« Tasergate Findings may be Delayed Until After Elections | Main | Palin's Disinvitation: How An Obama Op Politicized the Apolitical »

How Liberal Trolls Are Working To Get McCain Elected President

Ahhhhh Brian, you poor deluded troglodyte. I almost chose not to tell you, but it's only fair you should know that you are working, very hard actually, to get John McCain elected President. For those who may have 'troll-screen' featured on their computer, it should be understood that Brian is one of those malicious, venom-fueled malefactors who delight in attacking their betters. To be fair, there are Republican trolls as well as Democrat trolls, and Conservative trolls just as there are Liberal trolls, though it does seem to me that the Liberal variety breed a lot more, and that the Democrats like to encourage the vermin on their side, while Republicans would generally prefer a clean contest. Certainly in the present contest, McCain has tried to shut down the cheap shots from his side, while Obama seems to think his rats are just fine. That, folks, is a very stupid move by Obama, and I am frankly surprised that Senator Obama has not realized it yet. But of course, this is the Senator who thought his campaign based on "Change" would be best served by a VP nominee who is a Washington Insider working his fourth straight decade as an elite, self-serving mandarin. So, I suppose it should not shock me that a man who made so many promises to reach across the aisle and to eschew the dirty tricks and smear tactics of candidates from past elections, would in the actual case use the very tactics and slime that he pretended to hate.

Yesterday, some of my Left-leaning readers (or hecklers, to call things by proper names) remarked that my piece was nothing more than a Right-Winger making a noisy point that I supported the Republican. It's true enough that I decided to vent a little bit, just call things as I saw them, kind of like a 'sun comes up in the East' kind of thing, saying 'Obama is not what he said he'd be', but as I pointed out, not one of the Leftists posted a rebuttal that proved me wrong on a single count. Either they were lazy, or I was right. It's always fun to push buttons that will create predictable responses.

Anyway, back to the point. What I find so amusing about Brian and those like him, is that he will help get John McCain elected President. Explaining just why that is so will take a little bit, but please bear with me.

Let's start with the latest poll numbers. Yep, Obama back on top, is the headline for many of them, though it's a bit tight. I guess we should worry on the Right? Hmmmm, well maybe not so much, just as those on the Left did not have that much to worry about when McCain got the 'Palin Bounce' earlier this month. I said when the first bumps came out that I did not think Palin's effect would really be that immediate, and I have always said that the reader should go well past the headline to find out what a poll says. So, taking my own advice, let's see what Gallup has to say.

The Gallup Organization is as clean and straight-arrow a polling group as I have ever found. Their methodology is consistent and transparent, their questions are the same and they have a longer history than anyone else in the business. But even Gallup has a few odd quirks, and when you see them it might change how you look at their poll releases. For this article, I am looking at the Gallup 'Daily Tracking Poll' for the Presidential election. For the five most recent weekly reports, here's where Gallup says the candidates stood:

Aug 21: Obama 45, McCain 44
Aug 28: Obama 48, McCain 41
Sep 04: Obama 49, McCain 42
Sep 11: McCain 48, Obama 44
Sep 18: Obama 48, McCain 44


From that, it appears that a tight race opened up first for Obama, then McCain, then Obama again, with each candidate sitting anywhere from 41 to 49 percent support (not counting margin of error) during that time. Fair enough, but let's look at their support by party identification, first by Obama:

- continued -

Liberal Democrat support for Obama - 88% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 93% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Moderate Democrat support for Obama - 78% Aug 21 and 28, 81% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Conservative Democrat support for Obama - 68% Aug 21, 63% Aug 28, 77% Sep 4, 70% Sep 11, 66% Sep 18

Hmmm. Obama's support goes up and down, but the Liberal and Moderate Democrat support for Obama has been steady all of September. Odd, isn't it? And support for Obama among Conservative Democrats went down four points in the last week, even though his overall support is supposed to have gone up four points. How to figure that?

Perhaps it's in the Independents. After all, if Obama started winning them over, he'd not only be making gains overall but gaining support where he wants it the most.

Independent support for Obama - 24% Aug 21, 29% Aug 28, 23% Sep 4, 29% Sep 11, and 27% Sep 18

Hmmm, again. Obama gained support among Independents in the last month, but he actually lost two points among Independents in the last week. So that 4 point gain overall is still a mystery.

Nothing to do, then, but look at the Republicans. It would really be something if he's improving support from GOP voters:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for Obama - 16% Aug 21, 13% Aug 28, 14% Sep 4, 16% Sep 11, 10% Sep 18

Ouch. Obama lost six points among Liberal and Moderate Republicans in the past week.

Conservative Republican support for Obama - 6% Aug 21, 5% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4, 3% Sep 11 and 18

No change there in the past week.

Taken altogether, there is no group of political identification where Obama's support has increased in the past week. Mathematically, therefore, there is only one way in which Gallup could show an increase in Obama's overall support, when none of the party identification groups showed improvement for him. I will come back to that in a moment, but the reader should think about it, because it's very important, that only possible way this could happen.

Before I explain that possibility, I want to look at John McCain's support by specific party identification groups. The man, according to Gallup, lost four points of overall support in the past week,

Conservative Republican support for McCain - 89% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 94% Sep 4 and 11, 95% Sept 18

Interesting. McCain's support among Conservative Republicans went up a point in the last week. Well, let's move on:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for McCain - 75% Aug 21, 77% Aug 28, 78% Sep 4 and 11, 85% Sep 18

Wow, McCain's support from Liberal and Moderate Republicans climbed by seven points in the past week, and yet we are told his overall support fell by four points? That is very odd, wouldn't you say? It must have been the Independents, perhaps?

Independent support for McCain - 34% Aug 21, 31% Aug 28, 29% Sep 4, 28% Sep 11, and 32% Sep 18

Stranger and stranger, McCain's support among Independents went up by four points in the past week, just as his support from Republicans increased, yet we are told his overall support went down by four. Very hard to explain that using the math most of us learned in school, isn't it? Well, there's just one place left to look. Maybe somehow McCain used to have significant support among Democrats, but lost it? Let's find out:

Conservative Democrat support for McCain - 23% Aug 21, 26% Aug 28, 15% Sep 4, 21% Sep 11, 24% Sep 18

Hmpf. Once again, a group where support for McCain went up, but the overall says he went down.

Moderate Democrat support for McCain - 14% Aug 21, 13% August 28, 11% Sep 4, 12% Sep 11 and 18.

Steady there, so that one does not explain it.

Liberal Democrat support for McCain - 6% Aug 21, 6% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4 and 11, 5% Sep 18.

It's only a point, but again we see McCain's numbers in this group went up.

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response. Bear in mind that this assumes that people change the foundation of their political opinion like a showgirl changes costumes, which has no scientific basis or historical support whatsoever. As I said earlier, the Gallup Organization is very much a professional polling agency, who tries their level best to gauge the national mood. That, after all, is why I chose to use their poll for my examination. I could do the same thing with any other of the major published polls, and I can tell you straight-up that I would find the same practice going on everywhere. But just because something is popular, does not validate it as a scientific method. Rather than report the rising and falling levels of support for Obama and McCain with constant party identification weighting, the Gallup and other polls are shifting the party weights over time, which pretty explains how the 'bounce' happens for each convention. When the Democrats held their convention, the polls increased the weight of Democrats and lowered the Republican response, and when the Republicans had their convention, the polls gave the Republicans more weight. That's why Palin made such an immediate difference in the polls; the Liberals were not all that impressed with her, but the Republicans were happy and with a bigger share of the weight their response was magnified. I can't prove it, since the Gallup people do not invite me into their strategy meetings, but I think somewhere they are weighting the party ID by the mood as they see it. The problem there, is that such weighting is still very subjective, and what's more it fails to consider that someone may consider themselves a member of one party with respect to the House and Senate races, but something else entirely when it comes to voting for the President. The state of Oklahoma, for example, is a very Democratic place, but it's pretty solid for McCain, just as it was for Bush. So weighting a presidential poll for party identification on the basis of how they think someone will vote for Congress, is going to miss the mark.

Anyway, going back to my earlier piece on party weighting, if we go back and look at the historical track record for the last ten years in terms of self-identified party affiliation from actual exit polls, we see a clear standard of weights; 38.4% Democrat, 35.8% Republican, 26.0% Independent. If we then work them out to fill the liberal/moderate/conservative slots used by Gallup, the following weights have historical validity and may be used as a constant for poll responses:

Liberal Democrat 9%
Moderate Democrat 16%
Conservative Democrat 13%
Independent 26%
Liberal/Moderate Republican 23%
Conservative Republican 13%

If we apply those weights to the poll response, here is what happens to the Gallup polling responses:

August 21: Obama 39.94%, McCain 43.43%, Undecided 16.63%
August 28: Obama 40.04%, McCain 43.60%, Undecided 16.36%
September 4: Obama 41.06%, McCain 41.77%, Undecided 17.17%
September 11: Obama 42.04%, McCain 42.45%, Undecided 15.51%
September 18: Obama 39.62%, McCain 45.71%, Undecided 14.67%

Movement still happens in both sides' support, but it is more gradual and is consistent with events in both parties. Frankly, it is only reasonable to expect that Democrats largely support Obama while Republicans largely support McCain, and even now there is a significant amount of indecision; between one of six and one of seven voters are not sure who they want. Most of that doubt is with independents, whose support may make all the difference in the key states. Further, the stated levels of support are within the statistical margin of error. It is also interesting to note that both Obama and McCain, in general, are gaining support incrementally, with gains gradually reducing the undecided portion (at the present pace, however, the undecided portion of the vote would still exceed ten percent of the total vote). The latest support level for Obama, statistically, appears to be an outlier, so his next poll may be expected to reflect stronger support. If Obama is in fact losing support, some specific reason would have to be found - it is not reasonable to expect support to diminish without a clear cause.

