Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[Lunar]

Gallup
RV’s
Obama 50%(nc)
McCain 42%(-1)

LV’s Trad.
Obama 49%(nc)
McCain 47%(nc)

LV’s Expanded
Obama 51%(nc)
McCain 45%(nc

No change the past three days among the likely voter polls.

The Gallup website has expanded at -1,+1 for an Obama 4% lead

[Rowan]

Gallup
RV’s
Obama 50%(nc)
McCain 42%(-1)

LV’s Trad.
Obama 49%(nc)
McCain 47%(nc)

LV’s Expanded
Obama 51%(nc)
McCain 45%(nc

No change the past three days among the likely voter polls.

The Gallup website has expanded at -1,+1 for an Obama 4% lead

I still see it as 51-45. Hmm

EDIT- Nevermind there it is 50-46. Good news for MAC.

[pepper11]

I do not yet see any numbers posted on Gallup today. Where are you getting this?

[J. J.]

I'd bet any sum of money that does not equal 20% of Obama's young primary voters.

I'll bet 20% of Obama's young (18-22) primary voters are not in the same precinct that were in last time.

That's retarded.  20% of his primary voters have not switched apartments since summer, that's a bet you would be certain to lose.  Anyway, it's impossible to convince J.J. anything ever, so let's just go back to Gallup.

I didn't say 20% of his primary voters, I said 20% of his young primary voters.  

There is no change in the likely voters for Gallup, but I'm not seeing the numbers on the website either.

[Rowan]

Go to Gallup.com and look at the top under Gallup Daily. It shows all three polls.

[pepper11]

Got it. Weird that they didn't update it as they normally do.

Good news for McCain, especially since they noted in Wednesday's update that Tuesday (the day that fell off) was a very good sample for McCain. This one must have been even better.

[J. J.]

Go to Gallup.com and look at the top under Gallup Daily. It shows all three polls.

It's still not up.

[Zarn]

It's not good for McCain, since now resgistered is even worse.

[pepper11]

Their regular update isn't posted for some reason, only the numbers as Rowan described.

[Rowan]

It's not good for McCain, since now resgistered is even worse.

You're a pessimistic fool. RV's MEAN NOTHING. Likely voters polls are the only ones that matter genius.

[Zarn]

If you haven't noticed, I'm usually not pessimistic.

I now LVs are usually more important, but we don't know who the LVs are.

[pepper11]

When a know pro-McCain sample falls off and McCain gains 2 points among LVs, its not bad news.  Might now be ideal, but it sure points to at least a decent McCain sample. Plus, an O+3 average among LVs is the best its been thus far.

[Rowan]

If you haven't noticed, I'm usually not pessimistic.

I now LVs are usually more important, but we don't know who the LVs are.

Which is why Gallup covers both bases. The expanded is the super high unprecedented turnout of blacks, youth etc. The traditional is the normal voters. Having both of those within 4 points is very good news.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even if 20% of Obama's young primary voters have changed residences since then, it's obvious that not every single one has not re-registered, or even that a majority haven't. So Obama has not lost 20% of his young voters.

[Zarn]

If you haven't noticed, I'm usually not pessimistic.

I now LVs are usually more important, but we don't know who the LVs are.

Which is why Gallup covers both bases. The expanded is the super high unprecedented turnout of blacks, youth etc. The traditional is the normal voters. Having both of those within 4 points is very good news.

I know, but they aren't doing a very good job, if even the expanded is far more pro-McCain.

[J. J.]

Even if 20% of Obama's young primary voters have changed residences since then, it's obvious that not every single one has not re-registered, or even that a majority haven't. So Obama has not lost 20% of his young voters.

BRTD, where did I say that there would be a 20% drop from the primaries.  I didn't.  I said that there could be a reduction, and that one reason is probably 20% have moved.

[Eraserhead]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls. It's nice to know that a lot of people have voted already at least though.

[Zarn]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls. It's nice to know that a lot of people have voted already at least though.

Right, we don't need them changing their minds and voting McCain.

[J. J.]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls. It's nice to know that a lot of people have voted already at least though.

Right, we don't need them changing their minds and voting McCain.

Keep looking for a trend.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls.

don't worry, why would independents break for McCain after how erractic his campaign has been? 

[Zarn]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls. It's nice to know that a lot of people have voted already at least though.

Right, we don't need them changing their minds and voting McCain.

Keep looking for a trend.

Huh? I don't get what you mean.

[afleitch]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls.

don't worry, why would independents break for McCain after how erractic his campaign has been? 

