Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 49, McCain 43 (Zogby 10/10-13)

Topics: PHome

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby
10/10-13, 08; 1,208 LV 2.9%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 49, McCain 43

 

Comments
johncoz:

Yesterday's daily weighted average for all 11 national polls (including IBP/TIPP) was:

Obama 50.8/ McCain 43/ +7.7

For the 5 daily trackers, the figures were:

Obama 50.4/ McCain 43.3/ +7.1

My seven-day graph of the daily trackers shows there has been no statistically significant change in Obama's support over the past week.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2940404093_abb4dcbf7d_b.jpg

Note that Gallup's weighting has been reduced in line with the smaller sample size of LV Model II (compared with RVs), which explains the small discrepancy with the provisional figures I posted yesterday. Both Pollster and 538 are also using Model II, while RCP is averaging the two models (a bet each way!). No one is happy about Gallup's refusal to make a call itself.
=====================================

And a key paragraph from Zogby:

Among those voters who said they have registered to vote in the last six months, Obama leads McCain by a 53% to 37% margin. Among those who have already voted - about seven percent of the sample - Obama leads by a 52% to 42% edge over McCain.

____________________

sunnymi:

Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP Poll
----------------------
The polls were conducted from Oct. 8-12. The sample sizes were: 1,019 likely voters in Minnesota, 1,201 likely voters in Wisconsin, 1,088 likely voters in Colorado and 1,043 likely voters in Michigan. Each has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Colorado: 52(O) - 43(M)
Michigan: 54(O) - 38(M)
Minnesota: 51(O) - 40(M)
Wisconsin: 54(O) - 37(M)

____________________

Kile Thomson:

Quinnipiac MICHIGAN

Obama 54

McCain 38


Quinnipiac COLORADO

Obama 52

McCain 43


Quinnipiac MINNESOTA

Obama 51

McCain 40


Quinnipiac WISCONSIN

Obama 54

McCain 37


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/battleground-polls/?sid=ST2008101400530&s_pos=list

____________________

decided:

nice analysis, johncoz.

I would have expected a bigger lead for Obama in the category "already voted" since the enthusiasm for the obama campaign is supposed to be a lot higher. However, that investigated sample (7% of 1208) is not what you would call large enough to make an accurate estimation.

Further, it should be considered, in which states early voting is possible. If it was only possible is red states, then 10% would be a lot...

____________________

jonny87:

bare in mind that older voters are more likely to take advantage of early voting...with 18-29s the least likely... see this

http://datafordemocracy.org/blog/

____________________

jonny87:

18-29s less likely*

____________________

thoughtful:

@Johncoz

Good Analysis!

Statistically very little movement, very stable voting intentions, though there are fewer undecideds.I think that this indicates a hardening of Obama support, as no fall back on the trend and very little churn.

I suspect that it will remain very much as it is for the next 3 weeks.

The other standout was from yesterday's ABC/WP poll - Age. 50% concerned that 72 is too old. In my view that has made it more mission impossible than anyother factor - McCain doesn't have the Mandela or Churchill or dare I say it Reagan factor. The choice of Palin and how she is regarded is/was the final nail in McCain's unelectibility.

____________________

DTM:

Unfortunately, the early voting numbers in current polls are indeed too small of a subset for the margins to be reliable.

____________________

johncoz:

@dtm

The 7% figure itself is highly likely to accurate (MOE 0.5%). My take is that even if the early voters are only voting on today's trend that is building a cushion against any later tightening in the race.

____________________

DTM:

By the way, I wonder if those Q polls will be enough to tip Michigan and Wisconsin into the "strong Obama" category on some of the popular maps. Not a huge deal, perhaps, but it would represent recognition of the fact that McCain's opportunities for "offense" (flipping Kerry states) appear to be rapidly declining.

____________________

jonny87:

drudge hasnt been tipped off about ras numbers today....obama+6?

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

My God, the bottom has fallen out. Quinnipiac notes that McCain's support from independents has collapsed in CO, MI, MN, WI. The language they use in describing McCain's outlook is colorful:

"Sen. Obama's leads in these four battleground states are as large as they have been the entire campaign. Those margins may be insurmountable barring a reversal that has never been seen before in the modern era in which polling monitors public opinion throughout the campaign," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


"The only possible bright spot for Sen. McCain - and you would need Mary Poppins to find it in these numbers - is that he is holding roughly the same portion of the Republican vote. But McCain's support among independent voters, a group he says are key to winning the White House, has collapsed," Brown added.

