Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race

[The Reaper]

All may not be as it seems.

TR

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race
Differences in Predicting Outcome Result From How Pollsters Gauge Voter Turnout and Weight Party Affiliation
By NICK TIMIRAOS

A spate of widely publicized newspaper and network polls over the past week have shown Barack Obama opening a big lead over John McCain. But other surveys tell a somewhat different story, suggesting the presidential race is still close, and the Republican has even gained ground in recent days.

The reason for the divergence: Pollsters are facing new challenges this year, trying to gauge whether the electorate is changing, and how much.

Surveys giving Sen. Obama a large and growing lead tend to assume that a growing proportion of voters are Democrats, and a shrinking percentage Republicans. They also point to a big increase in turnout, particularly among voters under the age of 30. Surveys showing a closer race assume less change in party affiliation in particular.

To be sure, Sen. Obama leads in every national poll, and the Electoral College map appears to favor the Illinois senator, who campaigns this weekend in Republican-leaning states that all voted for President George W. Bush.

Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan Web site that tracks major polls, reported Thursday that Sen. Obama led Sen. McCain by 49.5% to 42.7%, based on an average of 13 national surveys taken in the past week.

The polls feeding into that conclusion show a wide range, from a CBS/New York Times poll giving Sen. Obama a 14-point lead, to a Gallup poll showing the Illinois senator with just a two-point edge, equal to the margin of error.

A Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll this week shows the Illinois senator leading by nine points, while a Pew Research Center survey gives him a seven-point lead. But an Investor's Business Daily-TIPP poll shows Sen. Obama with a nearly four-point advantage. Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and Zogby International show Sen. Obama leading by four and five points, respectively.

One Gallup poll shows the Democratic nominee's lead has shrunk since last week, falling to six points from 10. "Clearly, the race has tightened," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Daily.

The polls owe their wide variations, in part, to differences in how they determine likely voters. Gallup actually conducts two separate daily polls, one that includes all surveyed adults who say they will vote, and a second that is more restricted, using a decades-old methodology that determines "likely voters" in part by examining historical models on the types of voters who have showed up at the polls.

In the first Gallup sample, Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by six points. The second group yields the two-point gap. Both polls were conducted from Oct. 13-15.

Differences over how to accurately gauge party affiliation also help account for the discrepancies. Some pollsters argue polls should be statistically "weighted" so that their results achieve a partisan composition that reflects long-term national averages -- particularly if a poll shows that one party gets an unusually large share among the respondents, compared with past elections.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen, for example, weights current polls so that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 39.3% to 33% margin, while pollster John Zogby adjusts polls so that Democrats account for around 38% of the electorate and Republicans, 36%. So even if a particular sample of calls shows different ratios, the pollsters adjust to fit that formula.

"What troubles me is when I see some of my colleagues have 27% of the respondents that are Republicans. That's just not America, period," says Mr. Zogby, whose polls have shown Sen. Obama with a lead ranging from two to six points this month. He argues that while party affiliation fluctuates over time, it doesn't change "day-to-day, and it never fluctuates by eight points in a short time period."

Some surveys suggest McCain has gained ground in recent days.
Other pollsters argue that polls should use whatever partisan mix results from a particular survey rather than arbitrarily establishing party affiliation weights. "How do you know that's right? I mean, they're making up numbers," says Susan Pinkus, who conducts the Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, which isn't weighted. In this week's poll, the respondents were 34% Democratic and 26% Republican.

Both campaigns are running large vote turnout operations, and the Obama campaign is counting on unprecedented turnout from young voters, which further complicates efforts to determine likely voters. "It's more art than science in many cases. They're very difficult decisions to make," says Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

Predicting turnout among young voters remains particularly challenging because many of those voters don't use landline phones that pollsters traditionally rely on to achieve a balanced sample. Pollsters have also struggled with accurately predicting minority turnout and how race could influence the current election.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

[Scimitar]

So historically, how accurate are the polls in predicting the next president?

From this artical it seems that these guys are just guessing?

