Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 52, McCain 42 (Gallup 10/29-31)

Topics: PHome

Gallup Poll
10/29-31/08; 2,480 LV-Expanded, 2%
Mode: Live Telephon Interviews

Registered Voters:
Obama 52, McCain 41

Likely Voters-Expanded:
Obama 52, McCain 42

Likely Voters-Traditional
Obama 52, McCain 42

 

Comments
mysticlaker:

What are the chances we have a statistical tie tomorrow with gallup?

____________________

couseydee:

What's all of this noise I hear about the poll numbers tightening?
Everything coming out has the same numbers that have been holding steady for over a month now.

____________________

NeutralNick:

I love it when all the models come together

____________________

TheCanadian:

Great news. Isn't it funny how the traditional LV's slowly made it's way to the Expanded LV's model. Guess those newly registered voters are showing up.

____________________

abraxaf:

McCain surge!!!!!!!

Read this if you want to laugh your butt off:
http://patriotroom.com/?p=3672

____________________

NeutralNick:

The noise is just wishful thinking conservatives, if obama doesn't win this election by at least 5 or 6 points we all will need new jobs.

____________________

MsJohnson:

Surge! Well . . . no.

I'm afraid Zogby is out-to-lunch.

____________________

timontheleft:

@abraxaf

Is that a legit site??? LOL Not much is going to top that for today's entertainment. CA only 2 point down . . . what a joke!

____________________

thoughtful:

I'd expect Rasmussen to converge with Gallup over the next 2 days.

It looks to me like a 53% - 45% 390+EVs election.

____________________

1magine:

Don't believe the hype. Insider's are repeating what the polls have been saying... 18-24 is under performing their registration numbers and even 2004. We need to push NOW to get them to the polls. STOP everything please and phonee bank volunteer etc...

I am leaving for BO HQ in New Haven right now.

Let's go team let's win this one for all of us.

____________________

BlixaCat:

Take that, Drudge. I mean, Zogby.

____________________

TheCanadian:

abraxaf

Thanks for the link. That made me laugh.

____________________

thoughtful:

I'd expect Rasmussen to converge with Gallup over the next 2 days.

It looks to me like a 53% - 45% 390+EVs election.

____________________

nmetro:

From hat I have seen in all the polls today they are either steady or increasing for Barack Obama.

We have to see if the AP story which mentions that Barack Obama's aunt is illegally in the United States. Apparently, this story was leaked by a GOP insider in the Bush Administration. It is possible that this will be just "noise", but it could have an affect of the 75% of those who have noted voted yet.

The polls on Tuesday morning will reflect the AP story; talk about GOP timing.

____________________

KMartDad08:

This is so sweet.

@1magine--i hear different things about the 18-24 demographic, but if it is underperforming, and Obama is still leading by such margins in early voting (and in the polls), he's in very good shape.

____________________

shirefox:

TheCanadian,
"Great news. Isn't it funny how the traditional LV's slowly made it's way to the Expanded LV's model. Guess those newly registered voters are showing up."

Exactly!

____________________

thoughtful:

@nmetro

I think the Aunt story is more likely to deliver Texas than lose Pennsylvania

____________________

TheDragon:

Even if young voters only come out at Kerry levels. Which I still wonder about since young people came out for Obama at the primaries. Still the AA turnout is going to be much higher than Kerry. AA votes a lone could give him GA. The AA and Hispanic votes could give him NC. He going to win PA. Not by 13 but he will win it by atleast 7 points.

When you look at these early voting numbers you almost want to call the election over.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@abraxaf

My response in your link:

"roflmao! you guys keep convincing yourselves that McCain is winning in CA, MI etc. What a joke! You don’t think Obama would be stopping in ANY of these states if internals showed it was close? Not to mention the fact that this would make EVERY single credible pollster more wrong than they’ve ever been before. Oh, and Obama’s stop in Iowa? It was a convenient stop on the way back to Illinois for Halloween with his kids, a stop to make certain of a state he pretty much wrapped up about 4 months ago.

But, keep the delusion going. Whatever makes you sleep better at night, lol!"

LOL!


____________________

DecaturMark:

@mysticlaker:
"What are the chances we have a statistical tie tomorrow with gallup?"

Tomorrow is Sunday and you know what our dear friend is fond of saying:

"Statistical tie by Sunday!"

____________________

rami:

I wonder what "internal GOP polls" are exactly? Republicans pundits polling their families?

____________________

freedomreigns:

The really impressive number is 52. If you are an Obama supporter, then McCain's number shouldn't matter all that much to you. As long as Obama is 51 or higher, nothing else matters.

Of course, state polls matter the most. So as long as Obama is at 51 or higher in VA, CO, NV, he will win (w/ or w/out PA).

Of course, if Obama is above 51 in FL, OH and PA, then that is lovely.

And if he is at 51+ in NC, GA, and ND, would be icing on the cake.

And MT and the 1 EV Omaha NE district would be lovely as well.

____________________

Schill:

Mccain's base and Obama's base are behind them--The aunt's news note to the Cubans in Florida who are in majority republicans that Obama and them have something in Comon, and made matter worse for Mccain in the western states. The news was all over the Miami radio station this morning, I live in Florida--and it was more positive than negative among the immigrants--now I see why Mccain is not commenting on this matter.

____________________

MancJon:

@abraxaf:

I did indeed laugh. But then it made me sad to think there are such hate-filled people out there when I read some more of that horrible site and the reader comments to it.

Get all your friends and family and everyone you meet to vote! Especially the usually-under-represented young people.

____________________

BUS:

Youth turnout is not really the issue here - the margin of victory among young people is what could be crucial for Obama:

"The margin of victory among young voters may be just as important as the overall increase in youth turnout. In 2004, 20 million young voters cast a ballot, with 54% selecting John Kerry. That gave Kerry an advantage of 1.6 million votes over President Bush among young voters. This year, if 22 million young voters cast ballots and 62% choosing Obama vs. 38% for McCain (numbers roughly found in most polling), that would give Senator Obama an advantage of 5.28 million votes."

