M-D NV Poll: McCain By 7; Q CO Poll: McCain By 1

andgarden points us to two state polls. A Colorado Q poll:

Sen. Barack Obama enters the Democratic National Convention in a dead heat with Sen. John McCain for Colorado's crucial nine electoral votes, according to a Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters released today. Sen. McCain has 47 percent to Sen. Obama's 46 percent [McCain was up 2 in a June Q poll].

And Mason Dixon's Nevada poll has McCain by 7:

As both parties aim to put the diverse and growing swing state into play, McCain has taken the lead by a margin of 46 percent to Obama's 39 percent, with 15 percent undecided, according to the poll.

By Big Tent Democrat

< ABC/WaPo Poll: RVs, Obama By 6, LVs Obama By 4 | Stories The Obama Camp Should Be Forwarding >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    yesterday I saw a commenter on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kempis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST
    referring to the "new electoral map" Obama is creating. No one challenged his version of reality.

    I turned off the television.

    A month ago, it was not uncommon to see people at DK talking about how it was possible that Mississippi and Georgia would turn blue for Obama--along with NC and VA and CO and Nevada and possibly even Alaska. McCain could even lose Arizona. An electoral landslide was in the makings!

    It still may happen, I guess. But right now, the "new map" looks an awful lot like the "old map," and it's looking like the election will depend on which way OH, PA, and MI go, isn't it?

    Why, yes. It would seem that (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    the entire map and mood of the country has not changed in four years.  Stunning nooz.:-)

    The very concept cracked me up from the start.  For several elections, as many noted, the electoral map has looked like the map of secession almost a century and a half ago.  

    But that was going to change overnight.  Ha.


    I'm stealing your 'nooz' (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    I wanted another name for cable 'news' (cough, cough)   (which is just too long)   so cable nooz it is.  Goes with roolz.

    Meet the new map (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    Same as the old map

    Ancient Chinese secret? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    now you've done it (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    now we no longer think of you as magic. :-)

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    By don't think Obama will win those states (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrianJ on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    I think you mean "avoid utter humiliation in those states."  Rasmussen has Obama down by 24 in Tennessee, for instance.  There's been remarkably little polling in any of them, but there's no reason to believe these states will be even vaguely competitive.  Not that this will stop the Obama campaign from pouring money down the rathole.

    These CO and NV polls are signs that the Mountain West strategy is failing, leaving the general election as the usual slog around Kalamazoo, Columbus, and Scranton-  with the special treat that McCain has put Minnesota and Wisconsin into play as well.

    Obama's increasingly in the same position as Kerry, where he has to hit all the right tumblers to win.


    reality says that if the campaign (none / 0) (#39)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    hasn't hit all right buttons now, they aren't going to do that now. adding biden gives them a breather, but biden never won a national election either. in fact he hasn't done that well in primaries. there will be a temporary bounce, and i say enjoy while we can.  oh well!

    It does not help that they (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    still seem focused on Hillary Clinton, rather than on beating Sen. Mccain. The media this morning was also going on about "what can/will the Clintons do to help Obama win?" How about, what will Barack do? Why is it all on the Clintons? Hillary is not the nominee, unfortunately. Usually a candidate gets a bounce out of their convention, but with the repubs starting Monday, that may not be the case here.

    This is why Obama will lose (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    unles he, and he is the one to do it and no one else, gets his minions and mouthpieces to stop talking like they're still in the primary.

    It's all a Chicago pol knows how to do, sure.  That this campaign season has surprised some is only because they come from another country or something, the two-party-system Land of NotChiTown.  In Chicago, you spend the primary destroying other Dems, and then you go on vacation until the inauguration, because you already have won.

    You might have to dish some dirt on a Republican opponent who's causing a bit of concern, but you control all the offices with public records, so you have all the goods on them ready to go.  You can phone that in from vacation, too.

