CNN Poll: Obama ahead in all matchups

[Tender Branson]

Obama: 49%
McCain: 46%

Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%
Nader: 6%
Barr: 2%

Obama/Clinton: 52%
McCain/Romney: 46%

If Clinton is not on the ticket, 60 percent of her Democratic supporters said they would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

The results are based on interviews with 1,035 adult Americans, including 921 registered voters, conducted by telephone Wednesday and Thursday, June 4-5.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/index.html

[Aizen]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

And despite a hilarious 6% for Nader?

[Tender Branson]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

I´m wondering why Obama has an even greater advantage against McCain, when Nader is included with 3-times the support of Barr ... ?

*Need explanation from SamSpade ...*

[J. J.]

They actually describe it as "a statistical tie." 

[Alcon]

They actually describe it as "a statistical tie." 

Stupid term.

They can't say with 95% confidence that there's a lead.  That does not mean it's statistically identical to a tie.

(Channeling Mark Blumenthal here.)

[Aizen]

why did you post a picture of ahduke99

[Keystone Phil]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

You mean McCain is barely trailing despite Obama clinching the nomination and the terrible time for the GOP?

[bgwah]

6% Nader?

lol

[Reaganfan]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

You mean McCain is barely trailing despite Obama clinching the nomination and the terrible time for the GOP?

I can't wait to see how terribly Obama does down in places like Alabama and good ole' Texas.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

You mean McCain is barely trailing despite Obama clinching the nomination and the terrible time for the GOP?

I can't wait to see how terribly Obama does down in places like Alabama and good ole' Texas.

Oh dear.

[Conan]

We need to see a poll of how many Obama supporters wouldnt vote for obama with clinton on the ticket.

22% of Hill supporters is a lot of people. If those were only the primary voters of hers, that would equal 4,000,000 votes. 17% is 3,000,000.

[Keystone Phil]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

You mean McCain is barely trailing despite Obama clinching the nomination and the terrible time for the GOP?

I can't wait to see how terribly Obama does down in places like Alabama and good ole' Texas.

Not helping, Naso.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wait, is Obama ahead despite having lousy support from Clinton Dems?

You mean McCain is barely trailing despite Obama clinching the nomination and the terrible time for the GOP?

I can't wait to see how terribly Obama does down in places like Alabama and good ole' Texas.

1-Obama should outperform Kerry in both states. Alabama due to higher black turnout and lower evangelical turnout, Texas due to the same and the lack of Bush's home state advantage.
2-Who cares? Alabama and Texas aren't and never were swing states, so even if Obama completely tanked in them, it wouldn't matter one iota. This is like me getting giddy about how badly McCain is going to be crushed in DC.

[Umengus]

party id ?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Where's this post nomination bounce everyone has been projecting where Obama gets out to a 10 point national lead?

[Josh/Devilman88]

Where's this post nomination bounce everyone has been projecting where Obama gets out to a 10 point national lead?

He will not get any big bounce until after today and people hear out of Clinton's mouth to support him.

[Tender Branson]

Where's this post nomination bounce everyone has been projecting where Obama gets out to a 10 point national lead?

Currently it's a 6-point bounce according to Rasmussen, but wait another week and it may be 10.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I really doubt that there's going to be that kind of bump.

Those Democrats who haven't gotten to grips with reality from Tuesday probably won't.

[emailking]

They actually describe it as "a statistical tie." 

Stupid term.

They can't say with 95% confidence that there's a lead.  That does not mean it's statistically identical to a tie.

(Channeling Mark Blumenthal here.)

What do you think it means to be "statistically identical to a tie"?

The term actually makes sense to me. There is no proper way to interpret the results as indicating one candidate being ahead of the other.

[Alcon]

What do you think it means to be "statistically identical to a tie"?

The term actually makes sense to me. There is no proper way to interpret the results as indicating one candidate being ahead of the other.

There's no way to indicate that a candidate is ahead at the accepted confidence rate (95%).  That doesn't mean that there isn't a candidate leading the poll.  We no more have the statistical power to determine it's a tie than we do that Candidate is up by one.  In fact, it's more likely that Candidate is up by one.  Mark "The Mystery Pollster"  Blumenthal put it best:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[J. J.]

What do you think it means to be "statistically identical to a tie"?

The term actually makes sense to me. There is no proper way to interpret the results as indicating one candidate being ahead of the other.

There's no way to indicate that a candidate is ahead at the accepted confidence rate (95%).  That doesn't mean that there isn't a candidate leading the poll.  We no more have the statistical power to determine it's a tie than we do that Candidate is up by one.  In fact, it's more likely that Candidate is up by one.  Mark "The Mystery Pollster"  Blumenthal put it best:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or, in other words, the poll, even if accurate, isn't telling us much.

[Alcon]

Or, in other words, the poll, even if accurate, isn't telling us much.

It's telling us exactly as much as every other poll does -- that there is a 95% chance that, if the poll was conducted correctly, the candidates polled within the given margin of error, of the results.

It just happens that, in this instance, that doesn't tell us who has the lead - but Obama is still statistically more likely to be ahead.  Not 95% likely, but >50% likely.

The ridiculousness of "statistical tie" is this way -- it takes one response to go to statistical significance.  In that one response, does a candidate suddenly go from "tied" to "ahead at statistical significance"?  No.  They go from "ahead, but not at statistical significance."  "Statistical tie" is, as Blumenthal says, a misnomer.

[emailking]

There's no way to indicate that a candidate is ahead at the accepted confidence rate (95%).  That doesn't mean that there isn't a candidate leading the poll. 

In the raw numbers maybe, but I think you misunderstand how statistical confidence intervals work. There's no weighting towards the center of the interval. For example, if it is 53 Obama to 47 McCain with 3% MOE, then it is just as likely (to the 95% confidence level) that they are tied as it is that Obama is up by 6, or by 3 even.

We no more have the statistical power to determine it's a tie than we do that Candidate is up by one.  In fact, it's more likely that Candidate is up by one.

That's not true. If they both fall within the confidence interval, than they are equally likely to the given confidence level.

  Mark "The Mystery Pollster"  Blumenthal put it best:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with that sentiment and that's why I think it's fine to call it a statistical tie. In fact, to me this is what that term essentially means.

[Alcon]

emailking,

This is all interesting (and new to me).  So, a 4% MoE with a tie result, is equally as likely (statistically speaking to be) +4 or -4 as a tie?  That seems surprising to me, and I do not understand how that works.

I feel guilty for passing on incorrect information...the person who taught me apparently fed me bad information.  Sorry J.J.