That's a nice advantage to have.

http://futuremajority.com/node/3793

____________________

rami:

Mccain is saved : dick cheney endorsed him. Cheney is immensely popular, his words will bring mccain loads of undecided (and even obama leaners) among the working class.

____________________

Thatcher:

***ENDORSEMENT SHOCKER***

Cheney Endorses McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/01/dick-cheney-endorses-mcca_n_139990.html

aww ... pack it up folks, Obama's lost ;)

____________________

DecaturMark:

Great line from Cheney endorsement of McCain:

Obama: Cheney "knows that with John McCain you get a twofer: George Bush’s economic policy and Dick Cheney’s foreign policy"

____________________

Publius:

My boom memorial post:

I just paid $2.27 a gallon for gas, the Dow was way up last week, Obama's a socialist!

Tied by Sunday!

Now I can move on.

____________________

rami:

@hatcher : i owned you by a couple of seconds.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

I would not take much stock in Gallup. His numbers clearly show a pollster chasing the dog-pack. How could the Traditional vs. Expanded voters converge from 7 to 0 in what, three days? Only if you're cooking your books.

And his numbers themselves: welcome to schizophrenia. I imagine if you took a drive with Gallup you die from whiplash.

My question is, why would Gallup fiddle with his numbers so much? I can't imagine he's in the tank for Obama. That defies his earlier 2-point gap. I also can't imagine this, the oldest of the polling companies, would be so off in their sampling.

So what is it? My theory is that Gallup is terrified of looking wrong on election day and they've been spooked by early exit polling numbers from NM and Nevada and even Florida. They think these numbers are favoring a very expanded voter base.

Will they be right? No. Gallup refuses, for reasons I don't understand, to understand that Obama has made it a mantra to vote early. Gary, Indiana today is living proof of this, with incredible lines and delays. The people have heard him.

But they can't vote twice (except in Illinois) so on election day we'll see the great "Election Correction."

With Tipp at 4.5 now and Battleground in the same neighborhood, I believe we're lookiing at a 4 point election ... right now. Zogby's numbers for the day, though crazy, do indicate something. The enthusiasm level for the Repubs right now is ascending fast. I am getting emails from Christians who are calling for a day of fasting on Monday. The evangelical community is going to GOTV like you haven't seen before.

And that will turn Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Pennsylvania? Maybe.

____________________

Trosen:

McCain Campaing's response to Cheney ednorsement:

"Thanks, Dick."

____________________

change:

ouch! 10 points with 72 hours to go! obama is hurting him!

____________________

Mister H.:

This is what that "Patriot Room" website listed above says.....

Note what the source is...

____

"David Jeffers runs a blog called the Salt and Light. He is linking to something called the Quinn & Rose Show. The host is talking to a guy who seems to be connected to some of the GOP bigwigs, who give him internal polling numbers. The audio link is here. If this is accurate, and I cannot vouch for it, but it sounds like it might be, we could be in for a really great night of schadenfreude on Tuesday, watching the Chernobyl meltdown on MSNBC.

The audio is painfully slow to load, so I will give you what I got from it.

The guy says that Obama took Blue states for granted at his peril.

New Jersey: McCain leads 48-43 with 7% undecided.

Undecideds are breaking 4:1 for McCain

I couldn’t get the rest to load, but Not Your Sweetie has heard it and reports the following.

Apparently, McCain is 2 points ahead in New Jersey - and sweet karma - ahead in Michigan! Yes, the “half vote” Michigan. yes, that “4 Hillary delegates go to the guy who wasn’t on the ballot Michigan. And also, the state McCain stopped campaigning in!

Only 2 points behind in California - with 9% undecided and Barr 3%

In Pennsylvania there’s a McCain blowout 55 McCain, 33 Obama - with 37% Dems voting McCain (those PUMAs we were talking about from another source) and 14 % undecided - these being DEMOCRATS

Main issue with voters: Obama cheating and trying to buy this election

I guess the ACORN stories and that infomercial sealed the deal.

The greatest news? ACORN not mobilized in blue states!"

____

Interesting how such a monumental shift like this wouldn't be reflected by ANY of the public polls, right?

So in other words, this group is saying that Gallup's years of experience don't count and they dont' know what they are doing.

And Rasmussen is incompetent, too. And PPP. And IBD / TIPP. And Diageo / Hotline.

Wow...

____________________

political_junki:

"abraxaf:

McCain surge!!!!!!!

Read this if you want to laugh your butt off:
http://patriotroom.com/?p=3672";

Thanx man, you made monday with that link :))


____________________

DecaturMark:

The last person McCain would want help from is Cheney. And yet Cheney is out campaigning for him in WY (like it matters there). But it enables Obama to link Cheney and his very poor poll #s to McCain.

____________________

Mister H.:

This is what that "Patriot Room" website listed above says.....

Note what the source is...

____

"David Jeffers runs a blog called the Salt and Light. He is linking to something called the Quinn & Rose Show. The host is talking to a guy who seems to be connected to some of the GOP bigwigs, who give him internal polling numbers. The audio link is here. If this is accurate, and I cannot vouch for it, but it sounds like it might be, we could be in for a really great night of schadenfreude on Tuesday, watching the Chernobyl meltdown on MSNBC.

The audio is painfully slow to load, so I will give you what I got from it.

The guy says that Obama took Blue states for granted at his peril.

New Jersey: McCain leads 48-43 with 7% undecided.

Undecideds are breaking 4:1 for McCain

I couldn’t get the rest to load, but Not Your Sweetie has heard it and reports the following.

Apparently, McCain is 2 points ahead in New Jersey - and sweet karma - ahead in Michigan! Yes, the “half vote” Michigan. yes, that “4 Hillary delegates go to the guy who wasn’t on the ballot Michigan. And also, the state McCain stopped campaigning in!

Only 2 points behind in California - with 9% undecided and Barr 3%

In Pennsylvania there’s a McCain blowout 55 McCain, 33 Obama - with 37% Dems voting McCain (those PUMAs we were talking about from another source) and 14 % undecided - these being DEMOCRATS

Main issue with voters: Obama cheating and trying to buy this election

I guess the ACORN stories and that infomercial sealed the deal.

