would be just about the simplest graphs to generate.
I'm not buying the lead in Indiana. That is just too difficult to believe for me. No D has ever posted a win here since I've been alive.
Nate, is there anything in the methodology of these polls that leads you to characterize them as "best case scenarios?" I mean, they look big to me, too, but I'm more interested in your assessment of their methodological soundness than in fuzzy characterizations.
Eric:
He also appeals to Libertarian-Republicans who think Obama is Karl Marx when he is really Milton Friedman/Adam Smith.
If Obama campaigned there and talked to them about economics, he wins all of them.
The entire northern border with Canada could be blue, except that damn sliver of Idaho!!! Damn you Idaho!! Damn you.
We don't want any isolated
Our goal is to have blue states. CO/NM are ok since it's by the Mexican border too.
We need to win SC and GA to make sure florida is not isolated!
GA is possible. Or probable if the turnout is what these polls say. But I'm the most optimistic democrat I know.
Everyone else (outside of people here) tells me that it's not over and things can change.
These polls show big leads for Obama, but is there any scientific reason why they might not be correct?
@Eric
Jesse: I'm obviously optimistic, but the thing about Montana/Ron Paul... speaking as an 18 year old college student, Ron Paul and Obama appeal to very similar demographics. It's surprising, I know, but it's pretty apparent from what i've seen. I would be surprised if he pulled more from mccain than obama.
Not quite. There are 6 preference orders:
1)O/M/P
2)O/P/M
3)M/O/P
4)M/P/O
5)P/M/O
6)P/O/M
1,2,3,4 Paul makes no difference. 5,6 is where you can get some movement of people casting their votes to try and get someone to win, not purely for who they prefer. Given that you say Paul/Obama are similar, Obama's high enthusiasm ratings and McCain/Palins high negatives, then you have to say Obama will be favoured by this.
Ohio moved to Lean Obama on RCP
10/23 Ohio Toss Up »»» Leaning Obama Obama 306 - McCain 160 Obama +7.2
I thought Obama by 14 in Ohio was an outlier until big 10 came out with Obama +12.
As for Mi, MN, WI, those are higher than recent polls but show a strong trend for Obama and my sense as a Minnesotan is that Obama's momentum is becoming a tsunami, so I tend to believe them.
PPP had IN Obama +2, I was hopeful of a swing in that state, and now am feeling confident that Obama can take IN with a sufficiently good ground game.
Overall, this is the greatest day in polling for Obama I have ever seen.
If other state polls, (NC, MO, OH, FL show Obama gaining momentum) and the national trackers go up for Obama, (which I am confident they will, Zogby +12 after all) then Obama may hit a record high win % today.
Of course Nate is starting to sound like a McCain shill, quick to drop Obama's numbers but loath to ever increase them.
Yesterday was a great day for Obama, very strong in the national polls with strong states polls.
Yet Nate included a bunch of Zogby interactives are full of self selection bias, that showed Obama virtually tied with McCain in all swing states.
He then left out the biggest polls for Obama nation wide, (Research 2000 O+12 and CNN/TIME Nevada O+5.
So after a sweet day of polls for Obama his win % goes up only .1%?
And what about IN? Yesterday Obama is winning by 2 and gaining ground nation wide, (RCP shows Obama gaining 2% in average national polls over the last 2 days) and yet Nate claims McCain is favored 2-1?
How about ND? The last 2 polls show Obama ahead by 2 and tied. Yet Nate says McCain is favored 6-1?
If these polls today don't drastically shift IN numbers and Obama's overall win % then I will be very confused as to why a self proclaimed Obama supporter is making so many excuses for McCain and why his projections, in the last week, seem only to move in McCains favor, no matter how good Obama's poll numbers are.
I would be very surprised if there wasn't a negative selection bias at the root of the feedback loop some of these pollsters are tapping into. Purely conjecturally, it would seem to me that the lower one's enthusiasm, the less likely one would be to participate in a poll. So as die-hard Republicans become increasingly dismayed with the candidate they still resolutely intend to vote for, they hang-up with ever greater frequency.
DaWolf:
2 and 6 are probably the most likely.
I am 2... all the Ron Paul supporters/former supporters I know support Obama. Some are enthusiastic, others are grudgingly doing so.
5 they can't sell to or at least do not want to openly. That's usually people like StormFront.org who think the Iraq war 9/11 were all Jewish Conspiracies but also wouldn't vote for a "mulatto."
These are crazy polls. Alright - here is a "concern troll" thought that I really do have sometimes lately (and I know I'm not alone):
How likely is it that overly optimistic polls will make Obama supporters think he won't really need their vote to win? Will we see a massive flake out that hurts him or downballot races because of polls like this?
Nate's just doing the Cub Democrat thing.
Democrats always think they will lose like in 2000 and 2004.
But this time we didn't pick a loser.
War Hussein Obama:
That +7.2 is Obama's national poll lead, not his Ohio lead which is +6.0 on RCP.
We are on the verge of landslide territory here. No matter how much Obama wants to deny it!
The Future of Choice
@John McCain is my love child! (you must be old)
lower enthusiasm = lower votes, especially if the weather is bad (and that benefits whoever has cached early votes, ie Obama)
Not possible at all.
The Democrats still are afraid of losing. They will vote like crazy because of 2000 and 2004.
Any time I talk about 538 to anyone else it's always "anything could happen"
or "what about the bradley effect"
It's still terrific news.
Nate: Please recalibrate the tracker, i.e., just show last month or so til Nov. 4, because we can't see the swings now. Even the convention bumps are buried as everything's being scrunched together. Could you reset from Aug. 4 to Nov. 4? You wouldn't have to recalculate the tracker, just graph it with a more spread out X-axis.
Thanks.
@jesse radin
my feeling is that you get movement between the groups, from 4 to 5 and 6 to 2
(so from M/P/O to P/M/O, and from P/O/M to O/P/M).
The first is driven by McCain/Palin's poor showing over the last month, the second is driven by Obama's good showing and the increased chance of him actually winning the State.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That seven-point lead is Obama’s largest in nearly two weeks. This is also the first time since October 11 that the Democratic candidate has reached the 52% level of support, his highest total of the year.
For the past 28 days, Obama’s support has stayed between 50% or above 52% every day. During that period, the number voting for McCain has stayed in the 44% to 46% range and the gap between the candidates has ranged from four to eight percentage points (see trends).
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 54% say the same about John McCain. Those figures include 41% with a Very Favorable opinion of Obama and 27% who are that enthusiastic about McCain (see trends).
McCain leads by just two percentage points among Investors while trailing badly among those who do not invest. Investors are generally more supportive of Republican candidates.
Tracking Poll results are released every day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern and a FREE daily e-mail update is available.
