The Polls - 11/3

One day to go. In January, the polling for the New Hampshire primary had Obama leading by an average of 8.3 points. Sounds scary right? Let's look at those numbers - Obama was predicted to get 38%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 18%, Richardson 6% and 8% undecided. The results? Obama got 37%, Edwards got 17%, Richardson got 5%. So far so good for the polls. But Clinton got 39%. She got the undecided voters.

What does this tell us about tomorrow? It tells me Obama is definitely going to win the popular vote. Why? Because even if McCain were to get every undecided voter (which he is not), Obama is over 50 in almost every poll. USA Today/Gallup has Obama at 53. ABC/WaPo has Obama at 53. NBC/WSJ has Obama at 51. Ras has Obama at 51. CNN has Obama at 53. Pew has Obama at 52. CBS has Obama at 54.

I stick by my prediction -- Obama by 6, 52.5 - 46.5. I predict he wins FL, OH, VA, CO, NV, NM and of course PA. I predict 325+ EVs. I predict 8 Senate pickups (AK, CO, NM, NH, VA, NC, MN and OR) and a runoff in GA. I predict Dem Gary Trauner wins Dick Cheney's old Congressional seat in Wyoming.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Races To Watch Tuesday Night | Memorable Moments of the Election >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    you know what I have noticed. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:41:33 AM EST
    for as much as all the conservatives still say McCain is still in this,

    none of them have given predictions, not a one. oh they all say its possible and McCain will win this state or that state, but not one of them has given a single prediction of what the final outcome will be, and what the breakdown will be.

    I wonder if that means anything

    This isn't from (none / 0) (#7)
    by eric on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:57:03 AM EST
    a conservative, but Fivethirtyeight has some maps up that show what a McCain win looks like.  LINK.

    Interestingly, there is a path for McCain without PA.  But it means he has to win CO, NV, VA, OH, FL.


    I refuse to believe (none / 0) (#24)
    by mg7505 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    the possibility of McCain winning any aspect of this election except the Grumpy Old Man Award. His only path to any sort of "victory" is if enough members of the soon-to-be-huge Democratic majority pull a Ben Nighthorse Campbell and switch parties. Or the Dems could just cave to the Radical Right no matter who's in the majority -- very scary and very possible.

    At this point (none / 0) (#8)
    by zvs888 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    They're hoping that somehow McCain wins Pennsylvania.  That's basically the only route he has.

    But just looking at the numbers that looks impossible now; Obama should handily get 52% of Pennsylvania's vote.

    I think everyone realizes at this point that the scenarios are so bleak that Republicans are pretending that somehow the polls aren't true and that McCain can win.


    ya (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    I think its a happy face for the congressional races.  If McCain seems beaten, turnout will tank and their congressional chance will utterly collapse.

    The GOP is fighting for its life right now.


    That's not true (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    George Will gave his prediction:

    Obama 378, now admittedly that's not good for McCain. Rove I think will give a prediction as well (Obama 300+), Rove though is discredited after 2006 where claimed the GOP would make gains due to his command of "teh Math."


    MN Senate (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:43:08 AM EST
    I'm glad to hear you predict a Franken win in MN, after the Presidency and Prop. 8, this is the race I have most set my heart on us winning.

    No one running for the Senate this cycle is more likely to improve the quality of debate in that archaic body than Al Franken, IMO.

    But the polling is neck and neck, despite Coleman's demonstrated corruption and support for Bush policies. So, I expect a nail-biter at best.

    Funny but true (none / 0) (#16)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    The Only Problem for Franken (none / 0) (#33)
    by zvs888 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    Is the 3rd dude running.  If he grabs enough of Franken's vote and the anti-Coleman vote; then Franken might find it extremely tough.  We all know Minnesota bleeds blue, but who knows.

    The Independence (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by eric on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    party in Minnesota has been nothing but a complete disaster for the Democrats in MN.  It is the reason we have a no-new tax republican in the governor's office - both in 2002 and 2006.  In 1998, in a three way split, Ventura actually got elected.  Yikes.

    For all of you that wish for a viable 3rd party in your state, don't.  It just splits those that don't vote republican.  The republican's don't stray, they clean up in three way splits.

    If Franken doesn't win, it will be because of the Independence party, once again.


