Obama leads McCain by 2 points

[Bob Juch]

Democrat Barack Obama has a 2-point lead in the U.S. presidential race on Republican John McCain, whose choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate helped shore up support for both candidates, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Obama leads McCain among likely voters by 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll's 3.1 percent margin of error. He gained ground in the last month among independent and women voters and on the question of who could best manage the faltering U.S. economy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 4220080917

[NellyLunatic1980]

Doesn't mean squat unless Obama is ahead in more red states than just Colorado and Iowa.

[peacock2121]

This is like telling us who is leading in the race for The Super Bowl today.

[danielh41]

Here's why polls are useless at this point. Look at the recent poll numbers from Virginia (I got them from RealClearPolitics.com)...

PPP (D) 09/13 - 09/14 1090 LV 46 48 Obama +2
CNU Virginia Poll 09/10 - 09/14 500 RV 48 39 McCain +9
FOX News/Rasmussen 09/14 - 09/14 500 LV 48 48 Tie
SurveyUSA 09/12 - 09/14 732 LV 46 50 Obama +4
CNN/Time 09/07 - 09/09 920 RV 50 46 McCain +4


Taken the same week, one poll says that Obama is up by 4 points and another says that McCain is up 9. This tells us nothing about how Virginians will actually vote during the only poll that counts on Election Day.

[nitrah55]

First, national polls are worthless, except for spotting trends. This is not an national election; it's 51 local elections. Just ask Al Gore.

Second, Election Day is not the target, as much as it was. The entire state of Oregon and some counties in Washington have mail-in voting. And, of course, absentee ballots are mailed before Election Day. Chuck Todd of NBC says October 15 is about where you're going to see polls that reflect how people are going to vote, or have already voted.

[BackInTex]

First, national polls are worthless, except for spotting trends. This is not an national election; it's 51 local elections. Just ask Al Gore.

I called Al but he wasn't available. But I did get hold of Barak and he says it is 61 local elections.

[Sir_Galahad]

Come back on Nov 5 and tell me who's ahead at that time. Then, the numbers will have some credence.

[silverscreenselect]

Obama has definitely retaken the lead in this election. Part of that is due to the normal fading of McCain's post-convention bounce and the cumulative effect (fair or not) of the anti-Palin information in the press and being pushed by the left.

However, the big thing that has made for a dramatic change in the last 48 hours is the economy. Normally, economic concerns favor the Democrats but this week's news is especially fortunate for them and bad for the Republicans.

Normally, in bad times, most people don't really know why things are going bad or what type of government policy will or won't help them. Arguing about tax cuts or raises can appeal to voters, but in the end they vote for the candidate in whom they have the most confidence, which is normally the Democrat who is being perceived as being on "their side." It's an uphill argument for the Republicans (ask Bush Sr.), but it's one they can win and it's also one that allows voters to be distracted from fairly easily (ask Bush Jr.).

This crisis is about trust in our financial institutions themselves: banks, insurance companies, and brokerages, and is by far the worst such crisis since the Great Depression. The average person isn't sure why these institutions are failing, but it's easy to persuade them that it wouldn't have happened (and won't happen again) if they were properly regulated. And here's the issue that the Democrats usually have all over the Republicans.

The first thing you hear about the economy from most Republicans is that we need less government "interference" in business. That argument goes up in smoke when business is going out of business after relatively little oversight. Even Reid and Pelosi have picked up on this, calling for nonstop hearings into the cause of the mess and what's needed to fix it. This issue has pushed the energy crisis off the front burner entirely.

If the Republicans continue to claim that tax cuts are the answer to our problems, they will probably lose this election badly (barring some other major election changing world event). McCain realizes this and has been forthright about the need to prevent this from happening again. He has a tricky task in doing this.

His best "asset" in this isn't Palin, and it's certainly not Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing noise machine. It's Obama, whose record on "reform" isn't the world's greatest and who has been lining his pockets with investment company contributions for years. They need to convince people that McCain personally will do more than Obama personally to keep something like this from happening again. It's a tough order, but it's doable, because of Obama's shaky past and his lack of convictions. Expect to see a lot of Republican pushback on Obama's contributions from the companies that are in trouble and his lack of a regulatory reform record in the Senate. Obama has never made tough regulation a priority in the past and when he's usually tried to pick up popular issues on the fly, he's not very convincing about it. If the public believes it's more of the usual Obama lip service, McCain will have the advantage.

If Romney, Thompson or Huckabee were the Republican candidate, this election would be over now, period. If Hillary were the Democratic candidate, this election would be over now, period. The matchup of McCain vs. Obama continues to give the Republicans their only chance.

