American Research Group releases McCain vs Obama numbers in over 25 states.
There are experts who say they don't trust polling data for ~2 weeks after conventions because of bounce effect.
Of course, as long as someone pays them pollsters will poll.
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:03 AM
McCain is definitely in the driver's seat here: ahead in OH, MI &NV, Obama only in NM. Interestingly VA and PA were not on the list
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:14 AM
Looking much better for Obama now, with NM firmly on his side and only Colorado necessary to flip, which is well withing striking distance. Also showing surprising strength in MT and WV. Kind of hoping OH would be a little closer by now, but that will happen sooner or later.
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:17 AM
Are you sure you're not blind?
MI is not one of those ARG polls
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:40 AM
PPP (D) McCain 46, Obama 48 Obama +2
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:47 AM
What's going on? Obama up in VA (per PPP) and putting away NM. McCain barely holding on in MT and WV????!!!! The GOP should have nominated someone with a business econ. background like Romney or at least have a credible VP in this turmoil. Oh, well, looks like we'll get another shot in 2012.
Posted on September 17, 2008 11:51 AM
If you believe all of these ARG polls - and I'm hesitant to do that - it looks like Obama would be better off focusing his efforts on West Virginia than on Ohio. It also looks like he stands just about the same chance of winning Louisiana as he does winning Ohio.
There's some wacky stuff in here. I think Ohio is closer than they indicate and Louisiana not nearly as close. As for WV - well, this is the second poll in the week that put McCain ahead only by 4. Who knows. Lots of Dems in WV although not necessarily Dems who will vote for Obama.
Posted on September 17, 2008 12:04 PM
Will this ARG poll move WV out of the deep red safe McCain category? There are only three polls out of the state used by Pollster.com (now four), the last of which was conducted on 9/5-8/08 and showed a 44-39 McCain lead. The other two polls were conducted in June and February. It looks like the state trend line has now been updated for this poll and shows significant narrowing. Is this the sleeper battleground state of the election?
Posted on September 17, 2008 12:14 PM
To answer my own question, yes. The national map now has WV as competitive.
Posted on September 17, 2008 12:15 PM
Any reason why going through the pollster.com site doesn't show the most recent polls, but going through politicshome.com and I can see the most recent polls...on pollster.com?
Posted on September 17, 2008 1:14 PM
Focusing some limited results. Keep in mind this is 9/11-9/13. Older data:
AK 55% 39% 2% 3% - This is done, as most expected.
AZ 56% 39% 1% 3% - Duh
CO 46% 44% 3% 7% - This should concern Democrats.
DE 40% 51% 1% 8% - Duh
IL 45% 51% 1% 4% - Only 6? I don't think so.
MO 50% 45% - 5% - 5 is pretty good for Democrats. If it was back in July it might actually be good news.
MT 49% 47% 1% 4% - This is Great news for Democrats.
NV 49% 46% - 5% - Polls seem to show this state closer than 3.
NM 44% 51% - 5% - Puts this state away maybe?
NC 52% 41% 1% 6% - This is probably right for 11-13th. Like to see more up to date.
OH 50% 44% - 6% - This is a little higher than other polls, but probably correct.
WV 49% 45% - 7% - Wow. This is the second poll that shows this closer than it should be.
All and all, I'd like to see more up to date polls.
Posted on September 17, 2008 1:18 PM
Apparently I am blind... I must have seen the MT, the close numbers and thought MI. I guess I'd call this mixed then, Obama is up in VA & NM, McCain up in OH, CO, & NV.
The big news is probably the directions that VA &OH are taking.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:00 PM
As freedomreigns hinted at the IL number does call this poll into question. Anyone some ideas why that's so close?
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:03 PM
No offense to you ...
I think the tide is turning slowly
The Palin fatigue gets already started after only 2 weeks or so on the national stage
Seemingly MT and WV are getting closer and closer. This Palin thing is just a myth/distraction that starts to being reflecting in polls
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:08 PM
I'm sorry but I find the write up for this set of polls funny.
So you guys know about stats and numbers and polls right?
"ARG releases McCain vs Obama numbers in over 25 states"
So was it 26 or 27 states? Is there a margin of error on the number of states they polled +-2 states? lmao
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:28 PM
Sorry to tease you Eric, but it's funny.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:29 PM
These polls won't reflect the news of the past 48 hours as the National polls are starting to. McCain's in trouble.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:32 PM
For goodness sake, I've said it before and I'll say it again, BARACK HAS GOT TO GO TO WEST VIRGINIA AND CAMPAIGN THERE. He made a big mistake writing off a state that has party registration that is 2:1 Democratic and voted for Dukakis. He can win it if he tries.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:34 PM
LOL at this IL poll. McCain has a much chance of winning IL as Obama has of winning Utah.
