TPM Track Composite: Presidential Race Could Be Tightening
Here's our daily composite of the five major national tracking polls. The presidential race may be starting to tighten up as we head into the final two weeks of the campaign, though Barack Obama is still ahead for now:
• Gallup: Obama 50%, McCain 46%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 51%-45% Obama lead yesterday.
• Rasmussen: Obama 50%, McCain 45%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 50%-46% Obama lead from yesterday.
• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 49%, McCain 42%, with a ±3.5% margin of error, compared to a 50%-40% Obama lead from yesterday.
• Research 2000: Obama 50%, McCain 43%, with a ±3% margin of error, compared to a 52%-42% Obama lead from yesterday.
• Zogby: Obama 48%, McCain 44%, with a ±2.9% margin of error, compared to a 49%-44% Obama lead yesterday.
Adding these polls together and weighting them by the square roots of their sample sizes, Obama is ahead 49.5%-44.3%, a lead of 5.2 points, compared to the 50.4%-43.9% Obama lead from yesterday.
Rewrite: Obama is ahead by 49.5-44.3, a lead of 5.2 points, compared to the 50.4-43.9, a lead of 6.5 points
If you think the race is tightening, it would be very helpful for readers to directly compare gaps from day to day.
October 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's in exactly the position Kerry was..trailing, perhaps closing slightly and casting about for a theme..trying to reframe the race in the 11th hour
October 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will tighten as the underlying fear--the rising of the Bradley effect to the surface--begins to show itself in actual poll responses (that were supressed before by social desirability).
As any good lawyer knows, as you get closer to the trial date, you get closer to spontaneous admissions.
As any good doctor knows--as you fear the result to a great degree, you report the symptoms--even if, as in this case, it's a hypochondriacal response.
October 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no stinking Bradley Effect, Hewson.
And you sir, are no gentleman.
October 18, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
By definition, the Bradley Effect doesn't rise until election day. Your spontaneous admissions line may be clever lawyering but with regard to a political campaign it's nonsense. Plus, the Bradley Effect it's no longer a factor. But thanks for trolling.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right--how could it "rise" before election day, since the "effect"--that is, voting based on one's internal biases rather than on outer social desirability--cannot, of course, occur until one votes.
The point, of course, is that the bias exists before the vote--it does not just enter the person, sui generis, when they pull the lever. That's why the Bradley effect, like all social desirability measures refers to the difference between what a person says to a pollster before they vote...and how they actually vote. Social desirability on the poll, actual behavior in the booth.
If there were no preexisting bias--there would be no effect.
Got it?
October 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the issue that's being referred to are the results from the primaries, where Obama's pre-primary numbers matched up almost exactly with the vote totals. Indicating that the proportion of people saying they'd vote for him was the same as the proportion of people who actually voted for him, hence, no effect.
You can argue that maybe the Bradley effect wouldn't happen in Democratic primaries, but you can't deny that there didn't appear to be any Bradley effect then.
Second, the Ford vs Corker race in Tenn. in 2006 provided no evidence for a Bradley effect, even with that loathsome "Call me" commercial. Ford actually won a higher percentage of voters than what pre-election polls were suggesting he would.
October 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and think the Ford-Corker race is a very hopeful sign--a strong test, as it were.
The question is whether it will hold up in a Presidential election.
October 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEW RULE:
Just because someone expresses concern or might have some pessimistic things to say does not make him or her a 'troll.' Now can we please stop all this ridiculous incivility?
Robert
October 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some history that may illuminate all the "ridiculous incivility". Hewson has a history of posting long stupid and irrelevant comments. And I mean LONG. He sucks up bandwith with this prattle, and has been asked, politely at first, then not so politely, to knock it off. He has ignored those requests.
Today is the first time he has actually engaged with commenters. Frankly, there's not much improvement from the long stupid spam that is his usual contributions.
October 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key word is "prattle", whereas your contributions of course are the sparkling, enlightened conversation worthy of Henry Adams I.F. Stone, and Oscar Wilde. I especially like the "jerkoffs".
I like people's thoughts--even when I disagree.
October 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, poor word choice. "Spam" is more descriptive than "prattle". "Prattle" implies, to some extent, that it's actually original commentary. Yours wasn't.
October 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laughing.
And yours is a celestial light opening the world to discovery...
Look, I want Obama to win. I know, based on decades of history running right to the present, that some will say one thing and do another--call it a tipping point.
If we know people like this--if we know them well enough--friends, neighbors--we can fill their little spines with the willingness to vote for Obama against their biases--we know them better than the pollsters. That's why this is useful. That's why the campaign has developed many of the messages exactly as it has.
I think you want Obama to win. I don't care about any of this other petty nonsense--your contribution is as valid as mine, no less no more.
The rest *is* a waste.
October 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there is. It just asserts itself under certain cultural conditions.
This is worth your knowing--there's about 60 years of research to show that when giving answers on topics related to what is called "social desirability"--e.g., the desire to be regarded well by others--people will hew to those norms in poll responses. Then, if they are in fact holding views that are regarded as socially unacceptable but they would rather not admit publically--they vote differently.
This occurs with other factors as well, for example the "Shy Tory" effect, which undersampled Conservative voters in British elections.
There is powerful evidence that as Americans are, as a whole, becoming more enlightened and less prejudiced, particularly in younger age groups, this effect is diminishing--hence the recent flurry of articles on the effect and it's presence.
The remaining concern is in those areas where there would be a combination of high bias and high SD--which is why writers such as Andrew Sullivan and David Kuo have continued to voice their concerns.
Nate Silver, of 538, has argued that it has diminished as seen in the Obama-Clinton primaries. However, as Michael Fauntroy of Huffpo has persuasively argued:
You may not feel that it exists, Tena, but it's foolish to not be aware of things because you don't like them. Illiberal. You can be certain beyond doubt that the Obama campaign is aware of the possibility and fortunately is taking intelligent steps to offset that chance.
October 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your argument would have a lot more weight to it if you actually referred to races in the 21st century.
October 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, of course it does.
Let me give you some assistance.
1) Go to Google.
2) Look up +"social desirability" +"voting" and keep your results for after year 2000 (use the advanced research).
You'll have a feast--and why not? If you look at the McCain rallies, you can see that there are still large pockets of bias out there, unfortunately. Within them, will be those who respond in this way. It's not as if, when the millenium ball dropped, human nature diametrically changed.
Fortunately, it is changing.
October 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny! You're going to try and argue that the whole cut and paste segment you posted refers to races in the 21st century? Seriously?
Actually, I should be more careful. It's not your argument at all, of course.
