10/11-13, 08; 3,000 LV 2%
Obama 50, McCain 45
Outlier on the low side.
Landslide Baby Landslide!
Posted on October 14, 2008 9:53 AM
diageo unchanged: 48-42
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:10 AM
BATTLEGROUND AT 13 POINTS !!! 53-40
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:18 AM
if it looks like bull****, walks like bull**** and smells like bull**** then by golly, it must have come out of boomshaks mouth.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:21 AM
I am an Obama supporter, and while I'm generally pleased with the state polling that's come out I don't think that we should just dismiss the Rass tracker. While I don't buy into boomshak's predictive nonsense that any tightening is a sign of impending doom for Obama, I do think that this might be one of the polls where we're seeing McShame's negative ads pay off. The fact that it's been relatively stable, and seems to be settling on this 5% margin says to me that maybe (accounting for Rass house effect) the national number may be more like 6% than the 10% that the WaPo/ABC poll had out yesterday.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:24 AM
Battleground up 6 points from their previous poll? Wow. Do they not poll on weekends? Trying to make sense of their method. It would be nice if they would add a little analysis.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Obama - 50
McCain - 45
This is first time SUSA has Obama up in OH :-)
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:28 AM
The key problem here remains the same for McCain. It doesn't matter if the lead is 5 or 10 percent nationally. He can't get above 45, he's outside the margin of error, and the state polls tell the tale. Kerry states plus IA, NM, and CO and it is over. I don't think he can pull either of those three back, and he needs to defend VA, NC, FL, OH, NV, and MO now. He needs to WIN all of those plus pull back Colorado, and that isn't going to happen unless he pulls AHEAD in the national tracker. That 45 ceiling is his problem. I stand by my numbers. In the end, I think it's Obama around 51%, McBush around 48%, with the rest going to undecideds, and Obama getting 306 to 311 EVs. Anything above that is an Obama landslide.
Have you seen the GW Battleground for today?? btw- this is a right leaning pollster!
Up 17 points in WI as well.
3 more weeks, my friends!
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:30 AM
Can someone get Cindy McCain a chair? Why does she have to stand behind him everytime he gives a speech? I get that she wants "the old dude" to win but I don't need to see her at every single event.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:31 AM
Battleground doesn't poll Friday or Saturday.
Rasmussen poll always underestimate Obama in the primary.
they are automatic calling system which don't call cell phones.
According to PEW research, Obama is always 2-3 percent better than the polls whihc don't call cell phones. You can check in their website, they have a nice research regarding this issue.
So, I believe that you have to add at least 2 percent to Obama in rasmussen poll.
I wish the election was today but even a 5 percent victory would probably be huge in terms of EV. But like a baseball team being up by five runs going into the ninth, we should not be complacent. We should go up to bat with the objective of scoring more runs. We can never coast.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:32 AM
Cmbat is absolutely right. The problem here for McCain is that he's not getting above 45 in any polls while Obama is cracking 50 easily in multiple polls.
Rasmussen has an amazingly stable methodology because the numbers don't vary much at all. It's really interesting. As what comes to Battleground, it's pure garbage.
In Ohio 12% have voted early, as per what they told SUSA, and they favor Obama 7 to 5 (57-39).
She's stands there to catch him in case he falls. ;)
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:33 AM
Worth noting on the Susa polls, is that they report separately for voters who have already cast early votes. For Ohio, Obama leads by a massive 57% to 39%.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:36 AM
Guess that deflates boombatty's joy over a low early turnout in Ohio that he was spewing a few days ago!
Obama - 55
McCain - 40
All this despite McCain getting 18% of the AA vote :-)
Last week Obama was at 51-52 and Gramps was at 44-45, the 50 is the low end of the spectrum. Hopefully in the coming days with the last debate we will see Obama add a couple more points to his lead here.
As far as Battleground as much as I would like to believe it as Boom**** would say FAIL! Also FAIL! the IBD poll they are smoking something Obama is above 45% sorry guys.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:37 AM
The Early Line: Diageo/Hotline Tracking Poll
- Obama maintained his 48-42% lead from yesterday's release. The WH contest also remains largely status quo among men, while women (including white women) appear to be breaking more towards Obama.
