The Polls - 10/23

11 days of campaigning left and looking for drama is what we are left with. So we start with the dramatic polls. An AP poll (which apparently ended its polling Monday night) has Obama's lead down to 1. A month ago, this poll had Obama by 7 (a month before that this poll had McCain winning by 5.) This is an interesting poll. For example, it has Republicans gaining dramatically in the Congressional generic ballot in the last 20 days, cutting a 13 point deficit to a 6 point deficit. To say the least, that seems a very suspect result to me. Actually, who are we kidding? This poll result is a joke.

Now for other polls that make us laugh - John Zogby's new tack for publicity is to have the WIDEST margin for Obama (previously he would have the smallest margin or even a McCain lead.) Zogby now has Obama with a 12 point lead. As for the real polls, DKos/R2000 has Obama up 10, 51-41. Fox has Obama by 9, 49-40. ABC Tracker has Obama by 11, 54-43. And so on. Look, we can try and generate some drama in this race but it is kind of a ridiculous exercise. It's over.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< 'Soft On Crime' Makes a Comeback | Pretending PA Is In Play >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ambinder implies the AP poll demographics (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:09:10 AM EST
    are off.

    The Likely Voter sample is 44% Evangelical,  which is apparently about double what you would expect.

    I suppose that's one way to rig the figures.  Maybe they could do a poll and weight the turnout to be 50% African American and then get a 20 point lead for Obama.

    A Zogby poll worth looking at (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:15:47 AM EST
    As I said yesterday, you really should check out this recent Zogby poll.

    I noticed that one. (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:19:33 AM EST
    The Onion have obviously been following BTD's pollster commentary!

    on the first day of (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:32:20 AM EST
    of the campaign, my pollster gave to me, a 5 point lead!

    on the second day of campaigning, my pollster gave to me, a 6 point spread among white, female, bisexual lesbians! and a 5 point lead!

    on the third day of campaigning, my pollster gave to me, a 7 point margin among african american males, 5' tall or shorter! a 6 point spread among white, female, bisexual lesbians, and a 5 point lead!

    feel free to jump in with your own verse! lol

    btw, the onion post was a hoot.

    It's about time the Socialists won (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM EST
    an election here!

    It's over... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    and I am experiencing a sense of dreary anticipation.

    well, since this really is McCain's last (none / 0) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:58:51 AM EST
    shot, I'm wondering if he will blow up before Nov. 4.

    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:09:28 AM EST
    I expect to see all sorts of weirdness in these remaining days.  The Republicans aren't stupid--they know that they're facing a generational shift.  Dems controlling everything, an energized base of new voters (who will have "won" in their first "big" election), and a general electorate anxious for the kind of change and action that's best suited to the Dems.  If the Republicans lose the WH this time around, they're in very deep trouble.

    Therefore, I expect them to fight like cornered rats right up to election day (even though many people have already voted).


    expect Palin to sell her clothes and come out (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    in track suits in Penn.

    For... (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    the Penn Relays?

    With... (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    Track Palin as the anchor leg?

    Penn is near Jersey, right? (none / 0) (#100)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    Up to and after the election. n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:36:23 PM EST
    After waking up the days after election day (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cpa1 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    and being so disappointed so many times, I won't believe it till I see it.  So many things can happen. I have a Dell Axim PDA and every once in a while the screen has to get realigned.  In the realignment, if I hit below the target alignment dot on the screen, the computer will always register a response higher than it should have.  Put McCain on top and misalign the screen on purpose; then when people think they are voting for Obama they are really voting for McCain.

    There is also malicious reprogramming that Karl Rove has commandeered in previous elections.  Republicans will do so many things that Democrats would never do.  

    I'm with you (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:10:12 AM EST
    I cannot believe this thing is over until Fox News calls it for Obama, and McCain stands there and says, "My friends, I just called Senator Obama to congratulate him on his historic victory . . ."

    to bad you are missing (none / 0) (#28)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    all the fun of watching the other side deny reality, and hope against hope they can pull it off.

    they think McCain will win PA, instead of being worried I am so dang excited for Nov. 4th to see how the otherside handles that night.


    ya (none / 0) (#54)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    Seeing the big lose written in the faces of GOP pundits is awfullly fun. I could get used to it.

