home

The Polls - 10/19

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Two weeks to go and the tracking polls are converging - Obama with a significant advantage but not a double digit lead. Today, DKos/R2000 stays steady with Obama +7, 50-43. Ras has Obama up 6, 51-45. Hotline has Obama up 7, 48-41. IBD/TIPP has Obama up 7, 48-41. Gallup has Obama up 7, 51-44 (up 10 in the RV).

Obama has more money than any candidate in history now (justifying his opt-out of public finance), having raised $150 million in September and likely to top that in October. He will be swamping McCain in every battleground state with money. I do not see what John McCain can do to win this race. I think it is over.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Scandalized By Obama Campaign's Financial Success | The Last Refuge Of A Scoundrel: McCain Goes McCarthy >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Polls - 10/19 | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama finally impressed me with his $$$ grab (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    Polling still looks good.

    Explain the tightening? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    Leaving aside easy answers like "it always happens" or "everybody knows", why do you think the polls have tightened?

    The change seems to have been sudden and large, occurring right after the last debate.  But the results of that debate, as expressed in the snap polling, seemed to be as bad, or worse, for McCain than the previous ones.  Although there's no incumbent in this race, McCain comes closer to filling that role than Obama and you'd expect the late breakers to break away from the incumbent.

    The change doesn't seem to follow the pattern you'd expect to see if McCain were chipping away at Obama with negative robo-calling -- it seemed to happen all at once.

    Ideas?

    Because most undecideds (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    available are GOP voters who will come home to the GOP candidate.

    53-47 is a landslide now.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    These are mostly fake undecided voters.

    The REAL question is will they come out to vote for McCain.

    In some ways, I think the LV models really miss this part - late undecided voters who are unenthusiastic probably are less likely to vote but in the traditional LV models, they are not treated as less likely to vote.

    I hope Gallup REALLY puts its LV model to the test and runs it RV and LV numbers on election day.

    I hope other pollsters do the same and tell the truth - they are dart boarding on their LV models.

    Parent

    I tend to agree. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    that there's an "enthusiasm gap" this year that is different from previous years and hard for the pollsters to measure.

    However, I'm instinctively suspicious of arguments that say "this year is different" and "what the pollsters don't know but I do", so while I'm hoping to see Obama pick up two or three points above the polling I'm not counting on it.

    What I don't see is why the remaining undeclared voters are really secret McCain voters, and why they're "declaring" now.  I can't see that he's done anything to bring home any voters that he hadn't brought back to the fold, say, right after the GOP convention.

    It's equally easy to say (if the polls had gone the other way) that the remaining voters were always available to Obama but were waiting to see if McCain did anything to bring them back, but he didn't.

    What's changed now to quite suddenly reverse Obama's momentum?

    Parent

    I think the shift in momentum looks fairly (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    insignificant, but reasons I might giver are
    1) the economic outlook is less bleak now then a couple weeks ago. Obama's recent rise was very strongly tied to the collapsing financial system. 2) Republicans who don't like McCain much at all and were considering going for Obama eventually decided that they just couldn't support a Democrat and chose "the lesser of two evils".

    Parent
    The shift in momentum. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    is from increasing Obama leads to decreasing ones -- at a rate that, if sustained between now and election day (which I'm not predicting) would leave him behind in the popular vote.

    While the financial crisis is a little older, these changes happened in a period in which the Dow had two 700 plus point loses.

    And if people weren't sure who they were going to vote for, I don't see why Obama's given them any greater reason recently to say "I can't vote Democratic".  Just the opposite, I'd think, with his increasingly centrist campaign.

    Parent

    Well, Obama ticked up today (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    in Gallup and Ras.

    But really, as long as he can keep his 51%, he's going to win.

    Parent

    This comment worries me. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    "as long as he can keep his 51%, he's going to win."

    What the heck is that law school doing to you?  

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST


    Parent
    51% not so hot. (none / 0) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    But really, as long as he can keep his 51%, he's going to win.

    Remember the great northwestern state of New Hampshire?

    First off, 51% is well within the margin of error of 49%.

    Secondly, if the polls are moving downwards (as they have been for two or three days), it wouldn't take a lot of movement in the last 24 hours to switch them around.

    Finally, while it's accepted wisdom that a candidate couldn't win the popular vote by, say, three percent and still lose the electoral college, a reasonable argument could be made that such an outcome might be possible in a case like this, were Obama will rack up enormous margins in the "anti-America" states but might lose the swing states by tiny, tiny margins.


    Parent

    Show me a poll where McCain (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    has broken 46%.

    The only one you'll find is Gallup Traditional LV.

    Parent

    That's a more significant number (4.00 / 1) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    than Obama's 51%.  However, BTD states that the remainder of the "undecideds" are largely as-yet-not-returned McCain voters.  In which case, you need to figure the current situation is closer to 51-48.


    Parent
    But, what is the basis for saying (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    the undecideds are eventually going to McCain?  

    Parent
    52/47 is what I expect on election day (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    McCain won't get ALL of the undecideds--he'll just get about 70% IMO.

    Parent
    Maybe this is the reason (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    McCain is improving in the polls?