    Thanks for the state and EV predictions (none / 0) (#1)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:32:30 AM EST

    I changed my Senate total (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:37:35 AM EST
    because I forgot Alaska.

    It's Kind of Funny (none / 0) (#4)
    by zvs888 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:42:12 AM EST
    How the media totally "forgot" about the undecideds back in January but now they're saying that "undecideds" can somehow swing to McCain and hand him the election.

    The obvious differences as you point out is that here Obama is over 50%... yet they persist with this comeback story.

    Some of the polls seem to (none / 0) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    lump "undecideds" and "voting other" -- Nader, Green Party, Barr, etc., together without detail. Or, polls are being reported that way. I like to go to the actual poll link & check that the truly undecided number is less than the point spread between Obama & McCain.

    I go along with what you've predicted. A month (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:47:25 AM EST
    ago I was predicting 312 EVs for Obama, but since then I've added VA (13) to the pick.  Not following all the Senate races but I hope AK and NC are pickups for us.  Ted Stevens is a convicted criminal and Elizabeth Dole is, well, not qualified for office after the nasty campaign she has run.  I will be glad when this is over except for the fact that the 2012 race will begin on 11/5/08.  

    What are the undecided percentages in the state po (none / 0) (#9)
    by atlmom on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    Esp. in VA, OH, FL?

    And what is up with TIPP with such a narrow national number?

    This new Wright ad scares me about the undecideds...

    Read Charles Franklin's article (none / 0) (#11)
    by rdandrea on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    at Pollster.com about house effects in the daily trackers

    TIPP is about three percentage points more Republican than the average of all the trackers.


    I believe, however (none / 0) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    IDB/TIPP called the 2004 election correctly.  

    Al Franken and Gary Trauner both? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    If it happens we must have one HELL of a party!!!!

    Final gallup is out (none / 0) (#12)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:31:10 AM EST
    13 RV
    11 LV models (either)

    55 - 44

    That would be something.

    I put Obama's floor. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:36:47 AM EST
    at 54%.  A lot of those McCain voters are not going to show up, and the motivation among Obama voters is extreme, even in states that are not contested.

    I'm rooting for Obama AND Larry! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Faust on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    I expect Bob Barr to get over 2%... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    ...I think he'll be getting a sizable number of McCain-leaning undecideds from non-swing states.

    Bob Barr (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    and the Libertarians could have made a lot of mischief this time if Paul had decided to run or if he had decided to endorse Barr instead of the Constitution Party candidates.

    The Libertarians have been voting 70-30 Republican but thanks to GWB that is changing and they are all over the place now.

    Same with the evangelical split who want to 'save Gawd's creation' along with the enviros.

    Perfect storm for Democrats nationally...but not necessarily at the local level as we are seeing here in my state.  The change message is being used nastily and effectively against Democratic incumbents, including our outstanding governor.

    Propaganda still works and the Rs will still say and do anything to win.  


    I find BTDs prediction (none / 0) (#18)
    by Faust on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    both delicious AND nutritious!

    I was so involved in the Kerry campaign (none / 0) (#19)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    That I didn't get the sense their was a shot Bush could win?  How different was the feeling last election?

    Here's what I do (none / 0) (#21)
    by eric on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM EST
    to make myself feel better:  Go to electoral-vote.com and look at the map.  Then click on the "This Day in 2004" link in the upper right.  I thought Kerry would win, too, but this will show you how much better the map looks this time around.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#23)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    That was very helpful.

    Ahhhhhhh :) (none / 0) (#34)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    not only that (none / 0) (#38)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    the page has an animation from June that shows daily EV projections...you can see how often Obama has been over 270 in the past 5 months.

    You can do the same with the Kerry - Bush map


    I think we all thought the country couldn't be... (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    that stupid to vote for Bush again.  But we were wrong, and I think we've all known this time around that 47% of voters will never vote for a Democrat no matter who is on the ballot.  

    Don't tell me Obama doesn't use fear -- that's why his campaign organization is gangbusters.  We fear 4 more years.


    Still Hoping For.. (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    the 200 electoral vote margin of victory but will accept the reality that it looks more like a 348-190 win for Obama.

    Tack on an 8 seat pickup in the Senate giving the Dems 59 which includes in the total one low life classless weasel from the Great State of Connecticut.

    And this is why (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    I should always proofread my own math twice before posting.

