Obama has led 111 straight national polls now

[SP33Demon]

Text

Obama has now led in 111 straight national polls with methodologies we trust (looking back through the Pollster.com national trend), including the trackers back to Sept. 22-24 when a Gallup Tracking poll showed the race tied at 46%-46%. Since a Big Ten poll that showed McCain up 46%-45%, Obama has led in 117 of 119 polls.

This is unreal, do you think Palin was the deciding factor? McCain had been really close or tied before she was announced. This election is pretty much over at this point.

 

[Moonbeam]

A mighty wave is coming and it's coming from both coasts.

 

[First]

The lone lead McCain had in September was just after their convention, so that was an obvious temporary bump. McCain's poll numbers were going down and he was starting to get behind again just when the Lehman/AIG bankruptcies occurred in mid September, so he was going down whether there was an economic crisis or not. But it very likely would not have been a blowout in Obama's favor, like we're going to see tomorrow.

 

[techs]

Liberal media bias.
McCain won a part of a poll.
And therefore he will cruise to victory.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here comes the sun, little darling......

 

[First]

In terms of Palin, yes, she has undoubtedly hurt the ticket. She solidified core conservatives and fringe radicals (Ingraham, Malikin), nothing more. She drove away many moderate Republicans, Independents, and the vast majority of Dems. Bad move on McCain's part, both because he destroyed his chances and may help to destroy the rest of the GOP if Palin really is their best shot in 2012. She will lose huge to Obama if she runs, absolutely huge.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with Evan, the financial meltdown has really killed the McCain chances and boosted Obama's. And even the formerly successful GOP swift boats seem to sink before they even leave home port while Palin has no coattails in the democratic camps. If it were not for bad luck McCain would have no luck at all about sums it up for me.

Coming into the GOP primaries, counted as all but dead, McCain seemed to catch all the lucky breaks in a financed by a shoestring early start.

 

[SP33Demon]

I read earlier that McCain was campaigning in Tennessee today. TN?! WTF? Last I checked that state is solid red. Doh.

 

[techs]

The only poll that counts is the one done by Diebold.

Read into that what you will.

 

[Butterbean]

The poll samples have been skewed all season. I have had to run my own statistical models for historical research and and I look at the data used in polls. There has very often been a lot more Dems sampled then Republicans. "Weighting" data to compensate is not as scientific as people might think. Technologically a lot has changed in 4 years. Socially more Reps are at work and dont do polls like the sit arounds who make up our new banana republic. While I dont doubt that BO enjoys a media cushion and so a strength in polls I can say I would not trust the polls that much. With ACORN creating so many fraudulent registrations (and people were busted on BO's campaign in Ohio dont forget) I am not sure how much I would trust the election results either. Most corrupt US election in history.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
The poll samples have been skewed all season. I have had to run my own statistical models for historical research and and I look at the data used in polls. There has very often been a lot more Dems sampled then Republicans. "Weighting" data to compensate is not as scientific as people might think. Technologically a lot has changed in 4 years. Socially more Reps are at work and dont do polls like the sit arounds who make up our new banana republic. While I dont doubt that BO enjoys a media cushion and so a strength in polls I can say I would not trust the polls that much. With ACORN creating so many fraudulent registrations (and people were busted on BO's campaign in Ohio dont forget) I am not sure how much I would trust the election results either. Most corrupt US election in history.

LOL! :laugh:

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is unreal, do you think Palin was the deciding factor? McCain had been really close or tied before she was announced. This election is pretty much over at this point.

No, I don't think Palin was the deciding factor. Palin was a small factor, but she has not seemed to have any impact (positive or negative) on McCain's place in the polls. Sure, Palin has an overall negative impression in the national voters but that hasn't yet shown up in the polls for president.

Start by looking here at the red graph. McCain was at ~44% from Dec 2007 to today. Sure, he had a few spikes up and down (for example, he was at 47% breifly in Jan 2008 and 41% in June 2008). But with most polls having a 3% margin of error, McCain really was right at about 44% the whole time. His one excursion out of the 44%+-3% range was a very short lived nomination bounce. Yes, that coincided with Palin's selection, but within days he was right back at the 44%+-3% range that he'd been at for almost a year.

Now, look at the blue graph on that page. Obama has had a nearly linear increase in polls for the last year. He was at 43% in Oct 2007, 45% in Jan 2008, 47% in May 2008, 48% in Sept 2008, 50% in Oct 2008, and now about 51% in Nov 2008.

