Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[J. J.]

Nice piece of news in todays Rasmussen release:

"Looking back, four years ago today, George W. Bush held a 49% to 47% lead over John Kerry."

The dynamics were different.

[J. J.]

NH and Colorado Pres/Senate numbers later today. Good stuff.

That will be the one I'm waiting for.

[J. J.]

at this point, I am more inclined to believe Ras over Gallop, but it is strange that they are moving in opposite directions

Mid week numbers on Gallup, possibly.  McCain might be over polling on Gallup.

[J. J.]

I assume yesterday's polling was prior to the debate, yes?

Probably.

[J. J.]

I think we have to look to see if this was statistical noise or the beginnings of a trend.

It reminds me of the French officer who first saw von Kluck's turn at the First Battle of the Marne.  Is this it?  I don't know.

[J. J.]

Sunday - October 5, 2008:

Obama - 51% (nc)
McCain - 44% (-1)

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say they are certain they will vote for Obama and will not change their mind. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say the same about McCain. Thirteen percent (13%) currently have a preference for one of the candidates but might change their mind. Four percent (4%) are either undecided or plan to vote for a third-party candidate.

Favorable Ratings:

Obama: 57% favorable, 42% unfavorable (+1, nc)
McCain: 53% favorable, 45% unfavorable (nc, nc)

Low solid numbers for both candidates.  Interesting.

[J. J.]

Sunday - October 5, 2008:

Obama - 51% (nc)
McCain - 44% (-1)

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say they are certain they will vote for Obama and will not change their mind. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say the same about McCain. Thirteen percent (13%) currently have a preference for one of the candidates but might change their mind. Four percent (4%) are either undecided or plan to vote for a third-party candidate.

Favorable Ratings:

Obama: 57% favorable, 42% unfavorable (+1, nc)
McCain: 53% favorable, 45% unfavorable (nc, nc)

Low solid numbers for both candidates.  Interesting.

True, of the 17 percent who might change their minds, McCain only needs to get 76 percent of their votes to win.

17% is a lot.  This isn't, at this point, a solid win.

[J. J.]

17 % undecided is indeed a lot. But getting 76 % out of this undecided bunch is almost impossible. So if these figures are correct, then assuming something game changing doesn't happen in the coming 2 weeks, McCain is history.

First of all, you are making an assumption that those absolute people will stay put.  The may move, in either direction.

Second, 17% is still huge, especially at this point. 

Third, yes, if we were a week out, I'd say Obama, with these numbers.  We still 4 weeks out.

[J. J.]

One day's worth of one poll isn't enough to make a decision.

[J. J.]

One day's worth of one poll isn't enough to make a decision.

*faints*

J.J., what has gotten into you, my dear fellow?

If we see a margin shrinkage in Gallup, I will change that.  I've been the guy posting, "I don't know," an awful lot.

Some of the "lesser" tracking polls show the same thing, but one of them, I expect, is due to a high Obama sample.

[J. J.]

Wednesday - October 8, 2008:

Obama - 51% (-1)
McCain - 45% (+1)

Crap, we lost

Not matched by Gallup.  One has a bad sample, I suspect.  Is it this one or Gallup?

[J. J.]

Either this poll or the Gallup has a bad sample in the mix.

[J. J.]

.02% is the difference between 50 and 51 in this poll?

Let's not overreact, folks.

That's possibly your best post ever.

Either Rasmussen or Gallup has one bad sample, we don't know which one yet.  We should know by Saturday, if not tomorrow.  Let's chill out until then.

[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.*

[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."

[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.

[J. J.]

Well, J.J. is correct that if someone who says "I'm voting for McCain" to the pollster, that is not part of the Bradley effect, and I think that's what he meant.  It doesn't matter if they think Obama's an uppity negro or if they like McCain's haircut.  But he is incorrect in identifying what the B.E. is.

Oh, how.

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

Right now, my major problems with Obama are his insincerity, lack of executive experience on the ticket (which is why I liked Richardson, Bayh, and Kaine), and his insularity.  Two out of three would not be there if he were Governor Obama.

[J. J.]

For the record, I'm not saying none are racist. I'm saying that many just don't want to look like one.

I think that is the key and one reason I want to look at black neighborhoods.

[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.  

[J. J.]

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

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

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.

Yes, I was reminding you that McGovern was described, more pointedly, in the terms you just said described Obama.  I think there are background things that strike at Obama's sincerity, but Ayers isn't one of them.  (And I think I actually would have liked Obama's stepfather.)

Nothing about NY, which I actually though Mondale would carry.  Since 1980, I have never predicted NY would go Republican.

[J. J.]

When did Republicans start concerning themselves with facts?

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

For the millionth time:

registration fraud != voter fraud

And ACORN were being just as defrauded as the state's election boards, arguably more so since it cost them money, while for the states it cost the just a few cents it takes to process a new voter registration for someone who'll never ever vote.

Note:  BRTD favors registration fraud. 

Seriously, we look at registration numbers and you are supporting it.  ACRON doesn't have internal checks on this?