Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[J. J.]

Nice straw man. I never said I supported it. It was fraud on behalf of the people committing who were in effect stealing from ACORN.

I was joking, hence the smiling face.  This one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, where did I say "stolen election?"  I made the ACORN in reference to a troll, claiming "Voter Fraud."

[J. J.]

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

Sorry, I didn't catch the question.


One thing would be building it's own database,  i.e. when John Doe is registered at 123 Fake Street, enter it; cross check those against newer registrations and current registrations.

Develop "frequent address" checking.  If 47 people register at 123 Fake Street, it might be a good idea to check that out.

[J. J.]

ACORN has quality control people, yes, but they're not very good.  what kind of checks do you suggest?

(ACORN does it awfully, but I want to hear what you'd consider necessary)

Sorry, I didn't catch the question.


One thing would be building it's own database,  i.e. when John Doe is registered at 123 Fake Street, enter it; cross check those against newer registrations and current registrations.

Develop "frequent address" checking.  If 47 people register at 123 Fake Street, it might be a good idea to check that out.

Trouble is, it's (rightfully) illegal in a lot of jurisdictions to fail to deliver a registration form as promised.  Most jurisdictions don't make exceptions for obvious fakes.  A good example was an organization here who didn't turn in registrations made to storage places.  Trouble is, it turned out a few of them also contain residences for the owners/managers.

I agree about the frequent address checking and everything, but ACORN should file challenges, not under any circumstances fail to deliver a registration.

Aclon. there is a difference between "checking" something and not turning it in.  For example 123 Fake Street might be a housing project that would account for those multiple registrations.  That can be checked.

ACORN isn't the post office, and at worst that can send some (else) out to check a questionable registration.

[J. J.]

And what do you suggest they do with them if they look bad, though?  I know there's a difference between checking them and not turning them in.

1.  Return them to the addressee.

2.  Turn them in but with a questionable label.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The phone books could be check via a comparison with current registrations; if checked against a data base, the multiple addresses could be caught.

[J. J.]

1.  Return them to the addressee.

What purpose would that have, other than wasting time and testing for undeliverable addresses, which the elections department does anyway?

But then ACORN doesn't sent out false registration.

The phone books could be check via a comparison with current registrations; if checked against a data base, the multiple addresses could be caught.

Having someone else other than the phone book entry registered at an address is so ridiculously common, I don't see what purpose that would serve.

You can check them against current registrations (or the ones you've entered).  Let's say that I don't realize that I'm registered and ACORN gives me a form, which I fill out.  My name is already on the voter list.  They can cross check it and determine that I'm already registered.

[J. J.]

But then ACORN doesn't sent out false registration.

Even if they did bounce back, they would still be legally obligated to deliver it, I'd think; an inactive registration (bounce-back, at least in this state) is still a valid registration come election day.

This varies by state, but again, I have a lot of discomfort with an independent group taking the authority to parse which registrations are fake.  That's not always possible while meeting a registration deadline, either.

I have more of a problem with a group, without checks, sending in false registration forms.

You can check them against current registrations (or the ones you've entered).  Let's say that I don't realize that I'm registered and ACORN gives me a form, which I fill out.  My name is already on the voter list.  They can cross check it and determine that I'm already registered.

Right, but I don't see how that involves the phonebook?

Not the phone book, but the registered voters list.  If someone who isn't registered is registered from the phone book, it makes a difference if the person is actually registered to vote.  That is the prime thing you wish to catch.

[J. J.]

I have more of a problem with a group, without checks, sending in false registration forms.

Yes, it sucks taxpayer money has to be used to flag registrations, but you want independent organizations to have that power?  I mean, if you think ACORN is so corrupt, why do you support lifting the limitation against discarding/not delivering registrations?  That's putting more trust in them.

ACORN wouldn't have that power.  They are not the Post Office.  A private organization can choose to screen the applications it gets.  There are alternatives to register, including most local government offices.

Not the phone book, but the registered voters list.  If someone who isn't registered is registered from the phone book, it makes a difference if the person is actually registered to vote.  That is the prime thing you wish to catch.

No, ACORN registered fake names at real addresses from the phone-book.  That's at least how it went in the states I know of; NV hasn't really released details.

But obviously they check the standing registered voter lists, but unless there's a birthday match or something, they may just assume it's a relative with the same name (like a child, or whatever.)   County registrars don't really have time to cross-check registrations to make sure they make chronological sense (Jr./Sr.)

My voter registration card has my birthday on it, so the record could be checked.  I thought they were getting names and addresses out of the phone book.

[J. J.]

They wouldn't have the power, and then you say "a private organization can choose to screen the applications it gets"?  So, they could just throw out applications from Republican precincts, too?  Because there are other places to register, and even if ACORN promises voters they'll get their registrations in, they're a private organization?

That's completely terrifying and a horrible idea.

Alcon, this may surprise you but:

1.  ACORN is not the Post Office.

2.  There are other places where a person can register, like most government offices.

You miss my point.  If someone has your birthday (say 1962-MAR-14), and they get a registration for a J. J. born 1985-JUN-05, they could easily assume it's your son.  And most of the registration fraud was created with false identities, not already existing ones -- although I was surprised to learn that two of the weirdest ACORN names from 2006, Stormi Bays and Echo Slaughter, have actually re-registered and are real people.  Even if they got a match, registrars do not have the time to call to see if you're related or it's a fake.  They're going to assume it's a relative with a familial name.

Okay, but that is something that should trigger a check, especially if it is a new registration.

I've known a Sukihana Krump, a Feodor Pitcairn, and a Kunta Kinta Tasker, all real people.

[J. J.]

As far as I can determine, ACORN is free to decline to register someone.  I'm a private individual and I'm not required to register anyone.  I absolutely defend any refusal of ACORN to register Republicans, for example, or people that are opposed to ACORN's goals.

Alcon, you are smarter than most "burnt out junkies."    I've seen people, in my past job, change their stories in the middle of an interview.  Somebody who really wanted to create a false identiy wouldn't do that, but someone trying to meet a quota might.

[J. J.]

Keeping format:

Monday, October 13, 2008

Obama  50 (-1)

McCain  45 (nc)

[J. J.]

I'm just noting that the questions about candidates is nothing new.

[J. J.]

I am actually starting to think that Democrats would be better off if McCain won this election, much like they would have been better off if Ford won in 1976 or George HW Bush in 1992. 

I actually agree with the Ford analogy.

[J. J.]

I am actually starting to think that Democrats would be better off if McCain won this election, much like they would have been better off if Ford won in 1976 or George HW Bush in 1992.

From a downballot perspective losing the Presidency every year worked pretty well for the Democrats for forty years. Its only when they started winning in 1992 that they ran into problems.

I wish I could take credit for that, but it's not from me.

[J. J.]

Interestingly, both candidates have lost support the past few days and there are now more undecideds.

Fluid, and the bulk of America, I suspect, could shift.

[J. J.]

Interestingly, both candidates have lost support the past few days and there are now more undecideds.

Fluid, and the bulk of America, I suspect, could shift.

Whatever lets you sleep at night, right?

No, like, oh, 80% of the country, I like stability. 

[J. J.]

Obama: 50 (nc)
McCain: 46 (+1)

10/16/08

I'll wait for Gallup and see if it matched.

[J. J.]

Observation:  Strong McCain sample today in comparison with overall trend and movement.  Most of the movement was in Indys.  Could be outlier or not.  Only time will tell...

Ahem...

Taken before the debate though.

You probably won't anything solid on any debate effect (if there is any debate effect), until Saturday.

[J. J.]

My educated guess is that the sample yesterday was roughly Obama +2 to 3 yesterday, maybe plus +4, maybe +1.

Why don't you just say between 1 and 4. 

[J. J.]

My educated guess is that the sample yesterday was roughly Obama +2 to 3 yesterday, maybe plus +4, maybe +1.

Why don't you just say between 1 and 4. 

I feel more confident about about 2-3 than I do 1 or 4.  Truthfully, ignoring where the *not sures* are going, it would be around 1.5 or so.  But you can never tell where they are, although they tend to answer questions more like McCain's people than Obamas. 

So, I would feel more confident with 1 than 4.

Sounds like me on the Bradley Effect. 

I know the RCP numbers are down but I'm not quite ready to proclaim this a trend, in responce to Rowan.

[J. J.]

My educated guess is that the sample yesterday was roughly Obama +2 to 3 yesterday, maybe plus +4, maybe +1.

Why don't you just say between 1 and 4. 

I feel more confident about about 2-3 than I do 1 or 4.  Truthfully, ignoring where the *not sures* are going, it would be around 1.5 or so.  But you can never tell where they are, although they tend to answer questions more like McCain's people than Obamas. 

So, I would feel more confident with 1 than 4.

Sounds like me on the Bradley Effect. 

I know the RCP numbers are down but I'm not quite ready to proclaim this a trend, in responce to Rowan.

In this poll there is a trend. Just a week ago, Obama was up double-digits among Indies pre-debate.

I'm a bit suspicious of the sub samples.  I'll wait for TIPP and Gallup.

[J. J.]

My educated guess is that the sample yesterday was roughly Obama +2 to 3 yesterday, maybe plus +4, maybe +1.

Why don't you just say between 1 and 4. 

I feel more confident about about 2-3 than I do 1 or 4.  Truthfully, ignoring where the *not sures* are going, it would be around 1.5 or so.  But you can never tell where they are, although they tend to answer questions more like McCain's people than Obamas. 

So, I would feel more confident with 1 than 4.

Sounds like me on the Bradley Effect. 

I know the RCP numbers are down but I'm not quite ready to proclaim this a trend, in responce to Rowan.

In this poll there is a trend. Just a week ago, Obama was up double-digits among Indies pre-debate.

I'm a bit suspicious of the sub samples.  I'll wait for TIPP and Gallup.

The only two polls which would have enough Indys to make a subsample without a high MOE are Gallup and Rasmussen, so I don't get your point.

Okay, maybe I missed it.  What's the MOE and what's the drop been?

[J. J.]

Monday- October 20

Obama: 50 (-1)
McCain: 46 (+1)

Cetrain voters: Obama + 2

Don't know how this jives with one of the worst news day of the campaign for McCain.
 
 
 

We aren't seeing any of the Powell/fundraising news impact here yet (if there is any).

A candidate's fundraising is quite clearly one of the major factors in determining how one votes.

Hey J. J. and cinyc see to think so.

Bandwagon effect, with good fund raising (if it's highlighted).

Phil is no doubt being sarcastic, which is lost on BRTD.  IIRC, prior to the election GHWB was out raising Clinton.

[J. J.]

A candidate's fundraising is quite clearly one of the major factors in determining how one votes.

Hey J. J. and cinyc see to think so.

Huh?  I never said that.  In fact, I've repeatedly said that Obama had absolutely no reason to release his September fundraising until legally required to do so.
 
Please stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm referring to your obsession with Obama not taking public funds.

No, but I can oviously see a downside to NOT raising enough money.

[J. J.]

Wednesday - October 22

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

Okay, now there is the trend.  Not the one I wanted, but it's there.

[J. J.]

Wednesday - October 22

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

Okay, now there is the trend.  Not the one I wanted, but it's there.

Its not a trend.  McCain has been 44-46 and Obama 50-52 for Ras for what, 28 straight days? Thats called stability.

I'm looking for movement, not numbers.  We've seen enough movement for toward Obama (or away from McCain) across polls to say that this is the trend.