While McCain was stagnant, Obama had a steady rise up. The whole election is about Obama, not about McCain. McCain's support is unwavering - but he isn't getting any new people either. Palin really had no impact on this. As people got to know Obama, they continually sided with Obama. There was a lot unknown about him, he is a fairly convincing speaker, and hasn't shown any sign of collapsing under the pressure. This was all that people needed to know to vote Obama. As long as Obama didn't screw up, he'd win. He hasn't.

Alternative graph, see the second one down. This graph is the states that candidates have had in the bag. McCain was at 175+-25 electoral college votes for the last 8 months. Basically flat. Yet Obama started at ~175 and nearly linearly rose to 300+. Again, McCain was already well-known he had his votes long ago. It was simply Obama convincing the independents and those who doubted him that he could be an adequate president.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is unreal, do you think Palin was the deciding factor? McCain had been really close or tied before she was announced. This election is pretty much over at this point.

No, I don't think Palin was the deciding factor. Palin was a small factor, but she has not seemed to have any impact (positive or negative) on McCain's place in the polls. Sure, Palin has an overall negative impression in the national voters but that hasn't yet shown up in the polls for president.

Start by looking here at the red graph. McCain was at ~44% from Dec 2007 to today. Sure, he had a few spikes up and down (for example, he was at 47% breifly in Jan 2008 and 41% in June 2008). But with most polls having a 3% margin of error, McCain really was right at about 44% the whole time. His one excursion out of the 44%+-3% range was a very short lived nomination bounce. Yes, that coincided with Palin's selection, but within days he was right back at the 44%+-3% range that he'd been at for almost a year.

Now, look at the blue graph on that page. Obama has had a nearly linear increase in polls for the last year. He was at 43% in Oct 2007, 45% in Jan 2008, 47% in May 2008, 48% in Sept 2008, 50% in Oct 2008, and now about 51% in Nov 2008.

While McCain was stagnant, Obama had a steady rise up. The whole election is about Obama, not about McCain. McCain's support is unwavering - but he isn't getting any new people either. Palin really had no impact on this. As people got to know Obama, they continually sided with Obama. There was a lot unknown about him, he is a fairly convincing speaker, and hasn't shown any sign of collapsing under the pressure. This was all that people needed to know to vote Obama. As long as Obama didn't screw up, he'd win. He hasn't.

Alternative graph, see the second one down. This graph is the states that candidates have had in the bag. McCain was at 175+-25 electoral college votes for the last 8 months. Basically flat. Yet Obama started at ~175 and nearly linearly rose to 300+. Again, McCain was already well-known he had his votes long ago. It was simply Obama convincing the independents and those who doubted him that he could be an adequate president.

Nice post.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is unreal, do you think Palin was the deciding factor? McCain had been really close or tied before she was announced. This election is pretty much over at this point.

No, I don't think Palin was the deciding factor. Palin was a small factor, but she has not seemed to have any impact (positive or negative) on McCain's place in the polls. Sure, Palin has an overall negative impression in the national voters but that hasn't yet shown up in the polls for president.

Start by looking here at the red graph. McCain was at ~44% from Dec 2007 to today. Sure, he had a few spikes up and down (for example, he was at 47% breifly in Jan 2008 and 41% in June 2008). But with most polls having a 3% margin of error, McCain really was right at about 44% the whole time. His one excursion out of the 44%+-3% range was a very short lived nomination bounce. Yes, that coincided with Palin's selection, but within days he was right back at the 44%+-3% range that he'd been at for almost a year.

Now, look at the blue graph on that page. Obama has had a nearly linear increase in polls for the last year. He was at 43% in Oct 2007, 45% in Jan 2008, 47% in May 2008, 48% in Sept 2008, 50% in Oct 2008, and now about 51% in Nov 2008.

While McCain was stagnant, Obama had a steady rise up. The whole election is about Obama, not about McCain. McCain's support is unwavering - but he isn't getting any new people either. Palin really had no impact on this. As people got to know Obama, they continually sided with Obama. There was a lot unknown about him, he is a fairly convincing speaker, and hasn't shown any sign of collapsing under the pressure. This was all that people needed to know to vote Obama. As long as Obama didn't screw up, he'd win. He hasn't.

Alternative graph, see the second one down. This graph is the states that candidates have had in the bag. McCain was at 175+-25 electoral college votes for the last 8 months. Basically flat. Yet Obama started at ~175 and nearly linearly rose to 300+. Again, McCain was already well-known he had his votes long ago. It was simply Obama convincing the independents and those who doubted him that he could be an adequate president.

