AP Presidential Poll: Dead Heat

[molson_golden2002]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_...esidential_race

 

WASHINGTON – The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

 

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.

 

Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.

 

The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day.

[Kelly the Dog]

"There are eight current national polls that list separate sets of results for likely and registered voters. (In this case, for reasons that will be apparent momentarily, I am deliberately double-counting the two Gallup likely voter models). On average, Barack Obama leads by 9.8 points in the registered voter versions of these polls, but by 7.0 points in the likely voter versions -- nearly a 3-point difference:

 

Note, however, that the likely voter models appear to segregate themselves into two clusters. In one cluster, there is a rather large, 4-6 point difference between registered and likely voter results. In the other cluster, there is essentially no difference.

 

The first cluster coincides with Gallup's so-called "traditional" likely voter model, which considers both a voter's stated intention and his past voting behavior. The second cluster coincides with their "expanded" likely voter model, which considers solely the voter's stated intentions. Note the philosophical difference between the two: in the "traditional" model, a voter can tell you that he's registered, tell you that he's certain to vote, tell you that he's very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded from the model if he hasn't voted in the past. The pollster, in other words, is making a determination as to how the voter will behave. In the "expanded" model, the pollster lets the voter speak for himself.

 

Frankly, I find polls showing a 4-6 point gap between likely and registered voters to be utterly ridiculous. Why?

 

1. Among people who have already voted, Democrats lead overwhelmingly. Zogby pegs Barack Obama's advantage at 27 points among people who have already voted. The New York Times details how Democrats are overperforming, sometimes dramatically, in states where early voting is underway. (By the way, the New York Times' data on Florida is wrong, as it includes absentee ballot requests as well as early voters. According to an Open Left diarist, Democrats have a 24-point advantage among those who have actually voted early in Florida).

 

Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.

 

2. Enthusiasm is much higher among Democrats than among Republicans. The latest Diageo/Hotline numbers show that 72 percent of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for their candidate, as opposed to 55 percent of Republicans.

 

3. Most likely voter models are unlikely to distinguish newly registered voters from what I would call lapsed registered voters. If someone is registered, and has been registered for a long while, but has not cast a ballot since they pulled the lever for Ross Perot in 1992, there is good reason to be skeptical about their intentions. On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote. Barack Obama's advantages are principally from among the newly-registered voter group.

 

4. There is an enormous discrepancy in the strength of the Republican and Democratic turnout operations. In past elections, such as 2004, this advantage favored the Republicans; in this one, it favors the Democrats. Barack Obama has somewhere between a 2:1 and a 4:1 advantage in field offices in most battleground states. He is relying almost exclusively on volunteers (the exception are a couple of cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, where Obama will most likely pay 'street money' to canvassers on Election Day). McCain, meanwhile, has already had to hire paid canvassers in Florida, and perhaps he will also in several other states.

 

5. Turnout among 'unlikely' voter blocks was substantially up during the Democratic primaries. Youth voters (18-29 year olds) increased their share of the Democratic electorate by 52 percent. Latino voters increased their share by 42 percent. Black voters increased their share by 8 percent.

 

I would like to issue a challenge to those pollsters like Franklin & Marshall and GfK which in spite of all the facts above, are showing a substantial shift toward the Republicans when they apply their likely voter models. E-mail me -- my contact information is at the top of the page -- and tell me why you think what you're doing is good science."

 

-- Nate Silver at 1:52 PM

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/som...re-suspect.html

 

If you click on the link you see that the average national poll has Obama up 8-10 points. And the Electoral College is worse for McCain.

[PastaJoe]

That would be a good nickname for the McCain-Palin team: Dead-Heat.

 

Of course the battleground state polls are the only ones that matter, and RealClearPolitics still has Obama ahead in all of them; Florida, Ohio, Nevada, NC, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia. Even if McCain won all of those, given the solid and leaning states, the best he could do is a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House. McCain needs a game chang..uh, I mean event modifier to pull an additional Obama state away from him.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...vs_mccain/#data

[bills_fan]

That would be a good nickname for the McCain-Palin team: Dead-Heat.

 

Of course the battleground state polls are the only ones that matter, and RealClearPolitics still has Obama ahead in all of them; Florida, Ohio, Nevada, NC, Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia. Even if McCain won all of those, given the solid and leaning states, the best he could do is a 269-269 tie, which would throw the election to the House. McCain needs a game chang..uh, I mean event modifier to pull an additional Obama state away from him.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...vs_mccain/#data

 

 

I would count NH as a battleground state. Might even watch PA.

[Kelly the Dog]

I would count NH as a battleground state. Might even watch PA.