The greatest news? ACORN not mobilized in blue states!"

____

Interesting how such a monumental shift like this wouldn't be reflected by ANY of the public polls, right?

So in other words, this group is saying that Gallup's years of experience don't count and they dont' know what they are doing.

And Rasmussen is incompetent, too. And PPP. And IBD / TIPP. And Diageo / Hotline.

Wow...

____________________

political_junki:

MaxMBJ:
"The evangelical community is going to GOTV like you haven't seen before.

And that will turn Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Pennsylvania? Maybe."

LooL, Dude, you crack me up!

____________________

ericsp28:

The convergence of the LV1 and LV2 models is easy to explain. As first time and sporadic voters vote early, they go from fitting only the expanded LV screen to fitting both the expanded and traditional LV screens. It makes perfect sense and is consistent with what we know about early voting to date.

____________________

Observer:

Still a lot of discussion about early voting I see. However none of those votes have yet been counted. The early voting doesn't therefore put either candidate ahead. Nobody knows who is ahead in early voting.

The polls canvas people as to whether they have voted early and if so for whom but that canvasing is subject to all of the same demographic assumptions as all other polling.

Are Dems as far ahead in ID as is assumed?
Is the balance between different age groups correct?
Is the expected proportion of AA, hispanics etc correct?

And in addition there are at least two other uncertainties:

Not everybody who is canvased and says they have voted has actually voted.
We don't know how close to the final demographics the early voter demographics might be.

From all of the reports of long waiting lines I would assume that early voting is squewed towards those who either have a lot of time on their hands of who can afford to be away from job, family, college etc for sufficient time.

I have always thought that the exit poll problems in 2004 were because early voters in the exit polls were different to voters who voted late. For example women at home with family or college students might vote during the day but working people, men and women, might vote after work.

I remember Pollster reporting an average 7% pro Obama error in exit polling during the Primary Campaign. I wondered then if this was the same effect, i.e. early voters are not (on average) the same as late voters. Early exit polls (and early voting) might be very misleading as to the final result.


____________________

orange24:

We have to see if the AP story which mentions that Barack Obama's aunt is illegally in the United States.

The McCain endorsement by Dick Cheney is going to trump everything else in the news cycle today. Maybe Bush really does still hate McCain. Why else would Cheney do something so foolish? That might be the final straw. McCain has been doing everything he can to distance himself from this administration. Then, 3 days before the election comes this. Awesome!

____________________

Trosen:

Haha.. that's some good sh*t.

____________________

My God!

Obama's in trouble now. Cheney working the campaign.

____________________

Inkan1969:

@MaxMBJ, so now Gallup is cooking the books? If all you got are conspiracy theories, you're just wasting your own time.

____________________

DTM:

The relevant question is whether young voters are underperforming their numbers in EARLY voting as compared to 2004. Comparisons to their turnout in the entire general election of 2004 are bound to be misleading.

In fact, I looked up some statistics and found this breakdown of when people voted in 2004, from Kenski, Kate, "No-Excuse Absentee and Early Voting During the 2000 and 2004 Elections: Results from the National Annenberg Election Survey". The paper found:

Age Election-Day % Absentee/Early %

18-34 88.3 11.7
35-50 88.6 11.4
51-64 85.3 14.7
65+ 79.7 20.3

Basically, voters over 50, and particularly voters over 65, were more likely to vote early/absentee than younger voters in 2004. Accordingly, if you had compared the early voting shares of young voters in 2004 to their total voting shares in 2004, you would have found them underrepresented in early voting relative to their total representation.

Now, though, it appears young voters are participating as much in early/absentee voting as they did in the entire general election of 2004 (e.g., Civitas found voters 18-25 making up 9% of early voters as of Thursday, which is exactly how much they made up of all voters in 2004). But that actually means either that young voters have dramatically increased their participation rates in early voting since 2004, or they increased their share of voting in general, or a bit of both. And personally, I would bet on a bit of both.

In the end, though, we won't really know the full turnout story for 2008 until after Election Day. But at a minimum, please watch out for people making comparisons between young voters' early voting percentages in 2008 and their total voting percentages in 2004, because that really isn't the relevant question.

____________________

orange24:

I agree, that Patriotroom.com link really cracked me up - until I read the comments to it posted at the bottom. I could only get a few deep because they were so bad, but it's just a reminder of what we're trying to get rid of.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

Maybe "cooking the books" wasn't the best choice of words for me to use concerning Gallup. What I mean is, Gallup is dramatically changing results between their two likely voters categories. That makes absolutely no sense. None.

You explain to me: how can the Traditional likely voters -- who were 7 point apart from the Expanded likely voters -- become so much like the Expanded? Why even have two categories? Gallup introduced the concept to show different models. His daily sample didn't change.

The only thing that could have changed was his formula.

And the way he changed it is to make the two formulas virtually identical. There can be no denial of that.

So you tell me: Why did Gallup change his formula?

____________________

blakec:

"The McCain endorsement by Dick Cheney is going to trump everything else in the news cycle today. Maybe Bush really does still hate McCain. Why else would Cheney do something so foolish? That might be the final straw. McCain has been doing everything he can to distance himself from this administration. Then, 3 days before the election comes this. Awesome!"

A last second appeal from the most unpopular man in America?

It's like the 2004 tape from Osama, but for McCain.

____________________

Thatcher:

@MaxMBJ

This is why we look at all polls and trends. Not just one pollster and not just one day's reports from one pollster.

However, anyone who uses IBD/TIPP and Battleground as their "standards" obviously needs to re-evaluate their standards.

The CW is that this race is in the 6-7% lead for Obama. This is better than any presidential candidate since 1996 and better than Clinton in 1992 at this point in a campaign.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

The Cheney endorsement will have the exact same effect as the Powell endorsement did: zero.

