10/16-20/08; 403 Adults, 5%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 44, McCain 40, Paul 4, Barr 1, Nader 1
Oh my, oh my! They are falling like dominoes.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:28 PM
haha.. turn it blue baby.. (no chance)
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:30 PM
As I noted elsewhere, this seems to be indirect confirmation of those North Dakota polls.
By the way, Kerry + Iowa + NM + Colorado + Virginia - Pennsylvania is 265. Montana and North Dakota get you to 271.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:32 PM
Hmmm...we should keep in mind that this is a survey of adults. I wish we had a source for info on early voting in MT, but it probably wouldn't be helpful since MT doesn't have partisan registration I guess...
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:35 PM
DTM.. somehow I think you'll see a more likely path to 270.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:36 PM
*This* is why it's important to include 3rd party candidates in your poll questions.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:44 PM
DTM, I thought Kerry + Iowa + CO + NM was enough in itself (273?)? I don't feel like checking a map, but I think you're a bit off).
jme, makes a good point, this is adults, not even registered voters, I still really doubt MT goes blue.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:45 PM
Sure. But in the off chance that somehow Pennsylvania flips without all the other polls being completely wrong as well, it actually could become a question of whether Obama could find another handful of electoral votes out west. And as another poster pointed out, it is conceivable that the sort of campaign that McCain would need to win Pennsylvania (again, on the hypothetical assumption that is even possible) would drive up Obama's vote in the west.
Again, though, I generally agree it is highly unlikely that this will be a relevant conversation.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:48 PM
DTM, sorry I missed that you were giving PA to McCain.
No ****ing way.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:49 PM
Notice the "- Pennsylvania". This is all in reference to the idea floating around that although the public polling for McCain in Pennsylvania looks grim, Pennsylvania is actually within reach, and could singlehandedly win him the election despite Obama gains elsewhere.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:50 PM
What's the difference between a Pit Bull and a Hockey Mom?
You can feed a pit-bull for 483 years with 150 grand.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:56 PM
What you sneering critics in the liberal MSM fail to see here is... a Jobs Program! Saks floorwalkers, cashiers, a team of sweating porters to haul the merchandise from the store to the motorcade... chiropractors to treat those porters. Sarah Palin knows how to create jobs!
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:57 PM
Certainly I would have preferred RV's. But why would we think that RV's would necessarily be different in Montana than the Adults in general regarding this race? There are no large minority populations that might have a registration disparity in Montana. Thus we might find that RV's actually mirror the Adults at large in this state.
Posted on October 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Brian Schweitzer would have been an awesome VP pick. Biden was probably a little safer, but I Schweitzer is a really interesting character.
Posted on October 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Did anybody see the IBD/TIPP poll today? They have it down to a 1pt Obama lead, 45-44.
The kicker - McCain leads Obama among the 18-24 age demo, 74-22.
Is it time now to just totally ignore this poll. I mean, Obama and McCain have similar leads among their parties and Obama actually went up a point among indies and now has a 5pt (v 4pt) lead among that group, 44-39. But he's only up by 1.
They just can't be taken seriously.
Also note that TIPP, the pollster, stopped posting results for the poll on their own site after 10/20, when Obama had a 6pt lead. Hmmm....
Posted on October 23, 2008 3:04 PM
Posted on October 23, 2008 3:58 PM
In the process of their grand surge, did the McSame campaign not notice that one of their outposts had been seized by enemy commandos?
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:01 PM
"Bandwagon Effect" is starting to kick in, in states like Montana and Georgia.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:02 PM
OGLiberal not to mention, AND I DIDNT KNOW THIS TILL TODAY, but IBD/TIPP told me so. Did you know the electorate consits of 1% African American? All this and OBAMA STILL LEADS THEIR POLL? WOW!
Na na naa na, na na naa na, hee-eeey, goodbye...Seriously, if McCain wins this race it will be the comeback of a century.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:04 PM
Lots of disappointed Obamabots Nov. 4th.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:07 PM
You can thank Paul, Barr and Nader for this. Governor Schweitzer said that they will be a factor and he was right.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:08 PM
I looked at the "issues" responses in the poll and the sample didn't appear to be particularly "liberal" in the MT poll.
As well they said that there was no age differentials in the poll. So that would mean that they didn't oversample a student group or something that might increase the Obama responses. In fact, from what I've heard, younger people might be a tad more likely to support Obama in Missouri.
Wish they had posted the Democratic/Republican/Indy raw numbers.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:09 PM
IBD/TIPP would like you all to stop trying to figure out how they are cooking the poll to come up with their number.
Noticing that 18-24 year olds are going for McCain by 50 points and pointing out the shocking lack of AA in the poll is unhelpful.