New state polling data shows McCain leading in the reliably Republican states of Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Results from Minnesota and Georgia will be released later today.
The Republicans hope/Dems fear about the hidden racism.
But a lot of the racists are former Clinton supporters/think Obama is a Muslim.
One of them actually said she would vote Biden over McCain.
The other is from NM and loves Richardson but hates Obama.
Adam, get your cherry-picking head out of your ass. Do you even read previous posts or look on the side bar?
Hey Nate, Scott Rasmussen loves your site:
"Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com took a look at all the tracking polls published during the final weeks of this campaign. His overall assessment? “In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.”
Adam,
If you want a projection that merely looks in an unweighted, unanalyzed fashion at the last 2-3 polls in a state, go to Electoral Vote.com.
If you want something that factors in demographics, a sophisticated and well specified regression analysis, pollster weightings, trends, timeframe, etc...then try to fram your criticisms within that construct
Adam Galas,
Learn to read. You are not very helpful. I would hope that the principle author of a statistically driven website would meet sudden and surprising new data sets with deep suspicion. Take your coercive bullshit somewhere else you relentless tool.
Dario, that was so yesterday.
I want polls of more states.
TX, AZ especially.
Outside of ARG TX has mostly been around +10 McCain
I expect a loss in TX but I want to see it be 2-5 points, and we can do that.
BTW, can someone tell me why the Morning Call numbers disappeared from the PA polls a few days ago? I didn't see an explanation.
As for the unbelievable Big10 numbers - their results from mid-Sept were all pretty close to the middle of the pack, except for OH, and even that wasn't THAT far off. I know their sample sizes are small, but that shouldn't push all the polls to Obama.
this has been an awful week for mccain/palin and they are getting no traction with this "joe the plumber" or "socialist" BS. it's just too obviously nonsense to work with anyone but their ignorant base (which is already with them of course.)
Does anyone have evidence that Pennsylvania has become a trap state for McCain, diverting has scarce resources from the other states in this morning's polls?
Did you guys know Forbes.com is "in the tank" for Obama?
I'm well aware that lower enthusiasm correlates with lower votes. However, I am suggesting that lower enthusiasm / paranoia at "the Medya" depresses poll responses to a far greater extent than actual votes.
"10 midwestern states"...
or 8.
If the're not answering the phone who's to say they'll go to the polls?
That's possible.
FreeRepublic thinks all the polls are cooked/fabricated to trick the real Uhmurrikins into not voting.
They think that the Nickelodeon Kids poll is better than any pollster.
While really most polls try to make it closer than it is to keep us watching/listening/blogging.
Let's go back to Ron Paul for a second. Someone needs to explain to me the Ron Paul/Barack Obama connections, because they sound like the rantings of 18 year old college students that do not understand the difference.
Let me start off by saying that I am not a "party" voter. I am a candidate voter, and I am voting for Obama. As such, I understand that Obama is touting what essentially is higher federal spending and larger federal government. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is staunchly supportive of less federal spending and minimal federal government.
Therefore, it seems to me that anyone who thinks Paul can't win and is voting for Obama instead just hates John McCain and/or Republicans, and is not necessarily attached to any particular political philosophy.
Anecdotally, these are voters to be careful of; they are historically unreliable with regard to getting to the polls and actually voting.
Indiana.
INDIANA!?!?
I'm very much inclined to disregard this poll completely because of the +10 for Obama in Indiana. I find it very, very hard to believe.
@SlipperySlope,
Clearly this guy thinks it's a trap.
Nate says 'ten states' because the numbers are so big for Obama it feels like they polled twenty.
I can't wait for the rest of today's polls. Especially if they show more huge leads for Obama in some other states. I hope they don't just repeat the same states we've already had today. New Mexico would be interesting, because Obama's been stuck on an average of about +7 for some time now.
Anyone know what other polls are expected today?
I'm a registered Democrat, and I've been following this election closely, and these numbers are ridiculous. Don't believe these any more than the polls that Silver trashes once every couple days for having ludicrous results for McCain. These are just as out of line, although Silver seems much more ready to grant them some level of acceptance.
I mean, when a poll has Indiana as more than +10 blue, it belongs in the garbage. Period.
Hey Adam, relax. Nate updates the model once a day and no more often, usually in the evening once the day's polls have come in. So, these morning polls are NOT in the model yet. They'll be there tonight and the win percentage will change in Obama's favor unless there are similarly favorable polls for McCain coming out later today.
As for Nate's commentary, he was just saying how he personally was interpreting those polls (with caution). It is true that these are the first with Obama doing so well in Ohio and Indiana. Until further confirmation they look a bit like outliers. He's just saying don't get too optimistic or stop volunteering, etc. If you look carefully at his site there is much more pro-Obama optimism than the other way around. There is all sorts of talk about the better ground game, the cell phone effect, and the reverse Bradley effect. It's comforting for him to express some doubts when things look too good, frankly (yes, I support Obama.)
Young voters mostly care about:
1. Ending the war
2. Attack on civil liberties
3. Deficit spending/stop spending so much
Obama is the 2nd best choice on all three. Especially if you can only remember Clinton and Bush. People my age see the Democrats as the Fiscal Conservatives.
Slipperyslope,
Evidence: his own advisers think he is "only seven or eight percentage points behind." There's your trap state for you.
In other news, I'm still trying to figure out how I woke up and saw the world through mule rider's eyes.
andrew said...
"The entire northern border with Canada could be blue, except that damn sliver of Idaho!!! Damn you Idaho!! Damn you."
Call us the "Labatt's Blue States"!
(I'm a Michigander.)
"How likely is it that overly optimistic polls will make Obama supporters think he won't really need their vote to win?"
Not likely at all. First, historically turnout is hurt more on the losing side of landslides than on the winning side (e.g., there's some evidence that Carter's 1980 rout depressed Democratic turnout on the West Coast, whose polls were still open when Carter conceded to Reagan).
Also, I think the historic nature of Obama's candidacy is going to ensure that his supporters turn out and vote. African-Americans, for example, are going to want to actually cast a vote for the first black President, even if the result is a foregone conclusion and they have to stand in line for 3 hours to do it.
Finally, Democrats seem to be naturally pessimistic with respect to Presidential politics (not completely unjustifiably), so most Dems don't really believe that Obama has a 94% chance of winning.
Personally, I think it's much more likely that McCain supporters either stay home or cast protest 3rd-party votes for Barr or Paul (where he's on the ballot), and McCain's support ends up tanking. I'd say that there's probably a better chance that John McCain gets under 40% of the popular vote than that he wins the election, although I don't think either of those things are particularly likely.
