There are eight current national polls that list separate sets of results for likely and registered voters. (In this case, for reasons that will be apparent momentarily, I am deliberately double-counting the two Gallup likely voter models). On average, Barack Obama leads by 9.8 points in the registered voter versions of these polls, but by 7.0 points in the likely voter versions -- nearly a 3-point difference:
Note, however, that the likely voter models appear to segregate themselves into two clusters. In one cluster, there is a rather large, 4-6 point difference between registered and likely voter results. In the other cluster, there is essentially no difference.
The first cluster coincides with Gallup's so-called "traditional" likely voter model, which considers both a voter's stated intention and his past voting behavior. The second cluster coincides with their "expanded" likely voter model, which considers solely the voter's stated intentions. Note the philosophical difference between the two: in the "traditional" model, a voter can tell you that he's registered, tell you that he's certain to vote, tell you that he's very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded from the model if he hasn't voted in the past. The pollster, in other words, is making a determination as to how the voter will behave. In the "expanded" model, the pollster lets the voter speak for himself.
Frankly, I find polls showing a 4-6 point gap between likely and registered voters to be utterly ridiculous. Why?
1. Among people who have already voted, Democrats lead overwhelmingly. Zogby pegs Barack Obama's advantage at 27 points among people who have already voted. The New York Times details how Democrats are overperforming, sometimes dramatically, in states where early voting is underway. (By the way, the New York Times' data on Florida is wrong, as it includes absentee ballot requests as well as early voters. According to an Open Left diarist, Democrats have a 24-point advantage among those who have actually voted early in Florida).
Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.
2. Enthusiasm is much higher among Democrats than among Republicans. The latest Diageo/Hotline numbers show that 72 percent of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for their candidate, as opposed to 55 percent of Republicans.
3. Most likely voter models are unlikely to distinguish newly registered voters from what I would call lapsed registered voters. If someone is registered, and has been registered for a long while, but has not cast a ballot since they pulled the lever for Ross Perot in 1992, there is good reason to be skeptical about their intentions. On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote. Barack Obama's advantages are principally from among the newly-registered voter group.
4. There is an enormous discrepancy in the strength of the Republican and Democratic turnout operations. In past elections, such as 2004, this advantage favored the Republicans; in this one, it favors the Democrats. Barack Obama has somewhere between a 2:1 and a 4:1 advantage in field offices in most battleground states. He is relying almost exclusively on volunteers (the exception are a couple of cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, where Obama will most likely pay 'street money' to canvassers on Election Day). McCain, meanwhile, has already had to hire paid canvassers in Florida, and perhaps he will also in several other states.
5. Turnout among 'unlikely' voter blocks was substantially up during the Democratic primaries. Youth voters (18-29 year olds) increased their share of the Democratic electorate by 52 percent. Latino voters increased their share by 42 percent. Black voters increased their share by 8 percent.
I would like to issue a challenge to those pollsters like Franklin & Marshall and GfK which in spite of all the facts above, are showing a substantial shift toward the Republicans when they apply their likely voter models. E-mail me -- my contact information is at the top of the page -- and tell me why you think what you're doing is good science.
10.22.2008
Some Likely Voter Models are Suspect
by Nate Silver @ 2:52 PM...see also demographics, likely voters, methodology, pollsters, turnout models
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

311 comments
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178
John McCain is now leading Barack Obama 53-43 among those 18-24 in the new IBD poll.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
Ron Fournier's AP publishes a poll where 44% of those surveyed were born-again evangelicals. The actual 2004 percentage of born-again Christians was 23% according to the CNN exit polls.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
I know this isn't a diary but it's highly entertaining and drudge is loving it!
Interesting that AP-GFK used cell phones for 25% of their sample.
second
Just a quick error noticed:
"In past elections, such as 2004, this advantage favored the Republicans; in this one, it favors the Republicans. "
You obviously meant Democrats.
Come on Nate, you're supposed to be perfect! :P
All kidding aside, of course... excellent analysis and good job on olbermann last night.
fourth, maybe? doubt it.
but when I saw the AP article on the race being essentially even, I wondered how fast you would respond, Nate.
While I was phone-banking on Sunday, a few volunteers had people they called insist that they had already early voted in person in Florida. They were lying, since in-person early voting didn't open until Monday. Presumably they just wanted us to stop bugging them.
It's safe to assume that some people are lying to pollsters about this too.
When I saw the new AP poll with McCain only down 1 I said to myself "I bet Nate is scrambling to write a post to discredit that poll and others that show the race closer than 5 pts."
Sure enough, an hour later, here is the post!
Nate, why don't you just swap in an Obama-Biden logo for the current 538 logo?
Also, I assume I'm the openleft diarist you're speaking of, but your link is wrong. The numbers are here. They include no absentee votes.
-- Interview Sarah Palin --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Cq-KlvdXE
Everyone watch these if you haven't...Seriously, so effing funny..Called "McCain's Brain"
This is #5, #'s 1-4 are just as good....
And J, Nate equally discredits polls that have Obama with a much bigger lead than others when the internals are bad...
Olbermann? Sorry I missed that.
Would you mind alerting us to your upcoming media appearances in a separate post? We your readers know you're a mensch, and wouldn't take the heads up as a sign of an expanding ego.
Something *very* screwy about that IBD poll! Not only is the McCain youth lead highly implausible, but also "He's also gaining momentum in the suburbs, where he's gone from dead even a week ago to a 20-point lead." Seriously? A 20 point swing in a period where nothing else has moved significantly? If you were IBD, wouldn't you question your methodology, or even your sanity, before putting such stuff out?
IBD and Fournier have lost any and all credibility they may have had in the past.
I have a friend who does work with TIPP, who polls with IBD. He let me know a few weeks back that they were not going to publish numbers on the up and up if it did not fit what they believe to be the wishes of their readership at IBD.
TIPP is still taking the checks, though. I am talking about oversampling then mixing, matching, and throwing away results they found "unreliable".
Fournier is clearly making all of his calls into the Bible Belt if he is coming up with a 44% evangelical number.
J, why don't you actually address Nate's points, instead of proferring up baseless accusations of bias?
J is the only person who bases reality on one single poll.