    Smiling (none / 0) (#29)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    It isn't over until it's over (none / 0) (#67)
    by imhotep on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    The stories about (most democratic)voter purging are scary.

    The GOP is counting on this (none / 0) (#78)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    it's giving them hope.

    Gross really, and sad.


    The GOP is busy (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    setting up to create chaos in the elections across the country, as they did in 2000 and 2004, if you lived through this in any of the operative states.

    I'd love to start my schadenfreude now, but I can wait until we know what's going to happen, both on Nov. 4 and in the litigation that may follow.

    No need for them to "count on this" for their hope. Us being nervous only makes sure we all vote, which doesn't help them a bit - in fact, lessens their hope.

    What they're counting on is their dirty tricks - and our jumping the gun by being positive of a win....which may make our voting numbers smaller.

    Exactly why Obama has been cautioning against this pregame victory lap.


    Good news in Wisconsin courts (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    although it was made moot by the state election board's instructions last week, anyway -- but the Dane County (aka Madison) judge tossed out the AG's suit today.

    It's a bit of a puzzlement, though, that one of the reasons given was that a state Attorney General lacks standing to enforce election laws, which are set by the states -- so the law in this case was a state law (almost the same as the federal law, but still a state law).

    The other reason seems better grounded.  The story is on jsonline.com and madison.com, for those interested -- although, again, it's lacking the context that the legal case was made moot by the state elections board, anyway, at least for this election.  Longer term, though, this question of standing and other questions may come up again and again.


    So far so good in Ohio. (none / 0) (#109)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    The Repubs withdrew their suit to the OH State Supreme Court. Now they've gone to the DOJ, but I haven't heard anything about where that's gone.

    Though my understanding is that the DOJ is behaving in a very partisan fashion (who'd a thunk it?)..


    Bottom line vs. margin (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    Like you I expect Obama to win, but the margin of victory is still of interest, especially as far as a governing mandate goes. If we can get OH, FL, VA and NC, that will be a huge setback for the GOP.

    And then there are lots of interesting Senate and House races. I'm really rooting for Al Franken and Jim Martin. Now, they would be great voices against the craven capitulators that dominate our caucus now.

    Another reason for folks in settled blue states (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by sallywally on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
    to vote Obama, not Green or Nader. The national popular vote mandate would be so much better!

    For a textbook case of rationalizing (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    you really need to hop over to RedState.  

    They ignore all the "bad" polls but are using this poll as proof that the race is a lot tighter than people think.

    They are also using an alleged leaked email from the Obama campaign stating that PA is closer than the public polls are letting on, as proof that PA is in play.  Apparently an anonymously "leaked" email with no actual data is better evidence than a sea of polls.  Of course all these polling outfits are part of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy so, you know, they can't be trusted at all.

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

    its great aint it! (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    and they fight among themselves, and attack anyone who doesn't like Palin.

    god I can't wait to watch them try and rebuild the party around Palin.


    They are rabid about Palin (none / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    If they see a hint of criticism towards Palin bashing it's BLAM.  

    They got up in arms over Terry Tate doing his office tackle of her.


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    They need to come up with stuff to keep their base motivated.  As you know, the editors at RedState have never been shy about flat-out lying to their readership if it helps reinforce that Democrats are evil.

    It's appropriate to worry about complacency on the Democratic side but it's at least as large a concern on the other side.  If you're convinced your candidate has no chance, are you likely to wake up at 4am to start driving people to the polls?  Are you likely to give up time with your family to phone-bank for a lost cause?  At least on the victorious side you're inclined to follow through on your duties so you can say you were part of the winning team.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    Erick Erickson just makes stuff up at this point. I understand why, but you would like to see a bit more honesty.  Then again, DKos isn't much better.

    Former RedState front pager Rick Moran has thrown in the towel


    I cant stand moe lane... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    and I think its because, lying aside, hes good at the red meat thing.

    He enjoys (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    playing the game.  He goads lefties into saying something stupid and they oblige.

    Yup, and why on earth would the Obama camp (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:06:24 AM EST
    leak an "internal poll" showing it a 2 point race in PA, which goes against all the public polling?  Surely they couldn't be trying to avoid complacency and keep their voters and volunteers locally motivated to get out and keep on working to the finish line?  Or am I just being cynical?