Nate, is there a way to explain these numbers? Indiana O+10 while other polls show M+8? I'd like to believe this, but, I mean, come on! Are these some kind of pro-McCain polls that are trying to make Obama voters stay at home?
The source for the divergence lies mostly in the various sets of assumptions that the pollsters make about voter turnout.
Historically speaking, the best way to predict whether or not a voter is "likely" or not is simply whether or not he/she voted in the previous election. All other things being equal, polls that assume that 2008 turnout will resemble 2004 will produce "pro-McCain" polls.
There are a number of reasons why many believe that the turnout for 2008 election will deviate greatly from historical norms. In particular, there is a fair amount of evidence that the youth (under 30) and African-American vote will vote in record numbers and those demographics overwhelmingly support Obama. So pollsters who attempt to account for the increased turnout in certain demographics will produce "pro-Obama" polls.
Historically, African-Americans are far less likely to vote than any other subset of voters. Yet as 2008 will probably demonstrate, when mobilized they can prove to be a critical voting block because since 1968 they have usually voted 85%+ for the Democratic candidate in national elections. For example, NC--a state that Bush won 56-44--is leaning Obama in large part because of the increased participation of African-Americans. African-American participation will likely prove pivotal in MI, OH, PA, and VA. And if other Red States such as AR, IN, and GA turn Blue, it will be because of record African-American turnout.
Obama is not leading by ten in Ohio. He's not leading by ten in Indiana. But I will believe both are tied, Ohio being slightly ahead. Indiana needs to be white on the map this evening. If the Dakotas are down to single digit McCain leads, then the Indiana polls are not as unlikely as we think. Look for NW Indiana to carry Obama to a nailbiter (though if he's got Ohio, VA, NC, or FL it won't matter much).
I'm thinking about this PA play by McCain and realized that if you look at the polling composites, Obama has half the distance to close to flip Georgia than McCain has to flip Penn!
Okay, so an election victory is often about perception. I'm wondering, then, what would be more effective in casting this moment as a cultural watershed: a landslide popular vote and a respectable electoral college win (let's say 58% and 325, respectively); or a marginal popular vote and a landslide electoral college win (52% and 400, respectively). I understand that both would be great, but I wonder which has more of an effect on the national psychology. Myself, I'd tend to say the popular vote--if Obama gets 60% of the popular vote, that's a staggering repudiation of the McCain-Palin platform; but if he wins a majority of states, including many former red states, that's an even more significant win, in a way, because it would signal that the appeal of Obama's platform transcends the usual partisan boundaries, which could mean that the center of American politics is in fact shifting right before our eyes.
"Nate, is there a way to explain these numbers? Indiana O+10 while other polls show M+8? "
What poll shows Indiana M+8?
If AR and GA why not TX, AZ too.
TX has a lot of hispanics and colleges.
And big liberal cities.
Obama has a better shot in Texas than McCain does in PA.
@Toz
If that was a shot at me, you COMPLETELY missed my point. I'm not saying it's LOGICAL that an Obama voter would view Paul in a favorable light,and visa versa. I'm saying that, being on the political scene at my university, that's in many cases what I'm observing.
People want change. They view both Paul and Obama as agents for that change.
I'm not arguing that obama could ultimately be a benefactor of Ron Paul's candidacy in Montana. I'm simply saying I don't think a paul vote in all, or even a large majority of cases, would've gone to McCain.
Most of us can probably agree that there were some pretty suspect happenings in 2000 and 2004. Somebody PLEASE reassure me that this election is unstealable.
Is anyone putting stock in an alleged AP poll showing a statistical dead heat? (See link below.)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Preparing-the-Cover-Story-by-Anthony-Wade-081022-947.html
The polls may be crap, but I still feel good that if you applied a 13% MOE on the Q Ohio Poll, Obama would still be winning. Either Big Ten and Q just called the same delusional people -- or there is some real change on the ground.
Indiana is +7 McCain from Ram
that is two weeks ago.
McCain is doing better in Pennsylvania than he is in Ohio in both of these polls.
That's new...
Nate, I think your analysis misses the mark today. The numbers should be viewed on a state-by-state basis considering what we've seen over recent weeks. For example, numerous polls have indicated that Obama is +10 in PA, so there is no reason to believe the result is an outlier. In fact, quite the opposite. Note that both polls show the same range in OH. Coincidence? Maybe, but maybe not. While you dismissed the Columbus Dispatch poll, that poll was actually very telling because of who responds to it: older voters. That number should have given people pause because it was the first indication that older voters in state were moving to Obama. This trend has been showing itself very slowly but surely in the DailyKos Research 2000 tracking poll. We are now seeing other national polls pick up that same trend. This fact underscores why McCain is genuinely in trouble. Seniors have been the demographic keeping him competitive. Now that they have started to move the polls are moving with them. Unless we see them sift in the other direction, and I have not detected that, your little electoral simulation is going to prove to be very prescient.
As I said to you yesterday, stop downplaying your own knowledge.
i want to see internals for the fl q-poll by region. i have no faith in yesterday's mason poll of fl but i'd like to compare. they are not available on the published write-up; does anybody have access to more internals?
I'm no longer sure these polls can be taken as outliers. Pew isn't the only pollster that has shown Obama with a double-digit, or high single-digit national lead. Zogby, R2K, ABC/WaPo, NBC/Wall St. Journal (RVs), Gallup's had it at double digits recently, and even Fox News has pegged it at Obama +9. Who knows where the polls will ended up before the election, but right now, they're pointing to a commanding lead, and the state polls are starting to reflect that lead.
never mind. just found them. sorry.
The MSM is trying to make the race look close so we all watch/listen to them analyze randomly.
They aren't going to say Obama is going to win 100% then no one watches them.
Walt526,
"Historically, African-Americans are far less likely to vote than any other subset of voters."
I'd like you to meet my friend. He's called Hispanic McLatino/a
Far less likely. Get your facts straight before you adopt that pedantic schoolmarm tone.
"Most of us can probably agree that there were some pretty suspect happenings in 2000 and 2004. Somebody PLEASE reassure me that this election is unstealable."
Actually, no, I wouldn't agree with that.
"Is anyone putting stock in an alleged AP poll showing a statistical dead heat? (See link below.)"
It's been covered quite a bit. Don't obsess over individual data points. Look at the polling as a whole.
The Big10 polls seem to have intentionally tried to exclude most students:
"Cell-only households were not included in the sample. "
djl
you had me laughing out loud with the admiral akkbar thing.
" and even Fox News has pegged it at Obama +9."
To be fair, Fox News was the only one with Kerry ahead in the final days.
Adam Galas said...
