Well - I think that says it all.
Posted on November 1, 2008 3:08 AM
What does this say?
Posted on November 1, 2008 4:03 AM
I agree, Thatcher. I hadn't realized how far behind we were in 2000. Guess I'd just taken for granted when not one friend or relative voted for Bush (when some had supported his father & Reagan) and out of 40 co-workers (most adamant, vocal Gore supporters--health care workers tend to hate guns) only one dared express support for Bush here in Detroit's western suburbs.
Posted on November 1, 2008 4:07 AM
Interesting how oscillation dampened 3 weeks before all three elections. Also: Deviations between the last week of polls and the election margins in 2000 and 2004 both went to the better-known candidate (Gore over Bush and then Bush over Kerry). May suggest that Obama will lose a little support at the end, but probably not enough to change the outcome.
Posted on November 1, 2008 7:43 AM
I love this graph! Thanks for updating it.
Posted on November 1, 2008 8:03 AM
Using this single source it shows 00' was stolen, and 04' was "legitimately" won, yes?
Posted on November 1, 2008 9:10 AM
I'm old and decrepit and can't remember exactly what was going on in those 100 days before the last two elections. Could you overlay one or two additional data points? How about:
- Interest Rates
- Gas Prices
What data points would jog our memories? I'll bet some of these would paint prophetic pictures.
Posted on November 1, 2008 9:30 AM
Using this single source it shows 00' was stolen, and 04' was 'legitimately' won, yes?
No. This source shows that in 2000 Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. This has happened 3 times in U.S. history (as I recall). It can only happen when the popular vote is extraordinarily close. No one has ever disputed that Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
"What does this say?"
It says that in 2000, the actual vote for was ~2.5% higher for the Democratic candidate than the polls predicted, and in 2004 the actual vote as ~1.5% lower than predicted. This means that polls are remarkably accurate, because the margin of error is usually around 3%. Going into an election, if the polls show one candidate leading by 3 ~ 4% you can't tell who will win. However, Obama is ~6% ahead and that is wide margin by the standards of presidential elections, and it indicates that he is likely to win.
Posted on November 1, 2008 10:35 AM
The drama in this election is how strongly Obama (and the Congressional Dems, too) will be able to claim a mandate. If he manages to dig deeply into the West (ND, MT) and Southeast (VA, NC, GA) it will create shockwaves.
The GOP is just aiming for a loss, rather than a devastating loss.
Posted on November 1, 2008 12:09 PM
2000: bush was ahead for 6 weeks prior to the election, his biggest deficit was only 3.5%, 2 months before the election...
let's look at the derivative (rate of change)
max ~ 0.35%/day...
so if history is any reference the biggest swing we can expect in 3 days is ~1%...
all this show is that mccain has an apparently insurmountable task in front of him...and that anyone ahead this late in the game (regardless of margin) wins...
movement with less than 1 week
even if we say obama's lead is only 5% (average, it'scloser to 6) it appears to be over for mccain...
electoral votes look even worse for him...
Posted on November 1, 2008 12:55 PM
so if history is any reference the biggest swing we can expect in 3 days is ~1%.
The data from 2 elections is not enough to draw any definitive conclusions.
Personally, I think the polls are underestimating Obama's support. Early voting results seem to support this theory.
Posted on November 1, 2008 1:12 PM
Anyone know where I can see what state initiatives are up for a vote this year? The only ones I've heard about are Prop. 8 in CA and the ones here in WA.
Posted on November 1, 2008 1:14 PM
let's put this in perspective:
the steepest rate of change in 2000/2004 ~0.35%/day...
for obama to get to 0 lead: 6%/3 day ~ 2%/day
an order of magnitude of 6 times...unlikely...
let's say it drops 2 times history...0.7%/day
MoE from 2000 2.5%
6% - 2.5% - (3 x 0.7%) ~ 1.5% advantage obama
but honestly it appears that the dip is recovering and obamas lead is increasing, at least the slope is decreasing...
look at the early vote: majority dems, young, first tiem voters...ominous for mccain
mccain better hope for a lot of closet racists...
Posted on November 1, 2008 1:21 PM
todji, I'm not sure where you can go to get a review of state ballot initiatives this year but there are 3 being pushed by drug war reformers, a very complicated one in California aiming to stop overpopulating the prisons with drug users, one to legalize medical marijuana in Michigan and a decriminalization of marijuana (not legalization) in Massachusetts.
Posted on November 1, 2008 6:05 PM
Posted on November 2, 2008 1:43 AM
Comprehensive list of ballot measures:
Posted on November 2, 2008 1:47 AM
This data does not indicate whether it is using Galloup polls, Rasmussen, Zogby polls,IDB/TIPP,CNN or Fox polls etc. If you have studied statistics you will know that at this stage even Real Clear Politics polls are misleading as they tend to move towards the extreme figures. In 2004 IDB's polling was the most accurate, so at the moment it shows Obama with a lead of only 2%. Moreover, a popular vote does not decide the elections but it is the electoral votes which will decide. It seems that if the people continue to pay attention to most of the opinion polls which are giving misleading results the result will be disappointment and frustration on election day as this race looks too close to call at this stage and both Obama and Mccain have 50-50 chances of winning!
Sohail Sober Khan
Posted on November 2, 2008 6:10 PM
this is an average of all polls I believe. IBD was a statistical anomaly in 2004. Or “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while”. I would not hang my hat on one poll, when the average of all the others is so different.
Posted on November 2, 2008 8:30 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