    I kinda believe the PA thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:40:04 AM EST
    I have always had a sinking feeling about that state.  At this point, I think Obama will win, but 2 points sounds about right to me.  Of course, this isn't based on any evidence, just a "gut poll" if you will.

    My "gut" tells me AP is way off, but PA is not.

    And I think McCain's internal polls are telling him the same thing.


    Look at what's up (or down) in WV (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    and you're looking at a lot of western PA.  Yep.

    Egad (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    That's aweful.  Although Pittsburgh helps, it's not as much like W.VA as the rest of western PA, still more conservative than Philly though.

    I imagine Obama will still squeek out a Kerry like win in the state.  He'll lose a chunk of the blue-collar support, but increase turnout among the youth/tech/medi sector in the city.  I was there a few weeks ago and that second group is much more enthused than they were in 2004 - including many that didn't bother vote then.

    I just hope Philly turns out en masse because I don't see western PA bringing this home.


    Me, I love a lot of people there (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 03:29:00 PM EST
    in PA and WV, relatives who are good people.  But they love their hunting and fishing and guns -- and the Obama line about that, and their religion, really resonates in those regions.

    I don't blame them.  It's not the sort of thing that a future president, of the entire country, ought to have said.  I think he's learned a lot since, so good for them for educating him and the rest of us to remember that tolerance is requisite in this country -- tolerance of a lot of people with whom I disagree, too.


    My time in Pittsburgh (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    was an eye-opening experience.  In good and bad ways.  I am from the inner-city, but the school I went to was filled with very well off liberal suburbanites and conservative international students.  I was very surprised to find out I got along a lot better with the conservative international students.  At least their opinions came from a broader real life experience - although a lot of them are more liberal today than they were back then (thanks Bush!).

    At the same time, off campus was a whole different story.  Very working class, not far from the Boston I knew (it's changing), just a bit more remote and politically conservative.  I was impressed at times and disheartened at others.  I met a lot of really great people, not in college, just struggling to make a living.  Meanwhile, the un-educated are getting left behind, while the educated are leaving en-masse, with no solution in sight.  There is also very real and very ugly racism - although some of those people just needed one example of an anti-stereotype to open their eyes. There is a terrible story in the news today about an incident in Pittsburgh that I don't think will help the situation.

    I gotta say, I really hate the geographical warfare going on right now.  Obama hasn't been perfect (bitter), but he's learning and what he said highlighted his own stereotypes - but he wasn't trying to demonize.  The GOP has been disgusting on this front lately, and not at all tolerant of the other side, openly demonizing half the country (which is ironic since most of them belong in the group they are bashing).  It is so insulting, because most people who live in cities and "liberal" areas are regular people just trying to get by like everyone else.


    The Big 10 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by WS on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    polls are good moral breakers for the other side, but that Indiana O+10 is sticking out like a sore thumb.  I'll wait for other Indiana polls to see what they find.    

    As a PA resident, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by OldCity on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    I can tell you that McCain is really ratcheting it up.

    Anecdotally, I don't know that he's getting much traction.  There is a certain element that won't vote for a black man...they're in every state.  However, there are also those who simply misunderstand Obama's tax plan and are convinced that it will have ramifications for them, in the sense that their jobs might be in jeopardy if their employers are affected.

    Phila has an extraordinary talk radio presence.  Even though the city is solidly Democratic, the same is not true of the suburbs.  A quick listen to the spin on right-wing radio makes that clear.  What I find interesting is that the meme seems to be that employers, or the wealthy, are just going to STOP if they are taxed more heavily.  That's patently unrealistic.  But it's an argument that gets traction is some quarters.

    I won't buy into polling in this race.  I agree with the poster above who won't rest until Fox news calls it.  Because we cannot underestimate the effectiveness of the right's spin.  they're good at it.  They can change the dynamic in a day.

    Ever heard of Michael Smerconish? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    The wildly popular conservative who endorsed...Obama? I'm not worried about PA. This is a textbook Rovian headfake to get a different story into the press's mouth. Rendell's a nervous Nellie who doesn't want to be blamed for his Hillary oratory during an Obama rally. And he shouldn't be blamed, mind you.

