Pollster.com

DIAGEO/HOTLINE

Obama 50
McCain 42

McCain surge.

Rasmussen 2008 vs. Rasmussen 2008

7-Day Average of 3-Day Tracking Polls, 10/20-26 (Bush/Kerry from 10/18-24, 2004 in parenthesis)
Obama 51.3 (48.0)
McCain 45.0 (49.4)

Obama +6.3 (Bush +1.4)

Obama is over-performing Kerry's numbers by 3.3 points, while McCain is under-performing Bush's numbers by 4.4 points.

The race is actually a lot closer than the polls tell us, according to McCain on MTP. Look at this morning's Zogby for proof - it actually shows McCain....losing!!

What, has the liberal media taken over Rasmussen too?

It was going to be "statistically tied" two weeks ago.

Where in "pro-America" going to see the light?

Frank Newport of Gallup "hinted" on MSNBC today that their poll later this afternoon will show the race "tightening" by 1-2 points. He also said that he doesn't see any real trends right now and that the numbers continue to go up and down for both with Obama maintaining his lead.

That should read Rasmussen 2008 vs. Rasmussen 2004.

It's all just noise. McCain hasn't been leading Obama since early June with the exception of one week post nomination bump.

He's peeing against the wind.

First time poster. Is anyone watching MSNBC? They keep saying the Gallup poll has "tightened" since Oct. 20, when, they say, Obama was +10 and is now +7. What they are not saying, for some damn reason, is that they are using the RV numbers from Oct. 20, and the Traditional LV numbers from yesterday. Could that be any more disingenuous? What is going on? They are making the race "seem" tighter. Is this to keep Obama supporters from being complacent?

@SoloBJ:

I think everyone is over-analyzing the day-to-day swings in the polls. The most important piece to take away from the last 2 weeks of polling is the fact that Obama has remained at or above the 50% mark in nearly every major poll, and McCain has rarely cracked 46%. The trend is clearly favoring Obama.

As I posted yesterday - something for everyone to think about:

During the entire month of October 2004 - Bush was never over 49.5 and Kerry was never below 43.5 on RCP's averages

However, in October 2008 - Obama has never been below 48.8 and McCain has never been above 44.1

Also - in 2004 the trend from October 1 until election day was definitely a tightening trend. But it is very obvious the trend in 2008 is one of expanding the lead from October 1.

SeanCT
At this point in the race, the media will only talk about tight polls, because that's what gets eyeballs to the set.

While frustrating to watch, it's actually a good thing because it doesn't allow the Obama campaign to get complacent.

IS AMERICA LIBERAL? NOPE.

"There's been tremdous interest by the public in the box office fate of Oliver Stone's W. for its second weekend in release. Well, it ran out of steam. QED International/Lionsgate's Bush biopic sank 58% to No. 8 with $1.5 million Friday from 2,050 dates for what will probably be a $5.2M weekend. The $30M negative cost film should end up with $23M domestic box office gross by the end of its North American run. That means, with a $25M P&A investment and Lionsgate's distribution fees, the film won't recoup."

http://www.survive-disasters.com/Landslide%201.jpg

Obama >= 50% since 31 days
McCain

(Rasmussen)

'nuff said.

Everything else is just noise.

Cool, they cut the data behind McCain, it was
McCain smaller or equal 46% since 31 days.

LOL @ boomshak.

Using the Oliver Stone "W" box office as "proof" that American is not...whatever he doesn't want it to be.

Americans have sat through 8 years of Bush, why would they want to waste another two hours?

Jesus Boomshak, you are using the box office totals of W to say the country isn't liberal?

You have got to be kidding me. I am on the left side of the spectrum but I think Oliver Stone is full of himself and a so so filmmaker. That's why I haven't seen the movie.

You are really grasping for straws now.

