Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[Democratic Hawk]

Diageo-Hotline, October 26

Obama 50% (nc)
McCain 42% (-1)

[Rowan]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 46.5%(+0.7)
McCain 43.3%(+1.4)

[Franzl]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 46.5%(+0.7)
McCain 43.3%(+1.4)

this poll has been all over the place.

[Rowan]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 46.5%(+0.7)
McCain 43.3%(+1.4)

this poll has been all over the place.

Actually its kept it pretty stable as a close race.

[Verily]

IBD/TIPP
Obama 46.5%(+0.7)
McCain 43.3%(+1.4)

this poll has been all over the place.

Actually its kept it pretty stable as a close race.

It had Obama up eight at one point.

[Alcon]

I'm a little less worried about the volatility (or lack thereof), and a little more about the seeming near-lack of correlation with the other polls.  That's a little odd.

[Rowan]

I'm a little less worried about the volatility (or lack thereof), and a little more about the seeming near-lack of correlation with the other polls.  That's a little odd.

It's pretty close to Zogby numbers.

[Sam Spade]

Daily Tracker Table - October 26, 2008

Poll Name	Obama	McCain	Margin	Change	Observation
Zogby	49.4%	44.1%	O+5.3%	M+4.3%	Who knows - it's Zogby!  Seriously though, a huge Obama sample did fall off today.
Rasmussen	52.46%	44.00%	O+8.46%	O+0.57%	Another good Obama sample.
Battleground	49%	46%	O+3%	NC	No polling done today.
Hotline	50%	42%	O+8%	O+1%	A good Obama sample should fall off tomorrow.
R2000/DKos	51%	40%	O+11%	M+1%	Ditto.
Gallup
Expanded	52%	43%	O+9%	O+1%	I have some real commentary on Gallup that I may post later.  It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.
Traditional	50%	45%	O+5%	M+2%
IBD/TIPP	46.5%	43.3%	O+3.2%	M+0.7%	Hard to tell.
NOT RELEASED
ABC/WP	52%	45%	O+7%	M+2%	I looked at the samples here yesterday, and it was pretty clear a strong Obama sample moved off today.
POLLS AVERAGE	50.17%	43.55%	O+6.62%	M+0.82%	Note: I do include Battleground in this average, even though it didn't poll yesterday or the day before.  If you wish not to, just remove and re-round.

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

[Sam Spade]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

[Sam Spade]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

The traditional model is 13 questions that involves not just a check on whether people vote in past elections, but involves questions about who your representative is, basic political questions, and some other things that I forget.  Vorlon posted the list once, but I forget.

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

[Alcon]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2008%20New%20Hampshire%20Polling%20Methodology.pdf

This?

I'd be surprised if Gallup actually quizzes people.  That seems like it might provoke frustrated/embarrassed hang-ups.

[Sam Spade]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2008%20New%20Hampshire%20Polling%20Methodology.pdf

This?

I'd be surprised if Gallup actually quizzes people.  That seems like it might provoke frustrated/embarrassed hang-ups.

At least from what Vorlon has said before, they do.

It's a different list of questions, but I recognize similar content (like where you go vote, for example).

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

The traditional model is 13 questions that involves not just a check on whether people vote in past elections, but involves questions about who your representative is, basic political questions, and some other things that I forget.  Vorlon posted the list once, but I forget.

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

No, I'm talking about *lack* of it.

Could you give me that list though... and perhaps the expanded one too... that would be cool.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2008%20New%20Hampshire%20Polling%20Methodology.pdf

This?

I'd be surprised if Gallup actually quizzes people.  That seems like it might provoke frustrated/embarrassed hang-ups.

You'll need a tougher likely voter screen for a primary - fewer people are actually going to vote, but whether or not they'll tell you so straightaway is a different matter.

[Sam Spade]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

The traditional model is 13 questions that involves not just a check on whether people vote in past elections, but involves questions about who your representative is, basic political questions, and some other things that I forget.  Vorlon posted the list once, but I forget.

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

No, I'm talking about *lack* of it.

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

[minionofmidas]

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

mypalfish 2004. ie, the "Democratic Mass Signup of Minorities and Young Voters will lead to Unprecedented Turnout - this looks like a landslide folks!" set. Which is *an aspect* of what I'm seeing, but not the whole story, and not something I'm taking at face value either.
Otherwise, what election were you referring to?
Of course it helps that, over where I am from, elections where "enthusiasm levels" are not an important factor are rare and in between.

[Sam Spade]

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

mypalfish 2004. ie, the "Democratic Mass Signup of Minorities and Young Voters will lead to Unprecedented Turnout - this looks like a landslide folks!" set. Which is *an aspect* of what I'm seeing, but not the whole story, and not something I'm taking at face value either.
Otherwise, what election were you referring to?
Of course it helps that, over where I am from, elections where "enthusiasm levels" are not an important factor are rare and in between.