"If these polls today don't drastically shift IN numbers and Obama's overall win % then I will be very confused as to why a self proclaimed Obama supporter is making so many excuses for McCain and why his projections, in the last week, seem only to move in McCains favor, no matter how good Obama's poll numbers are."
Perhaps because Nate is first and foremost a stats geek and no matter who he wants to support, he tries to be honest about the numbers. Particularly when you are looking at something as inherantly flawed as polls which have margins of error for a damned good reason. I think Nate has done an amazing job of trying to remain objective about the base numbers and fundamental assumptions behind the scenes. Just as when doing baseball stat analysis he doesn't "cook the books" in favor of his prefered teams.
I think what this is is all Joe The Plumber.
No one really connects with a fat bald guy who lies to Obama about how much money he makes.
Then Obama gets called a socialist. Obama responds by asking if McCain was a socialist in 2000.
Then he talks about his tax plan and sounds like a capitalist.
I think McCain's strateegy to focus on PA and NH is driven mainly by the fact that there is NO EARLY VOTING in either state. NV, NM, IA, CO, (states he seems to be pulling back on) all have early voting underway. He's far behind in votes there already. In PA and NH, he may be behind in polls, but not yet in votes. A game changer there, if he can manufacture one, would be most effective. So, I don't think there's an inherent weakness in PA that he sees and no one else does.
I agree that younger generation voters see the Democrats as the more fiscally responsible / "conservative."
I really don't know how people let Republicans say they are for small government anymore. It just isn't true.
@Eric -
No, no shot at you Eric - if I wanted to do that, I would actually give you my e-mail adress and we could duke it out privately :). I was merely trying to reason through the connection between the two and get inside the heads of the people that see the connection between the two.
I agree that in a state like Montana, and with young people that want "change," the Paul/Obama relationship makes a little more sense, at least from that perception if not a political philosophy persepctive.
Maybe we could see 'Adam Galas the Plumber' on the campaign trail?
But he'd still lose with PA and NH.
339-199 from RCP.
On election night, my friends and I want to get together to watch the results. When do you start something like that? 8pm EST? Later?
Is this result a "likely voter" (LV) estimate? Could there be something amiss in the LV model?
The documentation that I can readily find says the sample was draw from people who were "registered or likely to register." The latter aspect seems a bit sketchy to me.
I tap myself on the back....
Landslide warning again.
I called this yesterday that we would see a big jump in the battleground state polls today. This reflects the bounce observed from the Powell endorsement in the national trackers with some time delay until it is observed in the state polling.
And here it is...
McCain Surge ??
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Blogger RobR TX said...
I agree that younger generation voters see the Democrats as the more fiscally responsible / "conservative."
I really don't know how people let Republicans say they are for small government anymore. It just isn't true.
The Republican party is the party of the military-industrial complex, which tends to get bigger in an imperialist state.
Has anyone ever separated 18-20 year olds from 21-29?
18-20 year olds weren't following politics like the older kids in 2001-2003. They mgiht not realize just how bad of a mistake Iraq was.
Most of the ones I know under 20 vote on gay marriage/pro choice, which still swings them Obama.
Sr GOP strategist lashes McCain campaign's recent actions
Barry Goldwater would hate McCain.
Goldwater was strongly pro-choice and pro gay rights.
He hated the Religious Right.
TIVO every bit of Republican response on election night and compile it into one DVD for motivating future Dem campaigns to punish these people for what they've done to our country.
the conservative leaning RCP finally knocked Obama over the 300 EV mark with their EV Map WITH toss-ups. They just colored Ohio blue!!! 306 EV's on the toss-up map now.
the conservative leaning RCP finally knocked Obama over the 300 EV mark with their EV Map WITH toss-ups. They just colored Ohio blue!!! 306 EV's on the toss-up map now.
Sorry, a little off topic, but this is quite some foreshadowing by Ike (and ironic that he was a Republican):
President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I'm extremely skeptical of these numbers. The Ohio and Indiana should just bizarre to even the most partisan.
BUT, such outliers do give some comfort that the race isn't trending toward McCain. And they will serve as a tremendous head fake for McCain. Indiana and Ohio are must wins for him, and I'm sure he was hoping to allocate as little money as possible here. Now he'll have to waste resources in these states while leaving FL, PA, VA less defended.
that "Tell Senator Obama it's not 2004" ad beneath the fold needs to go. The fact is, John McCain is in the same vein, capillary, artery, whatever you want to call it, as George W. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the scoreboard looks like on election day.
"If AR and GA why not TX, AZ too."
I was thinking of states that might swing based mostly on African-American turnout, not an exhaustive list of Red States that could go to Obama. If AZ or TX go Blue, it will be mostly because of the youth and Hispanic vote (as you suggested).
I would be very surprised if McCain lost Arizona. If he weren't on the ticket, then AZ would probably be following the Southwest trend toward Democrats. But he is very popular and the demographics still favor GOP (for reasons that the AZ post on this site earlier this week enumerated).
Obama needs to get out the vote in all 50 states.
All 50.
Make Idaho 60-40 mccain instead of 70-30.
Make Texas 50-46 McCain not 55-44.
make Utah 60-40 not 80-20 or whatever
make the republicans realize they are done unless they change.
Washington Post
"Two in 10 independent voters said they are more inclined to vote for Obama because of Powell's backing..."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/this_race_goes_to_11.html
to a 'liberalcrab' the rest of the world must seem conservative.
Hi Nate,
It seems likely that these are not statistical outliers, as the total sample from all the polls is nearly 9000 likely voters. Of course, the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois results aren't so surprising, so only 5000-6000 of these voters are contributing the to surprising results.
Anyway, it seems to me that this might well represent a significant shift in the states where Obama is advertising - or it might be a change in polling method. Do you know if the Big-10 polls have started including cell phones?
Toz:
The Paul supporter whose second choice is Obama likely wants: 1) to end the war in Iraq, and possibly to move to an entirely isolationist foreign policy stance; 2) minimal government intrusion on social issues; 3) fiscal conservatism.
The Republican party will start appealing to many more younger voters if they can break free of the grip of the Christianists and the War Pigs.
"Obama has a better shot in Texas than McCain does in PA."
@ Jesse Radin: no, he doesn't. McCain is spending money in PA. Obama is spending nothing here and has basically an all volunteer force. We're working hard, but honestly, there is no pretense that Obama will win TX. We don't do any canvassing for him here, but send whoever can go to NM and CO. The only intention for Obama in TX is to drive up popular vote numbers to give him more of a mandate. Seriously, if it weren't for cable news (and water cooler talk), you almost wouldn't know there's a presidential election this year. I think this explains some of Rob R Tx's concern: I keep having to remind my husband that we are in one of the very best places for McCain. No wonder why we feel deflated. But I just don't think we can have an accurate gauge on what's going on out there.