    True, and of course he wants Obama (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    to visit PA again.  So do local democrats in about 45 of the 50 states to energise the base and help downticket candidates.  Of course Obama can't be everywhere at once so he will not be in every single state in the run in.  To be honest based on the campaign they have run so far I'm pretty confident that Obama's team will have him and his surrogates in the right places during the run in.

    Speaking of downticket races (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    I have been surprised at the lack of combo ads -- about and bought by both the prez candidate and the party -- at the local level for downticket Dems.

    The GOP does this and is continuing to do this in my state this year.  Not that we have a lot of hot Congressional races, but there are a couple, including a Dem seat in the House that could be lost (because, word has it, the guy is a doofus).


    OK I have to say this (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by suntos on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    I've been reading all the celebrating and something is making me quite nervous.  To start with, IDP/TIPP, the most accurate pollster 4 years ago went from only a 3.7 point lead for Obama yesterday to only 1.1 today.  http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx

    Then I look at Gallup's 3 different polls, the traditional shrinking to 4 for obama.  I know the pollsters are all figuring in those new registrations for democrats but I watched the primaries and remember republicans registering as democrats to tinker with the primaries.  And I also think a lot of those new registrations were hillary supporters, who are probably mostly now supporting obama, but I'm sure a large bloc is going to actually vote mccain.  So when I see those "Registered Voters" polls figuring in those registrations to give Obama all these big leads it genuinely makes me nervous.

    Another gallup poll today shows no increase in first time voter proportion from 4 years ago...  And there's a new article today saying most people expect the economy to improve.  That doesn't figure well for Obama either.  More angst about the economy helps him, optimism would seem to help mccain?

    Also, the cnn tracker from 4 years ago showed the exact same trend with bush ahead 8 points then narrowing to 4 points in late october.  Now if obama's lead is actually being padded by these registrations that I already said make me suspicious, maybe that means obama is actually behind already.  All these polls showing obama ahead in red states like virginia by 10 points makes me even more suspicious of the polls this year.  Remember, this year is unlike any other election.  There is no precedent for it so who knows if the polls are measuring the data properly.  Is the bradley effect real?  All I know is that I woke up 4 and 8 years ago very disappointed and I'm not going to have any expectations this time.

    but (none / 0) (#103)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    Yeah, but go look at RCP politics average from four years ago. A point and a half seperated Kerry and Bush for weeks and it was within a point of the actual value.  The averaging of polls proved very accurate.

    Now the RCP average is a 7 point Obama lead.


    hmm (none / 0) (#104)
    by suntos on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    but is that 7 point lead due to all those new registrations for democrats?  I wish I could see the breakdowns for how they're figuring the data.  Another thing about all those registrations that are giving obama the edge - how many of those people are going to actually show up?  What I mean is, say you have organizations going into all these areas signing up people who've never bothered to vote or register, but since someone is in front of them with a form they'll go ahead and register - will those people actually break with what history tells us and show up on election day?

    There are just so many unknowns, and when I google articles from 2004 I see all the same articles touting surges from independents and the youth torward kerry...  leads in Ohio that turned out to be wrong..  I tell you I'm just looking at history here and trying to avoid the same mistake of expectation.


    maybe, but.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    Some like Gallup traditional and Zogby use 2004 weights. Others don't.  I'm sure they used a variety of weights in 2004 as well but the rcp average was still very accurate.

    What's interesting is that McCain hasnt lead anywhere for almost a month.  If it were truly tight, you'd see the margin of error giving him a poll win now and again.


    "It's over" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:36:40 AM EST

    seems that way.

    That ABC poll is a beautiful thing. n/t (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 06:50:55 AM EST

    the state by state polls are pretty (none / 0) (#75)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    effing beautiful too.

    OT: What does "(none / 0)" mean? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:01:02 AM EST

    It refers to the number of ratings your comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:23:03 AM EST
    has received, followed by the average rating.  Your average rating can impact how high up the page your comment appears, and on some sights if you get "hide rated" by enough people your comment disappears.  I believe that function isn't enabled on Talkleft though so your comment will remain visible regardless of ratings, unless Jeralyn, TChris, or BTD decide to delete it if they feel it violates site rules or their thread rules etc.

    sights = sites. oops. (none / 0) (#9)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:23:26 AM EST
    It has to do with the ratings (none / 0) (#10)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    the "none" is how many people rated, and the "0" is the average of the ratings.  It's used to push the "best" comments to the top, and "worst" comments to the bottom.