- Among all men, Obama leads by 1% -- exactly his margin one week ago, in the survey completed 10/6. Among women, however, Obama's lead has grown from 3% to 12% over the same period.
- The same trends are evident among whites. McCain today leads white men by 11% -- exactly his margin one week ago. Among white women, however, the GOP nominee's advantage has fallen from 12% to 6%.
Today's Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, conducted 10/11-13 by FD, surveyed 829 LVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. Party ID Breakdown for the sample is 41%D, 37%R, 18%I.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Agreed - a 5 point national lead would translate into a large electoral victory - probably even push Obama over the edge where I am here in NC. However, I want to hold onto that large national lead as long as possible so that any natural tightening in the last week or so still leaves us up significantly.
I also dislike the close Rass tracker because it gives a MSM that gets bored with its current kitty toy of "Obama ready for victory" an entre into a new "We were right! This race is getting all mavericky and down-to-the-wire" narrative.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:39 AM
Rasmussen's tracking poll seems designed to respond more slowly to trends. That is probably a good thing if you are only going to follow that one poll, but not really all that helpful if you are looking at something like Pollster's default regression analysis (which serves the same purpose).
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:40 AM
I did the quick math --if those early voting stats for OH are true, that means that Obama only has to capture 47% of the remaining voters to win the state.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:41 AM
@BOOMFAIL, you said "@sunnymi
Guess that deflates boombatty's joy over a low early turnout in Ohio that he was spewing a few days ago!"
The numbers they had in AP was for just a few locations. They looked small because only new voters registering that week could vote instantly.
I think these early voters whom SUSA polled might include absentee ballot voters as well.
So, if we "assume" 12% of Ohio voters have already cast their ballots, and Obama leads them 57-39, how well would McCain need to perform among the remaining 88% if the election were held today? Anyone?
No math skilla here...
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:42 AM
Current RCP average for PA: O +13.4
This is better than his average for NH, NJ and almost as good as MA (O +13.7). In fact the only states Obama has a better RCP average than PA are MA, CA, IL, CT and NY.
This rise in his poll numbers in PA is indeed remarkable!
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:46 AM
I have a couple of questions for the flaming liberals on this site (yes, that's what you all are, just admit it). Here they are:
1. Do you really expect "That One's" vote numbers to be as high as his poll numbers? The Dems rely on a constitutent base that is generally lazy and can't manage to get to work. I don't believe in the Bradley effect, I believe it is because the heart of your party is in the lower class. There's a reason why so many of them are there ... not a lack of ability, but a lack of motivation. I know, I grew up with them!
2. Do you realize that to pay for all the stuff that you guys want to do, we are ALL going to have to pay a lot more in taxes? The upper 5%, even with all their evil money that you guys like to demonize, can't pay for all that stuff that Obama, Pelosi and Reid want to do. Is there anyone in this country that still believes the government should not spend more than it can raise?
3. Do you realize that income redistribution is futile? You take money and redistribute it as "tax cuts" to people who aren't paying taxes anyway and what do you think they are going to do with it? I can tell you from watching them growing up what they will do with it. They will not invest it in a better future. They will not invest it in anything to make their kids lives better. They will spend 90% of it on cigarettes, beer, drugs, gambling, lottery tickets and the like. All you are doing is putting more money in the hands of people who already don't know how to make wise money choices. When was the last time a social welfare program actually accomplished anything other than breeding dependency on the government?
The NY Times (aka Obama Times) even published an editorial today that said Obama, Pelosi & Reid would undertake the greatest social experiment in decades at the expense of the American people and that the backlash will be enormous. Enjoy 4 years, you probably won't get any more than that.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:47 AM
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:51 AM
@Keep VA Red:
For the record, I am a "flaming liberal" just like you are probably an "entrenched neo-conservative" and I'm not really ashamed to say it. I know y'all have been throwing that word around as an insult for the better part of 30 years, but tough economic times tend to warm people up to a philosophy that sticks up for them.