I think all minorites break hard for Obama.
Also atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Jews, Muslims.
Anyone who has ever been marginalized by the populist masses.
Obama is like Kennedy. Young and untested. Kennedy was a catholic and they feared he'd be "run by the pope"
Obama is not a muslim and they claim he is one. It's the same sort of people doing it.
@Toz
Okay, my apologies :) But yeah. I know it doesn't make sense from a political perspective, as the basic tennants of what Obama and Paul believe in are VERY contradictory (especially domestically).
The other possibility is that, as I'm just drawing this from a small group of people on my college campus, the population at large (in montana at least) may be less inclined to see that connection.
Meh. Less than two weeks before all this speculation turns up some answers I guess.
got a link for that r.joe
If Obama surged money into TX, he'd have a better chance.
Then TX realizes he thinks he has a chance.
"Jesse Radin said...
Has anyone ever separated 18-20 year olds from 21-29?
18-20 year olds weren't following politics like the older kids in 2001-2003. They mgiht not realize just how bad of a mistake Iraq was."
My fifth grade classroom knew plenty well how bad a mistake Iraq was. I think this fact has permeated our culture pretty thoroughly. I really doubt that anyone could miss the insanity we have been sucked into by this thing. It seems to me that the only people who do not call it a mistake are the cognitive dissonance crowd that does not want to give up a position they have already taken. One thing about younger voters is that they are less set in their interpretations. They haven't has time to become ideologues yet (some have I guess, but the rest of the people their age look at them as crazy).
@ tyler curtain, if you are who I suspect you are, hello! I'm a former UNC PhD and former poster on the McGowan blog! I hope all is well.
Please forgive the personal message, everyone. It's just kind of fun to see someone you know through the digital ether.
With the release of this poll, RCP decided that the PPP poll from last week in Indiana was apparently no longer useful, and omitted it while keeping polls from early October that showed a big McCain lead. Retaining the PPP would have shown Obama dead even in their averaging system. Gotta love their bias.
I've just pitched myself to the Obama campaign as "Mystic Laker the Stoner"...That should work just about as well as Joe AssCrack Plumber.
Historically, African-Americans are far less likely to vote than any other subset of voters.
This is false. Both Hispanics and Asians vote at much lower rates than AAs. In 2004, IIRC, AA turnout was four points behind non-hispanic whites @ 56% vs. 60%.
Ialex, I didn't use bold, but I already covered that. You can thank me later.
Where is the link Real Joe?
@eric,
A diehard Paulist lives in my neighborhood--had a Ron Paul yard sign up very early in the primaries and refused to take it down until the city made him do so months after OH primaries . . . yesterday he planted 2 Obama signs.
I think then the difference is if they remember Clinton's presidency/how good things were.
Some of them weren't paying attention when he balanced the budget. Especially 18-19. they were just little kids then.
I'm 23 and I remember those times and I liked them.
I'd like it to be true, but I'm not buying it. My overall sense is, the blue states will be very blue, with lately razor-thin blue states like OR, WI, and MN ending up with very high margins. Red states will trend blue, and put states like VA, NC, CO, and NV into camp Obama, possibly by surprisingly comfortable margins (>5%) if the Regressive election-stealing machinery fails to deliver. But, the traditional battlegrounds will revert to the middle. OH, FL, MO, and probably even PA will squeeze at the end of the race. OH will be red, PA blue, and FL and MO too close to call.
It seems that while there is some drift toward Obama, a lot of this couple be explained by states undecided voters making up their minds, as places like MO, OH, PA, etc. are trending strongly towards Obama - several states that had been looking as potential pickups (WV, LA, GA, MT) are also strongly moving towards McCain. While there are two possible pickups in an Obama+10 blow-out that don't have much polling (AR & ND), given how their neighbors to the south are doing I don't hold out a lot of hope for them.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! Time for a real change and a small victory won't due (it beat a defeat though).
Jesse Radin:
Responding to you again - I agree that a little expression of interest in TX would go a long way. A few ads in San Antonio and Austin, or one appearance (too much to hope for I bet, but imagine the press coverage!), and he could gain more in the popular vote than any other appearance could do for him.
Just average 3 polls and you'll get a good sense of the current margin: the two most accurate pollsters in 2004 -- TIPP and Rasmussen -- plus Gallup expanded likely voters.
Even regular Zogby is crap -- he projected Kerry to win in 2004, taking Ohio and Florida. He was off by 23 points in Obama's favor in the 2008 CA primary.
The Battleground Big 10 margins are absurd in OH and IN.
I agree with you that they may not have a clue about the Clinton years. But Bush's shadow is going to loom large for a whole generation. This does not bode well for Republicans.
Carter shouldn't have conceded the election whilst California was still voting.
One thing Fox News might try on election night is to declare Virginia, Ohio and Florida for Obama very early, in an effort to make voters in the rest of the country believe the election's already over and there's no point in voting. Thankfully, early voting makes that trick much less likely to succeed.
PPIC California
O: 56
M: 33
PPIC
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
A feature of Nate's model is that it is backward looking, which has the effect of "normalizing" the predictions to past behaviors. This year looks different from all indications. The involvement of young people is like nothing I've seen before and it is uplifting. Grandkids are lifting the spirits of grandparents. It's beautiful. The whole world is waiting for the USA to be reborn again. I was around in the sixties and saw the movement to free the south and the protests against the capitalists' war in Viet Nam, but those activities pale in comparison to the drive and enthusiasm that Obama has generated for full participation in our democracy. I love it!
Even the conservatives here in TX are deciding Bush's reign has been awful. If he's lost his base here in his home state (my evangelical Christian friends largely can't stand him), he's really pissed people off elsewhere, I assume.
They are off.
But if OH and IN said +10 McCain you'd declare it's all over for Obama.
Cubs Fan mentality as Nate says.
Republicans are Yankees fans.. they are used to winning even when they are losing badly.
http://www.politicshome.com/USA/#4031
Thats the link Real Joe cited earlier.
Basically, senior Republican strategist says that McCain should do what Dole did in 1996 -- help the downticket races if a loss is inevitable.
have fun discussing these interesting polls guys - I'm off for the day, I can't wait to see what else comes in today when I get home.
RobR TX said...
I agree with you that they may not have a clue about the Clinton years. But Bush's shadow is going to loom large for a whole generation. This does not bode well for Republicans.
Does anyone a little older than me know if this was said about Nixon? It took, what, 4 years for a Repub prez to return to the WH?
you know what I can't understand more than anything else about the Palin/McCain hate tactics? That they are (and have been for months now) lose-lose. They persist with them even though they keep generating a negative public response, but the danger they are creating in such a cavalier fashion is completely disgusting to me.