The sum effect of all this, is that both Barack Obama and John McCain are gaining support, shoring up their party support and looking for persuadable independents. But McCain is gaining support faster than is Obama, and one might wonder why.

Sure, Sarah Palin was a great choice, but as the Democrats have said, she is after all only the Vice-presidential nominee, a position which ordinarily does little to decide elections. It is reasonable to think that she helped with Republican support, but it would not explain much of a jump in independent support on its own, but there the trolls have helped out.

You see, a political campaign is a matter of building support. A candidate goes on all kinds of trips, pays for all kinds of advertisements, attends conferences and debates and makes appearances all over the place, in hopes of gaining a few voters along the way. When I wrote yesterday that at first I liked Obama and disliked McCain, I was being honest, and trying to explain that they each made their case over time, one gradually losing my interest and the other gaining my support. OK, so it's no news flash that a life-long Republican comes around to cheering for the GOP candidate, but it does bear mention that there have been a lot of folks waiting all year for a candidate to convince them that he deserves their support. There really is not that much that Obama or McCain have said, which changes either of their initial platforms very much, so it would make sense to see each platform grow gradually, and about to the same degree, though with more people identifying themselves as Democrats, Obama frankly should be doing better than he is seeing in hard numbers. And that brings us to what, precisely, would be dragging him back. And that is where the trolls come in.

People plain do not like trolls. Some of us work for trolls, like the caveman who steals your work for his own credit, or the sadist who likes abusing his staff as far as he can get away with it. Some of us see them in traffic, the guys who cut you off in traffic while signaling a gesture that most parents would not want to have to explain to their kids. And of course, there are the political trolls. And like all trolls, people react to them adversely, but what sets them apart is that they also tend to damage their patron at times. And so it is, that Barack Obama's pet trolls have been chewing away at support he needs in the election, weighing him down and making his message look, well, like he's lying through his teeth. It's one thing for The Obama campaign to examine Governor Palin's record as an executive, but out of line to attack her family as their trolls have done so gleefully. And since Obama has not made much of an effort to rein them in, the implicit approval of their attacks has attached him to the stench of their conduct. So too, the smear attempts by trolls to deny John McCain's heroic service in Vietnam has come back to make people wonder about why Barack Obama has not tried much at all to make clear that he respects John McCain's service. Barack Obama has been a little too cute the past month, with monsters who - if not under his direction, they have certainly not been condemned by his campaign - have tried to damaged the public perception of John McCain and Sarah Palin, but have instead provided each a stage to defend their records (which they have done well) and to make regular folks question why a man like Obama, Mister 'Above the Rancor', would let his people act like thugs. While Obama has tried to distance himself from the dirty tricks, they are very similar to tactics he used to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary season, further staining the image he tried to paint for himself.

It is true that Barack Obama can win this election. But he has a big problem with the trolls he set out to trip up his opponent. They are working, instead and with great energy, at tearing apart the underpinnings of Obama's own character and judgment, and at the moment, trolls like Brian are creating an increasing momentum - for the McCain campaign.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31739.

Comments (138)

Obama will lose because he ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Obama will lose because he has not stopped Brian from commenting on this blog? Good theory.

Yeah, that's it, mantis. On... (Below threshold)
mcg Author Profile Page:

Yeah, that's it, mantis. One blog commenter is all it takes to derail an election.

Excellent analysis, DJ. You... (Below threshold)

Excellent analysis, DJ. Your analysis of the ebb and flow of support the past few weeks based upon party identification was especially educational.

mantis, do you really think... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

mantis, do you really think Brian and trolls like him only behave like that on blogs? No sir, they do that in public, and often while wearing shirts and pins that identify their party and ideology.

Your attempt to duck is insufficient.

I think the polls have deli... (Below threshold)
A Stoner:

I think the polls have deliberately moved McCain ahead for a short time in order to shore up some semblence of credibility, and will keep Barack Obama way ahead leading up to the actual vote, thus creating a culture/race war in order to keep the media busy.

damn. good essay. all along... (Below threshold)
stumped:

damn. good essay. all along i thought mcain was losing because he chose an unqualified wierdo to be his vp. now i realize he will win because some 15 year old named brian is commenting on this blog. your head has gotten bigger than palins i believe.

No sir, they do that in ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No sir, they do that in public, and often while wearing shirts and pins that identify their party and ideology.

And my next door neighbor is McCain (well, Palin anyway) supporter and a complete asshole about it. Does that mean Obama will win now?

Keep trying mantis, you're ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Keep trying mantis, you're not getting any better at ducking the issue but it's fun to watch.

mantis, go prey. That was ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

mantis, go prey. That was weak even by "you can't fix stupid" standards.

Great post DJ. I almost always follow Jay Cost on Real Clear, who just posted a diatribe on the current polls. He didn't come close to the depth of the analysis you just presented and I thank you for it.

Without the benefit of your in depth analysis, I have managed to form the opinion that trolls, MSM, fanatic attempts to kill freedom of speech and the tendency of Obama to tell folks what they want to hear as opposed to what they need to know, might kill him in the long run.

For example, it was obvious that Obama pandered to O'Reilly. It is who he is.

Stumped, the 'unqualified w... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Stumped, the 'unqualified weirdo' is running as an independent. And his name is spelled N-A-D-E-R.

stumped - "damn. good e... (Below threshold)
marc:

stumped - "damn. good essay. all along i thought mcain was losing because he chose an unqualified wierdo to be his vp."

No he has the potential to lose because the lightweight refuses to take a stand on anything of import, than whinnys like a birthing mare when called on it.

People like stump make me l... (Below threshold)
biscuits mcgee:

People like stump make me laugh when they talk about qualifications, then in the next sentence make it clear they support obama.

Good one! Keep them coming!

is it that ironic? 50 mill... (Below threshold)
stumped:

is it that ironic? 50 million americans chose obama as qualified. Who chose palin? Karl Rove? Conservatives really must hate the american people to compare their choice to troopergate palin.

Damnit, DJ, don't throw fac... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Damnit, DJ, don't throw facts at 'em!
Facts are like kryptonite to these people.

Nicely done article.

(New & Improved Logic: The sound of flailing DUmmies means it's working!)

50 million america... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
50 million americans chose obama as qualified

Uhm, no.

Sometimes the messenger spe... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Sometimes the messenger speaks louder than the message. I keep asking myself if the Democrats have such an awesome message that's going to unify America and heal the planet, then why are they so freakin' angry? Why does Obama have to tell his supporters to get in our faces? How come they send the Code Pinkers to the RNC?

My grandfather always said that it takes more words to tell a lie. Which explains why liberals have to talk so damned much (ahem...Hooson).

Mantis, you can try to ridd... (Below threshold)
sue:

Mantis, you can try to riddicule JD all you want but the fact remains that when unhinged liberals make the kind of attacks they do it shows them in a very bad light. Some may pull away from Democrats because they are simply repulsed by how vile they are toward McCain/Palin and other conservatives; for others it will cause them to take a SERIOUS look at what they really do believe in.

I always used to simply vote for the Democrat because there were a few things that I agree with....and based on my profession that is who I was supposed to vote for. But when I saw and heard liberals mock and ridicule God (And Jesus-who is my Lord and Savior) and "value voters" it made me so repulsed and upset that I took a serious look at what liberals believed in, what conservatives believed in and decided that I could no longer vote for Democrats. I simply did not believe much of what they believed in. Without all the attacks from liberals I'm not sure I ever would have taken a closer look at what I believed in, or become more interested in politics.

You can ridicule all you want while commenting on this blog, however the fact remains that most people are good and decent and do not like the kind of attacks and rhetoric the far left spews.

Having differences of opinion is fine....it's how the far left liberals have chosen to make it personal in a very vile kind of way that repulses many people.

BTW, good article, DJ...</p... (Below threshold)
Clay:

BTW, good article, DJ...

stumped - "is it that i... (Below threshold)
marc:

stumped - "is it that ironic? 50 million americans chose obama as qualified. Who chose palin? Karl Rove? Conservatives really must hate the american people to compare their choice to troopergate palin."

Hey guy/gal/IT your math skills suck and are off by a *slight* 34 million.

And BTW, did the American people select Biden?

stump must be a "lifelong R... (Below threshold)

stump must be a "lifelong Republican".

DJ: I have loved your work ... (Below threshold)

DJ: I have loved your work from your days in 2004 at that other site. But, after I fell into the trap in 2006 of believeing that the polls were being jimmied by the MSM and as incorrect as they were in 2002 and 2004, they can't be believed, I am more cautious this time.

But, keep up the work. Love it. Just keep hammering the media and the trolls.

Not sure what issue you thi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Not sure what issue you think I'm ducking, as I'm just mocking your conclusions. But if you want to know why, here's why.

First of all, your averaging of the last ten years of party identification is a poor method of arriving at the current makeup of the electorate, as it ignores the impact the last two years have had on the Republican brand.

On that note, you don't bother to mention that the party ID question is answered in the surveys. It's not an actual measure of registration; people can say they identify with whatever party they want, and that can change in a short period of time. It does so especially, and historically, at convention time. Look at the Gallup party ID convention numbers. Notice anything? Republicans got a bump after the convention, bringing them from a low 26% to 30%. You peg them at 35.8% only by ignoring party ID polling data and the events of the last two years. Good method for helping you to sleep at night, maybe, but piss poor in terms of reflecting reality.

All because you absurdly believe Gallup is "weighting the party ID by the mood as they see it," instead of their survey data.

What likely is happening is that in the weeks since the Republican convention, the rise in party ID the Reps saw as a result of the Palin factor went down a couple of points as people learned more about the governor, resulting in decreased weighting for Republicans based on the party ID responses.

