Polls: McCain-Obama Race Close

As frequent readers of this site know, I have predicted that by the end of October John McCain would move slightly ahead in the national polls. The trend seems to be heading in that direction. See below.


Released: October 19, 2008 Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%McCain slowly gains on Obama UTICA, New York


"Republican John McCain continued a slow advance on Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, moving back within three percentage points as the race begins to head down the stretch run, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll shows.Data from this poll is available here

McCain now trails Obama by 2.7 points, down from the 3.9 point deficit he faced 24 hours earlier.Seven-point-one percent of the likely voters surveyed said they remain undecided.Obama lost five-tenths of a point from yesterday's report, while McCain gained another six-tenths of a point. It was the third consecutive day in which Obama's numbers slipped and McCain's numbers increased.

McCain has once again moved above 45% support overall, a mark he has not seen since the second day of daily tracking reports. Obama's slip under 48% support is the first time at that level in nearly a week. He now stands within one-tenth of a percent of where he stood when the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking began almost two weeks ago. McCain is within two-tenths of a percent of where he was when the tracking poll began.During the 13 days of the tracking poll, Obama has led by as much as 6.2 points and as little as 1.9 points.

Except for a few hours of polling, this three-day rolling average of telephone polling now includes a sample taken entirely after the final presidential debate last Wednesday.

The Zogby tracking poll includes 1,211 likely voters across the country who were surveyed between Oct. 16-18, 2008, at the rate of about 400 per day. The survey, conducted using live telephone interviewers calling from Zogby's call center in Upstate New York, carries a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.


McCain Up in Florida - Tampa Tribune Endorses John McCain

John McCain Leads in Latest Florida PollJohn McCain- 49%Barack Obama- 47%Survey USA, a prominent national polling firm, shows John McCain leading Senator Barack Obama in the state of Florida. The Survey USA Florida poll was conducted after the final presidential debate on Thursday October 16th.


Tampa Tribune Endorses John McCain for President

"McCain brings a lifetime of useful experience, including his grueling captivity in Vietnam and long Senate service. He believes in federalism, a strong defense and disciplined self-interest. McCain has been willing to cross party lines to work on tough problems. He co-authored a campaign finance law that failed to fulfill its objective, but he did muster the bipartisan support needed to try to control the buying and selling of public office."

EDITORIAL: "McCain for president, We need an experienced hand, not showy rhetoric" (Las Vegas Review Journal)

Polls Show McCain-Obama Close

Okay, Zogby has Obama ahead by two points (as did Diageo, which has been in the tank for Obama), and Hotline has it at one point. I've written recently about what we should do (fight like h--l) "when we take the lead again." I said I thought that would happen sometime around the beginning of the third week of October but perhaps as late as early November. Obama all through the primaries "over-polled" and "under-performed in the voting booth."

In the PA Primary (April 22), Wolf Blitzer and others said the race was "tightening" and we even heard their favorite cliche ("too close to call"). I said that Hillary Clinton would win by 10 percentage points. On April 23, it was at 10 points, although it fell to 9.2% by the end of the day. I do know PA voters (ornery!).

I also predicted Clinton could win OH, TX and IN, in all of which Obama "over-polled." Sen. Clinton won all three.

In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from the far-Left for having "too many Republicans" in its survey template. Like terrified rabbits, Gallup changed its legendary template ("the gold standard"). As a result, it got both the national and the state races wrong.

It said in early November, 2004 that Bush would win PA by two points and Kerry would win Ohio by two points. I told the editor of the Pittsburgh daily that maybe Gallup had gotten the states confused. Kerry won PA by three points, and Bush won Ohio by two points. Gallup also predicted that Kerry could win FL, which he lost by hundreds of thousands of votes.

There has been a lot of talk about "the Bradley Effect," referring to the fact that voters tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man -- and then don't. It does exist in this campaign, and there are a (very) few people trying to figure out its effect on this year's election. Why do people tell pollsters "fibs?" Because they think (correctly) that's what the pollsters want to hear.

One great caller in Beaver County, PA (Audrey) is so sweet and friendly that when she asks voters if they support John and Sarah, EVERYBODY SAYS YES!

Gallup's "internal numbers" have had McCain ahead as recently as last week (45-39), but it's buying the heavy "new" (Black mostly) vote theory, so it put McCain behind. Say what?? In the PA primary, Obama lost approximately 60 counties out of 67. He won some suburban Philly counties by relatively narrow margins. He won Philly (big), Pittsburgh (city), Harrisburg, and downtown Lancaster. Otherwise, he didn't win squat. His support in PA is very soft.

Beware the polls (especially CNN), my friends. I love those polls of course, but I don't really believe them on a day-to-day basis.

Sarah Palin: America's Pit Bull

Read below for critical poll analysis! Sarah Palin is dominating the medai, print and electronic, and something once-unthinkable is occurring: bloggers supporting John McCain -- 500-plus -- are beginning to dominate the Web.

