Either due to the market meltdown, the debate or both, much has changed in Gallup tracking poll land since our last thrilling instalment.
We also have this entertaining survey on Australian attitudes to the presidential race from UMR Research, showing 66 per cent of respondents preferring Barack Obama against 13 per cent for John McCain. Sarah Palin and (especially) George W. Bush also appear to be none too popular in our part of the world.
1,274 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 26 » Show All
(943)
Don’t really know what that’s all about Finns, but I’m sure there must be something deep and meaningful in there somewhere.
Andrew, I grew up in the US and lived there for 43 years. I respect your right to disagree with me, its a free world, but that doesn’t change a lifetime of opinion
….. that having been said, I moved here in December 2004 so wasn’t resident yet at the time of the 2004 election. I won’t be able to reliably share any informed comment on negative campaigning here at elections other than the most recent one. Cheers 
I think John Kerry in 2004 was more exposed to a dirty campaign than Obama is in 2008, for two big reasons.
1) 2004 was the first election post 9/11 and the attack on Kerry came from War Vetrians, at that stage Bush was seen as being a strong leader in the face of events of 9/11, John Kerry was attacked for his position during the Vietnam war which holds a dark place in many Americans minds.
2) The Economy is now in very bad shape and the blame is clearly with a lack of regulation therefore the voters will want to know how this was allowed to happen and how will it be fixed, also things in Iraq are not as rosey as they were seen as four years ago.
Obama has been seen as being on message, while John McCain who back in 2000 was seen as a man of great ingerity is now seen as being apart of the Bush administration.
In many ways America 2008 is a bit like Australia 2007, the ruling party is seen as old, extreme, tried and outdated while the Democrates seems just as the ALP did here and that is appear to be uniflied and fresh with an energy which is lacking from the other side.
To paraphase John Howard, the time suit Obama!
Darn @ 942,
I was in the midst of composing a nice reply to your question and my pc crashed on me
. Anyways, back now, and I will just quickly summarize what I said. I will use the RCP states on their map to answer your question. Out of those leaning to Obama, I can’t see McCain pulling any of those away at all. Don’t see any scenarios where he can do this. If you compare the tossup states to how RCP allocates them on the no toss up map, I agree with all of those given the following comments. Missouri RCP gives to McCain on no tossup. This could be a really really close one and go to Obama a la Ohio and Florida. Don’t see Obama getting Indiana at all. Ohio and Florida I simply do NOT trust given their 00 and 04 history. They make me too nervous. Out of the tossup states on the first map, you can write off to Obama – NV, CO, VA, NC. IN write off to McCain. OH, MO and FL are still in the bag for either party. Incidentally, RCP are currently giving only one leaning state to the Republicans – West Virginia. Currently the spread average of all polls there is +5.* to McCain. Don’t think with 4 weeks that Obama can claw back that much. If it were a +5 margin in August, I would say, yes, West Virginia might be in play but don’t think so. Bottom line – don’t see any states that McCain can take off of Obama based upon these maps whereas Obama can pinch a couple for the Dems. – OH, MO and FL. htth 
Cheers
an excellent site for the us election is
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
If you follow the logic on this site ……. McCain is unlikely to win any States that
Kerry carried @ the last election……. So He cannot afford to drop more than one
state, as per post 954 it is more likely there will be approx half a dozen states in play
I suspect the Republicans will leave no rock unturned, no cesspit unstrained no garbage bin unrifled and no ethic retained in their attempt to run their biggest yet fear and filth campaign. But I’m only guessing, it is not like that don’t have any form on this.
TP – I think they’ll skip the relatively clean garbage bin and go straight for the cesspit.
They’ve got nothing else. It’s try to hold onto the base tie.
(954)
Thanks Juliem for all your hard work. Appreciate it. Thanks to Mick also. (955)
Rasmussen tracking poll: Obama 51 (steady), McCain 44 (down 1).
Seemingly solid as a rock with Rasmussen
William (959)
When a poll consistently shows a candidate on a particular percentage of the vote for a number of successive days, does the MOE tend to lose its relevance?. Or to put it another way, with Obama having being on 50% or 51% for ten days in a row, is it safe to assume that is a very accurate representation of the level of support he has?
Here is my speculation:
I don’t think so. Every poll is a new poll. Maybe the methodology is continually producing a certain type of bias?
Or to put it another way, just because you flip a coin and get heads doesn’t mean next you’ll get tails.
Bear in mind that the main pollsters use tracking polls, meaning that they take a 3 day rolling average which should smooth out larger day to day variations
Thanks ShowsOn
I expect you are right, but it does seem strange to see a poll behaving in that way. I cannot recall seeing that level of consistency in any of the Australian polls we have observed over the past couple of years. .