    Thank you JoeA and barryluda! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:10:39 AM EST
    DId you see the big ten battleground poll... (none / 0) (#7)
    by prose on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:20:35 AM EST
    it had Obama up 10 in Indiana.  If my state goes blue I'm going to be ecstatic.

    eh, I am ignoring all of the Big10 polls (none / 0) (#11)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:30:46 AM EST
    I mean +10 for Obama in Indiana? +11 in Penn?

    anyways this is over the ONLY state I will follow now is PA, unless McCain somehow pulls a miracle there, then at the least Obama will in IA, NM, CO +Kerry states and win with 273.

    after that we are just looking for the margins of Obama's win.

    so PA, is all we have to watch, whoever wins PA, wins the election.


    Obama can win while losing PA (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:43:57 AM EST
    Although, according to Five Thirty Eight's Scenario Analysis, he has a 0% chance of winning OH if he loses PA, and only a 1.72% chance of winning if he loses PA, OH and FL.  BUT, he has a 35.83% of winning if he loses PA but wins FL.

    So, you're essentially right that PA is pivotal.  But I'll also be watching FL since Obama has more than one way to win this thing, and a few of those ways include losing PA.


    Not Really (none / 0) (#19)
    by zvs888 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:06:17 AM EST
    Those scenarios on 538 don't account for McCain gambling his entire campaign on Pennsylvania.

    For example, if somehow McCain pulls off Pennsylvania by putting everything into it, that doesn't necessarily correlate to Obama losing Florida and Ohio naturally.

    Emphasis on naturally.  The thing is scenario analysis built on assuming that the states move together, which would clearly not be happening if Obama wins the national vote by 5-6% and loses Pennsylvania.


    Yes, but McCain's gamble on PA (none / 0) (#31)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    presupposes that he wins Ohio also.  If he wins PA while losing Ohio then he is toast.  

    According to Nate @ Fivethirtyeight (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    the Big 10 polls were actually relatively lowballing Obama in their initial round of polling,  so not sure that there is an inherent problem with their polling favouring Obama.

    I'm also curious as to why you specifically have a problem with their PA result,  which is completely in line with recent polling from that state.

    SV have Obama up 14 points in the state. Susquehanna have him up 8 points.
    SurveyUSA have him up 15.
    Quinnipiac up 12 in todays release (compared to up 15 on their last poll of PA).
    Rasmussen have it Obama up 13.


    and (none / 0) (#56)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    Quinnipac has OBama +14 in OH.

    He's had some nice polls lately.


    ooooo.... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST

    Link for all the polls (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 07:54:32 AM EST
    Is there a link that list all the polls in one swoop?

    There are a bunch (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:38:19 AM EST
    I like Real Clear Politics.

    My folks prefer Five Thirty Eight.


    I prefer Fivethirtyeight. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:03:56 AM EST
    They list them in order of a weighting (which takes into account how recent they are, sample size, and also a weighting based on the historic accuracy of the pollster.  The good thing though is they are comprehensive and will basically include every poll, unlike RCP who can tend pick and choose which pollsters they will include.
    If you do go to Fivethirtyeight then the collection of state polls run along the right hand side right down the page.

    iirc (none / 0) (#59)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    CHuck Todd took a swing on 538 in a recent Q&A, suggesting that the analysis was good but that Nate has to rely on so many bad polls.

    Todd seems to have a real thing for "internal polling", though I dont know what makes them so much better.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#63)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    Nate is making a call not to arbitrarily exclude any polls, so you can see them all.  However their weightings within his models are adjusted based on reputation/past performance, as well as sample sizes etc.

    So effectively some of the junk polls with crappy histories or low sample sizes are accorded very little weight in the overall prediction models.  Its the best place to go (along with Pollster.com) if you just want to see the actual results of as many polls as possible.

