Current State of the Presidential Election *Final Update*

BillD wrote:I think he thinks that being Republican means we also LOVE Bush. Clue - many of us have very little to like about him.
McCain caused him no end of trouble, often lining up Democrats to vote AGAINST Bush!

I guess trolls don't look up historical poll data showing kerry winning more states than he actually took up to the last day! (as well as gore in many states)

Yeah, about that. In 2000 I was about 10, I wasn't really aware of the political scene. And in 2004, at the age of 14, I knew people didn't like Bush. I knew A LOT didn't. Hell, I though Kerry would take it. He was apparently ahead in the polls (as well as Gore) and they had more states than Obama? Am I correct in that? Well, anyway--as they were both ahead, they both got defeated. I would not put stock in polls.

I am fine with Bush. After the failure of the Clinton administration to deal with bin Laden, I have been very grateful that Bush was President on 9/11, rather than Gore. It was bad enough. I don't think what it would have been like with the totally ineffective Gore in the White House.

Today there were a couple of polls out for VA where in they show BO with a lead in the ballpark of 10 pts.

Now I dug in further on the SUSA poll which over the last month had JM leading (2 pts) to trailing today with 10 pts. Now this would on the surface suggest a ground shattering movement towards BO. But if you take a look at the cross tabs we will find that over the last month the dem advantage in the sampling has changed from +1 to +9 but JM has consistantly led over the independants (although just by a point today) hence all the difference is because of the increased # of dems in the sample and greater skew towards N.VA.

Of course if this exists then BO does take the state but what I hear from the ground is that might not be the case. Repubs usually turn out in better numbers than polled with a difference of the 2006 senate elections. If anyone else has something to add please do so.

Again ...Please take me by my word....Do not put much emphasis on the polls ...this race is closer than many want you to think...but definitely it s advantage BO as of today. Its all about GOTV!!!!

It is my understanding that both Battleground and Rasmussen changed the way they weighted their polls within the last couple of weeks. Does anyone know why they did it? Because when they changed the way they weighted their polls, their polls went to Obama and very fast.

Well I know that Rasmussen takes into consideration the dem vs rep vs ind voter registration stat to consider their weekly sample. As of today it stands at dem - 39.3% to rep - 33.3% hence we have the dems start at an inherent 6pt advantage. Everything is speculative. Most of the pollsters consider a sample weighing from 6 - 11 percentage point dem advanatge. If we are not successful in the GOTV it will be President BO. Please work to get all the repub voters!

Perhaps because of the HUGE number of registered democrats thanks to the hot primaries?
And the fact large numbers almost always favor democrats? The new registrations were mostly democrats, their base is really motivated...........

BillD wrote:Perhaps because of the HUGE number of registered democrats thanks to the hot primaries?
And the fact large numbers almost always favor democrats? The new registrations were mostly democrats, their base is really motivated...........

But a lot of the Dems are PUMAs. A good share of those who were energized during the primaries will not vote for Obama.

independant_visionary wrote:Well I know that Rasmussen takes into consideration the dem vs rep vs ind voter registration stat to consider their weekly sample. As of today it stands at dem - 39.3% to rep - 33.3% hence we have the dems start at an inherent 6pt advantage. Everything is speculative. Most of the pollsters consider a sample weighing from 6 - 11 percentage point dem advanatge. If we are not successful in the GOTV it will be President BO. Please work to get all the repub voters!

Honestly, I live in a Republican area. And they are ones who will vote. This is a very conservative area. Now, Seattle is a huge difference. The unions in Seattle tell their members who they are to vote for. It will go solidly for Obama . . . because they are stupid. Unions are very, very strong in Seattle.

couple of pointers regarding the recently released polling data. This will give you an idea how erratic the polls are :

I was comparing the Rasmussen and SUSA polling of VA. Unfortunately I do not have the cross tabs for Rasmussen but lets look at how men and women break for individual candidates.