If, please god forbid, anything violent should happen to Obama, people will be able to point straight to the GOP's disgraceful campaign and justifiably say that they fanned the flames. Some rabid wingnut with 5 IQ points could well take Palin's rallies as a party-led mandate to take action against this "dangerous" man, Obama. Especially since they're clearly going to lose.
I find it very worrying. I know there will always be crazy racists with evil intentions out there, but at least the Republicans could take some care not to stoke their fears so deliberately. It's like they think it's some kind of game. It's all too Lord of the Flies for my taste!
Is it a coincidence that anytime McCain gets good numbers Nates says there should be something wrong with polls and anytime Obama gets good numbers he posts a new post about it and discuss it in full details?
BTW, I have studied his methodology in details and I think it makes sense. I just don't like these biased commentaries.
starxobabygirl:
I try to get rid of the Mc link on the front page by clicking on it a lot. Maybe if we all do that, it will go away :)
Well Kid G, Ford wasn't that bad.
The juxtaposition "outlier" versus "best-case scenario" is a little weird, methodologically-speaking.
"Outlier" is a way of describing a datum. "Best-case scenario" is a characterization of a region of the space of inferences. Conflating data with the inferences derived therefrom is poor form. Tsk tsk.
And neither was Nixon. Nixon is the most underrated president of all time.
He signed the EPA, OSHA, opened relations with China.
He also attempted to get a "Negative Income Tax" passed but failed.
I wonder if the much discussed Bradley effect is finally rearing its head - in PA
Double digit leads for Obama in polls, yet sources in both Dem and Rep campaigns think its actually much closer. In fact GOP seem to making PA their number one priority, telling CNN if they lose PA they'll lose the election.
Real Joe:
Could you proviede a link for Sr GOP strategist lashes McCain campaign's recent actions?
Usually I can google the headlines you post but this one's ntocoming up.
"not coming up"
stupid fingers
Well we don't have much on Indiana. We can't say something is an outlier with 4 data points and 2 of them are 2 weeks old.
Battleground
O: 49
M: 45 (-2)
Hopefully Nate will finally spread some of the Minnesota margin to North Dakota, because eastern North Dakota is double digit Obama lead as well. That 15% is just embarrassing sitting there amidst three recent ND polls, none of which showed McCain with a lead of any size whatsoever.
Pollster has it as a tossup, where it belongs.
@ Richard:
I've said it before: I don't think (god willing) anything will happen to Obama. In the next 12 days, however, there are going to be tens of thousands of volunteer canvassers like me in the streets for GOTV. With tensions mounting and an increasingly bleek outlook for the GOPers, I would not be surprised if a VERY ugly incident occurred. Hopefully it would lead to an end to the negative campaigning and seal a tarnished GOP's reputation for decades.
Come on NATE!!! I'm calling you out. You're the best we've got. You're the inspirational leader of the cult. You get it more than anyone. I don't care if your tired. Step up and give great analysis like you always do! These polls are overwhelming and should not be taken lightly, like your blog post implies! Let's look at the numbers for a second. Obama's Reuters/Zogby National number is up from 10 to 12, 12!!! Biggest lead so far in Reuters/Zogby. Obama's national number is 7 in Rasmussen, 7, up from 5! Rasmussen hasn't been at 7 for Obama, I don't think ever!!! That's a breakout in Rasmussen! Three Pennsylvania polls by 3 different pollsters at 10,11, 13. Ohio at 12 and 14, following a +9 for Obama in Ohio 2 days ago. This is from 3 different pollsters, two of which are very established. The Big 10 polls appear that they could be outliers with no internals, but let's not forget the last time they polled the group of states, they had them all very close. There was no Democratic lean last time for them. They're putting their Universities name and in some ways reputation at stake with their polling. Michigan +24! Minnesota +17 Wisconsin +13 Iowa +13, Florida +5, GWU Battlegroun has jumped from +2 to +4 even, w/ a 5 day average. These numbers are not ALL outliers. For the moment, this is what we call a SURGE!!! I've learned much from you sensei. This is reality, not a bunch of confused pollsters. Even if by chance they're all wrong, they're all too Democratic, pro-Obama numbers. Take 5 points off the top of all of the numbers. Obama's still way ahead!
"Well we don't have much on Indiana. We can't say something is an outlier with 4 data points and 2 of them are 2 weeks old."
Just like "socialist" means "I don't like him,"
"Outlier" doesn't mean a statistical data point that is far from the others. It means "poll result I don't want to believe."
Thanks for the link love child
@robr tx: I don't agree that a few ads in central TX and one appearance will make a big difference. Maybe if those ads and appearances were in the valley, where early voting numbers seem pretty low, but even then I doubt it.
If you guys want to do anything to help Texas, donate money to the Burnt Orange folks, who are raising money for local candidates. We are very close to turning the Texas House over to Democratic control, which would be a huge victory and would honestly do a lot more good than delivering Obama one or two more percentage points in popular vote here. The DNC has made it clear that we are going to have to do a lot of local work first, and we could really use the monetary support. I really think this kind of local growth is the best way to get the Texas EVs into the Dem column over the long-term.
ladypeyton.
I posted the link above.
Regards.
Poll number increases for Obama are to be expected. Why would anyone want the same crap put back in office? Signs of this happening were already seen during the primaries. American people are not that ignorant.
I'll acknowledge 2 things. #1 Quinnipiac has had a Demcoratic lean.
#2 I suppose with Obama enthusisasm per voter outweighing McCain enthusiasm considerable this could equate to who would answer the call of a pollster.
All that certainly doesn't account for the shift in every poll, otherwise what are the polls good for?
"If Obama surged money into TX, he'd have a better chance."
Sure, but there's a better use of that money. To the extent that the campaign will spend money in states that are an extreme longshot, I'd rather see Obama direct resources toward GA, KY, and MS. There are vulnerable GOP incumbents in those states and its possible that a strong Obama GOTV effort will help the Democrats squeeze out an extra Senate seat or two. Also, those states are cheaper to run TV ads than TX media markets would be (especially KY and MS). Cornyn's pretty popular in Texas and its very unlikely that any amount of money spent would dislodge him.
An earlier poster asked whether Obama would get a stronger mandate from a higher EV count or popular vote count. Actually, I think that a better-than-expected performance in the Senate races would send the strongest signal. Outperforming expectations will be difficult, as the Democrats are already favored to win 8 states currently held by the GOP. If they can win all those races plus two of the three remaining vulnerable GOP seats (GA, KY, MS), then Obama will have a considerable mandate (and the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).
I don't think that most people care if the margin of McCain's victory in ID is 70-30 vs 60-40. But an absolute pummeling of the GOP in the Senate will make headlines and stand out in people's minds.