____________________

DTM:

@ johncoz

I agree that from current polls we can get a good idea of approximately how many people are voting early. It also appears quite likely Obama is ahead among those people by at least some substantial amount, which as you note creates somewhat of a cushion effect against subsequent tightening (although as an aside, I am not actually sure such a tightening will occur).

My only point was that we really can't be very precise about the exact size of that cushion. For example, one might be tempted to do something like take Obama's ten point margin among early voters in this poll, multiply it by 7%, and conclude he has something like a 0.7 point cushion built up so far. I am more or less just pointing out that there is too much uncertainty about that ten point margin to make that calculation reliable. But again, I am comfortable with saying he has some sort of cushion.

____________________

johncoz:

@dtm

Agree on all points :-)

____________________

boomshak:

The Wallstreet Journal has just declared Obama's "95% Tax Cut" to be complete bullsh*t.

http://wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Will McCain have the brains to actually use this during the debate? I doubt it.

____________________

jonny87:

anyone live in the 'battleground' kerry states? still seeing as many mccain ads in WI, MN, MI, PA,others...

____________________

boomshak:

NATIONAL ENQUIRER:

OBAMA SEX PERV SCANDAL

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_sex_perv_scandal/celebrity/65575

Hey, they were wrong about John Edwards too, so no need to worry, lol.

____________________

johncoz:

Morning boom,

The problem for McCain is that no one's listening anymore -- especially if were to try to mount a complex argument about the creative accounting behind a tax proposal which he undoubtedly does not understand himself.

____________________

DTM:

Personally, I would like to see the calculations behind the WSJ's claim that "[t]aken together, however, [Obama's proposed] tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers." Among other things, I suspect they are excluding the employer's contribution to the payroll tax, even though for all practical purposes that is still a tax on the employee.

In any event, the political problem for McCain is that he wants to make the argument that Obama will actually raise taxes on a large number of people. So regardless of what one feels about the merits of making these tax credits refundable, that issue is irrelevant to the argument McCain actually wants to make.

____________________

The_Huntsman:

Boomshak's exuberance about "revealing the truth" points to the major problem with the McCain campaign's strategy -- the more different, half-baked character-based attacks they level at Obama, the less likely it is that something will filter through the noise they're creating. And the polls have clearly demonstrated that these attacks backfire among independents and make them more likely to vote Obama.

____________________

DTM:

By the way, even if everything the National Enquirer reported is correct, the story is nothing more than that a friend of Obama's grandfather had a secret double life as a "sex pervert".

Again, the political problem for McCain is that story doesn't seem to do anything to support a case for McCain being President.

____________________

DTM:

Incidentally, RCP has in fact switched Wisconsin and Michigan to "Solid Obama" after factoring in the Q polls.

____________________

whatwhat:

Since you're a fail of the Enquirer, Boomie, what do you think of Sarah Palin's affair?

____________________

orange24:

Wow, the WSJ says the tax cuts are BS? They're so impartial, I'd be a fool not to believe them.

____________________

whatwhat:

Also, the Wall Street Journal Opinion section is frequently at odds with reality and the Wall Street Journal's actual reporting.

____________________

boomshak:

@orange24:

Wow, the WSJ says the tax cuts are BS?

Did you read the article? The tax cuts are BS. 47% of those receiving them don't pay taxes anyway. That makes it a welfare check paid for by real taxpayers.

Income redistribution. Marxism. Obamaism.

____________________

boomshak:

@whatwhat:

Since you're a fail of the Enquirer, Boomie, what do you think of Sarah Palin's affair?

Apparently, that story didn't pan out, did it?

____________________

boomshak:

QUESTION: WILL THE SKYROCKETING STOCK MARKET HURT OBAMA?

As the economy stabilizes will this hurt Obama? What if Israel now strikes Iran?

____________________

boomshak:

You know, Bush really has done a good job handling this crisis. He has been cool-headed and even-handed.

I doubt he will get any credit.

____________________

whatwhat:

Apparently, that story didn't pan out, did it?

In what respect, boomie?

____________________

orange24:

@boomshak
Did you read the article? The tax cuts are BS. 47% of those receiving them don't pay taxes anyway. That makes it a welfare check paid for by real taxpayers.

Would you believe an analysis of the McCain tax plan by the New York Times? Of course you wouldn't. You would consider it an opinion piece - just like I consider the WSJ article to be an opinion of theirs on the Obama tax plan.

____________________

DTM:

Even assuming the stock market continues to gain overall until the election (a very large assumption), I doubt that alone would have much effect.

