17
   

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 12:52 pm
Yep. Credit where credit is due.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 02:39 pm
This is exactly what I was hoping to see today.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 10:24 pm
Hey nimh,

A few questions for you. If you don't know, do you know where to look? I've looked a few places and haven't found any answers yet.

1. Who designs the questions asked in the election exit polls?

2. Who determines which questions will be asked in the exit polls?

3. Who funds the data collection?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 02:01 pm
Hi Butrflynet, I think both the funding and the choice of questions (there's never room for enough) is done by the broadcast networks, but I'll look it up.

The Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls keep disagreeing about the development of the Democratic primary race.


http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/9210/galluprasmusdemslead10wf1.png


A partial explanation could be that the numbers Gallup publishes represent the interviews of the past five days, while those of Rasmussen are based on the last four days, so Gallup's numbers would respond slightly more slowly.

But in this case we see Rasmussen register a small rebound for Obama on the 19th, the day after his speech, which then is lost again over the course of the next three days; while Gallup started registering a rebound on the 20th, which then actually increased in speed on the 21st and 22nd.

The result of these mirrorring trends is that, on average, Obama's and Hillary's numbers have basically stayed level since the 17th:


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8020/galluprasmusdems7qj3.png
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 03:12 pm
Back on 18 February, I posted this:

nimh wrote:
Obama opens up electability gap

[The] national match-up polls [..] that pit either or both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against John McCain are currently showing a notable development. [..]

Barack Obama initially did better than Hillary Clinton. Back in April through June of last year, both [he and John Edwards] on average led McCain by 5, while Hillary on average was more or less tied with him.

Come summer, a new dynamic was established. The number of match-up polls that included McCain dwindled, as his campaign was judged to have gone south. In the polls that were still conducted, all Democrats did about equally well: all tended to beat McCain by an average of 5 points.

This phase lasted from about July all the way to November. But come December, McCain's come-back, initially driven purely by New Hampshire, became apparent. He was included in the match-up polls more often, and started doing better in them. By the time the New Hampshire primaries came round in early January, he was leading Hillary by 5 points on average, and Obama by 1 point. [..]

By late January, McCain's immediate post-NH bounce waned somewhat, and both Obama and Hillary trailed him in match-up polls by one or two points on average. And since then, it's been all good news for Obama. In thirteen successive polls now, Obama has matched up better against McCain than Hillary.

In the first few [..] this just meant merely tying McCain when Hillary trailed him, or trailing him by a percentage point or two less. But it's been different this month. There have been six match-up polls in February [and] all have seen Obama matching up 5-7 points better than Clinton [..].

The post came with a graph too. It showed how Obama built up a lead over McCain of 5% on average, while Hillary still trailed him slightly:

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2687/demsvsmccain3ai3.th.png

That was then. Then, throughout the rest of February, polls were volatile. Some still showed Obama well up over McCain, by up to 10 points, while Hillary led only by 5. But others suddenly saw both Obama and Hillary slightly trailing John McCain.

Then right at the beginning of March, on the eve of the primary round in TX, OH, RI and VT and well before the Wright thing erupted - some polls started showing Hillary actually matching up better than Obama. Rasmussen, Survey USA and Newsweek all showed both candidates essentially tied with McCain, and Hillary outdoing Obama (if just by a statistically insignificant one or two points).

Interestingly, on the other hand, the explosion over the Wright videos that erupted subsequently (and the Obama speech that followed) then changed very little. USA Today, CNN, CBS/NYT, Fox all had match-up polls out since the Wright affair hit, and all had Hillary and Obama doing roughly equally well, showing both of them essentially tied with McCain. (Three of them had Hillary's margin over McCain 1-4 points better, while the CBS/NYT poll had Obama doing better.)

Same with the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls. Taking every fourth (Rasmussen) or fifth (Gallup) result, they too have had Obama and Clinton doing roughly equally well throughout the month. Instead, what happened in those polls was that both Democrats started doing worse against McCain after the Wright to-do started - in the case of Rasmussen, significantly so.

Here's an updated graph:


http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/2393/demsvsmccain5cp3.png


In short:

  • Up till about two-thirds through February, there was a clear contrast between Obama and Hillary in how they matched up against McCain. Obama led McCain on average by about 5 points; Hillary trailed McCain by almost as much (though polls varied widely).