Give me an argument for why this is a battleground state, let alone that Obama has a serious chance of losing here, given these stats:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...-244.html#polls

Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) McCain ® Spread

RCP Average 10/11 - 10/21 -- -- 51.7 40.3 Obama +11.4

Morning Call 10/17 - 10/21 594 LV 4.0 52 41 Obama +11

Susquehanna 10/16 - 10/18 700 LV 3.7 48 40 Obama +8

SurveyUSA 10/11 - 10/13 516 LV 4.4 55 40 Obama +15

Marist 10/05 - 10/08 757 LV 3.5 53 41 Obama +12

Strategic Vision (R10/05 - 10/07 1200 LV 3.0 54 40 Obama +14

Rasmussen 10/06 - 10/06 700 LV 4.0 54 41 Obama +13

SurveyUSA 10/05 - 10/06 653 LV 3.9 55 40 Obama +15

Morning Call Tracking 09/26 - 09/30 598 LV 4.0 48 41 Obama +7

Quinnipiac 09/27 - 09/29 832 LV 3.4 54 39 Obama +15

FOX News/Rasmussen 09/28 - 09/28 500 LV 4.5 50 42 Obama +8

Franklin & Marshall09/23 - 09/28 767 RV 3.5 45 38 Obama +7

Morning Call 09/21 - 09/25 577 LV 4.5 47 43 Obama +4

Rasmussen 09/24 - 09/24 500 LV 4.0 49 45 Obama +4

SurveyUSA 09/23 - 09/24 1094 LV 3.0 50 44 Obama +6

Strategic Vision ®09/21 - 09/23 1200 LV 3.0 47 46 Obama +1

CNN/Time 09/21 - 09/23 730 LV 3.5 53 44 Obama +9

National Journal/FD09/18 - 09/22 406 RV 4.9 43 41 Obama +2

FOX News/Rasmussen 09/21 - 09/21 500 LV 4.5 48 45 Obama +3

NBC/Mason-Dixon 09/16 - 09/18 625 LV 4.0 46 44 Obama +2

Big10 Battleground 09/14 - 09/17 600 RV 4.0 45 45 Tie

Marist 09/11 - 09/15 535 LV 3.5 49 44 Obama +5

FOX News/Rasmussen 09/14 - 09/14 500 LV 4.5 47 47 Tie

Quinnipiac 09/05 - 09/09 1001 LV 3.1 48 45 Obama +3

FOX News/Rasmussen 09/07 - 09/07 500 LV 4.5 47 45 Obama +2

Strategic Vision ® 09/05 - 09/07 1200 LV 3.0 47 45 Obama +2

CNN/Time 08/24 - 08/26 669 RV 4.0 48 43 Obama +5

Quinnipiac 08/17 - 08/24 1234 LV 2.8 49 42 Obama +7

Rasmussen 08/19 - 08/19 700 LV 4.0 48 45 Obama +3

Susquehanna 08/11 - 08/14 700 LV -- 46 41 Obama +5

Franklin & Marshall 08/04 - 08/09 370 LV -- 46 41 Obama +5

Quinnipiac 07/23 - 07/29 1317 LV 2.7 49 42 Obama +7

Strategic Vision ® 07/25 - 07/27 1200 LV 3.0 49 40 Obama +9

Rasmussen 07/23 - 07/23 700 LV 4.0 51 45 Obama +6

Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/22 1000 LV 3.0 46 42 Obama +4

Franklin & Marshall 06/16 - 06/22 1501 RV 2.5 42 36 Obama +6

Quinnipiac 06/09 - 06/16 1511 LV 2.5 52 40 Obama +12

Rasmussen 05/21 - 05/21 500 LV -- 45 43 Obama +2

Quinnipiac 05/13 - 05/20 1667 RV 2.4 46 40 Obama +6

SurveyUSA 05/16 - 05/18 600 RV -- 48 40 Obama +8

Susquehanna 05/01 - 05/06 800 LV -- 46 39 Obama +7

Quinnipiac 04/23 - 04/29 1494 RV -- 47 38 Obama +9

Rasmussen 04/24 - 04/24 500 LV -- 43 44 McCain +1

Strategic Vision ® 04/11 - 04/13 1200 LV -- 39 49 McCain +10

Rasmussen 04/09 - 04/09 500 LV -- 47 39 Obama +8

Temple Univ. 03/27 - 04/09 1175 RV -- 47 40 Obama +7

Strategic Vision ® 03/28 - 03/31 1200 LV -- 42 47 McCain +5

Quinnipiac 03/24 - 03/31 3484 RV -- 43 39 Obama +4

Rasmussen 03/10 - 03/10 500 LV -- 43 44 McCain +1

Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 700 RV -- 41 45 McCain +4

Strategic Vision ® 03/07 - 03/09 1,200 LV -- 44 47 McCain +3

SurveyUSA 02/26 - 02/28 608 RV -- 42 47 McCain +5

Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 1872 RV -- 42 40 Obama +2

Franklin & Marshall 02/13 - 02/18 640 RV -- 43 44 McCain +1

Morning Call 02/09 - 02/17 588 RV -- 39 42 McCain +3

Rasmussen 02/14 - 02/14 500 LV -- 49 39 Obama +10

Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 1419 LV -- 42 41 Obama +1

Quinnipiac 10/01 - 10/08 878 RV -- 45 41 Obama +4

Keystone Poll 08/24 - 09/02 232 RV -- 47 42 Obama +5

Quinnipiac 08/14 - 08/20 1160 RV -- 43 40 Obama +3

Keystone Poll 05/29 - 06/07 RV -- 37 43 McCain +6

Morning Call 05/15 - 05/21 416 RV -- 36 39 McCain +3

Keystone Poll 02/19 - 02/25 540 RV -- 37 43 McCain +6

[KD in CA]

Where is RCow when we need him?