Historically, how many candidates have won with an 8 point lead at this point in the race?

Scimitar

[Pete]

....Historically, how many candidates have won with an 8 point lead at this point in the race?

Scimitar

Those who vote - or stay home - based on polls or talking heads deserve the govenment they get.

The talking heads are going to try and call a bunch of the eastern states early for Obama, making it look like he won. This will depress the turnout in the badly needed, for McCain, western states.

IIRC at this time in past races the polls have Ds out front.

VOTE!

[Patriot007]

Here's an interesting article by Ann Coulter with some quoted numbers that suggest Democrats have historically been given an advantage in the polls. Looks like an average of about 6 points.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29050

Don't lose faith, every vote is worth it.

[LongTabSigO]

Don't lose faith, every vote is worth it.

X2 :lifter

Vote.
Make your case to all in view.
Pray.

America will weather the storm, however it goes.

[Sigaba]

Sir--

Thank you for this post.

A question that comes from this thread is: what realistic steps might be taken to limit the influence of polls on elections?

All may not be as it seems.

TR

[rubberneck]

Hopefully we are looking at our generations Dewey vs Truman.

[afchic]

I am not too concerned about polls themselves and what they say, I am concerned about what the Electoral College Map looks like at present. The last one I saw (from rasmussen) had Obama at 270 something and McCain at 163.

[greenberetTFS]

Hopefully we are looking at our generations Dewey vs Truman.

It's a good point rubberneck is making.... They thought it was all over and Dewey had it in the bag.....The Chicago Tribune even claimed Dewey the winner! However,that following morning they found out that Truman had won....I remember it quite well.... Hopefully,that's what will happen here. :D

GB TFS :munchin

[HQ6]

I am not too concerned about polls themselves and what they say, I am concerned about what the Electoral College Map looks like at present. The last one I saw (from rasmussen) had Obama at 270 something and McCain at 163.

Not that it really matters, but it was 260 to 163 :)

I don't put stock in the electoral college polls anymore than I do the popular vote polls. They are basing these findings on the same data collected to determine the popular vote... which really is only as accurate as the population base from which you are gather data and methodology for collection. When, how, and from whom they are getting their information is all factors in these polls.

[Richard]

Watch this one; I don't think the election is as "in the bag" as the MSM and the DNC wants us to believe.

http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html

In the MSM today, nobody wants to get into the topic of why a black American might not want to vote for BHO.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[The Reaper]

Okay, this is an informal observation of mine. Consider that the MSM and pollsters are calling NC a battleground state, and that it is leaning Obama by several points.

I was at the NC State Fair yesterday. The Dems and Repubs both had booths set up and were handing out stickers for their candidates. Again, bear in mind that this is informal, based strictly on attendees I saw at the NC State Fair on 20 Oct 08.

I counted throughout the day, and there were nine McCain stickers being worn for every Obama sticker I saw. Maybe the Obama supporters were all in Fayetteville hearing him speak, but there were many, many more stickers with "McCain-Palin", "Women for McCain", and "Democrats for McCain", as well as stickers that appeared to have been cut down to merely the word "McCain".

We went to the respective booths, there was relatively little interest at the Dem booth, but it took us several minutes to get through the crowd around the Repub table. When we asked the volunteers for McCain stickers, we were told that they were completely out, and had been since early in the day. Apparently, the cut down stickers were people who wanted McCain stickers, but the only ones left were "Democrats for McCain", and the people refused to wear them, so they cut off the top of the stickers and wore the McCain portion.

I do not know if this is representative, but given the MSM's liberal leanings, and the trend of weighting the polls toward a Dem bias, could it be that this election is not quite as big a runaway as anticipated, and the media is spinning it, hoping to suppress the Repub turnout?

I am not sure what is going on, but yesterday, I sure thought I was in a pretty Red state.

Confused in NC.

TR

[CoLawman]

I am going to jump on TR's bandwagon from Colorado. We are going to the Palin rally today, which is at the Budweiser Event Center. Tickets are no longer available.

