Colorado 700 LV, 4%
Obama 52, McCain 45
Sen: Udall (D) 51, Schaffer (R) 44
Nevada 700 LV, 4%
Obama 50, McCain 45
Tenth consecutive poll spanning nearly three weeks that Obama has led McCain in Nevada...and the first above the MOD since Research 2000 a week ago.
Rasmussen 10/2/08 700 LV 45 50 +5D
InsiderAdvantage 10/13/08 506 LV 46 49 +3D
Zogby (Internet) 10/9-13/08 656 LV 47 48 +1D
Magellan Res (D)10/10-11/08 602 LV 44 47 +3D
Mason-Dixon 10/8-9/08 625 LV 45 47 +2D
InsiderAdvantage 10/6/08 468 LV 47 49 +2D
Research 2000 10/3-6/08 600 LV 43 50 +7D
Rasmussen 10/2/08 700 LV 47 51 +4D
InsiderAdvantage 9/30/08 437 LV 47 48 +1D
CNN/Time 9/28-30/08 684 LV 47 51 +4D
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:19 PM
Good poll numbers for Obama, especially in NV. Now the question I have is this: With Obama having these leads in these battleground states and such big leads in the blue states, how come these tracking polls are showing a tightening race. Anyone care to chime in on this?
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:20 PM
The trackers are not "showing a tightening race."
Rasmussen and Gallup were the same today as yesterday.
Hotline and IBD/TIPP showed movement in Obama's direction.
Zogby, Research 2000, and Battleground showed movement in McCain's direction.
All of the polls continue to show Obama ahead.
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:36 PM
Battleground states are all trending better for OBAMA. EV matters in the end, and all signs are surely pointing to a surge. A surge to Obama!
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:39 PM
George W. Bush won Nevada by 21,500 votes in 2004.
Since then, Democratic registration has increased by 68,335, while Republican registration has decreased by 16,762. Put another way, registered Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 4,431 in 2004, while Democrats currently outnumber Republicans by 80,666.
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:44 PM
Also Colorado went up from +3 (9/23) to +7 on Rasmussen for Obama. A four point shift. Contrary to one persons comments on the last branch...that's hardly "stagnation".
BTW the number after the first Rasmussen in the Nevada list should of course be (10/16) not (10/2).
And I'm not certain I actually see a contraction in the National Polls. I think it's likely statistical random walk. Some polls are going to drift downward, some upward, and some weeks there will be a greater number downward than upward. By Chance. The State polls, being based on a different data set (hopefully) may show a different trend. In fact, if they do it might actually suggest one result set or other are random walk.
But if these are "real" shifts...I can only imagine that the some National tracking polls are showing a tightening because the Blue States and Red States are becoming polarized (perhaps with the Red States becoming even more polarized than the blue ones) and it is these shifts that are obscuring the statewide trends in the battleground states toward Obama.
That might mean that the negative campaign ads against Obama are having a successful impact in bringing "Undecided" voters in States like Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc. to McCain. Perhaps they are having less effect in Blue States in attracting people to Obama (or even peeling away some voters...though the numbers in the states don't suggest it).
But the battle is being fought in other States.
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:51 PM
I also think that people tend to forget that if we enter a period of stability, it won't show up as flat lines in all the polls or even poll averages, but rather as a variation on a random walk.
Posted on October 17, 2008 7:59 PM
By the way, that said there is some evidence that the distribution of Obama versus McCain supporters is favorable for Obama (for one illustration of this, consider that Nate Silver's model currently has McCain winning the popular vote 9.38% of the time, but Obama winning the election anyway 4.29% of the time). All this is perhaps not surprising, since Obama is way outspending (and by all indications outorganizing) McCain in the contested states.
Posted on October 17, 2008 8:06 PM
EVIDENCE THAT CO WILL FLIP FOR OBAMA
1) Right-leaning Rasmussen's fresh poll of the state finds Obama extending his lead there to 7 points. Rasmussen's recent CO polls have trended Obama--+1, +6, and +7.
2) Rasmussen's poll indicates that Obama's likely voters are more likely than McCain's--Obama has a "very favorable" rating of 43% in CO, while McCain's rating is just 26%.
3) A new poll of a bellwether CO county finds Obama running ahead of Kerry's pace there: "Among the four counties tested, McCain leads in only one: Jefferson County, Colo., a populous Denver suburb. McCain is ahead there by a margin of 45 percent to 43 percent, with 8 percent undecided. Colorado's Jefferson County supported GOP presidential candidates by an average of almost 18 points between 1976 and 2004. While it hasn't supported a Democrat since 1964, Jeffco has become much more politically marginal in recent years — in 2004, Bush beat Kerry there, 52 percent to 47 percent."
4) 9 consecutive CO polls (conducted by 7 different pollsters) have shown Obama ahead there; McCain has not led in any of the last 11 CO polls.
5) 7 of the last 9 CO polls have shown Obama at 50% or greater there.
6) 18 of the last 20 polls of CO have shown Obama ahead there, with 1 tie and 1 McCain 3-point lead.
7) Most if not all CO polls have not included cell-only voters, who are disproportionately young and for Obama; multiple studies have found that this omission leads to an under-estimation of Obama's support by 2-3%. 10-15% of Coloradans are cell-only persons; see:
8) New voter registrations have significantly narrowed the gap between Democrats and Republicans in CO.
9) Obama is outspending McCain on advertising in CO; see:
10) CO has been trending blue: in 2000 Gore lost the state by 9%; in 2004 Kerry lost the state by just 5%, and a Democrat was elected senator; and in 2006 a Democrat was elected governor by a double-digit margin.
11) Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, a former Republican, has targeted CO, visiting the state today (10/17); he will take some votes from McCain.
12) Obama has the superior ground game in CO, with about 50 field offices; McCain has 12.
13) Obama leads in CO newspaper endorsements 4 to 3.
14) Obama held his convention in CO, and Biden visits the state Monday through Wednesday.
Posted on October 17, 2008 8:25 PM
Olbermann just ran a piece on something that my friend told me a couple of weeks ago, and I mentioned in a comment here, that one guy was apparently dumping plenty of cash on McCain on Intrade, influencing the trading price lower than it should have been.
God bless him. :)
Posted on October 17, 2008 8:31 PM
John McCain is in striking distance in both of these states...what will poor Barack HUSSEIN Obama do after he loses the election? He will likely need to go back to being a community organizer, haha!
Posted on October 17, 2008 9:05 PM
alan keyes. Please guarantee right here that you will send back your tax cut from Obama when he is President, and that you'll contribute to your community by shutting the hell up.
Posted on October 17, 2008 9:38 PM
There will not be a tax cut from Obama when he is president. He is lying through his teeth, and can just change his mind to give a tax cut. I know I will be getting a tax cut from McCain WHEN he becomes president, because he's more honest and truthful.
However, in the slight chance that he isn't elected, I will be backing Palin for president in 2012.
Posted on October 17, 2008 9:50 PM
Avoiding the question, are we? Please guarantee right here that you will send back your tax cut from Obama when he is President, and that you'll contribute to your community by shutting the hell up.
Posted on October 17, 2008 9:54 PM
If that happens I definitely will, but I will also eat my hat if it does.
I will not shut up though, I know you LIEberals want to deny us Republicans/Christians free speech should the Dictator Obama get into office, not gonna happen because he ain't gonna win.
Posted on October 17, 2008 9:57 PM
Such a child of God wouldn't lie, so for your sake you better keep your word, or the Lord will condemn you for all eternity.
Posted on October 17, 2008 10:02 PM
"Olbermann just ran a piece on something that my friend told me a couple of weeks ago, and I mentioned in a comment here, that one guy was apparently dumping plenty of cash on McCain on Intrade, influencing the trading price lower than it should have been."
Good for boomshak on actually putting his money where his mouth is..
Posted on October 17, 2008 10:31 PM
Responding to alankeyesisawesome's bile just invites him to spew more of it. Let him be.
He has yet to write a post that deals with polling, electoral math, or any other subject remotely relevant to this website. Boomshak--who, I think, is somewhat unfairly reviled--at least posts comments that are tangentially on topic.
Posted on October 17, 2008 10:36 PM
I know you're trying to discredit me on this board because you disagree with my opinions, but I did make a post related to polling & Electoral math yesterday in fact:
But of course, you wouldn't be interested in the truth now, would you?
Posted on October 18, 2008 1:22 AM
I think that this poster "alankeyesisawesome" is just someone joking around, poking fun at conservatives, because no one in their right mind actually thinks that Alan Keyes "is awesome."
And even if they did, they would most likely want to keep it private. Having everyone discover that you think that Alan Keyes "is awesome" isn't exactly the kind of thing you want getting around town.
Posted on October 18, 2008 11:19 AM
Folks, I think Colorado is dark blue.
Still, only 700 LV?
Posted on October 18, 2008 11:28 AM
Alankeyes admits to spewing lies and slander to try and discredit Obama, and you people take him seriously? He says his religion allows him, meaning he obviously isn't a Christian, right?
Posted on October 18, 2008 12:02 PM
It seems that Colorado is more or less in the bag for Obama. That means that Obama wins if he can hold New Hampshire or win any other state. I wish I had more money to spare when Obama's stock was below 50.0 on Intrade. Those people earn good money.
Posted on October 18, 2008 12:12 PM
For those asking why this race seems to be tightening nationally, I have to say that national polls are not how we choose are presidents. We choose them on a state by state basis. Also, that Gallup traditional likely voter poll showing the race +2 Obama, that was one of three polls they did that basically looked at this election right now looked at it through the same lens as they did in the 2000 or 2004 election. Can anyone tell me what about this election has been traditional as far as polls, voters, and battleground states goes?
Posted on October 18, 2008 12:24 PM
AlanKeyes, you are a delusional idiot.
1. Sarah Palin will become president when pigs fly.
2. Referring to Obama as a dictator? This coming from the party that actively participates in voter suppression? Pot meet kettle..
3. Saw on some other sites that McCain may be sick..has anyone else heard this?
Posted on October 18, 2008 12:40 PM
What's up Nathan? I'm still very concerned about Colorado. Lots of McCain signs in Green Mountain. But, seniors do account for at least 50% of the folks here. Denver and Boulder are painted with Obama signs. I've noticed that there are very few McCain bumper stickers. It's as if they know he will lose, or they're embarrassed. Nothing scientific, just an observation. In 2004, you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a car with a Bush sticker. The hispanic population is all about Obama. That being said, it's all about turnout. Nobody is really taking the huge cell phone user demographic into account. I expect those folks to favor Obama considerably.
COLORADO- Don't stay home, this thing is not in the bag. Make sure you and all of your friends show up, and remember:
Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
Posted on October 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Go ahead and talk about the national polls narrowing. I'll grant you that. Now grant me that these polls are correct. Obama wins the presidency.
Posted on October 18, 2008 1:09 PM
You democrats are the ones who are trying to commit voter fraud with ACORN.
Posted on October 18, 2008 1:23 PM
very few voter fraud cases in our country in the last 5 years (12?) ..... even the shrub's corrupt DOJ could find nothing ..... it is voter suppression and fear .... trademarks of conservatives.
Posted on October 18, 2008 1:51 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