Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[ChrisFromNJ]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

[Rowan]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

[J. J.]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

[Sam Spade]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

And that is based on?

[Ty440]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

Deja Vu from 2004. The youth vote is gonna come out in record numbers and shatter all records in  turnout.

And yet the day after Bush was reelected.. it's was clear that the youth vote just didn't show.

The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics.

[ChrisFromNJ]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

Deja Vu from 2004. The youth vote is gonna come out in record numbers and shatter all records in  turnout.

And yet the day after Bush was reelected.. it's was clear that the youth vote just didn't show.

The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics.

Scoreboard.

You might want to check it out.

Barack Obama leads in the polls. That wasn't the case in 2004.

[J. J.]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

Deja Vu from 2004. The youth vote is gonna come out in record numbers and shatter all records in  turnout.

And yet the day after Bush was reelected.. it's was clear that the youth vote just didn't show.

The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics.

Scoreboard.

You might want to check it out.

Barack Obama leads in the polls. That wasn't the case in 2004.

A lead that is that declining.

[Ty440]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

Deja Vu from 2004. The youth vote is gonna come out in record numbers and shatter all records in  turnout.

And yet the day after Bush was reelected.. it's was clear that the youth vote just didn't show.

The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics.

Scoreboard.

You might want to check it out.

Barack Obama leads in the polls. That wasn't the case in 2004.

Your correct.. I'm no fool...Lets see where we stand in 19 days right NOW  it's advantage  Obama. I believe things will tighten how much only time will tell.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

That won't be the case this election.

The prophet ChrisFromNJ speaks again.

We saw the sme claims here for years ago.  Remember how all the new voters swung FL to Kerry.

Deja Vu from 2004. The youth vote is gonna come out in record numbers and shatter all records in  turnout.

And yet the day after Bush was reelected.. it's was clear that the youth vote just didn't show.

The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics.

Yes, remember how it was going to turn out big and propel Obama to victory over Hillary but turnout of the youth vote was minimal...oh wait.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

[minionofmidas]

My guess is that the 2nd likely voter model has the party identification as 37-37 D-R like in 2004.

And that is based on?

Not exactly that, necessarily. But he's got the basic point right - the traditional turnout model is more of a Republican Best Case Scenario than anything else. Basically, we know it's wrong, we know it's too Republican, we're just in the dark as to by how much (we don't even know whether the new model is better. Then again, we can't rule out that the new model is still too Republican )

As to all the idiot misinterpretations of the relationship between the pre-04 hackery and what actually happened in 04 (not that the relationship was particularly straightforward): There was unprecented (well. Within the past thirty years) new and youth turnout in 2004. And it did lean Democratic nationally, and it's what kept the EC result respectable.
But it didn't lean Democratic by sufficiently much to swing the election (or to throw the pollsters' traditional turnout models too far off course), and in sizable parts of the country - the South, mostly - it didn't lean Democratic at all. It leant Republican.
Now... these New Voters aren't exactly a monolithic block. There are parallels between the Dems' and the Reps' new voters, but there are differences too (I won't go into detailed stereotyping here).
And now ask yourself: Are the Dems' new voters going to vote Democratic again? You betcha.
Are the Reps' new voters going to vote Republican again? Are they going to vote again? I don't really think so. I still think turnout will probably be somewhat lower than four years ago.

[J. J.]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

You just violated J. J.'s Second Rule, again.

I think it might be between the two turnout numbers, but any candidate that will count on it is usually in trouble.

[minionofmidas]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

You just violated J. J.'s Second Rule, again.

I think it might be between the two turnout numbers, but any candidate that will count on it is usually in trouble.

He did not, because he is not a candidate.

[J. J.]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

You just violated J. J.'s Second Rule, again.

I think it might be between the two turnout numbers, but any candidate that will count on it is usually in trouble.

He did not, because he is not a candidate.

The rule doesn't just apply to the candidate. 

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

The candidate isn't necessarily involved.

