17
   

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

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 02:27 pm
Thanks nimh.







(the whole in-balance thing (O v C as well as either v Mc) worries me - but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate having had the ability to follow you along)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 03:38 pm
And thank you for all the thank yous Smile

To underscore the point, here's the Obama and Hillary lines separately, with and without trendlines (the irresponsible order of 6 kind):

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2097/galluprasmusclinton6we2.png

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2833/galluprasmusclinton6bjm5.png

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6215/galluprasmusobama7tx6.png

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8198/galluprasmusobama7bkx2.png
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 04:15 pm
In other polling news...




http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-two-out-of-three-cats-believe.jpg
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 08:40 am
:-D




This is a cool chart:

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123019/2180710/2192719/080604_PB_pollEX.jpg

From here:

"Hillary Clinton didn't lose race for the nomination. Barack Obama won it."
http://www.slate.com/id/2192952/
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:58 am
Oh, this is where the chart is from -- much cooler yet:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=LESSONS0805
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 10:09 am
That's just the chart, here's the accompanying article:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121252558317842545.html?mod=blog

Interesting tidbit at the end about Bill Clinton and Clyburn.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:40 pm
http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/10/ObamaMcCaintrackJune10.gif

:-)

(I wish they'd made Obama light green, though -- that was his color vs. Hillary.) (I never said I wasn't superstitious!!) (But McCain was the dark green vs. Republican contenders and won... so I guess it's a toss-up.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 12:23 pm
Time to bring this thread back to life a little.

Michigan - and there's a new Ras poll with Obama +9 out, not included in this chart:

http://www.pollster.com/08MIPresGEMvO600.png

Ohio

http://www.pollster.com/08OHPresGEMvO600.png

Missouri

http://www.pollster.com/08MOPresGEMvO600.png

Indiana

http://www.pollster.com/08INPresGEMvO600.png

New Mexico

http://www.pollster.com/08NMPresGEMvO600.png

Colorado

http://www.pollster.com/08COPresGEMvO600.png

Georgia

http://www.pollster.com/08GAPresGEMvO600.png

North Carolina

http://www.pollster.com/08NCPresGEMvO600.png

Virginia

http://www.pollster.com/08VAPresGEMvO600.png

Wisconsin

http://www.pollster.com/08WIPresGEMvO600.png

Texas

http://www.pollster.com/08TXPresGEMvO600.png

Even Alaska

http://www.pollster.com/08AKPresGEMvO600.png

All looking good for Obama at this time. In fact, he has hardly gotten weaker in any state since capturing the nomination.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 09:56 am
4 national polls released this week, ALL show a lead for Obama.

National average with Nader and Barr:

http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvOand3sr600.png

National average without them (does not include newest Zogby poll)

http://www.pollster.com/08USPresGEMvO600.png

Another good week for Obama!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:21 am
Nimah
All these stupid graphs are your fault. We have 6 months before the election. If you wait till then the information as to who gets elected will be irrefutable.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 12:56 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Nimah
All these stupid graphs are your fault. We have 6 months before the election. If you wait till then the information as to who gets elected will be irrefutable.
Are you sure you can't think of anything less coherent to post?

If you wait till February; you'll know who won the Super bowl too... though millions will be trying to figure it out before then. There are always a few irrelevant jerks who'll opine the regular season predictions don't matter... but real fans simply realize it is these same irrelevant jerks that really don't matter.

Count me as a fan of Nimh's thankless work.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 02:42 pm
Bill
Just as I don't trust politicians or the opinion of a thousand people who answered questions that that were specially tailored to get the results they want I don't trust your opinion either. If you don't mind I will decide what opinions to trust and when to trust them. I will wait for the vote to come in and hope the judicial arm of government isn't involved this time.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 02:24 pm
Good afternoon. There is a new poll out from the Pugh organization re Hispanic voters.
Obama shows up with 66% of the Hispanic vote while 23% go for McCain.
Bush got 40% in 2004.
75% of Hispanics who favored Clinton have switched to Obama, while 8%
shifted to McCain. That seems to bode well for Obama, perhaps not only with Hispanic Clinton supporters but also with her other followers.
9% of voters nationwide are listed as Hispanic, with large concentrations in the key states of NM, CO, NV and FL.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 02:44 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
Good afternoon. There is a new poll out from the Pugh organization re Hispanic voters.
Obama shows up with 66% of the Hispanic vote while 23% go for McCain.
Bush got 40% in 2004.
75% of Hispanics who favored Clinton have switched to Obama, while 8%
shifted to McCain. That seems to bode well for Obama, perhaps not only with Hispanic Clinton supporters but also with her other followers.
9% of voters nationwide are listed as Hispanic, with large concentrations in the key states of NM, CO, NV and FL.


