Obama has biggest lead yet!
- Bob Juch
- Posts: 27071
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
- Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
- Contact:
Obama has biggest lead yet!
According to Gallop: Obama 49%, McCain 41%.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.
Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.
- TheCalvinator24
- Posts: 4886
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
- Location: Wyoming
- Contact:
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 24392
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
The Gallup daily poll (like the Rasmussen poll) is a three day rolling poll, i.e. each day about 1/3 of the results change, so that a very good (or bad) day for a particular candidate will affect the poll for three days. Both the Friday and Saturday results showed Obama up 8%. Normally, one would have expected Obama to have gotten an even bigger bounce Saturday, as that day was the first one to reflect his acceptance speech(the polling for the Saturday results was done by early evening Wed-Fri). However, the results were flat, essentially meaning that the Palin announcement managed to cancel out the Obama acceptance speech, a very good accomplishment for McCain. With the Republican convention coming up next week, this bounce won't last long.
The Rasmussen results were similar to Gallup, with Obama holding a 4% lead both Friday and Saturday.
BTW, the biggest lead Obama had in the Gallup poll was 9%, on July 27. By August 1, Gallup showed the race as tied. Obama's Berlin speech was July 24, so the results of the 27th were the first ones in which all the polling was done after the speech. McCain launched his celebrity counterattack and dissipated that lead in less than one week, without his party's convention.
The Rasmussen results were similar to Gallup, with Obama holding a 4% lead both Friday and Saturday.
BTW, the biggest lead Obama had in the Gallup poll was 9%, on July 27. By August 1, Gallup showed the race as tied. Obama's Berlin speech was July 24, so the results of the 27th were the first ones in which all the polling was done after the speech. McCain launched his celebrity counterattack and dissipated that lead in less than one week, without his party's convention.
- danielh41
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:36 am
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Contact:
Zogby has it at:
McCain/Palin 47%
Obama/Biden 45%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html
Two months is a long time before the election.
McCain/Palin 47%
Obama/Biden 45%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html
Two months is a long time before the election.
- danielh41
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:36 am
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Contact:
A quote from the article about the Zogby poll:
It never would have occurred to me to put "people who shop regularly at Wal-mart" in their own demographic group.Among those who said they shop regularly at Wal-Mart - a demographic group that Zogby has found to be both "value" and "values" voters - Obama is getting walloped by McCain. Winning 62% support from weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, McCain wins these voters at a rate similar to what President Bush won in 2004. Obama wins 24% support from these voters.
- peacock2121
- Posts: 18451
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am
- BigDrawMan
- Posts: 2286
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:17 pm
- Location: paris of the appalachians
zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
- dodgersteve182
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:41 pm
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 24392
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Zogby polls are very unreliable (he had Obama winning the California primary by 10 points) and he refuses to release his methodology, which leads to the impression that he looks for results to validate his theories and get publicity.BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
Today's Rasmussen poll, based on Thurs-Sat polling now has Obama +3, down from +4 the last two days. The Thursday polling would not reflect Obama's acceptance speech since it is completed by early evening.
- ToLiveIsToFly
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:34 am
- Location: Kalamazoo
- Contact:
I think Zogby even used the word "landslide" in his prediction of Kerry over Bush, but I may be mistaken.BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
Gallup's gone from a dead head a week ago to an 8-point Obama lead. I don't have the Rasmussen results from a week ago. A normal convention bounce is generally 3-5 points.
It was an interesting (and predictable) move to roll out the Palin VP pick on Friday. When else did people think he was going to do it? I wonder, though, how strategic a move it was - convention bounces generally dissipate within a week by themselves.
- danielh41
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:36 am
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Contact:
That is troubling. People should be declining to vote for Obama because he's a socialist who would tax big oil companies expressly for the purpose of redistributing that money to the masses, or that he will appoint liberal judges who will keep Roe v. Wade intact, thereby continuing to allow the hundreds of thousands of murders for the sake of convenience that have gone on since that Supreme Court decision, not for the reasons expressed above...BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
- themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7634
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Suitguy is not bitter.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive
The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.
- BackInTex
- Posts: 13605
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
- Location: In Texas of course!
That just offsets the welfare folks I hear saying they are voting for Obama because he IS black.BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
Lots of support around for a poll test. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson
War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
~~ Thomas Jefferson
War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
- cindy.wellman
- LOLOLOL
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:42 pm
- Location: Alaska
Why?BackInTex wrote:That just offsets the welfare folks I hear saying they are voting for Obama because he IS black.BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
Lots of support around for a poll test. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
- peacock2121
- Posts: 18451
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am
- BigDrawMan
- Posts: 2286
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:17 pm
- Location: paris of the appalachians
------------danielh41 wrote:That is troubling. People should be declining to vote for Obama because he's a socialist who would tax big oil companies expressly for the purpose of redistributing that money to the masses, or that he will appoint liberal judges who will keep Roe v. Wade intact, thereby continuing to allow the hundreds of thousands of murders for the sake of convenience that have gone on since that Supreme Court decision, not for the reasons expressed above...BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
it is in the GOP's best interest to keep Roe intact, as their base has no other reason to vote for them.
