Illinois 500 LV, 4.5%
Obama 56, McCain 39
Sen: Durbin (D-i) 62, Sauerberg (R) 31
Kansas 500 LV, 4.5%
McCain 54, Obama 41
Sen: Roberts (R-i) 55, Slattery (D) 36
Massachusetts 500 LV, 4.5%
Obama 62, McCain 34
Sen: Kerry (D-i) 63, Beatty (R) 31
New Mexico 700 LV, 4%
Obama 55, McCain 42
Sen: Udall (D) 57, Pearce (R) 37
I like the NM one, a state won by Bush 4 years ago that unequivocally proves that McCain is breathtakingly SURGING
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:22 PM
+17 in NM???
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:28 PM
Slow down dude it's +13 in IN instead of +17
But it's still a big lead given this state was red in the 2004 presidential election
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:37 PM
sorry I mean it's +13 in NM not IN
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:39 PM
+8 from a Rasmussen NM poll on 10/01. Paint it dark blue!
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:43 PM
no it was +5 for Obama on 10/01
Posted on October 15, 2008 8:51 PM
McCain looked absolutely nuts tonight. I never thought I'd say this but Palin has a better temperment than McNasty.
Posted on October 16, 2008 12:21 AM
You may not believe this, but it is historically accurate.
With only one exception in the last forty years or so, as New Mexico goes, so goes the country as a whole. (The exception was 1976).
Ergo, Obama's 13 point lead in this bellweather state implies a double digit lead for Obama nationwide.
Posted on October 16, 2008 12:30 AM
McCain attacked Obama for calling him eratic when every single question answered by McCain tonight proves that he is eratic. I've realized that Palin was a perfect pick for McCain, it is scary how alike they're thought process and critical thinking is. By jumping around from one disconnected point to the next McCain gives off the appearance of grasping at straws
A spirited defense of NAFTA and putting air quotes around "health of the mother" was just what McCain needed... to lose.
Posted on October 16, 2008 12:41 AM
Rasmussen - NM: Very favorable - very unfavorable: Obama +19, McCain -1
Posted on October 16, 2008 12:59 AM
Debate #3 polls:
CNN: Obama wins 58-31
CBS (uncommitted voters): Obama wins 53-22
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:06 AM
I just saw the full debate as it was replayed on CNN. Previously, I had only listened to it while working on my laptop.
OMG ... The visuals were horrible for McCain. This by far was his worst debate. I don't care what he said; you just could not hear him over his facial and body language.
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:08 AM
Zogby Oct 16 poll internal: Already voted: Obama +16
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:18 AM
Zogby 10/16 49 - 43.5
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:37 AM
Mark Halprin (Times) scored McCain higher than Obama... and he is not a McCain fan. Based on substance, style, offense, defense...... Overall grade=
"During the first half of the debate, the Republican nominee showed off the best of himself -- dedicated, sincere, patriotic, cheery, earnest, commanding--all without seeming old or anxious. He even scored some points in the "change" category, against the candidate who has owned the theme. He was also clear, upbeat, and totally on message."
"During the first half of the debate, the Democratic nominee too often displayed his worst traits-- petty, aloof, imperious-- and behaved as if he had some place better to be, although he became warmer and more engaged as the evening progressed. He did not seem to have an explicit strategy, answering the questions piecemeal as they came his way, without driving a message or even a theme."
READ the good and bad analysis of both candidates here:
FYI: The debate polls are skewed toward Democrat participants.
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:41 AM
McCain needs to take an anger management course. He was doing so well for the first 30 minutes. Then, he lost his self control when the negative campaign topic started. Down hill from there.
Though I am an avid Obama supporter, I feel sorry for McCain: he can be so much better than this and his temper just kills it.
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:47 AM
Halprin may say what he wants, the fact is that voters thought Obama won and by a huge margin.
Voters are the ones that count, not pundits
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:49 AM
Kip Tin: ""The debate polls are skewed toward Democrat participants."
No, actually they're not.
But if that's what you really believe, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind.
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:50 AM
Some of these polls only take independent or undiceded voters in their sample.
Posted on October 16, 2008 1:53 AM
when the cnn poll was broekn to down independents gave the win to obama by 57 to 31 i believe.
