Gallup: Obama By 10

John McCain must now defy history. No candidate trailing in the Gallup poll at the end of October has ever won the Presidency since Gallup commenced polling (note - in the Truman-Dewey race, Gallup did not poll till the end of October.) Today Gallup has Obama leading by 10, 52-42 in both likely voter measures, the traditional and the expanded models.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Getting Out the Inmate Vote | Boehner Bellies Up to Bar With Fowl Attack >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    Does anyone believe that McCain will get only 42% of the vote? I can't help but feel like Gallup is doing something wrong. Still, a 10pt lead is a 10pt lead.

    And yet, I want to crawl into a hole until Tuesday night.

    Good point , OTOH (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    the chances that McCain will get 100% of the undecideds are probably nil (and even if he did, O is above 50%)

    McCain is getting a lot of second looks (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpa1 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    because of Obama's inability to fight him hard on the taxes issue.  People who make $50,000 a year are concerned that their taxes will go up, some don't understand why taxes should be raised on the wealthier Americans and many people don't want to pay any more FICA and Self Employment Taxes knowing that they will get absolutely nothing out of all these increases.  

    The last one is where I am concerned.  Someone making between $102,000 and $250,000 should not have to pay another 6.2% and for Self Employed individuals another 12.4% on their income over $102,000 while Obama says their taxes will be cut or not changed.  That's a big f___g change.  

    The only way to fund SS and Medicare is to make it a general obligation of all tax payers, not just those in the middle and upper middle classes whose salaries and self employment income pay for EVERYONE's SS and Medicare.  If the SS Trust Fund just paid those who worked all their lives here then it could be self funded.  However, there is so much SS and Medicare Welfare of those who have put in practically nothing to the fund and still get huge payouts till they die, that these welfare obligations need to belong to everyone, not just workers.  That welfare should be paid just as well by the shareholders of WalMart who hire people for part time work at minimum wage and all they need to qualify is 10 years of work.  I don't want to pay for that, not without everyone else paying, not without the billionaire shareholders of WalMart paying.  The same is true for people who are on the books for $100 a week and get paid another $800 a week in cash.  The middle and upper middle class who has all their wages reported are paying for those people.

    Nobody thinks the tax rates needs to be returned to a progressuve structure more than me but someone earning over $102,000 a year is not wealthy today and with all costs going up and assuming a decent standard of living, it is impossible to have extra money in the urban areas of this country on $102,000 for a family of four.  Leaving their taxes alone and taking an additional 6.2% or 12.4% from them on the money after $102,000 is worng.

    So, Obama needs to explain the tax thing like Bill Clinton did the other day and show a little anger at the lies Republicans have been telling for the last 30 years about taxes.  His repsonses have bene weak or non-existent and if he does lose, that will be the reason why, not his color.


    Funny About Americans (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM EST
    We never seem to think that we as individuals are wealthy, but we all think that some day we will be.

    Honestly, this is pretty bunk. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    Nobody thinks the tax rates needs to be returned to a progressuve structure more than me but someone earning over $102,000 a year is not wealthy

    My household currenly makes 108K per year, with two incomes and a family of 4. If our household made 250K or if I as a single what you made, I'd be glad to pay more taxes to help with our problems.

    It's plenty. We make plenty. We live in Napa, CA where you cannot buy a 3 BR home for less than $500 K. So your story does not add up for me. Sounds like a bit of me-first-ism.

    The reason, the REAL REASON some people may be looking at McCain, is because they are outright lying about who will get their taxes raised under Obama's plan. People who singly make over 100K per year are a very small portion of the USA.

    You may not feel wealthy, but you in the top 10%. In fact, third quarter labor statistics 2008 state that the 9th decile (90%) of  is $1,708 (about $92K per year).

    If you can't make it on more than what 90% of the population makes, then I think you need to look at your budget.



    I don't (none / 0) (#6)
    by robrecht on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    I predict (none / 0) (#7)
    by Faust on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    45 M - 55 O!

    Just kidding.

    I'm excited to see McCain get crushed though. All my doubts have been erased. I'm on board the landslide express at this point.


    Landslide (none / 0) (#54)
    by lcdrrek on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    I'm excited to see McCain get crushed though. All my doubts have been erased. I'm on board the landslide express at this point.

    I'm with you.  I hope to see McCain "squashed like a bug".  I believe that we will see this election called early on Tuesday night.  I see Virginia called for Obama very soon after the polls close and this will spell the beginning of the landslide.  Obama will get a huge number of electoral votes and this will spell the end of "conservatism" as we know it.  I am hoping for 60 senate seats and we can send Joe Lieberman to the Republican side of the aisle where he can continue to be Johnnie's f*&* buddy.  