    Make that 353-185 with the best possible outlook upwards to 380-158 if Obama can also take Omaha.


    A pickup in (none / 0) (#22)
    by mg7505 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    Wyoming? I would never have believed this. Do you have a source on that, BTD?

    Regardless, this makes me optimistic about Minnesota -- I hope this election ends the horrendous Norm Coleman's political career.

    Darcy Burner/Dave Reichert (none / 0) (#25)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM EST
    I'm curious what you would have liked to have seen out of Burner, BTD.  I'm not in that District, but since my local TV stations are all from Seattle, I have seen ALL the ads.  These two have been running them non-stop.  If I were able to vote based only on the TV ads, I would vote for Burner for 2 reasons:  1) the ads have painted Reichert as a bit of a do-nothing who has sided with Bush 88-90% of the time; and 2) one of Reichert's ads has some sort of candid video shot of Burner where she says the new FISA bill passed by Congress "SUCKS!"  This is one of their negative ads against Burner!  That one single Reichert ad would have pretty much sealed my vote for Burner right there if I lived in that district.  The problem with unseating Reichert is that whole "he solved the Green River Killer" thing.  Harumph.

    yeah, he solved it.. what, 20 years (none / 0) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    after they first interviewed the killer?

    yeah (none / 0) (#29)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    Don't get me wrong.  I think the glory given Reichert over solving the GRK case is overblown, although I do think he remained dedicated to solving it long after others in the department had decided it was a waste of resources (after all, it was only hookers and "bad girls" who were being killed anyway) to continue to investigate it full force.  I'm just saying that he will always have major support in the district because of the praise he got for sticking with the case all those years and finally bringing Ridgeway to justice.  (The case was really solved by DNA, but Reichert did get him to confess, not that it was that hard at that point.)

    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#37)
    by imhotep on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    I think the ONLY reason that race is close is because Reichert is a Republican in a very conservative district.
    He was heavily endorsed by Jennifer Dunn, a leading pub in Congress, before she retired. (She has since passed away.)
    He is also getting a lot of ad money from the RNC.
    There is a question about the financing of some of his ads.

    From the Democratic sidelines (none / 0) (#43)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    here on Puget Sound (we see all the ads, too) I'd say it would take a small miracle to elect Burner.

    She's a weak candidate with no political resume and got caught overreaching and padding the resume she does have.  ("I liked economics so much I got a degree in it...at Harvard."  Nope.)  Now the Rs are running quite effective ads calling her out.

    Trust has now become an issue for Darcy and Reichert wins that one.

    Could be closer this time tho...it wasn't in '06.


    wasn't close in 2006? (none / 0) (#48)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    I beg to differ:

    2006 results:

    Darcy Burner  122,021 48.5399%

    Dave Reichert  129,362 51.4601%

    Vote Totals    251,383 100%

    That's a little less than a 3 point spread.  I'd call that close.


    OK. (none / 0) (#52)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    You like potato and I like puhtahto...let's call the whole thing off!

    A 3-point difference is worth a retry but in the meanwhile (2 years) a congressional candidate has to change something if that incumbent doesn't blow up.  He didn't.

    Darcy's minimal changes got her dollars but it remains to be seen if it got her votes.  The campaign didn't improve and neither did the candidate IMHO.  

    Turnout in that district will be interesting to watch.


    Check out this link that was posted on Quick Hits (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST

    35% of Dems planning on voting for Obama are taking off work tomorrow, versus 6% of Republicans planning on voting for McCain.

    Talk about an enthusiasm gap.  Over one-third of Obama's support is either doing GOTV or gearing up for 8 hour lines.

    400+ EVs and a double digit margin... (none / 0) (#30)
    by mike in dc on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    ...isn't entirely out of reach.  That would be a glorious victory for Democrats and a crushing, unspinnable defeat for the GOP.  Even Palin would emerge with the stench of loserdom upon her.  
    Then it's all about coming out of the gate fast on 1/20/09, getting a bunch of stuff passed quickly, and initiating the troop drawdown from Iraq.  

    Final predictions: (none / 0) (#31)
    by kenosharick on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    Obama: 51-52%  291 EVs
    McCain: 46-47% 247 EVs

      Not as optimistic as some, but still a good outcome. Agree on most senate races, except the possibility that Mn and Oregon may go the wrong way. If Saxby were to lose outright here in Ga., I will do a happy dance for sure.

