Today's polls released so far show everything from a 47-45% Obama lead (well within the margin of error), with 8% undecided, in the TIPP poll, to a 52-43-5 result in the "Gallup expanded." The CBS and ABC News polls, so far the most favorable to Obama, aren't out for today. So the polls are predicting everything from an Obama blowout to a tossup, perhaps leaning McCain (if, as most observers seem to expect, the undecideds break at least 2-1 in McCain's favor).
Overall, the picture is of a comfortable victory for Obama, but if the pollsters are wrong in their assumptions about turnout (will young people turn out now that the Iraq War has faded from the scene? Will Sarah Palin bring out a higher turnout of conservatives than expected? Will African Americans vote in unprecedented numbers, as expected?) and voter party i.d. (Rasmussen, for example, who has Obama up 51-46, is assuming 39% to 33% favoring the Democrats), it could turn out to be either a huge Obama victory or a close race. One interesting datum: McCain seems to have made serious inroads in Pennsylvania, reducing a double-digit gap of a week ago into the mid-single digits. Very likely too little, too late, but something of a rebuke to the "experts" who claimed that McCain was foolishly wasting resources there.
UPDATE: FWIW, a reader points out that Clinton did three points better in the Pennsylvania primary that the Real Clear Politics average of polls had suggested. Most likely, the undecideds broke overwhelmingly for Clinton.
You should also read Nate Silver's analysis of the TIPP poll methodology, here: Silver on TIPP .
The projection would give McCain Missouri by .6 and Indiana by 1.3.
You also have to compare the get-out-the-vote effort. Obama's is as good as any I've seen, while McCain's, ah, isn't. McCain actually pulled money from his GOTV effort to buy some last-minute advertising. I think he's got his priorities wrong there.
Just to correct your typo, I think you were meaning 364 for Obama to 174 for McCain.
They already ARE voting in unprecedented numbers as expected. Haven't you seen the reports on early voting in the southern states? In every instance, their turnout's way up from 2004. For example, in North Carolina blacks comprised 18% of the early vote in '04; this year, 26%. 36% of the early vote in Kentucky has been cast by blacks. You can see some numbers here.
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html
Syd Henderson,
Just to correct your typo, I think you were meaning 364 for Obama to 174 for McCain.
I did. I thought I'd corrected that.
Obama opened up a clear path to 270 months ago - the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado (273 EV). In order to win, McCain has to hold at least one of those states. He's been behind in Iowa by double-digits all cycle and his ethanol stance will never fly there. NM and CO both have large early voting operations (something like 50-60% of people have already voted in those states), so McCain's window to catch up was much narrower there. The only other Kerry state he has a shot at is NH, and he's way behind (and NH only has 4 EV, meaning a 269-269 tie, which probably goes to Obama). So Pennsylvania it is.
It's definitely a Hail-Mary, but it really is his only play at this point.
This is just unfathomable to me. Presidential turnout has been in the high 40s to mid 50s the past few elections - how can it be that 50-60% of voters have already voted? Once everyone votes what will turnout be in these states, 70%? 80%? Yet you see this number cited everywhere.
But they're still votes. I mean, yes, it's possible that on Election Day black turnout will be no higher than it's historically been, but, even then, when you total up all the votes, black turnout will still have been much higher than it's been in the past. Unless black turnout is lower than usual on Election Day, thereby canceling out all that high early turnout. But that's very unlikely. I also don't think you can say that the early voters were all going to vote anyway. If that were the case, early turnout itself wouldn't be way up, and it is.
This site from GMU has really good early voting numbers. Colorado is at 68% of the total 2004 vote already. There aren't total New Mexico numbers available, but it's largest county is at 72% of its 2004 vote.
All the news coverage of the early voting turnouts might help McCain on election day also. The occasional voter who would prefer a McCain victory seeing the early turnout and hearing that this turn out is in support of Obama may just get his or her rear of the couch and show up at the polls on Tuesday.
And checking pollster.com, if McCain wins all the "strong McCain" states, all the "lean McCain states," and all the "tossup" states, that still only gets him to 227. To hit 270, he also has to get all the "lean Obama" states, and that's only 274, which means a loss in any of those states with 5EV's or more gives him a loss (since a 269-269 would go to Obama in the House). fivethirtyeight.com gives the same results.
