Archive for the ‘polls’ Category

Color me not surprised.

October 21, 2008

Politico notices that polls tend to favor democrats at the cost of accurate polls.

Really? Here’s a news flash guys. This isn’t new news.

AoSHQ notes:

It’s not like Conservatives and PUMA’s have been making this claim since Super Tuesday. Oh wait. Yeah, we have.

Politico has finally figured out that in polling, there is this thing called “selection bias”. There is also the related variable called “get the hell out of my face and leave me alone you nosy bastards.” And exit pollsters, God love ’em, just don’t seem to be able to figure out how to quantify this.

Advertisements

A look back at polls

October 18, 2008

Ann Coulter looks at polls in past presidential races.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points — down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, — the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan’s actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points — 45 percent to 43 percent.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush’s voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.

Keep this in mind as the election grows near.

The PUMA map

October 13, 2008

The PUMAs over at HillBuzz are making some interesting claims.

The polls, in our opinon, are wrong, and the internal numbers we see coming out of NC, VA, PA, OH, IN and FL show McCain wins in all of those states (there is no mathematical possibility for Obama to win without taking PA, OH, or FL).

So, I surfed over to Real Clear Politics’ Electoral College map and made some adjustments based on the PUMA’s “internal numbers.” Right now, they have Obama 277, McCain 158 (counting only “solid” states, it’s 211/143).
Here is what that map looks like if the PUMAs are on to something.

That is one heck of a game changer, and puts things a Hell of a lot closer.
Polls have been all over the place this year, so place all the credit on this “what if” exercise you want.

Meanwhile…in New York

September 15, 2008

Barak Hussein Obama’s once comfortable 18 point lead in the state of New York has dropped 18 points to a much narrower 5 point lead.

Hot Air points out that Senator McCain is leading in some key voter issues:

McCain has made significant gains in New York largely on national security and personal attributes. He wins on terrorism, 54-33, and edges Obama in ensuring American strength, 47-41. McCain obliterates him on personal qualities, especially patriotism (59-21), experience (73-18), and perhaps most unsettling for Team O, integrity (43-38).

The Electoral College map

September 15, 2008

Several sites that track individual state polls and post Electoral College maps based on them show an interesting sight.

First let us look at this one from Real Clear Politics.

Wow! McCain is head not only in solid states (172 to 157), but “leaning” states (55 to 50) as well, with a higher vote count in both columns. What is even more interesting, but hardly surprising, is that the DNC/MSM isn’t running this story.

It gets better. Let’s look at what RCP lists as the state by state changes in the last three months.

Minnesota has gone from “leaning Obama” to “toss up.”
Indiana and Florida have gone from “toss up” to “leaning McCain.”
North Carolina and Georgia have gone from “leaning McCain” to “Solid McCain.”

The map at electoral-vote.com shows the same trend, but with smaller margins.

This is a trend that is probably contributing to the continued sedation of Michelle Obama.

HT to Say Anything

Meanwhile in the polls…

September 12, 2008

The daily Gallup Poll for 9/11/2008 shows McCain 48% & Obama 44%.
The money quote, “McCain has held significant lead for last four days.”

This is a poll of registered voters. I’ll go out on a limb and say a poll of likely voters will show McCain being even farther ahead.

Gerard Baker may have the answer to the widening gap in the polls.

Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr Obama.

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate’s speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama has built his campaign on the promise of reform, the need to change the culture of American political life, to take on the special interests that undermine government’s effectiveness and erode trust in the system itself,

Politician Obama rose through a Chicago machine that is notoriously the most corrupt in the country.

Ed Morrissey continues:

His post-partisanship doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, either. As Baker notes, Obama has no track record of standing up to his party in Congress, either. His only real record of reform comes from a bill creating a searchable budget website, co-authored with Tom Coburn, and so controversial that it met no opposition whatsoever.

