« Sarah Palin to Sit Down with ABC's Charlie Gibson | Main | Olbermann and Matthews Out as Anchors for Political Events »

USA Today/Gallup: McCain Leads Obama 54% - 44% Among Likely Voters

Oh to be a fly on the wall at Team Obama's headquarters. Surely their internal polling must be showing similar trends. From USA Today:

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/-- 3 points for both samples.

Here's something worth noting: the article led with the poll of registered voters that has McCain up 50% - 46%. The paragraph I quoted above was buried at the end of the article.

Lorie adds: Ace comments in his post on the new poll:

I just got tipped the new McCain slogan:

That's right, Trig is a Fake Pregnancy Changeling Baby.
What are you gonna do about it, punk?!

Now that's the sort of confident straight-talking leadership we need.



TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31449.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USA Today/Gallup: McCain Leads Obama 54% - 44% Among Likely Voters:

» Wizbang linked with Rasmussen: McCain Takes the Lead

Comments (12)

"Surely their internal p... (Below threshold)

"Surely their internal polling must be showing similar trends."

I totally misread that at the beginning and thought it said "international polling". And the sad thing is that it didn't even alarm me.

I'm not challenging the pol... (Below threshold)
macy:

I'm not challenging the poll (I hope it's true) but I would beware the media intentionally inflating the GOP post convention bounce in the coming week(s). As the bounce will ultimately decline thus giving the media the opportunity to pronounce the end of Palinmania and a new Obama surge.

You can just hear the welpi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

You can just hear the welping from the Obama crowd, "But, we're entitled, he's The One! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!"

Hee, hee.

I can see the Obamamessiah ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

I can see the Obamamessiah choking on his waffle.

Just remember it is a poll ... (Below threshold)
Diane:

Just remember it is a poll of 1,000 people and I've been an executive in market research and polling (now retired).

This is a tiny sample; it would be considered not even accurate or worthwhile to anyone who knows anything about the size a sample has to be to make it meaningful.

Poll a couple million people and I'll be impressed with the results......

Explains the indignant tone... (Below threshold)
Frank:

Explains the indignant tone the community organizer has had the last few days. Probably why he and the plagiarist were on the Sunday shows.

The fly on the wall reporte... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

The fly on the wall reported in from Obama's campaign headquarters:

"Quick! There's not a second to lose! Start leaking the adultery story! Call all the journalists you know! Muffy! Get me the New York Times on the horn! Bruce! Get me the National Enquirer! We're losing ground here! Everybody, see Nkwama for today's denial sheet! Hop hop, people!"

Over 2 hours and not a sing... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Over 2 hours and not a single comment from any of our resident Trolls or trolls-come-lately?

There must be an emergency meeting at KosHQ for new talking points.

Diane,I guess you ... (Below threshold)
Guest:

Diane,

I guess you must have outsourced your statistical advice to the NYT or something. We poll millions, but that's called election day.

Otherwise a sample starting roughly at 600 people gives you a pretty good idea of what you are trying to estimate. I'm going from memory (not having done this for a few years) but you roughly get +/- 5% at 95% confidence with sample size of 600.

My guess is you can get up to 99% with +/-5 or 95% with +/2 or so as you increase the sample size to over 2000. After that you really see hugely dimishing returns.

A sample size of millions would just be rediculous. Would you as "former executive in marketing research" actually pay 1000 times the cost necessaery (2 million samples vs 2000 sample - what is a large sample when the means are between 0.3 and 0,7) to get information that is only marginally better? LOL, only if you work for the NYT I guess.

It's not so much the poll t... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

It's not so much the poll that's important, it's the effect of folks hearing those numbers.

It can lull McCain supporters into complacency, but it can also demoralize Obama's support (as in "why vote at all?").

Let's hope (and change) it's the latter.

Seems there may be a good r... (Below threshold)
Neo:

Seems there may be a good reason to fire the "odd couple".

Ed and Mitch at Hot Air interviewed Doug, a volunteer driver who worked for the Republican National Convention Committee in St. Paul. The summary ...

-- According to Doug, MS-NBC apparently took no chances on questions from the crowd. Rather than get caught with a question that might make Republicans look good, their producer pre-screened questioners, and Chris Matthews pretended it was random.
-- Republicans were good tippers. MS-NBC stiffed the drivers.
-- Media people talked in the cars about how effective the Republican convention turned out to be, while publicly saying something else entirely.

"Just remember it is a poll... (Below threshold)
midwich:

"Just remember it is a poll of 1,000 people and I've been an executive in market research and polling (now retired).

This is a tiny sample;..."

Diane, the size of the sample is effectively irrelevant: instead, the purpose of all such samples is to capture the makeup of the larger population. Polling companies go to enormous lengths to try and ensure that their samples are representative. As a former exectutive in market research I'd have thought you'd know this.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy