Slight drift to McCain last couple of days in Rasmussen and Gallup trackers. This is offset somewhat by Zogby and Hotline (GWU Battleground seems totally random at this point), but worth watching the trend since Zogby and Hotline aren't very consistent.
Gallup did mention that McCain had an unusually good night on Tuesday, and Obama apparently had a similar night on Sunday which was trimmed off the three day average today. So Gallup is probably noise. But Rasmussen is a slow mover, and usually a lagging indicator, so I'm wondering what's up there.
Of course, we saw similar movement just before the second debate, and that reversed itself immediately afterward. Maybe that will happen again.
In addition to the debate McCain has launched a massive robocall effort with every nasty charge his team has used so far, but even more striking language. Opinions are mixed on whether this will help, hurt, or have no effect. That's the only other thing likely to impact the polls over the next couple days.
Posted by Anonny at October 16, 2008 04:20 PMIf Obama wants to spend time in Georgia, its a waste of time unless he sends a team of pollsters and lawyers to challenge the Diebold Election Management [to guarantee a Republican victory] system of crooked voting machines.
After all, its not the votes that count its the machines that miscount the votes that counts!
I don't even have to go vote. ACORN already did it for me!
Posted by onar at October 16, 2008 04:48 PMI don't even have to go vote. ACORN already did it for me!
So, you'll be staying home on election day then, right? Good for you. It's for the best, really.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 16, 2008 05:01 PMAnonny, McCain has nothing to lose with his robocall smears. It might help him, too, since those are even harder to combat than e-mail smears. McCain will probably avoid the press from here on out so he doesn't get called on it.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 16, 2008 05:17 PMCAPJ, What's up with this poll from Gallup, that has Obama up 49-47? I've heard different reports on it from the right and left. I just want the truth about the poll.
Posted by Seven of Six at October 16, 2008 06:22 PMthe polls may fluctuate wildly and tighten as the reality of an Obama victory disengages some of his supporters (assuming a win is certain) and enrages the racist and jostles the " just uncomfortable with a black" voters.
Any poll using land lines is suspect IMHO. But when both the GOP Presidential and VP candidates, and the RNC directly resort to calling the Democratic nominee a possible terrorist, you know they see the writing on the wall. As I've said, as long as McPOW has an (R) after his name, he's got a big problem in this election.
Wow! Did anyone see Obama's speech at the Catholic Charities dinner just now? I think Stephen Colbert's writers must have written that one for him. Devastating. It was exactly like Colbert's speech at the corrospondent's dinner a couple years ago. Look for it.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 16, 2008 06:52 PMIf Obama wants to spend time in Georgia, its a waste of time unless he sends a team of pollsters and lawyers to challenge the Diebold Election Management
I understand the point you are making. However, take a look at Soto's "Turf" post. Its spot on and makes a lot of sense for Obama to move some resources into Georgia even if it will be a loss (by legitimate or illegitimate ways).
Posted by Simp at October 16, 2008 07:06 PMSeven of Six, until this week Gallup reported only results for registered voters. Now they are reporting likely voters as well. Their "traditional" method (reporting a 2 point Obama lead) uses intent to vote and past voting history. If someone hadn't voted before, they weren't counted as likely voters. Those people are on the order of 5-7% of registered voters.
In earlier years, they might have been able to get away with it as long as those new voters didn't vote all that differently from everyone else. This year, Gallup is finding that Obama is the choice of over 70% of those voters, so they are unable to ignore them anymore. Their second likely voter screen uses intent only and not voting history so as to include motivated new voters.
We had huge numbers of new registered voters in the primaries and high youth turnout. Gallup realized they couldn't ignore young voters this year, so I'm confortable ignoring Gallup's "traditional" likely voter model.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 16, 2008 07:50 PMMuchas Gracias CAPJ!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 16, 2008 08:08 PMDe nada, Seven.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 16, 2008 08:17 PMAnonny, McCain has nothing to lose with his robocall smears.
That's really what it has come down to. It's who he is after all.
However, I don't know of any election where pure, unfounded smears have won more than 1-2% of the vote. Even 2004 and the swift boaters.
Posted by Anonny at October 16, 2008 08:32 PMJust a drift now? From 11% to 6% for Gallup. Rasmussen has seen Obama's lead half. Battleground 2008 has gone from Obama +13 to Obama +6 in just three days! I've read that the hard support is only +2% for Obama too. So much soft support, people easily swayed. The metrics may be a changing folks. How big or little a wave is yet to be seen. Did he peak too soon?
