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

@old europe,

And by the way, if you want to take a look at the polling data behind that graph, you'll find data about the week or weeks before the General Election right here.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

New daily tracking polls update on Observationalism:

Daily tracking polls update: the nervous edition

Rasmussen today has Obama's lead down from 5% to 3% (Obama now gets 50%, McCain 47%). This may not seem like much of a change and could just be statistical noise, but as they note:

Quote:

This is the first time McCain has been within three points of Obama in more than a month and the first time his support has topped 46% since September 24 [..]

Prior to today’s update, Obama had been ahead by four-to-eight points every single day for 33 straight days. During that 33-day stretch, Obama’s voter support had stayed between 50% and 52% every day while McCain was in the 44% to 46% range. It will take another day or so to determine whether today’s numbers reflect a lasting change or statistical noise. Two of the last three nights of polling show a closer race than was found in the previous month.

Meanwhile, the Research 2000/Daily Kos poll, which has generally had numbers a bit more favourable for Obama than the others, has his lead down another point to 6%. Zogby has it inching back up from 4.3% to 4.7%. The Diageo/Hotline poll has Obama's lead down a point to 7%.

There's some very good state polling from Quinnipiac and AP-Gfk for Obama from Ohio and Pennsylvania (both polls) and Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia (AP), but those were in the field from 22-26 October. The seeming tightening in the national tracking polls took place after the 25th, so it wouldnt be reflected in those state polls yet. (AP and Quinnipiac both also have narrow 2 point-leads for Obama in Florida.)

1 Reply

I'm kind of okay with the lead closing. I think it might encourage Obama supporters to get to the booth on Tuesday if they realize they can't stay home.

Does that seem odd?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

No.. not odd. Just.. nervous.

1 Reply

@nimh,

How are the state polls today? Any major changes?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Wrote another related post on Observationalism:

Massive early voting … the wonder, the worry, the role of race

Summary:

Quote:

Local Georgia TV has a story that's both heartwarming and horrifying: on the first day of advance voting, people stood in line for 12 hours to vote, and remained inspired. Advance voting has mobilised stunning numbers of voters, and more specifically, African-American voters. But Ed Kilgore fears that the massive turnout of African-Americans in early voting is triggering a racial backlash in the South.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh, I sent the Observationalist link to some pollster friends of mine. They like the site.
One of them (who has zeroed the results in the last 2 Mexican elections and has been a UN observer in electoral processes around the world) wrote (my translation):

Quote:

Thanks for the tip on the site. I keep following regularly other conventional sites, like RealClearPolitics & FiveThirtyEight.
Sobre lo que ocurrirá el martes, te comento varios puntos:
1. The divergence in the daily tracking polls measurement is noticeable (the bandwidth margin for Obama varies regularly up to ten points). I'll keep it as memory help against incoming criticism [against him] in Mexico, where we regularly showed a smaller band (in 2006, two weeks prior to the election we diverged in no more than 6 points, although that meant having different leaders, which doesn't happen in the US because of the size of the Obama lead).
2. The oscillations which obervacionalism.com calls into attention seem to me rather "statistical noise" than major chances, although I don't doubt that after Obama's fast advance the previous weeks, there will be an adjustment on the closing days, leading to a result that could be closer than the 6 points polls are marking today.
3. It's surprising than, even with the divergence between punctual measurements, realclearpolitics.com and even fivethirtyeight.com, besides CNN, show so much stability in the average polling they report, notwithstanding that their "poll of polls" include every day different polling houses. And surely there have been "house effects" in the US series! The relevant thing is that all pollsters and all aggregates show a clear Obama lead, of at least 3 points, sustained over four weeks.
4. I don't believe that the "Bradley effect" is affecting measurements in the USA. At least the data over the relevance of racial issues in the vote decision (not the voters profile, which as you know well, is a totally different thing) seems to not sustain that hypothesis. On the contrary, if we take into account the high negative charge that adjectives like "liberal" have had in our neighbor country, it could also be thought that there would be a sort of "hidden vote" for the candidate positiones in the left of the political spectre.
5. We must always remember that the election in the US is indirect. The potentially narrow Obama lead in citizen votes becomes an abyss McCain cannot breach: not only the more realist calculations have shown that Obama has tightened enough electoral votes to win, but also that the difference between him and McCain could be over 150 votes.
So, I consider a surprise highly improbable, and more probable a clear Republican defeat, even if the rational bet would be Obama not winning with a two digit difference, but much less.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Wrote another related post on Observationalism:

Massive early voting … the wonder, the worry, the role of race

Summary:

Quote:
Local Georgia TV has a story that's both heartwarming and horrifying: on the first day of advance voting, people stood in line for 12 hours to vote, and remained inspired. Advance voting has mobilised stunning numbers of voters, and more specifically, African-American voters. But Ed Kilgore fears that the massive turnout of African-Americans in early voting is triggering a racial backlash in the South.