Good post, maybe she didn't hurt the ticket as much as I thought. I have to believe she didn't help to consolidate independents or Reagan Dems.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is unreal, do you think Palin was the deciding factor? McCain had been really close or tied before she was announced. This election is pretty much over at this point.

No, I don't think Palin was the deciding factor. Palin was a small factor, but she has not seemed to have any impact (positive or negative) on McCain's place in the polls. Sure, Palin has an overall negative impression in the national voters but that hasn't yet shown up in the polls for president.

Start by looking here at the red graph. McCain was at ~44% from Dec 2007 to today. Sure, he had a few spikes up and down (for example, he was at 47% breifly in Jan 2008 and 41% in June 2008). But with most polls having a 3% margin of error, McCain really was right at about 44% the whole time. His one excursion out of the 44%+-3% range was a very short lived nomination bounce. Yes, that coincided with Palin's selection, but within days he was right back at the 44%+-3% range that he'd been at for almost a year.

Now, look at the blue graph on that page. Obama has had a nearly linear increase in polls for the last year. He was at 43% in Oct 2007, 45% in Jan 2008, 47% in May 2008, 48% in Sept 2008, 50% in Oct 2008, and now about 51% in Nov 2008.

While McCain was stagnant, Obama had a steady rise up. The whole election is about Obama, not about McCain. McCain's support is unwavering - but he isn't getting any new people either. Palin really had no impact on this. As people got to know Obama, they continually sided with Obama. There was a lot unknown about him, he is a fairly convincing speaker, and hasn't shown any sign of collapsing under the pressure. This was all that people needed to know to vote Obama. As long as Obama didn't screw up, he'd win. He hasn't.

Alternative graph, see the second one down. This graph is the states that candidates have had in the bag. McCain was at 175+-25 electoral college votes for the last 8 months. Basically flat. Yet Obama started at ~175 and nearly linearly rose to 300+. Again, McCain was already well-known he had his votes long ago. It was simply Obama convincing the independents and those who doubted him that he could be an adequate president.

Nice post.

It is, but I still think it probably underrates the impact of Palin. It is at least potentially true that McCain would have enjoyed a larger, longer-lasting bump after the RNC if he'd picked a credible running mate. IMO Palin is a significant liability to any thinking Republican, which is why so many of the standard-bearer conservative columnists like George Will and David Brooks have hammered her.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
It is, but I still think it probably underrates the impact of Palin. It is at least potentially true that McCain would have enjoyed a larger, longer-lasting bump after the RNC if he'd picked a credible running mate. IMO Palin is a significant liability to any thinking Republican, which is why so many of the standard-bearer conservative columnists like George Will and David Brooks have hammered her.

I will concede that McCain had an opportunity to gain votes with his vice-president pick. He went with Palin who was simply solidified the far-right votes that he already was going to receive. Thus, while Palin didn't gain or lose votes, he failed at his opportunity to go after the independents and Reagan Democrats (as Evan stated). Thus, I think Palin is best described as a lost opportunity rather than as someone who hurt the campaign.

Note: I don't think VP candidates really have a big impact though. So, while there was an opportunity, it wasn't a make or break one.

 

[jpeyton]

Silver on 538 made a note that almost all the polls in RCP's average have now converged to the +5-11 point range for Obama.

It's a result of pollsters taking their final set of data, looking at other pollster's data, and coming out with what they *FEEL* is the most accurate prediction.

Pollsters can often tip the scale slightly in one direction based on how they tweak their model. In the +5-11 point range puts nearly all the pollsters within each other's margin of error.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: dullard

I will concede that McCain had an opportunity to gain votes. He went with Palin who was simply to solidify the votes that he already was going to receive. Thus, while Palin didn't gain or lose votes, he had an opportunity to go after the independents and Reagan Democrats (as Evan stated). Thus, I think Palin is best described as a lost opportunity rather than as someone who hurt the campaign.

It may be a function of the nature of the people I work and hang out with (who tend to be very well-educated and probably more affluent than most), but I definitely DO see Palin as a negative influence on the ticket. I myself am a person who might, under different circumstances, have supported McCain as President, and on balance I think he'd probably be good in the job. Palin, though, is just frighteningly ignorant and overconfident, a combination that has done enough harm to the Republican party and this country over the past eight years. There is no way I could vote for a 72-year-old man for President with her waiting in the wings, unless the opponent were someone truly awful, which I feel strongly is not the case.