    BTD - your predictions: (none / 0) (#32)
    by scribe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    Obama by 6, 52.5 - 46.5. I predict he wins FL, OH, VA, CO, NV, NM and of course PA. I predict 325+ EVs. I predict 8 Senate pickups (AK, CO, NM, NH, VA, NC, MN and OR) and a runoff in GA. I predict Dem Gary Trauner wins Dick Cheney's old Congressional seat in Wyoming.

    are .... reasonable!

    I would also give Obama Montana and a close finish in Missouri which will likely turn on weather and how many people in St. Louis get run off from voting.  I would not be surprised if he picks up Arizona, nor North Dakota.

    And, finally, deliciously - the Casper, Wyoming Star-Tribune (Deadeye Dick's very own hometown paper) has endorsed Obama for President.  Don't be surprised if those cussedly tough Wyoming voters vote blue - if only because of the black eye by association Deadeye's given them.

    My prediction (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST

    356. Loses MO and IN. Wins VA, NC, FL, OH. Wins all Kerry states. Wins IA, NV, NM, CO. Wins ND.

    Final popular vote 53%-45% Obama.

    BTW (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    I seem to recall that Gallup has been within 2 points of the actual national result in every election in the past 40 years, or something to that effect.  They currently have Obama up 10.

    My prediction: (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM EST
    there will be at least one beet red state that surprises us by going for Obama.

    Gary Trauner isn't going to win IMO (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    The headwind in WY is just too strong.

    The real question is, if there's a runoff in Georgia, can Martin pull off the upset? I have a hundred bucks to send his way if we find out tomorrow that there's going to be a round two.

    I would suspect (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    that a runoff in Georgia pretty much guarantees a victory down the road for Chambliss. A victory for Martin has to happen tomorrow.

    I gotta ask... (none / 0) (#47)
    by OldCity on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 12:54:40 PM EST
    when did "redneck" become a desirable appellation?  I've always considered it pejorative.

    I live in PA, a state that was not, as far as I can recall, part of the Confederacy.  So I'm a bit puzzled to hear some of my fellow Pennsylvanians describe themselves as "rednecks", proud of it, and votin' for McCain.

    And those folks worry me, they do.  PA should be comfortable for Obama.  Should.  But it's worriesome in the extreme that not only is McCain attempting to make PA competitive, but that he's buttressing the sudden acceptability of what used to be an undesirable term to describe anyone.  

    Among other reasons to legion to mention, that really is why I want McCain to lose.  He hasn't appealed to the traditional American desire to show our better selves.  Worse, he knows it, but has continued to sow his divisive message.  He's a tacit cheerleader for this concept of "otherness" that seems to be pervading America, as if we all have some common heritage that a successful Obama campaign will besmirch.  And it's disgusting, because this, more than any other country, is supposed to be where "other" flourishes.  

    I know plenty of people (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    in PA who would consider themselves rednecks rather happily.  The fact that McCain is stewing up a redneck stew in PA is pretty gross.  

    People in PA love Confederacy symbolism.  I don't know why.


    Any one else think Palin (none / 0) (#50)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    Is praying ol' Ted loses- I've heard the whole "she's hoping for him to win then resign and give her the seat" bit (it ignores Alaskan law adopted after the Murkowski fiasco which states the seat lays vacant pending a special election) but I think she needs him to lose otherwise Alaska becomes a corrupt joke of a state (only counter would be if he wins and she issues some sort of executive order demanidng he resign).

    Alaska Law (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    on a Senate replacement would probably be in the hands of the Alaska Supreme Court as there are currently two conflicting laws on the books.

    On the upside, this isn't going to be an issue that comes into play this time around in Alaska politics as Ted Stevens is in free fall and his chances of winning are close to none.

    Silliness but entertaining...Intrade wagering now has Begich chances of winning in Alaska on par with John Kerry being re-elected in Massachusetts.

    Ted Stevens' Senate future is on ice in the morgue.


    Are YOU ready for the new USSA? (none / 0) (#55)
    by RocknRod on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    The REAL change under an Obama administration will be the small change left in your wallet after he taxes your paycheck to "redistribute" the wealth in the new "United Socialist States of America" i.e. USSA