____________________

Pro-America_Anti-America:

@MaxMBJ

Don't be fooled by Zogby like Dems were in 2004. He exploits whoever he can to set himself apart.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

"orange24: I agree, that Patriotroom.com link really cracked me up - until I read the comments to it posted at the bottom. I could only get a few deep because they were so bad, but it's just a reminder of what we're trying to get rid of."

My, that has an ominous ring to it. Siberia? The gulags?

What exactly does your "getting rid of" imply?

____________________

Trosen:

Haha.. that's some good sh*t.

____________________

political_junki:

MAXMBJ:
"You explain to me: how can the Traditional likely voters -- who were 7 point apart from the Expanded likely voters -- become so much like the Expanded?"

It is very simple:
Gallups numbers is a combination of people who yet have to vote + early voters.
Many people who were "unlikely" to vote in Gallups likely model have actually voted. That makes the expanded and conservative models to converge to one number.
Why -> Some people who Gallup didnt think will vote, have acutually "REALLY" voted that is early voted.

You can read it between their lines too: Pay attention "Their turon out estimate has increased from 60% to 64%. 4% of people that they thought were "unlikely" to vote have voted"
Text from Gallup:
---------------------------------------------
Gallup's estimates of likely voters show more variation; these calculations take into account not only candidate preferences, but also the individual respondent's interest in the election, self-reports of intention to vote, and for the traditional model, reports of past voting history and knowledge of voting procedures. The average Obama lead over McCain among traditional likely voters since Oct. 6 has been five points, but that lead has expanded over the last several day's reports, and Obama's current 52-42% lead among this group is the largest to date. Gallup has increased its estimate of turnout in the election slightly to 64% (from the previous 60%), based on internal calculations which point toward the higher turnout number, and this 64% estimate is reflected in the traditional likely voter calculations.

____________________

jonny87:

where are the state polls??????????

____________________

political_junki:

"So you tell me: Why did Gallup change his formula?"

They havnt changed the forumla, just unlikely people from Gallups forumla are voting.

____________________

ctj:

BREAKING NEWS- SEAN HANNITY AND MATT DRUDGE HAVE FOUND PROOF THAT OBAMA HAS BRIBED FRANK NEWPORT(Director of the Gallup Poll)! According to those familiar with the story it has been determined that Obama bought Mr. Newport a cup of coffee from Starbucks approx. 2 years ago in order to get Gallup to skew it's poll results in Obama's favor. In additon to the purchase of the cup of coffee Mr. Hannity and Mr. Drudge were outraged by the fact that the coffee shop of choice is one preferred by coastal elitists.

LOL!

____________________

Thatcher:

@MaxMBJ:

He didn't change his formula.

Both Traditional and Expanded Likely Voter universes includes everyone they canvas that states they have already voted.

In today's release Gallup states 27% of their respondents have stated they have already voted. This is up from 21% on Thursday's report where they showed that Obama led in the respondents who already voted 55-40 (the other 5% were others and refused to answer).

So, as we have seen over the past several days that both LV samples have been converging - because as more people that are added to each LV sample have voted (at such overwhelming support for Obama) - they are going to become closer to each other in results. It's that simple.

When over 1/4th of the sample has already voted and a candidate has a lead of 15 percent ... it would take dramatic differences in the spreads of the remaining respondents for each of the LV samples to show any discernable difference.

Now, don't get me wrong - you may still see some difference here and there ... in the next 2 days - but with over 1/4th of each universe overlapping with the other at such great odds - it will be difficult.

It's not that difficult to see how this happens.

____________________

orange24:

The Cheney endorsement will have the exact same effect as the Powell endorsement did: zero.

We'll see, but I think you're wrong. McCain has been running full steam ahead to put as much distance between himself and this administration as he can before Tuesday. Not only does this put a complete end to that, it will dominate the news cycle - minimally - all day today. Probably into the Sunday morning news shows too.

By the way, I wholeheartedly disagree with your evaluation of the Powell endorsement. Obama went up anywhere from 1-4 points (depending on the poll) just days after the Powell endorsement.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

You all who are throwing Zogby under the bus (and yes, I remember 2004) should keep in mind that he was at 7% just yesterday. He leaks favorable McCain trends to Drudge the night before which clearly undermines his credibility but ...

No matter how biased the pollster, they must square their numbers with Election Day. I suspect Gallup is trying to do that now. I also suspect they are making a big mistake.

____________________

political_junki:

"No matter how biased the pollster, they must square their numbers with Election Day. I suspect Gallup is trying to do that now. I also suspect they are making a big mistake."

You keep repeating your claims without any reason . Gallup has been doing this 80 years, they dont cook numbers. If they wanted to cook, they didnt need to publish 3 numbers.

____________________

DecaturMark:

@MaxMBJ:

With early voting it is very possible for a first time voter to be catagorized as an unlikely voter in the questionaire (based on a statistical model), as well as a likely voter because he already voted. So Gallup is not necessarily cooking his books. It could be he his giving an insight into how this election is really going.

____________________

Thatcher:

@MaxMBJ:

"The Cheney endorsement will have the exact same effect as the Powell endorsement did: zero."

Ok ... now I know you are just a troll and don't have anything to add to the discussion. CW shows that the Powell endorsement helped eased the concerns of Obama's readiness by a valuable segment of the voting population.

I'm not even going to bother any attempt at reason with you anymore. Have a nice day - and keep on keeping on.

____________________

Terranus:

a Canadian radio station fooled Sarah Palin. She talked 6 mins to "Nicolas Sarkozy",Pres of France.

This must be a hit.

____________________

jonny87:

what time will rasmussen release new id weightings?

____________________

Nhoj:

i think ive got to agree the cheney endorsement seems like it was meant to hurt mccain ive thought all year actually that rove probably wants mccain to lose as a long term strategy for the republicans i think they are hoping what happened in the 90s will happen again.

____________________

Georgia Early Voting Update:-

Early voting figures have reached 60% of the 2004 total votes, with early voting currently at almost three times the 2004 numbers.

African American voters make up 35.1% of these early voters, with Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com reckoning that the state will be competitive for Obama if the AA vote reaches 30% overall.

