Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BTW Al:  If I wasn't going to vote for Obama because of race, I'd say so.

You miss the point of the jibe. It was more along the lines of how someone who lives where you do (and so on and so forth) and who is rather obviously be hoping for the Bradley Effect to manifest itself can live with themselves.

[Keystone Phil]

Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama 50% (nc)
McCain 45% (nc)

I really, really, really hope this is true. If McCain can narrow Obama's lead to about three points before Election day and Obama is under 50%...well...we still have a chance at this thing...

Yeah! Bradley Effect! Woooo!

Not that I want to win that way but I have a feeling that that's not your point. I think you're saying that there wouldn't be a noteworthy Bradley Effect in that scenario. Keep thinking that.

[J. J.]

BTW Al:  If I wasn't going to vote for Obama because of race, I'd say so.

You miss the point of the jibe. It was more along the lines of how someone who lives where you do (and so on and so forth) and who is rather obviously be hoping for the Bradley Effect to manifest itself can live with themselves.

No, I just feel the pressure.  I openly admit to supporting McCain.  I've had one person, from outside my neighborhood ironically, who suggested that I wouldn't vote for a black candidate.  The Nutter sign in my window last year may have dissuaded them.  

[Tender Branson]

Saturday - October 11, 2008:

Obama 52% (+2)
McCain 45% (nc)

[Speed of Sound]

Ah, Thats better. There was just something eerie about Rasmussen that had my stomach feeling uneasy for a while there.

[Iosif]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cleary the most volatile race ever.

[BlueSwan]

Saturday - October 11, 2008:

Obama 52% (+2)
McCain 45% (nc)

Yep, I had a feeling that Obama would go up in today Ras poll. I expected a 6-point lead, but I'll gladly take 7!

[Verily]

Looks like Sam Spade's hunch was correct.

[Zarn]

So, is Gallup going to start going down now?

[Dan the Roman]

Most likely. Rassmussen has a Pro-McCain outlier that just dropped off. Gallup I think will converge a bit. The convergence will probably not be that strong though until Rasmussen reweights, since Gallup changes their party id daily and Rasmussen does not. I think that is the real reason for the divergence right now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So in other words that Lunar predicted and J. J. mocked him for is happening?

[minionofmidas]

Al: Uh... Sauron is not running.

Yeah, he's term-limited.

[minionofmidas]

So in other words that Lunar predicted and J. J. mocked him for is happening?

Wait and see.

[J. J.]

Still off the the Gallup high by 4 points.  Let's see what Gallup does today.

[Vandervecken]

Not voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not racist now? k.

The Bradley Effect is not voting against someone on the basis of race.  It is saying to a pollster, *I'm undecided* or *I'm voting for Obama* when the voter really believes *I like McCain better, but I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist.*

It could also be "I'm racist, and I don't want the pollster to know."  They're completely indistinguishable.

That would still come under "I like McCain better."

But it would also very potentially come under "not voting for someone on the basis of race," which you said that the Bradley Effect cannot be.  That's untrue.

Actually, it isn't.  The effect describes the interaction between a voter and a pollster.  A voter that says **I'm voting for McCain because Obama is black,** is not part of the Bradley Effect.  Also not that I've indicated the possibility of black voters that are part of the Bradley Effect.

That's true, JJ, but that voter is still letting skin color determine his vote. It's not the Bradley effect, but it sure IS an effect, and most of these voters aren't talking.

As for what Al Sibboleth has written, that my hoping (as others posting here are hoping) for both effects to be impactful--and he should note that, since it's perfectly normal for Republicans to vote for the Republican, we're talking about Democrat/independent racists here--should cause me, for some reason, to lose sleep, I respond that, while I'd rather not win ugly, I still want to win. So, it appears that Obama being a socialist who would appease all our foreign enemies and let every evil SOB leftist radical he's known for his entire political career have access to the oval office is not enough to keep him out of the White House. It ought to be, but it's not. It won't be ME controlling those who vote on the basis of skin color; I'LL be voting on the basis of what I've just written, not that my vote means anything in NY. My hoping that they will have a big enough effect to save the country is nothing unusual; we all acknowledge that they WILL have an effect, so the question is merely about how great a magnitude that effect will be. Will you sleep less well because black voters will turn out in greater numbers for no other reason than to vote for a black man, which is racist? (And as was unequivocally proven in the Dem primary as a solid racist effect in our black population, not that that's anything new.) At least it's not the GOP that uses pure Stalinist tactics to undermine the system itself, via election fraud and false counting. So I'll sleep like a baby.

