Yesterday the Gallup Tracking Poll showed Obama ahead by 9 points (49-40). Earlier today (Monday) that dropped to Obama ahead by 8 points (48-40). Both were of registered voters.
Now Gallup/USA Today released a new poll of LIKELY voters, showing a 4 point lead for McCain, his first lead in any major poll since early May.
The switch from registered to likely voters explains most of the difference.
Yet this jumping around does not inspire confidence in Gallup:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.
The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%.
Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.
Results based on the survey of 791 likely voters have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points — so McCain's lead is not outside that range. Results based on the survey of 900 registered voters also have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points.
Gallup editor Frank Newport tells Jill that "registered voters are much more important at the moment," because Election Day is still 100 days away, but that the likely-voter result suggests that it may be possible for McCain to energize Republicans and turn them out this fall.
Note that Obama's lead among even registered voters has dropped precipitously from 9% to 8% to 3% in data from Gallup added to Real Clear Politics since midnight Sunday night. Indeed, both the 8% and the 3% results were for polls taken the same three days surveying apparently different samples of the same population, registered voters — strange but not surprising, given the low response rates for most public opinion polls these days.
Still, the fluctuation's another indication that Obama is not terribly far from McCain, even if McCain is not ahead.
It wasn't that Obama was that bad, it was just that he looked like a freshman Senator 2/3 of the way through his first term. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The Electoral College is what elects the President. The Electoral System gives enough of a power shift to lower population States that the Popular vote at a national level doesn't mean a thing. Being from a small Rural State, that is good for me. It is the only thing that makes Urbanites like McCain and Obama interested in what happens in Iowa or Idaho at all.
Give me a tracking poll that tries to predict the Electoral College outcome, otherwise we are playing into the ignorance of the masses.
Also, the plurality vote winner is an extremely powerful predictor of the Electoral College winner. 2000 was extremely anomalous—the last non-plurality winner was Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
That's not quite right. Under the Electoral College system, Iowa attracts interest because it's a "swing state." Idaho, a safe state, attracts even less interest than it would otherwise. Even Texas, with its enormous rural population, get ignored because Texas is a safe state. Same with California, which also has an enormous rural population despite people thinking it consists only of San Francisco and L.A.
The last pollster who called me asked me this: "Does your dissatsfication with Bush make your more inclined to vote for Obama or to vote against McCain." I responded that I did polling while at Arizona State and that question would have gotten me an F.
I wouldn't waste any effort on polls if I were you guys.
But, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll hear about the racism of this country. Will Watts burn? Will Hollywood stars move to Europe? Stay tuned!
What Bob from Ohio said. We are talking about polls with relatively small samples taken 4 months out from the election, at a time when not that many people are paying attention. And the variations from day to day, which are probably just random noise or produced by slightly different polling methodologies, are being blown way out of proportion.
Let's let the campaign develop a little bit and then see where we are with the polls in a couple of months.
It's interesting how little the market has shifted over the summer, whether in response to polls, gaffes, or whatever. Although I guess it's only surprising to political junkies.
I'm still waiting on someone to do a study on the predictive accuracy of futures markets vs. polls as far as elections go, which seems odd to me.
I'm guessing you can't provide a reliable cite for that. I'd like to see McCain win, but if it happens, it'll be in spite of the likes of you.
You mean like in his many debates for the Democratic primary?
I think Obama will do fine in the debates. His gaffes, if any, will come in less public fora.
Brian Mac--perhaps you think that Obama gets a pass on racial issues. I don't. Let's not forget that he called an absolutely vicious black-on-white six-on-one assault where a boy was knocked unconscious and stomped while unconscious a "schoolyard fight" (any bets on what Obama would be calling it if the races were reversed). Or what about his comment that people who reacted to Wright had "untrained ears", as if we are too stupid to understand that a person who calls Natalee Holloway a "white girl who gave it up on vacation" is a bigoted jerk. Or his "typical white person" comment.
Yeah, Brian, you can be holier than thou. But this stuff is what it is. You gonna defend Kwame Kilpatrick's racial issues too?
Indeed, so much so that he used the title of that sermon, “The Audacity of Hope”, for his own book.
Where we found out he'd meet the President of Iran without preconditions, that Hillary was "likeable...enough", that he'd raise taxes even at the risk of lowering revenue to ensure "fairness"...yes, like those.
Yeah. That's what's keeping us busy these days. We're just about done with it, too.
I can't tell you much, or it wouldn't be a "suprise." But I CAN say that it involves a really great new sandwich.
Check back in late October for more.
Thanks for that link. I worked on the N.Y Times/CBS Poll about 20 years ago(*) and as you can see, we TOTALLY KICK Zogby Interactive and the Columbus Dispatch's ASS!