    I hope Cindy is able to find a place in one of her 11 houses to hide on Tuesday night, I know she won't want to be anywhere near McGrumpy on election night.  He won't be a very happy camper and "trollopy c*&t" may be one of the nicer things she might be called.


    To Quote the Kinks (none / 0) (#61)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM EST
    One on the nose
    And one on the chin
    You bruise so easily
    So why stay with him.

    The two different Gallup models (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    as described on its site then coming together for the same result . . . nope, that doesn't compute for me.  So not surprising that you spot other oddities.

    converging (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by deminma on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    It does make sense that they would converge.  The traditional model would exclude first time voters that traditionally are less likely to follow through and vote.   With all of the early voting  (26% I think in their model)  and many of these are first time or less likely voters.   They become certain voters in both models.    

    Possibly. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    Only makes sense afterward (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    when Gallup sees if, and if so, how they vote.  Sorry, but early voting doesn't tell Gallup much now, either.  Why?  Those votes have not been counted.  If in states where they register by party, that tells how many ballots those voters have cast -- but it still doesn't tell, yet, how they voted on those ballots.  

    I considered what you're saying before I wrote the first comment -- but then I thought it through and looked at Gallup's descriptions again.  Nope.  Not unless this is yet the umpteenth model from Gallup this year, but just labeled as an earlier model.


    Do you have a preferred (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    pollster? Mine is Ras, only because his method is conservative. Pun intended!

    It seems to be the pick (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    of several people I know who study this, teach it, etc.  They like Ras in past and are watching it still, as am I, to see if it holds up this time.  

    Early voting does tell Gallup something (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    as they ask respondents who they will vote for/have voted for.  They also ask them whether they have already voted.

    There's sort of a reason (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    There's an article over at Pollster.com that talks about how different polling houses deal with people who have already voted.

    All of the houses discussed in the article that don't split out "already voted" in their results lump early/absentees into the "likely voter" category.  That's reasonable.  I mean, who is more likely to vote than someone who has already voted?

    As we get closer to the election the models should converge somewhat. The proportion of people who have already voted gets larger as we approach election day.


    But that article does not say (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    how they know how those early voters voted.  Still guesswork -- all that's converging is one set of guesses about who votes with another set of guesses about how they vote.  If this were the basis of a master's thesis, and I was on the committee, it would go back for revisions and further review.

    And so, too, all these polling methods aka guesses will go back for much further review -- after November 5.


    Because you're GUESSING (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    that they're all wrong?

    Exactly! It's all guessing (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    even when andgarden does it.

    After all, if we all knew the result, we could skip the campaigning and save hundreds of millions of dollars better spent on the needy, not millionaires.


    I just think it's funny (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    that you use your guesses to make dire predictions about how all of the polls are wrong, because. . . . .  Well, you never quite say.

    I didn't say the results were (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    necessarily wrong.  Read carefully.

    But then, horseracers just care about results, not about how to get the horse on the track and then to the end.  Betting people know that matters more, so that the results weren't just a fluke.


    As far as how they voted (none / 0) (#20)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    It's still just a poll.

    As far as how they're treated in the models, it seems clear that most houses treat them as "likely voters."

    The post to which I responded was about the two Gallup likely voter models converging.  Since the "already" voted are included in both models, they should start to converge.

    As far as whether they're telling the truth, well, polls are just polls.


    well (none / 0) (#21)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    RCP called the electoin to within a point in 2004.  I guess math and counting skills might have degraded since then.

    Math and computing skills are fine (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    but models are different.  You do understand that math and computing are just about the input, into models based on projections of the future, some based on the past but some not so this time?

    The models are where the human error can occur.


    Btw, RCP is not a pollster, you know. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    It's a selection of pollsters' results -- like several other sites.  It seems to be a pretty solid selection, although it doesn't use a couple of highly thought of polls.  But those can be found elsewhere to do the factoring, if you want.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    Of course. But the RCP average proved pretty accurate in 2004, as I said.

    A range of turn-out models for LV are used.  Obama is winning them all.


    Say What? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Spike on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    How does Gallup know how the early voters voted? Because that's what those who have already voted tell Gallup when they are interviewed for the poll. First time voters become likely voters in both models if they have already voted. It has nothing to do with Gallup interpreting outcomes from raw data of many early voters have voted.

    I could discuss this, but (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:12:58 PM EST
    not with the little twittler here.  Catch you on another blog, maybe. . . .