At this point, the only McCain can win is if the new Republican theory that all the polls are screwed up pans out. Either that or a terrorist attack.
I live in an *EXTREMELY* Republican county in Georgia. The number of African Americans here can be counted on one hand and I expect Obama to get maybe 10% of the vote here. (Bush got over 80% in 2004 and Obama, unlike Kerry, is a Muslim/terrorist sympathizer according to most of the conventional wisdom around here. Oh, and he's black, which just doesn't fly in this county. See above.)
Supposedly 40% of *registered voters* had already voted in our county by Tuesday of last week. I did not hear this directly from the voting supervisors so it's possible the figure is actually 40% of 2004 turnout. Either way, that's a lot of votes banked for McCain.
I think the conservatives are going to show up for McCain come Hell or high water. My prediction is that the moderate Republicans are either going to flip to Obama (as I did) or stay home and that will make the difference.
Correct. Sadly, they are poorly informed, overly emotional multi-issue voters...
Of course, we could be surprised. The exit polls were screwed up in '04. Truman did defeat Dewey.
Obama's turnaround on this point broke his promise to accept public funding, but voters care very little about politicians breaking procedural pledges. Most of the '94 House Republicans who had pledged to stick to three terms turned around and ran for reelection '00, and voters didn't care.
Even then, it seems that he could have done better by fighting Colorado and Virginia, which together give just as much as Pennsylvania (one vote more, in fact), and in which he was less behind. Devoting just as much resources to those states, presumably he'd be able to tighten things just as much. Pennsylvania has been a trap for Republicans these past few cycles - the candidate always thinks "it's close, I can do it" but it always ends at beast in a sad 2-4 point loss, and I don't see anything different happening this time.
The more important question is whether all of the polls overestimate Obama's strength. I don't think the "Bradley effect" is the issue. Instead, I think that the efforts of the MSM to constantly support Obama are likely to color what respondents feel they should say to pollsters.
As to Truman/Dewey analogies, it must be remembered that polling in those days stopped a few weeks before the election so polling could not catch the big swing to Truman in the Midwest during the last month of the campaign.
Of course, it is also possible that pollsters' assumptions are off in the opposite direction--that is, that they underestimate Obama's lead. Is there any reason to believe that is a less likely scenario than the opposite? The discussions I've seen of pollster assumptions suggest that many of them are "conservative" in that they are too heavily based on 2004 and 2000 reality and may not adequately consider changes in the balance of party identification, Obama's extensive GOTV advantage, etc.
In any event, two days will tell.
No it doesn't. He showed that TIPP's methodology was totally screwed, and comments like this:
were largely the problem. So long as the results seemed "right", TIPP swept its sampling flaws under the rug. When implausible "young voter" results inevitably appeared, TIPP's credibility was shot. Not only did it use intolerably flawed methodology; it was caught whistling past the graveyard, needing an unlikely run of good luck to avoid exposure as an amateurish operation. Bottom line, it's not a reliable poll.
As Nate Silver pointed out, TIPP's reputation was built on one very good poll in 2004. Considering the uncanny if only occasional accuracy of broken clocks....
Honstly, I'm quite relaxed, or at least much more so than I was in 2000 or 2004. As to the world I'm living in, I'm thinking labor law could change a bit under Obama -- it certainly did under Bush. Anyway, I posted a quote that basically agreed with you, right?
A better prediction is how soon will all the US attorneys get fired - ie under the quise of bush's political witchhunt of wasting everyone's time with bogus election fraud.
Don't they generally get replaced with the new Administration?
I think it's far more likely that the efforts of the MSM actually color how people vote than that they make McCain voters lie about their preferences for fear of pollster disapproval.
Yeah, no kidding.
LOL
I see what you mean. Yesterday IBD/TIPP had Obama and McCain tied among Independents. Today it's a McCain 54-40 lead. Nothing swings that quickly. That poll has been an odd duck this year.
Why has this not been a factor in previous elections? Certainly in 2004 Kerry was the media favorite over Bush.