But how to account for the numbers you cite showing increases by McCain in most party ID categories and decreases in most by Obama? Well, that's brings us to your biggest mistake. The support by party ID numbers you cite end with September 8-14, and the tracking poll is from September 16-18. Gee, has anything happened in the interim that may affect support for the candidates, as well as reported party ID among voters? I wonder...

So basically, by ignoring numbers, comparing apples to oranges, using historical data instead of current data, and attributing monkey business to the polling company where no evidence of such exists, you arrive at some numbers you like and thus your conclusion that liberal trolls are to blame.

Ok, I'm done "ducking the issue". I look forward to your analysis of liberal troll impact on the election after Nov. 4.

eddie bear - "stump mus... (Below threshold)
marc:

eddie bear - "stump must be a "lifelong Republican".

You see life there? I musta missed it.

Excellent work on the numbe... (Below threshold)
Clint:

Excellent work on the numbers -- and cogently argued.

I don't really see a conspiracy here --- I think the numbers of people self-identifying as members of different parties (or even wings of the parties) change over time, and even quite quickly. Example: Many Republicans, disillusioned with President Bush's big-spending ways were starting to identify as Independent or put Ron Paul signs on their lawns. Picking Sarah Palin and giving a "we must get back to our core values" speech at the convention went a long way to winning these guys back. And they didn't just come back to supporting McCain -- they came back to thinking of themselves as Republicans. I know I was a lot more excited to be a Republican that Friday morning...

Figuring out how to correctly deal with this is one of the most complicated issues pollsters deal with. I like the Rasmussen polls because they weight party-ID by using a 30-day rolling average of the party ID being reported to them. But, of course, this will miss actual large transient shifts, or at least take 30 days to give them full credit.

There isn't really a "right" answer -- but I'd love to hear from Gallup about what led to such a dramatic shift in party ID in a single week...

Given Hank and Ben's Bolshe... (Below threshold)
John S:

Given Hank and Ben's Bolshevik bailout for Wall Street--expected to reach $3 TRILLION in money we don't have--do you really want the Republicans to win? The only way out of this mess will be to (1) raise the middle class tax rate to 75 percent or (2) allow hyperinflation to rage until $1 trillion barely buys a loaf of bread. I'd prefer these decisions be made when the Democrats think they are in charge. Poor Bambi, he has no clue what he's in for...

Wow, mantis, where to begin... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Wow, mantis, where to begin?

First, sir, if you check the link I posted, you will observe that the party weights over the last ten years are actually quite consistent. It's not so much an average of the last five elections, as it is the fact that the weights have been stable and constant. That was the point I made and still do, that people do not change their ideology very often or to a great deal all at once. It's gradual and incremental, and please do look those words up, because they are salient to the point. You sir, are cherry-picking, not I. My numbers are historic and come from actual elections; yours come from something less substantive. I know quite well how Gallup arrives at their weighting. I simply pointed out that the decision is unscientific, subjective, and prone to error as well as a "bounce" not supported by the internal data of their own polls. If Obama or McCain got a "bounce" from their convention, then it has to be reflected by a sudden jump in support from their own party, the opposition, independents, or more than one of them. When such a jump within party internal support does not happen, as Gallup's own data shows, then the claim of a "bounce" is invalid on the basis of their own empirical data.

As for the rest, you are simply a boorish knave who proves my point without even realizing what he is doing. You think you are just harassing a Conservative? To some degree you are, but your peurile and sneering tone also sends a message to independents and the undecided, that Obama's people - almost to a man - cannot act with dignity and maturity in a debate.

Come on DJ, their master to... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Come on DJ, their master told them to "get in their [our] faces"...

Zey ah only followeenk orderz. ;)

Even if your historical dat... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Even if your historical data were constant, which it is not, and were an accurate predictor of the makeup of the current electorate, which by all available measures it is not, you still ignore your big, glaring mistake of comparing party ID data from September 8-14 with a poll from September 16-18. Hmmm, I wonder why....

As for my "peurile and sneering tone," please refer to, oh, 90% of right-wing bloggers and commenters, yourself included. According to your own hypothesis you guys will be driving voters to the polls for Obama in droves.

"As for the rest, you are s... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"As for the rest, you are simply a boorish knave who proves my point without even realizing what he is doing."

That's weird - a conservative Republican endorses McCain, THEN says people who criticize him are helping his candidate and THEN that someone pointing out his logical fallacies actually proves these fallacies to be correct!

You are on a roll, friend. Teflon has nothing on you.

And "boorish knave?" Did you have a glove in your hand when you said that and is your monitor ok?

Obama has associated himsel... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

Obama has associated himself with sc*mb*gs his entire career. He can't tell the difference from a Christian preacher and a racist, can't tell the difference between a shady Chicago fixer and a felon and he can't tell the difference between a terrorist and "some guy that lives in his hood" ...

He's nothing but a slicker version of Al Sharpton, with a smoother race card shuffle but in the end, nothing but a con artist ...

Wow, mantis, it's a shame y... (Below threshold)

Wow, mantis, it's a shame you didn't start out with the substantive criticism; you'd get taken a lot more seriously. I don't know enough about the polls' internals to comment intelligently, but I do know a lot about trolls. Your snark about Brian is one thing, but consider trolls like Sandra "Sarah Palin should be gang-raped by black men" Bernhard or Wendy "Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for pretending to be a woman" Doniger. It's that kind of troll — the kind that reaches the multitudes — that turn off people wholesale. People like Brian and the right-wing equivalents only work the small-time retail end of the market.

I love it when mantis pops ... (Below threshold)

I love it when mantis pops in with some quick snide remark and when called on it, he shoots back with a long and drawn out explanation riddled with spit and vitriol.

Yeah, this is the kind of person I'd love to have a debate with ...

... or not.

hahaha! jp2 is pretending ... (Below threshold)

hahaha! jp2 is pretending to even understand any of this.

I won't pretend to understand much of it. But I'm pretty damn good at detecting assholes (and pretenders like jp2) no matter the topic of conversation.

"As for my "peurile and sneering tone," please refer to, oh, 90% of right-wing bloggers and commenters, yourself included."

Oddly enough, I've not found many "right-wing commenters" trolling liberal blogs. They always seem to get deleted and banned right off the bat. But if mantis is upset that right wing commenters get snarky on right-wing blogs, and right-wing bloggers get snarky on their own blogs then we have a whole different standard going here.

you still ignore you... (Below threshold)

you still ignore your big, glaring mistake of comparing party ID data from September 8-14 with a poll from September 16-18. Hmmm, I wonder why....

OK mantis, I'll bite. Explain that to me.

Are you people all insane? ... (Below threshold)
wbgonne:

Are you people all insane? It as if you're living in your pretend online world and everything is just as you wish it to be. Pathetic.

wbgonne appaears just in ti... (Below threshold)

wbgonne appaears just in time, in multiple threads, to make the straw man argument.

Oyster,Please iden... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oyster,

Please identify the "spit and vitriol" in my "long and drawn out explanation."

Oddly enough, I've not found many "right-wing commenters" trolling liberal blogs.

Do you read a lot of liberal blog comment threads? There are plenty of right-wing commenters. True that on many liberal blogs they are deleted and/or banned, just as the left-wingers are on many right-wing blogs, but there are a number of Wizbang-type blogs on the left that don't do that.

But if mantis is upset that right wing commenters get snarky on right-wing blogs, and right-wing bloggers get snarky on their own blogs then we have a whole different standard going here.

I'm not upset by it at all, I was just noting the flipside of DJ's hypothesis. You'll notice that DJ is not restricting his definition of "troll" to blog-comment provocateurs, but seems to be expanding to anyone and everyone who he thinks engages in bad political behavior, or, seemingly, is snarky at all.

The poll analysis is tops. ... (Below threshold)
Hestrold:

The poll analysis is tops. Every four years everyone dances to the pollsters, and every four years I have to wonder just how suspect their methodology is. If they were accurate different pollsters would trend better. They don't. Even RCP's average is flawed as the flaws in the underlying polls are averaged together. A good sociologist can get his/her data to self fulfill their conclusion, instead of the other way around. So there.

Mantis:Ok, I will ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Mantis:

Ok, I will play your game. I DID understand your point; "you still ignore your big, glaring mistake of comparing party ID data from September 8-14 with a poll from September 16-18."

I would like to hear exactly how DJ handles this. He is the expert, not me.

Let me give you a case in point on Freedom of Speech and the difference in campaigns. With the exception of Mark Levin, who got tired of Obamanuts with talking points calling his show, I do not know of any organized efforts by any conservative partisan to stifle debate.

None. If you have an example, by all means, tell me.

Contrast that with two (2) OFFICIAL calls from OBAMA campaign headquarters in Chicago to call a local radio station and hammer them because 1) Freddoso was scheduled and 2) another guy who was just doing some research and wanted access AND HAD YET TO take a position.

Give me an example of a liberal - oops, a Progressive - blog that allows dissent, please.

I tend to be very polite even when I disagree. I almost always do so from a factual basis rather than make snide remarks. Yet I get kicked, booted and abused. I can handle the abuse - doesn't bother me - name calling is stupid.

As I have said before, it is the solipsist attitude that I find disturbing.

DJ hasn't touched on this one. I don't know if he is even aware. Maybe he is or isn't. Doesn't matter. I am gonna let you in on a little secret about polling.

Women dodge polls. So do illegals.

But illegals don't vote except in areas where Acorn is active.

I still think Obama has a good chance of winning and I am not paranoid about it. But he needs as least 6% going in and maybe a bit more to make up for the silent women vote, which I consider likely to go heavily toward Palin based on keeping my ear to the ground and my mouth shut.

The reason I am not paranoid about an Obama win is that it is also my opinion that Pelosi and Reid will hold Obama hostage to their far left agenda. The result will be another Carter debacle. That means a Republican, probably Palin, wins in four years. I don't care if the Dems stay in control of Congress or not after that, they won't last long.

