Hays Research Group (D)
8/6-7/08; 400 Adults, 4.9%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 45, McCain 40, Nader 2
Wow, Obama leading in Alaska? This is a great news. I wonder if the problems of that old fart Ted Stevens is having an impact on the presidential race! Alaska is supposed to be as red as the deep South!
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:02 PM
A partisan pollster (and yes, I'm equaly skeptical of Republican pollsters), all adults as the polled group (yes, I know some people not currently registered may register before November, but if "likely voter" models at this time are often too narrow, "all adults" still looks like too broad a sample), a large margin of error, results diferent from most other polls of the state--color me skeptical. (Though I don't deny that Obama will probably do considerably better in Alaska than Democratic presidential candidates usually do. But that's a long way from a five point lead...)
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:06 PM
They only called households that had at least 1 person vote in 2 of the past 4 elections. Still, shouldn't they at least ask the person answering the phone if he/she is registered to vote? They only screened for ages 18+...
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:09 PM
The outlier of the week? There may be another Alaska poll showing Obama ahead but I do not see it. 538 has McCain projected at +7.5
Is it possible there is a reverse coattails effect from the Senate race where the Democrat Begish is projected as likely winner over the scandal ridden Stevens ... or is this a statistical anomaly? Alaska has voted for the Democratic candidate only once - 1964.
With three electoral votes, if Obama stays within striking distance, let' see if either candidate exerts resources there. Of the four states with 3 electoral votes (AK, MT, ND, SD), MT would seem to be the best bet, although none of the four are totally beyond reach at this point for Obama. Having said the above, he does not need any of the 3 electoral vote states, as long as he picks up all Kerry states, plus Iowa, New Mexico and any state from CO, VA, or OH. A loss in all three would mean Obama would have to win Nevada and one of the three electoral states above.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:10 PM
This is probably an outlier.
I maybe be mistaken, but 4.9% seems to be pushing the envelope for margin of error.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Maybe next we'll see Obama +10 in Utah.....
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:16 PM
The icebergs must really be melting up there. Why would you even do a poll like this? It is obviously phony. They must have polled democrats only.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:32 PM
I don't know why people think this poll is so unreasonable. Alaska is the youngest state in the country. The very popular GOP governor recently praised Obama's energy policy. The Republican mayor of Fairbanks just endorsed Obama. Obama has opened offices across the state whereas McCain has none. Alaska is in play.
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:41 PM
Virginia, Montana, and now Alaska! This is just a guess but I think you Repubicans have a serious message problem. Next state to go purple will be North Carolina.
The decision by the RNC to mock Obama has flopped. The public is not in a light-hearted, jovial mood. The Paris-Brittany ads angered a lot of people because the Republicans were assuming that the public is stupid and will be easily tricked. All the indicators are pointing to the fact that this is not 2004 and the Bush/Rove playbook is not working!
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:47 PM
Eric or Prof. Franklin: If your trend estimator is designed to be resistant to the effects of any one poll, I don't understand why this one skews the Alaska trend lines so much, as they now have Obama leading 44.6/41.9. It was pretty lopsided in McCain's favor before, with four July polls showing him leading by 3 to 10 points. Not trying to pick a fight, but just wondering. (Have already read your "How We Choose..." posts)
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:54 PM
Valid poll or not...you guys on the left gotta get over Bush...he's not running. I can see the slogans now in 2032, Don't vote for Bush X. Take out the GOP with ideas...quit saying what your not and say what you are.
Obama is my hero!
Posted on August 12, 2008 3:55 PM
"Valid poll or not...you guys on the left gotta get over Bush...he's not running."
Yes he is, he's running for president, he's running for Senate, he's running in every congressional district from now till the problems he has caused have been fixed.
Posted on August 12, 2008 4:14 PM
Right....and follow the white rabbit down the rabbit hole too. The great left wing logic in play, justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior....I love it, sounds like a winner to me! Stick with it......
Posted on August 12, 2008 4:17 PM
I really don't trust partisan, virtually unknown pollsters. So, no comment on my part:-)
Posted on August 12, 2008 4:32 PM
I'm sorry. For now, this is an outlier. As has been noted above - too general sample (adults - though not sure Alaska registers by party or otherwise). If he is a partisan - I automatically ignore the poll regardless.