Hist Rankings of Prez's
According to this article, Ford was a mediocre president, but he wasn't elected. I'm also too young to know what it was like to live during the Ford years.
ladypeyton said...
Real Joe:
Could you proviede a link for Sr GOP strategist lashes McCain campaign's recent actions?
Mike Allen
Politico, Playbook
Mike Allen reports in his Political Playbook today, that he received from a senior Republican strategist who is angry with McCain's interview in the Washington Times in which he lashes out at Bush policies.
"The Republican establishment is beginning to express long-suppressed exasperation with the McCain pirate ship. In an early-morning phone call to Playbook, one of the most senior Republican strategists in the land warns the McCain campaign after reading the WashTimes interview: 'Lashing out at past Republican congresses instead of Pelosi and Reid, and echoing your opponent's attacks on you instead of attacking your opponent, and spending 150,000 hard dollars on designer clothes when congressional Republicans are struggling for money, and when your senior campaign staff are blaming each other for the loss in The New York Times [Magazine] 10 days before the election, you're not doing much to energize your supporters. The fact is, when you're the party standard-bearer, you have an obligation to fight to the finish. I think they can still win. But if they don't think that, they need to look at how Bob Dole finished out his campaign 1996, and not try to take down as many Republicans with them as they can. Instead of campaigning in electoral-college states, Dole was campaigning in places he knew he didn't have a chance to beat Clinton, but where he could energize key House and Senate races. I think you'll find these sentiments shared by MANY of my fellow Republican strategists.'"
Link
I understand that people are skeptical of these numbers. My instinct is to be so as well. However, for those who do want to post insights like, "I'm not buying it," I wish you would produce evidence from other polls to help support your claims. Just saying "these numbers are too good to be true" and leaving it at that seems like the kind of hand-wringing "insights" we get from other sources. I want number crunching that supports your doubts.
Zogby's got BO up 9.9 nationally, up from yesterday. He leans right of center. When he's showing this kind of lead, some of the polls showing 10, 11, or even up to 13 may not be outliers.
By the time Dixville Notch votes in NH, BO may have "banked" enough early votes in some states to salt them away before the "day of" voters step into the polls.
What will happen to Sarah Palin?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/sarahpalin-uselections2008
Joe the plumber has apparently been sacked
This is starting to feel like 1997 [uk]
What will happen to Sarah Palin?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/sarahpalin-uselections2008
Joe the plumber has apparently been sacked
This is starting to feel like 1997 [uk]
McCain isn't a Republican.
Deep down he's Still 2000 McCain and he's intentionally bringing down the people that forced him to pick Palin over Lieberman. I hope. For his sake.
As to Ohio, doubt he can be up that big, based upon past experience. However, the reports of the excitement gap are not overblown. McCain is having to try to hire temp agencies to do work volunteers would do. Also, Bryan, Ohio (red county), has a larger Obama field office than McCain with a whole lot more activity. Been involved in campaigns for 3 decades and never seen 500 at a GOTV training session.
Then again, as a lifelong Bengals fan and Democrat, we share one thing in common, the Ability to Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
Amy DiLisio posts: "Most of us can probably agree that there were some pretty suspect happenings in 2000 and 2004. Somebody PLEASE reassure me that this election is unstealable."
In 2004, there was a 7% discrepancy between exit poll and reported totals in Pennsylvania. Let us assume for the sake of argument (dubious assumption, but-- for the sake of argument) that this was all theft, not at all polling error. That 7% discrepancy (one of the largest found anywhere) was not enough to take the state away from Kerry. We must assume that the Busheviks would have stolen the state, if they could; therefore, that 7% must represent the maximum theft which they are capable of. If they did it again, that still would not shift Pennsylvania.
Most of the blue states are just unstealable: they don't have the dodgy machines and dubious election officials found in some of the red and battleground states. Maybe the Republicans can steal Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and Colorado if they are close, but Virginia and Colorado already look too far gone to be stealable. They aren't going to steal any blue states, not even Pennsylvania.
But OK, I'll indulge your pessimism to the max. McCain steals Virginia and Colorado, along with Ohio, Florida, and Missouri; he honest-to-God wins in Indiana, West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota. STILL Obama wins if he just takes Nevada, OR North Carolina, OR flips Georgia. Flipping Georgia is not likely, but NC and NV are going his way.
Feel any better? If not, all I can say is: get out and call some people!
wishful guy said...
Is it a coincidence that anytime McCain gets good numbers Nates says there should be something wrong with polls and anytime Obama gets good numbers he posts a new post about it...
Well, Nate does have a model that's telling him to be very skeptical of the former and only mildly skeptical of the latter. An Obama landslide is over three times more likely than a McCain popular vote victory.
Does anyone else agree?
McCain was told "to win, you must choose Palin."
He was told: No Lieberman.
He really wanted Lieberman.
I really now believe he's trying to destroy the people who made him pick Palin/sell his soul, and deep down he likes Obama more than he likes "McCain 3.0"
Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com took a look at all the tracking polls published during the final weeks of this campaign. His overall assessment? “In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.”
What i think we are seeing in statepolls with early voting is that "unlikely" voters ARE VOTING. And they are voting for Obama.
Interesting note I just received from a Republican acquaintance...
"I received a robo-call last week from the RNC with the 'paid for by McCain-Palin' tag at the end. It told me, very matter of factly, that I should not vote for Obama, because he associates with terrorists that are killing americans. That really angered me. Can't vote for McCain now. Won't do it. But I'm not quite ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon either. My friends, I may sit this one out. Is Nader going to be on the ballot?"
robo-calling backfiring. People hate getting unsolicited calls.
No, it's not a coincidence. Just like it's not a coincidence that McCain polling gains are referred to as "tightening" and not "McCain gains."
We're all human, here :)
I heard Nate on Democracy Now this morning. He gave an excellent interview. I think he is really helping people become better poll consumers.
What I like most about these polls is that they will control the narrative AT LEAST for today and one more day McCain can't control the narrative is one more happy day for Democrats. Very interesting polls indeed, what else is coming out today?
I am beginning to suspect that John McCain has made a serious miscalculation regarding George Bush's low approval ratings.
I think that what Americans dislike about George Bush is not the man, but the neocon.
McCain, after much struggling, has distanced himself from Bush, but McCain's mistake was to not realize that he needed to distance himself from neoconservativism in general.
Hence, Sarah Palin's drag on the ticket, and also, the fact that every time McCain follows the advise of his party's "luminaries", he ends up dropping in the polls.
By tonight, almost 1 million would have voted early in Georgia. In 2004, only 3.3 million voted in total!