    Defended his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate and cast her in a fresh ideological role.

    "She is a direct counterpoint to the liberal feminist agenda for America," he said.

     [AP]


    Parent
    More air quotes? (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    AP

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    Man are they absurd.  I guess they're bailing out on the "Sarah Palin as hero for all of us 'vagina-Americans'" image, huh?  If 88% plus of Hillary's supporters weren't already in Obama's court, I would use this line and remind former Hillaryites (like myself) on the campaign trail of exactly how much Palin and McCain respect them.  

    Parent
    Amazing, eh? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    I think that's why Cindy McCain wasn't wearing a pants suit for the last debate.  A lost demographic to McCain.  

    Parent
    So at this point, Sarah Palin exists (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:49 AM EST
    only because Republicans never liked John McCain enough.  There is no other reason other than Republicans think John McCain sucks.

    Nice.

    Parent

    I always thought that's why (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:48:17 AM EST
    McCain was forced to pick her over Lieberman or that other (male) Governor.

    Parent
    But why not Huckabee then? (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    I think Huckabee would've been a much better choice for McCain at this point.  He's like a more experienced more articulate version of Palin and would certainly have been more available to the press.

    Parent
    I haven't pd. much attention (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    to Huckabee to know if he'd help or hurt.  

    Parent
    He'd certainly help on the issues that (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    matter to...newspaper editorial boards.

    Parent
    Powell endorsement (none / 0) (#31)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    and his express dislike for Palin amy also depress turnout among that voting block.

    Parent
    They probably felt (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Steve M on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    that you were getting a little too full of yourself, so they decided to keep it under 10!

    Parent
    You say (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    The change seems to have been sudden and large, occurring right after the last debate.
    I think you're wrong about that. It started happening the day of the debate.

    Why? I think the Republicans are coming home.

    Parent

    Also, (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    some good graphs here.

    Parent
    I think those graphs answer Larry's question. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Faust on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    Clearly McCain's "Obama is a socialist radical who palls around with 60's terrorists and wants to take your money and give it to welfare queeens" is bringin home "real" America.

    I think this election the Republicans are going to run out of "real" America before they close the gap.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#27)
    by zvs888 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    As everyone's already said, this is just the undecided Republicans coming home, and there was an uptick in the trackers for McCain including polls prior to the debate.

    But McCain's top-line of support at this point has to be 47%.  I don't see how he gets above 47% if Obama's GOTV effort easily outmatches his.  And now today basically we've seen the trackers hold once again meaning that McCain is probably testing the topline of that "Republicans coming home" stuff.

    Essentially I still see Obama winning by 5-8 million voters at least; I don't see where McCain makes up the difference since Obama's base number is 49% with the electoral finalizing its choice.

    Parent

    Can Obama swamp me with money? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    I'm in Ohio.  

    Just put lobster and caviar (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:33:48 PM EST
    on the tab, too.:-)

    Did you see the Forbes report on us in the Rustbelt, and especially you in Ohio?  Dismal, dismal.  In my city, we have a local report that half of AA men are unemployed -- and lots of other women and men, too, also dependent like Ohio on the auto industry.  And in two cities nearby me, the new GM layoffs have been announced (nothing national on them, though -- can't have that) and will be devastating.  I talked to a young guy this week from one of those cities, and almost every family member of his, from father and mother to uncles and aunts and cousins, worked at the plant.  And the others are in the peripheral businesses around it that also will be destitute, as we've seen in Detroit.

    For each layoff, figure on 10 people suffering from it.  So 540 layoffs just in GM plants means more than 5,000 more people suffering by Christmas.  And can we help them?  Already in my state, tax revenues are down several million from projections.  So more layoffs and devastating cutbacks to education and services come soon.

    Parent

    I heard that the lobster/caviar receipt (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Spamlet on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    was Photoshopped and that this report is bogus. Is that right? Or has that already been discussed and I'm late to the party?

    Parent
    I imagine so -- a regular traveler (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    to New York City told me that there's no way that you could get a room-service lobster for "only" $50!  Yikes.  Reminds me of when I ordered a two-cup pot of coffee that cost $10.  

    That's nuts, too -- just like expecting that the candidates or their spouses even sign for room service, considering what autographs would bring, so we'd be seeing such things pop up before this.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Spamlet on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    And sorry if that was O/T. I'm new here.

    Parent
    The EconomyStupid is an old refrain (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    here as well as j-o-b-s.

    Obama finally came around to that reality months after he should have.  Without the financial crisis, I'm not sure he ever would have.  I keep wondering how someone so bright can be so slow.   Hillary knew the score way back in March.  A talk with Gov. Strickland with have produced the same response.  I hope he's faster on the uptake in office.

    Parent

    Warfare (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:18:17 PM EST
    I don't think that the fact that Obama raised a gazillion dollars "justifies" his having opted out of public finance.

    We already knew that he opted out because he had good reason to believe that barrels of money were in the offing. But it was supposed to be a matter of principle. The principle of public financing is supposed to be that a candidate should not be able to buy an election.

    We don't mind this time, because our guy did it.