Obama losing PA is a bigger reach than Obama winning either MT or ND. What, 4 polls today +10-13? Either way, NV, MT, ND, MO, NC, FL, OH, IN, WV are all icing on the landslide cake. VA is the key to the White House this year.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:12 PM
If true, Obama can thank Ron Paul.
I rather doubt it. In '04 that state bush bush by +20. The sample is very small.
It would be increadible to see the whole canadian border (except the tiny idaho-canada border) turn blue.
I don't believe BO will win MT, still the simple fact that we have to consider that hypothesis shows mccain is looking increasingly like the Titanic.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:13 PM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't believe this poll. The size is small. I think we are competitive but not ahead by 4.
according to the information in their summary this is a poll of adult "likely voters" don't know what screen they use but it is NOT just adult voters.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:17 PM
CBS Poll: Voters Increasingly View McCain As Negative
The latest CBS News/New York Times poll will be released at 6:30pm ET today but a sneak peak at it shows that an increasing number of voters see John McCain as running a negative campaign while more see Obama as explaining what he would do as president.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:18 PM
Let's take a look into the past. MSU 2008 vs. MSU 2004:
MSU, 10/16-20 (10/7-10, 2004 in parenthesis)
Obama 44 (34)
McCain 40 (55)
Obama +4 vs. Bush +21
Obama is performing 10 points better than Kerry and McCain is doing 15 points worse than Bush.
Guess what the final result in the state was in 2004?
That's right, Bush +20.5.
They nailed it in 2004.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:20 PM
This is pretty stunning, and may help explain some of the recent trends.
Rural battleground moved toward Obama during October
Would be amazing if Obama can win MT.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:27 PM
JerryTheAngel - "'Bandwagon Effect' is starting to kick in, in states like Montana and Georgia."
Exactly right. People are starting to ask themselves "Don't I want to be on the winning side?"
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:28 PM
I'm not forgetting that MT went blue for Clinton in '92 (though a fairly high number, compared to other states, voted for Perot that year). It's possible, and would seem to fit with ND's tightness, and even SD's surprising closeness. Still quite a few undecideds though.
Adults?? Adults???? Two weeks before the election. That's absurd. it shouldn't even be included in this site or it's averages. Take 10% off Obama for likely voters.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:36 PM
As you said, Clinton won Montana because of Perot:
That's why Paul being the ballot is so key. He won't get nearly as much support as Perot, but he could be a big factor.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:37 PM
Yeah, actually 538 has a good writeup about that: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-aka-nate.html
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Did you have an issue with MSU's 2004 poll that I referenced above?
They sampled 411 Adults back then and nailed the final result.
By the way, any adult in Montana who is at least 18 years old, citizen of the U.S. and has lived in Montana and the county they intend to vote in for 30 days can register up through the close of polls on election day.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:44 PM
Wow. It's a small sample, with a 5% MOE, but still... Montana going blue? If Colorado, Nevada, and Montana go blue, this will change the "brand" of the Democratic party. All that the GOP will have left is the ghost of the Confederacy.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:47 PM
The state did elect Jon Tester... democratic senator/farmer for Obama. I know some pretty liberal people that have lived there too. While not likely I wouldn't be THAT surprised. Wasn't there a recent poll that had Obama within 4 or 5 in GA too? Obama is going to have a HUGE popular vote number. Blue states are going to be midnight blue and red states are going to be slightly pink.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:52 PM
Raw data from NC early voting available. If you take these numbers and apply them to Survey USA and Ras crosstabs, Obama has asignificant lead.
data is available at
Dem Gop Other Total
Onestop 439,754 174,733 122,214 736,701
Civilian 25,645 49,336 14,391 89,372
Military 1,448 1,501 1,104 4,053
Overseas 891 441 583 1,915
467,738 226,011 138,292 832,041
56.22% 27.16% 16.62%
Obama McCain Spread Spread
SUSA Model 55.42% 39.58% 15.84% 131,767
Ras Model 59.76% 38.63% 21.13% 175,806
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:53 PM
Only two Dems have managed to grab 44% of the Montana vote in a Prez election since 1964.
2004 38.6% Kerry
2000 33.4% Gore
1996 41.2% Clinton
1992 37.6% Clinton
1988 46.2% Dukakis**
1984 38.8% Mondale
1980 32.4% Carter
1976 45.4% Carter**
1972 37.9% McGovern
1968 41.6% Humphrey
Clinton was the only one who won the state (1992) .
**ended up with more than 44%
Quite a last sentence, logic001. No doubt you realize the great irony of such a scenario: The modern Republican party traces itself to Lincoln, from whom the Confederacy seceded from.
But the Repubs would still have, uh . . . Utah and Wyoming solidly in that intermountain region. Hey, those states have are pretty big in terms of square miles.
Posted on October 23, 2008 4:56 PM
Huh... I Figured Ron Paul would be able to grab 10% in the polls (but not come election day).