There aren't too many historians who lean left, for good reason. Well, outside academia, which is a whole nuther discussion for another day.

Okay, mantis, I'll give you... (Below threshold)

Okay, mantis, I'll give you that. Spit and vitriol was too strong a description. I was a bit annoyed at the "mocking" nature of your first comment in which you chose to purposefully mischaracterize one aspect of DJ's post.

How about condescending and querulous?

Excellent post, DJ. I knew ... (Below threshold)

Excellent post, DJ. I knew you'd get around to fisking these polls eventually.

OK mantis, I'll bite. Ex... (Below threshold)
mantis:

OK mantis, I'll bite. Explain that to me.

OK. The party ID support numbers DJ refers to are weekly averages, with the most recent data for Sept. 7-14. So the degree of support among liberal/moderate/conservative Dems and Reps, and independents those numbers match with are the tracking polls that took place over that same time period. The polls have since taken a turn in Obama's direction, and DJ compares those numbers to the old party ID support numbers (from when McCain was leading, mostly) and smells a rat. The rat isn't there because he's matching up new data with old data and thus seeing false incongruencies. I'll bet that when we see the party ID numbers for this week (presumably next week, but Gallup doesn't put them out on a strict schedule), the last few days tracking will make more sense.

Or, it's the troll effect and Gallup is hiding it by cooking party numbers. ;)

Ok mantis, I will wa... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Ok mantis, I will wait and either see a DJ rebuttal or the new numbers as they come out.

In any event, you want to see if you can touch the point I made about free speech?

Larry,Calling a ra... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Larry,

Calling a radio station is not stifling debate. It is joining the debate. Doing so in an organized fashion may be annoying, but it doesn't prevent anyone from doing or saying anything.

Give me an example of a liberal - oops, a Progressive - blog that allows dissent, please.

Well, for one, Sadly, No! doesn't delete and ban commenters. I've only known of one case of that happening, and that person had posted the personal information of a blogger. John Cole doesn't do it either, but he used to be a Republican so maybe it doesn't count. Those are the only other blogs I regularly read comment threads on these days. I used to do so more and could check some other sites to see if they are still as open with their comments.

I am gonna let you in on a little secret about polling.

I could go on and on about problems with polls. I'm not arguing the reliability or accuracy of polls in general here. They are, however, the best quantitative measure of public opinion we have to talk about. I do have strong doubts on your silent women theory, but we shall see.

I don't see Obama as Carter redux. He's much more pragmatic than Carter.

How about condescending ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How about condescending and querulous?

Seems more accurate.

Thank you, DJ.Very i... (Below threshold)
northwynd:

Thank you, DJ.
Very interesting article and observations!

One thing that fascinates me nowadays about the chronic and out of control anger in people is that they are unaware that they cause and perpetuate it in themselves.

How, you ask?
Studies have shown that swearing and using vile language increases the irrational anger and inability to cope. Swearing and cursing doesn't "vent" anger, which is a discarded psychological model anyways; but instead, it actually increases it and leaves the person out of control and feeling powerless, and more insecure.

It explains alot of what we see now in our culture, doesn't it?
I thought of that this week when so many truly disgusting verbal attacks have been made on Palin and McCain. And by women, none the less.

Tell you what, mantis. I h... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Tell you what, mantis. I have a ton of real-world work to do, so if you can show me why 3 days invalidates my statement, I will redo everything for you. Bear in mind, however, that you would have to show where the support-by-party-and-ideology numbers cause the change in overall support. Even if I slipped a part of the numbers, the shift in internal-support is contrary to the shift in stated overall support, and I defy you to show how that happens without a party alignment shift of at least 7 percent in a single week.

Right now, your defense is like OJ claiming he should not go to prison because the prosecuting attorney is white; a nonseqitur which appears intended to avoid the evidence.

I'm actually now convinced ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I'm actually now convinced that Obama is working to get McCain elected, but of course that's just me thinking that...

mantis:Thank you f... (Below threshold)
Larry:

mantis:

Thank you for the two sites. I will check them out.

"Calling a radio station is not stifling debate. It is joining the debate. Doing so in an organized fashion may be annoying, but it doesn't prevent anyone from doing or saying anything. "

I will post in this spot more details on the radio station thing tomorrow - please check back. I think it is more than just joining the debate. And I think I can show why. But not tonight.

Well heck, here is why not tonight. I had to break up a fight between two dogs that were trying to kill each other and one of my hands is bandaged.

Wow, I have such power and ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow, I have such power and I didn't even know it!

Though it's hard to take criticism of my demeanor from someone who opens by calling me a "deluded troglodyte".

You know,I'm banne... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

You know,

I'm banned after about 5 comments by Lee from Wiz Blue. I'd love to go and stir things up at DKos and DU but I was instantly banned there after calling them "f**k*rs" (apostrophe included).

Now since our liberal friends think that it happens both on the left and right, the best question to ask I think would be: what major conservative blog (as DKos and DU are major liberal blogs) will instantly ban you like the libs? Thanks for playing.

Excellent article. People ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Excellent article. People like Brian will laugh and make jokes which is good in that it means they will continue to unintentionally help us.

I have two words to back up what DJ said. Wellstone Memorial. In 2002 it is what helped push Republicans into even more seats in the House & Senate. I clearly remember Tim Russert saying that everyone on the street (the average Joe) he talked to knew about the incident, and were appalled.

So thank you trolls. You're annoying most of the time, but in the end, you deliver.

DJ-Ack.I ... (Below threshold)
Clint:

DJ-

Ack.

I think you made an error.

All of the crosstab data you present is weekly aggregate. It should be compared to the weekly aggregate Overall Support numbers (here).

These show Obama 47% - McCain 45% for the week of September 1st-7th, and Obama 45% - McCain 47% for the week of September 8th-14th.

This change (Obama losing 2% and McCain gaining 2%) is consistent with the crosstabs on party ID that you cite. Obama DID lose support between the two weeks. Gallup's claim is that he gained that back and more over THIS week, for which crosstabs haven't yet been released.

We won't be able to analyze the underlying data for Obama's apparent resurgence until they release the next set of weekly aggregate data, soon.

Mantis:Ok, I am ba... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Mantis:

Ok, I am back. Here is what you said again:

"Calling a radio station is not stifling debate. It is joining the debate. Doing so in an organized fashion may be annoying, but it doesn't prevent anyone from doing or saying anything. "

And here is the rebuttal:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/08/28/obama-campaign-tries-shut-down-chicago-radio-show

Ok, the guy is convservative. That does not automatically dispute his facts. Do read the link to the Tribune story.

Kurtz is a conservative leaning guy. He was there doing research. At the time of the radio program, he was unable to get access to information he wanted to research. Someone in the Obama campaign thought this guy appearing on radio to plead his case to get access was a bad idea that needed to be nipped in the bud.

That was stupid.

Please read the Obama emails. Please note that the Obama campaign was asked to provide a spokesperson for equal time and they rejected it. Please note that WGN is a liberal talk station.

The same thing happened when Freddoso was scheduled. There was plenty of time in between for someone with a brain to tell headquarters that attempting to stifle debate was a bad idea. So I have to assume that stifling debate is well thought of all the way to the top; Obama.

A Democratic Congress wants to put the Fairness Doctrine back into play. This means an end to the debate on talk radio and INCLUDES liberal leaning pundits, not just Limbaugh and Hannity. So then we just get MSM as our sole source of information plus the internet?

Talk radio, right or left or inbetween, is one of the few places where some topic gets extensive play, not just sound bites like you get on almost all MSM programs. Not everyone is a reader. Not everyone has the time at home to go to the Internet and research. We don't need those who would stifle free speech to kill it.

Yet that is what the Libs want to do.

Again, mantis, the Obama campaign was offered time and they refused. They wanted to stop or disrupt the program, not offer reasoned rebuttal.

I believe my case is made. What say you?

Brian:After... (Below threshold)
Larry:


Brian:

After some of the shots you have taken at DJ, please don't act insulted when he calls you:

1 : a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves

2 : a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes

Hey Brian, want to take a shot at me over the free speech thing where I have challenged mantis?

DJ,You and I don't a... (Below threshold)
Budahmon:

DJ,
You and I don't agree on much but once in a while you do put up some good stuff. I don't have the link but I have seen internals that showed most of the undecideds were in groups that were heavily slanted toward McCain....They will break for McCain in the end.

Right on DJ.The le... (Below threshold)
WildWilliew:

Right on DJ.

The lefties have no real desire to debate, that is why a conservative thought on a lefty blog gets you banned.

Obama is really killing his own chances. Not publicly telling the left to leave the personal insults about Palin and McCain to the dregs. Having a VP candidate so entrenched in Washington that it represents everything wrong with the city. Having real problems making decisions.

Oh! And when DJ said he has a ton of work to do, to the lefties, that is when you have resposiblities and commitments to others rather then yourself. It is called a JOB. Maybe you have heard of it? ww

Isn't that the very definit... (Below threshold)

Isn't that the very definition of an internet troll? Kee-rist on a cracker! The more I get my news from the internet the more I miss the good old main stream media.

Is it too late to save it?

It seems to me that the rec... (Below threshold)
Brown Line:

It seems to me that the record audience Palin attracted for her vice-presidential acceptance speech at the RNC was assembled in large part by trolls. The attacks against her, and in particular the vicious lies circulated about the parentage of her son Trig, sparked interest in her, and sympathy for her. If the trolls had behaved in a civilized manner, my guess is that far fewer people would have watched her speech.


With the the Bradley effect... (Below threshold)
bush_is_moron Author Profile Page:

With the the Bradley effect
Pools mean nohting.