This state has been trending blue for quite awhile. Two congressional seats in typically GOP territory (suburban Chicago) have both turned blue. Phil Crane lost his seat a few years back to Melissa Bean in solidly republican territory in the North and NW suburbs. More recently, Denny Hastert retired and his district (which is even MORE GOP) elected a dem.
The GOP in this state is in shambles. The last GOP gov is currently in federal prison for a public corruption scandal. The last GOP gov prior was Jim Edgar who was respected and well-liked but he was a moderate republican. If this was not Obama's home turf and we were seeing the McCain of 2000, I would say he might have a chance. The right wing Barbie i.e. speaking in tongues, book banning (did she or didn't she? doesn't matter), "Iraq war was god's will" stuff does not play well in this state.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:36 PM
These are interesting, but we can really see here the problem of the current news cycle. These are half-week old polls. The national situation has already changed since these.
As a result, they're in many ways more interesting in a state like Montana or West Virginia, where we have comparatively little data, than in Colorado or Nevada, where we know a lot.
Wait. I thought West Virginia was full of racist hicks, per Obama supporters from the primary season.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:41 PM
Interesting results but we need other polls concerning West Virginia and Montana. Ohio, Colorado and Nevada are all close but they should worry Democrats a little bit.
Posted on September 17, 2008 2:44 PM
Please check the dates on these polls before taking them too seriously.
Polls in Colorado and Ohio are not current (9/10-13). Montana is even worse (9/7-9).
Nevada (9/12-14) and Missouri (9/11-15) are a little better.
West Virginia, North Carolina, and New Mexico polls are current (9/14-16).
All the rest of the states polled are generally considered to be "gimmies" for one candidate or the other.
It's looking more and more like North Carolina is completely out of reach for Obama while New Mexico is out of reach for McCain.
McCain should be concerned with Montana as he had a two point lead when he was still pretty heavily within his convention/vp bounce.
Other polls in Ohio somewhat negate that this one was taken a while back and McCain seems to have a fair hold on it. Definitely not out of reach with the economy taking the front and the debates still coming, but surely leaning McCain at this point.
Missouri would be a difficult pickup for Obama, but not totally out of reach. I'd say the same for West Virginia. Nevada could go either way but slightly leans McCain.
I think Colorado is a complete toss-up at this point, along with Virginia (which wasn't polled here).
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:01 PM
RaleighNC - West Virginia is a state that depresses me, I'll be honest. It has for decades. It's a badly economically depressed state with a massive education gap that's over-invested in a slowly failing industry (coal). But it's been a problem for decades, as I said - the Kanawha County textbook controversy predates this election by decades, and disturbs the hell out of me.
I think Obama is in the state's best long-term interests, because I think the thing that is needed is education and a respect for intellectualism, for diversity, etc. But it's a problematic state that needs change. Unfortunately, many of its problems are an insular focus that makes that change harder.
I don't like the state. But mostly, I feel sorry for it. It's a poor, under-educated state where people don't get the opportunities that a lot of us who have the luxury of arguing on the Internet at 3 in the afternoon get.
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:02 PM
Why is WV yellow? It's outside the 3% margin, although only barely.
@serpounce re: IL...there's Chicago, then there's the rest of Illinois. ;-)
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:04 PM
RaleighNC - I'm not sure. It may be that states with less data go yellow more easily.
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:20 PM
Snowspinner, what do you mean when you say you "don't liked the state?" I understand that it's economically depressed but wouldn't say that makes me dislike it. Not to mention that parts of West Virginia are spectacularly beautiful.
But say what you will about the people in West Virginia, the margin between McCain and Obama there is a hell of a lot closer than it is in a lot of states that are more educated and have more respect for diversity, etc. I mean I know what you are getting at but give credit where credit's due.
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:24 PM
sumd22 - It's a blast to drive through, I'll give you that. I should be more specific, though - I wouldn't want to live in the state. And I think that the state is, on the whole, more inclined towards some of what I consider the most unfortunate aspects of American culture.
I mean, not to harp on the Kanawha incidents, but I think it's fairly shocking how few people are aware that Wesst VIrginia was the site, only 34 years ago, of a terrorist plot by Americans that targeted children. Over textbooks and the teaching of diversity, Over teaching e.e. cummings and Gwendolyn Brooks, a Pulitzer prize winning poet. That's a state with serious, deep problems.
I'm actually really surprised by the number there. I would have thought Palin would play spectacularly in WV.
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:44 PM
As freedomreigns hinted at the IL number does call this poll into question. Anyone some ideas why that's so close?
Obama screwed downstate illinois over bigtime as a state senator(think mining, think education spending, think chicago bias)
Posted on September 17, 2008 3:50 PM
Obama won pretty much everywhere except that pinkish area in the south-central area. If "Obama screwed over downstate Illinois" as a state senator, doncha think it might have worked as an issue in the campaign?