Not sure exactly how that works Dario, but it does sound like it would have a smoothing effect, as you say.
It means they poll 1000 people on day 1, 1000 people on day 2, and 1000 people on day 3, then average the results. On day 4 they interview a new 1000 people and drop the day 1 poll figures, averaging days 2 through 4, and so on
Columbus Dispatch poll of Ohio
Obama 49
McCain 42
Hotline national poll
Obama +7 (unchanged)
Thanks for that Dario. I guess that method would tend to make them more accurate too.
If you are a woman and don’t vote for Palin then you will go to hell. The Republican sickness deepens.
Palin Misquotes Albright: “Place In Hell Reserved For Women Who Don’t Support Other Women”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/05/palin-misquotes-albright_n_131967.html
That’s a great result for Ohio. I reckon if Obama wins Ohio he’s just about across the line.
No probs. Yeah it makes a lot of sense to me. I’m surprised the Australian pollsters don’t use that methodology when we get to the tail end of an election campaign. I know they poll on seperate days for their usual polls (Fri night, Sat night, Sunday etc) but don’t do any longer tracking. Bit of a shame.
Yeah, pretty much guarantees a win if he can snare it. Good signs.
Minnesota Star tribune poll of MN
Obama +18 (up 18 from September!)
The Minnesota poll was 1084 Likely Voters with an MOE approx 3%
That is a HUGE lead for Obama… truly incredible if its accurate
Colombus Dispatch poll
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/05/copy/POLL05.ART_ART_10-05-08_A1_CLBG3US.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Hotline national poll
http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/
Minnesota Star Tribune poll
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/30470234.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
Ohio poll was MOE 2.2%
This won’t play well in Virginia for the Republicans …
Possum et. al. – Voter surveys amongst Economists …..
Pennsylvania going the same way as Michigan
………
Article on McCain and his background, from Rolling Stone.com ……
I wonder what sort of an impact Tina Fey will have on independent voters’ perceptions of the VP debate. After watching the debate on Fox News yesterday, I think she does a fantastic charicature.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Tina_Fey_drives_the_conversation_again.html
Further to 981 from the same story, McCain BROKE the extremely rigid code of conduct for POW’s (I don’t know if this code exists for POW’s from other countries but it is expected practice in the US services).
Juliem (983)
None of that particularly surprises me, but I don’t know if it would be very wise for the Dems to use any of it (even if it does have a lovely sense of karma and irony about it after what the republicans did to Kerry’s reputation in 2004). The economy is the issue that’s killing the repubs and the Dems need to stay totally focussed on that IMHO.
The effectiveness of the GOP’s negative ads will depend on whether they feed into existing perceptions about Obama amongst undecided voters.
For example, IMHO, a GOP ad saying that Obama is best mates with a terrorist won’t do much in terms of switching undecided voters. Most know Obama isn’t a terrorist nor do they think he favours terrorists (notwithstanding what the lunatic right assert).
However, a negative ad that says that Obama will raise taxes is more likely to switch undecided voters. It relates to the economy and there isn’t much clarity coming out of the Obama camp relating to their tax proposals…
They need to basically say that Obama cannot do what he’s saying he’ll do because of the economy going belly up that how on earth can he pay for universal health care and increasing taxes when the economy is in such bad shape that his entire social agenda is null and void now given the current climate and also question his patriotism to rally voters in the South bring back Jerimah Wright and the flag pin question why he never wore it before the election and bring back to light his associations with crooked wall street investors.
That ought to do it!
(986)
And if they do all of that Glen, we’ll see if the American people are really dumb enough to vote for 4 more years of the same.mob who got them into this mess. Personally I don’t think they are, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.
well if the polls dont move, god help the iraqis….and im not even religious!