October 18, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you missed my reply to you about Social Desirability. You just have to read more carefully, and it will help you.
October 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't miss it, at all. I'm dismissing it. Social desirability is going to be a problem, of course, as any behavioral researcher knows.
But you continue to refer to elections from the 80s and 90s, without mentioning more recent versions of the Bradley effect. Probably because they don't exist.
But hey, go ahead, condescend, lecture, whatever. You're not really addressing my criticisms of your argument: you're ignoring the primary results and you fail to include elections from the 21st century.
October 18, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think the primary results are very important--as Nate Silver, for example has shown, and as I mentioned above.
The issue here is that SD will differ, of course, if people know they are voting in a primary (not in office), vs. a national election.
You can see here that other posters here, today, have also raised these concerns.
The literature on SD after 2000 is what I pointed you to in answer to your question--did you look at it? I hope so.
October 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reread your post looking for where Nate talks about the primaries. But every post I've seen on Nate's site has very persuasively--using facts and statistics rather than theories--that the Bradley effect was not in effect during the primaries.
October 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No--that's what I'm saying--read my previous post--Nate has persuasively demonstrated that it was not in effect during the primaries.
October 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, this is weird. Forgive me for being blunt, but you haven't addressed the weeks of abuse we've heaped on you for spamming every freakin' thread around here. Now you just pick up as normal (if still incredibly long-winde and pretentious) commenter and think everything is OK?
How about an explanation for being such a jerkoff for so long around here?
October 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen any of that, frankly. My introduction to that topic was through Tena's lovely post. Hence my posts today.
As for my "addressing" it today--read what I've written in the Bachmann thread and it will help you--more than me.
Regards.
October 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! You show up to dump your nonsense on the threads and don't engage. How many other sites to you dump in?
October 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's all sorts of engagement, LBJ's brain--
and many, many posts here that would credibly fall below the level you are describing.
Literally thousands of TPM readers have responded to these posts--on TPM--positively--and that's just what I have read. You don't. They are posted on topics--ideas and beliefs--on the topic at hand. It may be different from calling the topic at hand a "fuckhead" but it's arguable which is the better form of engagement.
Nevertheless, I defend your right to say "fuckhead" and will use every means at my disposal to protect it.
October 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I think you have a case of Palinitis.
Perhaps folks have responded positively prior to my time but for the last several months, all I see is you doing drive-bys. Your comment that you hadn't "noticed the comments" is telling...
October 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah...not drivebys.
Writing "fuckface" is a driveby.
Offering alot of ontopic thought is a nice, good stop. Some don't like it. They drive away. Lots do. They stretch their legs out. Some love the "fuckfacing" I guess, and that's fine by me. And there's also lots of other stuff. I like that as well.
October 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
get over it...LBJ's brain is a cool commenter (but I liked his old avatar better)!
October 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was already over it when I began, Iceberg, so nothing to get over. Of course, there is the little issue of content...but we don't worry about that :>
October 18, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty telling, Sir, that you never saw the responses to your spam. You dropped it, and left.
Don't expect many of us to engage you now. Especially with your regurgitated arguments. Do you have an original thought? Not that I care, really, given that what you've posted so far today has been less than stimulating.
October 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not looking for anything, Dorn. I'm just putting my voice out there--like you do, in your own fashion.
I don't need anything, so it's not a real concern.
I just want Obama to win.
It's important to think--and you'd get further with your arguments if you did more of that, and less of the ad hominem, but I stand by your right to say them--you jerkoff :>
October 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind ad hominen attacks, this is intertubes, for goodness sakes.
I've called people I love alot worse than Jerkoff.
If you want to get on a high horse, fine. It stil doesn't remove the stain of all those epically long and annoying spam posts you are famous for.
I also want Obama to win. Wonderful thing is, it is possible for us to agree with you thinking I'm stupid and me thinking your full of it.
October 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because you're not stupid and I'm not full of it.
October 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I find many of your posts epically devoid of actual thought--so sounds like a push.
October 18, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair enough. I'm starting to like you, but only because I am softie.
And not every post need be "substantive". I remind you again, this is intertubes for goodness sakes!
October 18, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and Al Gore was behind in the polls immediately before the election and ended up winning the popular vote over George Bush. Was this the Bradley effect too?
The problem here is that a pollster who ran a bad poll in the Bradley race made a spurious claim to defend his bad poll: it must be that people lied in the polls because they were afraid of appearing racist. There has been some research that the Bradley effect might have played a role in some elections, but many assert that the Bradley effect never existed, even against Bradley himself.
I think race is a big issue in this campaign, but I think people have a lot of ready reasons besides race to justify them telling a pollster that they won't vote for Obama. Especially with so many automated polling calls these days, I just have a really hard time believing that the polls are inflated right now because of the Bradley effect.
Obama can definitely still lose, though that's not very likely. McCain is doing his best to smear him in order to shake the leaners who are tentatively supporting Obama. But that doesn't mean those leaners ever lied to pollsters.
October 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to me to be a thoughtful response and correct. There are more factors influencing the vote than social desirability.
Of course--otherwise, pollsters would not have the pages and pages of "crosstabs" that you have heard pollsters mention on television. Each poll looks into hundreds of influences upon voting decisions--geographical preference, age, perception of similarity to just name a few. The question is among the many factors that act upon an individual when they a) answer a polling question and b) step into a voting booth, what is the effect of social desirability in creating a difference between these two situations.
Evidence suggests that this is changing--that fortunately, as biases fade, people are willing to speak their truth to pollsters. However, evidence also suggests that it persists as a significant influence.
October 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But your "analysis" excludes the very likely possibility that people just change their minds between the time that they were polled and the time they go to the voting booths. The Gore example is important because elections have momentum. Bush didn't lose the popular vote because of the Bradley effect. He lost it because the polls didn't sufficiently represent voters' views and because some people changed their mind at the last minute. That has nothing to do with social desirability--which is at bottom very hard to prove.
October 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure...a good point I think. Now, unless we decide that people change their mind for no reason at all, we would then have to determine the reasons that they did change their minds.
Research shows that for some, the reasons are other than those cited in the so-called Bradley Effect, Shy Tory Effect, etc. And for many it is. This is a bias--and one we would like to prevent.
October 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Tena, as far as being a gentleman:
I have certainly been called one on many occasions--even in grand public.
But I usually set the bar somewhat below introductions that threaten to "kill" me.
October 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no such thing as a "Bradley effect"
And the closer you get to trial the LESS likely you are to have "spontaneous admissions"
I'm a lawyer
October 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing you are more likely to get the closer you get to trial date is a scared defendant = criminal or civil - who will probably decide either to plead out or settle.