-
Spock
- Posts: 4822
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm
Cool-can I use your time machine as you are apparently posting from 1965?BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc
i am troubled by what I hear from blue collar voters in these parts.
I have heard the following:
I aint votin for Obama because the black guys at work loaf and get away with it because they are black and get everything handed to them.
and...
he will give everything to the blacks.
and....
blacks are moving into my neighborhood and their kids are causing trouble and our schools are failing, so I'm not voting for Obama.
sigh
- ne1410s
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: The Friendly Confines
- Sir_Galahad
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
- Location: In The Heartland
IMO, polls don't mean jack. The only poll that matters is the one that counts the pulls when the lever is pulled on Nov 4.
But, if polls matter to you, then you may be disturbed to know that Obama's bounce was far inferior to what they expected after the convention. I was hearing talk of the "usual" 12 to 15 point bounce. He got about 5. And that was pretty much wiped out by McCain's VP announcement.
As an oh-by-the-way, McCain's candidacy has pulled in about $10 Mil since the announcement.
But, if polls matter to you, then you may be disturbed to know that Obama's bounce was far inferior to what they expected after the convention. I was hearing talk of the "usual" 12 to 15 point bounce. He got about 5. And that was pretty much wiped out by McCain's VP announcement.
As an oh-by-the-way, McCain's candidacy has pulled in about $10 Mil since the announcement.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
- ulysses5019
- Purveyor of Avatars
- Posts: 19442
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:52 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- NellyLunatic1980
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:54 am
- Contact:
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
The usual bounce is about six points, but candidates also usually pick up a small bounce when they name their running mate. Obama got about the usual convention bounce, when corrected for the usual running mate bounce.Sir_Galahad wrote:IMO, polls don't mean jack. The only poll that matters is the one that counts the pulls when the lever is pulled on Nov 4.
But, if polls matter to you, then you may be disturbed to know that Obama's bounce was far inferior to what they expected after the convention. I was hearing talk of the "usual" 12 to 15 point bounce. He got about 5. And that was pretty much wiped out by McCain's VP announcement.
As an oh-by-the-way, McCain's candidacy has pulled in about $10 Mil since the announcement.
The linked site, by the way, is run by Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus. He's applying the same statistical methods used to develop sabermetrics in an effort to normalize state-by-state polling data. (For those who know what I mean, think Davenport translations.) He discloses on the site that he's an Obama supporter, but he is absolutely transparent about his methods, providing ample detail to allow anyone who knows statistics (and who cares to take the time) to validate his methodology.
He's apparently also got some real world campaign experience. He has forcefully argued that the mainstream media has missed the story of the superiority of Obama's ground game to that of McCain. According to Nate, this can be responsible for as much as a five point advantage on Election Day. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- ToLiveIsToFly
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:34 am
- Location: Kalamazoo
- Contact:
A five-point advantage in certain strategic places, like Ohio, where he seems to have an overwhelming advantage in people on the ground and there's a tremendous opportunity to get people to register and vote early.Bob78164 wrote:The usual bounce is about six points, but candidates also usually pick up a small bounce when they name their running mate. Obama got about the usual convention bounce, when corrected for the usual running mate bounce.Sir_Galahad wrote:IMO, polls don't mean jack. The only poll that matters is the one that counts the pulls when the lever is pulled on Nov 4.
But, if polls matter to you, then you may be disturbed to know that Obama's bounce was far inferior to what they expected after the convention. I was hearing talk of the "usual" 12 to 15 point bounce. He got about 5. And that was pretty much wiped out by McCain's VP announcement.
As an oh-by-the-way, McCain's candidacy has pulled in about $10 Mil since the announcement.
The linked site, by the way, is run by Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus. He's applying the same statistical methods used to develop sabermetrics in an effort to normalize state-by-state polling data. (For those who know what I mean, think Davenport translations.) He discloses on the site that he's an Obama supporter, but he is absolutely transparent about his methods, providing ample detail to allow anyone who knows statistics (and who cares to take the time) to validate his methodology.
He's apparently also got some real world campaign experience. He has forcefully argued that the mainstream media has missed the story of the superiority of Obama's ground game to that of McCain. According to Nate, this can be responsible for as much as a five point advantage on Election Day. --Bob