[??????????]

Proof of election fraud being common in the GOP?

Silly question I know.

[Iosif]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

[J. J.]

Not voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not racist now? k.

The Bradley Effect is not voting against someone on the basis of race.  It is saying to a pollster, *I'm undecided* or *I'm voting for Obama* when the voter really believes *I like McCain better, but I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist.*

It could also be "I'm racist, and I don't want the pollster to know."  They're completely indistinguishable.

That would still come under "I like McCain better."

But it would also very potentially come under "not voting for someone on the basis of race," which you said that the Bradley Effect cannot be.  That's untrue.

Actually, it isn't.  The effect describes the interaction between a voter and a pollster.  A voter that says **I'm voting for McCain because Obama is black,** is not part of the Bradley Effect.  Also not that I've indicated the possibility of black voters that are part of the Bradley Effect.

That's true, JJ, but that voter is still letting skin color determine his vote. It's not the Bradley effect, but it sure IS an effect, and most of these voters aren't talking.

It is an effect, but a pollable one to an extent.  Some voters are telling posters that they won't for Obama due to race, just as some won't vote for McCain because of age or because he was in the military  (I have friends that were career military that won't vote for a military man).  

Some folks have non racial reasons for voting against Obama, but won't state it simply because the don't want to look racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously never heard of George McGovern.  

[J. J.]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

[??????????]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

Do we have any left wing posters here under 1000k posts who aren't trolls?

[Iosif]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

Do we have any left wing posters here under 1000k posts who aren't trolls?

A million posts?

[J. J.]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

Do we have any left wing posters here under 1000k posts who aren't trolls?

A million posts?

The answer to States question is no.

[Vandervecken]

Not voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not racist now? k.

The Bradley Effect is not voting against someone on the basis of race.  It is saying to a pollster, *I'm undecided* or *I'm voting for Obama* when the voter really believes *I like McCain better, but I don't want the pollster to think I'm racist.*

It could also be "I'm racist, and I don't want the pollster to know."  They're completely indistinguishable.

That would still come under "I like McCain better."

But it would also very potentially come under "not voting for someone on the basis of race," which you said that the Bradley Effect cannot be.  That's untrue.

Actually, it isn't.  The effect describes the interaction between a voter and a pollster.  A voter that says **I'm voting for McCain because Obama is black,** is not part of the Bradley Effect.  Also not that I've indicated the possibility of black voters that are part of the Bradley Effect.

That's true, JJ, but that voter is still letting skin color determine his vote. It's not the Bradley effect, but it sure IS an effect, and most of these voters aren't talking.

It is an effect, but a pollable one to an extent.  Some voters are telling posters that they won't for Obama due to race, just as some won't vote for McCain because of age or because he was in the military  (I have friends that were career military that won't vote for a military man).  

Some folks have non racial reasons for voting against Obama, but won't state it simply because the don't want to look racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously never heard of George McGovern.  

Obviously I have heard of George McGovern. What is it that you think that George McGovern's political fate has in it to correct me in this matter? Please be specific, rather than cryptic.

As for the first, the key part of your statement is "to some extent". I'd say it's an incredibly small extent. The majority of white people who will vote on the basis of skin color will rarely admit in any pollable way that they are going to do so.

-------------------
Edited to change: I believe I made a mistake. I thought you were making a snide comment of some sort. Now I think you were just reminding me that McGovern was all that I just described of Obama. I do know that, but what of it? Well, McGovern lost, and lost badly. But you'd have to admit that the electorate has changed since McGovern's day.

Or was this about NY? JJ, NY is solidly libdem in a Prexy race no matter what now. You weren't suggesting that my vote actually matters in NY, were you? I mean, that'd be lovely, but you can't really believe that.

[Vandervecken]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

The only voter fraud I've heard about was from ACORN.

Well, you and I are on the same political side, in any case, that much is clear. But surely you must have heard of Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election? THAT was as close to Stalinism as I've ever seen in this country in my lifetime, in a presidential campaign.

[King]

Obviously all the polls in the United States are getting cluttered by poor samples that give Obama way too many points.