Depending on the circumstances.
October 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I haven't had a spontaneous admission since I was twelve. And I hadn't realized until now that that had something to do with my having become a lawyer many years later.
October 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. But...off topic. Ban!
October 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen nitwit. We, or at least *I*, want you banned because of blog whoring. Capice?
October 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...must have gotten lost in the abusive Tony Soprano thread. More bandwidth...
October 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOL!!!!!
God you are just the best -
October 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
I'm sure you then recall in your Torts class first year the old saying that, for a lawyer, "scientific evidence" consists of two anecdotes.
The research is clear--check Law and Human Behavior--the closer to trial, the more likely spontaneous admissions (and, perhaps, emissions).
Your results, of course, may differ, as those of litigators across the nation and the world do.
October 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a lawyer, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Did you go to the Matlock School of Law?
October 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...you don't understand. Let me help you out:
"Torts" is class that is traditionally taught during the first year of law school--either one or two semesters. It deals with civil, non-contractual wrongs (the latter dealt with in another typically first-year course, Contracts).
Tort professors, often when discussing personal injury cases--as these are often the subject of tortious claims--will cite the well-known aversion of attorneys to science when making claims--in fact, this gave rise to the Frye and later Daubert standards for scientific evidence/experts so that there could be a standard for separating the valid claims from the invalid claims (or science).
This aversion is summed up in the well-known bon mot that for an attorney "science is two anecdotes"--that is, a couple of things they saw or heard that support their feelings or case, rather than actual scientific evidence.
Seems pretty clear to most lawyers, but perhaps not Andy Griffith.
October 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute. As if I didn't know what Torts was about. I'll go back to ignore you since it's apparent you have Palinitis.
October 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never been a fan of the "Degrangement syndrome" or "Itis" tags--they seem like ways of avoiding actual facts, but cool by me.
October 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me lawyer too. The admissions start flying during the appeal when the client finds God, having gone to prison and been off the meth for a good six to eight months.
But they never come before trial, when you still have a chance to get them a half-way decent result from the prosecutor.
October 19, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're still annoying even when you don't take up half the thread.
October 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I find you both annoying and ill-informed.
Isn't democracy grand?
Let me help you a bit on the ill-informed piece.
The "Bradley Effect" is a location specific name for a more general and undeniable phenomenon, demonstrated thousands of times.
It is known as the "Social Desirability Bias".
So, let's say that Tena is hypothetically before her class, teaching Legal Research and Writing. She would like to scream out "Can't you motherfuckers even spell"? Social desirability--the need to be perceived in a certain way--acts upon her (perhaps), along with other salient factors (e.g. keeping a job) to--hypothetically--keep her from doing so.
SD is a powerful force, of course, and so keeps us from always saying what we really feel. So--if a pollster were to ask you--How often do you floss? Your answer, Dom, might be once a year. But you might say once a week--or if not you, others might.
This is a well demonstrated effect with polling--particularly in areas where there are highly ingrained and heavily reinforced social attitudes. People will Say one thing to a pollster--that which they believe that society wants to hear--they don't want to be regarded in a negative light--but in the booth vote differently.
It has been verified and replicated on numerous occasions. That's how science works--verification and replication.
Now we can say--I still don't like it! But we don't want to be like Bush and Co., rejecting scientific results for our own inchoate, impulses, do we?
October 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can lecture all you want, but the evidence for such an effect in elections is from elections conducted 16 - 26 years ago. What about from 2000 on? What about the results from the Democratic primaries?
October 18, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you certainly wouldn't want to reject results for your own inchoate reasons, would you?
October 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I prefer "inchoate" at times to "fuckface", but hey, to each his own, I always say :>
October 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, did you just graduate? You are using terms like "sui generis" and "inchoate." I was really excited right after I got my JD too. I'll see your "sui generis" and "inchoate" and raise you a "sua sponte," "res ipsa loquitor" and "replevin." Big words used to be fun in the first year out. Now they're just irritating.
October 19, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to repeat myself--all that bandwidth--but I've answered you twice now. Did you check that search?
October 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just about covers it for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
October 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This of course depends on a person calling them, and most poll calls today are automated.
And something like the Bradley effect is easy to hypothesize about but virtually impossible to prove.
October 18, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You find me uninformed. So what? I find you irritating, and completely full of shit. So what?
Seriously, your lecture is just regurgitated from somewhere else. That's great. And I have heard of your famous "social desirability bias". Again, so what?
Is your point that this will lead to an Obama defeat? If it isn't, your just spouting off and trying to sound important.
I kinda preferred it when you posted your lame dialogues and just left.
October 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that you don't mind Ad Hominem, since it's your main method of communication. Good bandwidth usage! :>
I posted things you didn't like--on topic, I might add--that many others did. You regard your "interesting" "insights" --"jerkoff", et al as sparkingly and ontopic repartee. Fine. On with you, I say. All adds to the mix.
You say I have said nothing interesting. Thousands beg to differ--although some agree. I like that. I don't need approval. I want Obama to win--we're all talking about that--me with on-topic narratives, you with citations of various ways to describe your masturbatory habits. No problem.
I like your feistyness...wait a minute...is this Sarah PALIN???
October 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a lot here. But I'm glad to know your a sensitive guy and don't much like being bitch-slapped. And, unfortunately it's hard to jerkoff when I'm busy enjoying your insightful and on topic posts, like so many "thousands" of others. Congratulations on your wide readership!
Cheers!
October 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even have teeth, what the heck would I floss for?
October 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, keep it "coming" so to speak--it adds so much to the conversation. I enjoy it immensely. Really.
October 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for one, it would keep your mouth open for some useful purpose...:>
October 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bumtittle. Ack! I've been infected with "substance!"
October 18, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh noes!!
Time to flash the Drudge siren! McCain surgzzzz!11!one!!
October 18, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bradley effect has been discredited. What we have in tightening is the Rs coming home. If we were following Gallup's RV model there would be no tightening at all, plus one for Obama 50-43. But their stupid God-awful LV one and two both stink. We'll get a better idea when we have some non-tracking national polls. In the meantime when we get polls like yesterday showing Obama up 7 in CO, and 5 in NV,6 in NV, and still up in Fl by 4, up in Oregon by 14, I'm pretty happy.
October 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, afraid the jury is still out there.
It has been questioned in the LA case, and in other excellent research.
However, equally excellent research suggests it's continuation--particularly in high SD-High bias areas.
Science works that way. Kind of like liberalism. We have to judge all of the results, not just the one's that get our attention.