Nate I want a job with you for 2012. I am getting a master's degree in Demographics
I also want to work for BP
I won't cook the books for Conor Gillapsie, my new hero.
josh, who is this mysterious 'Nate Silver' you speak of?
Look at the numbers folks. They don't lie. These pollsters are not all wrong, universally. There's no conceivable explanation for them to all be wrong. The only pollster in the last week that gives a little glimmer of hope to the GOP is Mason-Dixon. It's hard to surge from the levels Obama is already at. He's doing though. I mean really. Look at the numbers, you can't explain it all away by saying, one pollster leans Demcorat, the other's methodology is off. You have all of the national trackers surging too. Obama's Gallup lead will probably jump 2-3 points today. Let's watch TIPP, Research 2000, and WaPost.
Another deep thought:
Will John McCain contribute to the postulated reverse-Bradley effect?
I think the fact that he says the Christian Right have a role to play in the party ruined him.
They have no role to play. They can make the America First party where we kick out immagrants. The racist Greens who think third world countries cause all pollution can join them too.
He should have been Barry Goldwater from the 90s. Pro gay rights pro abortion rights. very Fiscally conservative.
assmole said...
josh, who is this mysterious 'Nate Silver' you speak of?
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Dave-london:
"This is starting to feel like 1997 [uk]"
That's what probably concerns me most of all! Deep down though, something tells me that Obama is not Blair. I hope I'm right :)
Much to the surprise of states from North Dakota to New Mexico, Big Ten considers Pennsylvania and Ohio to be midwestern states. Their perception in other areas is likely to be equally flawed.
McCain is getting no traction with any of his attacks because, excluding his base, everyone else is paying attention this election. And they understand that his bullsh!t is bulklsh!t. A remarkable thing. Democracy can work when people are motivated to make it work.
Charles Crook: Confused? The "Big Ten" is an athletic conference of large universities, located in 8 states. Hence the Big Ten surveys are from just 8 states.
However, the name "Big Ten" is an anachronism, as there are currently 11 universities in the conference.
Upper midwesterners are a bit traditionally oriented, perhaps. Clinging to their guns, religion, and the number 10.
Funny comment from David Sedaris in the New Yorker on the issue of undecided voters at this point in the election cycle:
"I don’t know that it was always this way, but, for as long as I can remember, just as we move into the final weeks of the Presidential campaign the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”
Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.
I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
Full article:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris
Obama is the black Daniel Patrick Monayhin.
Wrote "The Race Report" in 1965 saying welfare encouraged single black families and this was a big problem.
Look him up.
He's a Dem the GOPers love.
Obama is exactly what he wanted.
" There's no conceivable explanation for them to all be wrong. "
Yes, there is. They are all based on turnout models that may have no real correlation to this election, which is driving turnout in unusual ways.
But that probably works in Obama's favor, if anything.
Texas Eric- I second those sentiments.
Nate-
How about a post on best case scenario/worst case scenario? What are the chances of thinking about an AZ or a TX? The trend is definitely pointing there over the last 5 days.
And, I appreciate the objectivity of the model - if the model moves, and the model is by nature conservative, you know the shift is real.
Battleground is at 49-45, which means one of the pro-McCain outliers is starting to eliminate itself. Once that 10/16 day drops off tomorrow, expect another big gain for Obama in that poll.
They will have IBD/TIPP and a week old AP poll left.
I wish people would stop with the John McCain version 2000 and "real John McCain" stuff or the "he wants to lose to get back at neo-cons" stuff.
Remember the primaries in 1999 when McCain went to SC and said that the flag was a symbol of heritage? And then later in his interviews and his book he said that he just had too much ambition and wanted to win so badly that he lied?
McCain has always wanted the presidency and has shown a consistent willingness to do whatever it might take to win it.
Then, later he comes back with his tail between his legs and says that wasn't the "real" him.
His whole schtick is to keep crying wolf. Bah.
@Eric:
Take a quick look at the RCP numbers from the Democratic primaries. Some of the numbers were so far off, it's embarrassing. It is completely possible that ALL pollsters are wrong. Probably not in all states, but certain ones will be completely inaccurate. I am pretty sure Obama will win NY.
Some people fear that the far left Liberals will rule over Obama.
But really, he's going to work with the Blue Dogs.
So, I sneaked a look in the McCain HQ in Concord, NH this morning at 10 a.m., the day after McCain's visit to the state and a week after Palin's visit. Care to guess how many were at the phones?
A hint: It's a lonely number.
Josh said...
Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com took a look at all the tracking polls published during the final weeks of this campaign. His overall assessment? “In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.”
Rasmussen had a break out today!!!!
It's steady eddy if you watch it. Hardly any movement at all. A 1-point move in Rasmussen is a big deal. Obama is at +7 there. That's huge. I don't think he's ever been at +7 in their poll.
I am scared the GOP is going to steal the election again. I am so anxious about it. Please, November 5th get here so we can sleep or move.
Juris;
I was pointing out that Nate's article quoted the Big 10 poll as being in "10 MidWestern states."
When in fact there are 8 states.
As an Ohio resident, I am skeptical of the polling numbers but increasingly optimistic that Ohio will be blue. The recent numbers are shocking, but not as shocking as a small newspaper endorsement out of New Philadelphia, Ohio. New Philly is probably the right-middle of an Ohio cross-section. It has about equal influence in it from Akron, Youngstown, Columbus and the very conservative rural/Amish area. The endorsement is interesting because it's basically how they backed into voting for O. The comments below the endorsement are also very believably local.
Link: http://www.timesreporter.com/opinion/x1261528053/Our-opinion-Barack-Obama-for-president
I'm stunned that there is even this level of support for Obama in this area so the state just may be solidly swinging blue.
Does anyone a little older than me know if this was said about Nixon? It took, what, 4 years for a Repub prez to return to the WH?
Following the GOP pummeling in 1974 (Democrats netted 49 House and 4 Senate seats), there was a lot of speculation in both the media and political science literature that the GOP might cease to exist as a major party and a third-party would emerge as a counterweight to the Democrats. But in 1976, Carter barely beat out Ford and couldn't deliver any significant gains in the congressional races. And in 1978, the GOP helped recover about a third of their 1974 losses. And then Reagan happened.
Historical precedent is that the Democrats must be vigilant. Even if they get 60+ seats in the Senate this year, they'll almost certainly lose it in 2010 (based on trend against incumbent party and the Democrats having a number of vulnerable seats). Any major legislation that Obama passes in his first term will almost certainly have to occur in the first two years. Hopefully he can make better use of that time than Clinton.
Real Joe said...
assmole said...
josh, who is this mysterious 'Nate Silver' you speak of?
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
2 can play at that game, sir!
Post a Comment