  • Then, as the campaign in Texas and Ohio culminated, Hillary started matching up better. And Obama worse. Something of a seachange occurred. As of early March - well before Wright - both candidates were roughly tied with McCain.

  • The hysteria over Wright seems to have changed little in how the two candidates compare. In the polls conducted since, Obama and Hillary still do about equally well. Or equally badly, in some cases, because the Gallup and especially Rasmussen tracking polls do show both Democrats doing worse against McCain since the brouhaha started.
Shorter still: the Wright stuff has had far less impact than the dynamics of the March 4 primary campaign, which effectively closed Obama's electability lead, had. But it does seem to be dragging both Democrats down a little, putting Obama in the worst position since January.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Mar, 2008 03:54 pm
Well, I can only hope that it just doesn't get much worse for him. His head-to-heads haven't really dropped; which is a good sign.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif

On Friday, the Politico ran a piece detailing that the Clintons had less then a one in ten chance of winning this nomination; and this was the number given to them from people within the Clinton campaign. Friday night talk shows were abuzz about both this, Richardson's endorsement, and her recent money woes (either in debt at the end of Feb., or up +2 million, depending on whether you count the 5 million dollar loan to her campaign or not), and the verdict wasn't good for her at all. It's really the first time I've seen many of these people talking about the Clintons as if they are really, really done for on TV.

For Obama's worst week of the campaign, it's not all that bad at this time. Can he turn it around next week completely? Will Hillary's various disclosures and apparent fibs about some historical events come back to haunt her?

Exciting now!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:04 pm
Polls on the effects of the Wright affair and Obama's speech


There's been a number of polls that have been conducted since the brouhaha over Wright erupted and Obama responded with his speech, which try to identify what consequences there have been.

There was a CBS poll, which was summarised on Pollster.com as followed:

Quote:
POLL: CBS Obama's Speech

"Most voters following the events regarding Senator Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright think Obama's speech was a success. Most agree with his thoughts on race, and think he did a good job explaining his relationship with Rev. Wright. However, the percentage who thinks he would unite the country has dropped since late February."

70% of say these events have made no difference in whether or not they would vote for Obama; 14% said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama, 14% say less likely.

"For this poll, CBS News re-interviewed voters who were first surveyed between March 15th and 18th, 2008, in the midst of the Wright controversy and mostly before Obama's speech on race, to gauge their reactions to Tuesday's speech and the continuing controversy over Wright's comments."


Other quotes from the CBS news story:

Quote:
CBS Poll: Good Reviews For Obama Speech
But Problems For Democratic Candidate Remain As Fewer Think He Could Unite The Country


[..] Sixty-nine percent of voters who have heard or read about Obama's speech say he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations, and 63 percent of voters following the events say they agree with Obama's views on race relations. Seventy-one percent say he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright. [..]

When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes - down from 67 percent last month.

Obama's favorable rating, which stands at 43 percent, continues to outweigh his unfavorable rating of 30 percent. [..]

Nearly a quarter of Democrats say the events have made them more likely to back Obama, while a similar number of Republicans say they are now less likely to do so. Three in four independents say the events make no difference, and the remainder are nearly evenly split between those more likely to support him and those less likely to do so. [..]

Among voters who supported Obama over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain before the speech, 23 percent say they are now more likely to support the Illinois senator. Just six percent are less likely to support him, while 69 percent say it makes no difference.

Overall, the speech and events surrounding the matter have found a wide audience. Most voters say they have heard or read some about these events, including 42 percent who have heard a lot about it. Just four percent of those surveyed had not heard about the controversy.


But an InsiderAdvantage poll found less favourable results:

Quote:
New InsiderAdvantage Poll
Obama's speech meets unsympathetic ears with Americans


Barack Obama's speech about race on Tuesday impressed many who witnessed it or read it. But most of America did neither, and many of them -- white and black -- were less persuaded of the speech's capacity to heal racial wounds, or to put the issue of race behind Obama as he continues his quest for the White House. [..]

A startling 82% knew about Obama's speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, "Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?"

    Less likely (52%) More likely (19%) About the same (27%)


Responding to this poll, a blogger on TNR's The Plank asks:

Quote:
Surprisingly, 56 percent of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for Obama. Not sure what to make of that. Maybe whereas some whites felt Obama didn't sufficiently distance himself from Wright, many blacks felt he shouldn't have to condemn him at all?