[Appa23]

First, national polls are worthless, except for spotting trends. This is not an national election; it's 51 local elections. Just ask Al Gore.

Second, Election Day is not the target, as much as it was. The entire state of Oregon and some counties in Washington have mail-in voting. And, of course, absentee ballots are mailed before Election Day. Chuck Todd of NBC says October 15 is about where you're going to see polls that reflect how people are going to vote, or have already voted.

Chuck Todd said one other thing that was interesting, with regards to the "Bubba" facttor. (I think that it was over the weekend). He noted that as we got within a couple weeks of the election, you need to view the "actual numbers" shown by the polls. He indicated that 70-75% of the stated undecided voters will actual vote for McCain. In addition, Obama needs to be over 48% in a state in order to have a chance of winning it, as there are people who will have indicated that they are voting for Obama because they do not want the pollster to think that they are racist.

My reaction was: "I hope that we are beyond such things."

[nitrah55]

First, national polls are worthless, except for spotting trends. This is not an national election; it's 51 local elections. Just ask Al Gore.

Second, Election Day is not the target, as much as it was. The entire state of Oregon and some counties in Washington have mail-in voting. And, of course, absentee ballots are mailed before Election Day. Chuck Todd of NBC says October 15 is about where you're going to see polls that reflect how people are going to vote, or have already voted.

Chuck Todd said one other thing that was interesting, with regards to the "Bubba" facttor. (I think that it was over the weekend). He noted that as we got within a couple weeks of the election, you need to view the "actual numbers" shown by the polls. He indicated that 70-75% of the stated undecided voters will actual vote for McCain. In addition, Obama needs to be over 48% in a state in order to have a chance of winning it, as there are people who will have indicated that they are voting for Obama because they do not want the pollster to think that they are racist.

My reaction was: "I hope that we are beyond such things."

The phenomenon of voters telling a pollster they will vote for an African-American and then not voting for him has been previously documented and dubbed "The Bradley Effect," after Tom Bradley, who, as mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor of California, led in pre-election polls, and lost. Subsequent research determined that the voters told the pollsters they would vote for Bradley, because they didn't want to sound racist. I had a conversation with a woman from the UK while I was on vacation, who described a similar situation there.

However it turns out, this election should go a long way telling us whether we are beyond such things. I echo your hope.

[silverscreenselect]

However it turns out, this election should go a long way telling us whether we are beyond such things. I echo your hope.

I think it's been Obama who's been injecting race back into this election at every opportunity in an attempt to shame white voters, especially more liberal ones, into voting for him.

So you are going to get people who have questions about Obama and won't vote for him because of those questions but who will lie to pollsters because they don't want to be labelled as racists. Usually, this will occur in the form of saying they are undecided, because it's usually possible for almost anyone to construct a scenario where they might vote for the other candidate. In that case, the undecideds tend to break heavily for one candidate or the other.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Chuck Todd said one other thing that was interesting, with regards to the "Bubba" facttor. (I think that it was over the weekend). He noted that as we got within a couple weeks of the election, you need to view the "actual numbers" shown by the polls. He indicated that 70-75% of the stated undecided voters will actual vote for McCain. In addition, Obama needs to be over 48% in a state in order to have a chance of winning it, as there are people who will have indicated that they are voting for Obama because they do not want the pollster to think that they are racist.

My reaction was: "I hope that we are beyond such things."

The phenomenon of voters telling a pollster they will vote for an African-American and then not voting for him has been previously documented and dubbed "The Bradley Effect," after Tom Bradley, who, as mayor of Los Angeles, ran for governor of California, led in pre-election polls, and lost. Subsequent research determined that the voters told the pollsters they would vote for Bradley, because they didn't want to sound racist. I had a conversation with a woman from the UK while I was on vacation, who described a similar situation there.

However it turns out, this election should go a long way telling us whether we are beyond such things. I echo your hope.

We all hope we're beyond such things. I suspect, though, that this hope is part of the reason that the Bradley Effect has been seen. People don't tell pollsters one thing and do another because they want to sound to the pollster like a non-racist, they do it because they want to sound to THEMSELVES like a non-racist.

That said, there are a lot of people who think the Bradley Effect is a remnant of the past. The 2006 Senate race in Tennessee didn't show an effect, nor did most of the Democratic primaries (the possible exception being New Hampshire). I think it remains to be seen.

The other thing that can move election results away from polling results (in either direction) is turnout. Obama's campaign is counting on this, pouring a really large amount of resources into turning out voters in key states, and with so many more states allowing early voting, that could be huge.

I wish I knew how these things will play out. We'll all find out at about the same time, though.

[nitrah55]

First, national polls are worthless, except for spotting trends. This is not an national election; it's 51 local elections. Just ask Al Gore.