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:05 AM
do you honestly believe that halperin is an obama fan. lets get real here.
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:07 AM
That is true saywhat90
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:08 AM
mccain didnt kick obamas you know what in any shape or fashion. he had good points but so did obama. no real game changing event here. 2 weeks to go roughly and time is running out. but the race isnt over yet but it is obamas to lose
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:10 AM
The best tonight was Ferraro when she told Haannity after he said all he would have told Obama if he were in McCains place. She said : "Well that is the reason you will always sit there and never in a presidential debate"
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:12 AM
Keep grasping. Your "knowledge" (and those aren't McCain air-quotes) of polling bias is quite a bit faulty. Democrats are not historically over-represented in all post-debate polls. What IS biased is the opinion of talking heads on the major networks who have a stake in a close race, like Halperin. The bias is represented by the persistent difference between their opinions and those of the electorate at large.
One note--Frank Luntz' focus groups are typically Repub--and they rated the debate yet another Obama victory on Fox, much to the chagrin of Brit Hume.
I can hardly wait until the next SNL. I can already see the snorting, eye-rolling McCain impersonator making almost as big an ass of himself as candidate McCain did tonight.
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:17 AM
If McCain stays hopped up on go-pills, he'll need megadoses of botox to keep him from jerking so much. Sitting in a chair at least kept him from lurching around the room, but his body language still screams "I'm out of control!"
By Nov. 4, McCain will have to be wheeled along on a dolly like Hannibal Lecter, spouting talking points through a hockey mask.
Posted on October 16, 2008 2:44 AM
The reason pundits differ from the average voter on who won the debate is that journalists pay too much attention to what they say versus the average voter who reads the body language/visuals more so than the details of their plans. The medium here is TV and visuals matter more than the spoken words. This is the reason McCain keeps losing these debates.
Posted on October 16, 2008 3:08 AM
"The debate polls are skewed toward Democrat participants."
So niTpiK, let's say in one state, the polls are weighted as follows:
R = 45%
D = 27%
Unaffiliated, 3rd parties = 27%
And in another state, the polls are weighted:
R = 27%
D = 56%
Unaffiliated, 3rd parties = 16%
Would those weightings seem accurate to you? Crazy? Absurd?
Your feedback is requested.
Posted on October 16, 2008 3:50 AM
FYI: The debate polls are skewed toward Democrat participants."
Uh, no, they're not. The CNN poll had a breakdown of 40% democrats and 30% of republicans in their debate poll. The only set of numbers I was able to find on party breakdown in the U.S. was from 2004, which show that out of an estimated 169 million people registered to vote, an estimated 55 million of them are republican and an estimated 72 million of them are democrat. That would be a breakdown of 42.6% democrats and 32.5% republicans.
Since that time period, the political climate has gotten considerably worse for the republicans. Their party has suffered more than it's share of defections, and the democrats have brought in several million dissatisfied (whether they be republican or independent) and first time voters (mainly young and minority voters). A Pew Research study shows that currently democrats hold a 51-38 percent lead over republicans among registered voters when the "leaning" status of independents is included. Four years ago, the democrats only held a 47-44 percent lead over republicans under the same scenario.
I think that it's safe to say that the post-debate polls are pretty accurate as far as party weighting is concerned. Also, as was mentioned kdc_va, all of the focus groups went for Obama, even the conservative ones.
Here are the links to the stats I brought up:
2004 vs. 2008 Pew Research party breakdown:
2004 voter registration numbers (I was hoping there was a reliable source that had more recent numbers, but I couldn't find one):
Posted on October 16, 2008 4:07 AM
Two r's in erratic. But one McCain.
Posted on October 16, 2008 6:06 AM
McCain lost among the groups that matter (undecided and independents).
By the way, one of the reasons why the pundits consistently score debates wrong is that for some reason they seem to think aggression and negative attacks are good debate tactics. The thing is, the evidence is overwhelming that persuadable voters actually strongly prefer the candidate who is calmer and more positive.
Posted on October 16, 2008 6:22 AM
It turns out McCains latest ploy, "Joe the plumber" isn't regestered to vote..
Posted on October 16, 2008 6:37 AM
joe scarborough has officially become a republican hack. he has no reall credibility anymor with me. to say that what john lewis said is the same as palin saying obama is palling around with terrorist is ridiculous. mr. lewis was only saying that the word sthey choose could cause divisive and volatile behavior.
Posted on October 16, 2008 6:59 AM
The Pew research poll is only good for the short term as it shows the lean of the middle. The strong anti-Bush sentiment is puching ind. to the left. This group is very fluid, and can move quickly in any direction. The strong dem. lead today could evaporate tomorrow. That said, it should be plenty to push Obama over the top - this election. This trend is not permanent, and BO needs to prove they belong in his camp during the next four years. I agree that McCain (I will not resort to name-calling here) used poor facial expressions - again, and appear more angry than previosuly. I do think he got the best "zinger" of the night when he told Obama that if he wanted to attack Bush, he should've run four years ago. Had he used this line earlier in the campaign, he might've undercut some of Obama's attacks against the cuurent administration. At this point, Obama need to keep VA or CO, and he will be inaugurated in January.
Posted on October 16, 2008 7:23 AM
Scarborough is a hack. I wrote his show an e-mail telling him that people care about the economy and not Ayers and Joe the Plumber, and that the reason why Obama "won" all of the debates in the eyes of the voters is because they don't want the same policies of the last 8 years for the next 4 years. I doubt they read it on the air. I kept it clean and tried to keep the tone as nice as possible, but I doubt it's Joes cup of tea. I actually talked about real Americans and their struggles rather than tax breaks for billionaires, so he would probably bash me even if they did read it on air. I also told him that the media needed to grow up. That probably didn't help my chances any.
Posted on October 16, 2008 7:36 AM
The Pew research poll is only good for the short term as it shows the lean of the middle."
I know. I realize this. That's why I said that I wished there was better nationwide voter registration information out there, so that we could better analyze these polls and see which ones are more reliable and which ones aren't.
Posted on October 16, 2008 7:49 AM
Posted on October 16, 2008 9:01 AM
McCain did a good job attacking. And I could see how talking heads might like that. But the polling has demonstrated that swing voters don't like the attacks. So what does do? He attacks more.
When he had a potentially winning argument on experience and a strong lead among males in general, he picked Palin. When he's losing red states and swing state he hangs out in blue states like WI and IA. When the attacks fail, he attacks more. When his only chance to win the election is to win blue collar dudes and dudettes in Ohio he goes off on a rant on the virtues of NAFTA. When his VP pick was supposed to help him with women in swing states, he sends her to PA to give an anti-abortion talk and puts women's health in air quotes.
This man and his people are too stupid to run a campaign, much less a country.
Posted on October 16, 2008 9:41 AM
joe has always been a hack. He kind of lightened up on Hillary but now he's back. It sounds like Keesha is going over to the Dark Side, too. What's happened to her. My husband actually watched the debate last night. He's a diehard MC supporter. My husband still thinks the WMD will turn up. Nixon wasn't a crook, either.
I want BO to win for the pleasure of listening to Hannity and Rush the week after. I can't wait to hear the spin.
Posted on October 16, 2008 9:50 AM
"joe scarborough has officially become a republican hack."
I agree -- the evidence mounts every time he opens his mouth these days. He's a bully. And Mika, who has never been particularly well-served as Joe's foil, allows herself to be steamrolled. And she doesn't help herself when she doesn't do the homework. I know these guys are busy, but you'd think they'd know the latest facts and figures at least as well as bloggers.
Chris Matthews, on the other hand, obviously has a big Obama bias. He can be a bully too, but he is clearly for the candidate, not the party line like Scarborough. Though Matthews has a tendency to reach, he presses this bias with hard questions and repeated follow-ups about specifics rather than pounding the opposition into submission with relentless use of talking points like Scarborough.
Both of them would rather be Senators than pundits.
"By Nov. 4, McCain will have to be wheeled along on a dolly like Hannibal Lecter, spouting talking points through a hockey mask."
Juicy, man. And very, very funny.
Posted on October 16, 2008 10:15 AM
Rasmussen would have us believe that Illinois and New Mexico have virtually the same numbers for Obama? If that's true, then why would anyone paint NM light blue rather than dark blue?
Posted on October 16, 2008 12:43 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