    Problems with internal polls are that they are self selecting.  Generally internal polls are kept internal unless they are leaked.  If they are leaked it's either an error, or because they support the narrative of whoever is leaking it.  i.e. It shows their side doing better than public polls,  or possibly in the recent PA Obama internal leak, shows them doing worse to motivate their voters and avoid complacency.  Internal polls that don't fit a narrative generally won't get leaked.  With that in mind you really have to take any internal poll with a grain of salt and consider the source.


    Here's a variant that (none / 0) (#98)
    by andrys on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    lets you know the polls that reported on the current day and then shows you results reported on previous days.

    That way you can see each poll's most current reading though they don't show you what that poll reported just previously so you can track movement.  But it's a helpful variant.


    I think the AP poll was off because it was reporting mainly on the 5 days after the last debate and was not including movement that went Obama's way after that.


    Princeton Election Consortium (none / 0) (#23)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    It had some interesting info.

    Princeton Election Consortium Link (none / 0) (#24)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 08:31:21 AM EST
    Big Ten polls & Q polls.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    The size of the blue numbers in 2004 Bush States this morning are enough to make a McCain supporter turn to drinking before noon.
    Florida   Obama +5
    Indiana Obama +10
    Iowa    Obama +13
    Ohio     Obama +12
    Ohio     Obama +14

    and not to leave out the Kerry state that will get a financial benefit from an influx of GOP this week:

    Pennsylvania Obama +10
    Pennsylvania Obama +13

    All I can say is 10 point PV margin and 200 point EV margin of vistory

    New looks good (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    but those big ten polls seem mighty suspicious.

    Often you leave me wanting more (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    what do you mean "New" and "suspect"? Details.

    I meant "new Quinnipiac" (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    but the big ten polls just frankly look like junk. Last time they told us that Iowa was tied. Now Obama has a double digit lead in Indiana, not to mention implausibly massive leads in Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio.

    Quinnipiac frankly doesn't seem right in FL, though. It seems that nobody can actually poll Hispanics properly there.


    Thank you, so do you know who's winning? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:50:28 AM EST
    The polling industry. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:56:37 AM EST
    And you--depending on the poll. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    Query:  was it appropriate for Bernanke to endorse Obama (not on the merits; but should the Fed chair be endorsing anyone)?

    Did I miss some news? n/t (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    He did??!!?? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    I thought he just endorsed the stimulus package.  Did he really officially endorse Obama?  How'd I miss that?

    Personally, I think it's somewhat inappropriate right now since he should be working on getting stuff done with the existing administration - and I doubt that would help.  Although he could be worried about his job security I guess.


    You are correct (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    He only said nice things about the stimulus package, but the WSJ editorial page chose to whine about it and claim that it's an implicit endorsement of Obama which he shouldn't be making.

    Yea (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with him making a statement about the stimulus.  That actually is his job.

    Mea culpa. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    BTW, it's all Huff Post's fault, but I know better than to trust their headlines.  Here is the straight scoop:

    Bloomberg re Bernanke


    Yes, Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    but it's unclear by how much.

    OK I'm back for more (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    Q says Obama 49-44 in Fla. What don't you like about that? Or rather why do you doubt it?

    Pollsters can't seem to agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    on how FL hispanics are voting.

    Pollsters seem to think (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    and the general public believe all Hispanic Floridians are Cuban, all Dade County is Hispanic, and the consensus is Cubans vote Republican.

    This has been a DEM problem for some time but not the way most presume. When Dems try to cater to the anti Castro/Cuban embargo crowd they lose because that vote is already Republican. When Dems refuse to cater to this contingent, they siphon off the Reagan Democrats, the BlueDog Panhandle Dems, and also the young South Florida Latins and then they win.

    All Obama has to do is come out again and say he doesn't back the Cuban embargo or travel restrictions to Cuba and Florida is in the bag...not that he needs Florida for 270 (but he will for 370)


    No, the pollster don't collectively think (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    anything. Except that they all group hispanics in one category, when reality suggests that there ought to be at least two (cuban and non-cuban).

    Agreed (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    but many think Hispanic is all the same. I'm in a South Florida office right now with a Honduran, a Guatemalan, a Nicaraguan, and a Puerto Rican and can guarantee not a one thinks like the widely held stereotypical view of a South Florida Latin.

    There just aren't enough cross tabs to handle the makeup of Floridians.


