McCain Losing in US National Polls?

Black Swan

Name of National Poll/ Results (Spread):

Saturday, October 04
Gallup Tracking/ Obama 50, McCain 42 (Obama +8)
Rasmussen Tracking/ Obama 51, McCain 45 (Obama +6)
Hotline FD Tracking/ Obama 48, McCain 41 (Obama +7)

Friday, October 03
GW Battleground Tracking/ Obama 49, McCain 46 (Obama +3)

Thursday, October 02
Marist/ Obama 49, McCain 44 (Obama +5)

Wednesday, October 01
CBS News/ Obama 50, McCain 41 (Obama +9)
Associated Press GfK/ Obama 48, McCain 41 (Obama +7)
Pew Research/ Obama 49, McCain 43 (Obama +6)
Ipsos McClatchy/ Obama 48, McCain 45 (Obama +3)
Time/ Obama 50, McCain 43 (Obama +7)

Source for above national polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

brianthebard

Its a good sign for Obama, but those numbers aren't big enough to suggest anything conclusive yet. If he leads by 10-15 points then there'll be a good chance of a win.

Black Swan

270 Electoral Votes Needed To Win

RealClearPolitics Electoral College

Obama/Biden 264
192 Solid 72 Leaning

McCain/Palin 163
158 Solid 5 Leaning

111 Toss Up


MSNBC-Slate
If the Election Were Held Today...
Projected electoral votes, based on the latest state-by-state polling.

John McCain 163
Barack Obama 250
Toss-up 125


VoteMaster electoral-vote.com
Obama 338
McCain 185
Ties 15


usaelectionpolls.com
Last Updated: 10/4/08

Method/ Obama McCain:

Latest Poll Per State/ 341 197
Poll of Polls/ 344 174
Survey USA/ 262 276
Rasmussen Reports/ 306 205
Quinnipiac/ 269 128
CNN/ 283 148
ARG/ 287 251
Insider Advantage/ 214 160
Research 2000/ 188 183
Strategic Vision/ 211 175
Public Policy Polling/ 219 144
Mason Dixon/ 190 139
Zogby/ 271 240
National Average/ 47.0% 42.8%

Caoimhín

Let the mud slinging begin.

banquo

It's over, Obama will win.

Spend a morning like i have playing with CNN's electoral map-maker and you'll come to the same conclusions as me.

Rasmussen:

Obama +4 in colorado
Obama +10 in New Hampshire
Obama +10 in Michigan
Obama +5 in New Mexico.

It's over dudes.

FrankGrimes

Dunno, it's early days yet banquo but I hope you're right!

Can't remember if it was on here or elsewhere, but yesterday I read a comment that now is the time the Republicans will start playing dirty given the position they're in and I remember thinking it was a comment I'd be recalling in the not too distant future.

Funnily enough, first thing today I saw a mention about this on the news, missed the story but read that article.

Accusing Obama of 'consorting with terrorists' and then trying to imply to women that don't support her that there's a special place in hell for them (by misquoting Madeleine Albright).....ah yep that'd smack of the dirty tactics desparation we were all expecting.

Just like Palin's shameless interview with Fox, this sh1t would not fly in any European election campaign as the people wouldn't tolerate it and the politicians would have a little more respect for the intelligence of the electorate not to try it. Yes there's plenty of examples of dodgy campaigning and media coverage here and across Europe, but in all honesty if you look at it objectively, nothing comes close to the antics in the US campaigns.

So there I was fearing that this simple fear mongering and naieve/insulting claim that women should support her by default would actually be the simplistic stuff that would swing lots of middle America (though not in California where the rally was held). But then it struck me that the people that lap this stuff up are probably regarded as McCain certainties anyway, so I'd hope the swing states see this pathetic stunt for what it is.

Last time round there was a very interesting map showing average IQ along with an indication of Blue/Red leaning - is there one of those available this time? I don't have that high a regard of the reliance on IQ tests in specific cases but I do believe across a large population they do give a reasonable indication of education levels. And the fact is educated people are less likely to respond to the simplistic chest beating of Palin and McCain.

Black Swan

caoibhin wrote: »

Let the mud slinging begin.

Indeed caoibhin, and it's going to get dirtier as 4 November draws closer! For example, here is the latest mud thrown at Obama by Palin (AOL source, 4 Oct 2008):

"Gov. Sarah Palin accuses Sen. Barack Obama of 'palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' The Republican was referring to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers, whose group launched bombings that targeted the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama, who once served on a charity board with Ayers, has denounced the man's past activities."

AOL poll on this attack by Palin on Obama (results 5 Oct 2008, about 3AM California time):

Question: "Was Palin's comment about Obama fair?"
Online votes: 392,904
No = 56%
Yes = 44%

Question: "Will a character attack on Obama help or hurt McCain's campaign?"
Online votes: 366,939
It will hurt = 61%
It will help = 39%

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, 4 August 1961, and this is old news from last February 2008 primaries (from FactChecker):

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

What does this misinformation spin say about how Sarah Palin may act as VP if elected? Does it remind you of the current Vice President Dick Chaney just before the post-9/11 Iraq War was launched? Weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, or the claim that Saddam had links to bin Laden, when there were none?

banquo

And let us not forget that national polls are usually unrepresentitive for the following reason: California.

eltentwelve

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Indeed caoibhin, and it's going to get dirtier as 4 November draws closer! For example, here is the latest mud thrown at Obama by Palin (AOL source, 4 Oct 2008):

"Gov. Sarah Palin accuses Sen. Barack Obama of 'palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' The Republican was referring to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers, whose group launched bombings that targeted the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama, who once served on a charity board with Ayers, has denounced the man's past activities."