Joe Biden arrives in Greeley tomorrow and will be at UNC, tickets available and it is a much smaller venue.

Colorado too, is a battleground state with the polls leaning Obama. We will see. If I get some good pics I will post them.

[Soft Target]

The observation about skewed respondents and not weighting is an important one. Many years ago, I took a "Research Methods" grad school course. I learned that "I can make any poll say anything you want if you're paying for it." Example the disproportionate number of the selected group versus others. I saw one over the weekend that said 400+ Dems contacted and about 120 Repubs and 40-some Independents were contacted. I wonder how that turned out.

Example: CNN poll that asked "Who do you blame for the financial crisis?". The choices were: A. the administration; B. banks; C. unqualified borrowers and D. Congress. (No all-of-the-above choice).

[JustinW20]

Something else to keep in mind is that polls showed Kerry ahead of Bush in the months leading up to the 2004 election. As a recovering poli-sci major, I have an innate distrust of polls...

[Box]

I dont put much faith into polls the AOL Straw Poll (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/17/aol-straw-poll-oct-17-24/)is putting McCain at 487 electoral votes to 51 with 56 percent of the popular vote...

According to the TV polls Obama has already reinvented the wheel.

[The Reaper]

Bad link, Billy.

TR

[Box]

Its an AOL Poll (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/17/aol-straw-poll-oct-17-24/) and they usually have a way left slant on the cute little polls they post...


http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/17/aol-straw-poll-oct-17-24/

[Scimitar]

In answer to my own question "Where were the polls at; this far out in the 2004 election".

On average the pollsters had the Dems ahead by 44 votes over Bush. Bush went on to win by 16. That's a 60 vote difference or (11%) apparently that's been pretty normal over the past few elections.

I don't care who you are that's a very large change.

Great website for the Stats. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

S

[Scimitar]

Thanks Broad Sword,

This being my first election, I'm just trying to rap me head around how it all works. Interesting stuff.

S

[Richard]

I pay little attention to polls because they only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think.

I think polls are especially ineffective in this election because we have both an election and a shadow election in progress. The latter, in which unconscious motivations come into play and buried prejudices surface in the privacy of one's voting space, is the one that will ultimately count -- and that can't be quantified in advance through all these polls.

With all that's going on right now locally, nationally, and internationally, this election may prove to be history's highest stakes game of Liar's Dice.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[greenberetTFS]

I pay little attention to polls because they only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think.

I think polls are especially ineffective in this election because we have both an election and a shadow election in progress. The latter, in which unconscious motivations come into play and buried prejudices surface in the privacy of one's voting space, is the one that will ultimately count -- and that can't be quantified in advance through all these polls.

With all that's going on right now locally, nationally, and internationally, this election may prove to be history's highest stakes game of Liar's Dice.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,

What's really scary about polls is that they can influence people that if a candidate is so far behind why should they bother to vote.... I'm getting some of that from my friends. They sound defeated......:(

GB TFS :munchin

[SF_BHT]

Richard,

What's really scary about polls is that they can influence people that if a candidate is so far behind why should they bother to vote.... I'm getting some of that from my friends. They sound defeated......:(

GB TFS :munchin

Well then kick them in the ass and get them out. Oh I mean wheel them out to Vote.:D If you kick them you may hurt your foot on the chair.;)

[The Reaper]

Do not be discouraged. It is your civic responsibility to vote.

TR

AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93VM4PO0&show_article=1

[Richard]

What's really scary about polls is that they can influence people that if a candidate is so far behind why should they bother to vote...

But 'on the other hand' (Tevya, "Fiddler on the Roof")...if someone thinks their candidate is so far ahead they can't lose so they don't make the effort to vote, maybe your candidate will have a chance. I think it has a tendency to work both ways here. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Sigaba]

I am wondering how much effect the Bradley Effect will have in this election; on the one hand, I've heard voters are not prejudiced like that anymore, because these are modern times, however other people say race is very much alive and well and that it is just surpressed these days.