If you're going to do that, why not cherry-pick some of the polls where Obama is up by 14?
The point of these close outlier polls are so the freepers can have a life preserver and grasp on to the hope that McCain is really winning.
When almost every decent pollster shows a 6-10 point race that`s probably where the race is. Polls like this are only good so that RCP can lower Obama`s average and give drudge a headline.
Oh my gosh ... Investors Business Daily is just a front for AEI and AIPAC... right wingnuts all the way. As paranoid as I am, I'm not sweating any feces they put out.
Nate is on the money again. I think some pollsters are being ridiculously conservative in responding to the fact that the trends of this election are so out of whack with the trends of 2004.
Just as a matter of background, F&M is in Lancaster, PA. Hearst/Argyle owns WGAL, which is among the largest television stations in the area. South central PA is a politically conservative area, so it doesn't surprise me tremendously to see that the F&M/Argyle poll slightly favors the conservative side.
Dr. Terry Madonna has built a small cottage industry for himself appearing on WGAL and on local talk radio stations, which all skew conservative.
I asked this on an earlier post but I think it probably got lost down thread:
Has anyone attempted to project how reports of early voting results might influence election day turnout? By either energizing or tamping down the turnout for either the early voting leader or the early voting underdog?
Also, I presume all early voting results are based on polls, not on actual counting, which doesn't happen until election day--correct?
Nate, I can't say enough about how great this site and your analysis has been. This post is perfect -- and timely.
...
J., I can't imagine why you bother visiting this site. If you're looking for predictions that validate your way of thinking -- as opposed to an openly liberal statistician who is doing his best to present objective conclusions -- the Book of Revelations is available in most libraries.
Excellent analysis Nate...you are God!
"When I saw the new AP poll with McCain only down 1 I said to myself "I bet Nate is scrambling to write a post to discredit that poll and others that show the race closer than 5 pts."
Sure enough, an hour later, here is the post!"
When I saw the new study that proved that eating only human hair and rat feces is the secret to perfect health, I said to myself, "I bet doctors and nutritionists are scrambling to come out against the diet and others like it that don't have any fancy 'nutrients.'"
Sure enough, I went to my doctor and asked him if I should go on the hair/feces diet and he laughed in my face.
So predictable.
Nate, why don't you just swap in an Obama-Biden logo for the current 538 logo?
Not fair, at all, J. Nate dismisses the outliers for Obama, too.
Truth is, the country is at about a +7.35 for Obama. Not +13, not +1, but somewhere statistically in the middle.
The +1 poll you rely on is not reliable because of the spread in internal numbers among aggregate polls done within the same period. There cannot be the tectonic movement the +1 poll suggests because the issues are +8 to +15 for Obama and McCain's negatives are averaging 44.3%. Obama's negatives are at 32.9%.
Think about it and you may want to apologize to Nate.
Nate... you get 'em.
Robert Kennedy in the newest Rolling Stone speaks to one of my two concerns about what you're suggesting. (See: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote).
Namely, efforts at voter disenfranchisement might mitigate against a large wave of new voters, causing a regression to traditional likely voter models of behavior (albeit by cheating.)
My second concern is that, prior to this election, the likely voter models (if I understand them correctly) have been relatively accurate predictors, given the caveats that you've mentioned on these pages (including things like party preference changes, voter excitement, and such.) Usually, I am of a wait-and-see attitude.
By the way, I like the Gallup likely voter split because of its transparency.
Rasmussen
Kentucky
M-52
O-44
Tennessee
M-58
O-39
You should look through the other population figures. The 44% evangelical is just the tip of the iceberg: party parity, urban/suburban/rural, Hispanic turnout, etc. This poll is a joke. What it basically says is that if Republicans disproportionately turnout, it might be close. Who here thinks that's "likely"?
"Also, I presume all early voting results are based on polls, not on actual counting, which doesn't happen until election day--correct?" (Dairystatedad)
Early voting is based on exit polls or phone polling.
They have about as much effect on those who vote on election day as exit polls on election day do. Very little.
Hmm...if Rasmussen says KY is M52-O44, then I say it's really M50-O46.
Why is it that exactly ZERO pollsters have Obama numbers INCREASING in the likely voter model, whereas every single one (except Pew) has McCain doing better. It seems so odd to me that not a single pollster sees us improving our position with Likely voters versus Registered voters, and they all see McCain improving his despite 1) disparity in enthusiasm and 2) measurable difference in ground presence.
I have been denounced 5 times in 13 minutes.
I am still waiting to be called a racist. Someone please step up to the plate.
How the Base was Won
Massive Minnesota Polling Analysis
Obama 340, McCain 198
The Kentucky number is great for two reasons:
1. A region were Obama hopes to win bordering states.
2. McConnell.
Well, J, feel free to take up Nate's challange and expound on how you feel those polls are good science. Defend it/them with something more than being dismissive.
What evidence do you have that the internals of the AP poll accurately reflects the voting public? Did you even look at the internals or are you just reading the headlines and making up your mind?
Someone here wrote:
"While I was phone-banking on Sunday, a few volunteers had people they called insist that they had already early voted in person in Florida. They were lying, since in-person early voting didn't open until Monday. Presumably they just wanted us to stop bugging them."
I do not think so. I expect these people think that registering to vote is the same as voting. My daughter and I both took part in registration drives this year, and we met several people who had the impression. They did not know that you have to go to the polls and vote.
I know this sounds odd, but it is true.
So, basically, the AP poll tells us that Obama would beat McCain by 1 point in an election held today where only people who voted in 2004 are allowed to vote, and in which evangelicals somehow represent twice the percentage of the electorate as they did in 2004.
Dare I say this is GOOD NEWS!!!! For Barack Obama?!?!?!??!
J - I won't denounce you, but you could do us all the favor of producing a coherent argument to counter Nate's post, rather than just complaining about bias.
J the sample of that poll is not representative, that has nothing to do with Mr. Silver's political leanings.
"tell me why you think what you're doing is good science."
lol.
Republicans don't do science.
Hmm...if Rasmussen says KY is M52-O44, then I say it's really M50-O46.
That's an odd thing to say, given that everyone else who's polled KY has McCain leading by +12 or more.