AOL poll on this attack by Palin on Obama (results 5 Oct 2008, about 3AM California):

Question: "Was Palin's comment about Obama fair?"
Online votes: 392,904
No = 56%
Yes = 44%

Question: "Will a character attack on Obama help or hurt McCain's campaign?"
Online votes: 366,939
It will hurt = 61%
It will help = 39%

Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, 4 August 1961, and this is old news from last February 2008 primaries (from FactChecker):

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."

LOL I can imagine what damage an 8-year-old could do ---

Black Swan

banquo wrote: »

And let us not forget that national polls are usually unrepresentitive for the following reason: California.

If you feel that California will skew national poll results because of it being the largest state in population, then look above at my post #3 where a state-by-state electoral college count was done, which factors out any skewing by California.

oscarBravo

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Gov. Sarah Palin accuses Sen. Barack Obama of 'palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' The Republican was referring to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers, whose group launched bombings that targeted the Pentagon and the Capitol. Obama, who once served on a charity board with Ayers, has denounced the man's past activities."

BBC has video.

It was an extremely cheap shot, reaching for an opportunity to use the words "Obama" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Black Swan

oscarBravo wrote: »

It was an extremely cheap shot, reaching for an opportunity to use the words "Obama" and "terrorist" in the same sentence.

Well, I can remember during the Bush re-election campaign where they essentially made Kerry out to be a Viet Nam Era coward (with 3 purple hearts), and G.W. Bush a hero (having defended the State of Texas against the State of Oklahoma during one year Stateside in the Texas Air National Guard).

CtrlSource

brianthebard wrote: »

Its a good sign for Obama, but those numbers aren't big enough to suggest anything conclusive yet. If he leads by 10-15 points then there'll be a good chance of a win.

Agreed. It's not over yet. Not quite

i think it might be a little late for Obama to be swiftboated though. The Ayers connection has been in the public domain for ages, so unless McCain's dirt diggers can come up with something new, it's a dying story. Notice how the media seem to be making light of the 'terrorism' story - even Fox News recognises that it's a non-runner.

The Obama campaign have actually been turning this latest McCain tactic into a positive for them, by highlighting how desperate their opponent seems to be getting

Hobbes

It's not over until the voting ends. "Kerry is a dead cert" according to polls, so democrats never showed up for the polls.

banquo

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/10/nation/na-poll10

Agreed, Hobbes. But I will say that it looks very, very good for Obama at the moment.

banquo

Also, good article from a pollster here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/29/DI2008092902152.html

Manic Moran

banquo wrote: »

And let us not forget that national polls are usually unrepresentitive for the following reason: California.

California's kindof weird. It's firmly Democratic, but it's not heavily Democratic. The balance is usually akin to 54-46 in the D favour these days. There are a hell of a lot of Republicans in CA, just not near enough to make up the difference except in particularly unusual cases, such as the Governator.

NTM

Black Swan

Sunday, October 05

Poll/ Results (Spread):

National
Gallup Tracking/ Obama 50, McCain 43 (Obama +7)
Rasmussen Tracking/ Obama 51, McCain 44 (Obama +7)
Hotline FD Tracking/ Obama 48, McCain 41 (Obama +7)

State
Pennsylvania Morning Call Tracking/ Obama 50, McCain 40 (Obama +10)
Minnesota Star Tribune/ Obama 55, McCain 37 (Obama +18)
Colorado Denver Post/ Obama 44, McCain 44 (Tie)
Ohio Columbus Dispatch/ Obama 49, McCain 42 (Obama +7)

MSNBC Article on NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27048784

"...the poll shows Obama with a 17-point advantage over McCain in who would be better improving the economy (46-29 percent); a 15-point edge in handling the mortgage and housing crisis (42-27); an eight-point lead in dealing with energy and the cost of gas (42-34); and a six-point advantage in handling the Wall Street financial crisis (36-30)."

Black Swan

National:
Gallup Tracking/ Obama 52, McCain 41 (Obama +11)
Rasmussen Tracking/ Obama 51, McCain 45 (Obama +6)
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking/ Obama 47, McCain 45 (Obama +2)
Hotline/FD Tracking/ Obama 45, McCain 44 (Obama +1)
GW/Battleground Tracking/ Obama 49, McCain 45 (Obama +4)
Ipsos/McClatchy/ Obama 47, McCain 40 (Obama +7)

State:
Wisconsin Rasmussen/ Obama 54, McCain 44 (Obama +10)
Pennsylvania Morning Call Tracking/ Obama 50, McCain 38 (Obama +12)
New Jersey Fairleigh Dickinson/ Obama 50, McCain 37 (Obama +13)