Posted on September 17, 2008 4:18 PM
Snowspinner, every state in this nation contains a number of backward, narrow-minded, dangerous individuals. Thirty-four years is a very long time in terms of social justice and equality. Just try to imagine how things will be in 2042 when today's under-30 voters begin replacing today's 60-plus voters. Not to say that West Virginia does not have a long way to go, but perhaps not quite as long as some may think.
Justin - Oh, I know. I would love to see West Virginia start to develop some strong urban areas. But the infrastructure for that is just so far from being in place. (Compare to, say, NC where you had the coastal area, a number of cities, and a strong university system to build off of). I think it's a long and difficult process in WV though - one of the hardest state-wide problems in the country, really.
Posted on September 17, 2008 4:25 PM
9/11-13? This is rearview mirror data reflecting where the race was last week, before SNL's skewering of Palin had reverberated around the internet, and before Obama began his current offensive. Look for Obama to regain the edge nationally and in key battleground states in polling over a more recent period.
Posted on September 17, 2008 4:58 PM
Snowspinner: WV doesn't want you either.
That said these polls are coming in a lot closer to where I've been expecting things to fall. I still think McCain will likely win here but I'm back in battle mode, whereas a few weeks ago I had just about given up.
The reason WV stayed democratic longer than the rest of the south is because we have a traditionally very strong labor movement, less racial tension (if only because the state is overwhelmingly white) and a depressed economy. All of these things are still basically true, indeed the most republican area in the state is the eastern panhandle where the DC suburbs are leaking yuppies in at an alarming rate.
The more the economy tanks, the more WV is going to look like a winner for Obama, and all the mooseburgers in the world aren't going to make a damn bit of difference.
Posted on September 17, 2008 5:51 PM
buskertype - Indeed, WV does not want me. If they wanted me, they'd have universities to employ me.
The problem that WV has for the Democrats is that, while it is unionized, lacking in racial tension (which is significantly different from lacking in racism), and economically depressed, it's enormously prone to swinging on social issues. That's what was at the heart of Kanawha, and that was at least part of what was at the heart of Clinton's primary win there, when 22% of the electorate said that race was important to their vote - a segment that went 82% for Hillary Clinton - 18% of the electorate explicitly said race mattered, and they were picking the white candidate.
And that's the set that admitted it. And that's the Democrats. There may be a lack of racial tension, but there's no lack of racism.
Beyond that, though, the state swings hard on social issues. And is more than willing to vote against their economic issues because of them - unsurprising, given the lack of education (70% of the Democratic voters were not college graduates) that translates into a lack of understanding of economic issues (which are some of the most complex issues in the election), and the long-bleak economic outlook, which probably does not do wonders for the belief that the economy can change.
It's not a favorable state for Obama at all, and I'm shocked to see the numbers that it's doing that well.
Posted on September 17, 2008 7:48 PM
ARG's CO poll shows McCain up 2 there--well within the margin of error. However, it was in the field 9/10-9/13, meaning it picked up the tail-end of McCain's bounce and included 9/11 polling (a strong day for McCain). Also, it does not reflect the impact of two recent events--2 days of campaigning by Obama in the state, and the negative economic news of the last few days.
Posted on September 17, 2008 8:42 PM
ARG's NV poll (showing McCain up 3) was in the field during Palin's much-publicized visit there. Obama is visiting the state today.
ARG did not include Bob Barr in its questioning. NV has a Libertarian streak. Barr may steal some of McCain's support there.
The Research 2000 tracker shows Obama ahead in the West by 8 points. See:
Posted on September 17, 2008 8:49 PM
ARG's MT poll was in the field during McCain's bounce, yet shows Obama down only 2 there. ARG did not include the names of Ron Paul or Bob Barr in its questioning (both are on the ballot in MT).
Obama continues to have the airwaves to himself in MT. See:
Posted on September 17, 2008 8:57 PM
ARG shows Obama up 7 in NM. A just-released SUSA poll shows Obama up 8 in NM. See:
Obama visits NM tomorrow. If he holds the Kerry states and wins IA and NM, then he can win the election with CO or NV.
Posted on September 17, 2008 9:02 PM
A couple thoughts.
During the primaries, ARG had a pretty bad track record with their likely voter models until March when they finally got the formula right. I think they had Clinton winning WI two days before the primary when Obama won the state by over 20%.
It appears that IL, LA, RI and WV are closer than they should be, and NC seems farther apart than I would expect. However, when you dump so many polls at once, there are bound to be a few outliers thrown in for good measure.
It appears the polls closed either last Friday or Saturday. Since then, there has been a swing of 4% towards Obama in the daily trackers (except Rasmussen, and I think they changed their party affiliation weightings.) If you take that swing and apply it evenly to each state (not necessarily a valid method, but close enough), CO, MT, and NV flip, WV is tied (which I discounted earlier), and LA (again a weird one), MO, and OH are within 3%.
These are LV polls. Since the core of Obama's support is minorities and youth, which tend to be filtered out under LV screens, this could be artificially supressing his number.
Posted on September 17, 2008 10:22 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR