10/4-5/08; 647 LV, 3.9%
Obama 53, McCain 40
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:21 PM
A lil blue anyone?
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:22 PM
Time to make New Hampshire solid blue!!!
This is one less state that McCain can win in order to reach the magic number of 269/270.
Sarah Palin's terrorist jabs have minimal impact on the election because of the state of our global economy.
Good night and Good luck.
Third poll in a row with double-digit Obama leads. I live here, and this surprises even me. I'm happy, mind you, but surprised.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:23 PM
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:25 PM
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:26 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised, looks like McCain's road is just getting tighter and tighter....
Paint it blue !!!
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:27 PM
So, how many polls with Obama up 10-13 will it take for the regression model to decide what everyone knows--this is not a tossup state in the current environment?
Sorry for the triple play. The site gave misleading feedback.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:28 PM
Boom.. care to comment? I guess we can close the book on NH!
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:29 PM
This confirms it, New Hampshire is no longer a tossup. Last three polls:
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:34 PM
McCain feeling blue? :)
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:35 PM
Since I am not one of those delusional Obama-haters/McCain-supporters, I have to bring to your attention the fact this poll, in my "humble" opinion, is too skewed to the democratic side.
This is what I am talking about,
This poll gives democrats an 8% party ID advantage; however, in 2004 it was the Republican party who had 7% party advantage at the polls in NH. Do I believe that the Republicans will have this Nov. 4th, the same party ID advantage they enjoyed back in 2004? No, that probability is second to none.
In my opinion they will be almost even % of Dem. and Rep. in NH this Nov. What will happen in that case? Well, most probable Obama will be ahead.
If we use the same party ID from 2004 in NH, with 35% Rep., 25% Dem., and 44% Ind:
McCain 47% Obama 45%
Even in McCain's best case scenario, without anything changing from 2004, the race is in a dead heat.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:36 PM
I sincerely hope boom hasn't killed himself in shame at the sight of these polls.
Come on Pollster.com, Let's see NH blue on the map. At least light blue?
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:38 PM
Sorry guys, I messed up the numbers :-)
With 2004 party ID: 32% Rep, 25% Dem., and 44% Ind.
Obama 47% McCain 46%, Anyway dead even!!!!
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:42 PM
Well, that sucks. I was really hoping for a tie and some nation paralyzing House drama. Looks like that's not likely any more. Darn.
Despite the three polls, I still have a hard time believing this. On the other hand, if you look at the numbers in some other states (e.g. VA), those seem unbelievable, too. There comes a point in time when enough unbelievable numbers become believable. We are getting close to that point.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:44 PM
"without anything changing from 2004"
Are you kidding?
Let's say that on election day, party ID in NH is as follow:
32% Dem., 32% Rep, 36% Ind.
The result will be: Obama 50% McCain 44%
Poor McSame :-(
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:46 PM
Don't you get my point? Even in the best case scenario, which is pretty delusional at this point, McCain is not winning the state. So people can see in how deep a whole McSame is, in a state that was supposed to be "very friendly" to him.
*I think that a more "sober/neutral" scenario is the equal % party ID.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:50 PM
Party affiliation will be nowhere close to what it was in 2004 in any state, NH being no exception. NH is not realistically in play for McCain anymore. NH is a good bellweather state for people who see through the "Maverick" smell test. This I think is a state where Palin really hurt more than helped McCain.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:55 PM
I totally agree with you, Trosen. If there is a state where Palin really hurt McCain, it was NH. Those people up there doesn't like the religious/neo-con stuff; they are indeed kind of Libertarian more than Republican.
Again, my point was to illustrate as to how deep of a whole the McSame campaign is :-)
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:59 PM
6 straight NH polls have shown Obama ahead there; and the state is trending more and more his way--+1, +1, +4, +12, +10 (right-leaning Rasmussen), and +13. While the party ID numbers of this SUSA poll may be improbably favorable toward Obama, adjusting these numbers to reflect the party breakdown of NH voter registrations does not help McCain enough for him to overcome a 13-point deficit.
Today's Research 2000 tracker has Obama up 38 points in the Northeast, a region that includes NH.
At one point, conventional wisdom said that McCain's best pickup opportunity was NH. Now, the question is this: Does McCain have any top-tier pickup opportunities?
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:13 PM
Has the fact that this race has changed so fast made it so the 'more sensitive' radio button in the NH graph had to be turned off? I'm guessing that a trend line would give an insane result (like 75 vs 25).
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:27 PM
Wow. I thought I was making a difference when I went to New Hampshire to canvass. But I didn't think I'd propel Obama to a double-digit lead! XD
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:44 PM
I noticed that too - don't know why the "more sensitive" option is off. It's not available for NM, either - but it works for OH/CO, even TX!
I just sent a mail to pollster, will probably get a response soon.
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:53 PM
NH has been turning bluer with each election. Two years ago the state legislature and senate went democratic (with a reelected Democrat for governor) for the first time since the 1800's. Our 2 Republican US Reps were voted out in favor of Democrats and it looks like one of our Republican senators is about to be replaced.
I was dubious of earlier polls showing a closer race.
NH voters do pay close attention to politics. In a small state with a legislature of 400 reps and 24 senators, it's easy to be involved. People eventually saw what was going on and ditched McCain.
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:54 PM
"Party affiliation will be nowhere close to what it was in 2004 in any state, NH being no exception."
According to this article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/us/politics/05flip.html):
"In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined."
If the Rs had a 7% advantage at the polls in 2004 (that is NOT necessarily an indication of what party ID actually was, though), and this year the Ds have picked up 'more than three percentage points' while the R share declined, the state may very well have an equal number of registered Ds and Rs.
Posted on October 6, 2008 2:04 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