Hi Nimh,

Wonder why the 'increased white turnout' due to anti-black turnout sentiment hasn't shown itself yet in the early voting totals that we see from some southern states?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cripes!! Standing in line for 12 hours to vote.

Can you imagine what somebody who never votes thinks about that sort of thing. The last time I saw anything like that was in Zimbabwe.

When I worked for one or other of our main parties we had to argue with the sods to get them away from the telly on election night. Homilies about duty and all that jazz. And transport them door to door. And not being sure who they were voting for.

0 Replies

@fbaezer,

Hey, Fbaezer, thats great! Very cool to hear that they liked the site. And its very nice to get some feedback - and readers! Blogging sure is a bit more lonely a thing than posting on a forum...

Quote:

2. The oscillations which obervacionalism.com calls into attention seem to me rather "statistical noise" than major chances, although I don't doubt that after Obama's fast advance the previous weeks, there will be an adjustment on the closing days, leading to a result that could be closer than the 6 points polls are marking today.

Well, thats a reassuring take, about the statistical noise I mean - I admit I'm getting a bit of the jitters! But I do also think that the race will still tighten a bit, interesting to see that he thinks so too.

Quote:

3. It's surprising than, even with the divergence between punctual measurements, realclearpolitics.com and even fivethirtyeight.com, besides CNN, show so much stability in the average polling they report, notwithstanding that their "poll of polls" include every day different polling houses.

I suppose the fact that they include so many different polls every day automatically makes the trendlines more stable? (I mean, the average of 15 will be more stable than the average of 5?) Especially because there's seven daily and one near-daily tracking poll now, so those are there every day and usually make up the majority of a day's national polling. Which must make the average more stable than if you'd just have polls from eight pollsters one day, and then polls from eight wholly different pollsters with different house effects the next day.

With fivethirtyeight.com, I think (and I'm sure with pollster.com), they also dont just show a simple running average like realclearpolitics.com does. Pollster.com has this regressive trendline (I posted more info on that some time earlier, anyway they have it on their site), and fivethirtyeight.com, which I dont follow as closely, I think weights in a number of background /context data, at least that's what they seem to do with state polling.

Quote:

And surely there have been "house effects" in the US series!

Between pollsters? Yes, definitely. Pollster.com had a nice graph illustrating the house effects of the different daily tracking polls here: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/tracking_poll_house_effects.php

Quote:

5. We must always remember that the election in the US is indirect. The potentially narrow Obama lead in citizen votes becomes an abyss McCain cannot breach: not only the more realist calculations have shown that Obama has tightened enough electoral votes to win, but also that the difference between him and McCain could be over 150 votes.
So, I consider a surprise highly improbable, and more probable a clear Republican defeat, even if the rational bet would be Obama not winning with a two digit difference, but much less.

Wow, thats certainly a reassuring take. Razz

I can see the national vote versus Electoral College argument. The national vote polls are showing a tightening of the race, but there's really no let-down so far in Obama's vote in crucial swing states like Virginia and Colorado and Ohio, let alone New Mexico and Iowa. The only states that seems to have tightened up a bit are Southern states: Missouri, North Carolina and for a bit there, it seemed, Florida, and Obama doesnt need any of those. So I guess that even if the national vote tightens Obama maybe has more of a firewall in the states that count.

Still, over 150 votes! I'm not quite that optimistic, I think it'll be more like 100...

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hi Nimh,

Wonder why the 'increased white turnout' due to anti-black turnout sentiment hasn't shown itself yet in the early voting totals that we see from some southern states?

Well, what Kilgore said was that the current visuals, on the news, of massive black turnout in the early vote so far is starting to trigger a backlash among Southern whites, "a sense of genuine racial panic". (In combination with the McCain campaign's fearmongering of course.) So that wouldnt show up in the early vote thats taken place so far, it's something that would start showing up now.

Specifically, he wrote: "While black turnout in Georgia and across the Deep South is definitely going to be up significantly ... I now think it’s going to be partially offset by higher white turnout." So, future tense. Something that will start showing up. So we'll know soon enough whether he's right; well, we'll definitely know next week, anyway.

I hope he isn't, of course, and so does he ... it's just a theory, based on anecdotal evidence, and one's faith in humanity would be improved if it was proven wrong. But maybe I'm cynical, but it sounds plausible to me.

(And here I also remember that the only states that have been tightening in the pollster.com trendlines these past few days are Southern states..)

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Still, over 150 votes! I'm not quite that optimistic, I think it'll be more like 100...