    Fascinating anecdote (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    of such a mix, even in one office.  Fascinating state.  I've said it before here in the primaries that this year has meant learning so much more about so many states and territories -- even states as large as yours that we ought to know well but certainly the smaller ones that we just colors on a map before, in many ways.  I still especially appreciate learning more about Puerto Rico and Guam, who knew?!

    My guess is Obama's internals ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    show them close but trailing in FL.  Hence, the recent joint appearance there with Hillary.

    She likely hits on all the key demos they're worried about.


    In 2004 AP-ipsos was right (none / 0) (#43)
    by Exeter on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    on the money poll-wise in their late October poll. I wonder if their demographic models are the same or how they changed them from 2004 to now.

    This is not Ipsos (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Ipsos/McCLATCHEY has Obama by 9.

    This AP poll is by Ed Goeas, a former McCain pollster. I kid you not.


    Bill McInturff is McCain's pollster now (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    and he's apparently pretty decent.

    Couple of problems. (none / 0) (#60)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    1. It's AP/GFK-Roper not AP/Ipsos.

    2. The LV numbers on the poll referenced above showing McCain only down by 1 are based on a sample with 44% Evangelicals.  Exit polls show that only 23% of those voting in 2004 were Evangelical.

    Seems suspect to me.

    off topic (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:51:23 AM EST
    can someone help me with the math here?

    The crux of the current economic situation is the housing crisis, which in effect crippled the credit markets which is crippling businesses because noone will lend money.  We pledged 750bn to the bailout plan to restore confidence in the banking system and irrespective of what the returns are, it is what it is.

    What if the 750 bn looked like this...

    The average american mortgage is 1700 per month (2006) let's say it is 2k.  I know that in rural areas it is lower and big cities much higher.  

    What if the US gov't offered a 12 month loan based on their current mortgage and tax bill and paid that money directly to the bank so that for one year the bank had the mortgage secure from that lender.  Since they are paying up front the bank has a direct and immediate cash infusion and is capitalized.  In return, the bank will reassess the value of the house and provide the homeowner with a loan at 6% locked in to start one year later.  The homeowner in the meantime has to pay 40% of the loan amount over the course of that year back to the gov't.  At 24k, that is less than 1k a month for the avg homeowner.  In years 2-10 the homeowner pays the balance to the gov't with a 2% interest rate or if the house sells they have to pay the balance upon sale.  the monthly payment drops significantly over the next 8 years because you are financing 14k over 9 years which is about 100/month.

    The 2% nets us no money because 10% of the people will default because at least that many people will spend the extra money in their pocket and not try to save during the year the gov't has picked up their loan so I would expect the taxpayer would lose 50-75 bn in this deal.  Of course the gov't can put a lien on wages if they play hardball putting us at near break even at the end of the deal.

    This plan based on a 24k loan would help 31 million americans and we have about 2 million at risk right now.  It would infuse capital into the banks immediately, create jobs, increase spending, and create real live capital in the banks.

    With the housing crisis stabilized banks will start lending again and write down the old earnings based on ARM's and it would be sort of clean.  

    Of course this is very rudimentary and overly simplistic because trying to coordinate this in 60 days from start to finish would be a daunting task and determining who would qualify would be challenging but what are we paying our representatives for?  For flag burning amendments?

    The banks need cash.  People need relief.  Our service economy needs cash flow.  Our state and federal gov'ts need spending to collect taxes.


    The biggest issue (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    that comes to mind is administering this type of program - it would be huge.  It is probably easier to just plunk down a bunch of cash here and there than to deal with individual mortgages.  I am not saying I think that it is the right answer, it is just more American to try to deal with things the easy way.

    an administration nightmare (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    I agree, but what is more pressing right now?  I cannot think of a single more important issue in light of the impending and current layoffs and stimulating the economy, capitalizing banks, and providing relief are the keys to preventing a deep recession and record foreclosures and bankruptcies.

    Of course, much much much easier to bloviate about it than to actually do it.  

    But it also occurs to me that our representatives in the house, senate and presidency owe americans a tireless, sleepless effort to protect us.  While they are off on holiday sharing presents and not having a single concern about their financial well-being, several million americans will be sick to their stomachs over their financial situation and the next several quarters of gloom.