Say something racist and you may get your wish, otherwise put up or shut up.
like josh i cant say enough good things about this site and the people who make it possible-
nate, sean, brett
even if you knwe next to nothing about polls-different polls showing such divergence from each other you know something is not right.
also since i said how much i appreciate this site i also want to say how much i appreciate the people who leave comments here.
you guys always have something of interest to say-thanks
I second cms's confusion. Wouldn't likely voters be more likely to vote for Obama than registered voters if the enthusiasm gap is as big as everyone says? I can see that in typical years R's would have an advantage among likely voters, but this year feels entirely different to me...
I'm not saying the numbers are fixed, I'm just wondering what in these pollsters' methodologies is causing this.
I'm still trying to figure out how they polled over 1100 people (with a decided 10% Obama lead) and got down to 800. They surveyed the other 300 people, why would they do that if they were aliens or children?
At any rate, I'm sure their poll will skyrocket to Obamas +9 a week from Monday and then they'll talk about how 'accurate' they were.
Hmm, all the likely voter models that are "suspect" are the ones that show the race to be close.
Interesting.
It certainly seems unlikely to me that 81-82 percent of voters will be white/non-hispanic in a country that's 66 percent white/non-hispanic. They slashed the Latino vote in the LV screen and had almost nobody who wasn't white, black, or Latino.
Great post, although I worry about relying too much on polls of early voters. Assuming a typical Democrats' primary election fraud concern is voter suppression and a typical Republican's primary election fraud concern is fake votes, Democrats are going to be more motivated to hit the polls early, to alleviate their concern of not being able to vote. No such fear exists on the Republican side.
Whoa... Nate Silver calls out a mega Pollster Throw-Down.. Bring the rain Silver.. those unbalanced Pollsters better step outta your face.. with their monkey-ass science... back the fuck up Pollsters, Silver is pissed!
I have been denounced 5 times in 13 minutes.
That's what happens when you defecate all over an intelligent discussion.
tell me why you think what you're doing is good science.
It's got nothing to do with science, they're hedging their bets. Two disparate predictions give them two shots at claiming they were the most accurate pollster.
Obviously Obama wants people to vote early because he knows the OCTOBER SURPRISE is coming!
Two problems with this analysis that are overly optimistic vis a vis Democrats. One, the Obama superior ground op in battleground states is disproportionately turning out early voters on the first few days. The gap in early voters will undoubtedly narrow so you should be careful about over extrapolation. Secondly, same problem with registered voter turnout. Voters who registered on their own will surely have a high turnout rate but the voters registered by the legions of Obama volunteers at doors and in front of Wall Marts will undoubtedly have a lower turn out the the other group of newly registered voters. A huge difference between those two groups I would imagine so again over extrapolation is undoubtedly overly optimistic toward Dems.
So about people who vote early: early voters seem to be favoring Obama by a fairly wide margin. It also seems that a pretty significant portion of the electorate will be voting early in this election.
How much do these facts decrease the predictive value of in person, Election day exit polls, which seem likely, as a result, to overstate McCain's performance in the election when considered alone?
I expect there is some way to correct for this, but it probably involves extensive, state-by-state polling of early voters. I hope the networks covering results on election night make such a correction.
J, i won't call you a racist, but i will call you a stupidist.
Nate's models and methods are perfectly transparent, you can even run the sims yourself if you have the math chops to set them up.
The maths don't lie, lol.
"I expect there is some way to correct for this, but it probably involves extensive, state-by-state polling of early voters. I hope the networks covering results on election night make such a correction."
Even better, on election night they'll be able to use the actual results
Voice of the Midwest said...
Early voting is based on exit polls or phone polling.
------
Not entirely true. Many states report how the early voters are registered - dem or republican. They didn't necessarily vote for the party they are registered for, but it's likely.
@Lenny Young
You do realize that the "legions of Obama volunteers at doors and in front of Wall Marts" will also be making sure the new registrants go to the polls, right?
J
I would call you a racist, but I can't work out what colour you are. You come out as Red on Firefox & Blue on Blogger.
Oh what the hell, I hate all coloured people, well no, but I can get up a proper rage for the bright red & blue ones. You are a racist... ah, was that as good for you as it was for me?
I have been denounced 5 times in 13 minutes.
In that time, you have added zero salient points to the discussion. Please, enlighten us how likely voter models ought to increase McCain's support.
Or -- by all means -- retreat to your corner and say you're being unfairly attacked for expressing blind opinions without backing up your conclusions. It seems to be working for you so far.
Nate,
The more you call out these pollsters the more I'm thinking you should get some body guards so the GOP goons don't hunt you down and pull out your fingernails.
Is John McCain a socialist? Check out the link. It's good fodder to rebut your Republican friends when they try to attach that label to Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
bryan said, "That's an odd thing to say, given that everyone else who's polled KY has McCain leading by +12 or more."
Well, the last 2 recent polls we have available here were released on 10/16 and 10/19. I won't be surprised if Barack is surging in KY. We've seen him surge in MO and WV. And finally, Rasmussen leans Republican in his polls. That's my rational. I don't expect Barack to take KY, but if he does, it's just more icing on the cake.
this is going to be one concern troll/troll full post given the throw down but I am very glad Nate did this. Who in their right mind thinks this is anything like 2004?
"I have been denounced 5 times in 13 minutes.
I am still waiting to be called a racist. Someone please step up to the plate."
1. To be fair, mine was more of a mocking than denouncement.
2. What kind of a troubled conscience assumes they will be considered a racist before they say anything racist?
3. If you have a dissenting view, just support it.
I've been reading baseball stat guys for years and I can tell you two things I've learned to be true about them (generalizing, of course):
1. They do not suffer fools gladly. If you don't understand the math, that's fine, but do not argue as if you do.
2. They LOVE well-supported dissent. Math and critical thinking is a game to them... a game they always want to get better at. Arguing with someone intelligent either forces them to defend their own statements or to look at something from a different angle. They enjoy both.
So don't come crying about bias and inaccuracy unless you are prepared to back it up. If you are... I promise you you will be welcomed.
But weak s**t won't play.
jjph i have a masters in math/stat.
silver can battle with absolutely anyone out there and they are gonna get served!