And a good thing, at that. Hardly what Bushco did for the past 8 years.
October 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. The Gallup website says, quote:
October 18, 2008
The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking report from Wednesday through Friday, including two days of interviewing after Wednesday night’s final presidential debate, shows Barack Obama with a 50%to 42% lead over John McCain among registered voters.
October 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch Blue Skies - I saw the same Gallup number on another site.
October 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Election Central uses one of the LV model results to report.
October 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. I thought that EC was using the expanded voter model...I find it odd that it would be giving a lower lead for Obama than the 2004 model. Does anyone know where to find all the numbers for the different models on the gallup site?
October 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoop! I meant 6 in MO. (Rasmussen)
October 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pulling the following up from the end of an earlier thread:
I've noted that Obama has not gotten a bounce from his last debate with McCain, even though he's almost universally credited with having won it. So what accounts for the sag in his poll numbers, even though in addition to winning the debate he's outspending McCain four to one? My sense is that all this negative sewage is slowly working its way into the political water table. Give the crap two more weeks to seep in, and I honestly believe we'll see a critical percentage of undecided voters growing mysteriously "sick" on Obama. I don't buy the idea that this time around poisonous lies won't work. Of course they'll work. Poison doesn't have on and off years.
October 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddamn it, blueskies - how can you maintain that when one video of a Repug nut job raised over $100,000 in one night for her opponent?
When Obama outraised everyone in history again in September?
When the Democrats are ahead in almost every race in every state and we have raised almost twice as much money this time as '04?
October 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If money were the measure, then of course Obama would be clobbering McCain 60% to 30%. Clearly money is not the measure. This reminds me of some of the later primaries when Obama buried Hillary in a mountain of campaign cash, yet she kept emerging from it as strong as ever, even though broke. I think we have reached the saturation point when more money is not going to decide anything. It's what the money is spent on that now matters, the message the money pushes. What ever happened to "nation of whiners", angry/dangerous McCain, Rick Davis and his lobbying cronies, Keating Five, the Committee on World Freedom, not to mention Palin and her secessionist husband? Yes, I'm one of those who say hit the old bastard where it hurts. Give him what he deserves. Probably I'm wrong, but that's how I feel.
October 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
October 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure there's much movement in the polls, actually. The Gallup poll has magically gotten "closer" because Gallup started reporting (as did EC) three different results: one for registered voters, and two for likely voters. If you look at the registered voters, Obama is back to an 8 point lead, similar to leads he's held.
The other tracking polls (Rasmussen, Diageo, and Zogby) don't show much of a change, either.
The only one that has shown more fluctuation is R2K.
I'm not disagreeing with your argument about the sewage starting to seep in, but I don't know that the polls necessarily reflect that.
In any event, I'm off to call people in Indiana on behalf of the Obama campaign.
October 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for understanding polls and numbers -
seriously -
October 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right: NO CHANGE. But Obama won the last debate by significant margins, according to every measure I've looked at. His previous debate wins resulted in upticks of 2 to 3 points. Why no uptick in this case? Well, my hypothesis is...shit in the water supply.
October 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's probabably going to be some tightening in this race regardless of what Obama and McCain do....historically that's been the case. It's just like McCain's post-convention bump in the polls: people were all over these boards squawking that it was all our faults for attacking Palin when, in reality, it was expected based on past historical patterns.
October 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do.
At least, I buy the idea that their effectiveness will be hugely reduced.
Yes, it does.
It's called immunity. It builds up by being burned so much, over and over.
I know, poison and immunity are metaphors, but this clip from The Princess Bride, where Wally Shawn meets his demise from poison, is both entertaining and illustrative.
October 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
God I love that movie!
October 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I'm not afraid yet, but why is McCain moving up in the polls? Are the attacks working?
October 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's "moving up" right now because he's been underperformed so badly in the weeks leading up to now. Realistically, a candidate from a major parties with the strengths that John McCain had coming into this should be preforming much better than he has, regardless of the current political environment. The way our electorate is balanced, theres no reason any major party candidate should be flirting with polling in the 30's with 20 days till voting starts. In the face of a bad environment for the Republicans, John McCain has been blowing what chances he's had, pissing away his political brand that he's spent 2 decades building. However, there's still a lot of Republican leaning votes out there for McCain to get. These voters will eventually swing his way prior to election day, or they simply won't vote. And remember, we're dealing with likely voter models here.
In other words, don't worry much about the polls tightening. That's inevitable. As much as I'd love for Obama to blow McCain out like Reagan did to Mondale, that's just not the way this country is built anymore. There's a reason they're throwing around words like "terrorist" and "socialism". It's to keep their voters angry and keep them from listening to Obama with a clear head. The only thing we need to worry about this close to the election is voting, and making sure other people vote as well.
October 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I like that explanation: McSame is moving up because he sucked last week.
Sounds kinda silly until you realize that he really, really sucked the previous week. His shitty week last week was an improvement.
October 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
JZap,
You make sense. Let me add to that. The negative campaigning may have something to do with McLame's rise in the polls after the debate, but the rise may be largely limited to the national poll as he may have been able to stir a few more dormant monsters of the base but again in insignificant states. As for the effect in battleground states, we will have to wait until Monday or Tuesday.
October 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really good point...
October 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is no stinking Bradley Effect"
"The Bradley effect has been discredited"
We can offer our hypotheses about how this election will play out, but I hope we possess the humility to recognize that we won't know for sure until after it is over. The simple fact of the matter is that this race has some unprecedented -- and volatile -- dynamics that could play out in ways we might not always expect.
I personally am less concerned about some type of Bradley effect than the power of GOTV drives in key states by powerful vested interests. For example, in 2000 Gore arguably lost West Virginia because of aggressive organizing by coal interests and Tennessee because of the NRA.
October 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doctor - your handle is apt - lemming.
Do you not remember that just weeks ago 400 coal miners walked off the job in West Virginia in protest because their boss let the NRA on the premises to campaign for McLame?
October 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right about knowing for sure.
But that's an artificially high standard. We all make decisions every day based on sufficient confidence. (And sometimes based on confidence that's not sufficiently sufficient!)
Undeserved personal attack. DrL's piece was well reasoned. I liked his skepticism of the Bradley Effect.
The GOP GOTV efforts will be at work again. But this time they won't be as effective. And they won't be nearly enough. All IMO, of course.
October 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
and that was another.
October 18, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, two things. First, I wasn't predicting a literal reenactmentof 2000 -- I was suggesting that GOTV can play a crucial role in close states.