As an additional point, among white voters the gender split is 55 - 45 in favour of females, who are more likely to support Obama than their male counterparts.

These are incredible early voting figures when you consider that the early vote turnout is three times what it was in 2004, and already at three fifths of the total vote in 2004.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama can take Georgia!

____________________

DTM:

In addition to the obvious point about early voting likely causing a convergence between Gallup's two likely voter models, another possible factor is just that there may have been some movement among the people the traditional model included but the expanded model excluded, namely relatively unenthusiastic voters who had a history of voting. Such movement could occur in one of two ways: relatively unenthusiastic McCain voters could convert to Obama voters (perhaps through persuasion, but also perhaps through something like a bandwagon effect), or they could drop out of the likely voter pool entirely if their enthusiasm levels dropped even further.

And none of that would be too surprising, since as relatively unenthusiastic McCain voters to begin with, it isn't hard to imagine them switching sides or simply dropping out of likely voter status after a relatively small push of one kind or another. In other words, relatively low enthusiasm levels are likely correlated with higher volatility in status, and that plus something like Obama's infomercial or a bandwagon effect may be contributing to the sudden convergence.

____________________

for some reason the link to Nate Silver's analysis of the Georgia race didn't appear. The link is in my name or here http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html

____________________

Joel:

Max;

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Lastly, there's no evidence that republican morale is increasing. In fact, you could say - judging from the latest round of press coverage - that the opposite is occurring.

I do agree that no one will care about the Cheney endorsement.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

Even with the increasing numbers of early voters, the difference between Gallup's two numbers don't add up as far as I can see.

I haven't pored over his methodology recently (I did earlier) so I don't know if he's altered it and don't know if I would be able to tell that if he did. I just don't accept that an increase of 6 or 7% of actual voters would bring a 7 point spread to 0.

It just doesn't make sense. Even if there was only 1 percent of the vote yet to tally, if Gallup's formula for Traditional vs. Expanded had not been changed, there should be a difference in what to expect in that final 1 percent.

One more thing that contiminates this data: exit polling. In 2004 the exit polling was worse than the actual final polls. If Gallup hasn't incorporated that bit of knowledge into his database, his model is severely skewed.

____________________

Joel:

"One more thing that contiminates this data: exit polling. In 2004 the exit polling was worse than the actual final polls. If Gallup hasn't incorporated that bit of knowledge into his database, his model is severely skewed."

How, in your expert opinion, should Gallup adjust his polls to account for the alleged discrepency between exit and entry polling? Moreover, maybe you could show some historical evidence to support your point. Like, covering the past three or four elections?

____________________

DecaturMark:

MancJon:
for some reason the link to Nate Silver's analysis of the Georgia race didn't appear. The link is in my name or here http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html

BTW, the numbers in the link are based on early Oct polls of GA not the more recent polls.

So I think that based on the early voting that has taken place in GA, it will be an very tough night for McCain. If McCain wins PA but loses GA, it is merely a Pyrric victory for him.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

Thatcher:

I'm a troll, huh? Gee, what a great way to deal with a point of view you don't agree with.

____________________

fed:

This is part of Obama's speech tonight in Colorado. It gives you an idea how damaging Cheneys endorsement is

I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support.

But here's my question for you, Colorado: do you think Dick Cheney is delighted to support John McCain because he thinks John McCain's going to bring change? Do you think John McCain and Dick Cheney have been talking about how to shake things up, and get rid of the lobbyists and the old boys club in Washington?

Colorado, we know better. After all, it was just a few days ago that Senator McCain said that he and President Bush share a "common philosophy." And we know that when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain and Dick Cheney share a common philosophy that thinks that empty bluster from Washington will fix all of our problems, and a war without end in Iraq is the way to defeat Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So George Bush may be in an undisclosed location, but Dick Cheney's out there on the campaign trail because he'd be delighted to pass the baton to John McCain. He knows that with John McCain you get a twofer: George Bush's economic policy and Dick Cheney's foreign policy -- but that's a risk we cannot afford to take.

____________________

DecaturMark:

@fed:

All I can say about that speech from Obama:

Brilliant!

____________________

ctj:

Can someone please comment on the early voting taking place in Ohio? I keep hearing about Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, but I thought Ohio had early voting as well? I have not been able to find any reports that talk about turnout, etc. Is the early voting in Ohio just not meaningful?

____________________

deeproy:

@DMT
I agree with your assesment. I also think we're seeing some soft McCain support and independents moving towards a "winner". While some may be voting early, others may "see the writing on the wall" and switch support. Also, you may be getting some soft McCain supports moving to nobody or just not picking up the phone.

I guess it is also possible that Halloween could be throwing a wrench into some of the numbers.

Anyway, I hope these numbers holds out throughout the rest of the election.

____________________

fed:

Breaking news!!!!! Obama gains 3 point in Florida according to Mason Dixon he is at +2 now

____________________

andrewfromva:

MaxMBJ, I have a hard time believing you are not actually a different incarnation of someone who's screen name started with boom and ended with shack. Let's not pretend that a one day result from Zogby (not reputable) can compare with results from Rasmussen and Gallup which tell very different stories. It's just a waste of time...

____________________

joecooper:

Those three numbers for McCain--42-42-41--represent the nadir in Gallup's polling, at least for October, in all three categories.

I'm curious what any of you think might be accountable for that. Do you think something specific happened in the last three or four days which has cost him support?

____________________

Thatcher:

@MaxMBJ:

It's not about a differing view - it's that we have SHOWN you, SEVERAL OF US, what we see is happening in the Gallup polling ... INCLUDING statements FROM Gallups own reports AND YOU CONTINUE TO ARGUE the point without having any substance to back up your viewpoint.

The bottom line is

LVT has 27% of it's model as early voters supporting Obama about 55-40

LVE has 27% of it's model as early voters supporting Obama about 55-40

When you have over 1/4th of a model at 15 point spread ...

