Pew Research: Obama+14 (LV & RV)

[Tender Branson]

Likely Voters:

Obama - 52
McCain - 38

Registered Voters:

Obama - 53
McCain - 39

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates and Abt SRBI, Inc. among a nationwide sample of 3,016 adults, 18 years of age or older, from October 16-19, 2008 (2,264 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 752 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 267 who had no landline telephone). Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International.

http://people-press.org/report/462/obamas-lead-widens

[Eraserhead]

damn

probably an outlier

[Tender Branson]

damn

probably an outlier

Hint: They are using the same pollster like the MN Star Tribune ...

[TheGlobalizer]

Borderline retarded results.

[J. J.]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

[Wiz in Wis]

First off, this study has an N of 2600. Second, Pew has a pretty good reputation. Third, they include cell phone only contacts.

So much for the narrative of the closing race... between Pew and Gallup, we're at all time Obama highs.

[Wiz in Wis]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

What?! Where did you pull that statement from?

[Alcon]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

No.  They are just reporting the overall sample British-style, since they have LV and RV subsets.  The poll article says as much.

[Wiz in Wis]

Pew absolutely nailed 2004. After allocating undecideds on Oct 30, they predicted Bush 51, Kerry 48.

[J. J.]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

No.  They are just reporting the overall sample British-style, since they have LV and RV subsets.  The poll article says as much.

Ok, I misread this "among a nationwide sample of 3,016 adults, 18 years of age or older, from October 16-19, 2008."

[Alcon]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

No.  They are just reporting the overall sample British-style, since they have LV and RV subsets.  The poll article says as much.

Ok, I misread this "among a nationwide sample of 3,016 adults, 18 years of age or older, from October 16-19, 2008."

You didn't mis-read it.  You misunderstood it.  Like I said, they're doing it British-style -- reporting initial contacts (18-year-old with most recent birthday [probably]), then giving RV breakdown, then giving LV breakdown.

But they couldn't be reporting registered and likely voters in a poll of only adults.  That wouldn't make any sense.

[J. J.]

Ah, this is of adults, not registered voters.

No.  They are just reporting the overall sample British-style, since they have LV and RV subsets.  The poll article says as much.

Ok, I misread this "among a nationwide sample of 3,016 adults, 18 years of age or older, from October 16-19, 2008."

You didn't mis-read it.  You misunderstood it.  Like I said, they're doing it British-style -- reporting initial contacts (18-year-old with most recent birthday [probably]), then giving RV breakdown, then giving LV breakdown.

But they couldn't be reporting registered and likely voters in a poll of only adults.  That wouldn't make any sense.

The didn't when I looked at the polling, but it looked like like it was of adults, and they used a subsample.  Since the voting age is 18 years and if referred to "adults" it looked like a poll of adults, including registered voters, but not limited to them.

[Alcon]

A poll of adults does not report RVs and LVs.  It reports one general topline.  What did you think was all-adults, here?

[Rococo4]

Borderline retarded results.

obama is ahead.  not by 14

[Lief 🗽]

Um. Isn't Pew supposed to be pretty above average with this stuff? I certainly wouldn't put it in the CNN National or the CBS National pile, despite the large margin. Just another data point, and some more evidence that this race is not tightening.

[Likely Voter]

you all should read the whole thing. there are lots of interesting tidbits deep down. One of the more interesting things is the swing against Palin (page 3). Palin was a huge boost after the GOP convention and now she appears to be a drag, and is the only one of the four with a net negative approval rating. I wonder what that does to her future in the party...will she be blamed for taking down McCain?

[Eraserhead]

you all should read the whole thing. there are lots of interesting tidbits deep down. One of the more interesting things is the swing against Palin (page 3). Palin was a huge boost after the GOP convention and now she appears to be a drag, and is the only one of the four with a net negative approval rating. I wonder what that does to her future in the party...will she be blamed for taking down McCain?

I hope not. We'd love to run against her in 2012!

[J. J.]

you all should read the whole thing. there are lots of interesting tidbits deep down. One of the more interesting things is the swing against Palin (page 3). Palin was a huge boost after the GOP convention and now she appears to be a drag, and is the only one of the four with a net negative approval rating. I wonder what that does to her future in the party...will she be blamed for taking down McCain?

I hope not. We'd love to run against her in 2012!

I heard that in 1976 too, about Reagan.

[© tweed]

Pew is a decent pollster, but has a built in Dem tilt of a few points, per Vorlon 2004 iirc.

[Ronnie]

Hm, shouldn't Obama be up in Texas according to this poll?

[Wall St. Wiz]

This is just brutal, it's giving me flashbacks to 92 and 96 (the only Dem blowouts in my adult life).  We are going to get crushed in 2 weeks. 

[Wiz in Wis]

Pew is a decent pollster, but has a built in Dem tilt of a few points, per Vorlon 2004 iirc.

going back to the 2004 data on their site, that doesnt appear to be the case.

[Eraserhead]

you all should read the whole thing. there are lots of interesting tidbits deep down. One of the more interesting things is the swing against Palin (page 3). Palin was a huge boost after the GOP convention and now she appears to be a drag, and is the only one of the four with a net negative approval rating. I wonder what that does to her future in the party...will she be blamed for taking down McCain?

I hope not. We'd love to run against her in 2012!

I heard that in 1976 too, about Reagan.

k

[CARLHAYDEN]

Princeton Associates is one of the most inaccurate polling organizations.  They have been fired for this absurd polls.