They will try of course. It's just that people who you go up to and ask to register, who just happen to be shopping for the day, are not going to vote at the same rate of someone who made the effort on their own. The point was that the turnout will not be the same for these two groups. Obviously ground game will get the turnout of the second group up, but it won't get it to the same place as people who took the initiative on their own.
Another laying down of the smack, ARG part deux.
I say let them be enablers to GOP high hopes. At the same time it prevents Dem complacency.
Lenny Young,
Besides the obvious of getting the early votes already banked, the Obama ground push will then be freed up to concentrate on getting the less determined voters into the polls on E-Day. Obama Chi-town HQ has computer data that categorizes the voters into these groupings. Since no effort like this has been made in previous elections there is some uncertainty among the pollers to take this into account.
I'm 62, I remember the Nixon years etc. very well. I remember young people by the MILLIONS (near enough) in the streets all of us MAD and NOT going to TAKE it any MORE!
I also remember that my fellow youths HARDLY voted at all! I was stunned and disappointed. I don't believe young people will vote. I have NEVER seen them vote in REAL numbers. IF - they vote this year it'll be a first.
WOW -please God let it be a first!
After seeing how much of a role the LV vs RV debate is playing in this election I think it would be interesting to have a party ID supertracker during the next election. It would give some context to all these different weighting schemes that different polls are using.
The pollsters are ridiculous.
Look the numbers. The turnout amoung DEM for early voting is huge in every state.
Nevada, NC, Florida and also Georgia or from more than 800.000 votes, more than 35% are AA.
In 2004, GOP had the advantage in early voting and now it's completely different.
With these facts, clearly the pollsters are wrong.
It appears that some people seem surprised that on a blog that values rigourous statistical analysis that they get stomped on when they they express opinions without any factual foundation.
J and co...if you think Nate's analysis is wrong on the LV models then please please tell us exactly what's wrong with it - just waving your hands in the air and bloviating about bias isn't going to get you very far here.
Dow is starting to tank. -522 points
here we go again
DOW down more than 500
"Hmm...if Rasmussen says KY is M52-O44, then I say it's really M50-O46.
That's an odd thing to say, given that everyone else who's polled KY has McCain leading by +12 or more."
I disagree. Of course this is pure anecdotal evidence, but within the last week I have had 8 McCain supporters tell me that they are going to vote Obama, but asked that I not tell anyone.
5 of these 8 live in rural parts of Kentucky.
Three very republican attorneys here in Lexington have told me in the last two days that there is no chance of McCain winning and are considering voting Barr to send a message to the party.
I would wager that 15 of Kentucky's 120 counties end up going Obama and that the final tally will be within 5 points.
McCain has officially completely lost his mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI
In a slight tangent from Lenny Young's comments above, isn't there a way, based on the past behavior of newly registered voters, to predict what percentage of them in fact are likely to vote? To me, it isn't persuasive simply to assert that newly registered voters are more likely to vote than lapsed registered voters because they've indulged in a more recent expression of interest in the process. In general, many newly registered voters tend to be young voters, no? And isn't there historical evidence that, in general, young voters don't turn out in the same numbers as others?
Nate throws down the gauntlet!
(I wouldn't be surprised if this exact response has already been generated. However, I'm reading from work so all y'all's caustic wit is wasted on me. Ah fuck it. I lied. I'll go back and read the comments).
From PPP
"We're going to have new polls in Ohio and Virginia over the weekend. They went in the field tonight, and they're looking good. I think the tightening in Florida is the exception rather than the rule."
Nice insight into an important issue. Indeed if the LV model is very much different from the RV model, the implicit uncertainty is clearly increased.
Two things come to mind:
1) Nate's model (can we give it a name-- 538.Hal?) gets to chew on some fodder-- or worse-- with the hay in search of nutrition. Oh well, Hal, that's your job...
2) For we non-digital mortals, it might be best to look at the median of the daily poll of polls. As always, the median is much less susceptible to error or even intentional deception.
We will hear from this issue again...
Mylegacy--
There are several fundamental differences between the Nixon era and now, so hopefully your wishes will be borne out.
Better communication, easier to vote, legions of motivated volunteers--these help to ensure people actually get to the polls. Anger/discontent provides motivation, but the above three provide method. Combining the two, and I think this could finally be the year the youth vote manifests.
Or not. We'll find out in 2 weeks.
mylegacy
Tis a long time to wait, but I have a fealing waiting is almost over.
This time the Youth will vote. Being packed off to die for a meaningless war in Vietnam wasn't enough to get them voting, but Obama is cool.
I guess I am happy to see Obama win, but for humanity I despare.
Things that make you go hmm: Dow down over 500 points.
You guys all panic when 3 or four polls show the race to be within 3-4 points.
What are you going to do when 3-4 polls show it to be tied, with 3-4 more show McCain ahead.
McCain/Palin surge.
There is a study from the Center on Politics & Culture that shows that by a margin of 2 to 1, that Concervative women are better looking than liberal ones. The study allows for and does not count women that are lesbian and butch, which makes the results so striking.
Finally some discussion regarding likely voter criteria....
and models which are out of date and have been for decades.
Just curious, I checked the ap-gfk site, and wonder if a firm which has little experience polling in the US and is mostly a marketing research firm is in a position to actually hire people who understand opinion research is different from marketing research...which is unscientific in the extreme.
I love a statistics throw down!!
A question I've always wondered: if someone is willing to sit through a 15-min call to take part in a poll, why wouldn't they vote? Wouldn't the sample of people participating in the poll indicate by itself a higher likelihood to vote?
V.J. said...
"Hmm, all the likely voter models that are "suspect" are the ones that show the race to be close."
-----------------
Not true. Nate and probably many of his readers feel that Pew's 14-point Obama lead fits in the same category. I think there is some sort of consensus here the race is in the 6-to-10 point category, a range that fits most of the polls.
And lets all remember there are margins of error involved here. What's not to say some polls carry the full MofE so that a 14-point lead is actually 10 or 11, or a 1-point lead is more like 4 or 5 -- still low but more reality-based.
Nate,
I love your site. You break down the numbers without obscuring the detail you used to come to your summaries.