(*) I was surprised to learn that some people aren't very polite when they're giving you their opinion of being phoned during dinner by someone from The New York Times.
____________
No.
The published poll data was unable to conclude which candidate was leading. The opposite conclusion (.. Obama leading) was just as possible from that poll.
The +/- 4% sampling error dictates that the difference in support between McCain/Obama ... absolutely could NOT be scientifically measured by that poll.
The two major candidates are "tied' within the relatively large margin-of-error of these political polls.
So why speculate and agonize over such totally non-existent 'facts'.
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.
This is a guy who took 20 years to learn that maybe, just maybe Rev. Wright wasn't such a good guy, but then is going to heal the planet.
Every poll has sampling error. Those who understand that factor it into every poll they see. For those who don't, not adjusting for it here doesn't make this poll any less accurate than all the others they misconstrue.
That Wright's sermon moved Obama, and inspired him to join Trinity United, does reflect on Obama's sensibilities and judgment — and not in a good way, in my opinion.
Likewise, Lott's bizarre endorsement of then-Democrat Thurmond's pro-segregationist position reflected very badly on Lott.
Do you really care so little about being taken seriously that you blow all your credibility on the first sentence?
So if Obama wins, will it be because you were wrong about him or about the bitter gun-owning decent Americans? Or might you be underestimating the number of us pleasantly gun-hating indecent Americans?
You mean the mass media that's been easier on McCain than on Obama?
On average, what percentage of polls are within their own margin of error the day before the election?
What's the average size of the error, plus or minus, the day before the election?
Are the polls more likely to err on the side of the democrat or republican candidate, the day before the election?
How do these numbers change as we look at polls from one week out, one month out, etc.?
Do the numbers change if the candidates are two different races?
Is this information out there anywhere? I'd love to see it. Anecdotally, the polls from the last season of primaries seemed to be nearly worthless. I see a lot of people here (and everywhere, really) saying that polls four months out are worthless. Are they right? Is their implicit belief that polls closer to the election more worthwhile correct?
There are signs that this is because the Ds in congress are behaving too much like Rs (and not the reverse). Here's one indication: generic congressional polls show D ahead by a wide margin. Here's another indication: approval of congress is higher among Rs than among Ds (I mean Rs and Ds who are being polled).
Given what I just said, this is not likely to help him much (aside from possibly energizing his very un-energetic base). Unless he runs to the left of "the Democrat controlled Congress," which of course is not something he is going to do.
Did you mean 'august' with a small 'a?'
Sorry, I don't really mean to pick on you. I just couldn't not use the joke.
Did you watch the debate he had with Hillary? He repeatedly choked and sputtered, made horribly damaging admissions and let Hillary score points off him constantly. He strikes me as the kind of guy who is fantastic in a moot court kind of setting where someone is throwing cues at you to deliver rehearsed points, but if you start throwing curve balls at him, he immediately loses his place. Maybe he'll improve with practice, but I'm doubtful. I think this is something fundamental, like W's inability to string together coherent sentences.
And honestly, W did better versus Gore. I would be at least concerned if I were an Obama person. I personally predict that a few debates or town halls have the potential to kill Obama's campaign, kind of like how Stockdale killed Perot's chances when he got routed by Quayle in a debate. Everyone in my family immediately knew it was over for Perot at that point in 92.
(And both McGovern and Obama are very decent individuals, but this is about national and international policies, not family and friends.)
Even more important than maypoles?
Read this.
I love that you keep posting a link to this as if it is now to be accepted as verifiable fact.
And no, linking to examples of conservatives approving of previous studies doesn't make this one true.
Read this.
Um, so where is the study again?
Since every indication is that's exactly what you were responding to, I answered your question by speculating that you assume the study was biased. Which is why I linked to several examples (.pdf, .pdf, .pdf) of what's made the organization that performed the study a favorite of conservatives
Um, and then what? Linking to examples of conservatives approving of previous studies doesn't make this one true.
jukeboxgrad:
Dubya has added more to our debt than all prior presidents, combined
Um, not so much:
You do realize what those numbers mean, right?
Nice job trying to slide the goalposts around. Cheney and the above 'liberal' reporters are not talking about how "Republican" [sic] won a mandate. They said Bush did.
And Bush did. He ran at the top of the ticket and his party gained more seats in Congress (became the first incumbent since FDR in 1936 to increase his own vote and the size of his majority in both the House and Senate).
That is a manadate.
This is undisputable, yet you're disputing it.
It is funny to watch you, a person who easily blames Bush for things that are not his fault not give him credit when he is both the head of the Republican party and running for re-election.
I said Obama's bill contained a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground.
You deny this. And your idea of showing proof is to paste in a paragraph from National Review that is both incoherent and irrelevant.