    Pie in the sky thinking is what we need as big crises require big committment.  As our representative sit by and watch millions of americans are suffering.  

    Our response to Katrina pales in comparison to the response our gov't is giving to this crisis.


    greenspan (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday the current financial crisis is a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami" which will have a severe impact on the U.S. economy, driving unemployment higher.

    Greenspan, who headed the nation's central bank for 18 1/2 years, said that he and others who believed lending institutions would do a good job of protecting their shareholders are in a "state of shocked disbelief."

    He said that the current crisis had "turned out to be much broader than anything that I could have imagined."

    Are we going to attack the crisis and try to soften it, or are we going to allow it to cripple us and be ever so grateful for our hero politicians when the economy cycles through this in 2.5 years?  I hope people will remember the first 2 years of the do nothing reps and vote all the bums out....


    Why oh why (none / 0) (#61)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    is McCain not pulling out of Minnesota?  I see all the other lucky people in other abandoned states who can be spared of the incessant TV ads, but still I have to suffer.

    I heard on public radio yesterday evening that McCain is going to stay here, they think he has a shot.  Alas, as I was watching a little evening TV it became clear that McCain is still spending a bundle here.

    They don't need the negative press (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by JoeA on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    or the demoralising effect on their voters and volunteers?

    If he pulls out of any more states and effectively concedes states worth over 270 ev's then he concedes the election, and with it probably sacrifices some downballot Republicans who would otherwise survive if the GOP base turn out.


    You have a point (none / 0) (#65)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    especially about down-ballot races.  The big senate race and now Bachmann.   Heh.

    Ditto re Wisconsin. Only a couple (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    of downticket races for Congress, but one Dem is reportedly (and deservedly, say the people I know there) in trouble -- Kagan in Green Bay, which has swung back and forth from the Dems to the GOP.  So both candidates have been there more often than in Dem strongholds of Milwaukee, Madison, etc., where there are no downticket races worth a darn.

    TL's World's Best Pollster, SUSA (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST
    does see Minnesota as much closer, a 6-point margin.  So there, as elsewhere, the polls are all over the place, which could be McCain's reason.

    We'll just have to see if SUSA remains TL's WBP.


    I am officially declaring (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by eric on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    Minnesota as safe, as of today.  It turns out former Governor Arne Carlson has just endorsed Obama. Carlson is one of those "moderate" Republicans that was pretty popular and played his own brand of maverick crap here.

    Anyway, all of those people who know that they should vote for Obama but just can't quite get there - this is going to tip them.


    What's WBP CC? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:53:00 AM EST
    World's Best Pollster :-) (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    What's your preferred pollster, if (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    it isn't SUSA? Mine is Ras, even though it's right leaning, I think he at least takes a more responsible approach than say, Zogby.

    Right now (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    I think they're all dealing with hypotheticals messing with their models, and I think many are not dealing with this situation at all well.

    Plus, there are the undecideds -- and the unwilling-to-say sorts, for all sorts of reasons.  I was struck by the interview with a Gallup guy who said that 80 percent of people contacted then refused to participate in polling.  That makes a mess of the reliability to be attained through randomization that is important in such polls (there can be cause for skewing, but not in this case).  Additionally, we have several pollsters who admittedly have changed methodologies mid-campaign.  More mess.

    Look at the primaries -- was there under-performance by a candidate, or flawed methodology, or simply (as in recent presidential races) polling a day or two too early to catch late deciders and "soft" voters who were late switchers?  The associations of pollsters (I know the president of one of them) still are unpacking their problems in the primaries this year, so they are far from figuring out how they may have misjudged in their methodological tweaking this time.

    So my favorite pollster?  Maybe that psychic on the late-night ads.:-)  (But yeh, Zogby already was entirely discredited and is just entertainment.)  Some folks in the know whom I know do tend to like Rasmussen, too.  But we don't elect presidents by national election -- so when it comes to swing states, at least in past, the local pollsters may be best or quite good.  However, we don't see or talk about many of them because they're not doing national polls.

    None of it matters, anyway -- except how the pollsters historically have affected and continue to affect the results.  That, I despise for what it does to "democracy," and I hope more is done by these associations to crack down on that.