Could you post what, in your opinion, would be a solid scientific way of determining a Rv vs Lv model? A standard that the industry could all agree to follow.
It seems to me that the pollsters can't change the numbers, but this is were they can insert their bias without getting called on it (Until you of course :D).
I respect Nate's work a great deal. But it seems that every time some adjustment is made, or some criticism of others' methods brought up, it's always a means of either pushing the polls more towards Obama or convincing people that he's actually further ahead than anyone thinks.
Nate I so appreciate your rigor, it reminds me of all my graduate school professors who would except nothing less. You are askign the right questions, let's just see if the pollsters are responsible enough to answer them.
But I also would like to state that there is some strange thing in folks that doesn't want to see a tight race. I would hope that the race for the White House would truly be the most competitive election; otherwise, it means the electorate is apathetic, which hurts all of us. I'm an Obama supporter and if he wins 270-268 I'll be cheering just as loudly as if he won with more than 300 EC votes.
Quick question: clicking on the Mc ad here--does Nate get paid each time I click or are they likely to count it as one since it's from the same address???
The Dow is down over 600 points now, officially at an all-time low.
J, you are a racist.
I live to serve.
"Among people who have already voted, Democrats lead overwhelmingly."
Fraud is much easier with early voting which is why the Dim Dems and ACORN bunch pushed for it.
freefall.. Dow -622 now. I gotta think it'll come back some but this is 200 points in 5 minutes
I seem to be misreading the AP-Gfk poll.
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
I interpret what I see on the page with Nader and Barr included as saying: Among RV it's O 48- M 38. With the LV screen it's O 44- M43.
That would mean BHO+10 among RV (as opposed to the +5 listed in Nate's post above)
Could somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this one?
McCain Campaign Buys Air Time In Indiana
13 days before the election, the McCain campaign has decided to spend several hundred thousands dollars on a last-minute television buy in the state of Indiana.
This is the first time in a month that the campaign has spent its own money on television in the Hoosier state.
The RNC's independent expenditure committee has been saturating the state for weeks, but the McCain campaign resisted, until now.
A spokesperson did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
In July, McCain had yet to open a field office in the state.
McCain advisers believe that habitual Republican voters will overwhelm Democratic surge voters in the state.
President Bush won Indiana by 21 points in 2004.
"...tell me why you think what you're doing is good science."
I'm not sure that science is an appropriate word for polling, but let's gloss over that.
The fundamental tenet of science is repeatability, and not plausability, and, historically speaking, republican voters are more likely to vote.
Presidential polling has such a low response rate that, in practical terms, the only reason to give it much credence is that it's worked in the past. (Hey, let's poll people and see what kind of likely voter rate the non-respondents have.)
Real Joe,
damn, you were faster than me posting that story.
It is on politicalwire.com
You criticize these pollsters as "making a determination as to how the voter will behave" and then you proceed to do the exact same thing!
Your bias is showing to some degree. If these numbers were reflecting a larger discrepancy in the other direction, you would be touting its results.
In all honesty, it is understandable.
"Nate's models and methods are perfectly transparent,"
That's not actually true.
Wow, my last comment wasn't accurate at all. All-time low my butt
bill, that's total respondents at O48. Apparently a lot of Obama supporters are not registered, do not intend to register, but like to take part in phone polls. Sure.
The Dow is down over 600 points now, officially at an all-time low.
For what, the year?
So it turns out that the Palin wardrobe purchases were coordinated by -- drumroll -- Jeff Larson, the robocaller who slimed McCain in 2000, now oversees the slimy 2008 Ayers robocalls, and the owner of the apartment leased to Norm Coleman for a cheap rate in DC (an issue in that Senate campaign). And went to the same Neiman Marcus where Coleman's donor friend bought all those gift clothes for him.
Larson's name is on the receipts - this Rove protege not only does slime, but also is a stylist!
see lead story at dailykos
oh, Dow down nearly 700
Ben Smith on PA:
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Pennsylvania_scenario_20.html#comments
J, I hope you don't think I was denouncing you. I just happen to agree with Nate's analysis, that traditional likely voter patterns don't make sense. Nate points out that indeed there is already imperical evidence that young people for instance are more engaged in this election than in recent elections, and in trad likely voter models they are simply invisible. And also that trad likely models can ignore a stated intention to vote, simply based on the fact that that person didn't vote last time.
On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote.
Just wondering? Is there empirical evidence on this? Studies that show newly registered voters are likely to vote? It's certainly a good guess, but the unreliability of good guesses is why we do polls in the first place.
"An all-time low."
Wouldn't the Dow's all-time low be, like, "1"?
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, hitting reload.
And the Big10 Batlleground and CNN polls?
In what year were you born?
Total Respondents Likely Voters
18-29 23 15
30-49 38 40
50-64 22 25
65+ 17 20
DK/Refused * *
Based on: N=1,101 N=800
Above are the AP age demongraphics.
These translate into the following raw numbers:
Respondant Likely %vote
18-29 253 120 47.4%
30-49 418 320 76.6
50-64 242 200 82.6
65+ 187 160 85.6
We know that in 2004 the percentage of the people age 18-29 who voted was nearly 50% and for those over 65 it was about 70%. So the AP is assuming no improved turnout for younger voters but many more older voters will show up. This makes little sense since most research seems to suggest that it is younger voters who are most strongly changing their behavior. The 2004 turnout rates from the census can be found here:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/CB05-73Table1.xls
"For what, the year?"
Not even for the month, I don't believe.
Servius. Why don't you actually do your homework on ACORN before you come on here and spew bile. -- but here's a quick recap:
Acorn paid people to register voters. Some of those people filled out cards with phoney information. ACORN is legally not allowed to throw out any of those cards...they are only allowed to flag them. The reason they're being investigated, is that most likely by accident, some of the suspected frauduelnt cards were not flagged before being turned in. Either way, Mickey Mouse can not vote.
Also -- how do you explain the purging of voter registrations of mostly minorities in states with Republican Secretaries of State? Chances are, these people either won't be allowed to vote, or their vote will not be counted...that's fair?
"Wouldn't the Dow's all-time low be, like, "1"?"
No.
The market and me as an investor is taking a huge hit.
:(
Fear is the driving force in the market.