I called Al but he wasn't available. But I did get hold of Barak and he says it is 61 local elections.

Could you call ahead the next time you do a post like this, so I can be ready to play the rim shot?

[Jeemie]

Come back on Nov 5 and tell me who's ahead at that time. Then, the numbers will have some credence.

Well- if it's close, you'll have to wait until the lawsuits are over- that may take a bit longer.

And I expect lawsuits this year in a close race- I saw a story on TV that says voting issues are going to be MAJOR this year (poor registration verification issues, faulty voting machines, etc).

[silverscreenselect]

There's several things to look at here:

1) The movement to Obama this week is real, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Part due to convention bounce fade (which McCain can't do anything about), part due to the Palin blowback and part due to the economy. Palin can be rehabilitated, especially in the debate if she handles herself well opposite Biden. As for the economy, people are still reacting to the closings and bankruptcies in a panic mode. That's why candidates always fear an October surprise, something devastating that occurs a couple of days before the election that gives the other side no chance to react or for more rational thinking to sink in.

2) State polls tend to trail national polls by a week or so, so the movement to Obama won't be fully reflected in the state polls until sometime next week.

3) The longterm public reaction to the financial mess has yet to be determined. People won't be that upset in the long run if the only consequences to them are a new logo on their bank or their brokerage statement. They will be upset if they think there is a chance of them losing their savings because their bank, brokerage or insurance company is going to fail. If there is more bad financial news (WaMu, Wachovia), it's better for the Republicans if it all happens in the next few days rather than coming out in dribs and drabs over the next two months.

4) With the economy, most voters don't or can't carefully analyze the platforms. It eventually all boils down to a matter of trust as to which candidate is more likely to be looking out for them.

[earendel]

Obama may be ahead by 2 points now, but I'm sure Sarah Palin will kick a field goal to put McCain ahead again.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

That said, there are a lot of people who think the Bradley Effect is a remnant of the past. The 2006 Senate race in Tennessee didn't show an effect, nor did most of the Democratic primaries (the possible exception being New Hampshire). I think it remains to be seen.

The other thing that can move election results away from polling results (in either direction) is turnout. Obama's campaign is counting on this, pouring a really large amount of resources into turning out voters in key states, and with so many more states allowing early voting, that could be huge.

I wish I knew how these things will play out. We'll all find out at about the same time, though.

Living in a key state, I believe that Fly's post is accurate. In 2004, where I live, we had about 40 volunteers working hard for Kerry. This year, we have about 200 working hard for Obama, with about half of those starting with the February caucuses. I haven't seen any Bradley effect. I know a few people who are voting for McCain because of Obama's race, and they've never claimed to be voting for Obama, not to me or any pollster. As always, I could be wrong about discounting a Bradley effect, so as Fly says, it remains to be seen.

Get out the vote efforts begin October 1. Fly is 100% correct in his assertion that the Obama campaign is counting heavily on turning out newly registered voters and voters they've identified as solidly on Obama's side. I think they'll succeed and that Obama will win Colorado easily.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Obama may be ahead by 2 points now, but I'm sure Sarah Palin will kick a field goal to put McCain ahead again.

Wouldn't a hockey reference be more appropriate here?

[earendel]

Obama may be ahead by 2 points now, but I'm sure Sarah Palin will kick a field goal to put McCain ahead again.

Wouldn't a hockey reference be more appropriate here?

Well, a football is called a "pigskin", and given the recent discussion about "lipstick on a pig"...well...

[NellyLunatic1980]

Obama may be ahead by 2 points now, but I'm sure Sarah Palin will kick a field goal to put McCain ahead again.

Wouldn't a hockey reference be more appropriate here?

Well, a football is called a "pigskin", and given the recent discussion about "lipstick on a pig"...well...

You can put lipstick on a football, but it's still a football.

[Sir_Galahad]

Come back on Nov 5 and tell me who's ahead at that time. Then, the numbers will have some credence.

Well- if it's close, you'll have to wait until the lawsuits are over- that may take a bit longer.

I do not think it will be close at all. I believe Obama will suffer badly from the "Bradley Effect." Yes, I believe people of this country want change. But, I also believe they are not looking for the kind of radical change Obama is pledging (and has historically shown to favor).

[danielh41]

Come back on Nov 5 and tell me who's ahead at that time. Then, the numbers will have some credence.

Well- if it's close, you'll have to wait until the lawsuits are over- that may take a bit longer.

I do not think it will be close at all. I believe Obama will suffer badly from the "Bradley Effect." Yes, I believe people of this country want change. But, I also believe they are not looking for the kind of radical change Obama is pledging (and has historically shown to favor).

