Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NationalJournal: MN, PA, WI (10/16-20)

Topics: PHome

AllState / National Journal
10/16-20/08
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

Minnesota 402 RV, 4.9%
Obama 50, McCain 40

Pennsylvania 412 RV, 4.9%
Obama 51, McCain 41 **

Wisconsin 405 RV, 4.9%
Obama 53, McCain 40

** Corrected

 

Comments
Trosen:

Gallup down to 6.. trolls rejoice.

____________________

mandalorianarmy:

Nothing new here. These polls have a really high MOE so I'm surprised there aren't some really wonky results here.

____________________

IWillWorkHarder:

Umm, are the PA numbers reversed?

____________________

mac7396:

Those PA numbers suck.....for McCain and Boomshak.

____________________

ZanzibarBuckBuckMcFate:

I assume those PA numbers aren't correct...

____________________

JoelR:

PA should be Obama 51 - McCain 41

____________________

couseydee:

That looks about spot on for MN and WI.

____________________

hou04:

PA numbers posted on here should be reversed... it's Obama 51 McCain 41

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20081025_1548.php


Looks good. These are very small samples, though.

____________________

mirrorball:
____________________

tar_heel:

Yup, the PA numbers are just boomie's wet dream, i.e., reversed. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20081025_1548.php

____________________

PortlandRocks:

It's a common pollster.com typo. Just check at National Journal's website. It's O up in PA.

____________________

Indiana4Obama:

Obama with a 7 pt lead in Gallup and a 7 pt lead in Ras, and the state polls all look great.

With 12 days left things certainly appear to be in Obama's favor. Mccain will need to make these numbers move dramatically over the next 12 days.

Obama also has a 1/2 hour of prime time next Wednesday, which should help offset any Mccain gains over the weekend.

____________________

Thatcher:

Yes ... the PA numbers are wrong (at 1:13 PM eastern time)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20081025_1548.php

Should be:
Minnesota 402 RV, 4.9%
Obama 50, McCain 40

Pennsylvania 412 RV, 4.9%
Obama 51, McCain 41

Wisconsin 405 RV, 4.9%
Obama 53, McCain 40

2nd poll today showing double digits for Minnesota
4th poll today showing double digits for Pennsylvania
3rd poll today showing double digits for Ohio

____________________

PortlandRocks:

Ok kids! It's time for, Can boomshak find the SILVER LINING?:) From today's polls so far.

Texas Rasmussen McCain 54, Obama 44 McCain +10
National Rasmussen Reports Obama 52, McCain 45 Obama +7
National Gallup (Traditional)* Obama 50, McCain 46 Obama +4
National Gallup (Expanded)* Obama 51, McCain 45 Obama +6
National Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Obama 52, McCain 40 Obama +12
National Hotline/FD Obama 48, McCain 43 Obama +5
Ohio Big10 Battleground Obama 53, McCain 41 Obama +12
Pennsylvania Big10 Battleground Obama 52, McCain 41 Obama +11
Michigan Big10 Battleground Obama 58, McCain 36 Obama +22
Minnesota Big10 Battleground Obama 57, McCain 38 Obama +19
Wisconsin Big10 Battleground Obama 53, McCain 40 Obama +13
Iowa Big10 Battleground Obama 52, McCain 39 Obama +13
Indiana Big10 Battleground McCain 41, Obama 51 Obama +10
Illinois Big10 Battleground Obama 61, McCain 32 Obama +29
Pennsylvania Morning Call Obama 52, McCain 42 Obama +10
National GWU/Battleground Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Ohio Quinnipiac Obama 52, McCain 38 Obama +14
Florida Quinnipiac Obama 49, McCain 44 Obama +5
Pennsylvania Quinnipiac Obama 53, McCain 40 Obama +13
California PPIC Obama 56, McCain 33 Obama +23

____________________

tar_heel:

@indiana
Agreed--what we see here is convergence of the two most respected polls (Gallup and Ras) to a figure of 6-7 percent that is very close to the RCP average and, most likely, spot on at the moment.

____________________

RussTC3:

I don't care if the polls narrow some because it would be strange if that wasn't the case.

All I want is a 3-5 point lead heading into November 4th. That should be more than enough to win the election on a state-by-state level.

____________________

NB:

People, Pollster.com has a strict policy to have a typo in every post. Cut them some slack, typing numbers is HARD.

____________________

political_junki:

My guess is today boom will LOOVE gallup

____________________

Slappy:

Quick, take a screen shot before they fix the PA numbers and send it to McCain! His PA strategy is working!

____________________

MancJon:

Come on Pollster.com, love the website, but so many typos!

____________________

MancJon:

@Slappy:

Haha that's a brilliant idea ;)

____________________

PortlandRocks:

Boom loves whatever polls gives him hope. 4% on election day with TRADITIONAL voter turnout would be a LANDSLIDE on election day. Bush won by 1.5% and was up 1.5 % in the polling average before election day '04. I'll take a 4% lead on TRADITIONAL turn out anytime.

____________________

MancJon:

@Pollster.com:

Cheers :)

____________________

mysticlaker:

It's clear where we are. Obama has between a 6-7% national lead. It has bounced between that for the last 3 weeks. Nothing has changed. Not one thing...He around 52%, and McCain has a ceiling around 45-46%.

The remaining battlegrounds will only add to the Obama's victory at this point. Florida, NC, Indiana, Ohio, MO.

____________________

deeznutsrepubs:

Designer suits from Neiman Marcus - $75,062

Manolo Blahniks and "accessories" from Saks Fifth Avenue - $49,425.74

Designer fashion items from Bloomingdale's - $5,102


Making sure a mentally handicapped, bat-**** crazy governor from Alaska gets nowhere NEAR the White House - PRICELESS!

____________________

Dave:

If they're going to do MN, then what about the MN SENATE race???

____________________

mac7396:

Swoooooooooosh!

Boomshak's dream of continuing 4 more years of disasterous George W Bush policies, gets flushed down the drain.

____________________

sunnymi:


Rasmussen will report MN and GA polls later today.

____________________

ErnieLynch:

Obamites, Onward to Utah!!!!

____________________

maizelightning:

Question/Comment on 10/23 Gallup article regarding first time voters: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111415/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Has-Modest-Lead-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

Gallup is detecting no change in the percentage (13%) of "first time voters" ("FTVs") who are likely to vote in the 2008 cycle. This can be ascribed to the usual apathy among that group or, as Gallup surmises, perhaps the FTV pool has diminished during this cycle because of a 10% increase in FTV during the 2004 cycle.

But I am wondering about the number of FTVs in the 2008 cycle in absolute terms. We keep hearing about the increased difficulty over the last few years, a trend expected to continue demographically for at least one or two more years, for college bound seniors to be accepted to their colleges of choice. That phenomenon is a function, we are told, of a large demographic increase within that age bracket.

So, even if the FTV likely voter percentages are static vis-a-vis 2004, wouldn't the actual number of likely FTVs in that demographic still be increasing disproportionately in relation to the rest of the population?

____________________

Thatcher:

@sunnymi -

My bet is Rasmussen will show MN at +8 for Obama

____________________

maizelightning:

Oops. Wrong link. Here's the one I referred to above: http://www.gallup.com/poll/111331/No-Increase-Proportion-First-Time-Voters.aspx

____________________

NYCREALAMERICAN:

Sample sizes are too small. Numbers are probably right - but just on accident.

But for TODAY'S BIG LAUGHER:


Eight out of 10 Voters Aware of Powell Endorsement
October 22, 2008
While 80% of registered voters are aware of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president, only 12% of this attentive group say the endorsement makes them more likely to vote for Obama, while 4% say it makes them less likely to vote for him.


OK TELL ME WHO IS THE 4% LESS LIKELY TO VOTE FOR BO B/C THE FORMER SEC OF STATE HAS ENDORSED BO?

It does remind me of a funny post I read in yesterday's DK about undecided voters. Which made me literally laugh out loud on the train, causing quite a ruckus.

____________________

Atomique:

That 4% consists of racists who don't like either Powell or Obama, I'm guessing.

____________________

NYCREALAMERICAN:

But it wouldn't make them less likely. It would have no effect b/c they were already voting against him! Though maybe you're right - racists aren't the brightest bunch. Either way, I just count it as 80% know about it, 12% have been influenced positively by it (probally less in terms of actual voting influence). It could be the reason we are seeing a 2 pt. mini bounce to BO. Boy that half hour special should nail this sucker down tight.

____________________

RussTC3:

That +8 Obama advantage in the Powell more/less likely question is good.

____________________

NYCREALAMERICAN:

But it wouldn't make them less likely. It would have no effect b/c they were already voting against him! Though maybe you're right - racists aren't the brightest bunch. Either way, I just count it as 80% know about it, 12% have been influenced positively by it (probally less in terms of actual voting influence). It could be the reason we are seeing a 2 pt. mini bounce to BO. Boy that half hour special should nail this sucker down tight.

____________________

Disco Stu:

@NYCREALAMERICAN:

That 4% includes Rush Limbaugh and his happy hoards of hooligans!

____________________

cinnamonape:

"Maizelightening:Gallup is detecting no change in the percentage (13%) of "first time voters" ("FTVs") who are likely to vote in the 2008 cycle. This can be ascribed to the usual apathy among that group or, as Gallup surmises, perhaps the FTV pool has diminished during this cycle because of a 10% increase in FTV during the 2004 cycle."

And how precisely is Gallup "detecting" this. How can one ascertain changes in the likelihood to vote amongst FT Voters? One can, I presume, make a prediction of turnout based upon PAST patterns, but to presume that this somehow would PROVE there is going to be "no change" in the 2008 cycle seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

Unless there was an election within this cycle that would show the pattern. Are they using primaries? My understanding was that there was a massive increase in first time Democratic primary voters this primary season. This was such an unexpected increase that it created chaos at the polls. Wouldn't THAT experience lead them to presume the opposite of this claim?

Also if we look at Early voting...pretty clear that there have been substantial increases THERE as well. And while many of those are older voters...numerically there is a substantial increase in the under 24 age group...and African American voters. Hard to assess if these are, indeed, "first time voters", but they are in the demographic categories where new registrants have been occurring.

____________________

maizelightning:

Cinnamonape: I imagine the way that Gallup ascertains whether FTVs will vote is based upon screening questions that provide insight into whether a particular voter will actually show up. I can't vouch for Gallup's methodology, but I most pollsters (I think) using FTV screens in order to arrive at their LV models.

My question, above, is predicated on the assumption that Gallup's FTV observations are valid -- I fully accept that Gallup could be wrong -- and I'm really trying to get at the question of whether, even if the LV FLV percentages between the 2004 and 2008 cycles are static, we should still expect an disproportionaly increase in FTVs during the 2008 cycle.

____________________

ruyen:

If anyone heard Democracy Now's show yesterday, you'll know that voting machines are already flipping Obama votes to McCain and the move to steal the election (like Ohio's hundreds of thousands of lost votes in 2004) is already in motion.

Point being: Don't let up, continue to donate/volunteer, and don't get content, even if Obama goes up 20pts in every single state please keep working towards victory.

____________________

maizelightning:

Once again, this time in English:

Cinnamonape: I imagine the way that Gallup ascertains whether FTVs will vote is based upon screening questions that provide insight into whether a particular voter will actually show up. I can't vouch for Gallup's methodology, but most pollsters (I think) use FTV screens as part of their LV models.

My question, above, is predicated on the assumption that Gallup's FTV observations are valid -- I fully accept that Gallup could be wrong -- but I'm really trying to get at the question of whether, even if the LV FTV percentages between the 2004 and 2008 cycles are static, we should still expect an disproportionate increase in FTVs during the 2008 cycle.


____________________

carl29:

It is clear that in PA Obama is above 50%, which is really good for him. McCain is in the very low 40's.

AVERAGE: Obama 51.2% McCain 40.8%

Big10 Battleground 10/19 - 10/22
Obama 52 McCain 41

Morning Call 10/18 - 10/22
Obama 52 McCain 42

Quinnipiac 10/16 - 10/21
Obama 53 McCain 40

National Journal/FD 10/16 - 10/20
Obama 51 McCain 41

Susquehanna 10/16 - 10/18
Obama 48 McCain 40 Obama +8
=======================================

Anyone wonders what would be McCain's numbers in PA if he had picked Tom Ridge?

____________________

durek:

So I belong to the NRA out of necessity because all the coaching credentials and certifications I need for my Trap Shooting team are cheaper if I am a member. Consequently I get all their smarmy publications and see more than my share of blatant lies and cherry-picked truths every election cycle. They have unleashed a massive lie-based smear campaign against Obama. Factcheck.org debunked most of them and I did my own research on several issues I was unsure about and found more lies from the NRA. FYI - the NRA attacked Factcheck.org because factcheck.org received money from a group that shared a board member with the Brady anti-gun campaign - even though factcheck.org has received many donations from pro-gun groups and has even been critical of anti-gun political adds when they are untrue. I've sent the NRA more than a few emails saying they should be ashamed of themselves for such a deceitful campaign.

So I got a call from the NRA's political grass roots efforts this week. It went something like this:

NRA caller: "Hi Mr. Peters. This is Bob with the NRA political action call center. I'd like to play a short recorded message for you from Chris Cox, the head of the NRA's political office, and then get your opinion about this year's presidential election after that. Will you hold on the line for a quick message?"

Me "Sure"

Recorded message: goes on to say how Obama is the most anti-gun candidate in the history of time and voted to ban all guns and tried to pass a law prohibiting anyone from owning or carrying guns for home or self protection, blah, blah, blah. All sorts of lies from their pet website "gunbanobama.com". It ends by saying "I hope you don't wake up on November 5th to find the anti-gunners in control of our government and knocking on your door to take away your guns!"