1) It is pointless to argue with your racist/classist assessment of people who are too "lazy" to vote - i.e. people who often are away from their home at school, people who work and do not have the luxury of leaving early or coming in late. Let me say this, though - with early voting now in many states, and a huge field operation that is operating in your red virginia and my red north carolina, expect this turnout to be higher than normal come Nov. 4th. We will soon enough be able to judge this in hard numbers, though.
2) and 3) This is a polling site, and I am here to discuss polling numbers and the statistical side of this election. Let it be said, though, that an economic philosophy that "demonizes" the other 95% as people who you call "lazy" is a huge problem for the United States. Trickling down from people and corporations who know how to keep the most possible money to themselves is not strong national economic policy, it is greed.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:56 AM
McCain needs about 51.6% of the remaining 88% of the vote in OH to get to 50.1% in that state.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:57 AM
@Keep VA Red-
To your points, in order...
1) Obama consistently outperformed polling in the primaries, as did turnout. The Democratic party is not just made up of the lower class by any stretch. Educated upper-middle class Americans lean Democrat. It's the low-end religious nuts that favor the Republican party. There won't be an issue on Election Day with turnout, and I suspect Obama will beat the closing day polling averages by a point or two.
2) Do YOU realize that what got us into this mess is the fact that the country as a whole hasn't been paying for what it has been spending? If Iraq had never happened, we'd be in better shape. If the Bush tax cuts for the rich had never happened, we'd be in better shape. You Republicans that believe that money grows on trees are what caused this financial mess. I don't want my kids growing up to believe that US Dollars = Monopoly money, and I want them to be responsible for their finances. We do that by paying for what we spend as we go. Having said that, by ending the war in Iraq and making some cuts across the board and revisiting how DoD works, Obama can concentrate more on the spending side than the tax side, especially in the first year or two. After things stabilize, the rich should pay the share they used to pay before Dildo-head took office.
3) The New Deal. And the reality is that giving money to lazy people doesn't do anything, but demanding that American businesses employee Americans in America and pay them based on the cost of living in the country, including healthcare, etc., does matter and makes the economybetter.
And so here is the real question for you. Since Bush is going out on a economic low for people across the country and the biggest financial mess in history, do you really believe that after Obama's first four years, people will say that they aren't better off? See you in 2016 when you can run a Jindal/Palin ticket and get thumped again.
Posted on October 14, 2008 10:58 AM
only one poll shows it close and obama is still up by 5. looks good to me.
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:04 AM
@Keep VA Red
1) Yes - he will outperform he poll numbers. (Hint: we aren't unemployed or lazy either.)
2) Yes - we will pay taxes to rebuild America. Apparently you won't.
3) Yes - I like income redistribution even if it only cuts the number of homeless, hungry people on the streets of this rich country.
Beer? yes once in a while
Lottery tickets? Yes in moderation
Flying first class? No
Second home? No
Country Club? No
Plastic Surgery? No
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:05 AM
Obama continues to lead in N Carolina poll by PPP - but by slightly reduced margin.
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:07 AM
Flaming liberals? Does he realize the hypocrisy in even making that remark and demanding we admit it? Lol. And for the record, turn VA blue! (I meant that seriously in regards to the map)
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:10 AM
Keep VA Red-
"Do you realize that income redistribution is futile?"
I don't know. It has worked pretty good for the Republicans the last eight years. They have successfully redistributed the wealth of the middle class to the top 1% of this country.
Thanks to Bush and his pals we are living through a second age of robber barons like at the end of the 19th century. Obama is looking to Roosevelt, the greatest Democratic president, as his model. Obama will send Reaganomics to the ash-heap of history where it belongs.
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:18 AM
National debt under Bush $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.
National debt when Clinton left office: 0.
As for Obama's tax plan. It's aimed at helping the MIDDLE CLASS. For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that you earn less $200,000.