Here's a question that's been nagging at me. Can anyone who's familiar with polling operations or who's received a call from a pollster tell me, does the polling company's name show up on Caller ID? It seems to me that if it doesn't, that'd have a big impact on response numbers. I'd love to participate in a poll, but I often don't answer when Caller ID doesn't identify the caller.
darÃo said...
And the Big10 Batlleground and CNN polls?
CNN-TIME state polls coming soon
Nate, the RV number for the Fournier - whoops, I mean AP - poll was Obama plus 10, not plus 5 as you say, which makes their model, which somehow ends up with plus one for Obama, even more ridiculous than you implied.
InkStain: lighten up.
@lexigeek - My wife was polled today in NC. Nothing on caller id. We have no idea who we were polled by.
@ lexigeek,
Good question and I find myself making the same type of decisions when the phone ring.
avtually the S&P did hit an all time low today per cnbc just now.
Big Ten polling will be released tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. (on Big Ten Network)
http://www.bigtenpoll.org/
J, I hope you think I was denouncing you.
I enjoy denunciations. Soon, after my Maoist cadres kick in your door, you will come to enjoy denunciation too. See, the only way you will be able to leave our re-education camp is through a signed letter of culpability -- you will be forced to take full responsibility for your evil Capitalist machinations. Then, my ideologically confused Communist Socialist Fascist Islamist brethren will frog march the length of the Washington Mall, coming to rest at the base of the Washington Monument which we will force you to spit upon while lighting the American Flag with burning pages from the bible.
J-- My friend PeteKent wants to meet you
Intereasting that over on 270to win on the original, pre filling in map shows Obama over 270 already, even before adding any states they rate as swing states.
big ten polls = joke
You can throw out all the LV models that make up the minds for the voters this year. If a voter says they are going to vote this year they are going to vote period. This is not an election about nothing in 2000 or an election with an incumbent like 2004.
Nate saw you on KO the other night. Nice suit and tie. Actually you and KO looked like twins, but you look like I feel. You must not be sleeping too much these days either.
Self-report of intention is never enough, but asuming that past performance is the best indicator of future results is also not ideal. I think both approaches would be naive and therefore wrong; the right way would be to look at it more complexly. Say, for instance, "on the one hand, this voter claims to intend to vote. on the other, hasn't voted in 16 years. That said, voter claims to be enthusiastic and to have had to re-register in order to vote this year. but then, voter does not know where his polling place is." etc. Take all these things -- stated intent, enthusiasm, history, evidence of investment so far this cycle, etc., possibly even including demographics, though how to weigh those beyond the historical stuff that's clearly liable to change is unclear -- into account and weight them appropriately. Using the early voters as a metric by which to weight them is good, though not perfect -- there's an inherent difference between people who voted early and people who are likely to vote on election day, in that people who vote early are demonstrating a higher evidence of investment, in that they have voted. Still, taken with a grain of salt, they may be the best we've got.
ACTUAL (sort of) ON-TOPIC COMMENT:
Below is the current early voting dating for NC (elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html) , with 629,296 voting so far, which is a big sample. How do these numbers compare with the expected likely voter models? The thing that strikes me is the very low % of young voters. Where is the predicted youth vote? It has me worried.
2008 2004
Party
Dem
56.4% 48.6%
Rep
27.1% 37.4%
None
16.5% 14.1%
Age
18-29
10.9%
30-44
17.8%
45-64
41.4%
65+
30.0%
Race
White
67.2%
Black
29.0%
Other
3.8%
Sex
Men
43.0% 56.6%
Women
56.2% 42.9%
Ballot
Absentee
13.5% 13.1%
One-Stop
86.5% 86.9%
17.7%
"InkStain: lighten up."
No.
Certainly agree with the odd methodology employed in defining likely voters. However I'm not convinced that newly registered voters are always more likely to vote. Logically I would agree that newly registered voter who have actively sought to register will vote at very high rates, and the newly registered voters in areas with a strong GOTV operation will vote in respectable numbers. I'm less sure that voters registered on a street corner in an area with a marginal GOTV effort will show up at the polls.
Full disclosure, I lean right and it wouldn't break my heart to see John McCain win this election...but any poll that posits evangelicals making up 40+% of the electorate must have a hot line to God. Numbers like that would require hurricanes hitting Florida and the eastern seaboard, a quake in California, and blizzard conditions in WI ans MI...all on election day. Color me skeptical.
CNN
Virginia
O-54
M-44
North Carolina
O-51
M-47
Nate Silver said...
Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.
THANK YOU!
I've been saying that for months, but you're the only one here with a soapbox big enough to be heard!
Let's hope that the pollsters underestimate Obama's turnout to such a degree that they're embarrassed into giving serious, critical thought to some of the rock-ass dumb assumptions in their models.
(on Big Ten Network)
Does that mean the election is now officially a spectator sport?
Really nice numbers from CNN - very consistent with other recent pollsters.
Antmatic said...
Antmatic said...
CNN
Virginia
O-54
M-44
North Carolina
O-51
M-47
Wow, PA may not be a must win for Obama.
The 52 week low for the DOW was 7,882 points on I think Oct 10th. It closed the day at 8,451 though.
Today closed at 8,521
"CNN
Virginia
O-54
M-44
North Carolina
O-51
M-47"
ant, you're the man!
re: antmatic
Woohoo! You just made my day!
BTW: Dow came back a little but ended down over 500 for the day.
CNN Polls
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44
West Virginia: McCain 53, Obama 44
Can I stop worrying? Please tell me Obama is going to win!
Can I stop worrying? Please tell me Obama is going to win!
Ohio
O-50
M-46
I feel better about North Carolina than I do Ohio.
To My legacy:
I was there, too. One reason why many (most) youths didn't vote in 1968 was that the candidates, at least on the burning issue of Vietnam, seemed to be Tweedledee and Tweedledum. After Robert Kennedy was killed and McCarthy lost in the "police riot" convention, it was tough to vote for Humphrey, who had completely sold out to LBJ on the war. I considered not voting, but finally held my nose and decided that the prospect of a Nixon presidency was just too disgusting.
Little did I know that Nixon would eventually look good compared to the incompetent moron we're now suffering under.