Secondly, what's with the snark? You have a way of diminishing people on this blog that gets in the way of a thoughtful discussion.
October 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I like her snark. I just laugh out loud...
October 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Race does make for a volatile election, and I agree that many people will not vote for Obama because of his race.
That is not the same, however, as the Bradley effect in which people tell the pollsters they will vote one way and then on election day don't vote that way, and deliberately lie to the pollster because they don't want to seem racist. I have no trouble with saying that Obama might lose because of race. I have much more trouble believing that when people were knowingly lying to pollsters because they didn't want to appear racist.
McCain might very well be able to smear Obama enough that the "leaners" might jump Obama's ship in these last two weeks. But that doesn't mean they were not Obama "leaners" when polled. As a matter of fact, if the so-called Bradley effect were at work right now, then the polls wouldn't be tightening because these same folks would still be lying and would still be saying they would vote for Obama.
So I think it's important to distinguish racism from the Bradley effect. The former I wholeheartedly believe is a pernicious force in this campaign; the latter--for many reasons--I do not believe is at work.
October 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a great body of academic work that concludes the Bradley Effect is no longer significant.
OTOH, I can imagine many GOP leaners who say they're LVs for McSame but who, when election day rolls around, just won't have enough enthusiasm to drag their butts to the polls to vote for him. A kind of Reverse Bradley Effect, just not race-based in this case.
October 18, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The academic evidence has strong replications on both sides--do you have cites?
October 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one from the Princeton Election Consortium titled The disappearing Bradley effect.
Of course, one cite does not demonstrate a body of work, but it does have links to other citations.
BTW, thanks for stopping that spam you were hitting us all with.
October 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree, although it seems to me a close call--and these are potentially mutually reinforcing groups:
That is, those who "want" to vote as their inner bias tells them will be most responsive to Repub GOTV drives and visa versa.
October 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worrying much? Let me cheer up your day:
Obama's rally on St. Louis: 100 thousand people!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/100000_people.html#comments
Missouri is going blue, no question about that!
How many people will show up in Kansas City?
Stay tuned...
October 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what time it is?
THIS...
October 18, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS...
October 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
October 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
October 18, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
October 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
FORE!
October 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BIMBOS FOR CHRIST!!!
October 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
That just popped into my head this morning, totally unbidden. I'm so glad it did.
October 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you get nervous, just remember 4-5-6-7, shorthand for the states Obama needs to win the election.
4 Pacific: CA, OR, WA, HI
5 Midwest: MN, IA, WI, IL, MI
6 New England: ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI
7 Mid Atlantic: NY, PA, NJ, DC, DE, MD and VA.
In how many of these states is McCain even campaigning, much less competitive? Virginia. That's the cornerstone of the "narrow victory scenario". But in addition to VA, they will have to win NM, CO, NV, FL, OH, and MO.
McCain and the RNC are trying to save its down ticket candidates now. They know they are toast.
October 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Helpful.
October 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A tightening of the polls could allay complacency fears by keeping people motivated to go out and vote (prove the polls wrong). I'm not worried.
GOBAMA
October 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is true and tightening numbers probably make the Obama Camp somewhat happy for that reason.
They just keep me awake at night. I'll quote Tina Fey - if Palin is elected, I'm leaving the planet. Not just the country - earth itself.
October 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE can't let you leave us. So we're gonna work like the dickens!
(what is a dickens?)
October 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is a derivation of devil. I do well with meanings of words but I was born to butcher the spelling of any word more than three letters long. Spell check is my sliced bread!
October 18, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree. In states that are too stupid to vote by mail exclusively, and still make people stand at polls, you could conceivably wait for ten hours to cast a vote on in a high turnout election. Since as a nation our forefathers stupidly chose a work day rather than a Saturday to vote, a low-income person with no childcare or sick leave might decide not to stand in that line if Obama has a comfortable lead.
October 19, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Prevent the complacency and get people out there.
October 18, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-rosenberg/expect-mccain-to-gain-gro_b_135581.html
October 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, like reaching directly into my head. :)
October 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poll tightening is only natural in a close election, it doesn't mean a thing. Obama is leading in all five early voting states: Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Georgia. What little gains McShame makes between now and Nov 4, won't be enough to dent Obama's lead.
October 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was the last time McCain or Palin visited Colorado? Anyone know?
October 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My usual mantra on this - why just national daily polls, why not hourly? Why not every minute? Then we can see how much it's REALLY changing.
National polls are not what matters in the end. It's 50 elections for EVs, not popular vote. If Obama has all the Kerry states - and the statewide polls say he definitely does - then all he has to win is ONE of the following: CO, VA, NC, FL, MO, IN or OH. Just one of those. That's all.
I really think it's important not to get cocky or start dancing in the end zone. But I also think we need to stop getting distracted by the daily national polls.
October 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
CO-SIGN!!!!!
October 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a very important point:
This is an electoral vote fight, not a national popular vote count. Keep your eyes on the prize for 17 more days.
Donate. Call. Knock.
October 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this may sound heretical to some, but I don't think a bit of premature end-zone dancing is dangerous. Just as long as we don't stop making those calls, ringing those doorbells, talking to our friends and neighbors, and donating when we can.
For some, anxiety about the outcome can be as energy-draining as overconfidence is for others.
To all our wonderful volunteers: Remember, you're doing this for yourself**, not for BigO. I'm sure the work you've been doing has also been a lot of fun. So, keep on working and having fun!
And consider: The more you put into this, the more you'll get out of it. The greater your effort, the sweeter will be the taste of victory on election night. And the more joyful will be your life for having done something you believe in for the greater good.
** It's for others, too, but the empathetic reward you get from that makes it also for yourself.
October 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the reason I think it is premature is my experience in 2004 - going out canvassing for Kerry on election night, being told the internal exit polls had Kerry winning Ohio. Sorry zap, I don't ever again want to experience that awful feeling of thinking we won and then finding out we lost.
October 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel (felt) your pain. Literally. It sucked like hell.
October 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Scenario(s) for the Election run as follows:
All the Northeastern States - New England, New York, and the whole Mid-Atlantic Bloc go Big Blue; the "Group of Four" toss-ups are FL, NC, OH, VA (these seem to be moving blue from what I can see), so if we are doing well enough in those four we'll be fine enough...
Next Group are the Upper Mid-West IL, MI, MN, WI, these are all fairly safe by now - add in IA & MO and it's done Bingo 272!
This is what I call the Mississippi Border States Strategy - whereby the Election Can be called after reporting only the First Two Time Zones!