    The only Living Dead they're used to dealing with are the Dem voters resurrected for every election to cast a vote from beyond.  Chicago pols sure aren't accustomed to Living Dead Primary Opponents who can't seem to stay dead once destroyed, as they thought they had done to Clinton.  They certainly don't know what to do with voters who can't be cowed, because they can't be bought off with sinecures in Chicago City Hall or the Illinois statehouse.

    And that the Dem HQ now is just an extension of  Axelrod's office down the street may not be helping, as the rest of 'em seem to have become waylaid by the Chicago Way, too.  They don't get it.  

    Da primary is so ovuh, dere, ain'a?  Mebbe dey need a pep talk from Mike Ditka.   Da consummate Chicago coach could tell 'em da game ain't ovuh at halftime.  Crack open da champagne and coronate yerselves in da halftime locker room and see what happens, hey.

    But then we return to the problem I happened to note earlier.  Halftime adjustments in the game plan require that the players be educable.  I just don't see that Obama is that.  He's the QB who dropped the ball but won't admit it was his job.  

    He -- and it is him, as he could stop the minions and mouthpieces -- is still blaming his dropped ball in the third quarter on the QB who left the game in the second quarter.  And jeez, as dey say in Chicago, Obama had all the refs on his side who carried him over the line.  But he thought it was the finish line, because he's playing the wrong game.  


    Obama seems to believe - (none / 0) (#15)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    that laying out proposals similar to Hillary's will win over PUMAs.
    When Obama instructs his followers and declares that Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racists, perhaps I'll consider voting for him.

    I don't even think that will work (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    If I were him I'd find myself asking her to pick her cabinet post(and then advertising it to high heaven) because I don't get the impression that saying things without meaningful action is going to do a darn thing for him with PUMAs. If he wants to jettison this idea that the party has no room for the Clintons or her/his supporters then they better do something that profoundly says as much.

    I twill be interesting to see if (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM EST
    polls on CO change after non-stop convention coverage.  

    At least 10 (none / 0) (#10)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    of my colleagues/friends are already in Denver, and two more should be there over the next day or two. Some of them have told me that there are obvious efforts to make this convention as accessible and problem-free for the thousands of visitors.

    However, from experience of living in cities and countries that have hosted big worldwide events, these measures can be very problematic for people who live near and around those locations.

    So, post-convention polls for CO (and the Denver area) could reflect the dissatisfaction -or pride- they've felt over this upcoming week.


    Polls are Great for Blogs but are a TV Journalist (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    Way of doing nothing.  I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the Brokav turned to  polls for questions.  I was sorta interested in this snap shot.  But I can get that here, and don't need an "expert" for it. But these "award" winning journalists use them as talking points instead of looking at the candidates positions and asking questions that effect us.  The focus of on questions related to polling, allows/ demands that the candidates (whomever they are), focus solely on personality issues.  I think this is one of the reasons that McCain runs succesfully, he has a story that everyone likes and respects.  Of course it will poll well.  I really think that if the journalists asked more questions about the policy, hopefull impact, etc., we would learn much more.  Furthermore it is here that I need "expert" advice.   I don't understand the market at the level I would like, and it would be great to hear these people ask the questions and explain things I don't understand.

    But I guess that is point when you have only a few corporations running the media.  They aren't really interested in us understanding the complicated thilaws they use create backdoors for themselves to make more money.

    When do the undecideds (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    begin to settle out?

    If I was tracking anything this election, I would be tracking GOTV to see who is planning on staying home election day and I would track the percent of undecideds.  That's where I think the deciding narratives are.

    and a related question (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    is this a typical amount of undecideds, and is this a typical demographic breakdown of undecideds.

    I of course suspect it's a bit off because many Hillary supporters are not happy with Obama supporters and the Obama campaign for, well, for telling them they're not invited to vote for Obama. Genius as that strategy may sound (snark), I wonder if those undecideds reflect any of that.


    imho, polls and ads aren't key in this election (none / 0) (#12)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    Repubs and conservative TV and radio talk show hosts are not encouraging voter registration, but Dems are.

    Polls are data. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    Good quality data should never be ignored.