But it's nice to dream of a nation united in blue and purple.
Posted on August 12, 2008 5:21 PM
"Valid poll or not...you guys on the left gotta get over Bush...he's not running. I can see the slogans now in 2032, Don't vote for Bush X."
How utterly stupid would it be for Democrats to be running against Bush in 2032, 24 years from now?! Oh, wait. That's exactly the same thing John McCain did when explicitly tried to link Obama to Jimmy Carter. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1126247.aspx
So, since you guys are still running against Carter 28 years later, I figure we get to **** on Bush until at least 2036, or longer considering how much more unpopular Georgie is. That's how badly Bush has ruined your party's image. No more whining about Bush; you elected him so just get used to your party being tied to him for the next generation.
Posted on August 12, 2008 5:37 PM
Although I have no first hand knowledge of this, I do believe that Alaska is ready to "throw the bums out".
Senator Ted Stevens was indicted for lying about taking kickbacks. Their Representative Don Young is widely expected to be indicted at any time for the same. In 2006 their long-time senator turned governor, Frank Murkowski, lost in the Republican primary with just 19% of the vote due to corruption charges, and although Murkowski wasn't charged, his chief of staff plead guilty to a felony. Murkowski also appointed his own daughter to the Senate seat that he vacated in 2002 when he was elected the Governor in a clear act of nepotism.
One might think that it would take Hell freezing over for Alaskans to vote for a Democrat for president, but Hell has in fact frozen over, and it should come as no surprise that shortly after the Stevens indictment, Obama polls higher than McCain.
Posted on August 12, 2008 6:21 PM
I was speaking in jest!!! I know liberals don't laugh because they are busy looking for victims all the time, but jus tmake an effort once in a while!
Posted on August 12, 2008 6:23 PM
Extraordinarily close to being within margin of error. Interestingly if one took away the "undecided leaner" then the numbers are Obama 42-McCain 39.
One needs to know that Alaskan voters are mostly Independent or undeclared, then Republican, and very small number of Democrats.
Silly that one thinks that a GOP Governor in Alaska would endorse Obama. She is very pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-oil drilling.
Posted on August 12, 2008 6:45 PM
I doubt it's "phony" as you say, but I bet in actuality Alaska is more on the McCain side of the margain of error than the poll suggests.
McCain's lead has been slowly shrinking in AK, but with that being said I think this poll by itself should be taken with a grain of salt and we should wait for a few more polls to come in.
Basically this poll is probably an outlier, but it also leads me to believe the DailyKos poll with McCain +10 is also an outlier as most of the other polls are only showing the +2 to +5 range for McCain.
Posted on August 12, 2008 6:52 PM
It just amazes me at how many lines you have memorized and regularly parrot on these boards. It's not even like you even understand what you are saying, but you certainly believe what you are saying because someone or something has made you just simply hate any and every aspect of anyone that isn't a Republican.
Please at least try to use some facts or content for a change instead of mischaracterizations, gross generalizations, insults and outright lies.
Posted on August 12, 2008 7:09 PM
lol. This is STILL GOOD NEWS FOR MCCAIN according to the Republicans. Granted Alaska hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964 and Bush won Alaska by over 20 points...
BUT STILL - THIS HAS TO BE GOOD FOR MCCAIN!
Posted on August 12, 2008 9:31 PM
This poll only included respondents who have voted at least twice before.
Posted on August 12, 2008 9:35 PM
BTW, one of the reasons Obama is doing so well in Alaska is because he's doing advertising up there and McCain is not.
Every single poll before this one had the race down to single digits, so this isn't what I would call an outlier.
Posted on August 12, 2008 9:38 PM
Some very good points made in this thread, and of course the normal bile spewing dead-ender authoritarian enabler trolls... Here's a little food for thought.
According to 538.com, the state tracking polls for Alaska since May have shown Obama staying within a 6.8 polling average. That's a major shift alone from 27 points that Bush beat Gore by, and the 37 points that Bush beat Kerry...
This Hays poll may be slanted due to a partisan bent and/or it may be questionable as to the demographic polled. And the 4.9 moe is quite telling. But even with all that considered, one cannot overlook that in a state such as Alaska that was handily won by Bush versus Gore in 2000 by a 59/28 margin, in addition to a win by Bush over Kerry in 2004 by a 62/35 margin, there are apparently either some real unhappy campers in the land of the midnight sun, or balf faced liars when polled (Bradley effect).
And for all the dead ender trolls that have nothing good to say about anything ... come on by and visit.
Silly as It Seems
Posted on August 12, 2008 9:47 PM
I am not too confident about this poll. This poll does allude to Obama's overall strategy (or at least what it ought to be), though. Obama will try to pick-off western red states. This strategy leads to one of two outcomes: a) McCain drains money on this extended battlefield and loses an Ohio or a Virginia or b) McCain does not spend any money in states like Alaska and Montana, leading Obama to pick-off an handful electoral votes. Under both scenarios, Obama probably wins.
Posted on August 12, 2008 9:56 PM
Ya gotta get a sense of humor, lighten up a bit. From the comments you post on here it is you who lack the general understanding of events....I've said before on here that I know liberals think they are smarter than the rest of us, but at least learn to chuckle a bit in your intelectual superiority. It'll make ya a happie person. It'll be easier for you tax all those evil successful people out there. Keep up the good work, I actually get a laugh out of some of your posts as they are right off page 1 in the left wing handbook.
Stop calling me a Republican.....you need to learn the difference between a Repub and a conservative. You Obamaniacs...come on, just laugh a little...
Posted on August 12, 2008 11:43 PM
@ pollsters this is far less an outlier than the Florida In Ad poll I just looked at. It is actually quite indicative of the verdict on the stupidity, for those in the know (Alaskens)of McCain's Drill here and now policy pronouncements.
The Alaskens know that it takes between 7 and 10 years from the start of drilling to be commercially productive. So McCain actually has been found out as being cynical in Alaska where Drilling without cast iron protection for the environment is an Imperative NO NO. My view is that Obama wins Alaska and
@Stillow Obama wins Nevada as well!
PS The situation with the oil price is linked to supply and demand which really hasn't had a great problem and instability in the Oil producing world where there has been a problem largely due to the Iraq war, some in Nigeria, some naturally with hurricanes and VERY IMPORTANTLY the prospective situation with Iran. The price of Oil started to fall when the Iran situation improved with the despatch of US Under-Secretary Burns to talks with Iran. Consequentially the US dollar has also risen in value due to recession fears in Europe and that has also added to the collapse of the oil $ price as opposed to as big a drop in Euro or Sterling price! Oil was being used as a hedge against a weak dollar.
Posted on August 13, 2008 6:00 AM
Posted on August 13, 2008 6:01 AM
As an Alaskan (born and raised, not some transplanted southerner), I feel obligated to correct people's opinions. Alaskans tend to vote republican nationally, and we have a medium republican majority in state offices but the vast majority of Alaskans are registered as 'independent.'
The largest 3rd party in the state is the Alaskan Independence Party.
Also, my man on the ground feeling is that people vote republican up here out of habit. Historically, Democrats tend to create very man constraining laws about what can be done in our local forests and land (seriously, it is a big deal. All we have are forests, so the environmental constraints really get in the way of building basic infrastructure), and Republicans up this way tend to have a more hands off 'libertarian' attitude.
I mean, with a republican majority we have no death penalty, abortion is legal and obtainable (if your town is big enough to have a doctor or has a road [much of alaska is like the 3rd world, we need pork to overcome that]) and 2oz. of marijuana is legal to own in your own home (for personal use).
Our republicans are not like your Republicans and it is only recently that our ignored, provincial population is picking up on that.
Posted on August 14, 2008 8:01 AM
GW Bush won Alaska by about a 30-point margin in 2004, and Alaska has been consistently far closer than that this year. Several states (most notably Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) have done much the same this year. Some non-partisan polls (example: Rasmussen) have shown Obama within five points in Alaska. Five-point leads can disappear quickly, and widespread corruption within a Party that has been the only game in town can pull down such a Party.
