8/21-24/08; 450 LV, 4.6%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 44, McCain 39, Nader 2, Barr 2
More bad news for McCain - polling in the 30's - OUCH!
Look for Obama's lead in CO to increase significantly, with the Democrats' convention bringing millions of dollars of business, and also goodwill, to the people of Colorado. Whether Obama can sustain the lead until Nov. is another questions but McCain has some serious work to do.
If Obama can pick up even 10% of the PUMAs then it's over.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:19 AM
More bad news for Obama... can't top 45--OUCH!
Had to say that because it is all RELATIVE.
Obama has a 5 point lead with a sampling error of 4.6%. Technically, Obama could be as low as 39.4%... also in the 30's!
Additionally, 12 percent of voters surveyed were undecided. Still a very high number for this time in the campaign.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:58 AM
This poll's sample is quite small. Still, it is consistent with many other CO polls that show this state to be a toss-up. I doubt that Obama currently has a 5-point lead in CO; I will be surprised if polls do not show him with a lead of about this size after his convention in Denver.
Posted on August 25, 2008 11:59 AM
obama has a 5 pt lead and he's in colorado.
that's not good for barakc
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:04 PM
A comment about the Dem convention: Obama has shrewdly taken advantage of its location to reach out to Colorado voters. He has 3 prominent CO politicians speaking--the Governor, Senator Salazar, and Denver's mayor. He has also given tens of thousands of tickets for his speech to Coloradans.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:06 PM
Wrong again KipTin.
You still can't get your facts straight. Rasmussen and PPP both have Obama at 48% in CO. Quinnipiac and Mason-Dixon have him at 46%.
Rocky Mt News has McCain up but that's among RV.
CO goes blue and you know it. You said yourself that Obama's lead is outside the MOE. Thank you for proving my original point!
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:07 PM
Obama is not in CO yet. He's in Missouri today, Iowa tomorrow, and Montana Wednesday morning. He arrives in CO Wednesday night.
I'm sure Obama would take a 5-point lead on election night.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:12 PM
Duh...BarackO'Clinton... I was specifically responding to your comment which specifically focused on this poll. Oh, yeah the lead outside the MOE is .4.
You forgot to mention that the Rasmussen poll where Obama has 48, McCain is at 49-- statistical tie.
PPP: McCain 44/Obama 48
Quinnipiac: McCain 47/Obama 44
Mason-Dixon: McCain 43/Obama 46
So where is McCain in the 30s in these polls? And why did you feel the need to "deflect" to other polls?
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:40 PM
So much for Obama bringing the Democratic party together. He is out on some kind of tour while everyone else (including Ted Kennedy, Biden, and the MSM) are at the Democratic convention. I think a few conversations and handshakes at the convention would have been more productive... and more courteous. But I guess no one is supposed to see his person until Thursday's unveiling. Wow, this is so not like the conventions of old.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:44 PM
Um, the margain of error represents a standard bell curve. Basically Barrack Obama could be that low on the curve but it does represent a liklehood of -2 standard deviations (or around 2%) if I'm not mistaken. Instead it's more likely that he's higher on the curve.
I wouldn't rule him out at being only 2 or 3 points above McCain. Not only is that a single standard deviation (or around 13%) for the poll alone, but it seems to be more in line with previous polls.
There is a chance this could be the start of a shift towards Barrack in CO, but we'll simply have to wait and see.
does the McCain camp pay you to post here, because if they don't you should work something out.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:53 PM
Just came across Ward Connerly's Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (eliminate preferential treatment in the public arena), which will also be on this fall's ballot. Polling shows that Colorado voters approve by 56%.
That is always something to watch because initiatives like these energize the conservatives voters, and the bottom line on election day in these toss-up states is voter turnout.
Posted on August 25, 2008 12:54 PM
The bell or "normal" curve (Central Limit Theorem) basically means that the distribution of samples will approach a "normal distribution" as the size of samples (n) approaches infinity. In other words, as the sample size grows, sampling distribution becomes more normal in shape.
This poll is not a large enough samples sizes to define a true normal curve.
Further, the sampling error is based on the number of participants. In an opinion poll MOE is approx. equal to 1 divided by the square root of n (number of participants) for the poll.
The MOE of 4.6% can be interpreted as the "pollster is 95% confident" that the "percentage of the entire population" that supports Obama is between 48.6% and 39.6%. So Obama can be higher (or lower) on the normal curve.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:18 PM
Why do Obama supporter think that those who do not support Obama are "paid?" Maybe it is the other way around. Or maybe people who post here are utilizing their freedom of choice.. and that is what elections are for. Otherwise it seems that too many think that Obama should just be crowned King without all these messy politics.
Posted on August 25, 2008 1:20 PM
It's actually quite conventional for a candidate to campaign elsewhere before the convention starts. Why would he waste 4 days shaking media hands in CO when he can hit up several states on his trek West? And actually talk to real voters? (He'll have Thursday to talk with Coloradans)
"I think a few conversations and handshakes at the convention would have been more productive... and more courteous. "
--I'm going to hold you to this next week. Let's see if McCain is "courteous" and wastes time at in St. Paul all week. Sometimes your arguments are mildly cohesive, but this one is just plain stupid. If your aim is to rile us up, it's working. But I need to call BS when I see it.
The problem with politics today is that if you don't like a candidate you find a way to not like EVERY SINGLE thing they do.
It doesn't need to be that way. Obama is campaigning, it doesn't mean he's being a dick, you don't need to interpret his every action negatively just because you aren't voting for him. We get it.
McCain does a lot of things I don't think, but he does a lot of things that I don't mind either. He's gone negative on Obama. That sucks, but it doesn't mean he's a bad, mean, nasty person. It means he's trying to win the election. Give it a rest, already.
Posted on August 25, 2008 2:36 PM
KipTin, I think in this case n is the number of samples (i.e. number of polls) not the sample size. If the sample size approaches infinity the margin of error tends zero and the curve narrows to a straight line.
While it is true that 'The MOE of 4.6% can be interpreted as the "pollster is 95% confident" that the "percentage of the entire population" that supports Obama is between 48.6% and 39.6%.', there is much higher probability density at the center of bell shape than at the edges.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:15 PM
"It's actually quite conventional for a candidate to campaign elsewhere before the convention starts. "
it's not conventional for the candidate to have split the party the way obama has.. you'd think he'd want to try to unite it.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:39 PM
As usual with some people on this site, this is....
REALLY GOOD NEWS FOR MCCAIN!
Just FYI, at this point in 2004, Bush was leading by 5 points in most polls. Now the race is either within 2 points or Obama is leading by a few.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:48 PM
You would think Obama would earn praise for campaigning at this time - i.e. working hard for every last vote.
You guys crack me up. First you slam him for taking a much needed family vacation (um, his daughters and wife need to spend SOME quality time with him). And now you slam him for working through the convention.
I guess I'll never understand. :)
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:51 PM
Obama had nothing to do with "splitting" the party, which, by the way, means 25% of Clinton primary supporters (i.e. 9 million, of 90+ million Democrats nationwide--that's right, not all Dems vote in the primaries). Please, explain to me, in concrete terms, how Obama "split the party".
And when you're done with that, please give me a response on whether or not you think McCain should spend the entire week in St. Paul. And when/if he doesn't, I would like you to explain why it was ok for him not to.
Posted on August 25, 2008 3:57 PM
and it never does And these Democratic hacks never learn
Posted on August 25, 2008 4:00 PM
to blame obama for the party being split is ridiculous. those few hilary supporters who will vote not at all or for mccain made there own choice. nobody made them do it.
Posted on August 25, 2008 5:03 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