Sarah Palin: "You know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Lipstick!"

Thanks to the 140,000-plus people who have visited my blogs in the past eight days. My main blog is: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. I also have a very popular blog established in April that appeals mainly to people who supported Hillary Clinton and are now behind McCain-Palin: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. Finally, there's my Pennsylvania-specific blog: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/. I hope you'll visit all of them frequently. I was the blogger who broke the story that McCain would choose Sarah Palin as his running-mate -- at 2:30 a.m. two Fridays ago.

Sunday) Zogby Poll Showing McCain-Palin with significant lead. I believe this poll is probably accurate. It doesn't factor in the reality that some people always say they'll vote for Obama and then they don't. I believe the Gallup Poll is off this year as it was in 2004, when it said Bush would win PA (he didn't), and Kerry would win OH (he didn't), and FL was a "toss up" (it wasn't, Bush won handily)

McCain's people expect their "bounce" to continue through about Sept. 11 or 12. But the race will continue to be fairly close through the November election. Obama's still significant leads in Illinois, New York, California, and even the N. England states (other than NH) are hiding the fact that McCain-Palin is doing well at this point in terms of winning the presidency. The McCain Campaign (as with the naming of Sarah Palin and her tremendous performance in St. Paul) continues to throw the Obama-Biden Campaign off balance, which has been the case for months.

Obama's tiny bounce from Denver was mostly a name recognition increase. Unlike McCain, Obama gained no traction from his vice-presidential choice -- and probably further irritated Hillary Supporters.

True, some Hillary Supporters who were on the fence seem to have gravitated toward Obama. However, most Hillary Supporters are either pleased or thrilled with the Sarah choice. Her obvious "toughness" (moral fiber and courage) also has appeal to male voters, particularly in Red States but also in battleground sites like PA, OH, and MI. McCain needs to run as a commercial the last minute-plus of his speech in St. Paul, complete with the roaring Convention crowd -- and the huge, responsive group in Times Square.

McCain is probably praying that the Obama Camp goes negative against Sarah Palin, because negativity aimed at her has backfired badly. America loves the Palin Family, and political bullying will not work.

The national media will continue to carry water for Obama, but fewer and fewer people take them seriously. The critical thing for people who admire John and Sarah is to continue to reach out to people who might normally go with the Democratic candidate.

This key segment of this group is women voters, particularly those who liked (or REALLY liked) Senator Clinton. Mrs. Clinton may be in somewhat of a trap. If she comes on too strong against Palin, she may further erode her already tarnished image.

WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT

As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.

Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?). Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.

I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.

But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote. Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.

What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.

What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.

Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.

In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."

Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?

I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.


Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).

Are the Political Pollsters Telling You the Truth?

"The undecided vote for Democratic candidates seems to be creeping up." (Steve Centenni on FOX Sunday, talking about the decline support for John Edwards and the increase in the number of people who declare themselves as "undecided.") -- See the comments below about undecided voters.

I wrote the following (the unitalicized part) to a friend regarding my obsession for political statistics, particularly as revealed by poll data. Polling is a little like the biblical line about "see[ing] through a glass [meaning "mirror" in the KJV of the Bible] darkly." To change the metaphor, polling is like a somewhat blurry snapshot, one that's taken ultimately a day or two before an event such as an election. Every hour thereafter, the picture changes slightly but doesn't get reflected in the polls because surveying has ended. So, prepare to stay up late to find out the true results.

It's amazing how many people have connections to Pennsylvania. Bill McAllister of KTUU-TV has links to Johnstown, home of (ugh) John Murtha. In PA politics, there is something called the "T," which refers to the fact that nearly every county other than Allegheny and Philadelphia vote Republican in statewide elections. The "T" reflects the final "shape" of the statewide vote.

The vote in Pittsburgh and Philly goes in a very lopsided way to Democrats (80% in Pgh., more than that in Philly). In 2004, the networks announced at 8 p.m. (polls close then) that Kerry had won 61 to 39 percent. By 2 a.m., the vote was 51-49 Kerry.

Jay Costa on the superb Horserace Blog (pure Internet) announced that Kerry had won PA by less than Bush had won Ohio, which was not yet "declared" by most of the networks, who were responding to Kerry campaign requests NOT to declare. The next morning Kerry conceded Ohio to Bush, and the election was over.

I hope Jay Costa (something of an Illinois version of Adam Brickley) does his wonderful blog in the next election. He is/was a graduate student in statistics at the University of Chicago. Jay almost went ballistic during the day when the exit polls were supposedly showing that Kerry had won the election.

He pointed out -- and I don't believe I'd ever heard it before -- that Democrats vote earlier than Republicans, partly because some of them (like my beloved folks in Pittsburgh and Philly) are not employed and have lots of time to cast ballots. That's the kind of stuff Karl Rove knows by heart. In short, it's probably a good idea to doubt the early exit polls.