Um, how was it "irrelevant"? Note you can't say.
Oddly enough, a good way to learn about Obama's bill is to look at Obama's bill.
Um, I did. In fact, I was the one making reference to it.
However, that does not mean the bill was in any way coherent or sane. That is why I posted this:
His bill called for a withdrawal timetable but he said what, again? Oh, "in response to conditions on the ground"
Which is incoherent when you announce the bill you say the bill:
Then start babbling about conditions on the ground.
Love how you think the NR snippet is "irrelevant"
Laugh out Loud funny.
Of course, you provide no link, and you don't even mention where you found the text
The same person posting this as "proof"
Note all the links!
You obviously have no sense of irony.
Um, why are we supposed to accept what a GOP ignoramus, just like you, is saying as fact? I'll take the claim seriously when you show a reliable source. Or when you show source that provides more detailed and verifiable analysis.
Um, are you suggesting the data, not opinions, is not verifiable? You can't look at the FEC site? Is that your contention?
Because it is.
And, every poll ever conducted demonstrates journalists are leftwingers.
This is undisputable. You are disputing it. Why?
Because you're not that bright and easily misled.
By the way, who do you think has more influence on news articles, the people who type up the articles or the people who own the paper?
The people who own the paper have no influence. And you can't demonstrate otherwise.
Proof of the liberal media conspiracy!
You also need to explain why you're failing to address what I said to you here.
NPR said this: “The president’s people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate.”
That darn liberal media!
It was a mandate. Pointing out facts hardly demonstrates the media are not by and large leftists.
I did enjoy this however,
But remember, not only do they self ID as liberal, they donate to liberal politicians, but dammit they are hard on Obama in their stories!!!
Hell, I own stock in "The Economist's" parent corporation. They never ask me for my opinion.
Of course the people who write the stories and decide on the editorial policies have more influence upon the readers of a paper. Who has more influnce on college students' opinions: The faculty or the trustees?
Coming from the person who criticizes others for not posting links then posts alleged headlines with no links, no less!
Funny thing, I did address your "point" clearly and unambiguously. You not accepting the answer is no really relevant to anything.
Coming from the party of Eliot Spitzer no less.
By the way, few, if any, conservatives consider Ted Stevens conservative.
March on, clown.
Brokebox,
You're a liar. You claimed Bush, who again doesn't have the power of the purse, ran up the debt more than "all prior presidents, combined"
Liar!
If genuinely vapid sneers represented astute political commentary, you'd be a genius.
Obama is not a Marxist (then again, what's wrong with some hyperbole? - ample numbers among the Left engage in it liberally), but he arguably is the most leftist candidate the Democrats have fielded, with the single possible exception of George McGovern.
And that is why you sneer - in lieu of forwarding a sound, cogent, rationally accessible argument.
Indeed, Elliot Spitzer was a stain on the moralizing left-wing that seeks to enforce its sexual morality on the people. Luckily we have public officials like Jack Ryan, Larry Craig, and David Vitter to show us the evils of Spitzer's ways.
Michael B:
I was simply echoing Crafty Hunter's sound, cogent and rationally accessible argument. You can find similar arguments on this site with a simple search. A broader search of the web produces even more sound, cogent and rationally accessible arguments.
I try to match the level of discourse I'm presented with. Barack Obama: Most radical left-wing socialist the Democratic party has ever fielded for the presidency or one of the most radical left-wing socialists the Democratic party has ever fielded for the presidency? I gather you think the latter is possible, but the former is arguable.
As Brian G so eloquently put it: "the fact that he is a one-world Socialist assures that I will never vote for him."
Now we just need some talk about the NWO and the Amero and we'll have a sound, cogent and rational thread.
As you know, I never said they do. You implied the study was left wing biased. What those links show is that if the people who did the study have any bias at all, it's pro right wing. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no evidence for your argument.
With regard to "the power of the purse:" maybe you're trying to say that blame should go to the GOP, since the GOP controlled congress for most of Bush's term. If that's what you mean, fine with me.
And I guess you never heard of a thing called a "veto." Prior to the time that the GOP lost control of congress in 2007, Bush issued this many: one. He opposed stem-cell research.
Let's review some numbers. When Dubya took over, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it's about $9.5 trillion. By the time Bush leaves office, it will be about $9.8 trillion. That means he will have added $4.1 trillion to the debt. So you're right, he didn't quite double the debt. He 'only' increased it by 72%. Nice!
Anyway, thanks for the correction. I should not have said that Dubya more than doubled our national debt. I meant to say that he more than doubled our debt to foreigners. When he took office, the US owed foreigners about $1 trillion. Now we owe foreigners about $2.4 trillion (pdf). So yes, Bush borrowed more from foreigners than all prior presidents, combined. Sen. Coburn (R) has said what I've said: it's immoral to pay for the war by putting our children into debt. He voted against a war-funding bill, for this reason.