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:06 PM
MT does non-partisan registration, and in effect, it isn't even necessary to register - you can show up and vote day of. That's why the sample is adults, most MT polls are. And it is LV adults.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:10 PM
Montana is never an impossible state for Democrats, as long as the national lead is significant. Most heavily red states have at least 40% conservatives but Montana is always in the 36-37% area. That is a significant difference. In fact, the 18-36 gap between liberals and conservatives in the 2004 exit poll is only a few points low and high from a true swing state. If you want a reference point, it's virtually identical to Missouri, which was 19-36 in 2004.
Montana suffers from too little Democratic emphasis in presidential years. The low number of electoral votes makes it a luxury pickup.
BTW, the Intrade price on McCain winning Montana has dropped almost 18% based on this poll.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:13 PM
Missoula is the second largest city here and will vote 75% Obama. The indian reservations will vote 100% Obama. Bozeman and Helena will go slightly Obama while Butte will go strongly Obama. Obama has been running lots of ads here targeted at gun owners. There are also many people moving here from the east coast and California who tend to be wealthy and liberal. Finally, if it appears McCain is going to lose on election day by a significant amount, I predict many conservatives will vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote.
This is an extremely small sample with an MOE of 5%. Montana and ND will be red.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:16 PM
"Adults?? Adults???? Two weeks before the election. That's absurd. it shouldn't even be included in this site or it's averages. Take 10% off Obama for likely voters."
You seem to be assuming that Republicans in MT are more likely to vote than Democrats. Or perhaps you think there is a minority group in MT that votes at a lower rate than the rest of the population. Both of these statements are true about some other states, but not MT as far as I know. There is no reason to think that a random sample of adults will vary significantly from a random sample of registered voters.
Furthermore, MT is a heavily Republican state. If Obama wins there, or comes close to winning, it will be because many Republicans vote for him. They are just as likely to go to the polls as their fellow Republicans who stick with McCain.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:23 PM
I suspect you might see a late scamper toward Paul in MT if enough fiscal conservatives figure McCain's a lost cause.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:26 PM
My uncle is a Montana Republican and will be voting for Obama. I don't know if this is a trend or not. (I'm in MN and no nothing about MT culture or politics)
I've seen a lot of lifted F150s with Obama stickers lately.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:32 PM
are you being sarcastic, 59801?
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:39 PM
No. It's different here. Guys don't buy expensive trucks to pick up high school girls like they do in most states. There are a lot of hardcore hunters who like Obama's stance on wilderness issues. We are still dealing with the effects of deregulated industries on our environment.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:50 PM
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:51 PM
www.presidentelectionpolls.com/tools/electoral-vote-calculator.html Check out the link. The numbers are pre-set from the 2004 election. Bush won 286 to 252. Bush won Iowa in 2004. If Obama wins Iowa, and Virginia he wins the election 272 electoral votes to 268 electoral votes assuming he wins all of our blue states. It takes 270 to win.
The poll numbers are reverting back to what they were in August. Obama stands a good chance of winning, and winning big BUT ONLY IF PEOPLE GET TO THE POLLS AND VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN! Let's win at the voting booth. We can't win from poll numbers. Do not be complacent because of poll numbers. We don't want another 2000 fiasco where our United States Supreme Court decides the Presidency. Get to the polls and vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden!
VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND LETS GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:53 PM
Get out the vote dude! :)
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:55 PM
As I said, I don't know much about MT. Allthough my uncle, a life long republican is voting for Obama.
I think MT may be similar to MN in it being a more populist state. That would explain the high Ron Paul numbers as well. (he is quite popular here too).
Obama definatly comes off as more of a populist than does McCain.
Posted on October 23, 2008 5:58 PM
Yep, the Northwest could go Blue with little effort - let's get more regular MT, ND and SD polls. Has Obama woken up to this possibility yet - is he planning to drop by the area in the next two weeks?
Posted on October 23, 2008 6:00 PM
I do agree, they should be polling MT and ND more. I suppose the small population doesn't generate much interest.
Posted on October 23, 2008 6:05 PM
many people our missing a sinificant point here. Montana allows registration up to and including election day. Therefor any screen that uses registered voters would sreen out pontential voters. they have started therefor with all adults and applied a likly voter screen. Under the circumstances this makes perfect sense.
Posted on October 23, 2008 6:16 PM
many people our missing a sinificant point here. Montana allows registration up to and including election day. Therefor any screen that uses registered voters would screen out pontential voters. they have started therefor with all adults and applied a likly voter screen. Under the circumstances this makes perfect sense.
Posted on October 23, 2008 6:17 PM
If MT and ND go blue, we'll be looking at LANDSLIDE! AVALANCHE! TSUNAMI!
What's next? Nebraska? Texas? Alabama? Larry the Cable Guy won't find work anywhere.
Posted on October 24, 2008 10:13 AM
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