One thing you''ll hear a lot about polls is the difference between registered voters and "likely" voters. Historically, the Gallup Poll has a lot to do with this distinction. Registered voters often don't . . . vote. If you get a driver's license in PA (and other states) you're registered. You may have a lot of interest in driving but none in voting. (Remember the famous old lady who said, "Vote? I never vote. It only encourages them."

On the "likely" voters, they're generally people who have voted in the past. However, in most elections, only 60% to 75% of likely voters will in fact . . . vote. Republicans tend to do better with "likely" voters because GOP stalwarts vote more frequently than Democrats. Gallup has tended to skew its totals slightly more to Republicans because of their tendency to vote more often.

In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from Democrats for the practice mentioned. In a panicky response, it changed its statistical template so as to pare down the "skew" toward Republicans. That completely screwed up the poll data.

If you have a good memory, you may recall polls that said undecided voters were "breaking" for Kerry by a ratio of eight-to-one. One problem: that never happened. If anything, undecided voters (at least the relative few who voted) "broke" for Bush, who won the popular vote comfortably.

You'll hear a great deal about "undecided" voters. In fact, these are often people who remain undecided unto eternity. Apparently, the reason they stay "undecided" is that many of them are mostly uninterested in the election. Thus, undecided is a euphemism for bored-by-the-whole-thing. They're not really the kingmakers they appear to be.


In the days before the election, Gallup showed Kerry doing well in Florida, a state that went handily to Bush. Perhaps because of that, Kerry skipped re-visiting Florida -- he sent John Edwards -- and made a couple more trips to Cleveland.

Gallup also said in the last days before the election that Kerry was ahead by four points in Ohio and Bush ahead by four in Pennsylvania! My comment then was, "Perhaps they got the states mixed up?" (As expected, Kerry won Pennsylvania and Bush won Ohio.)

In Florida, Jay Costa showed on election eve that Bush was doing well in areas that has grown in population, while Kerry was winning in areas either with no growth or with population declines. If Kerry could have ramped up his support somewhat in Florida, he might have won that state and the election.

My Internet friend Larry Perrault, a fervent and articulate backer of Mike Huckabee, insists that the MSM (and the pollsters) are manipulating public opinion, and I always tend to disagree (slightly) with him.

What happens in very early polls, such the current ones, is that the surveyers are really reflecting name recognition. Larry's candidate, Mike Huckabee, doesn't have good name recognition -- especially outside the early primary states. So, the surveys are showing Mike with relatively low numbers. When the results get published, that tends to keep Mike's numbers down. (http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/)

For a less-well-known candidate like Mike, there's no easy answer to this dilemma. One partial answer is for Mike's supporters to continue what Larry calls "the clamor." That refers to the noise (advocacy) on the blogs, where Mike has many talented, committed advocates. If someone like Mike can move up slightly in the national polls, that could establish a level of recognition (and momentum) that would drive up his numbers even more. In short, some good numbers can lead to even better numbers.

I find all this stuff fascinating. On the key issue of whether polls ever intentionally "slant" their findings: I can't answer that question with certainty. However, I'm one of the people who have serious questions about the Zogby Poll, run by the brother of the president of the Arab-American Association. The Zogbys don't do a good job disguising their preference for Democratic candidates. Zogby also does Internet polls (as opposed to face-to-face or telephone), which seem to be chronically unreliable.

Here I've gone and written an entire column without mentioning Governor Sarah Heath Palin, Alaska's favorite daughter and my favorite candidate.

Stephen R. Maloney, Ambridge, PA

I'll be writing this week about John Edwards' decline in the polls (down to 8%), as well as the same thing happening to John McCain (down to 7%). The latter is losing support and a significant portion of it seems to be going to Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson may be looking hard at the "numbers" to determine if there's a plausible scenario where he could win the nomination. (I don't believe such a scenario exists.) I'm also going to write about the question of abortion. Mitt Romney appears to be adjusting his views (surprise!) on abortion by saying that the issue should be returned to the states. Surprisingly, pro-lifer Sam Brownback agrees with him up to a point. Many pro-life people seem to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade will somehow outlaw abortion (in most of its forms?). They are wrong. In the unlikely event Roe is overturned -- which it will not be if a Democrat is elected -- it would return the issue to the states. That's something Romney and Brownback (and we can throw in Giuiliani) do agree would happen. Brownback wants to go further and propose a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion (in all cases? in many cases?). The chances of such an amendment passing Congress by a big margin (and getting approval from the vast majority of states) seems very, very unlikely (read: impossible). Some red states (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and perhaps some others (Arizona?) would oppose an amendment banning abortion in all cases, including rape, incest, and life of the mother.) At some point this week, I'll jump into this bear-pit.