The Polls - 10/20

I give Gallup major props - they keep giving the RV totals with their LV models in their polling results. Their latest polling shows Obama leading among registered voters by 11 and by 9 among likely voters (expanded model). DKos/R2000 has Obama up 8, 50-42 among LVs (no RV number made available.) Hotline, IBD/TIPP and CNN have Obama by 5. Ras has Obama by 4 as does Battleground. All of these are LV numbers.

Still Obama's election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< FDR, Obama And Mandates | Suffolk Ohio Poll: Obama Leads by 9 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Voting problems in West Virginia (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by vector on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    At least three voters have reported that voting machines used in West Virginia refuse to accept a vote for Obama and switched it to McCain.  

    See: http://wvgazette.com/News/200810170676

    Problems like this (the wrong box being checked after someone touches the screen) are easy to detect. What is impossible to detect is a machine that displays the vote as the voter intended but counts it for a different candidate internally.

    I hope these are very isolated incidents.

    SUSA sez (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    Virginia tightens ever so slightly

    Obama 51
    McCain 45

    I'm still feeling good about this one.

    Especially if (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    they are still underestimating AA turnout as they have been previously.  For NC, they generated a hypothetical data set that upped black turnout from 20% to 22%.  See here.  

    And for dessert (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#2)
    by zvs888 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    Those Gallup numbers are pretty insane.  Then again, looking at the early voting numbers, I guess we shouldn't be all that surprised.  It just seems impossible for Obama to lose if he keeps the turnout operation on track...

    Obama got lucky (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    Had it not been for the economy fiasco that fell like manna from Heaven in favor of Obama, this race would be super close right now.  

    Aren't you saying that when voters (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    focus on real issues, Democrats win?

    Possibly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    But I think McCain-Palin have proven to be exceptionally poor canidates, while Obama has been extraordinarily good (seriously, his only possible missteps as a canidate--not a Senator, where I disagree with his FISA vote-- are the HOLC thing and his choice of running mate, he has been the smoothest canidate I've ever seen since the end of the primary, possibly as a side effect of the primary being so hard fought, it basically locked in all his major negatives in late spring, there are no Bush DUI's; no "bimbo eruptions" in short no drama."

    On the "lucky" front you have to start to wonder about destiny, and I say this as a confirmed skeptic, think about it-- His Senate Primary win is basically his last race where his opponent didn't self-destruct (Ryan, then Hillary ignoring early states despite her campaigns greater experience, now McCain flailing, Obama's either blessed or he's the political Muhammed Ali and his rope-a-dope is just that good).


    I thought his primary opponent also (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    self-destructed. No?

    See here (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    In the Democratic primary, Obama found himself the overwhelming beneficiary when the campaign of former securities trader Blair Hull crashed in the aftermath of Hull's release of court files from a messy divorce

    That's two divorce files released.


    I hope you aren't suggesting culpability (none / 0) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    After all if Hillary had one the primary one could make a similarily specious argument, built on similar conjecture, that she causes Republicans to get Cancer- Rudy pulls out in 200 to fight prostate cancer, McCain has a growth removed this year-- dum, dum, DUMMMM!

    I didn't suggest anything SS. You said his (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    primary opponent was the only one who didn't self-destruct so I thought you might not know. That's all.

    Also, Hillary isn't running against McCain, so Obama caused the growth. :)


    I don't think Hillary or McCain (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by WS on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    self destructed.  Hillary made a mistake by not planning beyond Super Tuesday and not contesting the caucus states.  McCain made a mistake by sticking close to conservative nonsense in a year when the public are sick and tired of that.  But they didn't self destruct like Jack Ryan did or his Senate primary opponent.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by zvs888 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    You can't blame Hillary for Mark Penn's strategizing.

    Fear always works (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    This time Amercians are scared @$@#less over an issue that favors Dems, even in the American lizard brain.

    Re effect of Palin on SNL (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    and Powell endorsement:

    The Gallup Poll Daily tracking poll shows no shift in support for the candidates between Saturday and Sunday to suggest that either of these events had any immediate impact on voter preferences.

    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    The Powell endorsement came Sunday morning.

    Hard to see how it would affect polling numbers between Saturday and Sunday.


    Just the politics junkies who (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    watch or read about the Sunday morning news show as they happen, probably.

    I bet those people (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    Aren't the "undecided" voters

    Hopefully... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mike in dc on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    ...the Drudge cherry-picking will become more difficult for him.  Last week Gallup's traditional model briefly showed a 2 point race, and Drudge seized on that.  This week, he's stuck touting polls with a 4 point margin.  Maybe by next week he'll have to use a 6 point poll to argue McCain still has a chance to win...

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    He went with Zogby yesterday, which was 2.8.  But today zogby is 6 so he doesnt want to use it.  Instead he's going with the RCP average of 4.8 from this morning (currently 5.2 and he's still showing the old average).

    He just posts the lowest number and hopes nobody asks him why he uses a different poll from day to day.

    I think it's funny.  


    Going with Zogby (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    Is bascially admitting you have no other outs, seriously dude would have more integrity if he used a dartboard at this point:
    1. He uses the 2004 model assuming even party turnout-- at the very least we will have 2006 +4 Dem edge

    2. He cooks his numbers after this, and even worse black box's them (not releasing his formulae).