    Yeah when was the last time a (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    second place candidate got only 42% of the vote? If it is indeed in that double digit territory, would it be logical to assume or conclude that maybe Obama isn't turning states like IN, MT, or GA light blue, but making the real swing states solid blue?

    theoretically (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    he might be getting astronomically high support among blacks in the south. This it's showing up in national polls but not a total map changing result ---(outside Virginia or NC)

    And higher than average (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    Latino and Hispanic support in the west (CO,NM)

    My Experience (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    I went door to door in Henderson, NV last week.  The canvass lists the Obama campaign gave us had about ten percent registered Republicans.  Most of these were Hispanic, though some were union members and some had obviously attended Obama campaign events and provided their names.  

    Based on my experience of knocking on approximately 600 doors, almost every one of the Hispanic Republicans turned out to be "Ones" for Obama.  In other words, strong Obama supporters.  These were Hispanic Republicans.

    And that is to say nothing of Hispanic Democrats.


    That is entirely possible (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    And something I worry about.

    Sure (none / 0) (#31)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    But then again, you could also say that this means that McCain's turn-out-the-base-through-codewords strategy isn't working, since it isn't making the red states more red.

    It's all speculation.


    Bush the elder got only 37% in 1992 (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    against Clinton.  Heck Bill Clinton won with 43%.

    Thanks. Well maybe the poll may (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    be accurate about McCain's support after all. Only 3 more days and we'll know!

    Three way race (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    This (none / 0) (#42)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    It's a joke to say that McCain will get less than 45-46% of a 2 way race vote.

    You really need third parties to take up 5-10% of the vote at least before one of the two major party tickets will drop below 43%.

    And that's not going to happen this year.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    But Obama's topline makes me feel ok.

    But that was because almost 20% (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    went to the third-party candidate, Ross Perot.

    Yet more historical evidence of how crazy this country can get.


    Final popular vote (none / 0) (#56)
    by kenosharick on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    will probably end up Obama 51, mccain 47, and 2% for the rest. Just a guess. Not a blowout, but not as close as recent elections.

    Hey, KenoshaRick -- (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    left you a message in the most recent open thread re what's going on with all that money for your Congressman, Paul Ryan, per an analysis in the MJS a couple of days ago (putting it together with all the ads here and other scuttlebutt I've heard).

    We need you back home fast to fight the future foreseen for your backyard by the state GOP.  Brrrrr.


    I would love to come back home (none / 0) (#68)
    by kenosharick on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    if I can get a job after I get the MA.

    An M.A. in what, KRick? (nt) (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:18:07 PM EST
    This is the last day for (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    early voting in NC. Polls close at 5, and the pictures of a voting line (outside a Lowe's I think it was) on the news this morning are hard to believe. I mean, I've never seen that many people in a line in my life unless it was for a very hot ticket sporting event or concert. Oh and BTW, at least half the people were black. Also Obama just announced he is going to squeeze in one more NC appearance here in Charlotte on Monday. I expect a record crowd (for NC).

    Gallup's RV has really been 8-11 all month. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    What I think has been happening is that they are seeing what they classified as "unlikely" voters actually voting early, and that is making them re-think who a likely voter is.

    That's pushing their Traditional and Expanded LV models closer to the RV model.

    I don't think any other tracking polls are actually changing their likely voter model based on the early voting pattern.

    That being said, I still don't believe in +10.  I'm still predicting 52.5-46.5-1

    Steve, (none / 0) (#13)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    See the link I posted.

    Mark Blumenthal at pollster.com discussing how various polling houses deal with early voters.


    I even think it's more than just counting the (none / 0) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    early voters.

    I think Gallup is seeing that the "sporadic" voters are turning up in early voting more than they thought, so they are increasing their weightings of those sporadic voters into their LV models.

    While the other pollsters include the early voters, I don't know if they are dynamically changing their LV models based on what they see.


    I voted absentee ballot today (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    in NY; going to PA for voter protection. Evidently there are many more people voting absentee in NY this year than ever before. My guess is that many more people who will be out of state on election day want to make sure to vote.  A bit of chaos is expected in PA because high voter turnout is expected without the relief of early voting -- there is none in PA.  

    I think the turnout will set all sorts of records this year; my guess is the huge turnout and turnout of people who haven't voted in years, although registered, plus those who are new registrants is what's accounting for the differences in the polls, as well as the even greater uncertainty this year about their accuracy.  


    Let's not overlook (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by white n az on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    the fact that John McCain now has the highly prized endorsement of Dick Cheney which surely would result in a bump in the polls given Cheney's 12% approval rating.