Possum
Been away few days & note your flawed innuendo points I’d missed on Friday I shall demonstrate 538 as a very partisan biased Obama supporter , that Nate Silver 538 himself is not credible over a period , that you apparently misrepresented 6 blogger’s Debate subject and made two false allegations , presumably against me
Firstly you actually misrepresented a Debate subject & then skewered your narrative based on this apparent misrepresentation What occurred on 2/10 evening & early hours of 3/10 was a robust Debate about Nate Silver 538 criticising RCP for being biased for re-including RCP into its RCP Poll national averages and me asserting Nate Solver 538 was a very partisan biased writer making that claim It involved 6 bloggers: AL , ShowsOn , Diogenes , Ron , David Walsh & Dinsdale
Th Debate commenced initially with AL (#558) posting & agreeing with Nate Silver’s (538) argument link , in which Nate Silver 538 ACCUSED RCP of BIAS FAVORING McCain for re-incloding Pollster ARG , also queried transparency , (therefore 538 was accusing RCP of bias as if 538 was an unpartisan unbiased WRITER Th above matters ended up as th Debate issues
Then followed ShowsOn (#559) not disagreeing with AL or 538 and querying if all polls should be included Then followed Diogenes (#562) saying RCP was anti Obama & effectively agreeing with AL & 538 that RCP is biased , as if 538 was non partisan
Then followed Ron (#571) defending RCP as an excellent objective site , that RCP is often quoted from by Obamabots , that we should wait for RCP to explain there reasons for ARG’s reinclusion , INSTEAD of accepting 538’s version of RCP being biased from a very biased pro Obama WRITER of th pro Obama DailyKos and a publicly admitted Obama supporter (also said I don’t personaly use ARG)
Then followed AL (#583) disagreeing saying RCP hav a more a conservative leaning , is a news blog news feed plus polls & RCP’s methods ar not transparent whereas 538 ‘s were transparent & effectively saying 538 is not a biased writer
Then Ron (#587 & #588) highlighting 538 is a very partisan biased …that 538 had admitted he’s a Obama supporter & a partisanly biased writer for pro Obama DailyKos Then replying to Al’s #583 transparency argument I made a subsidiary observationol aside of 538 ‘understated Hillarys lead over Obama in Primarys compared to other sites I’d used’ so that Al’s argument of RCP’s methods being not transparent vs 538 being transparent was flawed as AL did not know himself in practice if 538’s were flawed or not , I also queried where were RCP’s non transparency of its RCP calcs , (and made further subsidiary aside Obama supporters were not interested in Obama’s non ‘left’ policys)
Then followed David Walsh (#589) and Dinsdale (#590) suggesting I didn’t support 538 as he was pro Obama & effectively defending 538 as not a biased writer Then followed Ron (#591 & 592) arguing why 538 was a very partisan biased writer Then followed AL (#600) saying all writers hav a political opinion & effectively defending 538 as not a partisian biased writer
Th WHOLE DEBATE by 6 bloggers over 12 posts from #558 to #600 was over 538’s BIAS claim against RCP , querying transparency of RCP & its conservative leanings and whether or not 538 was a very partisan biased WRITER (in his DailyKos & 538 editorial comments) , and nothing about #538 having biased methodologies
There was NO Debate on or statement made by me or anyone of 538 producing biased number crunching
YET Possum’s post #606 comes OUT OF TH BLUE , a post misrepresenting as if there had been a Debate/comment made of 538 producing biased number crunching ….when NO such Debate/comment was even made !!
Possum #606 “then somehow the number crunching itself ….the number crunching must be biased and cannot be trusted”
This statement must hav been apparently made up by Possum himself or fell from th trees seeing no one said it Possum could not say I said it because that would hav been untrue , as demonstrated by th above posts So Possum’s “own” comment allowed bloggers to assume someone may hav said it , and then Possum proceeded on that apparent misrepresentation to attack “a poster” …but did not name him seeing if he’d named me for instance I would hav said it was untrue ….of course others probably knew to whom he was referring But Possums post in any event was a red herring to get th Debate AWAY from 538 argued as being a very partisan biased WRITER as th actual accuser making these bias allegations against RCP… so a bias writer in 538 not bias data methodologies was at issue against RCP reputation
Possum’s #606 apart from his false allegation against no one specified , concluded with ‘what is wrong with th numbers’ to which I although thought Possums question was a red herring to get away from th RCP alleged bias Subject , I did simply replyied in #616 that 538’s ‘figures were inconsistent , favoring his preferred candidate’ (as opposed to other sites I’d seen) ie same as I’d said in #587 relating to Al’s view of RCP vs 538 transparency
Possums reply (#621) then says WITHOUT qualificaton “But YOUR (Ron) accusations of model bias from analysts…” Possum’s statement is untue if its directed at me I did not say that in any posts at all But again this was red herring anyway stuff away from th allegedly RCP bias Debate subject by 538 th alledgor who was being questioned as a partisan biased writer himself
(as an aside ONLY , why were 538’s figures inconsistent which happened to favour his preferred candidate , well there can be numerous reasons cann’t there : could be any of: flawed settings of 538’s weightings , or flawed other 538 factors used , flawed data , simple coincidence , yes even partisanship I suppose , or indeed taking in so many polls then weightings etc etc all some potential possibilitys)