Everyone who posits that the polls are way wrong needs to explain why they haven't been similarly wrong in past elections (including congressional and gubernatorial elections). What would be different this time? The Bradley Effect is about the only serious possibility if the polls are wrong-- and for McCain and his supporters hoping the voters are closet racists has to be a galling branch to hang their hopes on.
The Bradley effect does not mean the respondents are racists; it means only that they are afraid of being *perceived* as racists.
McCain 53 to 55% of the popular vote. 400+ electoral vote.
Short version of the reason: America is not a predominately socialist/communist country.
As to why the polls are wrong: the pollsters are cooking the books. Operation Chaos screwed voter ID numbers. Republicans don't like being polled. PUMAs are being seriously under counted.
I agree. Seriously. And I think Palin is headed for her own reality show. Seriously.
Way to veil a smear in a prediction.
Evidence?
All possible. We'll see.
Interesting - saying America is not a "share the wealth" country is a smear. OKy doake.
Second,
How about all the predictions of Obama wins in the primaries that saw 10, 20, 30, and in some cases 40 point swings (polls vs reality) in Clinton vs Obama.
Big Obama Win Predicted.
Of course the pollsters have gotten all that fixed and now their predictions of a big Obama win are right on the mark. Why take Pennsylvania for instance. Despite a big Obama loss in the primaries, Obama has converted all those Clinton voters and Republicans and is now poised for a big win there.
Sure it is possible. What are the odds?
The polls this year are GARBAGE. Let me spell it out for you: G. A. R. B. A. G. E.
Their connection to reality is tenuous at best. The called a bunch of people. They got answers to questions. The then adjusted the numbers to match their proposed model of reality. Which is all good if their model is correct.
But suppose most of the D surge in registrations was Operation Chaos people? Those should be shifted from D to R. Or perhaps their view of defecting Democrats is about 20% of Hillary voters and it is actually 40%. Obviously if you get "too many" of them in a sample you have to scale it back 60% or 70% of that demographic.
And how about the 80% that won't answer the pollsters. Does their demographics match the 20% that do answer?
With those kind of response rates you have a self selecting sample. A no no in statistics. Not random. All opinions don't have an equal chance of being sampled. So what is the weighting for that? - And how do you randomly sample people that don't want to be sampled to find out what the bias is?
All we know is the statistical margin of error given the sample size. We know nothing about the real margin of error.
No. Implying Obama is a socialist or a communist is.
You've swallowed some talking points without chewing thoroughly. Here's a tally of Obama's polled and actual primary results. As you can see, Obama outperformed the polling numbers.
Funny how Palin used essentially those exact words ("share in the wealth") to describe what she did in Alaska.
"Only that in past elections, despite earlier predictions to the contrary, young people in fact didn't turn out, but they did for Obama in the primaries. The question is whether this was primarily an "Obama effect" or primarily a "let's vote against the war and Hilary voted for the war" effect. I actually think it's most the former, but there's really no way to know for sure until election day."
I think its a combination of the Millenial effect and the "thank God a post-Boomer is finally running" effect. Based on my informal small-sample size poll of college age swing state voters, Palin has cut into the latter somewhat, but they are voting.
I don't think there's any question that McCain and Obama are both socialists. McCain's campaign is publicly funded, how's that not socialist? Sarah Palin is the populist governor of a right-wing-welfare-state; she's a socialist, too. Biden doesn't seem to have a consistent ideology but since he funds &rides AmTrak all the time, I'd say he's a socialist, too.
I don't think its a smear to call these folks what they are: socialists. None of them is a libertarian, a communist, or a fascist; just different degrees of socialist with a different notion of redistribution.
No kidding. Two boomer presidents is two too many to take.
Whenever I hear complaints about Bill Ayers, I think "oh s*#$, here we go with the 60s and 70s again." Who cares if he was in Weather Report? So was Wayne Shorter.
By 3 points. Not very meaningful.
I like the Weather Report joke.
As was Joe Zawinul, who wrote Pharaoh's Dance for Miles Davis.
Yet people still claim Barack Obama isn't a Muslim.
Oh, and M. Simon, let me spell another word for you: denial. That d.e.n.i.a.l.
But he has some very stiff competition in the form of LM's followup.