The remaining LVT could be at around 7.2% and still get 10% spread (when rounded)

The remaining LVE could be around 8.5% and still get around 10% spread (when rounded)

That's a 1.3%-ish difference between LVT and LVE of those remaining to vote, which isn't that tough to believe since for most of the month - the average pollster had Obama at a lead around 6-8% over McCain prior to early voting starting. And if you look at RCP's national election page - you will see that from October 1 - November 1 - Obama's lead has been slowly expanding (with some hiccups both ways here and there).

____________________

DecaturMark:

BTW, whose idea was this to have Cheney come out and stump for McCain? One more sign that the wheels of the McCain campaign bus have come off. The wheels on the bus go off off off, off off off, off off off...

____________________

Thatcher:
____________________

political_junki:

"MaxMBJ:

Even with the increasing numbers of early voters, the difference between Gallup's two numbers don't add up as far as I can see.
"
They absolutely add up if instead of rushing to post a message you take your time and think for a minute.
Most of last month difference between the two LV models was about 4 points, now that 4% has been made up for by 4% increase in turnout. 4% of people were not accounted for in conservative LV model, now that they have actually voted the difference between LV models is much less.
-----------------------------------------------
If you can not understand this :
5 (LV conservative) + 4 ( increase in turn out) = 9 (LV expanded)

I cant help you.

____________________

jonny87:
____________________

Pro-America_Anti-America:

@political_junki

The thing is that he says the spread average was 7 points between expanded and traditional.

____________________

carl29:

@fed,

Yes I saw it too. Especially coming from Mason-Dixon, which is not the most Democratic-friendly pollster. They had Obama down by 2% last time now it is Obama up by 2%.

I am encouraged by the level of turnout in Miami Dade County. It has being FANTASTIC!!!!

____________________

deeznutsrepubs:

Hey everyone, boomshak is BACK!

Welcome back boomshak, I mean max.

____________________

FromSarkoToObama:

I spoke for a hour with a colleague from Springfield trying to convince him but i failed, he's definitely voting for MC Cain

____________________

hou04:

FLORIDA (Mason-Dixon), 10/29-10/30

Obama 49
McCain 47


Last time they polled, 10/20-10/21

McCain 46
Obama 45

Keep in mind Mason-Dixon has always leaned Rep by 2-3 points in this election compared to other pollsters.

____________________

ctj:

where is this Mason Dixon poll?

____________________

mac7396:

Welcome back Boomshak..

cough, cough

I mean, welcome MaxMBJ

Hmm, I must be getting a cold. Better have it checked out.

____________________

Dana Adini:

ctj

the turnout in ohio is much bigger than early voting in 2004, but they don't report by party ID about 20% of 2004 total compared to 10% in 2004

____________________

DecaturMark:

A survey conducted Wednesday and Thursday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research shows Obama ahead 49 percent to 47 percent, with 7 percent of voters still undecided. The lead is well within the poll’s 4 percent margin of error.

It is also a reversal from the 46-44 lead McCain held last week in the same survey.
The poll of 625 likely voters shows Obama leading among crucial independents, 48-39.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20081101/NEWS02/81101015

____________________

deeznutsrepubs:

Where are the trolls known as stillow, kiptin, damitjao, raleighnc, etc?


Hmm, when the polls are this bad for gramps, it looks like the trolls lurk away to their holes. Don't worry, repubs.....it will all be over soon....hush now, everything will be okay, just close your eyes and drift away.....

____________________

orange24:

Oh yeah, the scrawny Obama calling the Govenator out to the basketball court!

On a related note, Politico.com has Schwarzenegger on the short list for Energy Secretary under an Obama Presidency. That's a new one...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142.html

____________________

ctj:

Never mind I found it on RCP- small sample size for FL. I would like to see a poll with 1,200 plus, but I will say this the fact the McCain is only breaking even on the hispanic vote in FL is a bad sign for him (at least if I believe what I have read). Thoughts?

____________________

carl29:

Jesus, look at this. It only gets worse from Grampy:

National IBD/TIPP Obama 48, McCain 43 Obama +5

____________________

DTM:

@MaxMBJ

Others are pointing out the convergence caused by early voting could get the difference within rounding, but as I implied earlier I also think you are right to suspect that may not be a completely sufficient explanation (see my 3:11 post).

By the way, I'm not entirely sure I understand why you think exit polling is highly relevant to these issues. Exit polls are something entirely different from pre-election polls, with a very different methodology. And incidentally, it turns out the pre-election polls in 2004 were reasonably accurate on average, certainly within historical norms. Finally, a lot of the confusion in 2004 was caused by leaked preliminary exit poll samples, not final exit poll results.

____________________

MancJon:

@DecaturMark:

I wholeheartedly agree :)

____________________

DecaturMark:

@carl29:
"Jesus, look at this. It only gets worse from Grampy:

National IBD/TIPP Obama 48, McCain 43 Obama +5"

It can't be!! They are supposed to be the most accurate pollster. This can't be true. ;>)

____________________

cinnamonape:

I mentioned last night that there might be a sampling problem for surveys doing polling in States that have had large early voting turnouts.

What would be the probability that within a sample of 1000 calls that someone who might have been surveyed is standing in an 8-10 hour line waiting to vote?

Consider that if even 5% of voters were out in line during the polling period, and these were disproportionately Obama supporters...you would get a fairly significant shift in the polling results. Here is another case where cell-phones would be an important factor in sampling correctly.

____________________

carl29:

Most probable the Drudge is not interested in putting IBD/TIPP up on his website today :-)

____________________

NC Yellow Dog:

For the curious.

A perspective on the last day of early voting in Wake County, North Carolina. There is a early voting place near my work and I checked in at about 2:30 this afternoon, into the extended voting hours. This is a wealthy suburb, and YMMV.

There were approximately 650 people standing in line, the line was moving fairly quickly, but I was told by one voter leaving the area that he had waited two and a half hours to vote. I cruised through the parking lot to do a seriously unscientific bumper sticker count (to gage enthusiasm) and saw 8:3 Obama to McCain--Counting the Obama Yardsign taped to someone's truck.

Previous bumper counts at this location have been 5:3 and 2:1.