Hoping that does not depress turnout in the other two time zones - but I think this is an opposite kind of election from others - Just as you couldn't find many people who'd admit they voted for Nixon after '74 and the same for Bush after 2005 - in this Election I think people are going to WANT to be able to say they voted FOR Obama as a way to end this national nightmare...
October 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is no big deal. Tightening in the weeks immediately before the election is predictable. I put more stock in Gallup's RV number, although I think that too can underestimate the number of people with no land line, or those, who like my house, never, ever answer their land line.
It may be closer than my weak stomach may want, but the scenarios for victory are too numerous at this point for McCain to overcome.
And as for the "Bradley Effect". I've never heard of such a ridiculous, media created theory.
October 18, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't know....I was pretty fond of the oft repeated theory during the primaries that Hispanics would never vote for an AA candidate. That one they completely pulled out of their respective asses.
October 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that isn't the truth - one stinking mayoral election in 1982 is supposed to be the template for every election in which an AA candidate is running against a white candidate?
Where did it go when Dallas, Texas, elected Ron Kirk mayor, overwhelmingly, twice?
October 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop, Tena, your reasoned response is ruining the media narrative. Not only that, you are minimizing Hewson's entire bloviating responses.
I must also say again how weird it is that Hewson is now responding "normally", if you call that drivel normal, and has yet to even attempt to make up for acting like such a clown around here for so long.
I like fogu more than that guy. At least his rants were shorter, and usually amusing.
And, yeah, I'm callin' you out Hewson.
October 18, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a fair body of work that says the Bradley Effect was a real phenomenon back then, but it died out about 10-15 years ago.
Times have changed.
Quote from Gracie Slick: Life is change. How it differs from the rocks.
October 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You silly person.
October 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Bradley Effect" is spoken about by media airheads without understanding it--as, believe me, is so often the case. It is an example of a replicated ongoing phenomenon that any pollster is aware of--the social desirability bias.
You can look it up--you know, like people who like the facts do.
October 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love facts.
Fact: You spammed a zillion TPM threads and got called on it by me and many others, many, many times.
Fact: Spamming is totally not in keeping with the spirit of this site.
Fact: You know show up and begin lecturing us poor uniformed souls about the inticracies of something you read of 538.
Fact: Say something relevant, thoughtful or original, and people will respond.
October 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of amazing...
They already did. :>
October 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you claim to like facts, perhaps you should read this:
http://people.iq.harvard.edu/~dhopkins/wilder13.pdf
and this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html
You don't offer facts, but vague hypotheses with little real evidence to support them--other than polls sometimes turn out to be wrong.
October 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the St. Louise rally, I wish I were there !
The full speech is on BO's Community Blogs. I saw a few aerial pics. Looking for vid. Anyone knows where I can find it?
October 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
paraphrasing a comment at Politico:
St. Louis must be the most anti-American city in, well, America...
October 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunch of commies over there...
October 18, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was there. It was an amazing scene...
October 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
This is my first time ever writing to this blog, but I felt it necessary since you have repeated the factually incorrect origin of the "Bradley Effect" on this blog on numerous occasions. Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles five times and served from 1973-1993; he never lost an election in that time for mayor. He was and is the only African-American mayor ever elected in LA. He was TWICE defeated for Governor of California (1982 and 1986) by George Deukmejian of Fresno despite leading in the polls handily prior to both elections.
October 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And frankly I don't give a shit = the so-called effect would be the same regardless of the position the race was for and you know it.
Just say it was a local race and the Effect was local if it ever existed.
October 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "local" race? For California governor? That's a huge, diverse and media-dominated state that has been a trendsetter nationally.
Tina, is it so hard to gracefully acknowledge when someone makes a reasonable point? This isn't a courtroom.
October 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, it's spelled "Tena". If you're going to call someone out for not being gracious, at least have the civility to spell her name properly.
And Tena's point was that the race in question was in 1982, in California, and this is 2008, nationwide.
October 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been reading TPM for quite a while now and I've noticed a decay in its civility. There's no need to be harshly dismissive of reasonable alternative perspectives.
I gather that you equate a typo with dismissiveness. If that's what you think it takes to "win" an argument.
October 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably won't ever read this, but I'm replying anyway.
My point was this: if you're going to call someone out for lack of civility, it's probably a good idea to demonstrate the smallest civililty one can: correctly calling an individual by their chosen name. Or, in this case, spelling it correctly.
Your quick dismissal of me does nothing to bolster your complaint about the "lack of civility". In fact, it just adds to that perceived "lack of civility" that troubles you so much that you focus on one commenter.
October 19, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Win FL it's over, win OH it's over, win VA it's over, win CO it's over, win NV it's over, win NC it's over, win MO it's over.
That's the reality.
BO has to win one state among these 7-10 toss up states, ONE STATE and this is over.
It's that simple, if you look at what really matters.
October 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, it was a gubernatorial race
It was still in 1982
October 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bradely Effect is real. May not be as profound but real. That's why I don't think BO will win OH or NC, and that's why McCain and Obama are still campaigning hard in PA even though polls show a 15 point lead for BO in the state.
I expect him to win VA and CO and wrap it up. Rest of the toss ups (formerly red states) are close enough they very well may lean McCain on the big day.
October 18, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a theory and I have never seen proof - so it's reality is a matter of opinion, only.
October 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Tena, now you may be sounding a bit more like those Discovery Institute folks than you may want to, for comfort...
LOCATION: Kansas
OFFICE: State School Board
QUOTATION: "Well...it's only a theory....not a reality..."
Gentlemanly offered, of course.
October 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you prove something like this?
How? Did they ask the voters what happened? No, they looked at the numbers and drew and inference that white people told polsters that they were voting for the AA candidate so "they wouldn't look racist" (in 1982? ) and then voted for the white candidate.
Show me proof that people actually did that.
October 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason you are no gentleman, sir, is because you have continued to spam these threads despite being asked repeatedly not to.
If you are changing that pattern - good for you. It's really something to see you actually in the conversation for a change.
October 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike your fascinating contributions of "fuck", etc.
Which I enjoy--though I don't need to, nor you mine.
We contribute in different ways--on topic, in topic--and regard it in different ways--in topic, on topic. I don't regard you as spam--though I might--and visa versa. There's no pride in being a member of the Thought Police, Tena--and you're more interesting when you're not.
Now go read that junk at the Discovery Institute so you can keep yourself away from junk polling and science. We want to be aware of the uninformed who might be biased so we can be sure to win--not slap blinders on and simply hope for the best. Elections, to our misfortune, have been taken before for equally idiotic reasons.