In what elections has "lack of enthusiasm" looked like a factor in the polls?

[minionofmidas]

In what elections has "lack of enthusiasm" looked like a factor in the polls?

Where? In Germany, I could probably just send you a list of post-reunification state elections, strike a few, and add the last three federal elections.

In America... that's what I was asking you (although 1996 obviously comes to mind):

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

No, I'm talking about *lack* of it.

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

what election did you have in mind, exactly?

[Sam Spade]

Table updated.

[J. J.]

Table updated.

Thank you.

[J. J.]

Daily Tracker Table - October 26, 2008

Poll Name	Obama	McCain	Margin	Change	Observation
Zogby	49.4%	44.1%	O+5.3%	M+4.3%	Who knows - it's Zogby!  Seriously though, a huge Obama sample did fall off today.
Rasmussen	52.46%	44.00%	O+8.46%	O+0.57%	Another good Obama sample.
Battleground	49%	46%	O+3%	NC	No polling done today.
Hotline	50%	42%	O+8%	O+1%	A good Obama sample should fall off tomorrow.
R2000/DKos	51%	40%	O+11%	M+1%	Ditto.
Gallup
Expanded	52%	43%	O+9%	O+1%	I have some real commentary on Gallup that I may post later.  It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.
Traditional	50%	45%	O+5%	M+2%
IBD/TIPP	46.5%	43.3%	O+3.2%	M+0.7%	Hard to tell.
NOT RELEASED
ABC/WP	52%	45%	O+7%	M+2%	I looked at the samples here yesterday, and it was pretty clear a strong Obama sample moved off today.
POLLS AVERAGE	50.17%	43.55%	O+6.62%	M+0.82%	Note: I do include Battleground in this average, even though it didn't poll yesterday or the day before.  If you wish not to, just remove and re-round.

In all honesty, but for Rasmussen, I'd be saying McCain is closing.

[Lunar]

Daily Tracker Table - October 26, 2008

Poll Name	Obama	McCain	Margin	Change	Observation
Zogby	49.4%	44.1%	O+5.3%	M+4.3%	Who knows - it's Zogby!  Seriously though, a huge Obama sample did fall off today.
Rasmussen	52.46%	44.00%	O+8.46%	O+0.57%	Another good Obama sample.
Battleground	49%	46%	O+3%	NC	No polling done today.
Hotline	50%	42%	O+8%	O+1%	A good Obama sample should fall off tomorrow.
R2000/DKos	51%	40%	O+11%	M+1%	Ditto.
Gallup
Expanded	52%	43%	O+9%	O+1%	I have some real commentary on Gallup that I may post later.  It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.
Traditional	50%	45%	O+5%	M+2%
IBD/TIPP	46.5%	43.3%	O+3.2%	M+0.7%	Hard to tell.
NOT RELEASED
ABC/WP	52%	45%	O+7%	M+2%	I looked at the samples here yesterday, and it was pretty clear a strong Obama sample moved off today.
POLLS AVERAGE	50.17%	43.55%	O+6.62%	M+0.82%	Note: I do include Battleground in this average, even though it didn't poll yesterday or the day before.  If you wish not to, just remove and re-round.

In all honesty, but for Rasmussen, I'd be saying McCain is closing.

Average of Rasmussen, Hotline, Gallup traditional, and IBD is McCain %+0.2825 today.  How are you viewing this, honestly?

[J. J.]

Average of Rasmussen, Hotline, Gallup traditional, and IBD is McCain %+0.2825 today.  How are you viewing this, honestly?

Honestly, I look at LV on Gallup and I pay very close attention to the 'bots.  If they were to drop and Gallup, IBD and possible ABC would drop or hold, I'd say McCain was closing.

I do think Obama's lead in PA may be eroding, though not collapsing. 

[Alcon]

Average of Rasmussen, Hotline, Gallup traditional, and IBD is McCain %+0.2825 today.  How are you viewing this, honestly?

Honestly, I look at LV on Gallup and I pay very close attention to the 'bots.  If they were to drop and Gallup, IBD and possible ABC would drop or hold, I'd say McCain was closing.

I do think Obama's lead in PA may be eroding, though not collapsing. 

Lunar is excluding Gallup-Expanded, and only including those you indicated, including a M+2 on Gallup-Traditional that may simply be rounding.  Seems a bit leap to "I'd say McCain was closing" from McCain +0.28% in one day -- especially since we have no reason to exclude Rasmussen.  Heck, if you excluded Gallup-Traditional, the average would be moving toward Obama.

If it weren't for Gallup-Traditional, would you say that Obama is expanding his lead?