    Predictions (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    The undecideds will split slightly in favor of McCain, leaving us with Obama 54, McCain 46.

    But the real story Tuesday will be the total breakdown in some places as a "completely unexpected" tidal wave of new voters show up at their polling places.  We could see some high drama (by political geek standards) as many areas have to make decisions about how late to hold open polling places and scramble for ways to adapt.

    Pennsylvania will be ground zero for this (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    No early voting.

    These kinds of FPs... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    keep me functionally sane.

    not me. (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    but then again, my insanity has probably gone chemical at this point.

    well (none / 0) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    i'd like to remain pessimistic but I can't think of a bad thing to say about a 10 point lead.  Theyve been trending Obama for days as well.

    and no sitting v.p. ever won the white (none / 0) (#36)
    by seabos84 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    house from 1492 until ... GWB Sr. in 1988!

    and no one ever lost the N.H. primary and won the white house since 1763, well, until Clinton in 1992!

    there are 2 completely unpredictable feedbacks going on ----

    1. all the closet bigots who'll lie AND NOT miss voting cuz ... well, you should be able to figure that out... AND they only get more determined the more obamabots there are,

    2. the increasingly determined obamabots breaking their tails cuz they know there are so many of those closet bigots.

    oh yeah ... AND then there are all the 'undecided' voters you keep seeing on the idiot box,

    people tooooooooooo stupid and or too savvy to admit that they just can't stand either party, and,

    as rove, ailes, and atewater understood EXTREMELY well,

    when they finally HAVE to vote they'll fix on 1 thing that really tweaks them at that moment, and vote for the other guy cuz

    he's better on defense (not a fairy liberal), or
    he's better on education (not a rapacious fascist), or


    gallup / schmal-up.

    the best bet is 4 states on tuesday evening where the historically lying, cheating, stealing fascists are pulling the rabbit outta the hat, and our hapless incompetents are sternly shaking their fingers in rightous remonstrance.


    clearly... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by white n az on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    anyone that is still undecided at this point has decided that they really don't much care for either candidate.

    I would suspect that they mostly fall into 2 categories...

    • see McCain as a disaster and just like Bush but don't want to vote for Obama for whatever reason (black/liberal/etc.)

    • Have already made up their minds but don't want to admit it to anyone

    I just don't see the undecideds breaking more than 60/40 in any direction and thus are likely not to significantly affect the outcome.

    Actually, (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    The so-called "Bradley Effect," if there is to be any in this election, is probably manifested as people who say they are "undecided."

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 03:40:00 PM EST
    either that or mccain has given a multitude of ways to get your prejudice on (Muslim, socialist, terrorist, etc.) and are openly saying theyre not going to vote for Obama, using any of these reasons.  I dont think there will be any Bradley effect that takes away from voters already saying theyll vote for Obama.

    excuse me... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by white n az on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    the 'so called Bradley Effect' concerned people who were so called 'decided' voters that ultimately changed their minds and voted for Tom Bradley's opponent instead. There is absolutely no connection between the 'Bradley Effect' and undecided voters.

    Undecided voters are undecided for a reason or more than one reason.


    Its not even clear... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    if theres a connection between Tom Bradleys loss and the "Bradley effect".

    Projecting much? (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM EST
    What's an obamabot? (none / 0) (#38)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Is that a pejorative?

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    Obamabot is part of the Gator Nation.

    U. Florida students build Obama-campaiging robot

    By David Cumming, Independent Florida Alligator/UWire
    Oct. 31, 2008

    U. Florida -- It crawled down the Turlington Plaza pavement Tuesday afternoon, clenching its iron fists and beaming its blue eyes at everyone in its path.

    ObamaBot, a nearly 6-foot-tall, student-made robot, drew a crowd of followers in its wake like a marching band conductor on wheels, waving its android arms with Barack Obama campaign posters from side to side in response to the remote control held by one of its creators.

    Bernard Epton (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    almost did it, and he had much worse odds to start with......

    not trying to compare mccain (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    to epton, only that they were both running against black democrats.  the epton race was ugly because it was about race.  This race is about McCain's campaign's zero discipline, constantly changing messaging and no interest in the economy.

    Defying history (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lora on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    If McCain does manage to defy history and win despite so many indications to the contrary, what will it mean?

    I hope at that point, which I think is a serious possibility, even a probability I'm afraid, that the Dems will finally get serious about all types of election fraud.

    How else could McCain win?  Seriously.

    If this were to happen (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by sallywally on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    I hope the Obama camp will recognize the dirty tricks for what they are and fight back with all its got.

    Gore and Kerry should never have surrendered as they did.