[/dev/null]

Give me an argument for why this is a battleground state, let alone that Obama has a serious chance of losing here, given these stats:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...-244.html#polls

 

If you keep taking the polls over and over again you will eventually come to a difference of 3.5

[PastaJoe]

I would count NH as a battleground state. Might even watch PA.

 

Perhaps tossup states would have been a better term, since Obama has larger leads in NH and PA.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Perhaps tossup states would have been a better term, since Obama has larger leads in NH and PA.

depends who they ask. Sometimes I think there is no way PA goes Red but than again based upon stuff ya see and the fact mccain is spending so much time there that they seem to think otherwise.

 

No matter who wins both sides will claim voter fraud etc and probably will have many valid gripes.

 

its freaking 21st century and I have no confidence in the voting mechanisms in place.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Intrade has Obama as almost a 6 to 1 favorite.

 

http://www.intrade.com/

[UBinVA]

This election will be very very close. I think it's a toss up right now and could go either way. Polls should not sway anyone's choice and everyone should vote. I have a statistics background and these polls based on the sample size, people selected (Dems, Indies, GOP), people not telling the truth, etc. are very suspect at best. Pollers also manipulate the raw data to anticipate the eventual voter turnout and other methods.

 

In this election I think most historical polling analysis can be thrown out. The dynamics are way different than any other election to date.

 

Interesting article by Ann Coulter about this topic.

 

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

 

Ann Coulter Analysis:

 

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

 

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.

 

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

 

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. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

 

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

 

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

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.

 

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

 

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.

[elegantelliotoffen]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...-pres-bush-won/

 

CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corp. surveys released Wednesday afternoon indicate that Barack Obama has a small advantage in Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina and a large lead in Virginia, with John McCain ahead in West Virginia.

 

"In every one of these states the decline in the Republican vote is larger than the gain the Democratic vote," said CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider. "One reason is there may still be uncertainty among voters about Obama, but there's no uncertainty about the loss of confidence in the Republicans.

 

"The two states where we see the biggest shift in the Democrats' favor are Virginia and North Carolina, which have the largest populations of African-American voters. Democrats have made a gain of 9 points in Virginia and 7 points in North Carolina from the results of the 2004 presidential election," Schneider added.

[blzrul]

And since voting problems in W. Virginia - where touchscreen voting for Obama is supposedly printing off voter receipts indicating the vote was cast for McCain (different thread) - his leading in WVa may be pretty safe.

 

:-)

[Kelly the Dog]

This election will be very very close. I think it's a toss up right now and could go either way. Polls should not sway anyone's choice and everyone should vote. I have a statistics background and these polls based on the sample size, people selected (Dems, Indies, GOP), people not telling the truth, etc. are very suspect at best. Pollers also manipulate the raw data to anticipate the eventual voter turnout and other methods.

 

In this election I think most historical polling analysis can be thrown out. The dynamics are way different than any other election to date.

 

Interesting article by Ann Coulter about this topic.

 

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

 

Ann Coulter Analysis:

 

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

 

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.

 

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

 

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. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

 

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

 

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.

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.

 

In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

 

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.

I like how Coulter went back each year and just chose a date when the polls fit her theory, anywhere from early September to late October. That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen about polls. Plus, this year, the Republican leaning polls have Obama up significantly. Almost ALL polls have him up significantly. Polls are very often wrong, but when all of them are saying pretty much the same thing, with nothing anyone can think of that will change it, it's hard to believe they are ALL wrong.

[Kelly the Dog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_...esidential_race

The problem (with this poll)? In 2004, evangelicals/born-again Christians made up 23% of voters. But that same group makes up 44% of likely voters in AP's poll released today. That's almost double the number - it's totally implausible.

[molson_golden2002]

I like how Coulter went back each year and just chose a date when the polls fit her theory, anywhere from early September to late October. That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen about polls. Plus, this year, the Republican leaning polls have Obama up significantly. Almost ALL polls have him up significantly. Polls are very often wrong, but when all of them are saying pretty much the same thing, with nothing anyone can think of that will change it, it's hard to believe they are ALL wrong.

Well, that's Ann Coulter we are talking about. The same Ann Coulter our national media use to actually use as a legimate political commentator.

 

Anyway, if the national polls are tightening, the states will probably follow.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

And since voting problems in W. Virginia - where touchscreen voting for Obama is supposedly printing off voter receipts indicating the vote was cast for McCain (different thread) - his leading in WVa may be pretty safe.

 

:-)

actually one lady complained of the issue and members of the democratic party went and tested to ensure they are working righjt and the were. Non Story so far but like i said earlier voter fraud will be rampant all over theplace since we have such crazy and loose requirements.