I tend to hold to that. The race has seen, since Obama secured the nomination, Obama lead in the polls generally (minus the GOP convention bounce). A 5 point lead is actually pretty good when you look at the last two elections; even further back if you exclude the strong third party elections of '92 and '96. Besides with early voting, why would someone who had done so respond to the question 'who are you going to vote for'? Even if they did they might actually be lying. (see the UK exit poll of 1992)

[TheGlobalizer]

This is starting to get too close for comfort again, at least in the national tracking polls.

don't worry, why would independents break for McCain after how erractic his campaign has been? 

Because they like him or his policies better?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even if 20% of Obama's young primary voters have changed residences since then, it's obvious that not every single one has not re-registered, or even that a majority haven't. So Obama has not lost 20% of his young voters.

BRTD, where did I say that there would be a 20% drop from the primaries.  I didn't.  I said that there could be a reduction, and that one reason is probably 20% have moved.

Here's the argument in a nutshell:

J. J. (and others) says the traditional voter model is more accurate since youth never vote.
Lief points out there was a huge surge of turnout in the primaries.
J. J. argues some of those have moved and gives the 20% estimate.
Many point out anyone graduating college isn't so dumb they don't know how to re-register.
The other arguments that come that "some" have not, blah blah blah.

While probably a factor in the end equals a very small one and not alone enough reason to argue that there will be no increase in youth turnout after 2004 whatsoever (which is the basis of arguing the traditional model is the correct one.) It also ignores other factors such as same-day registration states, people registered since the primaries, people too young to vote in the primaries now 18, etc. Of course J. J. is a big fan of this type of grasping at straws (see Mormons in Colorado.) so it's hardly a surprise, but the argument that the young voters will never show up no matter what happens in primaries needs to be a bit bigger than this little nitpick.

BTW I'm one of the "20%" if we accept this figure as correct as I have moved since February, and I have re-registered, even though I don't have to since I live in a same day registration state.

[J. J.]

Even if 20% of Obama's young primary voters have changed residences since then, it's obvious that not every single one has not re-registered, or even that a majority haven't. So Obama has not lost 20% of his young voters.

BRTD, where did I say that there would be a 20% drop from the primaries.  I didn't.  I said that there could be a reduction, and that one reason is probably 20% have moved.

Here's the argument in a nutshell:

J. J. (and others) says the traditional voter model is more accurate since youth never vote.
Lief points out there was a huge surge of turnout in the primaries.
J. J. argues some of those have moved and gives the 20% estimate.
Many point out anyone graduating college isn't so dumb they don't know how to re-register.
The other arguments that come that "some" have not, blah blah blah.

While probably a factor in the end equals a very small one and not alone enough reason to argue that there will be no increase in youth turnout after 2004 whatsoever (which is the basis of arguing the traditional model is the correct one.) It also ignores other factors such as same-day registration states, people registered since the primaries, people too young to vote in the primaries now 18, etc. Of course J. J. is a big fan of this type of grasping at straws (see Mormons in Colorado.) so it's hardly a surprise, but the argument that the young voters will never show up no matter what happens in primaries needs to be a bit bigger than this little nitpick.

BTW I'm one of the "20%" if we accept this figure as correct as I have moved since February, and I have re-registered, even though I don't have to since I live in a same day registration state.

BRTD, you are wrong in the summary.  I'm saying that there has been a low traditional youth turnout, and some of that will have an effect.  It's more structural.

The huge registration in the the one state I've looked at, PA, was before the primary.  There has a gain, but not a lot:

Latest figures (September 29)

8.548.580 registered voters, of which

4.357.663 are Democrats (50.98%)
3.207.728 are Republicans (37.52%)
983.189 are Ind. or from other parties (11.50%)

Compared with the 2008 primary (April 17)

8.328.123 registered voters, of which

4.200.109 are Democrats (50.43%)
3.186.057 are Republicans (38.26%)
941.957 are Ind. or from other parties (11.31%)

In PA, about 157.000 new Democrats have been registered.

Here are the numbers from 2006.

Compared with November 2006:

8.182.876 registered voters, of which

3.900.685 are Democrats (47.67%)
3.300.894 are Republicans (40.34%)
981.297 are Ind. or from other parties (11.99%)

Most of the "new" Democrats, about 300,000 came in prior to the primary, or a 2.76 percentage point gain to a 0.55 percentage point gain after the primary.

Now, you've posted on Tender Branson's thread, so you must have seen this.