____________________

joecooper:

I'm asking a different question than MaxMBJ, and I guess I'm not doing a good job of it. I understand the MATH. (And I love what I'm seeing.)

Simply put, then, and in more general terms: WHY is Obama winning? I know all the reasons why he SHOULD win. But a lot of them are the same reasons Gore and Kerry SHOULD have won. What's different now? Is Obama's ground game really THAT much better? Why aren't the Rove-style tactics working? Like a lot of us on here, I cowered when Palin was introduced...only later to look between my fingers and realize, "Oh. It's not working this time." I have the same response to every ridiculous "discovery" the McCain campaign can throw our way...a scared moment, followed by relief. My fear, I might remind you, is not unfounded. These are the same people who got away with questioning Kerry's patriotism, for God's sake. (Total sidebar: have you noticed veterans always seem to lose these things?)

Even the press seems more responsible this time around. Like when CNN started packing up their cameras at Palin's UN appearance because they were sick of being told what they would be ALLOWED to report. Jesus, I just don't think that would've happened in the last two elections.

What happened? Did we just get marginally smarter? Is it possible we got a little better?

____________________

masselo:

Carl29:

mccain stil has 2 days to make it up ___ shuuuuuuuuuuu - LOL

____________________

PostModernProphet:

In regards to the absolute ABSURD link to the "patriot room" nonsense stating that McCain is downly only two points in California. With 55 electoral votes at stake in California....don't you think that McGrandpa would mainline some Geritol and hop a flight to campaign in every last inch of the state if there were even a shred of truth to him being down only two points down with 9% undecided?

It honestly frightens me that some people are so unbelievably delusional, out of touch, and borderline insane....further proof that Palin and McCain staked their entire campaign pandering to the absolute worst that this country has to offer....the ignorant...the racist...the tragically uninformed. Palin has been parading around the country beating the drum of fear, hate, and division in an empassionated attempt to incite the crowds at these Redneck-Rallies into a frothing mob of insanity.

There aren't enough rocks for all of these people to scurry under once this election is over. There is only one problem with Democracy...the idiots get to vote too.

____________________

UpperLeft:

the cleveland #'s are just ridiculous. turnout like that will swamp CW re: the southern portion of the state.

____________________

masselo:

Carl29:

you know this IBB/TIPP is Hannity's favorite.. i can to see him spin that one on monday -- that bastard!!!!

____________________

cinnamonape:

"Welcome back Boomshak...cough, cough

I mean, welcome MaxMBJ...Hmm, I must be getting a cold. Better have it checked out."

LOL! Sort of like that cough...cough that Cheney did after endorsing McCain. Must have gotten a chicken bone caught in his throat...having to endorse a guy that he knows is going to lose...and running away from his Administration as fast as possible.

____________________

carl29:

@masselo,

IBB/TIPP was Hannity's favorite :-)

____________________

DecaturMark:

@UpperLeft:
"the cleveland #'s are just ridiculous. turnout like that will swamp CW re: the southern portion of the state."

Those of us who do not know Ohio, it might be helpful if you help us out with these OH #s

Champaign Cnty html 3,666 19.2% 19,080 8.4% 10/31
Cuyahoga Cnty Pdf 228,003 Ballot
Absentee 81.0%
In-person 19.0%
33.2% 687,255 12.4% 10/31
Franklin Cnty html 178,260 33.4% 533,575 8.8% 10/30
Gallia Cnty html 2,168 15.1% 14,391 11.1% 10/28
Greene Cnty html 5,736 7.1% 80,602 10.5% 10/28
Knox Cnty html 7,336 26.9% 27,302 13.2% 10/30
Montgomery Cnty html 50,577 17.6% 287,635 10.2% 10/30
Muskingum Cnty html 6,629 16.8% 39,565 12.6% 10/28
Ross Cnty html 8,086 25.3% 31,979 12.3% 10/30
Seneca Cnty html 4,156 15.1% 27,607 10.8% 10/30
Summit Cnty html 73,920 26.2% 281,735 10.1% 10/31
Tuscarawas Cnty html 9,339 21.3% 43,760 11.1% 10/31
Union Cnty html 3,324

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

____________________

jen:

Good news. Finally the two models come together.
While 10% may not reflect the real thing but it surely testifies how Obama's lead has taken over.

Tell all your friends to vote and to stay in line!

Obama/Biden 08!

____________________

political_junki:

"Pro-America_Anti-America:
@political_junki

The thing is that he says the spread average was 7 points between expanded and traditional."

It wasnt fixed, it varied, who knows maybe tomorrow LV expanded will be higher LV conservative. The bullparks make sense.

____________________

katocat:

Sounds about right... Gallup usually is.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Dana and Jonny~ Those early voting statistics actually give data regarding much more local Congressional district and State legislative Senate/Assembly returns.

I suppose one could parse out where these are coming from and make some assumptions as to who is voting within these areas. The obvious county-wide evidence is that Cuyuhoga County (Cleveland) has had massive turnout, That county of course has a large black population and went 66% for Kerry in the 2004 election.

Another large turnout in Columbus (Franklin County). But there you'd have to parse out the districts (for example, are areas around OSU demonstrating large turnouts).

____________________

carl29:

Look guys,

South Dade Regional Library
10750 SW 211th Street
5:00 hours waiting time Nov 1 2008

Aventura Government Center
19200 West Country Club Drive
5:00 hourse waiting time Nov 1 2008

This two places are AA strongholds in Miami Dade County, South Florida. They are so, so overwhelmed. No other places in the county have such waiting :-)

____________________

Basil:

Sorry DecaturMark, I'm not sure I understand your numbers. I may be more of a color commentator than a number cruncher. Are these comparing '04 to '08 early voting?

____________________

DTM:

@joecooper

Lots of reasons. To summarize a few:

(1) Obama is likeable, and that really makes a difference in Presidential elections;

(2) The country is in a serious mood, and so unserious tactics tend to backfire;

(3) Obama and Axelrod have taken an entirely different approach to fundraising and GOTV;

(4) The "left" has developed an effective media pushback strategy;

and probably more.