Plus your analysis is not scientific
but that fits in well with Palin creationism

Good post. Obama even has h... (Below threshold)
Terrye:

Good post. Obama even has help from Rangel calling Palin disabled...Sarah Bernhard calling her a turncoat bitch and saying that she hoped Palin would go to New York and be gang raped by black men.

Oh yeah, these kinds of attacks say a lot about the Democrats and it is not good. I left the Democratic party because of these people. They are everywhere. No, it is not just one commenter. Not at all. And the Democratic leadership has failed to reign them in.

Republicans pretty much drove Pat Buchanan out of the party when he started sounding like an anti semitic loon. But the Democrats have no such qualms about who they hang out with.

Helpful analysis. It conne... (Below threshold)
notaclue:

Helpful analysis. It connects with a problem that affects both sides of the race: Each side claims that the other side's worst representatives truly speak for their candidate. Each side also claims that their own side's worst representatives are loner wackos who don't really speak for their candidate.

In descending order of connection, the players include:
--The candidate him/herself.
--The candidate's campaign staff.
--The official party machinery.
--Clearly identified party members.
--Bloggers and other opinion writers.
--Commenters on the blogs.

Each candidate would like to pretend that everyone in the other candidate's chain speaks for the other candidate. Every troll, every conspiracy theorist, is part of the "right wing noise machine" or the "moonbat leftosphere," and the other candidate must explicitly disclaim every word of theirs or appear to agree with it. At the same time, each candidate wants to take responsibility for only what his/her official campaign says, and sometimes not even that.

For me its the sheer venom ... (Below threshold)
Dark Eden:

For me its the sheer venom and hatred shown by the left towards Palin, out of all sorts of bounds with anything she's done.

They HATE her. They don't even know her, or know much about her, but they hate her. That isn't really possible given the short time that she's been in the public attention, so it seems to me they hate the /idea/ of her.

They don't just hate Palin, they hate anyone and everyone /like/ Palin. Like that website 'Stuff White People Like' Palin represents 'the wrong kind of white people.'

The left has tipped their hand that if you hunt, they hate you. If you are evangelical, they hate you, if you have had five kids, they hate you (don't you care about the environment? how selfish, breeder!), if you're from a small town and haven't been educated by a proper leftist indoctrination center, they hate you.

Its tipped more and more people off that a fair number of people on the left, not all by any means, are bigots against red state America in general and Christians in particular. They really honestly think they are superior human beings.

The thing is, most Democrats are not like this, and the behavior of disgusting bigots like this drives people either to sit the election out or actually hold their nose and vote Republican.

It worked with Tammy Bruce, a pretty die hard liberal, lesbian and former high official in NOW. She had a run in with a friend of hers, a good caring compassionate leftist who informed her that he had a special bottle of wine he was saving for when Ronald Reagan died. The sheer hatred of that, the time spent, wishing death upon your political foe took her aback and made her really ponder.

So you call it troll, I think the better and truer name is bigot.

I'm banned after about 10 c... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

I'm banned after about 10 comments over at Wizbblue.

Lee kept calling Sarah Palin a liar and I kept disputing it, so he started calling me a liar, then banned me because I wouldn't admit i'm a liar.

Good analysis!

Liberal variety breed a ... (Below threshold)

Liberal variety breed a lot more,...

A small correction. Liberal trolls don't breed. They reproduce by fission.

Like other bacteria.

I sort of wanted to just po... (Below threshold)
moptop:

I sort of wanted to just post "shhhhh...", but lefty trolls are deaf and probably had come up with some kind of knee jerk counterargument before they finished reading the title of your post. "Reject first!, Ask rhetorical questions later!" is the mantra of the leftie troll and their presstard counterparts. So we can talk in the security of knowing that we may as well be speaking Aramaic.

Oh yeah, and the taking the example of "Brian the Leftard" literally, as if his specific posts were going to turn the election, rather than the hateful venom of lefties as a class, well, that is such a clever rhetorical technique that I only can bow my head in awe, tug my forelock to their superior intellectual weaponry, and scurry away, hoping, in vain, I am sure, they spare me that parting riposte.

Insulting Christians with clever bumper stickers is very helpful too in suppressing their votes. When people get angry, they stay home and sulk, they don't march to the polls with redoubled resolve. Remember that lefties. It is a truism.

Remember when lefties used to have "mean people suck" bumper stickers? It is almost as if the lefties would rather be mean than win... Naaah!

Hiya Moron, welcome to the ... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Hiya Moron, welcome to the site.

Couple of things; The Bradley effect (or Wilder as you prefer) has been losing steam for some time. It might mean 1% less for Obama, maybe not.

To which brand of creationism do you think Palin subscibes? There are at least four, including evolutionary creationism. Talking points are fine, but when backed by ignorance, they just make you look, well, ignorant.

And she isn't forcing any school to teach it, just to allow debate, which is fair, right? Or do you subscribe to Obama's campaign headquarter's theory that if it isn't positive for Obama, it should be stifled, cut off, eliminated and the perps shot. I am kidding (sorta) about shooting the perps.

Thing about the Mantis type... (Below threshold)

Thing about the Mantis type is that they have a bottomless supply of vitriol and will ignore any and all evidence that spreading it around is anything but a GOOD thing. They're not really interested in getting Obama into office - THAT would require some discipline, hard work, and even self-denial. The Mantis type is simply interested in self-gratification, and the easiest path is to attack everyone else.

Everyone who disagrees is an ass, everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees should die. Vote Kerry, or you're a fool. Vote Obama, or you're a racist. Vote like me, agree with me, reinforce my self-image.

When Mantis loses, he can always blame Rove. (Doesn't really matter that this isn't Rove's campaign.) It's never, ever, his fault. Nothing ever is. Welcome to the world of the two-year-old.

It should be readily appare... (Below threshold)
njoriole:

It should be readily apparent by now (but, sadly, un-noticed by those who would most benefit from self-realization) that the hate-filled Far Left has decided to take over the Demo party, and will tolerate no diversity of thought. In fact, as with all insurgencies/revolutions, they save some of their worst bile and excess for those who are nominally on their own side. That's why Reagan's comment ("I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Party left me.")is so spot-on. I also was a life-long Democrat,until I could no longer accept being in cahoots with DU-, Kos-style collectivist fascists. It truly is scary to think of such vile creatures (eg, Markos Moulitsis) gaining access to the corridors of power.

I am curious about the sile... (Below threshold)
mrs whatsit:

I am curious about the silent-woman theory that women avoid polls. I hadn't heard that before but, in point of fact, I am female, and I hang up on pollsters. (Well, I hang up on the recorded ones. When it's an actual human being, first I say I am going to hang up, then I say goodbye, then I hang up. Don't wanna be rude.) I did not realize that this might be a gender-based characteristic. I thought it was just me. Is there really research on this? Can anybody point me to it?

When a left wing nut... (Below threshold)
Larry:


When a left wing nutcase like Soros exercises his American given right to spend many hundreds of millions in a certain direction, it can have an effect on even the most common sense driven political party member. And it happened when (in effect), the nutcase, pitbull, idiot Tom DeLay took over the Republicans.

But in Soros' case, I have to suspect that there is something in it for him other than political gratification. I have searched around for something of substance that I can read and have found nothing that jumps out and grabs me.

Money drives public opinion.

Here is a test for Liberals (er, Progressives). It is an easy test.

Which Wall Street firm went to Congress and testified it wasn't the awful speculators that were driving the price of oil, and at the same time sent an email out to their wealthy clients that it WAS the speculators?

Speculators OWN both political parties, except for a few. Want to try who they don't own?

Rassumuseen has increase... (Below threshold)
Winston Smith:

Rassumuseen has increased its share of Republicans and it also has Obama ahead.

Nice theory, but wrong.

You also forgot to mention that Gallup changes whether it releases registered voter numbers or likely voter numbers. It has consistently chosen likely voter number when they favor McCain.

Whatsit Mrs :-)Ok,... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Whatsit Mrs :-)

Ok, I will go back and follow my tracks on that one. Sorry I can't recreate it off the top of my head. Watch this space. I plan on hanging around the comments for this particular piece from wizbang for a while. Looks like others aren't through here either. It may be late this afternoon or early tomorrow before I get back to you.

Larry

I thought that this was TWO... (Below threshold)
frenchlaw:

I thought that this was TWO great articles. Not necessarily related though. I loved the gallup polls analysis. I actually learned something from a blogger!! Second the opinion part about trolls affecting the election seems to me to be true. But it may be that I am, as a dedicated conservative, am more affected by the name-calling slandering troll than a TRUE independent would be. I am not sure that we can know that.

Mrs whatsit,Conserva... (Below threshold)
moptop:

Mrs whatsit,
Conservatives hang up on pollsters as a matter of principle. Google "Shy torry" for supporting evidence, or don't if you are just interested in scoring points for one side or the other.

And as for the racist posts, they rarely, but not never, sound authentically conservative to me. There was one poster who took on the name of some irredentist Confederate colonel who was angry slavery ended. And posted racist commnent after racist comment as a way to try to discredit a site. The only way to make him go away was to ridicule him every time he posted. I guess he was expecting to start a prarie fire of racism, since that is what he believed lies in the secret heart of all conservatives.

If racism costs Obama the election, it will be racism on the left, not the right. Obama has not offered anything to conservatives to make them think about voting for him enought for racism to even enter the question.

Would someone please explai... (Below threshold)
mary:

Would someone please explain to me how the pollsters deal with outright lying? Last night, people told me that they are being instructed to tell the pollster that they are voting for McCain when in reality they are voting for Obama.
This is sort of a very sneaky strategy.

While the focus of the medi... (Below threshold)
mark l.:

While the focus of the media has been on the demographics of race, they are sorely missing the reality of the age demographics. Obama doessn't simply need the youth vote to show up, he needs them to vote absentee or return to their home states in the middle of the semester.