Check how much better off you'll be under Obama here (see sidebar):
Posted on October 14, 2008 11:52 AM
Im a Democrat, BUT...No to everything on that list except flying first class. You dont count botox do you?
Ten days ago Wolf Blitzer said no way Obama would win Florida! Every talking head said the election would be close. I said landslide long before Palin. I'm waiting for more dominoes to fall: Georgia, Arkansas...
Hypothetical. What if the Republicans had nominated Mitt Romney and he had chosen Mike Huckabee as his veep?
Huckabee is the best campaigner of the 4.
Romney has the best reputation on economics of the 4.
Both of those 2 are way outside Washington.
Both have lots of executive experience, whereas the Dem. ticket has none.
I believe a Romney/Huckabee ticket could have beaten Obama/Biden even though they are Republicans.
Posted on October 14, 2008 12:08 PM
I expect and predicted way back in July that Obama would win 390 EVs which included Georgia but not WV at the time.
So 395 EVs as of today!
Posted on October 14, 2008 12:09 PM
Can anyone tell me why Rasmussen often shows a tighter race than the other pools? For that matter, why the opposite with DailyKos?
Posted on October 14, 2008 12:10 PM
And Rasmussen should be +6, not +5. Just sayin'.
Posted on October 14, 2008 1:20 PM
Just a quick followup on the Ramussen poll, from a poster at openleft.com:
As I explained in the comments to the Rasmussen tracking poll Quick Hit, Obama is actually up 5.9% in today's Rasmussen, not 5.0%. McCain benefits from rounding on both ends, a a 50.4%--44.5% Obama lead becomes 50%-45%. It isn't a conspiracy, it is just unusual, so I thought it worthy of pointing out.
Posted on October 14, 2008 1:21 PM
One difference is that Rasmussen weights by party affiliation, using trailing party ID ratios that are only updated weekly (and originally just monthly). This produces something of a smoothing effect over time, which can reduce random variations but also make his polls slower to react to real trends.
Posted on October 14, 2008 1:23 PM
Chalk me up as another proud "flaming liberal."
Posted on October 14, 2008 1:29 PM
I'm just going to take your cynicism, anger and assumptions at face value. Although easy, it would be a waste of time to refute them.
1: We don’t “expect” anything, except that bitter Neocons will cling to guns and religion, class labels, stereotypes, fear mongering and war-waging. Oh yeah -- lying, but that goes without saying.
2: Actually, all we have to do is quit making bombs for a few years. Take cluster bombs alone. Right now, there are over 20 million in US inventory at a cost of between $10,000 and $300,000 EACH. Do the math. And that’s just one class of munition, not counting $11B annually for a stupid war. You are apparently the only one who believes we should spend more than we raise since you voted for the last fools that did that - twice. And that's not counting Bush 41 and Reagan, who you probably voted for, too.
3: Your exhaustive research, observing “them” growing up, notwithstanding, what they do with it is none of your business. And whatever it is, it will certainly be better than hoarding it, which is what people that already have plenty do with the extra cash they’d get from McCain. “Trickle-down” my ass. Successful social welfare? Um, let’s see. Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, to name but a few.
4: If you’re talking about David Brooke’s column, it was a column, not an editorial. In any case, who cares? After the Bush/Greenspan “Free the Markets” experiment which has utterly failed us, I’m totally up for the greatest social experiment in decades. We should be so lucky.
Posted on October 14, 2008 2:12 PM
The "greatest social experiment in decades?" That statement alone would scare the bejeeses out of me.
Posted on October 14, 2008 2:49 PM
MCCAIN FINALLY HAS AN ECONOMIC PLAN...AND IT'S A DAMNED GOOD ONE:
In my administration, we will instead revive the market by attracting new investment. I will cut in half the capital gains tax on stocks purchased and held for more than a year – from a rate of 15 to 7.5 percent. This vital measure will promote buying, raise asset values, help companies and shore up the pension plans for workers and retirees.