NRA caller: "Mr. P, after hearing that message, do you believe Barack Obama will protect your second amendment right to keep and bear arms?"

Me: "Yes, I absolutely do."

NRA caller pauses for a second the says "You do?"

Me: "Yes, I do because I've done my homework and researched every one of those accusations and found them to be utterly false. I am ashamed to be a member of the NRA when I hear these lies over and over again in such a critical election year. The NRA should be ashamed of itself for lying to the American public at a time like this. Did you know that John McCain has voted against pro-gun bills twice as often a Barack Obama? Probably not because you, like the majority of the NRA members, take the NRA's word as gospel and never do your own research. Barack is not in favor of banning all hunting ammunition, nor did he vote for any sort of bill to that effect. He's not going to take away anyone's right to defend themselves or their family or any other lawful use of firearms. These facts have been documented many places but the NRA continues to lie to it's membership. I think it's pathetic that anyone would believe these things without doing at lest a little of their own research. And I think you should be ashamed of yourself for helping them spread these lies. I will most surely be supporting my second amendment rights and putting this country back on its feet when I vote for Barack Obama on November 4th. And you'd be smart to do the same."

NRA caller: "Alright . . uh . . you have a nice evening, Mr. P."

click.

The NRA pisses me off. I wish I didn't have to belong to their stinking organization. At least it gives me a chance to "know my enemy".

____________________

RaleighNC:

ruyen, please. Don't even start that. I am controlling the magic button and I have not flipped any votes in Ohio...yet. Are you sure they weren't talking about Florida? I did switch a few thousand down in the Tampa area. :-)

____________________

cinnamonape:

Thanks for the link, Maize lightening. I think what Gallup is showing is NOT how many people (or %) within the new registrants/new voting group wil ACTUALLY vote...what they have found is that the % of the total registrants has remained the same. That means that there has been a constant replenishment at the same rate (13%) in the registered voter pool since 2004. In that election there was an increase in under 30 year old turnout of 30% from 2000.

Gallup says "Each presidential election brings a new wave of voters into the electoral process. And although there is speculation that Obama's candidacy -- given his appeal to young and minority voters -- could bring an unusually large number of first-time voters to the polls this year, the proportion of registered voters who say they will be voting for the first time is no higher than it was in 2004. This to some degree may reflect the high turnout in 2004, which was about 10 points higher than it had been in recent elections, and thus would have significantly diminished the available pool of potential first-time voters for the 2008 election. Thus, the fact that the 2008 estimate of first-time voters is no lower than the 2004 estimate may still reflect an impressive influx of new voters this year, even though it may not be proportionately higher than in the last election."

So before 2004 there were many unregistered, apathetic and "discouraged" unregistered eligible voters. Many were registered at that time with the efforts of ACORN and other groups. That increased the voter pool by 13%.

Consider this. The "natural" demographic increase of the voting pool should only be the percentage of the population becoming eligible through age increase (and naturalized immigrants) over the 4 years. 2.3% of new 18 year olds enter the adult population every year. So that meant the the natural pool of eligible individuals within that 4 year range was about 9.2%. Yet they were able to get 13%. That's 3.8% more than expected. That meant there were a large number of individuals ABOVE the expected registration levels signed up (discouraged voters, an increase above the registration levels of the general adult population, etc.).

One way to consider what had occurred is to say that not only were registration levels of new voters at the pace of the general increase of young people in the population (at the standard registration rate of that group) but as if there were nearly two additional years being registered.

Now we might expect that there would be a depression back down to the 9.2% level if ACORN etc. swept up all the discouraged voters in the previous cycle. But they have continued apace.

____________________

ruyen:

@RaleighNC
The segment of yesterday's show about machine malfunctions and Ohio in 04:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes

____________________

DTM:

In my experience around 5% of respondents to any broad poll will support even the craziest propositions. I think if you took a poll asking, "Is the Earth really just a big meatball in a giant plate of spaghetti?", you'd get a solid 5% saying "yes".

____________________

Dave:

FRANKEN LEADS outside the margin of error in Franken leads Coleman in Senate poll

the new Univ of WI Poll...

Franken 40.2
Coleman 34.2
Barkley 15.1


http://www.startribune.com/politics/32973894.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUF

____________________

MDB1974:

Any polls coming out of CO?

____________________

Ryguy:

have we seen enough double digit leads in PA to stop calling it a "Battleground" state. seeing as pollster and RCP dont have it as such, how about we stop endulging republicans in the fantasy. this state is not going red this year... sorry...

____________________



Post a comment




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.

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