From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446015501248689.html#printMode


Tom Bradley Didn't Lose Because of Race
Voters rejected his liberal policies.
By SAL RUSSO

If John McCain manages to overtake Barack Obama, the media will have a ready answer for the result: racism. Over the past generation, every time a black liberal candidate runs for public office, pundits are quick to assert that the so-called Bradley Effect will rear its ugly head and deny justice in America for another African-American.

The Bradley Effect refers to the proposition that white voters lie to pollsters when they claim to support a black candidate, because of prejudice. Every time Barack Obama lost a primary to Hillary Clinton, someone offered race as an explanation.

It's a comforting narrative for liberals. But it defies the reality of the campaign that gave birth to it. In 1982, California's Republican Attorney General George Deukmejian was trailing badly in the campaign for governor against African-American Democrat Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles. But he won the election by 93,345 votes out of nearly eight million cast.

Public pollsters and others were stunned; they'd already proclaimed Bradley the victor and turned their attention to the U.S. Senate race between Republican San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. Pollsters also predicted a Jerry Brown victory. Mr. Wilson won handily.

The explanation for both Republican wins was simple. Voters rejected two liberal candidates. While political insiders and the Bradley people were shocked at the election results, the Deukmejian campaign was confident of victory -- thanks to the information it was getting from private pollster Gary Lawrence.

With less than a month to go, Mr. Bradley did enjoy a double-digit lead. Then the Deukmejian campaign focused on the increasing crime rate in Los Angeles under Mayor Bradley's watch. A major effort was made to turn out disaffected Democrats in the rural interior of the state. People there were incensed at a confiscatory handgun initiative on the ballot supported by Bradley liberals but vigorously opposed by Mr. Deukmejian.

New campaign commercials shifted attention to the solid and steady hand of the then Attorney General Deukmejian, a welcome change from the quixotic and chaotic reign of Gov. Brown. The campaign also stoked concern that, as mayor of a big city, a Gov. Bradley might make Los Angeles, not California, a priority.

Private, daily tracking polls showed that, with a retooled campaign, Mr. Deukmejian methodically closed the gap. On the Sunday night before the day of the election -- usually the last day of tracking polls the campaign will pay for -- Mr. Deukmejian had closed to less than two percentage points. The campaign polled Monday night, too. It showed Mr. Deukmejian less than 1% behind. Private pollster Lawrence Research predicted to the campaign a razor-thin victory -- exactly what happened.

The public polls stopped polling too soon, missing the Deukmejian surge. Most important, they ignored the absentee ballot. Mr. Deukmejian's polling asked if people had voted absentee; other polls, including the exit polls, did not.

Tom Bradley enjoyed the same type of love affair from the media that Barack Obama does today. Both candidates have appeared larger than life and hardly fallible. Indeed, both have compelling stories and project as decent, well-intentioned public servants. That is part of their appeal. But when the lights of the campaign shined brightly on the candidates, their flaws became more apparent.

In short, Mr. Bradley was defeated because he was too liberal, not too black. Mr. Obama was struggling in the polls until the economic news distracted voters from becoming more aware of how liberal he really is. If John McCain wins, the Bradley Effect will be trotted out to explain it. Nevertheless, it will be Mr. Obama's political views, not his skin color, that voters reject.

Mr. Russo is president of Russo Marsh + Associates, a consulting firm that worked for the 1982 Deukmejian campaign. He then served as the deputy chief of staff to Gov. Deukmejian.

I think we've come a long way in race relations here in the U.S. But I think that working through the remaining issues is going to take as much effort as anything we've done as a nation in the last forty years. When we turn that corner, Americans will, once again, show the rest of the world why we are the city on the hill.

In my opinion, Senator Obama is not making a positive contribution.

[emoore]

I pay little attention to polls because they only reflect what people say they think, not what they really think.

Richard -- I think you nailed it. Unfortunately a lot of people listen to the media which are mostly left saying the game is up and they may not go out to vote. That's the only thing that scares me.

[Pete]

Did another 60 mile tour of Sampson County, NC this morning.