This may account for the Bradley effect, which may erroneously be attributed to a function of racism.

Take obama 48-mccain 44...

If 9 out of ten supporters of mccain vote for him, and obama only draws 8 of 10, mccain wins the election by roughly what Bush won by...

50.7-49.2.

one other point about national polls-
1000 respondents?
look at how that applies specifically to battle ground states...

1000/538=1.86...

colorado-9 evs-then in theory the national survey just sampled less than 17 voters from colorado...

stick with the 10 battleground states.

And she isn't forcing an... (Below threshold)

And she isn't forcing any school to teach it, just to allow debate, which is fair, right?

the is no debate. the question is settled.

Hasn't Mr. Drummond's post ... (Below threshold)
Desmond:

Hasn't Mr. Drummond's post been completely annihilated at this point? He's using numbers from Sept. 8-14, but Obama's comeback happened Sept. 14th onward.

Therefore, the conclusions of this blog post are crap. As in WRONG. End of story.

DJ,This is a very ... (Below threshold)
R. Dittmar:

DJ,

This is a very interesting analysis, but there may be an explanation for the polling discrepancies you note that doesn't require us to think Gallup is playing games with affiliation weights.

There's a strange statistical phenomena typically known as Simpson's paradox that can produce some of the results you're seeing with the latest polls. The Wikipedia description as usual isn't too bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

It's possible that even when certain directional trends are seen in each sub-sample of an experiment (i.e. McCain is up in every sub-group) the combined experiment/poll shows the seemingly opposite trend (i.e. McCain has lost support). It order to say that this effect is coming into play here, we'd need to examine the actual number of voters polled in each catagory rather than using the percentage support.

I'm certainly not using this to discount your thesis. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder because one of the causes of Simpson's paradox is that numbers chosen in certain subgroups are much different from those chosen in other subgroups. Pushing people into different affiliation-categories by using different weights could certainly produce the paradox.

Sorry to be a pedant, but I'm a statistics guy so I love to ponder this stuff too. Of course I'll also confess to being a knuckle-dragging toothless snake-handling Sarah-loving redneck and you know we-uns cain't figur' too good, so I may be all wet here not having looked as closely as you at the numbers. My only advice is to look closely at the raw number of people polled. That's where the explanation to these oddball situations lies.

R. Dittmar, none of that ex... (Below threshold)
Desmond:

R. Dittmar, none of that extra analysis is necessary. Go to the Gallup page itself. Do you see any numbers past Sept. 14th? I don't.

Drummond's entire post is based on a mistake. Again, end of story.

The demographic subgroup sw... (Below threshold)
Arrowhead:

The demographic subgroup swing trends in favor of McCain observed by Drummond are based on data through Sept 8-14 (ie last Sunday). They are reflected in Gallup's overall polling which had McCain over Obama 47 to 45 (again through last Sunday).

Now, according to Gallup, the race has swung in favor of Obama this week.

Therefore, we will know on Sunday, the 21st, if the demographic subgroup data jive with their overall numbers.

Until then, Drummond's assessment is factually inaccurate. However, I do find it hard to believe that McCain had such strong shift in so many different demographics that ultimately only led to only a slim 2 pt lead over Obama. I think that Drummond is correct surmising that something doesn't smell right with the polling.

I for one think that this election will be a blowout in McCain/Palin's favor.

There is a tremendous amount of unspent ordinance that McCain has yet to use against Obama. I suspect he will be firing for full effect in October.

some demographic issues wit... (Below threshold)
mark l.:

some demographic issues with the gallup poll...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108031/Candidate-Support-Gender-Among-Whites.aspx

current support obama:
white women-40%.
white men-33%.

04, cnn, had white males as 36% of vote, white females as 41% of vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Were McCain to lose every single minority vote he would need to win 65% of white voters...obama would have to break 35% among white voters.

looking at the 04 results, bush collected 5.8 'pts' of his 50.7 from non whites...

if mcain draws only 3 pts from non-whites, he would need only 61% of white voters.

currently he holds 64% of the white males that have decided, and 56% of white females...both numbers have been trending up since august.

the weighted total has mccain at 59.7 support among whites, who have decided.

one large caveat about Obama and gallup...
at the end of August, his numbers had him at 50%, with 38% white males, and 43% white females.

currently he is a 49%, with 33% white males and 40% white females...

white males-.05*.36=1.8%
white females-.03*.41=1.2%...

while the current gallup poll of 49% suggests only a 1 pt dropoff, from his high of 50%, he has actually suffered a 3% dropoff.

Mccain over the same period?
end of august-42% in gallup...
current number is 44%.

so how has McCain done with white voters since August?
+6% with white males, +4% with white females.
.06*.36=2.2%
.04*.41=1.6%.

42+3.8 is a lot closer to 46 than 44...

clearly the latest gallup is not using the same voting formula for deriving their voting pool that they used at the end of August...

otherwise, they would have it at 47-46...

one does not need to see the polls, so much as the news, to realize that septemeber has seen a rise in suppport among the conservative base, which is not reflected in the national polls, but is starting to filter thru at the state level.

given mccain's distinct advantage with older voters, who will show up in better numbers than the youth vote, obama should be worried.

Nope, you're wrong too, Arr... (Below threshold)
Desmond:

Nope, you're wrong too, Arrowhead.

You say that McCain had only a "slim 2 point" lead despite a strong shift in the numbers by demographic group, but out of context, that's deceptive. The week before, McCain had been down by as much as 8 points to Obama. The next week, his lead climbed as high as 5 points, but averages out to a roughly 2 or 3 point lead for the entire week.

That IS a dramatic shift, fully in line with McCain's gains across the demographic groups. And we'll likely see the same kind of dramatic shift for Obama across the demographics when we get the new numbers.

Interesting analysis, but h... (Below threshold)
gk1:

Interesting analysis, but honestly, when haven't the polls overstated democratic support? It always seems to be off in one direction, doesn't it? I still remember gallup giving dukakis a lead 3 weeks going into Novebmer. I just assume if the democrats lead isn't 10 pts or better they are going to lose.

The far left ideologues tha... (Below threshold)
James Nelson:

The far left ideologues that show up as trolls are the same people who have taken over every leftist revolution since the French Revolution and proceeded to kill everyone who disagreed with them.
Concluding a statement with "end of story" is the equivalent to ending an argument by putting one's fingers in one's ears and chanting la la la really loud.

I dont understand all those... (Below threshold)
MANDI08:

I dont understand all those explanation , but I know that McCain is leading, and this will take Him all the way!!!American people are so fed up with obamas lies, pass,and above all, that he will not deliver his PRIMARY PROMISES, why??? because does not exist. We came to part #3 of Obama, and we dont know #4 yet. It is more and more scary, especjaly when I am learning who obamas advisers are??? All obamas advisor are the dirtiest politicians and direct involve in our economy meltdown!!! DIRECTLY INVOLVE!!! Can You imagine for moment, to have all those crooks running OUR COUNTRY. They still from US and now asking for more??? How anyone of US can believe those who are ripping US of everything. How can You put Obama in President Office, and believe, that He will help US??? After what He did to Hillary, and now doing to McCain-Palin sending His snake do Alaska like ED Shultz from Progressive Radio to spy on Palin???Shultz is a stunch supporter of Move ON, he is one of those Obama Machine , who smear Hillary with hate and lies!!!Cant You see how this racial-hate machine works???Look what they did to Hillary and Bill, dont be so naive , that they will change, because , they got so ugly and dispicable, that is no other way for them, it is in their blood, heart not to ferget in their brains!!!This is not about politics anymore , for them is;power,power,power... nothing else!!!

James, that's a pretty path... (Below threshold)
Desmond:

James, that's a pretty pathetic response. I ask you, do YOU see any numbers after Sept. 14th?

I appreciated your explanat... (Below threshold)
Demogrunt:

I appreciated your explanation of polling and how statistical information can be massaged to show results that just don't add up.

As for your comments on trolls, there may be some validity to that, too. Trolls are found not just in all forms of media. Newspaper readers, television watchers, radio listeners, blog readers, et al, are all exposed to the nasty nature of political pundits and wannabe trolls who in advancement of their political objectives, subject all political persuasions to the basest forms of human nature. It is a big turn off for many, and as much as any other reason for NOT supporting a candidate.

I've always thought that if... (Below threshold)

I've always thought that if even 10% of sane voters would spend 15 minutes a week on DailyKos, the Democrats would have no chance in any federal election.

By the way, I am a caucasia... (Below threshold)
Demogrunt:

By the way, I am a caucasian male who has always voted Democrat in every elections that I have voted in since 1980, both local and national. I supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, and I intend on voting for John McCain / Sarah Palin in the general election. I am undecided at this time as to who to vote for in the downticket races. Barack Obama is not a transformative politician. He is a fraud.

some other polls, by gallup... (Below threshold)
mark l.:

some other polls, by gallup that make obama's current position appear far more tenuous:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html#polls

generic congressional vote...

gallup-8/21-8/23-dems +9.
gallup-9/05-9/07-gop+5.

hmmmm...the other polls don't really support this big a shift, but take a look at the latest CBS/NYT...

democrats +20, the average of all is actually 6%...and yet obama's lead is still only 5%.

in a poll where respondents favored the generic democrat by 20, they only favor obama by 5? barry's problems are evident.

OK Desmond, you've totally ... (Below threshold)
Arrowhead:

OK Desmond, you've totally confused me now. In your original post you say this (in boldface),

"So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?"

It has been pointed out repeatedly in the comment section that you compared last week's demographic data (when McCain was leading the polls) to this weeks Gallup daily data (which has Obama ahead).

That is flat out wrong.

And I see your glib response to me as nothing but a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue.

Go McCain.