BUT so what !! , 538’s inconsistency or otherwise was irrelevant to th Debate subject anyway of RCP bias and 538 th accuser being a very partisan biased WRITER …with 538’s own bias a crux of th Debate of 538’s own bias claims against RCP ! (not 538’s own data methodologies)
So Possums own disengenuous misrepresentation of th Debate subject itself was a red herring to skewer conversation away from th above , seeing NO one made th statements he listed as if they’d been said in his #606 and #621
Fact is th very partisan biased writer 538 , admitted Obama supporter & writer for pro Obama DailyKos was p.ssed off with RCP from previous week because RCP would not include DAILYKOS’s pollster results in RCP’s national RCP averages…now how many 538 conflicts of interest ar there there ! …then th very next week 538 accuses RCP of bias fo re-including ARG…. an accusation of bias from 538 against RCP…from a very partisan biased writer in 538….his data methodologies ar clearly not th issue in this
It also occurs to me now you also failed th negative inverse illogical test , you seemed to assume a very partisan biased writer would automaticaly produce model biase (that’s illogicall) or converseley , ONLY a ‘NON overt’ partisan writer can produce unbiased models (illogical also)
It seems to me then you misunderstood a cultural objectivity test , numbers people ar neither necessarily admired or loved , so a non elitist view is a Bill O’Reilly data model may be viewed with complete discomfort by ‘left’ people as it was th “enemy’s” data output , but with normative people th data will be still read & assessed normaly but with an eagle eye & with extreme normative discomfort I feel th same with 538 As a separate issue altogether this does NOT change th fact both Nate Silver 538 & Bill O’Reilly ar very partisan biased writers, nor that 538’s claims of bias against RCP ar not partisan nor ar without conflicts of interests being a DailyKos writer (& so 538’s methodoliogies or otherwise were obviously not th issue)
I make a multi dimensional criticism of 538 , which you wearing one “hat” as a very pro Obama “blogger” chose to disingenuously skewer & use innuendo play th man , & may hav known your other ‘hat’ of poll chartist/graphs would inhibit criticism except from me , so be it my arguments still stand It also seems there’s bitterness and/or sulking on this Site by many Obamabots because not all ‘left’ people support Obama (despite his poor ‘left’ policys & dangerous FA ideas) , and almost a demand for no diversity of opinion , well I’m unconcerned by any of yous as key ‘left ‘FA/domestic
policys ar my determinator of ‘informal’
I’ll stop here as I asume this post is pretty long already and so I will address why I feel Nate Silver of 538 is not credible in non model stuff over time , in a later separate later poster
If impartial readers think possums when blogging for there own Obama candidate ar always 100% right when bloggging , they’ve never been up a tree
Darn @ 984,
Agreed. All of this was news to me but I was going to vote Dem anyways. The people that need to hear this are the iron on rusted Republican voters who think McCain is a patriotic icon, but alas, they are the ones who are the most deaf to the truth ……. Thankfully, McCain has tanked already so it isn’t a game breaker issue ……. [iron on rusted Republicans like my S & BIL ]
Glen (988)
Do you really think McCain would be able to on spending $10 billion a month in Iraq? The US is up to its neck in debt. He would be out of Iraq just as quick as Obama except that he would cover his tracks by claiming the war has been won. Mission accomplished – again.
991
“to go on spending”
Darn but why leave now just as we’re winning.
It just makes no sense to quit while you’re ahead!
You know we’re winning because the media arent doing any news stories on Iraq that is how well we’re doing there
Glen (993)
To coin a phrase and with no disrespect to you – “It’s the economy stupid”. They just can’t afford it any more.Trust me, whoever wins they’ll dump Iraq at the first opportunity.
John McCain when offered freedom from his Vietcong captors due to his position refused.
John McCain is a leader who would rather stay with his fellow POW’s than follow the cowards way.
The US in this time of economic turmoil at home and two wars abroad needs such unselfish leadership and not someone with slick hollywood presentation.
In 1964 the innovative state of Arizona offered up Barry Golwater as President due to President Johnsons popularity he lost. Arizona with two cities supporting large populations(Tuczon and Phoenix) in the middle of the desert is part of American ingenuity. This state deserves to produce its first American president in John McCain.
Arizona joined the Union in 1912 whereas Hawaii signed up in 1959 on that alone Arizona should have the first President and theb perhaps in time it will be Hawaiis turn.
Paul they should have put up Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 they’d have had a better shot. 1964 was the year it all switched around the Republicans became uber conservative and the Democrats became uber liberal.
Also Paul lets not forget that it would also mean having an Alaskan on the executive for the first time in American history too, quite a milestone.
(995 &996)
Gee paul. With stuff like that, you should be writing John McCain’s scripts for him.
Darn,
If this is any indication of his campaign organization and tactics, you can write off Virginia as well
…..
Paul @ 995,
You didn’t read the REST of the story …… allow me to post here the parts you missed …..
Pages: « 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 26 » Show All