It is obvious that Zogby is a fraud and perhaps does not even poll people. His plan this past week was to create a huge lead for Obama by midweek so he could show a dramatic fall in a matter of days. This of course would make the fraud the darling of conservative shows and websites during the last week of the election.

@ SeanCT:

"First time poster. Is anyone watching MSNBC? They keep saying the Gallup poll has tightened"

They need to find a way to fill the day. Otherwise they'd come in the morning, report that Obama/Biden continue to kick ass, MCCain/Palin continue to run around like headless hens and SNL continues to cash in. At that rate they'd be done with the newscast in 20 minutes with nothing much else to talk about the rest of the day.

@SeanCT,
Yes, I was watching MSNBC (note my post above) and noticed the same thing. I agree with RussTC3 that it makes for a better conversation in the media when you talk about "polls tightening" but as Sean said, the plus is that it doesn't allow Obama supporters to get complacent.

I think the fund raising that Obama did in September is a good example. The media talked about the "record shattering $150 million" that the Obama camp raised and how they have plenty of money to do whatever they want. They kept saying that "he has so much money" he could expand his funds wherever he pleased.

Then, we learn this week that he only raised $30+ million in the first half of October which is his lowest yet. Why? Probably b/c of people like me who felt that based on what the media said, there was no need to continue to shell out more money since he had "plenty" already.

Let's see here.

W. is currently at $14.99 million
An American Carol is currently at $6.9M

Well, that settles it folks. America is 68% Liberal and ONLY 32% Conservative.

Should we now call ourselves the United States of Liberal America.

@boom

That W. comment does seem even more desperate than usual for you. Me and 2 of my friends are as liberal as they come, but when we were deciing what movie to see yesterday we all agreed we had little to no interest in seeing W.

Aside from having seen MORE than enough of George W. Bush over the past 8 years, after sitting through Alexander (terrible) and World Trade Center (only slightly better), none of us had any desire to see another Oliver Stone movie.

Doesn't make us any less liberal, sorry.

@maddiekat:,
When Zogby had Obama +12, I was waiting for him to drop it to +5-6 points days later to show a "big decline" for Obama. I totally expected that the moment I saw that big +12 lead and I agree with you, he is a fraud.

Here's some more of McCain's finest supporters. Note the child imitating a monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vagD-4AH4Vc

You know, Murtha is right about PA. He just needed to use more diplomatic speech. Maybe PA isn't racist, but the middle and Western PA is pretty intolerant.

@boomshak

I think what you aren't clueing into is that because of the state of the country people just don't care about LABELS anymore. They are looking for SOLUTIONS. If anything Obama does improves the state of things people are going to go for it. It doesn't matter what name you give it.

The key point with Rasmussen is not so much the topline numbers, but the hard support, which stands at 48/39. These are people who say they will not be changing their vote.

That's an unwinnable position for McCain.

well zogby got a lot of publicity today...so his strategy worked whatever he does to his polls...the truth is early voting is what matters right now....if you take that 13 to 14% of voters have already gone to the polls (maybe 15 to 18M people) and that 30 to 35% will have done so by Nov 4th...some states may be done even before election day. New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada will have 70% of their ballots cast, North Carolina a good 50 to 60% and Florida and Ohio may also have a healthy dose, may be 50%...it is going to be increasingly difficult on election day to close the gap for McCain.

again if 30 to 35% have voted by Nov 4th, it could mean 50 to 56M votes...pretty big.

America is center right and it doesnt matter what the box office totals are.

Just ask the pro Life, pro Gun, Pro tax cutting candidates that the Dems have been running all across the country.

@SeanCT :
They are journalists. The money they earn is directly proportation to how people are interesting in the news. They can't say "the race is over, y'all can switch the TV off".

boom..

me being a liberal, and most of my liberal friends.. have zero interest in seeing the W. movie. We get the idea. We know the story. We're over it. We might watch it on cable or netflix, but we're not plopping down $10 to watch 2 hours of Oliver Stone's version of what we already know. Although Stone's "Nixon" was a damn good movie (and very sympathetic to Nixon).