October 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. There's been no evidence of any Bradly Effect throughout the primaries or through other recent elections involving black candidates. There's even evidence that the original "Bradly Effect" was seriously overstated. Ohio is polling pretty consistently within the margin of error, so if Obama eventually ends up losing it narrowly, that won't be an indication of a Bradly Effect. Same with NC, except there, we also have to break through historical trends.
Time spent worrying about thing like the Bradly Effect is seriously unproductive.
October 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, close or even ineffecitve polling doesn't mean people were deliberately lying to pollsters, which is what the Bradley Effect asserts.
October 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was real.
October 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
To reverse what people are saying about an Obama win, mcShame has to win ALL the toss-up states. All of them! The odds of him doing that are so slim right now. Whereas Obama's odds are so high, for 1 out of 7.
For mcShame is 100% or face defeat. For Obama there are so many routes to victory!
October 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is around 50% in all the polls. He really hasn't moved for a while. McCain is around 45%. He really hasn't moved out of the low 40% for a while. There aren't many left to decide. I doubt all of them are going to move to McCain. In the end it will probably be 52%/48% or 53%/47% Obama.
The battleground states are swinging to Obama. McCain really doesn't have a path to a close election. We are probably seeing the effects of the robocalls right now. They won't change the ultimate outcome.
October 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
His negatives are higher than his positives, keeping him from moving up much beyond the mid 40's.
October 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this surprising anybody? Did you really think McCain was going to pull a low-forties vote on Election Day? This appears to be Repubs and leaners coming home, as expected. I'm guessing it ends up around a 2-point popular vote margin (McCain will meaninglessly pad his total in the red states, which I think is partly what we're seeing in the national polls right now) but a much more comfortable electoral vote margin (polls in key states don't really seem to be tightening as much as the national trackers.)
No room for complacency but certainly no need for excessive worrying, either.
October 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will notice that the only "battleground" states where Obama isn't leading are North Dakota and West Virginia. Think about that. North Dakota and West Virginia are battleground states.
Obama is up in Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio. Think about that for a moment. Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri are probably going to vote for a black President.
The times are a changin.
October 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't the state polls tend to lag behind the national polls? I don't know, I'm just asking.
October 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generally speaking, yeah. Those people in the national poll live somewhere. But shifts in the national poll don't necessarily mean that a particular state is tightening up.
I think it was Zogby said that his polls showed that McCain was improving in the south. That might mean that Florida and Georgia are trending towards McCain a bit, and that Louisiana and Alabama are getting a bit more red. This trend wouldn't have much effect on Colorado and Ohio, or even demographically speaking, Virginia.
Don't sweat the national polls, unless they really flip on us.
October 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good reply.
October 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, but what about the social desirability bias, blah, blah, blah?
Thanks for being reasonable. And co-sign your feeling we shouldn't be complacent, but also not panicking.
Knocked on 24 doors in NH today, found 16 Obama, 6 McCain, 2 undecided. The undecideds were both leaning Dem, and just needed to be reassured about taxes. I know one of them will vote for BO, the other said something about Liberal Judges, so I'm not sure about him. This was Portsmouth area, so as close to suburban and Mass as it gets, but still pretty telling as far as NH goes.
Making calls in VA tonight.
Getting close. Got my bottle of Dom at the ready.
October 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you're making calls and knocking on doors. Try to hide the teeth, and keep speech to a minimum.
October 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, pal.
I try not to smile too much.
October 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you use words like "Bradley Effect" it sounds all too theoretical and academic. But simple question:
Do I believe there are Americans who say will vote for Obama and will not when they enter the polling booth?
Yes, absolutely.
October 18, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't.
October 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Academic == Elitist? Sometimes those pointy-heads do know a thing or two.
Of course, some will. But how many?
And will it be more than those who say they'll vote for McSame but just won't do it? I think not.
October 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kash, I understand what you're saying, but I have to say that I believe that there are people out there who say they won't vote for Obama but who actually will.
I very good friend of my husband's is a die-hard Republican: lives in the deep south, he's a pastor of an Evangelical church, they homeschool their children, never misses a Limbaugh show,...you think of a stereotypical republican attribute and he's probably got it. The other day he tells my husband - only after promising that we wouldn't tell his wife, his in-laws, or his parents - that he's voting for Obama. He's just had it after eight years of Bush.
The "bradley effect" (if it exists) is based on the notion that people are under some social pressure to never admit that they won't vote for an AA, right? I'm not sure where you live, but, well, here in the deep red south, it's way more socially acceptable to be Republican. I worked for a while in a hospital in a very small town - the type of place where the end of everyone's e-mail had some sort of scripture on it, employees regularly sent each other right-wing smear e-mails, and all of the t.v.s were regularly tuned to Fox News - I was literally the first progressive some of those people had ever met. I can sincerely believe that many of those people might vote for Obama, but would never in a million years admit it to anyone.
October 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok everyone needs to get away from the computer and go do something else for the next 4 hours. Seriously, take in some sunshine. Read a book. Play with your [dog, kid, lover, self]. Something. Just leave this thread.
October 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You first :-)
October 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kash, I am more than willing to believe people will tell friends, co-workers, family members that in order to avoid looking racist - but not pollsters. I cannot see how people could possibly be worried about what pollsters think especially since nobody takes names.
October 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's that they don't want to admit it to themselves. They would like to be able to think that they could vote for a black man if it came to that. But when it actually comes time to vote, they "inexplicably" change their minds. A last minute, thoroughly self-deceiving "decision" to vote for McCain because "maybe he's the best man after all." The psychological underpinning of this change of "mind" would be the subsurface imagery that the McCain campaign is busily planting all over the place. Said voters will go home completely convinced they haven't got a racist bone in their bodies. They'll be no more able to explain their change of mind in the polling booth than they're able to explain why they bought Zest rather than Dove at the grocery store. Almost by definition, when we talk about racism we're not talking about rational thought processes.
October 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Blue Skies. This is exactly what is meant by the "Social Desirability" bias, and the McCain crew has been trying to play on it and drive it up.
October 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent cite on Bradley race.
Question here is Bradley race vs. overall phenomenon as has been discussed above.
October 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the "Tiger Woods Effect" ?
Elwyn Tinklenberg
Election: MN-06
4,422
Supporters
$188,391
Raised
24 hours ago this Act Blue page had $2,500 on it ;
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18660
I was over at Crooks and Liars this morning posting these numbers. Tinklenberg was taking in over $11,000 an hour.
Now we all know how vain "Tweety" is , and we all know he does a feature called the "Big Number" on his show at the bottom of the hour. Soo let's give him a real big number for Monday.