It shouldn't be that close if the McCain campaign really brings Obama's liberal history and voting record into the campaign. Obama says that he only wants to increase taxes for the rich, but McCain needs to bring to everyone's attention the fact that Obama voted to repeal the Bush tax cuts on multiple occasions. This would raise taxes on people in the middle class. Obama wanted to bring the troops home from Iraq, but there is evidence that he told the Iraqi foreign minister to push to keep American troops there until after the election. The question that McCain needs to put into voters' minds is, "Can we trust Obama?" I personally don't trust him any farther than I can throw him. I only hope that the current financial panic doesn't spill over to the election, resulting in a president who, in my opinion, would do serious harm to our economy and to our national security.

[earendel]

It shouldn't be that close if the McCain campaign really brings Obama's liberal history and voting record into the campaign. Obama says that he only wants to increase taxes for the rich, but McCain needs to bring to everyone's attention the fact that Obama voted to repeal the Bush tax cuts on multiple occasions. This would raise taxes on people in the middle class.

It all depends upon how you define "middle class".

[ne1410s]

Obama says that he only wants to increase taxes for the rich,

This country was founded by slave-owning, rich, white men who didn't want to pay their taxes. You've come a long way, baby.

[Jeemie]

Obama has definitely retaken the lead in this election. Part of that is due to the normal fading of McCain's post-convention bounce and the cumulative effect (fair or not) of the anti-Palin information in the press and being pushed by the left.

However, the big thing that has made for a dramatic change in the last 48 hours is the economy. Normally, economic concerns favor the Democrats but this week's news is especially fortunate for them and bad for the Republicans.

Normally, in bad times, most people don't really know why things are going bad or what type of government policy will or won't help them. Arguing about tax cuts or raises can appeal to voters, but in the end they vote for the candidate in whom they have the most confidence, which is normally the Democrat who is being perceived as being on "their side." It's an uphill argument for the Republicans (ask Bush Sr.), but it's one they can win and it's also one that allows voters to be distracted from fairly easily (ask Bush Jr.).

This crisis is about trust in our financial institutions themselves: banks, insurance companies, and brokerages, and is by far the worst such crisis since the Great Depression. The average person isn't sure why these institutions are failing, but it's easy to persuade them that it wouldn't have happened (and won't happen again) if they were properly regulated. And here's the issue that the Democrats usually have all over the Republicans.

The first thing you hear about the economy from most Republicans is that we need less government "interference" in business. That argument goes up in smoke when business is going out of business after relatively little oversight. Even Reid and Pelosi have picked up on this, calling for nonstop hearings into the cause of the mess and what's needed to fix it. This issue has pushed the energy crisis off the front burner entirely.

If the Republicans continue to claim that tax cuts are the answer to our problems, they will probably lose this election badly (barring some other major election changing world event). McCain realizes this and has been forthright about the need to prevent this from happening again. He has a tricky task in doing this.

His best "asset" in this isn't Palin, and it's certainly not Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing noise machine. It's Obama, whose record on "reform" isn't the world's greatest and who has been lining his pockets with investment company contributions for years. They need to convince people that McCain personally will do more than Obama personally to keep something like this from happening again. It's a tough order, but it's doable, because of Obama's shaky past and his lack of convictions. Expect to see a lot of Republican pushback on Obama's contributions from the companies that are in trouble and his lack of a regulatory reform record in the Senate. Obama has never made tough regulation a priority in the past and when he's usually tried to pick up popular issues on the fly, he's not very convincing about it. If the public believes it's more of the usual Obama lip service, McCain will have the advantage.

If Romney, Thompson or Huckabee were the Republican candidate, this election would be over now, period. If Hillary were the Democratic candidate, this election would be over now, period. The matchup of McCain vs. Obama continues to give the Republicans their only chance.

Very cogent analysis.

Too bad that neither candidate will be able to do much of anything about a crisis that in actuality has been brewing for nearly 30 years, and has been helped along the way by both too much regulation/coercion in some areas, and too little regulation in others.

And has been helped along by everybody, regardless of political affiliation.

When the US economy started its long progression towards being based less and less on anything real and tangible, the seeds for such a disaster were sown.

Worse, whatever comes is going to be difficult to come out of. At the time of the Great Depression, we still had a solid industrial base and abundant energy resources- all that was stopping growth from re-igniting was billions and billions of dollars of malinvested capital.

Now, we have TRILLIONS of dollars of malinvested capital that has vanished down a black hole...and a weak industrial base and LIMITED natural resources.

If I was running for President, I don't know that I'd want to win because this mess is only going to get worse, and whoever wins the Presidency is going to take the brunt of the heat for it.

I don't envy either Obama or McCain.