| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Poll numbers and the fine print
One of the first things I do every morning after logging on is to check the Real Clear Politics polling page to read about the latest poll numbers that have been released, whether they be state polls or national. I rely more on state polls than national, because that’s where you get to see what the electoral college might look like if voters were voting today.
However, every once in a while I check the national polls just to see where McCain stands against Obama, and after the convention and for about a week after, McCain did really well – he had picked Gov. Palin as his running mate, which energized the base, and Obama was making a series of mistakes and gaffes that helped give Mc an edge in the national polls.
This morning, I logged in to see that a WaPo/ABC poll has Obama up by 9 points over Mc and a large part of Obama’s lead has to do with the economy. Considering what we know about where a lot of the blame goes for the current economic state we’re in, my first thought was, “How the hell can people trust Democrats to get us out of a mess they enabled?” Then I read AJ Strata’s post where he took a look at the party breakdown, and it became clear:
[Their] straight party sample breaks down 38% Dem, 28% Rep and 29% Ind. When Indies are asked which way they lean the sample goes 54% Dem, 38% Rep and 7% Ind.
Is anyone surprised with a 54(D) – 38(R) sample the result is 52(D) – 43(R) race? Not me.
Moral of the story? Always check the fine print of a poll before banging your head against a wall. Check for trends as well, because if you see poll numbers that show a consistent pattern for a candidate, I believe it’s a reliable indicator of how things might turn out for that candidate in the long run. Which is why looking at the numbers for Colorado and New Mexico are troubling to me. Both states went for Bush in 2004, and both of them are looking like a lock right now for Obama. Same same for Iowa. Both Iowa and NM I sort of expected to flip, because they barely went for Bush in 2004. Colorado is another matter altogether. The last three presidential elections have seen Colorado go Republican. This time around, things might be different.
And then, there’s North Carolina … 
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
6 Responses to “Poll numbers and the fine print”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I am really starting to feel sick. I know things can change in 6 weeks but my heart wonders how so many people can be taken in by the empty suit.
I’ve been watching the state numbers at RCP too… I find it fascinating that numbers can change so much from poll to poll in places like NC (there’s also problems with states that are still buffered from months old polls). Alot of the problems are the small sample size, which can dramatically affect the odds of getting a heavy D or heavy R polling. This also happens most heavily in the national poll, when you get samples of fewer than 1,000 people you also see the most disparate results.
So at RCP, I generally don’t trust the Obama +9 or the McCain +2. I think the Obama +1 or +2 is probably closer to accurate.
And that will probably change a lot after the first debate.
I think politics junkies like us would do ourselves a lot of good (and save on Rolaids) by not checking the polls every day: they’re too tied to the latest wind (Same with not checking our portfolios daily.
) It’s the trends over time that matter, but more important are the fundamentals: character and policy. both of these are on McCain’s side.
I seem to recall in 2004 a lot of nerves over how the election would go, yet I was sure on election day that Bush would win: America is a center-right nation, and at its core is very uncomfortable with dyed-in-the-wool Great Society northern liberals — which is what Obama is, much more so than John “Christmas in Cambodia” Kerry.
I get that same feeling here: Obama is such a weak candidate that, even with the rough week Maverick has had, the nation will still follow their gut and go with the team more aligned with their basic instincts.
Now, of course, McCain-Palin could blow it, or Obama-Biden could have a surge of brilliance (after all, Joe has a higher IQ than the rest of us
), but I doubt it. In fact, I’ll bet my hat on a McCain win in November. 
I know what you mean, Denise. Barry O wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular if it wasn’t for our one party media. They’ve been pandering to him since before the primaries and as I have said before, most people don’t have the time to research articles and fact check things the media tell them. They actually believe what the media says. Indeed, a sad state of affairs. I’m hoping that enough people so Obama for what he is and not what he, or the media, claims to be.
NC evil has a way of exposing itself. I feel the same way about Barry. – Lorica