____________________

radmod:

@joecooper
WARNING: LONG POST

So, what you are looking for is the political explanation not the poll/math explanation.

OK, I've got it but parts of it people aren't going to like AND it's kind of long.

The chief three reasons why the election seems to be going the way it is, are:
1) ill-will generated on the Iraq issue in 2006 spilling over
2) the economy tanking
3) A Bush referendum

Now, the first two really aren't as dramatic as they may seem; McCain could've rode it out. As for the third, McCain could have side-stepped it as the "maverick" candidate, until (dah-dah-dum):
Sarah Palin.
The selection of Sarah Palin, which I assume most would agree was dumb, wasn't so bad in that she's a rabid RWer but in the fact that since she is from the rabid RWer pro-Bush group, it has actually helped link the far right to McCain in voters minds (as a 'bad' thing). Don't underestimate this affect.

Now to the part that people won't like:
Part of it is because Obama is black.
Yes, I said because he's black.

While no-one really likes to admit it, voters tend more to look for reasons NOT to vote for someone as opposed to reasons to vote for someone.
In the face of the RW attacks, a candidate who acts reserved, calm, and collected, as Obama has been, is generally viewed as 'weak'. Yet, this hasn't happened in Obama's case. Why? Because in the critical eye of many, they are looking to have their views of the stereotypical loud-mouthed black flamboyant politician reinforced. Instead, it isn't happening. Psychologically it's like trusting people. If someone you trusted screwed you over then you trust them less than someone new to you, right? (For me, that's John McCain) Anyway, since Obama is not reinforcing the stereotypical view, he comes off far better and their new opinion overshadows any consideration of him being weak. This means they open up, actually start listening to him, and respond to his change/hope message.

Now that's all well and good but only goes so far. That is, people can be inspired but can they be inspired to vote? That's where the ground game comes in and, IMO, is where Obama will win and Kerry lost. Make no mistake, that is why Obama beat Clinton in the primaries - on the ground. The Obama campaign really seems to be poised to get a large turnout and that may overshadow a potential split away from him by undecideds.
The last thing to consider is that Americans really are a "mob mentality" beast. We are supposed to find Obama inspirational because everyone says he is. So we find him inspirational and, subconciously, we go with the flow. That is one of the chief differences between Obama and Kerry. Kerry didn't provide that inspiration that made people want to jump on the bandwagon, Obama does. As someone said today, undecideds and soft supporters may vote for Obama simply because he is history in the making.

Now that I've lost my track of thoughts, I'll leave it at that.

____________________

DecaturMark:

Basil:

Those are early voting #s in OH. I place the link at the bottom of the post.

____________________

radmod:

I forgot to add the part that after the Palin pick and subsequent view of McCain as moving to the far right he began to act like the typical RWer making attack after attack. I believe the attacks have failed simply because people viewed them as standard RW tactics and reinforced the Bushiness of the McCain camp.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

The euphoria here is intoxicating. And it's based on a Gallup poll that jumped, what, 5 points in two days? (Can't remember for sure anymore. Too many polls.) This same euphoria has no room for outlier evidence.

As for me being Boomshak, sorry. Not even close. I'm a McCain supporter in a hostile environment so I guess to you all, we all look alike. Troubling to see such stereotyping and name-calling, but I guess it's a handy way to argue.

I also guess I'm too dumb to follow everybody's explanation on the evening up of the TV and EV of Gallup. Later tonight I'll get out my calculator and see if it makes sense. Doesn't for me at all.

Oh, as for that kooky underground internal poll that claims McCain is only behind 2 in Pennsylvania, et al, well, I'm not buying that. I only tell you this so that you can have another surprise to your predisposition to believe all Republicans are a bunch of idiots.

As for that TIPP poll that's got you all so excited, if you look at it carefully it's 47.9 to 43.3 ... a 4.5 difference, not 5. It only changed .1 from yesterday. It just happened to be a .1 that bumped the rounding up. So jumping for joy might be a bit premature on that one.

McCain still have a chance. Intrades puts it about 85 - 15 and I'd say that's about right. But 15% is a real chance. The early voting may well favor Obama (there's even question about that) but you have to remember: early voting is Obama's mantra. He should be ahead in that. I can tell you with surety the evangelical community will be out in full force on Tuesday.

Celebrate now if you want. Send the marching band onto the field. Maybe five laterals and a misplaced tuba player later your joy will prove to be premature.

____________________

thoughtful:

@MaxMBJ

Its funny everyone had a problem when we had 2 LV models. Now we don't have that problem as enough real voters have tipped the 2 models well towards convergence.

The Libs here pine over the insults and insanity that boomshak, seemingly deluded, traded in.

I can't see why these good folks choose to take the the tone they have with you.

Personally, I wish there were more McCain supporters on the site.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Cuyuhoga County (Cleveland) has almost a 3 time increase in early voting vs. 2004 That county of course has a large black population and went 66% for Kerry in the 2004 election.

Another large turnout in Columbus (Franklin County)- about 3.5 times 2004's early voting turnout.

Montgomery County contains Dayton (and is a little short of double 2004's turnout. Summit County contains Akron and is about 2.5 times the 2004 record.

All the other listed counties have had much smaller early voting turnouts (and populations), although these are there are a couple that are double their 2004 levels. But most are less than that (about 1.5 times or less).

If that's a harbinger then it's likely good for Obama and other Democrats. There are some counties that are not listed such as Hamilton (Cinncinnati) and Lucas (Toldeo), which is a bit odd.

____________________

Tom:

Curious. The LV1 and LV2 samples are identical, and they are only one point off on the McCain number (and none on the Obama number) when compared to the RV sample. I wonder if the emphasis on early voting is influincing this. They appear to be asking if people are early voting, and they better be including those people who say they have early voted in both LV samples. I would not expect anything less from a firm as reputable as Gallup.

____________________

MaxMBJ:

Tom:

Your point is very important. Why would any polling agency think the likely voters are virtually the same as the registered voters? Everyone on the planet knows that isn't true and never has been.

What is up with Gallup, anyway?

____________________



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