[Democratic Hawk]

Here are some findings from Gallup's tracking for week (Oct. 6-12). I've been monitoring certain constituency groups for a while.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2bTrends%2bby%2bGroup.aspx

Core constituency groups for Obama include blacks, Democrats, Hispanics, 18-to-29-year-olds, postgraduates and women. He leads McCain by 88, 78, 29, 34, 23 and 14 respectively

Core constituency groups for McCain include Republicans, whites, 65-years-and-older and men. McCain leads Obama by 78 and 4, yet Obama now leads McCain by 1 among seniors and by 5 among men

Obama, indeed, leads McCain among all age groups (30-to-49, by 5; 50-to-64 by 9) and all education groups (no college, by 11; "some college", by 5; college graduates, by 6) and among Independents, by 10

Regionally, in the East, Obama leads by 19; in the Midwest, Obama leads by 20 and in the West, Obama leads by 8. McCain leads Obama in the South by 2

In "blue", Obama leads McCain by 21; in "red", McCain leads Obama by 4 and in "purple" states, Obama leads McCain by 17

There's a whole range of other demographic tracking data, for example, Obama leads among liberals and moderates, McCain among conservatives, etc

This data is for registered voters and last week Obama , aggregately, polled 50% and McCain 40%

Dave

[minionofmidas]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

You just violated J. J.'s Second Rule, again.

I think it might be between the two turnout numbers, but any candidate that will count on it is usually in trouble.

He did not, because he is not a candidate.

The rule doesn't just apply to the candidate. 

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

The candidate isn't necessarily involved.

They are being polled - just sampled down.

[Democratic Hawk]

Here are some findings from Gallup's tracking for week (Oct. 6-12). I've been monitoring certain constituency groups for a while.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2bTrends%2bby%2bGroup.aspx

Core constituency groups for Obama include blacks, Democrats, Hispanics, 18-to-29-year-olds, postgraduates and women. He leads McCain by 88, 78, 29, 34, 23 and 14 respectively

Core constituency groups for McCain include Republicans, whites, 65-years-and-older and men. McCain leads Obama by 78 and 4, yet Obama now leads McCain by 1 among seniors and by 5 among men

Obama, indeed, leads McCain among all age groups (30-to-49, by 5; 50-to-64 by 9) and all education groups (no college, by 11; "some college", by 5; college graduates, by 6) and among Independents, by 10

Regionally, in the East, Obama leads by 19; in the Midwest, Obama leads by 20 and in the West, Obama leads by 8. McCain leads Obama in the South by 2

In "blue", Obama leads McCain by 21; in "red", McCain leads Obama by 4 and in "purple" states, Obama leads McCain by 17

There's a whole range of other demographic tracking data, for example, Obama leads among liberals and moderates, McCain among conservatives, etc

This data is for registered voters and last week Obama , aggregately, polled 50% and McCain 40%

Dave

Recent Obama Surge Evident Among Men, Less Educated (16 October, 2008)

Independents have also swung strongly to Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111205/Recent-Obama-Surge-Evident-Among-Men-Less-Educated.aspx

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A reminder: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008D/polls.php?fips=55

PPP claimed the reason for the discrepancy was all other posters (excluding ARG for obvious reasons) were using a traditional turnout model while they were using a new one boosting black and youth turnout.

It turns out PPP actually underestimated Obama.

You just violated J. J.'s Second Rule, again.

I think it might be between the two turnout numbers, but any candidate that will count on it is usually in trouble.

He did not, because he is not a candidate.

The rule doesn't just apply to the candidate. 

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

The candidate isn't necessarily involved.

As did PPP, and they were more accurate than any other pollster in this case. So then what?

*Ed8t* Actually not really. See Lewis' comment. PPP didn't violate the rule (and really, no pollster can)

[Sam Spade]

October 16, 2008

RV
Obama 49 (-1)
McCain 43 (nc)

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 51 (-1)
McCain 45 (+1)

LV (traditional)
Obama 49 (nc)
McCain 47 (+1)

[Lunar]

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the non-traditional one.  I'd rather not believe that Obama is only two up, thank you very much.

[Ronnie]

I'll take it that Obama is up by 4 nationally.

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

October 16, 2008

RV
Obama 49 (-1)
McCain 43 (nc)

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 51 (-1)
McCain 45 (+1)

LV (traditional)
Obama 49 (nc)
McCain 47 (+1)

great, now opebo, J.J., and Keystone Phil will be seen as oracles.

[Umengus]

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the non-traditional one.  I'd rather not believe that Obama is only two up, thank you very much.

Gallup makes everybody happy

[Eraserhead]

WTF? Are we gonna have a race again or is this a dead cat bounce?

[Sbane]

Again Obama is very close to that 50 point mark. If he falls below 48....that could mean trouble.