According to Rasmussen

McCain leads among men, 54% to 44%, while Obama has a 55% to 42% advantage among women. White voters in Virginia favor McCain by a 59% to 38% margin, while non-white voters favor Obama, 82% to 16%

According to SUSA

There is movement among men, where immediately after the GOP convention, McCain led by 10, and where today Obama leads by 11. [A complete flip to Rasmussen]
Among women its BO-JM -> 53-43
Among non-whites its BO-JM -> 86-13
Among whites it is JM-BO -> 52-43

Hence we have a big conflict among men especially white men.

So if we put the men numbers of Rasmussen for SUSA we get a near tie even with a 9 point inherent advantage for dems to start with in the sampling size. Do we need anymore proof.

Today a poll is out from CBS which shows the presidential race within 3 points ..the same poll had BO with an advantage 9 a week ago. Does that make sense. Its all over. Keep the target in sight!

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTdiYzRiZTc3ZjQyMmJjY2FmNjk1ZmI5NTExMzUzYzM=

Precisely my points! and if we actually follow the last known registrations for the senate race in 2006 we have JM-BO within 2 points.

What is the purpose of making the polls look like McCain does not have a chance? I don't get it.

WA State Voter wrote:What is the purpose of making the polls look like McCain does not have a chance? I don't get it.

Well, from what I gather, the reason the polls would purposley do this is mainly for undecideds/uninformed or those "sheeple" that will follow the crowd. "Oh look, Obama is ahead in the polls! He must be a great guy, I'll back him up."

It's really sad and pathetic, but its very accurate. I said it before-many of my friends, when I speak to them about issues and current world events (WITHOUT political party titles attached) they have very conservative views. But they'll vote democrat because that is what is constantly being jammed down our throats. the polls just seal the deal. "See, HE'S doing GREAT..so he MUST be on the right path"

SweetNightmare pretty much explained it, the lopsided polls make it look like Obama is sure to win, and not only will undecided voters be more likely to jump on the "bandwagon" because they want to back the winner, but people who were going to vote McCain, decide they might as well stay home because it "looks" like Obama is the sure winner.

Nariman ..has nailed it! The latter point is of more importance. This is how the dems managed to capture the congress / senate in 2006. They were expecting a bigger victory but just about managed to win a simple majority mainly because a lot of the conservatives stayed home. They want to repeat the same. If conservatives turn out in their regular numbers it is game set match JM. Most of the new registered voters are in the age group of 18-24 and they have never been reliable. A recent poll put the number at 50% expected to vote. A new Zogby poll put today also has the race at 3(48-45). Zogby has been pretty reliable in the past presidential elections.

But, in 1994 didn't the media and polls make it look like the senate democrats were in the lead and republicans ended up winning? Correct me if I am wrong, I was only 5.

SweetNightmare, you are oinly 9 years old?

I caught that too but figured it was a typo and she meant 14??? LOL

Read 'em and weep!

The Early Line: Diageo/Hotline Tracking Poll

Obama-Biden 46%
McCain-Palin 44%
Undecided 9%

-- The race has tightened in the last day. After trailing by 5-7 pts. for the last 10 days, McCain is now just 2 pts. behind Obama.

--One potential reason: Obama's one-time lead on the question of who'd best handle the economy has evaporated. Today, Obama and McCain are tied at 42%. Independent voters favor McCain on the economy by an 8 pt. margin (42-34%).

--Even so, among the 62% of voters who picked the economy as their #1 issue, Obama leads McCain by 9 pts. - 49-40%.

Today's Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, conducted 10/4-6 by FD; surveyed 908 LVs; margin of error +/- 3.3% Party ID Breakdown: 40%D, 38%R, 18%I.

All of the polls have tightened up except Rasmussen. It is becoming more of an outlier. A lot of the them are now in the margin of error. RCP has Obama dropping by .7 over yesterday (might have been more except for Rasmussen and Battleground), dropped in approval rating and dropped in the Electoral Vote.