A Rasmussen poll has mixed news for Obama as well:

Quote:
Obama Speech Grades: 51% Good or Excellent, 26% Fair, 21% Poor

Eighty-four percent (84%) of America's Likely Voters say they have seen or heard at least some portion of Barack Obama's Tuesday morning speech on race and national unity (see Speech). The speech has become one of the most watched YouTube videos and 82% say they are following news about it somewhat or very closely.

Among those who have seen or heard some of the speech, 51% said it was good or excellent, 26% said fair, and 21% gave the Senator's remarks a grade of poor.

Not surprisingly, opinions divided sharply along partisan and racial lines. Among Democrats, 67% said the speech was good or excellent. Fifty-three percent (53%) of unaffiliated voters agreed along with 31% of Republicans. Eighty-six percent (86%) of African-American voters said the speech was good or excellent along with 45% of White voters. [..]

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely voters remain somewhat or very concerned about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. That figure includes 72% of Republicans, 54% of unaffiliated voters, and 45% of Democrats. Just 36% of African-Americans are concerned along with 61% of Whites. Voters under 50 are less concerned than their elders.

Thirty percent (30%) said the speech was racially unifying and 21% said it was racially divisive. A plurality, 37%, said it was neither. [..].


More from Rasmussen:

Quote:
The Impact of Pastor Wright and THE SPEECH on Election 2008

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama's chances of winning the general election against John McCain. The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven't bounced back.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama's speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday's polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.

Obama's favorable ratings have also fallen below the 50% mark since the world learned of his former Pastor. This can be seen as part of a larger trend that began shortly after Obama's victories in the Wisconsin Primaries. At that time, just before Hillary Clinton began raising questions about her competitor, Obama was viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide. That had slipped to 52% just before Pastor Wright's views became big news and to 47% just before Obama's speech. Two days after the speech, Obama's favorables remain at 48%.

As for the Democratic race, the impact is much harder to assess. Obama generally led Clinton for several weeks leading up to the March 4 Primaries. With victories in Texas and Ohio on that day, Clinton moved into the lead nationally. But, that faded by the weekend and Obama moved ahead once again. Just before the Pastor Wright story exploded on the scene, Obama reached the 50% level of support for the first time. He also had an eight-point lead over Clinton. Now, two days after Obama's speech in Philadelphia, his advantage over Clinton is down to three points. However, his numbers among Democrats appear to have stabilized in the last couple of days.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 03:52 pm
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
You are interesting, mm. I wouldn't have thought you'd even bother to attend a Hillary event. Full of surprises, you are.


To be honest, my GF wanted to go.
Since I havent made up my mind who I am voting for yet, I will take every oppurtunity I can to hear what the candidates have to say, unfiltered by their spin machines and the press.

She did do one thing that surprised me however.
There was an "overflow room" that held aboout 1500 people, and after her speech she went in there and spent at least an hour, talking to anyone that wanted to say something to her, even me.

I gotta give her credit for that.

Was your GF a potential Clinton voter before the event, and if so, how did it affect him?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 07:27 pm
Has this poll information been pointed out?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

Key statements include the following:
"Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright's comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters."

So much for the ability to unite. In truth, I think Obama himself suffers from a lack of unity of thought and conviction. I think he is still in a state of flux, in terms of his political views, and is a very conflicted man. One could speculate as to the reasons, but that would be another subject by itself. I could be wrong, perhaps he is very settled on his political views, which is even more troubling because it appears he may have done a very good job of concealing what he really thinks.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 07:35 pm
What do you think he really thinks? Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Mar, 2008 07:50 pm
I don't know, cyclops. Lets just say it is an issue of trust. Anyone that esteems folks like Pastor Wright who apparently thinks America deserved 911, so does Obama think so too? Some of the black liberation theologians espouse reparations for descendants of slavery, so has Obama addressed that question? We don't really know, do we? Does Obama suspect the U.S. government has introduced drugs into the black community, or does Obama think the government invented HIV as a tool to commit genocide? And does Obama think the rich should be forfeiting their wealth and their property, because after all they stole it or have been using it to abuse people of color for a long long time? Does Obama think the country needs to be changed to the point of scrapping the constitution, after all, if we were founded on racist principles, why would you want to keep something around that is racist?

I can think of lots more questions that come up, cyclops, but I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. I'm sure Obama's speech writers can come up with something very good for him to recite, but does that tell us what he really thinks? I don't know, and I have serious doubts.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 08:11 am
okie wrote:
I don't know, cyclops. Lets just say it is an issue of trust. Anyone that esteems folks like Pastor Wright who apparently thinks America deserved 911, so does Obama think so too? [..] We don't really know, do we?

Ehm, yes you do. How many times does he need to say that he completely disagrees with what Wright said to satisfy you?

I'm beginning to think that this is just a question of, ahah, we found something bad we can associate him with, and it doesnt matter how often he repudiates said comments, we can just keep on "asking questions", such as: how do we know for sure he doesnt hate his country, etc? Well, how about it would be counter to every single thing he's written and said throughout his political life?

okie wrote:
Does Obama suspect the U.S. government has introduced drugs into the black community, or does Obama think the government invented HIV as a tool to commit genocide?

What about checking? Here, from last Friday's news:

    [Obama] said he had been present during Wright's condemnations of U.S. foreign and domestic policies. But he said he was unaware that Wright had called HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, a U.S. government plot to wipe out African Americans -- a charge Obama called "out of line and off the wall."
Of course, this should come as little surprise since anyone who types in "Obama" and "AIDS" into Google will find out that a) Obama has held a number of combative speeches about the need to fight AIDS; b) has a specific policy program on how to fight AIDS, and perhaps most important of all, c) has again and again stressed the need for people to test themselves, and has twice taken a public AIDS test himself to encourage other people to do it and take away whatever stigma there is to it.

But no, instead of typing <Obama aids> into Google it's easier to just play guilt by association and act like hey, you know, since his pastor has said something outrageous about AIDS, who knows whether Obama might believe it or not?

okie wrote:
I can think of lots more questions that come up, cyclops, but I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. I'm sure Obama's speech writers can come up with something very good for him to recite, but does that tell us what he really thinks?


The only reason to not know would be if you didnt actually care to find out the reassuring question, because it would be so much more convenient to just leave these questions hanging in the air, so the Democrat in the race for '08 can forever be insinuated to be unpatriotic, extremist etc. Actually looking into what the man has said, written and done throughout his political life would quickly dispel any of these questions, so that would just be inconvenient.

And he wrote that race speech himself, only even showing it to his closest advisers before going on-air with it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 08:12 am
okie wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
You are interesting, mm. I wouldn't have thought you'd even bother to attend a Hillary event. Full of surprises, you are.


To be honest, my GF wanted to go.
Since I havent made up my mind who I am voting for yet, I will take every oppurtunity I can to hear what the candidates have to say, unfiltered by their spin machines and the press.

She did do one thing that surprised me however.
There was an "overflow room" that held aboout 1500 people, and after her speech she went in there and spent at least an hour, talking to anyone that wanted to say something to her, even me.

I gotta give her credit for that.

Was your GF a potential Clinton voter before the event, and if so, how did it affect him?


Was that an attempt at an insult, or do you not know that "GF" means GIRLFRIEND?

And yes, SHE is a Clinton supporter.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 08:16 am
I answered okie here. To avoid derailing this thread too.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 08:35 am
Quote:
A new Rasmussen poll of Nevada shows that this red state could be poised to vote Democratic this time around, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton narrowly beating John McCain for now:

Clinton (D) 44%, McCain (R) 43%
Obama (D) 45%, McCain (R) 41%
Nevada is a key swing state that voted twice for President Bush, but only narrowly each time.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2008 12:36 pm
Rasmussen

http://bp3.blogger.com/_vLfOu6VB8i0/R-fk1gi42KI/AAAAAAAAAfo/UWIoRddwWaM/s1600/bo1.jpg
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2008 09:29 am
Found this both interesting and reassuring.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mccain_and_v_clinton_b.php
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:07 am
nimh wrote:
has twice taken a public AIDS test himself to encourage other people to do it and take away whatever stigma there is to it.


I recently watched the "Obama in Africa" documentary which featured (in part) Mr. and Mrs. Obama taking public AIDS tests. I recommend the film to anyone who hasn't seen it.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:39 pm
I'd like to see that, thanks for the recommendation. I remember reading about that trip.

In the meantime, it looks like Obama's speech really helped him North Carolina. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_032508.pdf (pdf)
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:01 pm
Holy cow! Is NC a closed primary. If not, I need to alert Rush! I have way too much popcorn left for this to be ending any time soon.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 04:33:10