    With the economy tanking just at the right moment, he probably doesn't need all the extra cash. But if the stars hadn't converged just right, having a few hundred million more than your opponent could be quite helpful.

    But, the next time it could be a Romney, or another Bush with buckets of cash and greedy donors slavering to repossess the government of the U.S. - and there will be no mechanism to stop them. No moral example to hold up to them.

    Welcome to politics (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Strategic political justification. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    versus "moral" justification.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    There never was a mechanism to stop them.

    Perhaps you missed the fact that George W. Bush opted out in the 2004 general election.

    Perhaps you missed the fact that John Kerry and Howard Dean opted out in the 2004 primaries.

    Parent

    Are you sure Bush opted out in '04 Gen? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    I thought he only opted out for the primary. (Essentially the same thing since he didn't have a primary to run. . .)

    Parent
    You are probably right (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    But since their convention was in September, same difference.

    In fact, that was Kerry's problem, his Conventiuon was in late July, a full 5 weeks before the GOP Convention.

    Parent

    Nobody (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    is ever going to have a July convention again. They'll all be after Labor day at this point.

    Parent
    So, McCain made a big (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    mistake by opting in?  

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    He can't raise any money.

    Never could.

    There are no principles here.

    Parent

    He knows perfectly well. . . (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    how to raise money.

    You marry it.

    Of course, even in the Republican Party you can only do that a certain number of times.

    Parent

    He didn't make a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zvs888 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    How could he match the sums?  He's barely managed a month where he's raised 70M combined between the GOP and his campaign.  Obama raised 200M combined between the DNC and his campaign in September alone, and his campaign is indicating that this month could be another 100+M easily...

    Plus, he would have had to literally go to a fundraiser every day to close the gap, and it still wouldn't matter.

    These numbers go to show that Obama has a built in 200M+ edge, no matter what route McCain chose.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:01:44 PM EST
    Kerry had Heinz to help him out.

    I don't think they were justified either.

    It is ironic that McCain did not opt out.
    Am I correct in that?

    Parent

    The financial crisis... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by citizen53 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    more than anything else hands it to Obama, even with the Bradley effect that may occur.

    He has always had good fortune to assist him, be it running against Alan Keyes or unopposed in his first race.  May it continue throughout his administration.

    And may he turn away from those to whom he is beholden, the corporate world that backed him from the very start.

    Tomorrow is another day (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    and tomorrow polls will be held after Powell daminibg endorsement; damning for MvCain. Who is characterized as ubsteady, Palin as unfit and the Right-wing talkshow osts are racsit bigots. My zlderly relatives who fought during WW2 were strongly moved by his fallen muslim brother in arms. Powell said clearly and brilliantly what we have all said but his appeal and impact on the independent voters is way greater than our own canvassing.
    Tomorrow the polls may show- I hope- a more stronger deal, and you can bet , Powell will be played and played again in ads. Newt is reduced to beg for a blueish of sort congress than true Blue one as to allow Obama is be the moderate he is.
    By teh way, Limbaugh rage is such a delectable pleasure; ah a very good sunday for me , thank you.

    McCain is inching into the area ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    where he could squeak out a win.

    RCP has the race 48.8 to 43.5.

    I don't think it will happen, because too much has to fall McCain's way.  From GOTV to the weather to whatever.

    But it's heading toward what I consider the danger zone, which starts at 48-44.

    I think Obama would have held onto more of his lead had he not played it so safe on the economy.

    Not reallly (none / 0) (#39)
    by bluegal on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    If you include Zogby's ridiculous fluctuations then yes.  The man picks the numbers out of the sky.  It's absurd. Obama has a solid 6pt lead at minimum.

    The amount of money that Obama has to have the greatest GOTV operation cannot be forgotten. Barring a miracle, McCain will not win.

    Parent

    You live in your world ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    I'll live in mine.

    And I said Obama was still likely to win, even if Obama reaches the danger zone.

    Parent

    BTD - it's not over (none / 0) (#38)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    You know I greatly esteem you but I can't stand that every other post you say it's over.

    It's not over till the votes are counted. In 2000 and 2004 we had winning candidates by a teeny enough margin that the vote-counting shenanegins and the voter supression strategies worked. And then we were told the polls and apres-poll interviewing were wrong.

    We need to win by a large enough margin that the cheating can't work.
    We still have to vote and GOTV and get through the poll confusion and hijinks. The MSM needs drama - I'm sure they'll get some. There is still time for an October present from the Karl Roves of the world.

    I'm really glad the polls look good and the enthusiasm and momentum seem to be in our way.
    But please please please, stop saying it's over.

    Gas prices? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Coral on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    It's been noted that Bush's approval ratings have closely tracked gasoline prices. Given the steep drop in the last week or so, is there any correlation between that (here it's below $2.70) the Obama-McCain race tightening?

    Just a thought.

    I think (none / 0) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:20:40 PM EST
    I think people see the fall of gas prices as related to reduced demand (and the global crisis) so it doesnt have the force it normally might.

    Parent
    if you really want to understand the polls (none / 0) (#53)
    by deerekv on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19:15 PM EST
    go to fivethirtyeight.com the polls and trends are broken down there better than anywhere.

    The Polls - 10/19 | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment