n=1,725 likely voters, interviewed July 8-13, margin of sampling error +/- 2.4%
Obama 50%, McCain 41%
That's... that's a bigger lead than I would expected at this point. Don't know how to treat this poll.
Posted on July 15, 2008 9:40 AM
should be treated with respect. It's not a robo poll. They ask the Obama v. McCain question first and not Bush job approval so no bias there. Much larger sample size.
All internals click. and it puts McCain at 41% right where he usually lands in most polls.
I just don't thing this election will be as exciting as 2000 or 2004
Posted on July 15, 2008 9:47 AM
My gut feeling is that again Newsweek will end up with egg on its face. No other pollster has registered such a impressive swing among the electorate. For the most part pollsters have keep a rather consistent spread between McCain and Obama. When I say consistent, I mean compare to that pollster's previous poll.
Since I think both Newsweek's polls were outliers, I believe the truth lies between double digits and less than 5%. I put it at 7% advantage for Obama. I think that the party ID gap is around 10% in favor of democrats, so Obama should get an edge because of it, not an unanimous edge, but an edge. I think more polls will come out and throw eggy on Newsweek once again. Let's these loser at Newsweek learn how to conduct a poll.
Posted on July 15, 2008 9:55 AM
Both Newsweek polls are outliers??? Do you understand what an outlier is? (Definition: Lies outside "typical score"... A score that is so much higher or lower than the rest of the scores in a dataset.) Accordingly, only one of the Newsweek polls (June) MAY have been questionable... but one needs to also look at the large number of undecided because they do not push hard to make a choice.
Check out /08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.html
P.S. No eggs to be thrown around. Outliers exist as a random event. And that is a FACT.
Posted on July 15, 2008 11:25 AM
When I say that IN MY OPINION the two last Newsweek's polls were outliers, I mean that the one showing Obama 15% above McCain was just a dream, and by the way, I said it back then. No way McCain support would have been around the mid-30's when the vast majority of pollsters have constantly shown him in the low 40's. My opinion was also shared by the McCain camp that in a memo, bringing attention to the fact that the Newsweek poll was way to skew in favor of the democrats, with a party ID gap of 19%.
It obvious that Newsweek adjusted that because in the July poll the party ID gap dropped from 19% to 5%, which again IN MY OPINION is lower than the reality. I think most pollsters believe that the party ID gap is around 10%, not 5% not 20%. Again, IN MY OPINION Barack's advantage over McCain is in the single digits, beyond 5%.
I for one don't like to make a fool of myself. When those polls came out showing Obama way up, I said: No, no, no... this looks like an outlier to me because McCain's numbers are way down compare to other pollsters. I wasn't that wrong because other pollsters came out right after Newsweek with very different numbers, showing McCain consistantly in the low 40's.
I don't cherry-pick facts depending on my theory. I look everything as a whole and then come up with my conclusion. As to now, IN MY OPINION Newsweek has done a very poor job hitting the target. I didn't believe it when the numbers were in favor of my candidate and I don't believe it now. Fortunately, more pollsters will come up with their polls and we will compare.
PS: I can predict that no other pollster, except LATimes/Bloomberg, will show the dramatic change in the numbers as Newsweek did. Obama dropped 12 points according to one pollster, so what about the others? Are they polling the same country? This is just common sense to me.
Posted on July 15, 2008 11:56 AM
I very good thing that I saw in this poll: A majority of people DO NOT WANT HILLARY. Did you notice? Democrats are the "most" o.k with the idea.
Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Union
Yes 56% 25% 29% 42% 31% 57% 38%
No 38% 50% 54% 45% 53% 33% 44%
This is Hillary's everlasting problem: People just dislike her. I think this poll is good news for Obama. It gives him the cover he needs to show why he CANNOT pick her. The only group that seems to like the idea of Hillary on the ticket is African Americans. So, I wonder, is this a group with which Obama needs help? I don't know you, but I think that the answer is NO. All other groups look at least split, like women, or totally opposed. If Obama needed help with AA's, Hillary would have been a good choice, but that is not the case. It seems that she would do more harm than anything. Poor Hillary, the majority of Americans still don't stomach her.
Posted on July 15, 2008 12:20 PM
From Quinnipiac: "The Democrat gets 44 percent to the Republican's 47 percent in red states, which went Republican by more than 5 percent in 2004, and leads 50 - 39 percent in purple or swing states."
Obama 44 - McCain 47 in Red States!!
Wow, that sounds unbelievable. If those numbers are right then Obama has to be up in Virginia, Florida and Missouri, and should be close in Texas.
Posted on July 15, 2008 12:26 PM
I understand opinions, but when using the term "outliers" in context of statistics (aka polls)... consistency with statistical definition counts.
Note: As I have already noted... Newsweek does not push for candidate selection and therefore has a large undecided number... and that is why McCain's numbers were not comparable to other polls who do that extra push.
Posted on July 15, 2008 12:33 PM
"9. Would you like Barack Obama to pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice-presidential running mate or not?"
I think carl29's analysis of the Hillary VP results is a little off. The numbers do not show that everyone "dislikes her." First, this has to do with the VP slot and not with like/dislike... and second... this includes Republicans who answered 71% in the negative (Maybe because an Obama/Hillary ticket appears to be unbeatable.) Democrats responded 56% yes/33% no... and most interestingly blacks 57% yes/33% no.
Notably, the Independents are not enamored with the idea 35% yes/50% no... but Independents are a very diverse group... ranging from extreme Obama (mostly youth) to leaning McCain.
Having said that I see that Independents are split at 44% each.
Posted on July 15, 2008 12:53 PM
The fact that a majority of independents don't want Hillary is very, very telling. As you already pointed out in a previous poll: INDEPENDENTS are going to be a BATTLEGROUND between McCain and Obama, so how would Obama put someone who is not clearly not the "darling" of those independents. He would give independents in a silver platter to McCain.
Posted on July 15, 2008 1:14 PM
Exactly Carl. Sometimes people forget that their own word can come back to make them look foolish.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that clinton doesn't help Obama. She will not be on the ticket, no matter what. Everyone knows this.
Posted on July 15, 2008 3:48 PM
Firstly, virtually all polls show that a clear majority of Democrats want Hillary to be Obama's running mate. Of course Republicans don't since they know that would be an exciting, unbeatable and historic ticket. And the independents (a very widely diverse group) who are more likely to vote for Obama are much more likely to support his choice of Clinton. If Obama seems to snub Clinton, he really risks angering Clinton supporters (who were at least half the actual Democratic voters - or slightly more - in the primaries), and especially white women, a huge swing vote in most of the key swing states.
Secondly, the general election hasn't even really started yet. Remember this: whichever candidate was ahead in July has lost 6 of the last 9 presidential elections! And it's really 7 of 9 since we know Gore actually beat Bush in 2000. (Remember Michael Dukakis' 18 pt lead in July '88 before the Republicans 'introduced' him to the American voters with ads that accused him of being elitist, too liberal, too inexperienced, and the Willy Horton ads that exploited institutionalized racism?? Sound familar?). Dukakis ended up winning only 10 states. So don't start inaugurating Obama yet. He has a very tough job ahead, even if he seems to have an advantage right now.
Posted on July 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Wait a minute, some times I hear things that are hard to understand. Let's see, Patrick said: "...independents (a very widely diverse group) who are more likely to vote for Obama are much more likely to support his choice of Clinton." It is pretty hard for me to get this idea because the wording doesn't make it any easy, but let's look at the numbers: 25% of Independents like the idea of Hillary vs. 50% who doesn't.
If Barack is supported by 44% of independents and he already knows that just 25% of those very desirable voters like the idea of Hillary, I frankly don't see the upside of picking her as his running mate. The first rule when picking a running is DO NO HARM, especially with independent voters. This is when I want to see the next comander in chief using good judgment. Any reasonable politian would NOT pick someone who is going to alienate such an important block of the electorate.
I think that if Barack makes the mistake of picking Hillary as his running mate, he will be showing a huge lack of judgment. First, he will be picking someone who is going to send independents at least to the fence where McCain will be more than willing to woo to his camp. Second, Barack will also look weak, afraid of what "Hillary's supporters" think. Regardless of all the huffing and puffing from some "Hillary supporters" during the primaries, McCain and Obama are getting the same exact support from the each other's party, McCain is getting 10% of democratic support and Obama is getting 10% as well.
Posted on July 15, 2008 6:19 PM
I totally agree that there is a long way from here to November. However, I think that the fact that McCain doesn't seem to be getting that much tration in the ECONOMY doesn't bold well for him. In my opinion, if Obama keeps bringing the economic issue home, he is going to keep the edge. I think that the poor Dukakis had everything against him: the poor guy had no charisma and daddy Bush was the vice-president of one of the most popular presidents in US modern history. In daddy Bush's case, being the succesor of Reagan was a +; however, I don't know if we can say the same of Bush and McCain. I think that the biggest liabilities for McCain are Bush and his weak position with the economy.
Posted on July 15, 2008 6:28 PM
If I flipped a coin, and 6 out of 9 times it landed heads, does it mean it is more or less likely to land heads the next time? ok then. the probability for that specific coin flip is not cumulative. in other words, it is not affected by preceding flips.
your stat is irrelevant. It's like those guys who say missouri has predicted the president for the last xx elections. AND??
It means NOTHING.
Posted on July 15, 2008 7:02 PM
I do not see how flipping a coin (random event) equates to presidential elections (a non-random event). Maybe one should be looking at correlation instead between polls and election outcomes.
Posted on July 15, 2008 9:25 PM
"Maybe one should be looking at correlation instead between polls and election outcomes." Polls in July are just paper, period. If there is something we have learned so far is that polls at this stage are pure game, nothing more. Polls are going to get good in October.
There are all sort of "silly" correlations that one can find and make up an argument from it. For example, for the last elections the military man, the veteran, the war hero has lost against the candidate who didnot serve: Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan, George HW Bush lost to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton, Al Gore lost to George W Bush, and Kerry lost to George W Bush. See? Can I find a relationship and "probability" that the veteran will lose to the no-veteran this Nov.? If I wanted to spend a couple of minutes in such a silly argument, I imagine that I could, but I'm smarter than that.
Posted on July 16, 2008 12:17 AM
"In general, however, the Bush attacks are likely to focus on the difference between experience and inexperience. On Monday in Michigan, Mr. Bush argued that when a President answers the telephone in a middle-of-the-night crisis, "The American people need to know that the man who answers the phone has the experience, the seasoning, the guts to do the right thing." Ready Answers"
P.S: By ADAM CLYMER
Published: August 2, 1992
Posted on July 16, 2008 12:20 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