Pollster.com

Looking good. That is all.

I said just yesterday that I don't have any faith in pollsters that operate on behalf of campaigns, but I did forget that this was actually Democracy Corps, and even Pollster shows that this cycle they have a slight Republican house effect, which was likely explained by their likely voter model.

So I do in fact trust their polls, though I definitely don't trust any of the campaign sponsored state-level polls.

I can't say whether the difference is just 5 points right now or larger, but the 2% for Barr and 1% for Nader (unlike the CNN polls) makes sense at this stage of the election (and will likely be even less on the actual day of the election). I think the 4% undecideds is likely about right also at this stage, if you are doing a LV sample. Prior to the Dem convention, Republicans had mostly come home, and after the Dem convention, Dems came home to the extent that they generally do, so we're really looking at just around 5% of people that really can't figure out which of the two they will pick, and will probably end up picking one.

We'll see what happens by mid next week. That is when the GOP convention bubble will probably have played itself out. My guess is the convention levels this thing to back about 48-45 Obama, with rest to be decided based on ongoing Palin-vetting, the debates, and the hard hitting ads that are expected after GOP finds itself still behind. It is still Obama's to lose.

You have to love that comment. " I don't trust pollsters that operate on behalf of political campaigns" but since it is a democrat pollster then I will accept it. How hypocritical can one be when they are trying to tweak favorable data to match their biased views? Aha ha ha ha.

What I found interesting was the high numbers of those Registered Voters that assert that they voted in the last election. This suggests that many respondants are just out-and-out ignorant/deceptive about their voting habits. It may also mean that poll respondants falsely embellish their registration status.

That's not saying that DemCorps is at fault here...it's just something that is a concern for all pollsters.

The survey was VERY long. A respondant would have to be very patient to sit through it completely.

Finally there were some interesting "test questions" based on narratives about Biden and Palin at the end. I found these interesting as they actually were not "push poll" type questions. They were done to see if there were any impacts from the positive narratives that the campaigns would likely use in the campaign.

@ player

Actually, he said he would trust it because this pollster has a Republican bias so there isn't a concern about the poll being generous to Obama's numbers. Try reading all the words.

@sjt22, actually, what he said would depend on where he put the missing correct punctuation.

I believe he means what you read, but it is readable several different ways.

I trust Democracy Corps because they regularly put out reliable numbers, and even Pollster has shown and specifically pointed out that their house effect leans Republican in comparison to the average of all pollsters, and that this make sense due to their likely voter model which tends to lean more towards Republicans than registered voter samples.

Now being a pollster affiliated with Democrats is far different from a pollster hired on behalf of a state campaign that selectively releases numbers only when they show benefit to the campaign that pays for the polls. These are notoriously skewed, and there are plenty of examples on both sides.

The difference with Democratic affiliated pollsters such as Democracy Corps and PPP is that they tend to have results in line with the average, while Republican affiliated pollsters such as Rasmussen and Strategic Vision generally show a clear bias to Republicans. Democrats generally find that is is more useful to know the truth in the polls while Republicans use polls as a way to push propaganda, either by using biased polls or by cherry picking data.

Well that didn't take long.......

We all knew that racists support the Republican party, and so were waiting for a racist comment. Well now, a repub congressman shows his true colors......

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/westmoreland-calls-obama-uppity-2008-09-04.html

--------------------------------------------
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.
"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

Other Democrats have charged that the Republican campaign to paint the Illinois senator as an “elitist” is racially charged, and accused them of using code words for “uppity” without using the word itself.

In August, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told reporters, “When I hear the word ‘elitist’ linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity.' I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better.”

Political consultant David Gergen, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, said on ABC’s "This Week" that “As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'He's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a Southern background.”

The Obama campaign, asked about the quote, did not note any racial context.

“Sounds like Rep. Westmoreland should be careful throwing stones from his candidate's eight glass houses,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Campaigning against the first black major-party nominee has already created some problems for Republicans.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Davis sent a letter of apology to Obama in which he described his remark as a “poor choice of words.”

Westmoreland originally supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He now supports McCain, but missed an August fundraiser for the nominee because he was vacationing with his family.

Brutus1,

Please don't start in with the race baiting that the Obama campaign is so good at. "Uppity" does not necessarily have a racial overtone. Yes, "uppity black" is an old divisive name, but the word can be used to describe anyone of any race. I don't see you getting upset at Harry Reid's calling Sarah Palin's speech "shrill", which IS totally sexist. But then Obama supporters suddenly don't seem to mind sexism this year. As Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, and Gloria Steinam (among many) have noted, the Obama campaign has been terribly sexist this year. But he's (half) black and racism also exists, so apparently, sexism is OK. God, how hypocritical can you be???

Tho I don't feel that these commits were racial in any means I do believe that the Republican party leans in that direction.

Examples that were particular offensive to me as a man of color.

Fox news : terrorist fist jab commit
: Obama's baby momma commit
Rush : Talked about "The white Tapes" for days

Funny thing thing is I've never voted Dem before, but after what I've seen this year I'll probably never vote Republican again.