Duplicity is hurting the Re... (Below threshold)

Duplicity is hurting the Republican ticket, "Free-Market" welfare recipients looking to privatize profit and socialize the consequences just got away with the biggest heist in human history.

So now that McCain's economics adviser Phil Gramm's master plan has come to fruition: the largest economic failure in American history after McCain and Gramm's friends have looted the system and left the debt to taxpayers, McCain is now blaming everyone else but himself.

The deceit of Johm McCain and the pathological lies of Sarah Palin may end up winning because much of the public isn't listening and won't have the time or resources to fact-check McCain and Palin's serial falsehoods.

If Republicans cared about America or Americans they'd recognize that the free-market cult just hurt America's economy worse than 9-11, just without the bloodshed.

Every American invested in the stock market might wake up and throw the neo-Republican trolls out that have been advocating for an unregulated (lawless) economic system. If they were paying attention they would realize that they neo-R's just played them all for suckers.

Arrowhead, you ARE confused... (Below threshold)
Desmond:

Arrowhead, you ARE confused.

First, I didn't say what you quoted me as saying.

Second, it's Drummond who is using the data for Sept. 8-14th, and saying it goes up to the 18th, which it doesn't. He thinks because in the 8-14 data McCain is gaining in demographic groups, the polls from the 14th onward (that show Obama gaining) are fishy.

They aren't. We don't know the demographic breakdowns yet from the 14th onward, when Obama pulled ahead.

To recap,

Sept 8-14: McCain gets bounce, pulls ahead in demographic groups.

Sept 14-present: Obama regains lead, we don't know his performance in individual demographics.

Clear enough now, or are you still confused?

It doesn't have to be anyth... (Below threshold)
George Burdell:

It doesn't have to be anything as nefarious as Gallup changing there weightings. It be that the 2,796 registered voters chosen at random for the sample found a few more Obama supporters by random chance.

Second it doesn't mater what the daily national tracking polls say. It maters slightly more what a daily sate tracking poll would say. It it would matter more still if they just surveyed the 6-10 states that will decide the election.

Great analysis! I think you... (Below threshold)
Valissa:

Great analysis! I think you are making a very important point. I'm an independent who has generally voted Dem, but this election all has changed. I used to lurk at alot of liberal blogs and I observed the rise of the obots (lefty trolls) with a growing sense of alarm. This in turn triggered me to take a closer look at the current state of the Democratic party and liberalism and compare it with historical and economic trends.

Then I took a closer look at the history and current trends in the Republican party. Finally with all this evidence I have chosen to support McCain/Palin... which will be the first time I've ever voted Republican on the presidential ticket. I like Palin, and think she was a brilliant strategic move on Mac's part and that speaks well of him. I have also been secretly enjoying watching the exploding heads of most of the lefty feminists in regards to Palin. It has exposed their own glaring hypocrisy.

I've also to decided to vote for Jeff Beatty(R) for the senate here in MA against John Kerry (D-pompous ass). The Democratic Party has become the party of rights, entitlements and spinelessness on principle and is not fit to lead at the exective office level. I can thank the lefty trolls for getting me to finally see that. And I'm not the only one. I've noticed commentors all over the blogosphere saying something similar.

Drummond said;"enc... (Below threshold)
nightjar:

Drummond said;

"encourage the vermin on their side, while Republicans would generally prefer a clean contest."

Don't mean to troll but this statement gave me a good belly laugh that will last the weekend at least. Thank You.

>Sure, Sarah Palin was a gr... (Below threshold)
Scott Smith:

>Sure, Sarah Palin was a great choice,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yep, Americans like fairnes... (Below threshold)
bc:

Yep, Americans like fairness. We teach our children to play fair. Our laws and courts seek fair and reasonable conduct, and punish the "bad guys" if they are shown to not play fair. Obama did not win in Chicago by playing fair. He did not beat Hillary by playing fair. He is now trying to beat McCain by not playing fair. Running those ads in Spanish totally lying about McCain and Limbaugh is a perfect example.

Wow, I knew there was somet... (Below threshold)
Typical White Person:

Wow, I knew there was something making the polls look weird. I'm no mathmetician, but when you looked at the polls the way you have, it wasn't making sense to me either. I just didn't do the math. I'd like to thank you for that. I've been instead looking at each State where it appears the John McCain has been closing the gap, sometimes by double digits. This makes a whole lot more sense. Good article.

More laughs from bc. Tell m... (Below threshold)
nightjar:

More laughs from bc. Tell me, how is the weather today on Planet Wingnut, where all the republicans are above average. LOL

You're right about the left... (Below threshold)
Jim C.:

You're right about the lefty trolls. On a politically mixed message-board I wrote that they were McCain's best weapon. The worst troll on the board agreed with me. But then, completely ignoring this, he launched into his usual vitriol.

They just can't help themselves. McCain should only issue calm responses and let the trolls destroy themselves with their panic and hysterical hate.

Thanks for this excellent a... (Below threshold)
HTL:

Thanks for this excellent analysis. As someone else said above, the polls just didn't look right, and I figured it had to be in how they are weighting their samples, but I didn't have time to do the math.

Even though I think it's still going to be a close election, I now feel a bit better about our chances.

For all you out there who a... (Below threshold)
Larry:

For all you out there who are in Obama's camp, here is an interesting quotation:

"There is something happening with women voters in America, maybe not among the most elite women who blog on liberal websites, but among women of almost every political stripe who may decide the election this fall. They identify with Sarah Palin and are recoiling at the cheap shots that Democrats, who have no reason to be so desperate but are acting as if they do, are lobbing in her direction.

"Her only qualification being that she hasn't had an abortion? Ouch. Double ouch. Not just a poor choice of words, but a sexist sentiment. Say goodbye and good night to half the mothers in America on that one."

Interesting comment, right?

Drummond claims that the pa... (Below threshold)
snippy w shrub:

Drummond claims that the party identification group polling numbers used in this analysis are as of September 18. However, Gallop has not published any such numbers. The most recent party identification group polling numbers published by Gallop are from the week ending September 14. So Drummond is either mistaken or mendacious.

Silent woman thing... saw ... (Below threshold)

Silent woman thing... saw a video (You Tube?) a while ago where a woman was trying to interview women on the street and they'd say no and keep walking. This was a bad thing, or something. But worse was when a woman was with a man and *he* either answered instead, or told the lady with the mic to sod off.

Now, I've never had a problem expressing myself *here* but in person? I don't like it in person because my inclination is to be non-confrontational and I'm much less that way than most women. Plus, I like to have time to think through my answer. And if it's someone with a camera? Have you ever seen a television "on the street" interview where the woman didn't sound and look like a ditz? Even if she's not, all she gets is a sound-bite and that's going to make her sound like a ditz.

Interesting breakdown of th... (Below threshold)
Pete H,:

Interesting breakdown of the numbers.

I wanted to do a bit more analysis here. I took the relative support levels for each subgroup (Liberal Democrat, Moderate Democrat, etc.) and assumed it held steady from the Sep 8-14 sample. I recognize this is a fairly simplistic assumption. If that assumption is true, however, the only way Gallup can get today's numbers, 50 Obama, 44 McCain, is if the sample is something like 56% Democrat, 6% Independent, and 38% Republican. This breakdown strikes me as unlikely.

On the other hand, you leave party identification the same, you need major shifts away from McCain among conservative and moderate Republicans and also among Independents. These seem unlikely as well.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the most recent Gallup sample is a mixture of artificially heavy Democratic sample, with some actual weakening of McCain among moderate Republicans and Independents.


Nice article. I have recei... (Below threshold)
Connie:

Nice article. I have received enough abuse from BOites to last a life time. Obama seems to attract stupid women and hate filled abusive men. Very creepy. By default I will vote for McCain. I also like that McCain gave women a hand up as opposed to the Dems who repeatedly told their most qualified female candidate to sit down and shut up because she might embarrass their under qualified male candidate. There is nothing the Dems can do to get my vote back this year. Although it is not too soon for them to start worrying if I will vote Dem in the next election.

Your information is excelle... (Below threshold)
Suzie:

Your information is excellent but your post would be much better if you edited. It's 2 times as long as it needs to be. Don't be a windbag

DJ,I do not necess... (Below threshold)

DJ,

I do not necessarily buy the troll analysis but it does appear that Obama has lost ground with just about every group he needs to win and Gallup has been playing games with the Rep/Dem ratio. If that is the case, McCain may actually have a lead right now that is not being captured. If that holds true, McCain wins. The downside is that it sets up the "Obama lost due to racism" argument when he loses rather than poor polling.

Honestly, with the recent R... (Below threshold)
xax:

Honestly, with the recent Rangel comments, I think the Democrats are doing just fine getting McCain elected without the trolls.

But with the trolls it illustrates that these feelings are not just confined to cyberspace they also exist in the world at large.

In fact, Obama may v... (Below threshold)
Larry:


In fact, Obama may very well lose because of racism. Note that MSM is carrying a recent special poll on exactly that subject. On the other hand, considering that blacks will be voting at near record levels and at nearly 95% for Obama, plus the support from MSM, that should offset the race card except in the minds of those looking for more excuses because they just don't get it.

I retraced some of my tracks for the underpolling of women. Part of it is that there are more women in lower socio-economic levels which is a group that is always underpolled. So much so that polling organizations attempt to correct for that to the extent they can.

Secondly, ask pollsters; when a poll taker calls, who gets to answer the questions? Answer, more men than women. I am sure that everyone here would be shocked to learn that women do not necessarily vote the same as their husbands. *grin* I mean, imagine that women have a mind of their own. Whoda thunkit.

Women tend to be more busy than men at home, women tend to NOT trust poll takers, women are not inclined to talk to stangers, etc. I am not a scientific poll taker. On the other hand, the pollsters blew it with the New Hampshire primary between Obama and Clinton and the only logical reason, among several I have seen, is that women were underpolled prior to the primary.