And here's another fascinating fact:
And another:
Yup, the GOP sure is the party of fiscal responsibility. Don't worry, though. We can count on McCain to fix that. Just ignore the fact that the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has found a $2.8 trillion gap in the numbers he's been putting out.
You do have a way of staying on-message, there's nothing like a stolid consistency, eh? Not to mention the risk-avoidance it conveniently affords.
1) the level of discourse and 2) the realities before us, are the two salient factors, in general terms, informing the discussion. Selectively choosing from the former, while ignoring the latter - and additionally forwarding literally nothing but a sneering dismissiveness - remains a choice.
We can explore the details, but the fact remains, Obama is decidedly the most leftist contender since George McGovern and arguably is to the left of McGovern himself, at least as pertains to some issues of note (***). Bill Clinton doesn't come close, though Hillary at times did, and Jimmy Carter was perhaps the worst president of the 20th century, easily among the worst, but that wasn't primarily due to his soft left sensibilities. And prior to '68/'72, no one comes remotely close.
*** George McGovern, though this is rarely noted, argued forceably from the Senate floor in favor of intervention once the informal (i.e. not from the MSM) reports began to filter in, concerning the genocide, the killing fields, in Cambodia.
There you go again, trying to move the goalposts around. The issue is not whether you or I think that Bush's 50.7% is fairly called a mandate. The issue is that you said this:
It's not just that you claimed Bush's victory was a 'mandate.' You claimed that no 'liberal' reporter ever said this. Trouble is, you're wrong. I proved it. But instead of just admitting you're wrong, you're trying to pretend that you said something other than what you actually said. All you're proving is that you have a complete lack of intellectual integrity.
And yes, I don't think it's fair to claim that Bush's victory margin (2.5%) was a 'mandate.' Since 1892, only three elections ('60, '68 and '76) have been won with a smaller margin. Of course not counting Bush's own negative margin in 2000.
You're claiming that you looked at Obama's bill. If so, then you're admitting you're a liar. Because what you did here is try to claim that the bill did not contain a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground. But as I pointed out here, the bill does indeed contain such a provision. So you're letting us know that you didn't just make a mistake. Rather, you knowingly told a lie.
The NR clip you cited is indeed irrelevant, and I did indeed already explain why. You used it to support your claim about the bill, but the clipping (and the article it came from) aren't about the bill, and don't even mention the bill.
There you go again, with your dishonest citing. You are suggesting that Obama said those words ("offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008"). Meanwhile, of course, you provide no link and you don't mention where you found those words.
Those words are not Obama's. Those words were written by a reporter.
Anyway, a sentence like that in a news article is not attempting to summarize all the details of the bill (such as the fact that it has a provision to suspend the withdrawal). And if the reporter is not fairly summarizing the bill, that's not Obama's fault. Blame it on that darn liberal media.
Let's review. In your attempts to prove what the bill says, so far you've cited the bill itself this many times: zero. Instead, you cited an NR article that isn't even about the bill, and doesn't mention the bill. And then you cited a WP article, and used it to pretend that Obama said something that was actually said by a reporter. Heckuva job! We're counting on you to keep up the good work.
You're whining about how you want to be spoon-fed some links, for the articles where 'liberal' reporters claimed that Bush's victory margin represented a mandate. A good place to start is here. And here. A direct link to one of the articles is here. If you want more, you can do your own googling.
We're still waiting for you to explain why you said this:
Yes, we all know that Rupert Murdoch has "no influence" over Fox News. It's only a coincidence that his properties all over the world generally communicate conservative views (although he seems so disgusted with the GOP that he has said nice things about Obama).
Next please tell us about the tooth fairy.
Yes, the press is inclined to give Obama a free pass. That's why those Wright clips were run only once or twice.
And that's why the press is calling on McCain to sign SF-180 so we can finally find out what really happened 30 years ago during those mysterious 13 months (which are the only executive experience he ever had, and which are nevertheless mysteriously not even mentioned in the official bio on his web site).
Sorry, but the analogy is very weak. What I say in the classroom today is not readily available to the bosses first thing tomorrow morning. If I'm a reporter writing an article, it is.
There you go again, trying to distort the record. The problem that I described here is not that you failed to include a link (it's true that part of the story is that you failed to include a link, but that's incidental). The problem is that you told a lie about where you got something.
Yes, "funny" indeed. You should tell us where you "did address" this issue, because your answer is well-hidden. Give us a hint about which planet it's on.
I don't have any examples of conservatives calling Stevens conservative. I just have this:
I proved you're wrong, here.