Obama asks the nation to take on faith that he will somehow become something completely different than the machine pol he has been throughout his brief political career. Meanwhile, he also asks voters to take on faith that John McCain will somehow become a carbon copy of George Bush despite a decades-long history of fighting wasteful spending. He wants Americans to believe that he has the superior judgment in time of war, and at the same time ask them to forget that John McCain got the surge right and he got it completely wrong.

That seemed to work, at least for a while, but Americans have begun to realize that Obama not only has little political experience, he has none in reform or leadership. Indeed, on both, he’s given some good speeches, but he’s never actually accomplished anything. Instead of beating Obama on the head with lipstick, McCain should be running ads that ask, “What has Obama ever done except run for office?”

It’s nice to see that these fellows are catching up with me.

Charles Krauthammer makes an dead on accurate observation:

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain’s Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama’s meteoric rise was based not on issues — there was not a dime’s worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues — but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer’s remorse, was the Democrats’ realization that the arc of Obama’s celebrity had peaked — and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

McCain bounce

September 8, 2008

The McCain/Palin ticket is up across the board according to the Gallup poll.

McCain now leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters. He was down seven points before the convention. A nice 11 point bounce.

What is more telling is the poll of likely voters, in this important demographic McCain leads Obama by 54%-44%.

No bounce for Obama

September 2, 2008

American Sentinel blog has the numbers from CNN, Zogby and Rasmussen polls.

Those show a maximum difference of only 3% between Obama and Senator McCain, i.e. within the margin of error of most polls.

The democrats typically get a 10-20% bounce after their convention. The fact that they got no bounce what so ever after their week long infomercial, is not good news for the democrat ticket of Obama and Biden. Obama has had trouble breaking through the ceiling of voters that would vote democrat regardless of who is on the ticket. The pick of 30+ year Senate inhabitant Joe Biden and their national convention hasn’t helped to put any new cracks in that ceiling.

The question now is if Senator McCain, Gov. Palin, and the RNC can take advantage of the DNC fumble.

Obama plays the race card

August 1, 2008

Barak Obama has played the race card in his campaign early and often.
He’s doing it again, projecting that race card on to the McCain campaign.

That is something the McCain campaign hasn’t done. It has compared Barak H. Obama to Paris Hilton. That is nasty. Entirely true, but nasty.

Now, Barak H. Obama was the great “color blind” hope of the liberals. He was supposed to run a “race neutral” campaign.

Of course that hasn’t happened. My current theory on this latest cry of racism is based on his poll numbers being stuck at the same level they were before his grand European tour.

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Wednesday shows that despite nine solid days of blanket media coverage from overseas with Barack Obama cheered by adoring throngs of Germans and parlez-vousing with the French, making a three-point shot in the Middle East and standing outside No. 10 Downing Street, the freshman Illinois senator is stuck right where he was in the polls before he left.

No bounce. Not even a roll.

Why no bounce? Why even the drop in the polls seen since returning from his European America bashing tour?

One explanation is that his stubbornness in not admitting the success of the Troop Surge in Iraq, and thus showing his desire for an American defeat at that hands of Islamofascists, is not playing well with centrist voters. Voters who opposed the Iraq war, but would rather see the US Military win a war vs losing one.

Perhaps it is that these centrist voters are asking questions about the rabid Barak Obama supporters who have posters of murdering communist thugs next to those of Obama.

Maybe it is that those centrist voters are noticing that it is the far left extremist Obama supporters who are actively attacking the First Amendment rights of any that dare oppose them.

It could be that centrist voters are noticing that Barak H. Obama is an empty suit with no real experience.

Most likely, it is all of the above.

When you actually poll people who do vote…

July 29, 2008

…things turn out different. A new poll of likely voters (instead of merely registered voters), shows that Barak H. Obama’s lead disappears like the illusion of his experience.

The poll puts McCain (a liberal Republican) in the lead, but the difference is within the margin of error of the poll. So it seems that support for the “Light Bringer” (or whatever the Hell his disciples are calling him this week) is not that strong outside of the hard far left extremist George Soros bought and paid for nutroot wing of the democrat party.