WWTBAM Bored

According to Gallop: Obama 49%, McCain 41%.

Whoo hooo! A statistic to take you into, um, Sunday?

Yep, he got about a 5 point bounce out of the Dem Convention.

If I had to guess, I'd say that's about normal.

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.

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.

A quote from the article about the Zogby poll:

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.

It never would have occurred to me to put "people who shop regularly at Wal-mart" in their own demographic group.

It doesn't matter today.

It's like looking at the stock market today if you don't want to sell or buy until November.

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 guess your Electoral Votes in New York will certainly go to the Dems whether you vote or campaign for him locally or not.
It's the Swing States that will ultimately decide the election under the Electoral College system.

BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc

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.

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.

BigDrawMan wrote:zogby had kerry beating bush on the eve of the 04 election,iirc

I think Zogby even used the word "landslide" in his prediction of Kerry over Bush, but I may be mistaken.

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.

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

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

That just offsets the welfare folks I hear saying they are voting for Obama because he IS black.

Lots of support around for a poll test. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

BackInTex wrote:

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

That just offsets the welfare folks I hear saying they are voting for Obama because he IS black.

Lots of support around for a poll test. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Why?

Oh nos! Looks like the lead is gone.

BackInTex wrote:[Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Some aren't.

Oh - wait - You meant stoopid people.

I got a better thought:

Stoopid should hurt

danielh41 wrote:

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

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...

------------

it is in the GOP's best interest to keep Roe intact, as their base has no other reason to vote for them.

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

Cool-can I use your time machine as you are apparently posting from 1965?

Cool-can I use your time machine as you are apparently posting from 1965?

Unfortunately it is not from 1965. It is from 2008 in rural central Illinois also. "The times they aren't a changin'".

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.

peacock2121 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:[Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Some aren't.

Oh - wait - You meant stoopid people.

I got a better thought:

Stoopid should hurt

I suddenly have a headache.

Bob Juch wrote:According to Gallop: Obama 49%, McCain 41%.

Let me repeat what I have always been saying: "National polls are horses**t. Ask Al Gore how that popular vote thing worked for him."

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 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.

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

Bob78164 wrote:

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 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.

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

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.