Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Quinnipiac Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin (7/14-22)


Quinnipiac University/
Wall Street Journal/
washingtonpost.com
7/14-22/08
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

Colorado (1,425 LV, 2.6%)
McCain 46, Obama 44 (June: Obama 49, McCain 44)
Sen: Udall (D) 44, Schaffer (R) 44

Michigan (1,684 LV, 2.4%)
Obama 46, McCain 42 (June: Obama 48, McCain 42)

Minnesota (1,261 LV, 2.8%)
Obama 46, McCain 44 (June: Obama 54, McCain 37)
Sen: Coleman (R-i) 53, Franken (D) 38

Wisconsin (1,094 LV, 3%)
Obama 50, McCain 39 (June: Obama 52, McCain 39)

Click here for the full results.

 

Comments
Mike_in_CA:

not great news for Obama, but it does show the pitfalls in fluctuating "Party ID" polls like Quinnipiac, and the relative stability in fixed Party ID polls like Rasmussen. Obama leads among Dems in CO by a similar margin as McCain among Reps, all while leading by ~10 points among indies, yet is still losing by 2 pts? Something seems odd considering the Reps only has a 2% Party ID advantage in 2004 and everything since then points to a surge in Dem Party ID....

Nevertheless, it was commonly understood that Obama was on a downswing. This trip and the convention will probably boost his numbers for good. I just can't see McCain having any more good months...

____________________

OGLiberal:

I think three of these are reasonable enough. MI and WI are pretty much status quo and similar to other pollsters' numbers from those states. Colorado is a bit off from other recent numbers from that state but not that out of hand. But there's something wrong with the MN numbers. It's a 15 point shift from their June poll and Rasmussen just released a Minnesota poll yesterday that had Obama +13. And the Pollster.com avg. for MN before this poll came out was Obama +16. The MN one is an outlier for sure.

Poll all these states in about a week and my guess is that the numbers will swing back to Obama in all of them. Most of this shift is probably due to McCain running tons of "Obama is going to steal your gas!" ads in these states, ads that have gone pretty much unchallenged up to this point.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Mike -

Remember that Boulder has no students right now. That has to account for some of the difference. Also, this poll is so off when compared to the rass (which I don't believe either). But it is odd how much variation there is between the polls. Maybe quinni polled at an odd time, skewing the results. Note that mccains support hasn't changed from before in both michigan and wisconsin, obama's just has gone down. most of these are within moe as well.

I think you are onto something with party id, as I remember Udall winning handily in previous polls. Also, Coleman had been receiving bad press recently, so I'm surprised he is leading by as much as he is. It is moot in the case of MN, WI, MI. These are blue states that won't turn no matter what. Colorado will be closer, but the large college population should put obama over the edge there. (The convention will help as well - imagine 100K at mile high screaming O-BAAH-MAAH! O-BAAH-MAAH! O-BAAH-MAAH!)

After the speech at noon today in Berlin, and the press from it, you will probably see an uptick in support as well.

I still say the key will be on the east coast - the carolinas through florida. That will be the shocker on election night. After that, the west doesn't even matter.

Yikes, poor gramps, he probably thinks he still has a chance.

____________________

carl29:

I wonder what Undecided will say about this poll since he is a great supporter of Rasmussen. Actually, he considers Rasmussen better than this particular pollster, Quinnipiac. Yesterday, good Rasmussen released a poll with Obama up by 13% in MN and today Quinnipiac releases its poll with Obama up by 2%. If any other pollster comes out with polls from MN, I give Quinnipiac a little more credit, so I think that the truth could be closer to Quinnipiac than to Rasmussen. McCain has campaigned in the state but Obama has not gone back since clinching the nomination.

I think that as soon as Obama comes back he better start talking about the economy.

____________________

1magine:

Fluid race - fluid polls. If the Nat numbers showing a 3-4% lead are accurate (I know WSJ says 6 & 13- likely an outlier), there is no need for concern. a 3% Nat lead translates into a 97% chance of an electoral vote win. 4% Nationally is unimaginable - aan electoral college landslide. I know it may sound close to the brainless talking heads on the MSM - but it is elementary school math - 250 million voters X 3% is about 7.5 million people. That's allot of votes. More than the population of about 28 states combined. But it would be shocking (unheard of?)if McCain did not at least 2 or 3 times take the lead in some swing states and some national polls between now and election day. Not sure what President lead wire to wire from June on? Anybody know?

____________________

Undecided:

I am smiling about those who did not like the Rasmussen polls when Obama lost/McCain gained some points (and one got downright rude) and some said they would therefore wait for the Quinnipiac polls.

What do I say? Each poll is a random sample and is not definitive. It is silly to get emotional over a poll if one's chosen candidate does not fare well... especially when it is only a monthly "snapshot."

So.. I will address this month's "snapshot" and hope not to be personally attacked.

Not surprisingly ENERGY POLICY trumps IRAQ. Voters in each of these state supports offshore oil drilling by large margins. The narrative states that McCain's gains are most likely tied to his stance on energy, i.e. offshore oil drilling.

I thought that it was a very smart move when McCain decided to support the STATE'S RIGHT to determine if it wanted to lift the ban on offshore drilling (and consequently receive oil revenues).

I am not an oil drilling advocate, but I do support state's rights. My own state would unlikely lift the ban, and it has already taken a large lead over the feds (Bush, Congress) toward alternative energy. Already 2nd largest generator of wind power in the nation. Texas is Number One, which is ironic because it was Bush who started that program when he was Texas governor. And now oilman T. Boone Pickens is also leading the way toward more alternative energy and less dependence on foreign oil.

And here is a dumb move by Congressional Democrats.. In addition to saying "heck NO" to a summer gas tax holiday... they have also put forth that they need to replenish the Highway Trust Fund and very well may need to raise federal gas taxes by 6 cents/gallon. Really... gas becomes 24.5 cents and diesel becomes 30.5 cents. And the lower income suffer more, as well as farmers and truckers, and the price of food increases even more... and inflation goes way up again. Sure driving miles are lowered, but most people still have to get to work and eat.


____________________

carl29:

Undecided what about Rasmussen:

Colorado: Obama 50% vs. McCain 47%
Minnesota: Obama Obama 52% vs. McCain 39%

Now, there is the challenge dear Rasmussen has Obama doing better than Quinnipiac. Which one do I give more credit? I have said it all along I prefer Quinnipiac, not political ties to Fox News and those right wing nuts. Regardless of whether Barack is doing good or bad, I don't feel comfortable with Rasmussen alone. I rather trust bad numbers from Quinnipiac than good numbers from the Republican Rasmussen.

P.S: Dear Undecided, The Hispanic Pew Research got news for you.

The nationwide telephone survey by the Pew Hispanic Centre released on Thursday said 66 percent of a sample of 2,015 registered Latino voters polled said they backed Obama, with 23 percent supporting McCain, a senator from Arizona.

Wait, it only gets better:
The most strongly Democratic group based on location of origin remains Puerto Ricans, who favor Obama, 73 percent to 14 percent.

Undecided you are definetly a pro on hispanic voters. Teach me about us!!!

____________________

Undecided:

I have no idea why carl29 stated that I was a great supporter of Rasmussen. I have never stated that I prefer one poll over the other. What I have said many times is that one should compare Rasmussen polls with Rasmussen polls, i.e. Brand X polls with Brand X polls... because of the different methodologies.

In the case of the Quinnipiac polls as they have stated:
Colorado: McCain is up by a nose 46 - 44 percent, compared to a 49 - 44 percent Obama lead June 26;
Michigan: Obama tops McCain 46 - 42 percent, compared to a 48 - 42 percent lead last time;
Minnesota: Obama edges ahead 46 - 44 percent, compared to a 54 - 37 percent Obama lead;
Wisconsin: Obama leads McCain 50 - 39 percent, compared to 52 - 39 percent.

P.S. If McCain selects Romney as his VP... the odds for Michigan going for McCain increase significantly.

____________________

RS:

So if one were to believe Quinnipac - and no reason not to, even if they drastically mischaracterize Obama's position on a US withdrawal from Iraq a la their sponsor WaPo (and surely WSJ) ;-) - Obama's primary-win bounce has almost disappeared in these four swing states.
As per Gallup, Obama is +8% in purple states (victory margin less than 6% in 2004, including these 4) in June-July, compared to +2% in March-May. Quinnipac's data for CO/MI/WI/MN in June and July puts Obama's margin at +11% in June and +3% in July, for a net of +7%, which is just below Gallup's numbers.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109036/Obama-Gains-Over-McCain-Swing-States-Since-June.aspx
(via Pollster, of course)

And yes, I have noticed McCain's false ads blaming Obama for rising gas prices (I live in CO). They air quite frequently; so do Obama's, but thus far Obama's have been positive. Not to mention McCain's creative reconstruction of historical timelines, and generous help from the MSM (WaPo/CBS/etc.)

@carl29: CO is within MOE for both Rasmussen and Quinnipac. MN is a different story, however!

____________________

carl29:

How about all the analysis you shared with us, especially me, a latina, about your tremendous knowledge on hispanics. Please enlight me!! Last night you seemed to be totally convinced. What has had changed in a couple of hours?


____________________

Undecided:

Well, carl29... I do not see your point. I agreed that Puerto Ricans vote Democrat (e.g. Hillary in New York for Senator and they happen to love the Clintons and I should add the Kennedys)... but there was a caveat that the GOP (beginning with Jeb Bush) made inroads into the PR population in FLORIDAI... BUT I never said that the majority PR in Florida now vote GOP. Please pay attention.

My biggest issue with you was your biased stereotypical comments about all Cuban-Americans being "corrupt" and all PR voters being just like "Mexican" voters (as I pointed out... PRs are already U.S. citizens and thus immigration is not a big issue with them). I hate bigotry in any form.

Also being Latino does not make one an expert in the very diverse Latino community. (And I know this firsthand because I have both Chicano and PR friends.) That would also mean because of my mixed cultural heritage that I could then speak for all Irish/Scots as well as all Native Americans... but I would not dare to do so because I understand the concept of "pluralism."

____________________

Undecided:

I acknowledge that the McCain ads against Obama regarding energy is slanted as are most political ads. Did you notice the Obama chants in the background of the gas pump/oil drilling ad?

But so are Obama's ads and campaign speeches where he states that McCain voted "against alternative energy in 2005." If one pays close attention (and I do on energy issues) one then realizes that Obama is referring to McCain voting AGAINST the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill that was full of perks for Big Oil and Big AG (corn ethanol) with some small handouts for wind and solar. Both Durbin and Obama voted FOR the Bush/Cheney energy bill (over the objections of many many Democrats) because they got some substantial pork for both Illinois corn ethanol producers and nuclear (Illinois leads in use of nuclear power) for their state.

____________________

carl29:

So, if mexican-Americans voted for Arnold in California that's that means that Mexican-Americans will vote for the Rep. Nominee.

Now, look at what at said last night at 11:52 p.m.

"Puerto Ricans are democrat, period. Clinton or not clinton Puerto Ricans just like Mexican vote democrat."

"Quick facts: Puerto Ricans are even more democratic than Mexicans. There is no doubt that all the "boricuas" will as always be behind the democratic nominee, who happens to be Barack Obama."

Your answered was:
"Puerto Ricans are NOT just like the Mexican vote. Most notably, Puerto Ricans are all U.S. citizens and are not that tuned into the immigration issues like most Mexican-Americans are. Puerto Ricans are indeed considered Latino because of their culture and language, but one should realize that they are of many races/ethnicities (European, African, Amerindian, Asian, mixed)."


My question:
First, What does race has to do with how P.R. votes vs. how Mexicans vote? Quickfact: Since ALL latinAmerican countries are racially mixed, we all have black, natives, europeans, chinesse, arabs, so we have no issues with race, except by Cubans who do really have.
Second, Each and every hispanic voter, Mexican, Central American, or South American, IS a U.S. citizen, so what is the issue with P.R being U.S. citizen if every other hispanic voter is as well. I really don't understand your analysis of why P.R. are different than Mexicans, Central Americans, or any other hispanic group.

Here are compare what I said yesterday to what Hispanic Pew Research said today:

Me: "Quick facts: Puerto Ricans are even more democratic than Mexicans."

Hispanic Pew Research:
"The most strongly Democratic group based on location of origin REMAINS Puerto Ricans, who favor Obama, 73 percent to 14 percent."

Undecided, you are defenitely more in touch with the reality of hispanics than us latinos. You should right a book: "How Latinos think but don't Know yet"

____________________

Undecided:

I am afraid you are missing the finer points of MY narrative. I am reprimanding YOU for stereotyping Latinos, and I have never stated that Latinos do not vote majority Democrat.

____________________

Undecided:

Regarding Mexican-American voters having more interest than PRs on immigration issues.... A very large number of Mexican-Americans have family in Mexico as well as the U.S. who are not U.S. citizens. The families of PRs are already U.S. citizens.

____________________

carl29:

I am not stereotyping latinos. Latinos are not a race, latinos is a group of people from a region of the world but are not the same. It is like saying Asians, there are not the same people, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans are not the same. When I say that the fraud masters in South Florida are Cubans is because that's what statistics show. when I say that Cubans are racist, not just AA, but the rest of hispanics is because they don't hide it. I don't know where you live, but clearly you don't live in Miami, the home of hundreds of thousands of Cubans.

Ask any of your "hispanic" friends to translate to you the song, "Nosotros los Cubanos" from Marisela Verena. That's a perfect picture of the way Cubans interact with the rest of people here in Miami. Cubans love it because they know that is the truth.

____________________

carl29:

What does having family in Mexico or any other latin American country has to do with inmigration. What part of inmigration reform has to do first, with US citizens, hispanics or not, and second, with people overseas?

What do you mean by inmigration, regarding hispanics voters, clearly US citizens? Do you think that hispanic voters, US citizens, have any inmigration problem? What part of inmigration reform has to do with our families back in our countries of origin? I am really puzzled by this proposition.

This is a silly question I always get from my husband's friends back in Boston. Why are you guys so worried about inmigration if you are US citizens? Well, the problem is that we hispanics feel that the "ilegal inmigration" debate turned nastly anti-hispanic. Now, it is beyond legal documents; it is about standing up and pushing back against all those racist. Here in Miami it also has to do with pushing back against Cubans. That is the reason I registered as a democrat, to make up ground against them. I haven't been able to convince my husband though. He really likes to be independent.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

carl - please don't feed the trolls.

You are arguing with someone who thinks the "gas tax holiday" is a good idea. Enuf said.

mccain bots have nothing better to do than repeat their master's lies on various blogs. it really does get old after awhile.

I've said all along that the east coast is where the real battle is at - not michigan/wi/or mn. polls are cute but enthusiasm, party regis, and voter turnout win elections.

I hope gramps picks romney so michigan voters can shove it in the face of undecided-wannabe types this fall. The economy is f*cked - you think they are going to vote for the people that made it that way?


quinni is definitely better than rass- larger sample/ no robo etc. still, they are an outlier in mn/co. really, it seems so many have not heard about that word here. even good pollsters have them.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

carl - please don't feed the trolls.

You are arguing with someone who thinks the "gas tax holiday" is a good idea. Enuf said.

mccain bots have nothing better to do than repeat their master's lies on various blogs. it really does get old after awhile.

I've said all along that the east coast is where the real battle is at - not michigan/wi/or mn. polls are cute but enthusiasm, party regis, and voter turnout win elections.

I hope gramps picks romney so michigan voters can shove it in the face of undecided-wannabe types this fall. The economy is f***ed - you think they are going to vote for the people that made it that way?


quinni is definitely better than rass- larger sample/ no robo etc. still, they are an outlier in mn/co. really, it seems so many have not heard about that word here. even good pollsters have them.

____________________

Undecided:

I did not say the gas tax holiday is a good idea. I used it as a contrast to report that the Democrats are instead proposing an "increase" in federal gas taxes.

____________________

Undecided:

For someone who hates ALL Cubans, I am surprised you are clueless that many young Cubans are supporting Obama. Are they corrupt too, or just their elders? I am truly disgusted with the wholesale attacks on another ethnic/cultural group.

Agreed that some anti-immigration groups/candidates are using racist attacks..but these are mostly reserved for Mexicans. But that does not change the fact that immigration is a national issue, and Mexican-American families are most affected. Notably, I know several illegals, and all but one of them are Canadian.

____________________

RS:

@Undecided:
I assume your comment on the ads @1:17 PM was directed at my post.
Yes, it is kind of hard to miss the "Obama, Obama" chants - right after the "who is responsible for high gas prices?" question, with an image of Obama in the foreground. What makes me mad is that McCain blames Obama, even though McCain has been in Congress for 3 decades, while Obama has been in US Congress for just 4 years. And yet, Obama is to blame for rising gas prices?

I haven't seen an Obama ad that blatantly accused McCain of being responsible for something McCain did not do.

As for Obama's vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill. Much as one might personally detest nuclear energy due to problems associated with waste disposal, it is an inescapable fact that nuclear energy is the way of the future. Not solar (energy density is low), not wind (variable and only at specific locations - some of which, offshore, are apparently an eyesore to beachfront-property-owning folks.) In the interim, ethanol - ideally not corn, granted - is probably the easier route to replacing some gasoline consumption (I believe most newer vehicles are already flex-fuel). Brazil is a good example; they, of course, use sugar cane ethanol (though I am not sure about water usage for growing sugar cane). Drilling for oil is bad for the environment - need to move away from fossil fuels. So one person might call voting for that bill pork; another would see that as smart thinking, combined, conveniently, with smart politics. As for the handouts to Big Oil - well, (legislative) life's a compromise.

____________________

RS:

I must clarify that I haven't seen all Obama ads, just what I find on basic cable :-) [And what I sometimes see on the 'Net.]

____________________

carl29:

Hispanics who vote are US citizen and they are totally able to give green cards to their family, racist called it "chain inmigration." For example, I got my green card thanks to my marriage with my husband. When I became US I gave my mom green card. I also asked for my brother and his family' green cards. Eventually, my entire family, that is my mom, brother, nephew, niece, and sister-in-law can become US citizen thanks to me.

When you say that inmigration is a "national issue" we hispanics hear "we, gringos, are worried about latinos invading us." Obviously, that is NOT music to our ears. Although inmigration per se is not an issue for us hispanic voters, US citizens, thanks to our culture of solidarity and rebelion we stand up for the ones who cannot. We have a war cry: "El pueblo Unido jamas sera vencido" would translate more or less: "The people united will never be defeated." Now, thanks to republican xenophobia, this election are pretty polarized, we see it as us against them, them being the racists who have preached hate against us.

____________________

carl29:

When people talk about "young" Cubans, they mean Cubans of all ages that came after 1980, after Mariel, the second half of Cubans' migration. Those Cubans are in favor of regular relationship with the Island, lifting the embargo, and travel freely. However, most of those Cubans are NOT US citizens yet, as opposed to the older generation that came in 1960's. It is true that more recent Cuban inmigrants are a different "branch" of Cubans, but they don't have the numbers in terms of votes yet. The reason that hispanic vote is changing in Florida is thanks to non-cuban hispanics.

P.S: Cubans arrived after 1980 are totally against the older generation of Cubans, Los Intransigentes.

____________________

Undecided:

Uh... My reference to "young" Cuban-Americans are as the progeny of those who came to the U.S.... i.e. demographics of age/ethnicity.

____________________

Undecided:

What is this "we" chant stuff? I already acknowledged that some ANTI-immigration people are racist... but there are millions of immigrants who are not here legally. They are the worker base for our agricultural industry. So how does the U.S. address these issues... the need for agricultural and other workers, the legalization for these workers and families who are already here, etc. etc. etc. Ergo not all gringos are racists as you purport. Immigration is a national issue whether you like it or not. And notably where I live, Hispanics are a major population in the region. Some have been here for a very long time, but most are descendants from the "hero" Mexican workers who came to work in agriculture during WWII. Others are not here legally, but almost all are fully employed because there are not enough "legal" workers of any nationality to do very hard work.


____________________

carl29:

I am sorry to tell you that the sons and daughters of those right-wing old Cubans are right-wings too. Who do you think are the elected officials at county level and state level? Those old cubans who came in the 1960's don't even speak English. The parents were the corrupt politians back in Cuba and now their children are the corrupt politians here in the US.

Note: Hispanics tend to pass on, impose would say my husband, our "traditions" to our children. If I'm X religion or X political ideology, take it to the bank that I won't tolerate my children to voice any other opinion but mine. Welcome to the Hispanic world!!!

____________________

Undecided:

Regarding the energy issue... Obama blames Bush for bad energy policy and states that McCain is just an extension. Yet, it was Obama who voted FOR the Bush energy policy. Notably, McCain and Hillary (along with many Democrats) voted against it. If Obama and other Democrats who voted for the Bush bill had held out, then there would have been MORE alternative energy in the bill. Obama and Durbin votes were bought with pork for their state. This was big news in 2005 but Obama is trying to rewrite history... And I find Obama's stance to be truly hypocritical.

P.S. Big contributors to Obama over the years and now are people from BIG AG and Nuclear (Excelon) and Big Oil. He also lies to say that Big Oil "corporations" contributed to Hillary or McCain because NO corporations are legally allowed to contribute to candidates. Again... purposefully misleading.

The only thing that burns me more than Obama's energy misdirections (and I have been angry at him and the others since 2005) is his caving in to vote for the FISA bill and telecom immunity. Where is the courage of his convictions?

____________________

Undecided:

Continued stereotyping of "old" Cuban-Americans and their children as "corrupt." No facts, only bias. I am done here. I know you got my point, even though you choose to ignore it.

____________________

Bruce Moomaw:

During all the comment-thread squabbling over whether Quinnipiac or Rasmussen is more reliable -- despite the fact that poll error margins are sufficiently big (both statewide and nationally) that there's really no way to tell this with any confidence at all -- no one has commented on the one REALLY odd result from the new Quinnipiac poll. That's the fact that -- according to Quinnipiac (question #13) -- landslide majorities (12 to 20 points) in all four states are now opposed to us pulling out of Iraq on an 18-month deadline, but yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll ( http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080723_Released.pdf , pg. 5-6) showed the national electorate favoring a deadline by a 60-30 landslide!

So: wha' hoppen? Is it that one of these two polls is seriously screwed up? Is it that the NBC/WSJ poll just refers to a general "timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq", rather than a specific "18-month" deadline"? Or is it that the NBC/WSJ poll was taken a few days later (July 18-21) than Quinnipiac (July 14-21), and that during that time gap al-Maliki's statement that he agrees with Obama has had a huge impact on the voters? (In fact, the NBC poll explicitly tells the voters it's polling that "As you may know, the president of Iraq has said that the US should set a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.")

____________________

Undecided:

CNN just moved Minnesota to "toss-up" status on their electoral map.

____________________

carl29:

This is what I said:
"Now, it is beyond legal documents; it is about standing up and pushing back against all those racist."

First,I have never say that Americans are racist, so don't put words in my mouth. Show me where have I said "racist americans" I have even acknowledge that there are racist other than "Americans," everyone here in Miami knows that Cubans are also racist and would love that the US government get each and every inmigrant back to their country of origin. So, whenever I say racist I'm thinking about Bill O'Rilley, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Rush Limbaugh, and all others alike, including hispanics or fellow inmigrants who after coming here and getting their legal documents, don't want anybody else coming to the country. My husband says that this is the "last-coming-into-the-room-closes-the-door syndrome."

My husband is a gringo and obviously it doesn't bother him poor people coming here to work to better the life of their family back in their countries. My husband, my kids, and I have marched from inmigrant rights. We truly believe that there is a strong component in those who whine about inmigrants coming to this country to work. We are a totally pro-inmigrant family and we understand that there is much more than legal status, there is race involved as well.

____________________

carl29:

Why do you think that the Cuban Revolution came about? Who do you think are the Cubans that came in 1959 and the early 1960's? It is obvious that you haven't seen a Cuban not even in a picture. You have not idea about hispanics in general, let alone Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Dominicans, Peruvians, Chileans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Central Americans, Bolivians, Argentinias, Uruguayans. Understanding latin American culture and thinking requires a lot of history as well. Why do Cubans have issues with race, as opposed to the rest of latinamericans? Well, read Cuban history and you will find out.
Do Cubans have a political tradition of corruption? Cuban history. Ask Fidel!!

Why do you think there are latinamerican studies with especialization in specific countries? Latinamerica requires far from simplistic approach.

I really enjoy seeing that you guys have no idea about us. It makes me realize that we are very interesting people indeed. Viva La Raza Hispana!!!!!

____________________

skibum1981:

Those CO senate numbers seem quite a bit off....

____________________

carl29:

These all Cubans are called by the other cubans: BATISTIANOS. Do you know that is? What being a "Batistiano" means? Again, Cuban history, my friend.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

[comment deleted]

____________________

carl29:

You are obviously right onelightonvoice.

____________________

Tom:

This is starting to remind me of the primaries. Notice that in Michigan and Wisconsin there is no change in McCain's number, and in Colorado, the change in McCain's number is within MOE. I suspect this is because McCain has been able to instill some doubt into Obama supporters, who are now undecided, but not sold on McCain. During the primaries, we noticed in a lot of states, the Clinton/Obama number tightening, but it really was just Clinton supporters going to undecided, but returning to Clinton when voting time came around, especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Could we be looking at the same thing here? We would have to look at the demos for who the undecided are. If they are a lot of younger voters, or minorities, they could very well come back to Obama by the end of the campaign.

Another thing I suspect is the likely voter screen may be getting rid of a lot of Obama's core constituency, especially younger voters who haven't been voting historically, but appear to be energized by the junior senator from Illinois.

____________________

Paul:

For President:

Pollster.com, 538 and RCP all have CO a toss-up. After Ohio, 538 has CO as the next most important state, tied with MI. Obama appears to need one state from OH, VA or CO. If he only wins CO, he still needs IA, NM and all Kerry states (or if he loses NH - he needs NV) to win.

As to MI, Pollster.com has this state as strong DEM, 538 says leans DEM, and RCP has MI as a toss-up. Per above, MI equal to CO in importance. Since 1992, MI has been more friendly to DEM's than OH by 6.5 points on average. A reasonable scenario says Obama can win the election without Ohio, but not without Michigan.

As to MN, projections have Obama as safe or likely. Since 1992, MN is more friendly to DEMS than WI, which Obama also needs by an average of 4.75 points. I do not see any reasonable scenario where Obama loses MN and wins the election.

The MN and WI polls defy history. Since 1948, there was no election where the DEM candidate did better in WI relative to MN. Either these polls are not good predictors for some reasons, or 2008 presents a different scenario for Obama. Regardless, Obama needs WI to win.

____________________

Paul:

As to Senate, Udall's lead disappeared and Coleman's lead increased since the June Quinnipiac polls. The Coleman poll is not significantly out of line but the Udall poll is very surprising.

____________________

Allen:

Unfortunately, the reported results in the Quinnipiac polls were "likely voters". Other commentators have noted that the Republican to Democrat ratio in the Colorado results was significantly higher than the registered voter ratio. It would have been valuable if they had also reported results for registered voters, since likely voter models this far from the election date can be unreliable.

____________________

cinnamonape:

There does seem to be a relationship between the movement of Obama AND the decline of support for the Democratic Senatorial candidates in these polls.

Thus it can't be seen as merely some sort of reaction to Obama- either a post nomination decline, a result of his stands on Iraq, etc.

It seems to be either some change in Quinnipacs (and others) mix of party identification, or evaluation of who within these demographics will be "likely voters", or some factor that would generally affect Democratic candidates.

What would cause Udalls's plunge and Schaeffer's rise at the same time (and proportion) as Obama's decline to McCain? In particular in demographics like the 18-30 age group?

One possibility is the FISA capitulation by the Democrats in Congress. Or it could be that the poller is simply eliminating certain "voters" in that demographic as "unlikely".


____________________



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