October 18, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a pretty decent one-minute web ad for Obama from TruthAndHope.ORG.
October 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
4,463
Supporters
189,827
Raised
This is political history going today, make no mistake. No House Race has ever done this before.
October 18, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well over $200,000 now! He's gonna have a quarter mil at least... if not more by Monday!
Go El!!!
October 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elwyn Tinklenberg
Election: MN-06
4,477
Supporters 190,212
Raised
October 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The average donation to Tinklenberg was $44.71 this morning.
October 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things about the Bradley Effect:
1. Bradley was not leading significantly in polls in the '86 race.
2. The validity of this phenomenon is pretty much destroyed in the linked piece by who someone who was close enough to the action to know:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_bradley_effect_selective_m.html
October 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a blast here in MN today. The Slow Tribune and the Plodding Press both reported on Bachmann's head-spinning puke-flinging episode, but neither has picked up the real story of Tinklenberg closing in on $200,000 in 24 hours. It's a beautiful sunny fall day. Anything is possible.
October 18, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL at picture of Bachmann...
October 18, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually fantastic news folks, this way we won't be complacent and everyone can turn out to vote like they should. That way we can WIN by 8, not just poll by it.
October 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huff Post says Obama drew 100,000 at St. Louis rally today. That celebrity magic again!
October 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The photo of the scene is awesome. And this is supposed to be a red state! This is why I don't believe the reports which suggest the race is tightening.
October 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tell you, being there and seeing the enthusiasm and the sheer size of the crowd makes it VERY hard to believe it is tightening.
It's unlike anything I've ever seen.
And as a BONUS I just got an email from the campaign saying that Bill Clinton is speaking Monday night at a high school just down the street from me!
October 18, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was there... Amazing!
October 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to sound like a Hippy, but there is no feeling like group conscience Love, Hope and Peace. Cherish it :) I am happy for all of you who were there.
October 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It is heartwarming to see so many people together who share a common purpose and common hope. It felt like all 100000 people were friends.
I'm ready to get out canvassing again!
October 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw a pic from STL of Obama, a sea of people and the Old Courthouse, which, many may or may not know was the scene of the beginning of the Dred Scott trials in the 1840's. I'm sure the historical significance of that was not lost on the campaign...
October 18, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. I had the same thought.
Obama did use the setting of the Arch as the "Gateway to the West" to talk about the pioneering spirit of America, and the desire to always move forward.
October 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I think the importance of polls and Obama warning folks not to take things for granted simply means.... we must win by a LANDSLIDE in order for there to be no chance of having this election "stolen".
October 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
October 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed the troll, folks. Make it work on its own... without food.
October 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, this dinner is delicious!
Hope you're having a great evening--and remember: not too much actual thought, o.k.?
October 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it now. You pointed me to your comments on the Bachman thread, where you discussed your reason for spamming TPM with long-ass made up dialogues. Your whole thing is "1st Amendment". When people call you out for being an annoying spammer, you reply by getting all holier than thou.
In fact, you described Tena as like an angry little kid. You suggested we begin reading history, apparently the Magna Carta included protections for being annoying.
Anyhoo, it seems your reply to us is "1st Amendment" and followed by a lecture as to how we are an "in crowd" and how intellectually stifling that is, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Seriously Bob, do you think you are being original, getting up in arms and crying "1st Amendment" when other commenters call your posts crap?
There's serious irony here. Hope you're picking up on it.
October 18, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a different post. But it's ok. You just keep making substantive contribution after substantive contribution, ok? Bye now.
October 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you have a cast of "thousands" to reply to? Why are bothering with little old me?
October 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite being a worrier by nature, I can't see McW pulling close enough to cheat his way into the White House. He's panicked at this point, abandoned all principles, and is running negative ads and robo-calls that are reportedly damaging him with the undecideds. All the while, Obama keeps deflecting McW's attacks without diving into the hog slop. Imagine McW's head exploding over Obama's latest per HuffPost...."John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people 'welfare'”
October 18, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tend to agree. As I said it first post (before the nonsense kicked in), I think that when it comes to it, people will override biases for what they know is needed. But we aren't helped by complacency.
October 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone remember, about a century ago it seems, Gulf War I? Everyone was so glued to the TV news about the build-up to war- almost 27hours/7 days a week - once it was over, in a matter of 7 days, a whole lot of people, nation wide, experienced WNWS (war news withdrawal syndrome). I wonder if the same phenomena will happen in the second week in November? ENWS - election news withdrawal syndrome.
October 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As it is, I feel that way on slow news days.
I guess when the election is over, I'll actually have to start getting some stuff done during the day. {Sigh....}
October 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
ENWS symptoms will be a sense of ease and peace, followed by a pursuit of non-political hobbies.
October 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God.....did you all see this update? Bachmann's opponent is near $500,000!!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/18/2550/3286/381/634245
October 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever wondered about Zogby?
Here's a Zogby quote from an article about poll aggregation in today's SF Chron:
So, what hole is Zogby living in???
October 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given Nate's dismissals of Zogby's poll, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to give Nate more free press.
I cannot bring myself to belief that a pollster that prominent doesn't know 538. He should stop doing polling if he really doesn't. Seriously.
October 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, there is likely the pollster vs. baseball statistician professional elitism at work...
October 18, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zogby has always struck me as right-leaning and somewhat isolated, focused more on technique than the changes in the political Zeitgeist, especially on the left, so it doesn't surprise me that he would not know Silver's work
October 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I think he is primarily a businessman, so sees no gain in promoting another's site--he's taken that position in presentation after presentation...
October 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting page from Lifehacker.COM: Top 10 Web Tools for Election Season
October 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add the IBD/Tipp poll to the composite and boost Obama's standing! He leads by 7.4% today.
http://www.tipponline.com/
October 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that the poll the wingnuts were hanging their hopes on a few days ago?
October 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trouble trusting IBD polling...
October 18, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the one, I don't know why they don't list in on the map list, it would definitely improve Obama's standing. This isn't RCP.
October 18, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone hear the interview on NPR with an Indiana democratic party member who answered a question about the "Bradley Effect" by raising the possibility of a "reverse Bradley Effect" i.e. people saying they are going to vote for McCain (the white guy) when asked about who they will vote for because they don't want to be seen as "liberal" while they actually are going to vote for Obama (the Black guy)? He said he wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Hoosiers who tell each other they are voting McCain end up pulling the lever for Obama when out of sight of friends and family in the voting booth (I paraphrase).
October 18, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...the interview is online here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95430213
Interesting stuff.
October 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe McCain's legacy from this election will be the "McCain Effect".
October 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink