Tarrance Group (R)/Lake Research (D)
10/13-16/19, 08; 1,000 LV 3%
Obama 49, McCain 45
Obama 4-8 point lead in the polls so far today still points to a huge win. Two more weeks, my friends!
Posted on October 20, 2008 9:33 AM
Obama is up by about 5 points right now. All the polls seem to be hovering around that number. Not as high as he was a few weeks back but he is still over 50%.
Posted on October 20, 2008 9:43 AM
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican 48,886,597 53.37% EV 426
Michael Dukakis Lloyd Bentsen Democratic 41,809,476 45.65% EV 111
Interesting to see what a 7-8 point spread can lead to.
Posted on October 20, 2008 9:52 AM
"the race is tightening"
"McCain is winning"
are two totally different worlds
Posted on October 20, 2008 9:54 AM
I know no one in the Obama camp likes to look to past behavior as indicative of future events (history repeats itself). However, Obam did have a tendency to poll above perform throughout the primaries.
Many reputable pollsters had Obama winning NH by double-digits. Hillary won by 4. That's at least a 14 point swing.
A 4.8 (RCP Avg) lead for Obama here is truly pathetic. He has the entire MSM as a free advertising arm of his campaign and McCain has run a pretty sh*tty campaign and 4.8 is the best he can do?
Anything can happen, but it is not without reason that one could imagine this being a dead-even tied race on Nov 4.
If that happens, I give the edge to Obama because he leads amongst dead, imaginary and multi-voting voters.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:03 AM
You're wrong...NH is the only state where pollsters got the Obama advantage wrong. They underestimated him in NC, Indiana, Colorado, Virginia, etc. Why? A few reasons...underestimating the AA and youth vote were major ones.
All the current polls have Obama with a 4-8 pt lead nationally and with leads in key battleground states. These may tighten, of course, but we'll see.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Living in Wisconsin, I can tell you that Obama did NOT poll 17 points above Clinton before the primary. He DID however, get 17% over her. FAIL.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:06 AM
Your statement that Obama polled better than he performed is completely false and has been thoroughly discredited as a premise. Do your homework. In fact, the reality is the opposite. OBAMA OUTPERFORMED POLLS more often than the other way around during the primaries. There were a few notable exceptions, but there were several states where Obama ended up 10+ points ahead of how he polled.
This is what I think is going to happen in the next few days:
1/ the polls are going to tighten as all the undecideds come off the fence. No-one really believes Obama will win by +10 in a non-incumbent race.
2/ The pollsters will begin to converge on their findings as they refine their likely voter models and depserately try to make sure they are close to the actual result (no pollster wants to be known as hopelessly inaccurate).
3/ The national polls will settle at around +6 Obama by next weekend (I've been using a model of adding a couple to the Rasmussen tracker and taking a couple off Kos and it tends to be bang of the Pollster.com trend estimate).
4/ The polls will get closer in the final week but on election night it will be a lnadslide.
There - you heard it here first!!
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:08 AM
CHECK IT boombatty:
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:09 AM
traditional phone polls don't reach a lot of Obama's core voters, and this explains why Obama outperformed polls in the primaries. It also doesn't account for all the newly registered voters that Obama's campaign has added to the rolls, especially in battleground states. So, while there is actually a proven and legitimate reason to expect Obama to do better than his polling numbers, the only (fabrciated) reason why (some) people think Obama will underperform is based on a delusional hope that some magic occurrence will keep Obama from winning.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:10 AM
I'm sure there are many more, but should prove that just repeating talking points does not change the FACTS.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:12 AM
Boom I love it when you eviscerate us with your wit. It is like being stabbed with a plastic spoon, kind of a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:13 AM
WHY OBAMA IS NOT FURTHER AHEAD:
America is on new ground here.
Never before has America been in a position to elect a Socialist POTUS who hobnobbed with a terrorist, had a black supremicist as his mentor, worked closely with an organization neck-deep in voter fraud and has no significant achievements even though he has been in government for 12 years.
It's a TOUGH PILL to swallow.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:15 AM
I also think a 4.8 lead is pathetic. The only people at this point who are voting for McCain/Palin are the willfully ignorant. I'm ashamed that my country has so many of them.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:16 AM
And one more thing, rcp's average which has Obama ahead by 4.8 is the most contrived cherry-picked result imaginable. Three polls released 6 days ago had Obama +9 (LA Times), +9 (McClatchy) and +14 (Newsweek). When Obama would get a bad result, those numbers would stay part of the average for two weeks at least. There aren't that many more polls coming out now than there were a few weeks ago, so there is absolutely no reason to discount the LA Times, McClatchey, and Newsweek polls that have Obama with a big advantage.