For one thing, it might be worth noting that as late as the beginning of September the DJI was at 11,500, and at its peak about a year ago it was over 14,000. So the markets have a long way to go before they are in net positive territory.

For another, the stock market is only one of many economic indicators. So in the absence of very good news on jobs, incomes, housing, and so forth, I think the stock market alone won't do much to improve broad public sentiment about the economy.

Finally, historically even when the economy has legitimately improved, there seems to be a lag before broad public sentiment about the economy improves as well. So even if there were broader indications of an economic improvement starting right now, that might not have a causal effect on public sentiment until after the election.

But we shall see.

____________________

boomshak:

orange24:

There is nothing to be argued with. It is an established fact that about 47% of US Adults PAY NO INCOME TAX AT ALL. Giving those same non-taxpayers a "tax refund" of $500 in, in fact, a welfare check paid for by REAL taxpayers.

How can you aregue around that? It is an established fact.

With this welfare program, Obama is simply seeking to buy votes of those paying no tax. It is income redistribution which Obama has clearly stated that he favors. It is Marxism.

____________________

boomshak:

KARL MARX (circa 1875):
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.[2][3]"

BARACK OBAMA (circa 2008):
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

BE AFRAID, BE VERY VERY AFRAID...

____________________

boomshak:

It just makes me sad that there is SO MUCH that John McCain could attack Obama on and he just doesn't.

Worst candidate ever.

It reminds me of the primaries. John McCain would say:

"I refuse to run a negative campaign, and by the way, Mitt Romney is a lying sack of sh*t. Thank-you..."

____________________

boomshak:

NOTE TO OBAMA:

Communism has been tried. Doesn't work.

____________________

justdoit:

@ Boomy

Problem with your argument is it is ONLY $500. This is not going to change the class of any person receiving it. The poor will still be poor and the rich will be rich.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

NOTE TO BOOMSHAK:

Republican leadership has been tried. Doesn't work.

Chump.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@boomshak

tell us boom, tied race by this Sunday? Or the following Sunday?

which Sunday are you talking about?

____________________

honuificus:

See this is the problem with boomshank . . .

"Communism has been tried. Doesn't work."

Apparently, anyone who doesn't think the free market can solve all our countries ills is a radical, left-wing nut. The reality is that "corporate greed" has led to a distortion of "The American Dream." Businessmen who are so enthralled by pecuniary and predatory interests of ownership that they have abandoned industrial and social interests of production. We have truly become a “look out for number one but don’t step in number two” society in our private sector. You see, our entire political and economic structure has been constructed upon the ideal that “all men are created equal.” But that just isn’t true. Some are born with a leg-up, but many more with a leg-down. The divisions of power and wealth are chasms that to some seem insurmountable barriers to cross. We cannot ignore that in our society racism, poverty, and unequal education are inherent obstacles to equality and, subsequently, create an unlevel playing field. Such divisions can seem un-American and undemocratic. So when we liberals or, as I prefer to call myself, progressives attempt to level the playing field we are labeled as socialists. And for those of you who use the word "liberal" as a derragatory term- you might want to look up the definition:

lib·er·al [ líbbərəl, líbbrəl ]


adjective

Definition:

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others


2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual


3. culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study
a liberal education


____________________

Otown:

I love this term used by righties, "wealth redistribution." As if it only applies to democrats, but isn't wealth redistributed every time the tax code is changed, even during republican administrations? So silly...

Sorry boom but the conservative era is over. You've had a good 28 years of it.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

It's really really fun watching the Republican party fall apart.

____________________

laguna_b:

@boomshak

I have had to watch for the past 10 years as the Constitution gets shredded and the arrogant asshole neocons have dragged my country through the dirt, into war, into debt as they enriched themselves.....now you can watch us clean up the mess and we will see which is the patriotic party.

____________________

DTM:

I'm just posting to note again that even the WSJ notes that many people who don't pay federal income taxes do pay federal payroll taxes.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Hmm! Bristol Palin is due December 18. Trig Palin was born April 18th (presumably a month early from the predicted mid-May date). But there has never been a release of the birth certificate and the Mat-Su hospital actually has "sealed" any birth records. Even the "baby ward" data has no public record of Trig in it.

Family privacy, I guess. Interesting since this was the excuse before Palin was tapped to be VP. Seems that they really wanted to keep the events from the public knowledge, despite their sudden parading around of all the kids (missing school and a normal, quiet family life) like they are muppets NOW!

So we are to believe that Bristol got pregnant one month before Sarah gave birth?

Watcha wanta bet that Bristol will be "late"...just as Sarah was "early".

____________________



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