Now we have 6 polls according to my knowledge - NBC/Wash Post, Zogby, CBS, Hotline, Democracy Corps, American Research Group which shows the race within 2-4 pts and Gallup, Rasmussen, Battleground which shows it at 7-9 pts. As I have said before the pools are / will be all over the place. we should ALWAYS take them with a pinch of salt. In all these polls the Dem polling sample advantage ranges from 2 - 12 percentage pts.

The fight continues. Please make sure to get out all possible voters especially in the battleground states. Finally its the EV which matters and according to my assessment as of today we are lagging behind. I agree with Rove if the election were to be held today BO would win but 27 days is a lifetime in politics. The race is closer then we can all imagine and always remember JM did not give up on us in Vietman he will not now. we need to set aside all differences (I know many repubs do not like him a lot ) but come on ..by sitting back you are helping elect BO...the decision lies in your hands ..which is more important? This Election is very important!

SweetNightmare ...How can I Forget the 2004 elections. I was part of the Kerry campaign and we were all but sure of the WH, senate and congress even on election day!. That was a rude awakening... I know the BO campaign has/have taken very serious note of that day and will try to play around with public sentiments in order to supress the votes and simultaneously enthuse their base. Trust me they have the means and the resources...but the power lies in the hands of the people!

http://interactive.zogby.com/index.cfm

Click on National and state by state results 2004.

Please take a look at the table for the 2004 elections and it will underscore the very point that I have been trying to make. In most of the state wide elections the republican support has been understated. Sounds familiar?

In 2006 Zogby got it correct in 16 of 17 senate races.

There is another pollster that i have been following during the primaries..they started of pretty bad but improved significantly over time(reason most of the earlier primaries were caucus states). - ARG ( American Research Group )

Keep the fight going. Remember we are still very much the underdogs - as states by Sarah herself!

Didn't they say that "early voting" in Ohio was much lighter than expected?
I heard a political science prof from ISU say today that early voting in Iowa is down, and he says that the huge number of "newly registered voters" won't necessarily translate into more voting. He says the negative tones and the lengthy campaigning this year is turning off many voters, some will simply refuse to get involved.
Now is this just urban legend that light turn-out helps Republicans?
SO folks, GO VOTE! Vote early, vote often, but VOTE! (but only if you are going to vote for Sarah and John) let the others stay home!

Yes, a light turn out helps the Republicans. However, Obama's campaign has also been targeted the younger voters. They just do not actually vote in large numbers.

For all of you wondering about the Gallup polls...here is an article on Huffington Post....Yes the most left leaning web site....

huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz/remembering-gallups-wacky_b_117594.html


Just how volatile where Gallup's results? Here are a few examples:


On August 8 Gallup had Bush 2 points ahead of Gore. Six days later, on August 13 they had Bush 16 points ahead. But one week later, on August 20, they had Gore back ahead by one.


The craziness didn't end with the nominating conventions either. On September 21 Gallup had Bush ahead of Gore by 10 points. Four days later, on September 25, Gore was back in the lead by 3. Then on October 5 Gallup had Bush ahead by 11. The next day, on October 6, his lead was down to one, and one day later, on October 7, Gore was ahead by 7.


Here's my favorite. On October 24 Gallup had Gore ahead of Bush by one point. Three days later, on October 27, they had Bush ahead by 13.
In their final pre-election poll Gallup gave Bush a 2 point lead--not too bad since Gore won the popular vote by less than a point. But two days earlier, Gallup had Bush ahead by 5.

Add Missouri to these two - I just heard they are investigating fraud in MO now!
WOW, this is running RAMPANT!

Is ACORN Stealing The Election?

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?

Read More: Election 2008

It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.

The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.

In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.

"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."

While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.

In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.

There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.

The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.

In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.

Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.

Fewer than 40 reponded.

In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.

In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.

What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?

For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")

What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.

The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.

Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.

Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.

But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.

ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.

McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.