Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Ohio, Florida


Rasmussen Reports

Ohio
McCain 44, Obama 43

Florida
McCain 47, Obama 39

 

Comments
killias2:

Rasmussen swoops in and saves the day for McCain.

I still don't know what to think about Florida, but I definitely think Ohio is gonna be close.

____________________

carl29:

I don't know what to think about this Rasmussen poll compare to Quinnipiac. First, Quinnipiac's poll has a much bigger sample than Rasmussen's, 1453 vs. 500. Also, Quinnipiac's took a week to interview people, meanwhile Rasmussen just took one day to collect the data. I don't know what to think but my huntch is that the truth may be in the middle of the two polls. Let's wait for other pollsters to have their say. I guess that given the conflict with the polls more pollsters will conduct surveys in the state.

____________________

marctx:

yesterday's polls freaked me out and had the cable news shows getting the chills up their legs again. i don't think these polls mean much now. we need to know the VP selections and see at least one debate before the polls will matter.

____________________

Knute:

Let's watch the numbers as the debate over offshore drilling starts to percolate through the Floridian consciousness.

For most of the states's indies - even the beach-loving seniors and sports fishermen - drilling off the Florida coast is about as popular as the red tide. I.e., embracing the Bush gimmick to limit the pervasive political damage of high gas prices may turn out to be THE strategic mistake that will cost JMC the state and the election itself.

When this gets factored in, it is likely to compliment and validate Quinnipiac's prediction. Of course the 'Publicans will have done their own polling on this issue - but it strikes me as an act of desperation which truly underestimates the cognitive ability of the voting public. I'll be interested in watching the response to this issue in upcoming polls. E.g., pandering on gas prices didn't seem to help Hillary in Indiana, and JMC will take another hit from the economic "elitists" - an area where he is pretty weak to begin with.

____________________

Snowspinner:

What a weird poll. "Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. What do you think? Has the federal government become a special interest group?" and "Should the government nationalize all the oil companies and run them on a non-profit basis?" are bewildering questions - the first is practically push polling, and the second brings up an extreme liberal position that Obama has never supported - why mention it?

The Florida poll is less weird, due primarily to it being much shorter, but jeez - those are some strange questions being asked.

____________________

Louis:

The 538 site has some intresting insights on the difference between Rasmussen and Qunnipiac polls. Suggestion there is some of the difference might be Qunnipiac has a more fluid way of dealing with party identification.

I think, though I am not sure about this, that Ramussen adjusts for party identification based on his party id polling. While Qunnipiac does not, assuming party ID is fluid not fixed.

____________________

marctx:

Knute:

I'm not sure about you're comment...offshore drilling is as popular as the red tide....

Rasmussen Reports: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Expect it Will Lower Prices

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices

____________________

carl29:

The problem with Rasmussen is that it doesn't let you see the crosstab, so we don't know what party ID percentages are or demographic composition. I would like to see all that information.

____________________

carl29:

About the drilling stuff, I have no idea what people in general think. But I would tell you that people here in Florida really, REALLY, love the beach. If Obama makes drilling equal to destroying beaches, I don't think that Floridians will love the idea, especially if gas prices won't drop dramatically as a result of the drilling. However, I think that independents in general will not be pleased.

Actually, Charlie Crist won the elections precisely for being a moderate republican who cares about the environment. In addition, I don't know how accurate the answer to that question might be, just think that this idea started on Tuesday afternoon with McCain's speech and Bush's yesterday, Do you really believe that Floridians-or Americans for that matter- follow news this closely? I really doubt it, but you never know.

____________________

marctx:

Oil drilling is going to overtake the war as McCain's strongest chance to win this election. 61% in this FL poll think drilling will bring down gas prices, 71% in OH, 67% nationally. Obama is on the wrong side of this issue. Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less movement is a million strong in just a few days. Join the movement to lower gas prices @ http://www.americansolutions.com/

____________________

Knute:

@All,

Note that the Rassmussen poll question on offshore drilling was remarkably vague - wait until it sinks in.

Offshore drilling might be OK in the abstract for Florida and for most Americans, but NIMBY.

Believe me, in Sarasota the response to the question - "Do you favor offshore drilling for crude oil visible on the horizon from Siesta Key Beach?" . . . will be recieved much differently than when it is assumed that such drilling will be, as it is today, restricted to the Louisiana and Texas coastline.

The Bush brother who inherited his father's brains realized long ago that this is dangerously close to political suicide. Crist, however, won't care - if he can slither his way onto the ticket.

____________________

Jeff:

Louis:

As Mark Blumenthal here has written, Rasmussen treats party ID as a fixed demographic characteristic, and then weights for it -- even when their own polling shows party ID is changing. Other pollsters tend to take apparent changes in party ID at face value. Assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that the movement in party ID is "real," the result of Rasmussen's approach is a house effect in favor of the GOP.

In the early years of Bush's second term, Rasmussen's measure of job-approval was consistently several points above everyone else's. They were weighting the results to match party ID for the 2004 election, even though their own polling indicated it already had begun to change. (Enter rasmussen party identification as a search term on this web site for more info from the pros.)

____________________

Nickberry:

Notably, McCain's proposal is to let EACH STATE decide if it wants offshore drilling. This was a good move and reflects his ideology on STATE's RIGHTS.

McCain also said opening offshore drilling was a "short-term" solution to U.S. energy problems... and then expands on his long-term solutions... alternative fuels as well as nuclear energy. (Here in Washington State "nuclear" is not a popular idea because of Hanford and WPPSS... but it is elsewhere.) Notably, Obama also supports nuclear energy... or at least that used to be his strong position because I cannot keep up with his weekly "nuances" on the issues.

____________________

Swingebreech:

Anything that makes McCain and Crist look like they're singing Bush's tune, and shows them as all being in the pocket of Big Oil, is music to my ears.

An aside: since when is something that may help a little bit 10 or so years down the road a short term solution?

____________________

Nickberry:

In terms of oil production... 10 years is "short term." And in terms of "Bush's tune"... according to the polls apparently a super-majority of Americans like this tune.

____________________

Nickberry:

P.S. It was Obama (not McCain or Hillary) who voted for the 2005 Bush/Cheney Energy bill which benefitted BIG OIL.... and Obama has received substantial campaign funding from BIG OIL and BIG NUCLEAR and BIG AGRI-CORPS (corn ethanol). He ain't clean when it comes to energy special interests.

____________________

sherman:

Yet, Obama is against opening up offshore drilling. So how could he be in the pocket of big oil?

Short term, by the way, is not 10 years. You could build a nuclear power plant in 10 years. Short term, at least when referring to gas prices, in the public mind, usually means in the next few months or within the year.

Also, all Obama has to do, and he will, is educate people that Big Oil already has rights to 4/5ths of the proven US oil reserves offshore and inland...and they haven't even drilled on most of it yet. That right there pretty much exposes the futility of the proposal.

____________________

Nickberry:

That is because Obama has not been paying attention to the polls... After awhile be assured he will "nuance" his statements.

FACT: I never said that Obama was "in the pocket" of Big Oil. I said that Obama was not "clean."

McCain is not in the pocket of Big Oil either ... He did not vote for the Bush/Cheney Energy bill along with the majority of Democrats who also did not vote for that BIG OIL giveaway bill. (NOTE AGAIN... It was Obama and NOT McCain who voted FOR BIG OIL when he voted FOR the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill in 2005!!!!

Note: Also that McCain is still against drilling in ANWR.

You can argue all you want about what is "short-term" in the context of energy development... but the opening of off-shore drilling will indeed have an "immediate" positive effect of lower prices in the market place. It is all connected and relative.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Rasmussen does include party id's outside of their cross-tabs. Support for oil drilling is 50-50 among Dems, with a good majority of Independents behind it, and over 80% of Republicans supporting the proposal.

sherman,
so your argument is this: McCain is in the pocket of the oil lobby because he wants to let oil companies drill offshore, plus, offshore drilling will make no difference because oil companies don't want to drill offshore. In an argument with two points you have managed to contradict yourself.

Obama is (probably unintentionally) in the pocket of big oil because his broader energy plan would maintain high oil prices much longer. He plans to invest 150 billion in unproven green technologies (and gimmicky things like ethanol, which actually increase emissions because production itself is carbon intensive) which may or may not have a positive outcome - governments are lousy at picking winners. McCain's preference is for the zero emission technology that we already have (nuclear power), which also has the lowest cost per kilowatt hour (but high start-up costs).

____________________

Nickberry:

Yes, Obama is tied strongly to corn ethanol... and McCain has blasted that approach. Now the Midwest floods and corn/soy crop destruction (high food and fuel prices) adds to the debate.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

Actually McCain's position on ethanol is a flip-flop just like every single other position he has. He has previously been a strong anti-ethanol guy, but recently flipped, purely for the sake of RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm

While Obama has stood slightly more in line with ethanol, his stance is one that advocates moving the current industry toward cellulosic ethanol from corn grown as food, which is actually the preferred and most "efficient" way to switch to crop-based alternatives.

(Take it from a climate scientist...I think the entire ethanol industry is whack but there's no going back now. thousands of new jobs have been created for farmers in the midwest who lost their jobs when farms consolidated)

____________________

brambster:

Regarding oil drilling, it oversimplifies the debate to take something that wasn't even being considered seriously until recently like more off-shore drilling, and then ask people in a poll if they think that off-shore drilling is good when gas is over $4/gallon.

This comes at a cost and the whole "not in my backyard" argument comes into play. How many states where there are known oil reserves off-shore would actually favor such drilling when people come to learn about the impact? None. They aren't thinking about the costs just yet of such a thing. You will likely not see any polls so high in favor of such a thing after another month as the debate starts to be spelled out.

Also not being considered is the fact that there is not an oil supply problem. There are no shortages in this country, and people are using less gas in fact. For a while they blamed a lack of new refineries for cost increases, but the fact is that there is no business justification for building excess capacity, and they have been building capacity to meet needs in existing refineries for decades. That was all just a lie, and a political wedge.

The wedge this time is that they want to tie environmentalists/liberals to high gas prices by saying that they are causing supply issues, but in reality, the cost of gas is 1/2 the result of a weak US dollar, and 1/2 the result of a huge increase in commodities trading which now brings with it huge volumes of speculation.

If People want $3 gas, return the US dollar to it's strength before Bush. If people want $2 gas, do the previous and then act to stop speculation and manipulation of the oil trading markets. Introducing new supply will do little to change either of these dynamics.

Once people hear the economists say that new drilling will do little for prices under the current dynamic, opinion will surely start to change.

____________________

carl29:

Dear Nickberry: I think this information is going to burst your bubble.

According to Nickberry: "McCain is not in the pocket of Big Oil..."

Reality: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McSame is the NUMBER 1 beneficiary of Oil and Gas industry. As to May 21, 2008 McSame had received $723,777, followed by Rudy Giuliani with $634,558.

Ah.. and McSame is also in the bag of the Lobbyist. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McSame is the NUMBER 2 beneficiary of Lobbyist money. As to May 21, 2008 McSame had received $655,576. How was the number 1 beneficiary? Hillary Clinton with $888,046. So, expect McSame to be in first place in the next cycle.

Agribusiness loves McSame too. He is the NUMBER 1 beneficiary of this industry. As to May 21, 2008 McSame had received $1,022,577, followed by Hillary Clinton with $871,008.

The Energy industry loves McSame too. He is the NUMBER 1 beneficiary of this industry. As to May 21, 2008 McSame got $1,373,408.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

Carl29 said:

First, Quinnipiac's poll has a much bigger sample than Rasmussen's, 1453 vs. 500.

Are you aware that Rasmussen has always used that same sample number, approximately 500, and has been very successful with it?

____________________

carl29:

Dear kingsbridge77: I was just stating a statistical fact: Bigger the sample, smaller the margin of error. Dear Kingsbridge77, your Statistics professor will be embarassed to know that you didn't get the most basic fact. Please, don't tell me that you got a good grade in Statistics.

RASMUSSEN IN OHIO: This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 17, 2008. The margin of SAMPLING OF ERROR for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

QUINNIPIAC IN OHIO: From June 9 - 16, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,396 Ohio likely voters with a MARGIN OF ERROR of +/- 2.6 percent.

RASMUSSEN IN FLORIDA: This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports June 18, 2008. The margin of SAMPLING OF ERROR for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

QUINNIPIAC IN FLORIDA: From June 9 - 16, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,453 Florida likely voters with a MARGIN OF ERROR of +/- 2.6 percent.

____________________

Nickberry:

My bubble is not burst... Both McCain and Obama receive and have received funding from the Energy industries.

I am not sure how the amount is relevant.... since it is Obama (NOT McCain) who voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill in 2005 when the Democrats were trying to get it revised. It appears that Obama was the one who was paid off for his vote here. So who was in the pocket of Big Oil here? Not McCain, Not Hillary.

It is also McCain who is against the corn ethanol racket... and Obama who is for it. So again... who is in the pocket of Agri-Corps here? It ain't McCain by any means.

Action is the real truth-teller.

____________________

Nickberry:

What is the relevance of an Iowa speech from 2006 on McCain regarding corn ethanol? McCain may have "detoured" one day but McCain is back on course with his long time original position of blasting the subsidies for corn ethanol as pork for agri-corps.

____________________

carl29:

Dear Nickberry:

"So who was in the pocket of Big Oil here?"
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McSame is the NUMBER 1 beneficiary of Oil and Gas industry. As to May 21, 2008 McSame had received $723,777, followed by Rudy Giuliani with $634,558.

who is in the pocket of Agri-Corps here?
Agribusiness loves McSame too. He is the NUMBER 1 beneficiary of this industry. As to May 21, 2008 McSame had received $1,022,577, followed by Hillary Clinton with $871,008.

So, McSAME is the NUMBER 1 RECIPIENT OF MONEY FROM OIL AND GAS COMPANY, but Obama is in the pocket of the guys. Um... so the oil companies are showering McCain with money in order to disguise the american public, so people don't know that their real guy is Obama. I imagine that the same thing is happening with agriculture sector.

WOW!!! Nickberry, you are a genius. You discovered the plot. Despite being the NUMBER 1 recipient of OIL AND GAS industry McSAME is in reality its foe. WOW!!! I'm really impressed with you Nickberry.

P.S: Please keep on enlighting me.


____________________

kingsbridge77:

Carl29, you ignored the issue i raised, which is the fact that Rasmussen has been very successful in the past with a sample of approximately only 500 voters.

No matter how much you claim that a bigger sample has to necessarily result in a more accurate result, Rasmussen was THE MOST accurate pollster in 2004.

Why did CNN get it wrong with a sample of over 1111 likely voters in 2004 in Ohio,for example, while Rasmussen guessed Bush's 4 point victory? Here, embarass yourself while visiting this link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html

____________________

Nickberry:

No need for sarcam... carl29... As I said and has his actions have proven... Obama is the one who is carrying the water.... Not McCain.

----
I agree with kingbridge77 in that larger samples do not necessarily make more reliable polls... unless the methodology was exactly the same between/among the pollsters (which is not the case).

____________________

carl29:

Since I'm married with a numbers' guy. I won't make the most silly mistake: to argue the reality of the numbers. I'm only stating a statistical fact, go a look for your statistics 101 book and look for sample groups. This is not me but science: The greater the sample the smaller the margin of error. No one is going to change Mathematical principles. Now, if one gets the right people in the sample is up to the person conducting the poll. Since Rasmussen doesn't let me see the crosstabs, how will I assume that they are getting the demographic and party composition right?

First thing, never assume until you have the facts in your hand. What is the AA composition of the poll, the Jewish, the hispanic, democrat, republican, independent, young, old, men, women? A serious analysis without this information is hard to make by a reasonable and educated person.

____________________

carl29:

Dear kingsbridge77: If we want to talk about Rasmussen record in the past, so it be:

ACCORDING TO RASMUSSEN:

Florida: McCain 31%, Romney 31%
Results: McCain 36% +5, Romney 31%


New Hampshire: McCain 32%, Romney 31%
Results: McCain 37% +5, Romney 31%


South Car: McCain 24%, Huckabee 24%, Romney 18
Results: McCain 33%, Huckabee 30%, Romney 15

California: McCain 38%, Romney 38%
Results: McCain 42% +4, Romney 34% -4

Massachusetts: Romney 55%, McCain 23%
Results: Romney 51 -4%, McCain 41% +18

New York: McCain 49%, Romney 30%
Results: McCain 51% +2, Romney 28% -2

New Jersey: McCain 43%, Romney 29%
Results: McCain 55% +12, Romney 28% -1

Illinois: McCain 34%, Romney 26%
Results: McCain 47% +13, Romney 28% +2

After seeing these numbers in which look that Rasmussen constantly either underestimated McCain or overestimated Romney. I wonder if Rasmussen had some sort of simpathy for Romney. Remember that Rasmussen is a republican, affiliated to FoxNews, which was pushing very, very hard for Romney. Anyway, it is just curious to see the mistakes during the primaries. I won't include the democratic side because is even worse.


____________________

eternaltriangle:

Okay, I just stumbled on this but it is INTERESTING. Look at who executives at haliburton donated to. The vast majority? Obama.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?search=1&type=emp&employer=Halliburton

____________________

nikkiemeh:

Well, Barack Obama and John McCain have made recent statements on US offshore oil drilling while on the US presidential campaign trail. Offshore Drilling is a huge issue right now and rightly so. Between the
desire to deal with the economic mess that is being spurred by the price
of oil and the on-going longer-term concern of global warming, how do we
address all of this? Check out Obama and McCain in side-by-side videos
on http://clashorama.com/index.php?id=172 comparing their recent
comments on ANWR and offshore oil drilling. It is, if nothing else,
very interesting to hear their perspective.

____________________



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