That AP poll is the most disgusting thing I have ever see. They have born again/evangelicals as 44% of the damn electorate!? That makes NO SENSE.
CNN Poll
West Virginia: McCain 53, Obama 44
Yeah, yeah. McCain can keep WV.
Nice set of polls for Obama. I think WV is a bridge too far.
Praise Jesus!
I can't understand why WV was polled instead of FL.
Where did those CNN #s come from?
Not on TV yet, couldn't find them on their website
No one can stop worrying. Voting and getting out the vote is the only intelligent response. VOTE!
I might have to pick up some signs and do some door to door in Colorado this weekend.
@bushworstever:
1968 was also before the 26th Amendment. Lots of those youths were ineligible to vote because of age.
"John McCain is my Love Child! said...
J, I hope you think I was denouncing you.
I enjoy denunciations. Soon, after my Maoist cadres kick in your door, you will come to enjoy denunciation too. See, the only way you will be able to leave our re-education camp is through a signed letter of culpability -- you will be forced to take full responsibility for your evil Capitalist machinations. Then, my ideologically confused Communist Socialist Fascist Islamist brethren will frog march the length of the Washington Mall, coming to rest at the base of the Washington Monument which we will force you to spit upon while lighting the American Flag with burning pages from the bible."
That sounds amazing! Where do you live? My Voluntary Mandatory Dear Leader Love Gift this glorious Obamautumn is my car, so I'll need a ride down. It is a wonderful and needed contribution to the Cause though, as I understand the vehicle will be converted into a repository for gay partial birth abortions to compost until such time as they are suitable to be used as ink for those 300 million personalized copies of the Koran/Communist Manifesto/Mein Kampf trilogy that Barack is so thoughtfully issuing to everyone. They say the book will be a great secondary form of National ID in case the forehead and hand tattoos don't scan. I will need to be back home by Miscegenation Monday, though.
Expect new Q-Pac polls tomorrow AM.
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44
West Virginia: McCain 53, Obama 44
Just wanted the full list...
Praise Jesus!
Voice of the Midwest said...
Fournier is clearly making all of his calls into the Bible Belt if he is coming up with a 44% evangelical number
sorry late. Just read it now. This is the exact percent of born-agains in the Battleground polls. Just check their internals.
The S&P went down over 6% which is a lot, I think they gave a date of how low this was in how many years but cnbc is like noise to me so i did not pay enough attention just saw that line going down and down.
Nate,
Just for fun, could you put together an analysis of the sort of internal breakdowns YOU would use if you were asked to conduct a poll today?
Ie. where you would use 2004 demographics, where you think the % will differ sharply from 2004, what % you would use instead and the rationale behind your decisions.
I would love to have a 'Nate Silver Ideal Poll Template' to measure some of the outlying polls against.
It would also be fun to see how well it measures up on the day, against the real demographic data.
I do of course realise that you might have more important things to spend your time on :)
The bleeding continues for McCain, according to MSNBC.
Now he will use a scalpel as well as a hatchet, meat cleaver, ax, paring knife to fix the economy.
McCain is has no well thought out theme to his campaign any longer. It's like throwing dart and where ever the dart lands will be the theme/message/attack for the day.
I'm no campaigner, but I don't think that is the most strategic way to run a campaign.
I feel sort of obligated to express optimism about polls with scarily close or seemingly faulty numbers, but while I agree that the Gallup Traditional methodology for distinguishing likely voters from those that are merely registered is silly, there is, I believe, a significant discrepancy between the two.
This last weekend I was in Pennsylvania canvassing, and 2 weeks before I was registering voters in the same region. However, while our registration numbers were huge, I could tell that a considerable number of those registered seemed very uncertain about whether they would actually vote, and we had to actively convince many that they should register. They might vote, indeed, I'd say most probably will, yet those that were uncertain were, I am guessing, those so-called Bubba voters; that is, under normal circumstances, they would lean Democratic, but in this election, subconscious racial misgivings are preventing them for voting for Obama. Another reason why I think there is such a difference between RV's and LV's is a line me and my friends used frequently to convince voter's to register: "Tomorrow's the deadline, and you don't have to vote if you register, it's entirely up to you." That line in itself is insignificant, but when we told the potential voters that they didn't have to, that is what convinced them to register. In that sense, I think that, while voter turnout will be high, compared to the huge registration numbers that the DNC has been parading, turnout will be relatively low.
One quick point in a counter argument to myself:
I was in rural Pennsylvania, in Luzerne and Carbon Counties, and you don't me to tell you about that demographic when you've got John Murtha.
Again, I am inclined to be hopeful, and I think Obama will probably win, but it will be much closer than polls currently show. Even though the AP Poll is obviously flawed (13% undecided?), I think it has the right idea.
Speaking of undecided voters, I suggest that those who haven't already read the latest New Yorker Shouts and Murmurs to do so; it's the first by David Sedaris in a while, and I particularly enjoy where he compares being undecided to, when asked by an airplane stewardess on a long flight if you'd like chicken or a pile of shit with pieces of broken glass in it for dinner, you pause and ask how the chicken is cooked.
or is it the same poll ?
you can check here (scroll over the state- the most recent polling, coming out right now was conducted 10/19-21)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/
CNN-Time polls are out
i told you guys
J,
I denounce you. You don't understand the logical argument being presented here but you dislike the conclusions, therefore you assume the presenter of the argument has no logical reason. Sad.
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44
West Virginia: McCain 53, Obama 44
If you adjust for a 2-point CNN lead I think you get a good picture
Nevada: Obama 50, McCain 47
North Carolina: Obama 50, McCain 48
Ohio: Obama 49, McCain 47
Virginia: Obama 53, McCain 45
West Virginia: McCain 54, Obama 43
That seams a little bit more on target.
OCTOBER SURPRISE
Sarah Palin just revealed it this morning with Dr. Dobson. And we Obama supporters are SCREWED!!!
God is going to be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4. (Apparently he does not vote early.)
Listen to it and weep here: http://www.citizenlink.org/clspecialalert/A000008476.cfm
From CNN TIME Polls
Likely voters in North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia were asked about Ayers and ACORN.