McCain/Palin signs outnumbered Obama/Biden signs by at least 10 to 1, if not more.

[Team Sergeant]

It's over,the obama camp has already won and laid out two million on the victory party.......

Obama Camp Plans Major Celebration in Chicago on Election Night
With 12 days to go until Election Day, Barack Obama's got big plans for a Chicago Election Night celebration.
FOXNews.com

Thursday, October 23, 2008


Barack Obama took a lot of ribbing for setting up Greek columns on the larger-than-life set of his nomination acceptance speech in Denver two months ago.

But at least he knew for certain then that when the ballgame was over -- he was going to be the Democratic candidate for president.

Now, with the Nov. 4 general election still 12 days away, the front-running Illinois senator is planning an Election Night celebration that could put his Invesco Field party to shame.

A huge stage is being constructed in Chicago's Grant Park, where Obama hopes to declare victory before a cheering throng that could dwarf the one at the Democratic convention. Back then, "only" 80,000 fans were in attendance that night. This time, it could be hundreds of thousands in the park and its surroundings -- closer to Berlin in July than Denver in August.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports the price tag of the fanfare has been pegged at $2 million, to be picked up by the Obama campaign. Mayor Richard Daley reportedly suggested Obama use a cheaper venue, but was turned down.

Obama is well on his way to winning the election, according to most polls and electoral vote projections. The campaign may be preparing to set the champagne on ice. But it may want to heed the usual reminder: As Yogi Berra famously said, it ain't over till it's over.

An Obama victory -- he would become the first African-American president -- would logically be cause for an historic celebration. So far, the campaign's staying mum on the expected crowd count.

Asked how many people the campaign was anticipating in Grant Park, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor quipped, "At least 10."

"We have a lot of supporters who have given their time and effort to the campaign, and we want them to share in the election night with us," Vietor told FOXNews.com.

The excitement is palpable at Obama's rallies, a tone the candidate has reflected. "I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here," Obama told supporters in Leesburg, Va., Wednesday evening.

But John McCain -- and Obama himself -- are warning the Democrat's supporters not to get ahead of themselves.

McCain says he savors being the underdog so close to Election Day, and for weeks he has accused Obama of "measuring the drapes" and counting him out.

"My opponent's looking pretty confident ... these days," McCain said Wednesday in Goffstown, N.H. "He'll be addressing the nation soon. He's got another of those big stadium spectacles in the works. But acting like the election is over, it won't let him take away your chance to have the final say in this election."

Obama is making an effort to catch himself and couch his language when he talks about post-Election Day plans. He is warning supporters not to get lazy and "screw it up," as he says Democratic campaigns have been known to do.

"We're going to have to work, we're going to have to struggle, we're going to have to fight for every single one of those 12 days," Obama told the crowd at an Indianapolis rally Thursday. "It's not going to be easy, but I'm hopeful about the outcome ... but we cannot let up."

Vietor brushed aside McCain's criticism that Obama is being too presumptuous.

"That's ridiculous. We're working hard every day to talk to voters, to get out the vote and knocking on doors. This is a campaign that went through one of the longest primaries in history, and rest assured we take nothing for granted," he said.

He said the Grant Park event will be free and open to the public.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/obama-camp-plans-major-celebration-election-night/

[rubberneck]

This is a really good breakdown of why the polls are all over the place and why they are of very little use in actually trying to figure out the current state of the race. Somehow it doesn't matter to those who point to the poll numbers to declare victory for Obama.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081023/D940ERMG0.html



Oct 23, 5:30 PM (ET)

By ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama is galloping away with the presidential race. Or maybe he has a modest lead. Or maybe he and John McCain are neck and neck.

Confusing? Sure, thanks to the dueling results of recent major polls.

In the past week, most surveys have shown Democrat Obama with a significant national lead over Republican McCain. Focusing on "likely voters" - as many polling organizations prefer this close to Election Day - an ABC News-Washington Post survey showed Obama leading by 11 percentage points. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll had the same margin, while the nonpartisan Pew Research Center gave Obama a 14-point edge.