We should also not penalize Americans who are forced to sell investments in today’s tough markets. I will increase the amount of capital losses from $3,000 to $15,000, which can be deducted from your ordinary income in tax years 2008 and 2009. So much of this decline in our markets and value destruction was due to the failure of Congress and the Administration to come out with a timely rescue package. Investors are always responsible for their investment decisions, but the hard earned savings of Americans should not be penalized by the erratic behavior of politicians.
While we put government back on your side, we must reform our tax system to deliver needed tax relief to working Americans, and to create jobs. I will double the child deduction, from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars. Every person in America who chooses it will receive a 5,000 dollars towards the purchase of health insurance – health plans that will be theirs to keep, even if they change jobs or move to another state. And we will reduce the federal business tax rate from 35 percent – the second-highest in the world – to 25 percent. I am also proposing today that for those who are between jobs, we eliminate all taxes on unemployment benefits. It is unclear to me why the government taxes money it has just sent you, and we should relieve this burden from Americans who’ve been hit the hardest.
And then he levels his most effective attack on the substance of Barack Obama’s agenda:
Senator Obama also promises to restrict international trade and risk access to foreign markets for American goods and services. The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy was Herbert Hoover. That didn’t turn out to well. They say those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, I know my history lessons, and I sure won’t make the mistakes Senator Obama will. And were my opponent elected with a Democratic Congress in power, not only would there be no check on my opponent’s reckless economic policies, there would be considerable pressure on him to tax and spend even more.
This weekend, a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan. The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote “spread the wealth around.” This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income tax cut for millions who aren’t even paying income taxes right now. My friends, my plan isn’t intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can “spread the wealth around.” My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans.
Now if his innept campaign can just find a way to get this in front of the American people in the next 3 weeks, maybe he can turn this around.
I really must wonder though, weere has all of this been for the last 2 months while Obama went completely UNCHALLENGED on his bogus "tax cut for 95% of Americans"?
Posted on October 14, 2008 3:06 PM
this is the same economic plan he had or months.
Posted on October 14, 2008 6:01 PM
this is the same plan he has had for months.
Posted on October 14, 2008 6:02 PM
so everything obama says is a lie but mccain is always telling the truth. come on do you really think he ll be able to do all that with a democrat controlled congress. especially since they will have a larger majority after the election no matter who is pres.
Posted on October 14, 2008 6:06 PM
It's damned worthless is what it is. I cannot conceive of a weaker economic proposal, especially from a guy who has had 26 years to figure it out and given himself unlimited mulligans in this campaign. McCain's economic plan even has conservatives saying Obama's tax plans aren't as irresponsible as McCain's.
I also think it's interesting that somehow, the only plumber in America that makes $250,000 managed to find Obama. How many plumbers make $250k? Answer: NONE. Median salary for plumbers: $37,514. Whatever.
McCain's plan does nothing for jobs except maybe create a few for financial planners. He leaves his weak $5000 tax credit for health care in place, he makes a big showy display of cutting business taxes by 10%, but it's a head fake, because TWO THIRDS OF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS PAY NO INCOME TAXES, WHATSOEVER. Google it. When Obama talks about addressing the tax code, he is talking about closing loopholes through which $2.5 TRILLION dollars of corporate income flowed but which were not taxed over the last 10 years.
You would think with $2.5 Trillion in untaxed income, there would be jobs galore trickling down. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is, there is plenty of money to go around. The Republicans who cry "Socialism! Socialism!" sound like the little kid who punches somebody on the playground and then cries to the teacher when he's punched back. The real redistribution of wealth took place from 2001 to the present. Time to stop the fleecing of the middle class.
Real captains of industry, men and women with great ideas who create, manufacture and distribute great products understand it takes a prosperous middle class to sustain a vibrant economy. It's the hired-gun CEOs with government connections, their agents, their brokers, their lobbyists and their in-the-pocket politicians who have sold us down the river.
"My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small business to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can "spread the wealth around." My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."
Meaningless, reactionary words with no connection to his plan or reality. John McCain is fundamentally unsound.
Posted on October 14, 2008 6:16 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