I took the General Election Polling Results for the the candidates at Rassmusen Reports and copied them into a spread sheet starting from June Fourth, the first entry after Senator Clinton placed her campaign in inactive status. I averaged the results for each day with an average of the previous ten days. (The entry for the fourteenth is an average of the Fourth to the Fourteenth, the entry for the Fifteenth is an average of the Fifth to the Fifteenth) This smoothes the results eliminating minor day to day variances in public opinion or errors in a particular days samplings. The disadvantage of this method is it is not very sensitive to the last several day’s results.
On July 22d
Match up without leaners
McCain 42% Obama 46%
Match up with leaners
McCain 46% Obama 47%
Senator McCain in the “with out leaners” column started at 40% occasionally at 41% until July Eleventh when it stated at 41% and has progressed to 42%. In the “With leaners” column he was at 44% every day until the Thirteenth when he increased to 45% and then 46%
SenatorObama in the “without leaners” column started at 46% and occasionally hit 47% but since the twelfth has dropped to 45% and 44 % for the last three days. In the “With leaners” column he started at 49% and except for an occasional 48% held that until the Twelfth when he went to 48% and 47& since the Seventeenth.
Both candidates have had about equal number leaners over non-leaners, orgianlly McCain had slightly higher numbers but Obama now has the largest difference, but the difference has gone down in both cases.
In the ‘With Leaners” column 7% and occasionally 8% have been uncommitted.
--------------------
It appears that after Senator Obama’s initial jump when Senator McCain suspended his campaign it is now settling into settled pattern with Senator Obama holding a slight lead. They both should get a short jump after their respective conventions.
Assuming neither one of the commits a major stupidity (as understood by the voters not the pundits) the election will be decided after the World Series by the uncommitted voters. Conventional wisdom says they will break in proportion to the declared support for each candidate in the polls. This year is so strange I would not bet on it. The uncommitted voters usually tune in for the conventions and the debates. How the candidates do there will be what makes up the uncommitted voters minds
I did the same analysis for the 2004 election; it was even closer with President Bush always maintaining a slight lead which with the uncommitted breaking proportionally and the numbers were within a very narrow range from the final result.
The other daily tacking and poll averaging services show similar results. The chart from Pollester dot com on lead post has consistently shown Senator Obama a point or so higher than most of the others.
----------------------------
It seems to me that it is Senator Obama’s election to lose, but a year ago the Democratic nomination was Senator Clinton’s to lose and Senator McCain was at the bottom of the list.
1 year ago
7 comments:
Even in the most normal of circumstances (and these are not), I think this would be the Democrats' election to lose. The Republicans have had eight years; gas and food prices are through the roof, and the administration has done a poor job of explaining and maintaining public backing for the war.
That said, I am truly gobsmacked at the degree to which the big media, particularly, television, is in the bag for Obama. They're not even pretending objectivity. They act like the election's over, and we're just awaiting the swearing-in.
The degree to which the Republicans have lost the urban upper middle class is just mind-boggling -- in particular I am thinking of 30-40 something finance people, ad guys, attorneys, academics and high-earners who tend to be concerned with paper-shuffling and less concentrated in traditional industrial concerns.
It's very weird -- these people stand to be very highly taxed by a Democratic administation -- but there are the pigs, cheering and contributing themselves hoarse and broke rooting for the wolf.
All that said, I'm amazed the polls are as close as they are. It tells me that Obama is doing less well with traditional down the economic scale Democrats; that McCain has indeed picked up some Hillary supporters, and that more broadly, people are aware that Obama is a risk.
I am really hoping to see a good McCain effort in places such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I can't help but wonder what happens if Obama loses.
El Jefe
I was reading a couple years ago that the non-political upper classes were generally of the opinion that the Republicans were right on economics and the Democrats right on social issues. This among other things explains the “defection pattern” in congress. The Republicans have defections on social issues and the Democrats on economic issues. I think this pattern reaches down into the upper middle classes as swell. Notice many of the areas where he is “going center” are economic.
The New Left dating from the McGovern era were always a middle class movement. First and fore most Obama is New left. I think the upper middleclass is his natural constituency. While Senator Clinton led the Old Left in the primaries the iroany is that she is a card carrying member of the new left.
There is a lot of potential discontent with the Democrats in thre own ranks, but can McCain break though the one sided press coverage to capitalize on it?
Should Obama lose, I think the Democrats will sue on any grounds they can any place the facts or a friendly judge will go I their favor. Al Gore will get a good loser prize comparison.
I am truly gobsmacked
interesting word.
sort of like ginormous.
here's another interesting word.
big brown.
ok that's two.
no not UPS or hussein.
here's another one, last place finish at the belmont....ok it's not one but go with me here.
do you have any idea how much money is riding on hussein being our next president.
the FOR PROFIT media has their reputations and careers and 401ks and retirements in the hamptons riding on this.
along with filings every night to be included in what will be pulitzer material.
books.
memoirs.
i can't wait for EJM I memoirs to hit.
definitely quad X material.
i digress.
back to big brown.
ABC/ESPN had big brown the winner before the race was run. no coverage whatsoever of any other horse prior to post time. the only horse in the race was big brown.
and what happened after the race........the FOR PROFIT media gave 28 minutes of a post race coverage segment to why big brown lost the race rather that cover the winner. the winner of the belmont stakes got 2 full minutes of coverage. they didn't even name the jockey on air. the did interview the jockey of big brown.
in short the FOR PROFIT media has so much riding on hussein being president, i doubt they really know whether or not the election has been conducted or not or which of the 57 states are in the blue column. i said blue. that's a color. does that make me racist?
Louie
Welcome, thanks for the smile.
The safest bet to take is George Bush will not be President on Jan 21, 2009.
If and when sanity returns to our country, your love of horse and other racing will certainly make you a racist.
Hank: "Obama is New Left." Not under any definition of New Left with which I am familiar. Ditto for HRClinton.
The SDS Port Huron Statement was New Left. The Freudo-Marxist Frankfurt Schoolers (Marcuse) were New Left. Some of the 68 protesters were New Left. Etc. Obama and Clinton are not, neither was McGovern, though some New Leftists doubtless voted for McGovern b/c of his stance on Vietnam. The McGovern campaign was the first one I really was involved in (though not old enough to vote in '72) and I remember it quite well.
Media bias: Probably a certain amt of largely unconscious bias b/c Obama is telegenic, charismatic compared to McCain, and a historic candidate as first African-American to be major party nominee. That is driving the coverage more than ideology.
As for the first comment about why people who are going to be taxed more are for Obama: not everyone votes on purely selfish economic grounds, you know, el jefe (or maybe you don't know but it's the case).
LCF
Sorry if I missed the technical definition. And in the technical sense you are correct.
Sort of reminds me of those who complain that Martin Luther was not a “Protestant” because
a.) the council which was protested came after his death, and
b.) the protesters had a very different theology than ML.
Technically they’re correct, but the common usage is to call most everything that has some sort of nominal provenience from upheaval of the sixteenth century “Protestant”.
Seen from the outside at least, the combination of political movements etc that grew out of the late sixties early seventies is very different from the left of the FDR coalition, though they coexist in the current Democratic Party. It is a common usage, at least for outside observers, to call this what grew out of the Sixties/Seventies “New Left” though most of the people being given the label would not have signed or even objected to the Port Huron Statement.
That is the short hand meaning I meant.
O.k. I certainly agree there are various tendencies in the Dem Party and that the story is complicated.
(Beyond that, this would require a longer discussion which I'm not up for right now, and I am probably not the best person to conduct it anyway.)
Post a Comment