I see 150 as very realistic... but 100 is still a VERY hefty margin. McCain's toast. How about, say, 367-171? <-- That is what it looks like right now.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Actually, my forecast (and I did not fail a state during the primaries), as for today is:
Obama wins Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.
The battle will be very close in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.
Missouri & Indiana will end up in McCain's account.
Pennsylvania will be blue, but surprinsingly close.

That would leave Obama with 294, McCain with 185 electoral votes.

If you want to push me even harder, I'll say Obama will win Florida and Ohio. McCain will keep North Carolina.

And that'd be... lemme see...: Obama 338, McCain 200 votes.
So I guess my pollster friend and I agree.

IMO, an over optimistic scenario would have Obama nearing 400 electoral votes. That won't happen.

3 Replies

@fbaezer,

I think Missouri goes blue.

KS is dead...

1 Reply

@fbaezer,

fbaezer wrote:

Actually, my forecast (and I did not fail a state during the primaries), as for today is:
Obama wins Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.
The battle will be very close in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.
Missouri & Indiana will end up in McCain's account.
Pennsylvania will be blue, but surprinsingly close.

That would leave Obama with 294, McCain with 185 electoral votes.

If you want to push me even harder, I'll say Obama will win Florida and Ohio. McCain will keep North Carolina.

And that'd be... lemme see...: Obama 338, McCain 200 votes.

Hmm.. well, we're not even that far apart then. I have McCain taking Florida. And I have Nevada as well as Indiana on the edge. Otherwise, the same...

0 Replies

One poll (admitedly a small sample) which hasn't received much notice...

Movie extras hired for the filming of Deliverance break 3-1 for McCain.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

I think Missouri goes blue.

KS is dead...

I'd love that very much :-)

T
K
O

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Movie extras hired for the filming of Deliverance break 3-1 for McCain.

Bernie means that the Celebrities have it. Flyover states don't. Middle America's toast. Does anybody still read a newspaper, watch TV channels or listen to radio stations which are owned by corporations based in true Red states?

What is Barack Obama actually for? I mean his purpose in life. What are these tax breaks for the lower middle-class actually for? When they get their extra $1,000 what's that for? More gee-gaws eh? What does that signify?

Oswald Spengler wrote in Money-

Quote:

What really signifies is not that an individual or a people is "in condition", well nourished and fruitful, but for what he or it is so; and the higher man climbs historically, the more conspicuously his political and religious will to inward symbolism and force of expression towers above everything in the way of the form and depth that the economic life as such possesses. It is only with the coming of Civilization, when the whole form-world begins to ebb , that the mere life-preserving begins to outline itself, nakedly and insistently---this is the time when the banal assertion that "hunger and love" are the driving forces of life ceases to be ashamed of itself; when life come to mean, not a waxing in strength for the task, but a matter of "happiness of the greatest number," of comfort and ease, of panem et circenses; and when, in the place of grand politics, we have economic politics as an end in itself.

After that it's an actuarial problem associated with budgets. Win by too much and you wasted some cash.

I wonder which character Bernie empathised with in the guitar duel in the movie he mentions.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Bernie means that the Celebrities have it. Flyover states don't. Middle America's toast.

Complain again about how the flyover states are cruelly bullied by the new Democratic wave after Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and perhaps Ohio and Nevada vote for Obama.

spendius wrote:

Does anybody still read a newspaper, watch TV channels or listen to radio stations which are owned by corporations based in true Red states?

Do you think it matters where a multi-billion dollar corporation has its HQ?

However, since you ask, "with 900 stations, Clear Channel is the largest radio station group owner in the United States, both by number of stations and by revenue. According to BIA Financial Network, Clear Channel Radio recorded more than $3.5 billion in revenues in 2005, more than $1 billion more than the number-two group owner, CBS Radio." It is "the largest owner of full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations and twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and is also the largest pure-play radio station owner and operator". It "operates the country's largest syndication service".

Clear Channel is based in San Antonio, TX. "Programs that appear on many Clear Channel talk stations include Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Laura, and [..] the Sean Hannity Show, The Savage Nation".

(All quotes from Wikipedia, and sourced there.)

1 Reply

@nimh,

Well--okay. Who owns Clear Channel? It's much more than you give it. It's global.

And there are other reasons why this exception in the field of radio exists. I think, though I don't know, that radio is more popular in Red states.

I wouldn't say you have answered the general drift of what I said. I was well aware that there would be exceptions. And you made no comment on the quote from Spengler.

Quote:

Do you think it matters where a multi-billion dollar corporation has its HQ

I think it is a matter of great importance. It is not just a region either. It is the district. Who is rubbing shoulders with who over lunch and in evening networks. And on exotic beaches.

What you're really saying is that everything is going to plan. I don't think it's your plan nimh. Your plan is to endure.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know