NC: Public Policy Polling: McCain ahead of Obama by 4%

[Josh/Devilman88]

New Poll: North Carolina President by Public Policy Polling on 2008-09-09

Summary: D: 44%, R: 48%, U: 4%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[phk]

It'll be McCain + 8 or +9 in the end.

[Thomas Jackson]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

[KeyKeeper]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

Maybe by 2 to 3%, but North Carolina has a very high African American population, this poll has it at 22% of the voting population, which is to high.

[Lief 🗽]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

lol, k

[Tender Branson]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

Maybe by 2 to 3%, but North Carolina has a very high African American population, this poll has it at 22% of the voting population, which is to high.

African-Americans make up 22% of NC's total population and 21% of the state's registered voters. So why exactly should 20-22% be too high ?

[KeyKeeper]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

Maybe by 2 to 3%, but North Carolina has a very high African American population, this poll has it at 22% of the voting population, which is to high.

African-Americans make up 22% of NC's total population and 21% of the state's registered voters. So why exactly should 20-22% be too high ?

Because that would mean that close to 100% of the AA voters turn-out. I believe it would be closer to 20%.

[Sbane]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

Maybe by 2 to 3%, but North Carolina has a very high African American population, this poll has it at 22% of the voting population, which is to high.

African-Americans make up 22% of NC's total population and 21% of the state's registered voters. So why exactly should 20-22% be too high ?

Because that would mean that close to 100% of the AA voters turn-out. I believe it would be closer to 20%.

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

[KeyKeeper]

PPP = Democrat firm, slanted strongly to the left.

McCain's lead is much larger than they are willing to spin.

Maybe by 2 to 3%, but North Carolina has a very high African American population, this poll has it at 22% of the voting population, which is to high.

African-Americans make up 22% of NC's total population and 21% of the state's registered voters. So why exactly should 20-22% be too high ?

Because that would mean that close to 100% of the AA voters turn-out. I believe it would be closer to 20%.

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Oh, Ok, I'm not that good at Math, but I'll take y'alls word on it.

[Sam Spade]

So, when are we going to get a real poll out of NC?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

[Person Man]

I would say that NC will be R +5 or 6 this election.  Not only are blacks more motivated, but nerds are moving to North Carolina too. Nerds are basically the only white clique, besides maybe emos that are mostly dems.

[Sbane]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

I think blacks turn out in pretty good numbers, except in very poor inner city areas perhaps. I do believe rural blacks in the south vote in pretty high numbers. I don't have any data on it so not too sure....

[Rowan]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

I think blacks turn out in pretty good numbers, except in very poor inner city areas perhaps. I do believe rural blacks in the south vote in pretty high numbers. I don't have any data on it so not too sure....

Overall, blacks and whites have similar turnout numbers, they are both around 60% (+/- 3%).

[Brittain33]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

Happens all the time, actually.

[Lief 🗽]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

Happens all the time, actually.

That and, this would be, what, the first time a black guy has ever ran for President?

[Alcon]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

I think blacks turn out in pretty good numbers, except in very poor inner city areas perhaps. I do believe rural blacks in the south vote in pretty high numbers. I don't have any data on it so not too sure....

Overall, blacks and whites have similar turnout numbers, they are both around 60% (+/- 3%).

Don't know where you got that from.  Blacks have a similar turnout among registered voters; their VAT is lower.

[Rowan]

No it doesnt. It just means they turn out in the same numbers as whites which is very believable.

Which would make that, what, the first time that's ever happened?

I think blacks turn out in pretty good numbers, except in very poor inner city areas perhaps. I do believe rural blacks in the south vote in pretty high numbers. I don't have any data on it so not too sure....

Overall, blacks and whites have similar turnout numbers, they are both around 60% (+/- 3%).

Don't know where you got that from.  Blacks have a similar turnout among registered voters; their VAT is lower.

Well you can't turnout if you aren't registered(except in major cities like Philly and Detroit) so I was basing it off registration numbers.

In 2004, white turnout was 67% and black turnout was 60% among registered voters.

[Alcon]

Well you can't turnout if you aren't registered(except in major cities like Philly and Detroit) so I was basing it off registration numbers.

In 2004, white turnout was 67% and black turnout was 60% among registered voters.

That's a useless measure, though.  You could have 15% of a minority population registered, and with 90% turnout, and that wouldn't be "better turnout" than having 50% registered with 70% turnout.

There are non-theoretical instances of this.  For instance, the American Indian turnout among registered voters declined slightly in South Dakota between 2000 and 2004.  The number of registrations skyrocketed, though.  I wouldn't say turnout "went down."  The size of the electorate increased on every measure.  More members of the subgroup voted.  Turnout was up, even if a lower percentage of those registered voted.

In fact, I don't see much use in using any measure but VEP when discussing turnout.  Either way, you have an untapped electorate.  Someone who is eligible but isn't registered, is no less a non-voter than someone who registered but didn't vote.