    Historically, the newest (registered) voters are the most unreliable.  This year may change that trend, but we can't tell unless we gather the data.

    Especially this year, I've had people make amazing claims without any proof to back them up.  I'll believe it when I see it.  


    I've seen plenty of highlighting of (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    how many new voters have been registered, but they had GOTV efforts during the primaries too, and I have seen little showing how many new voters actually showed up to vote.

    If it really were a race-changing phenomenon, I'd expect a lot more bragging-spinning coming from the Obama campaign with specific numbers cited.


    Down ticket (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    The numbers I wanted to see were how many were voting top of the ticket yet leaving the rest blank.  

    That's a good point also. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    heck, I'd just like to see some numbers, period.

    And most polls will lump those with ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    ... "undecided", or exclude them from Likely Voter models altogether.

    Not the best time to experiment (none / 0) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:34:19 AM EST
    The western strategy was always troubling for me. (McCain has been a fixture in the southwest for decades).  With so much riding on this election, I didn't feel comfortable experimenting. The Obama camp refuses to use the strategy of securing the base and then looking for ways to expand it. They decided the party needed to be torn down and a new one built in a presidental cycle.

    I wonder if this is Kerry's and the DNC's way of justifying his 2004 loss? It wasn't them, it was the party?

    Dean has been pointing the finger at (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    Democratic voters for quite some time, long before the campaigns for this election started.

    The 50-state strategy could have worked, if they'd combined the 2006 midterm wins with solid followup.  All the Democrats I know were super excited in 2006 -- if you can consolidate support while you're looking like a big winner and then follow it up with solid reasons to remain supportive, you've won the game.  People like being on the winning side -- that gets you pretty far.  But combining a big win with failure to perform on the sentiment that got you the win, not so much.


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Nadai on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    This primary was really just the icing on the Democratic failure cake for me.  They take control of both Houses in 2006 and proceed to do nothing.  Whining about not having a veto-proof majority - when did that stop the Republicans from going after what they want?  They're either cowardly or complicit.  Or both.

    it may just be folks aren't too (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    impressed with the lack of any action by the democratic congress.

    After the 2004 Loss (none / 0) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    in Presidential election, I attended a Women's Leadership Forum (WLF) meeting where results of their own polling on why the Dems "lost" were recited.  Person who delivered the results went on and on about the importance for Dems going forward to reach out to faith-based voters.  

    To me, the Dems always seems 1 Presidential election cycle behind.  


    Apparently, M-D did more (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    They surveyed a bunch of western states and they found Obama ahead in CO. Smaller sample size, though.

    Note, for example, the concerning result (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    in NM.

    I don't buy these subsamples.


    the Nevada poll was a poll (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    the subsamples Western states polls are not reliable.

    They say 400 people per state (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    But that's just not enough when the election is this close.

    400 people per state? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    So why not release the polls with a =/- on them? what is the spread in Wyoming?

    Scroll to the top: they say +/- 5 (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    Here's what they say: (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    400 likely voters interviewed August 13-15, 2008, in each of the following states -- Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The margin for error in each state is plus or minus 5%. The margin for error on the overall weighted regional results is plus or minus 2%

    What are the numbers? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    There's a whole grid that I can't reproduce (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    No polll is provided (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    I do not cite polls that M-D does not release itself.

    Off Topic N/T (none / 0) (#25)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST

    ROFL! That's Hilarious (none / 0) (#26)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    If Obama's campaign has the guts to put out ads like that (while ludicrous in some instances) they would go toe-to-toe against McCain's The One / Celebrity / The One: Part II ads.

    But of course, Obama's the candidate who's going to run a clean campaign that doesn't engage in the old-style, dirty Washington politics (despite picking a 35-year veteran-insider of that same Washington politics). Blah.

    Pols shift to 'likely' models from regs or adults (none / 0) (#44)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    ... around this time of year, and poll junkies experience sticker shock as the topline numbers lurch in one direction or other (usually a Republican direction).

    This also intensifies the intensity argument over young voters, African-American voters, etc.