Familiar with Ayers, won't affect vote: 52% NC, 55% OH, 62% VA
Familiar with Ayers, may affect vote: 27% NC, 27% OH, 24% VA
Unfamiliar with Ayers: 20% NC, 18% OH, 14% VA
Familiar with ACORN, won't affect vote: 50% NC, 50% OH, 57% VA
Familiar with ACORN, may affect vote: 29% NC, 31% OH, 29% VA
Unfamiliar with ACORN: 20% NC, 18% OH, 16% VA
thanks Ant you are our Oracle!
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44
West Virginia: McCain 53, Obama 44
good numbers for Obama
Hey Nate,
How large is are the Excel Worksheets you use to crunch the numbers? Is it one, or is many worksheets?
"I have been denounced 5 times in 13 minutes.
I am still waiting to be called a racist. Someone please step up to the plate."
Make that 6, probably more by now. If you want to throw around accusations, back them up with evidence. If you want to whinge like a pissy little crybaby, feel free to do so, but don't act surprised that people are going to call you out on it.
Interesting note on the CNN polls - all have 2-4 point undecided, which is not unusual this late in the race, but still encouraging.
The questions on Ayers and ACORN are almost push polling. Did they also ask questions on McCain's ties to Charles Keating and his transition team's ties to Saddam Hussein? Or maybe they asked about the recent Republican voter fraud convictions? We'll have to ask. They are guilty of allowing a right wing narrative.
@ Stepper,
If that's true, we are indeed screwed if God will be voting for McCain/Palin.
I'll have to say an extra prayer 2nite.
lol
Nate throws down the gauntlet! "Tell me why what you're doing is good science." Oooh, so masterful, I love it.
Also, if you haven't seen Obama on the "Ellen" show you have to see it! It's currently on the CNN home page and the URL is http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/22/obama.dances.for.ellen.warnerbros (sorry, don't know how to do a live link, and don't have time to figure it out just now.) Very funny.
@ Nate,
With those Excel worksheets, are you using Pivot tables? I suspect that you are.
Ok, deep apologies for being OT, but now evangelicals are endorsing Obama on biblical grounds:
World's Most Popular Evangelist Dr. K.A. Paul Endorses Barack Obama for President
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27322067
If the mainstream news reports on Palin's 150K wardrobe, Al Qaeda endorsing McCain, and Palin charging $21K to taxpayers for her family's travel --- I can imagine Obama adding another few points to his lead.
Also: I think the CW that "undecideds" are going to break for McCain is somewhat misguided. Don't they usually break for the party out of power? This idea that they are all "closet racists" doesn't make much sense to me. If they were racists they'd already be supporting McCain.
one$earned,
That's just because you, unlike Mc, do not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy!!
Look at all the tactics he's used!
Look at all the strategies he's tried!!
That must make him the expert
Ties into Palin/Dobson
I think, maybe not out loud, but subconsciously (if a campaign can have a subconscious) the McCain camp has given up. They know that some disaster that they wouldn't wish for is there only real hope of victory. Virtually all the polls are pretty stable and have been for the past few weeks, the state polls offer no consolation, and they have no message that they are pushing with any consistency at all.
From what I remember reading about Nate's software setup, he uses a combination of Excel and a proprietary statistical modeling package. Some of numbers he is doing, can't be easily done in Excel.
is there any history of early voting patterns in previous elections ?
The biggest surprise on election night is going to be the fact that GA and IN are not going to be called for hours b/c they will be too close! The entire election will be called for Obama relatively early.
Did you hear back from those yahoos on their suspect polling?
IBD/TIPP should be too embarrassed too how their internals. McCain up by 10% among 18 to 24?!?!? HAHAHA.
I have to say that so many of us must be real nerds because we find the polling throw down the most exciting thing and cannot wait to see how it goes down.
Check out the internals on the CNN polls with RV's in Nevada...
http://www.time.com/time/timecnnpoll/topstate9.pdf
No wonder GOTV is such a focus in so many states.
I keep hearing that the last time a candidate was ahead this much this late was Clinton vs Dole. I'm curious what the state polls were looking like back in '96 and even in '92 for Clinton. I hated Clinton and I was 10 in '96 and wanted Dole to win but i was so young i can't remember state polling. Anybody know a database with state polls from 92 and 96?
Joel said... Make that 6, probably more by now. If you want to throw around accusations, back them up with evidence. If you want to whinge like a pissy little crybaby, feel free to do so, but don't act surprised that people are going to call you out on it.
Joel, are you Australian? I don't hear whinge much state-side.
Cora
The NYTimes today said Bush got about 60% of the early voters in both 00 and 04.
That does NOT mean that a 50/50 split or even an Obama edge guarantees victory - but it is promising.
"J, I hope you think I was denouncing you.
I enjoy denunciations. Soon, after my Maoist cadres kick in your door, you will come to enjoy denunciation too. See, the only way you will be able to leave our re-education camp is through a signed letter of culpability -- you will be forced to take full responsibility for your evil Capitalist machinations. Then, my ideologically confused Communist Socialist Fascist Islamist brethren will frog march the length of the Washington Mall, coming to rest at the base of the Washington Monument which we will force you to spit upon while lighting the American Flag with burning pages from the bible."
LMAO
Don't forget about the mandatory abortions and forced gay marriage.
Now see, this is just one more reason that people hate Palin more and more. She said something to the effect that Joe Biden speaking was the No. 5 concern of Dems in her usual snarky way.
Lack of self-awareness plus astounding lack of humility and/or grace = favorability dropping faster than Dow
The questions on Ayers and ACORN are almost push polling.
It is Rasmussen-quality push-polling. And yet the numbers are uniformly good for Obama and consistent with other polls.
Plus, CNN has Obama overperforming The Model™ snapshots everywhere except WV:
NV: The Model™ snapshot O+3.5, CNN O+5
NC: The Model™ snapshot O+1.5, CNN O+4
OH: The Model™ snapshot O+3.3, CNN O+4
VA: The Model™ snapshot O+6.8, CNN O+10
WV: The Model™ snapshot M+3.7, CNN M+9
Obama at 50+ in ohio, nevada, NC, and at 54 in VA with a 10 point chasm there. I really wonder what the irrational hubbub is really all about in PA
Post a Comment