Obama has proven leadership skills over McCain

The political careers of Both Obama and McCain have been as legislators. So how would they be as President (executive)?

Obama over the past year and a half has assembled and managed a successful campaign. He has hired and put together a staff that worked together very well and oversaw a paid campaign force over over 600 paid staff with a budget of over $200 million dollars.

McCain had problems early in his campaign and has had to change key staff more than once. Even today there is much disagreement and inside fighting. Recently even Sarah Palin and other Republicans have become frustrated with the direction of the campaign. McCain in micro-managing his campaign directly, has made bad decisions including the selection of Palin as his running mate.

John McCain's executive shortcomings in running his campaign can only cast severe doubts on his ability to serve as the commander and chief of this country.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/

A slightly more direct measure of how people feel about Bush:

http://pollkatz.homestead.com/files/approval-data_files/zzzmainGRAPHICS_14808_image001.gif

IS AMERICA CONSERVATIVE? NOPE.

At least not judging by the reception to Zucker's bomb "American Carol."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/10/gasp-right-wing.html

Hmmmmm... has anyone got comparable numbers back from 2000?

Matt Reynolds,

You miss the point. It was an awful movie. I could tell by the trailers that this movie was going to be an embarrassment. In contrast, look at "Team America." It had plenty of anti-Michael Moore and anti-liberal sentiment, and most liberals liked it because it was a FUNNY MOVIE. Even though there were some parts where the themes didn't jibe with the ideals. And yes some critics took shots at Team America, and yes the movie took plenty of shots at "conservative" ideals as well, but overall it got good reviews because it was a good movie, as opposed to this abortion of an excuse for cinema. (Sorry for the metaphor conservatives).

@PJ_FFM

I'm not sure what you are asking for, but here is handy chart of final poll numbers from 2000:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/2000-01/01cib09.htm#Final

The upshot is that some polls had Bush up, somewhat fewer had Gore up, and the overall average was about Bush +1. In retrospect, it appears the polls on average slightly understated Gore's support, although the results are also consistent just with Gore getting a lot of late deciders.

Also, in regards to "W," one reason its numbers have been trailing off recently is it actually has a sympathetic portrayal of Dubya, ith him essentially being the victim of a Shakespearian tragedy. In that sense, it lost all of its potential audiences once word of mouth got out and will probably be better recieved in years to come when people's passions die down.

I have a polling question, and I ask for informational purposes since this is not my area of expertise.

Are more people self-identifying themselves as Democrats in 2008 polls, or are pollsters oversampling Democratic areas?

@rami:

Of course, I realize they are journalists and want to keep the public interested, but there is a distinct line between doing so and blatantly distorting the truth. Using one poll number and clearly representing it as another is totally disingenuous, at the very least.

SIGH - here I go again:

Look at the trend for the entire month of October for 2004. The Bush/Kerry race tightened - but that is because it was already trending that way. The challenging party was behind the incumbent party and was tightening.

Gore/Bush 2000 - (which Gore won the popular vote - but Bush won the electoral). Bush was trending all of October to tighten. The challenging party was behind the incumbent party and was tightening.

Same with Carter/Reagan 1980. Reagan was trending as tightening. the challenging party was behind the incumbent and it tightened and surpassed.

(Update 10/28) 1996 Dole - Clinton ... Dole (challenging party) tightens in the final month on Clinton (incumbent party). (end update)

These are some of the examples everyone uses as their belief that "this race will tighten" ... however - notice the similarities.

The challenging party was the surging party - not the incumbent party. This year, it's the same thing - challenging party is surging. But a big difference between this year and the other years we are talking about is that the challenging party already had the lead going into October. So, this race will NOT tighten - but either flatten or continue to expand.

In *most* elections - the last minute undecideds that do end up voting - normally vote *AGAINST* the incumbent person/party.