But others had the race much closer. CNN-Opinion Research detected an Obama lead of 5 points. The George Washington University Battleground Poll had Obama up by 4 points. And an Associated Press-GfK poll showed Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent - in effect, a tie.

How can this be? Some questions and answers about why the polls differ.

Q: Don't pollsters simply ask questions, tally the answers and report them?

A: No. After finishing their interviews - usually with about 1,000 people, sometimes more - they adjust the answers to make sure they reflect Census Bureau data on the population like gender, age, education and race. For example, if the proportion of women interviewed is smaller than their actual share of the country's population, their answers are given more "weight" to balance that out. But some pollsters make these adjustments differently than others. And while most polling organizations including the AP do not modify the responses to reflect some recent tally of how many Democrats, Republicans and independents there are, some do.

Q: Are those the only changes made?

A: No. As Election Day nears, polling organizations like to narrow their samples to people who say they are registered voters. They often narrow them further to those they consider likely voters. That's because in a country where barely more than half of eligible voters usually show up for presidential elections, pollsters want their polls to reflect the views of those likeliest to vote.

Q: Is that hard to do?

A: Quite hard, since no one will truly know who will vote on Election Day until that day is over. In fact, virtually every polling organization has its own way of determining who likely voters are.

Like many polling organizations, the AP asks several questions about how often people have voted in the past and how likely they are to vote this year, and those who score highest are considered likely voters.

Q: Why is this such a problem?

A: Because nobody is 100 percent sure how to do this properly. And the challenge is being compounded this year because many think Obama's candidacy could spark higher turnout than usual from certain voters, including young voters and minorities. The question pollsters face is whether, and how, to adjust their tests for likely voters to reflect this.

In identifying likely voters, the AP does not build in an assumption of higher turnout by blacks or young voters. Pew Director Andrew Kohut says that reflecting exceptionally heavy African-American turnout in the Democratic primaries, Pew's model of likely voters now shows blacks as 12 percent of voters, compared to 9 percent in 2004.

Underscoring the uncertainty, the Gallup Poll is using two versions of likely voters this year - a traditional one that asks about peoples' past voting behavior and their current voting intentions; and an expanded one that only looks at how intent they are on voting this year, which would tend to include more new voters.

Q: What else might cause differences?

A: The groups pollsters randomly choose to interview are bound to differ from each other, and sometimes do significantly.

Every poll has a margin of sampling error, usually around 3 percentage points for 1,000 people. That means the results of a poll of 1,000 people should fall within 3 points of the results you would expect had the pollster instead interviewed the entire population of the U.S. But - and this is important - the results are expected to be that accurate only 95 percent of the time. That means that one time in 20, pollsters expect to interview a group whose views are not that close to the overall population's views.

Q: Are the differences among polls this year that unusual?

A: Not wildly, but that doesn't make them less noticeable. There's a big difference between a race that's tied in the AP poll, and Pew's 14-point Obama lead. But because of each poll's margin of error, those differences may be a bit less - or more - than meet the eye.

That's because each poll's margin of sampling error should really be applied to the support for each candidate, not the gap between them.

Take the AP poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Obama's 44 percent support is likely between 48 percent and 40 percent. McCain's 43 percent is probably between 47 percent and 39 percent.

When support for candidates is measured in ranges like that, some polls' findings could overlap - or grow worse.

Q: Are people always willing to tell pollsters who they're supporting for president?

A: No, and that's another possible source of discrepancies. Some polling organizations gently prod people who initially say they're undecided for a presidential preference, others do it more vigorously. The AP's poll, for example, found 9 percent of likely voters were undecided, while the ABC-Post survey had 2 percent.

