Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race

[Box]

I dont put much faith into polls the AOL Straw Poll 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 and they usually have a way left slant on the cute little polls they post...


http://news.aol.com/political-machin...oll-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

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

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

Well then kick them in the ass and get them out. Oh I mean wheel them out to Vote. 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...show_article=1

[Richard]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

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/SB1224...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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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...lection-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.