Oh, and I'll give you that Obama 'won' the debates, Democrats won all four debates. Didn't Kerry and Gore also 'win' their debates?
Posted by peter at October 16, 2008 08:45 PMEach of the last couple weeks, Republicans have seized upon small movements in the polls toward McCain and each time it reversed itself. Obama had another good debate, so I expect things to shift back toward him a little bit by the end of the week just as they did after the other debates.
Did he peak too soon?
Actually it is too late for McCain to overcome it.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 16, 2008 09:15 PMHalf in three days! Reagan won after trailing Carter like this. McCain's been counted out so many times. I counted him out earlier this year. He's still here and he's gaining, the "new come back kid"? We'll have to see.
Thanks to ACORN, I'm registered in three states...
(smile)
Enjoy your night an be safe!
Posted by peter at October 16, 2008 09:22 PMYeah, ACORN registered me three times, too. At that conference where McCain talked.
Posted by MICKEY MOUSE at October 16, 2008 10:10 PMACORN has rock the republican boat!!!! The mentally impaired republicans are freaked out. ACORN registered 1.3 million low income voters. The ACORN registered people don't see the world like "unlicensed joe", peter and onar...the republican parrot suckers. The ACORN registered voters see through the republican con game.
Posted by smooth at October 16, 2008 10:32 PMDon't miss the point on Kentucky. Democrats smell mitch "filibuster" mcconnell's blood in the water. It's time to take mcconnell down.
Posted by smooth at October 16, 2008 10:38 PMI say hold the line in OH, FL and VA. Maybe push harder in IN, NC and WV just to keep McCain off balance. He's already got McCain burning resources in places he shouldn't have to.
I wouldn't push it. I'd stay on offense in the states we can win and force them to keep up in the other close ones. I wouldn't broaden the field any more at this point, not when the big three above aren't locked up yet.
Posted by midwestdem at October 17, 2008 05:32 AMpeter,
I wouldn't look to the soft supporters to be swayed at this point. People tend to vote their lean.
I hear callers on the radio all the time hemming and hawing over things they don't like about the candidates, but you can still tell by the comments they make who they'll vote for.
E.g. "I voted for Gore and Kerry wanted Hillary to win..." or "I wonder about the Ayers connection but I've never liked McCain..."
If you always vote for Dems you're gonna do it again. If you even care enough about Ayers to mention it, you're gonna vote Republican.
They might not be pleased with the selection. I've never really voted FOR a president either, I have to vote AGAINST the other guy. Except this year:)
Posted by midwestdem at October 17, 2008 05:40 AMLooks like petey committed fraud. Someone call the FBI.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 17, 2008 05:55 AMReagan won after trailing Carter like this.
That's a myth. File that alongside the myth of the Bradley effect in 1982 and Nixon losing honorably in 1960. None of them actually happened. (Nixon filed legal protests in over 30 states after his concession speech, not winning one.)
We had a lot fewer polls in 1980, conducted less frequently, and with less accurate methods. Most people nowadays only look at the old Gallup results because they can be found on line, but if you go back to the news at the time you'll find the Gallup poll showing Carter ahead was considered an outlier. Every other poll, including both camps internal polls, saw Reagan with a healthy lead in mid-October. It's a big part of the reason that Carter agreed to the late debate after rejecting the debate with Reagan and Anderson.
Even before that debate Carter was flooding the radiowaves with ads begging Anderson voters to vote Carter. The ads pointed out that polls showed Anderson voters preferred Carter to Reagan by a factor of 7-to-1, then the announcer said "If you want to Reagan to win, then vote either Reagan or Anderson. It makes no difference to the Reagan campaign. But if you want Carter to win, there is one choice. Jimmy Carter."
A study afterwards suggested that Carter did manage to skim 2% or so from Anderson, but Anderson did get 6% to qualify for some federal funds to offset his debts.
However, while Carter was level with Reagan in early September, in part due to the "healing" of the Democratic rift that Kennedy created, the polling trend was all bad for him from that point. Economic news got worse (sound familiar?) and the Iranian crisis just dragged on and on.
Posted by Anonny at October 17, 2008 03:44 PMYou mean the coward lied, coyote?
Posted by Duckman GR at October 17, 2008 07:34 PM