But I thought that Hispanics would never never vote for Obama? Laughing

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 08:31 pm
What do you make, Nimh, of the loss in Glasgow, by the Labor party (with Brown, a Scotsman, being uninvited to campaign)?
There probably is a thread on this.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 08:40 am
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080727DailyUpdateGraph1_yyyytttt.gif

Quote:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Barack Obama's Berlin bounce is fading. Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 48% and McCain 45%. Both Obama and McCain are viewed favorably by 56% of voters. Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day.


source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 06:31 pm
(Yes, I'm still alive)

I have wanted to make this graph forever, but knew it would also take forever to make, and secretly hoped that the ever-thorough people at pollster.com could be relied on to sooner or later take up the burden.

And now they did. This is very interesting:

Quote:
Polling Trends in 2008 vs '04 and '00

By Charles Franklin

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/Pres08vs04aand000verlay-thumb-600x450.png

The most common description of polls is that they are snapshots, not predictions. A good way to look at that in the 2008 election is to compare the '08 campaign with the two that came before.

The chart above shows the trend estimates for each of the last three presidential campaigns. I'm plotting the estimated margin between the two candidates, Dem minus Rep, for each year.

With 93 days to go until the 2008 election, Obama holds a 3.3 point advantage over McCain, though that has been eroding over the past six weeks. If we put a confidence interval around today's estimate, we get a race that is just barely leaning Democratic.

But what about the future? The dynamics of the next 92 days are all important for where we stand on November 4. Since we can't foresee those 92 days yet, let's see what happened during the same time in 2000 and 2004. That gives us a better idea how much change we might anticipate in the next three months.

In 2004, Kerry slowly built a 2 point lead by this time, and held a small lead through much of the summer. But then the race took a sharp turn, with Bush making a 6 point run, taking a four point lead with 50 days to go. Kerry gained back 3 points of that in the polling, but less than 2 points of it in the actual vote, losing by a 2.4 point margin.

In 2000, Bush led in most of the early polls, holding a 6 point lead with 107 days to go. Then Gore moved sharply up, erasing Bush's lead and then adding a 3 point lead for Gore with about 56 days left. Bush promptly reversed Gore's gains with a six point move in the GOP's direction, and led by about 3 points over the last three weeks of the campaign. Of course, the 2000 polls were misleading in predicting a Bush win. Gore won the popular vote by 0.6 points.

So far in 2008, Obama has enjoyed a run up of 5.5 points since his low point in late March. That run is on a par with Bush's in 2004 but still a bit less than Gore's 9 point run in 2000, and on par the Bush's 6 point rebound that year.

Judging from the dynamics we've seen in the past it is quite reasonable to expect the current trend to shift by half-a-dozen points. August and the conventions have been periods of substantial change in both previous elections, so if history repeats itself the next 4 or 5 weeks should be pretty interesting.

The bottom line is neither campaign should be complacent or despondent. There is a lot of time left and recent history shows that both up and down swings of 6-9 points are entirely plausible.


The real wonks among you can click the headline to find further graphs and analyses on how the confidence intervals line up around the numbers for these three campaigns over time.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2008 07:11 pm
Neck and neck, again. Is Obama fading?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/15/poll-shows-obama-mccain-tied-for-third-time-in-two-weeks/
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 12:01 pm
Obama is fading...it's clear over the past month.

Here's the electoral count on Jul 17, exactly one month ago...Obama leading by 116 electoral votes and the traditionally Republican south largely in play. Obama also with a solid lead in the midwest including the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan.

And here's today's chart. The electoral vote narrowed to only 25 votes with south largely solidified now for McCain. Of even more concern to Obama is that the midwest, which he held so solidly just 30 days ago, has all gone into play.

This line chart shows a definite McCain trend over past two weeks.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 01:21 pm
@slkshock7,
I recommend Frank Rich's Op-Ed from today. It's a bunch of stuff I keep saying, but he does it much better. (That's why he gets the big bux.)

It has a lot of good stuff so I'm hesitant to quote -- I find that people tend to satisfy themselves with just the quoted stuff. But then people often don't click on the link if that's all I include, so here's some anyway:

Frank Rich wrote:
AS I went on vacation at the end of July, Barack Obama was leading John McCain by three to four percentage points in national polls. When I returned last week he still was. But lo and behold, a whole new plot twist had rolled off the bloviation assembly line in those intervening two weeks: Obama had lost the election!

The poor guy should be winning in a landslide against the despised party of Bush-Cheney, and he’s not. [...various "...and he's not"s truncated...]

It seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000. Obama’s average lead of three to four points is marginally larger than both John Kerry’s and Al Gore’s leads then (each was winning by one point in Gallup surveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter’s 46). At Pollster.com, which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election.

Yet surely, we keep hearing, Obama should be running away with the thing. Even Michael Dukakis was beating the first George Bush by 17 percentage points in the summer of 1988. Of course, were Obama ahead by 17 points today, the same prognosticators now fussing over his narrow lead would be predicting that the arrogant and presumptuous Obama was destined to squander that landslide on vacation and tank just like his hapless predecessor.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html

(Links embedded in original.)
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 08:25:05