Plus, rcp's 50% credit to gallup's traditional likely voter model is suspect. If Obama leads by 10 among registered voters, it is total garbage to give any credit to some bizarre interpretation of that result which causes McCain to gain 7 points.
If you average the polls from the last week (which hardly seems like a stretch), and discount absurd likely voter models, Obama's lead is closer to 7 points.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:17 AM
In NH primary, Hillary's tears in restaurant just before the election day made a huge turning point for undecides and white women voters.
But the states where AA and youngsters are big population, Obama outperformed by double digits such as VA, NC.
So, I'm actually very certain that in those 2 states, obama will win even if the poll is tied.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:25 AM
Here is a chart detailing how Obama performed in the primaries relative to polling:
The upshot is that using +/-7% as the dividing line for the polls being significantly off (this number comes from the authors of the study associated with that chart), Obama underperformed significantly in three states: New Hampshire, California, and Rhode Island. He overperformed significantly in twelve states: South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Florida, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Mississippi.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:28 AM
I bet commie liberals framed him
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:33 AM
It's a TOUGH PILL to swallow
Better get a big glass of water then, because you're going to have to swallow that pill on Nov 4.
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:36 AM
I especially love that you took it off of Fix News. Nothing says you are screwed like having the home team admit you are a crook.
So I wonder if Intrade is going to have a line on this?
Posted on October 20, 2008 10:37 AM
Well, the so-called "reverse Bradley effect" noted in the study you cite takes into account several states that very small samples (or no sample) in the week prior to the primary.
Further, the regression model uses the AA population as a variable. In my understanding of the Bradley effect, the important variable is white, blue-collar independents and "Reagan Democrats", not African-Americans.
Sure enough, states showing a (marginal) Bradley effect -- even using the authors' model -- include OH and PA.
Posted on October 20, 2008 11:05 AM
"New Hampshire, California, and Rhode Island. He overperformed significantly in twelve states: South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Florida, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Mississippi."
So using Booms premise...that there are under-reported voters out there not being measured in the polls...one would possibly give McCain New Hampshire (although the gap is pretty wide there)...while giving Obama...Montana, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, and possibly even Georgia.
Seems a fair trade-off!
Posted on October 20, 2008 11:08 AM
I was only linking that chart for the purpose of setting forth the factual record on how Obama performed in the primaries relative to his polling. The debate over whether we should expect a Bradley Effect, or a Reverse Bradley Effect, or in fact both, is a much more complex topic. Personally, I am hesistant to overrely on the primaries for that purpose.
But it may be worth just noting, since you brought it up, that the study found that while both effects may have shown up in the primaries, the Reverse Bradley Effect was apparently stronger overall, and as a result dominated in more states (note the authors originally expected the Bradley Effect to dominate). That is in part because in many states not just blacks but also whites seemed to understate their support for Obama, most often whites in non-Southern but traditionally Republican states like Montana or Indiana.
Posted on October 20, 2008 11:31 AM
Oh, and the study looked only at primaries where there was at least some polling in the week before the primary, but I can't claim in each state there was as much polling as we would ideally want for these purposes. On the other hand, I don't know of any reason to suspect that was systematically biasing the data.
Posted on October 20, 2008 11:34 AM
I think yuo should all ignore BOOM. Why do you even bother arguing with him??
Let him keep copy pasting messages from rightwing nuts websites and rot in his misery of a liberal america. ignorehim
Posted on October 20, 2008 11:47 AM
If you told Obama, back in early Sept that, on this day two weeks out from the election he'd be almost 5 points up in the RCP avg. do you think he'd be even slightly disappointed? He and his staff would be ecstatic, and for good reason. The only candidate to surmount this kind of deficit in modern history was Reagan, who was up against an unpopular
Add in the fact that Obama has superior GOTV, Ad buying capabilities and greater enthusiasm (as shown in early voting stats in GA and NC, etc.) and you get a portrait of a race which, unless something drastic happens really quickly, is essentially all over but for the extremely perverse ravings of loons who go around shouting that "Obama (the socialist)should be up by 20" AND, at the same time telling us that "America is a Center-right country". How do you square these two statements when made by the same person? Well you don't, you just up the dose...
Posted on October 20, 2008 12:39 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