John McCain is not responsible for the alleged corruption of the Alaska GOP -- but he could at least have publicly encouraged Ted Stevens to resign for the good of the Republican Party. But he has either done nothing or he has done it ineffectively behind the scenes. Alaskans may not forgive him at the polls in November. That is their choice.
Because of polls that put McCain ahead by only about 5 percent, and because I see corruption in Alaska politics so pervasive that it could discredit a Party as lesser scandals did in Ohio in 2006 -- I consider Alaska even more of a tossup than a State like Missouri or Michigan, where the margins are slightly less.
I consider Alaska a tossup because of a dynamic situation. One partisan poll -- or even one with suitable provenance -- won't convince me one way or the other.
To put it another way, the margin of error for the US Presidential race in Alaska is so large that anything less than a 10% margin is shaky. Maybe the 5% GOP advantage for the last few months was genuine -- but this race has become dynamic in what must be the most stunning manner possible.
Posted on August 14, 2008 6:14 PM
Partisan poll that the Hays Poll is, it may have caught a political dynamic that other pollsters haven't -- yet.
Alaska is far closer in 2008 than it was in 2004, as shown here (see also Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota):
and it is possible that pervasive scandals among elected Republicans in Alaska can manifest themselves in a pervasive distrust in the GOP that for years delivered the goods.
Five-point leads can dissipate over time on politicians' gaffes, economic distress, military disasters, and minor scandals. Nothing brings down a candidate so quickly as does a personal scandal, and even if John McCain isn't personally culpable for Alaska politics, he could at least have encouraged Senator Ted Stevens to step down for the good of (at least) the Republican Party and the chances for the McCain candidacy. McCain either failed to do so, or tried to do so ineffectively. One expects the presumptive nominee to show some moral spine about others' corruption -- but we have yet to see it from McCain.
The Governor, one Senator, and a Representative - the state's one representative. That's the trifecta, and it's not good for the GOP in Alaska. I can't imagine how bad it is.
Lesser scandals led to the collapse of the GOP in Ohio in 2006. Nobody can tell how suddenly a combination of scandals, all involving alleged misuse of power by State and Federal elected officials, can wreck a Presidential campaign in a State... but this set is with no memorable precedent. Unprecedented circumstances imply unprecedented consequences.
The GOP may have lost Alaska for a couple decades.
Posted on August 14, 2008 6:32 PM
George W. Bush is still (to my disdain as a social liberal, a fiscal conservative, and a rigid Constitutionalist) President, and his performance as President has impact on every race contested race in America. President-- Senate -- House -- state offices -- local offices...
About all that Dubya can succeed at right now is to charm people who still have resolute belief in the Hard Right and have large balances in a checking account balance to be spent on politics. He can still charm people who believe in 2008 as in 2000 that the ideal America is a pure plutocracy. His promises to plutocrats can be kept private, and it's probably just as well. Those promises would cause many cases of apoplexy if exposed.
Any politician who tries to attach himself to Dubya's agenda gets huge money -- but also an association with problems. Democrats need only show a time and a date of a meeting between any GOP politician and Dubya.
Even without the abject failure and ethical lapses that most of us associate with Dubya, the agenda has gotten stale. The Democrats can win by doing two things: associating major candidates with the unpopular President and bringing up his record. The Republicans must keep people confused and scared. It's that simple. That worked in 2000 and 2004.
It amazes me that this Presidential race is as close as it is. Most of the Bush/Cheney coalition is intact.
We are at a lull in the Presidential campaign -- Michael Phelps is getting far more attention than the Presidential candidates. It's just as well right now. Meanwhile the Swiftboaters release their book and get copious publicity on FoX News (or as I call it, "The Propaganda Channel") and get to start the usual whispering campaign with their usual trial balloons chosen not so much for truth as for credibility, each trial balloon dropped if it fails and kept up if it succeeds. The Conventions are yet to be held, and all sorts of things can happen. We are going to see stirring speeches and we are going to see gaffes. Nobody can predict who will make which. We will find the VP picks -- with opportunities and risks. We will see new advertisements.
The focus will go soon enough from Beijing to Denver and in turn Minneapolis. Many of us will be sick of electoral politics in the middle of November.
Posted on August 16, 2008 2:49 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