---

AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

[bluenote]

Not one of the polling firms have called my house this election. Usually around election time my phone rings off the hook with surveys. Also during other election years I've seen political signs and bumper stickers supporting both parties' candidates. This time there are a few Obama signs and stickers but not like in past years for Gore, Kerry, even Nader. I'm in Myrtle Beach so even though the candidates are sure SC will go red (I hate that color for Republicans) and haven't spent much money here, I still haven't seen many tourists from out of state supporting Obama either. I have talked to only two people who would vote for Obama and one is not registered. So when these polling firms call people who are they talking to? During a recent trip to Florida (Camp Blanding area) I didn't notice much BHO support there, even though it is supposed to be a close race in that state. What about in you guys states? Are the number of stickers and signs indicating strong support one way or another? Have any of you been called for a poll? BN

[Storm]

Bluenote, I'm in Northwest Jersey, and I've seen three Obama signs across the entirety of this part of the state. However, in Jersey, three counties carry the state. I read the other day that approximately 85-90% of folks in those three counties vote Democrat, and by proxy Obama.

The amazing thing is that even if you've never been to New Jersey, I'm sure you could pick out those three counties on a map. They're all relatively close to that other big city that carries yet another state.... :boohoo

[The Reaper]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/undecideds_should_break_for_mc.html

October 29, 2008
Undecideds Should Break for McCain
By Dick Morris

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?

Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.

But for whom?

At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush's performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for "four more years of the same failed policies," he made the most of Bush's dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.

But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.

As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.

But don't write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats. None of the polling organizations has any experience with -- or model for -- so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama. The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.

But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.

Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama's Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama's ideology. The unprecedented power the bailout has given government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized. How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama's professed pursuit of "social and political justice" through "redistribution of the wealth," is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.

The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

[Sigaba]

One of the many problems I have with Senator Obama is that he appropriates the language and concepts of incompatible positions.

He's no European social democrat who wants to use the state as the mechanism for redistributing wealth for the greater public good (if such an exchange can actually advance the public good). Rather, he's an opportunist who wants to use the American state to solidify his power base and to use entitlement programs to bribe his supporters and make them dependent on the state.

Nor is he a pragmatist who will do 'what works' to get America 'back on track.' Instead, he's a gas bag of empty platitudes, vapid shibboleths, and inane political analysis that are largely devoid of a moral center.

But I'm not bitter.



The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

[KClapp]

Rather, he's an opportunist who wants to use the American state to solidify his power base and to use entitlement programs to bribe his supporters and make them dependent on the state.

I believed that of Clinton. But I believe Obama actually embraces the Marxist ideology he espouses.

My problem is that I've grown to hate Marxism and I've been trained to shoot it's supporters in the face. If my fellow countrymen decide to embrace Marxism, what am I to do? :(

[Goggles Pizano]

Yet another informal tidbit of investigation from Joey B's backyard...

The majority of persons I've debated/discussed regarding the election are breaking in two distinct directions:

1) Persons stating their intent to vote Obama regurgitate the same argument that Dems have been flooding the airways with: McCain is more of George Bush, and we need change-no further explanations, no thought given to the future; Republicans have ruined the country because they have been in charge for 8 years (yes I remind them the Dems have controlled congress the last 2 years and my point is ignored); and emphatic fears that McCain will die in office and Palin will be sworn in as POTUS. Also I have yet to find one, that's ONE minority that is voting issues-they simply want to vote for Obama. Period. No explanation or debate.

2) Persons stating their intent to vote McCain maintain that Obama is a socialist and will dramatically increase government growth. They also feel Obama will surely increase taxes across the board, he [Obama] does not have the interest of the country at heart, and abhors the military.

Very few are on the fence here. Not surprising considering this is a very liberal State however I think it is places such as this area where pollsters concentrate their surveys hence the wacky poll numbers. Given that the MSM is in the tank for Obama I am not surprised by the polls so I ignore them, and instead do my best to get the conservative base in my immediate control motivated. Interestingly I have seen more McCaim Palin yard signs popping up in the last two weeks. Perhaps there is hope for a Dewey v. Truman moment.

[Richard]

:D

Richard's $.02

[greenberetTFS]

:D

Richard's $.02

Richard,as always your right on target.....:D

GB TFS :munchin