I have given some reasons gleaned from various sources and a few ideas of my own from listening to women over the years. Your choice to agree or not.

I never pay attention to po... (Below threshold)
DavidN:

I never pay attention to polls. I can't remember an instance where a poll was wrong, and favored a Republican. I *can* remember several instances where polls favored Democrats, but the Republicans won. So when there's a poll on the news, it means one of three things: it shows the Democrat leading, and the Dem will win, it shows the Republican leading, and the Rep will win, or it shows the Dem leading and the Rep will win. As long as the Republican is within 4-5 points of the Democrat, he has a chance, especially with the Bradley effect in play.

I have a ton of real-wor... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I have a ton of real-world work to do, so if you can show me why 3
days invalidates my statement, I will redo everything for you.

You know it's not three days. It's the averages of 7 days compared to
the averages of three days two days after the preceding period. Just
look at the numbers in every other poll out there since Sept. 14, and
you'll see shifts not unlike those in Gallup's tracking poll. Think
about it. September 14 was the day the financial crisis really
started to blow up, and that followed three very volatile polling
weeks due to back to back conventions. Is it so inconceivable that
preferences and allegiances can drift a few points in light of all
that? Is not worth looking at the numbers from the same time period
before making conclusions?

And I'm not asking you to redo everything for me. I'm not asking you
to do anything for me (hell, most of the bloggers here ignore me
entirely). I only wanted to point out that your conclusions are based
on false premises, in that you can't match up demographic numbers with
preference numbers from a different time period as if they were
measuring the same thing. Things change, and have been bouncing
around a lot lately.

Even if I slipped a part of the numbers, the shift in
internal-support is contrary to the shift in stated overall support,
and I defy you to show how that happens without a party alignment
shift of at least 7 percent in a single week.

Sure, it was way up at the beginning of the Sept 8 - 14 period due to
a massive post-convention bounce for the Republicans. But since the
initial bounce the numbers have steadily slid back down. While most
of the initially large increase is present in the 8 - 14 average, it
is all but gone by the time you get to the Sept. 16 - 18 period. So
the shift of 7 points in party ID, which I believe is there, is
actually over the course of about 10 days rather than 7.
Unbelievable? I don't think so. These are interesting times.

Right now, your defense is like OJ claiming he should not go to
prison because the prosecuting attorney is white; a nonseqitur which
appears intended to avoid the evidence.

I'm focusing on the evidence. You're playing games with it.

more thoughtfood."... (Below threshold)
moptop:

more thoughtfood.

"Obama's Advantage on Handling the Economy Drops Eight Percent in Three Days"

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQwODgxMzc0MjNlYjU3NWYxZTdiNWMxODBkN2U3NTY=

Great post, D.J., I'm glad ... (Below threshold)
Pam:

Great post, D.J., I'm glad you took the time to go through the internals of the poll. I too wondered how Obama seems to be fairing better in red states than even Pres. Clinton did in 1992 when the economy was in worse shape. I know the nation is war weary, but as the media keeps telling us it's the economy stupid. Take Indiana, I saw where Rasmusen had Obama within two. Sorry, I am not buying it.

mantis, is it your stupidit... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

mantis, is it your stupidity, your dishonesty, or both that you ignore the new post for today which addresses your criticisms, both valid and asinine?

Just wondering.

Ahah, mantis is back. Ok b... (Below threshold)
Larry:

Ahah, mantis is back. Ok boyo, see #54. I answered your implied question there.

This is an interesting take... (Below threshold)
Mark:

This is an interesting take on poll "weighting" ... I don't understand half of it! LOL ... anyways ... Gallop daily tracking holds Obama at 50% today, which is pretty high ... does this change anything with the analysis in this post?

I'm a McCain guy ... but I'm not going to try to indict the polls just because they say something I'm not happy about ... but perhaps DJ is smarter than I? Dunno but I will keep an eye on this. I think this will come down to a "squeaker" and we may not know who wins until the night the votes are counted.

mantis, is it your stupi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis, is it your stupidity, your dishonesty, or both that you ignore the new post for today which addresses your criticisms, both valid and asinine?

Actually, I still had this post on my browser when I got on the computer today, and refreshed it to see there was more to respond to. Then I later saw the new post and responded to that one also.

So the answer to your question is neither, but the question itself is yet more evidence of what an asshole you are. Not that it was needed.

Two friends of mine work fu... (Below threshold)
Doug:

Two friends of mine work full time polling for one of the "biG" firms. Both concur "undecideds" are,a much higher percentage than in prior years.

Hi Guys,Rasmussen ha... (Below threshold)
Daniel:

Hi Guys,
Rasmussen has just readjusted its weights..

Democrats +0.3 Republicans -0.1 Independents -0.2..

At this stage it's pretty much clear that being that the average during the last 6 weeks, the last week has provided a surge for democrats party identifications. That might also explain why Gallup is now showing +6%... the last week more Democrats picked up the phone.

No mantis, you're lying. Y... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

No mantis, you're lying. You posted again here long after I put up the new article.

Your dishonesty is proven. I leave the readers to decide the other part.

Great analysis, my best fri... (Below threshold)

Great analysis, my best friend sent me your link...

As for Florida, don't believe the hype, it is not competitive, Mac is taking it big time...

Poor liberals - the messiah... (Below threshold)
RemySt. Pierre:

Poor liberals - the messiah is supposed to be crowned king in November, and the American people have the audacity, the gumption, the nerve to allow McCain to be anywhere near him in the polls! Imagine that! Don't they know that he has been chosen to lead, and that they need not vote? Why are these polls so close? The effrontery of the gun-toting, religion- clinging neocons is shameless!!

DJ, I've been relying on yo... (Below threshold)

DJ, I've been relying on your sound analysis for the last several election cycles. Nice work. I think the polling is part of a larger plan to 'mainstream' Obama because most people look at him in astonishment - this is what democrats put forth as a candidate? He is the most radical, vague, and questionable candidate in history. If the democrats think so much of his leadership, why doesn't he chair an important committee - and why hasn't he called a meeting of the one subcommittee he does chair? I know - chuckle - he's out 'getting experience by running for president'.

But if the press get's its way, and the puke polls are just one tool, we are in for a massive decline as a nation.

Thanks for injecting some hard numbers into the debate, DJ.

As to the trolls, I don't read 'em. Waste of time, and some of them are so stupid they should have a warning "Brain cell killer".

No mantis, you're lying.... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No mantis, you're lying. You posted again here long after I put up the new article.

Now I know you can read, so stop pretending you can't. As you know because you blog here, there is a permalink for every post. I had this post up in my browser and refreshed the page to see if you responded. You did, so I responded in kind. It was only later that I looked through the new posts on the main page, saw that you had posted an update, and responded to that. Why would I be lying when I have no problem responding on both threads?

I notice you've not responded to my comment on your update, which does nothing to address the fundamental problem with your analysis.

You can wave your hands and try to make a big deal out of the fact that I posted on one thread before another, as if it matters, but the fact remains you're playing games with polling data in order to support absurd conclusions.

I haven't read through all ... (Below threshold)
SkinnyJay:

I haven't read through all the comments so my thoughts might have been posted already.

Concerning the Gallup Polls and the way it can be assumed that they are weighing party over party at certain times instead of keeping a constant weighting system is because well... they are a business. Their name only gets out there if people visit their poll results. Having a steady progression or regression of support for candidates are 'boring' for the everyday visitor. So they shift their weights around to get people excited and visiting their results more often because the stats change more often. (As exciting as percentage points on a computer screen can be anyway.)

Sadly this election will be... (Below threshold)
Patricio:

Sadly this election will be decided by race and John McCain will win.

I never did believe the Pol... (Below threshold)
Vicki:

I never did believe the Polls. They didn't make sense to me.

----------------------------

Write to your State Representative and tell them what you think about the current Financial Crisis and our Energy dilemma.

It is felt by many Americans that the people who are responsible for the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae implosion should be punished and brought to justice by our Justice Department/Federal Court System.

It is also felt that Congress should Drill Now and also utilize all the other energy sources Now! The tax dollars used to pay for foreign oil could be used also to pay for the trillions in the Wall Street crisis. Not to have a Bail Out - where we all will be paying for the additional taxes out of our paychecks!


https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

After you have written to your representative; please pass this along to your friends and family and ask them to do the same

Thank you.

National Black Republican A... (Below threshold)
Vicki:

National Black Republican Association (NBRA) Win The War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NFiPPPEOA


Visit the website of the National Black Republican Association to find out which Party is really for Black Americans.

COPY PASTE AND SEND TO EVER... (Below threshold)
Sandra:

COPY PASTE AND SEND TO EVERYONE TO SEE.

EVERY ONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS POWERFUL MESSAGE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE. After seeing it about the only thing you can say is WOW.

WHO IS OBAMA? If you have not seen this you NEED TO NOW. You make the choice after seeing it and you think if Obama is really the right person this country needs

YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES and vote for the GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY and NOT because he's black or a good speaker.

CHECK THIS OUT ON YOUTUBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16aBNduAyQ4

While I agree with your pol... (Below threshold)

While I agree with your polling analysis, I don't agree with your conclusion. The reason McCain is pulling ahead has more to do with the very nature of a campaign. Simply put more people are paying attention. For the political junkie McCain and Obama are old news, for the average voter, they are relatively new and unknown figures. While name recognition for both is near 100%, people still no very little about each person. The conventions were the first introduction. With the Conventions McCain had an edge. Look for the gaps to open up more with the debates, which will be viewed by 75 million people (only the superbowl compares). Obama is running a campaign with ideas that are to the left of George McGovern. McCain is not Bill Buckley. The country on balance is more right center, thus as the story plays itself out McCain is a better choice. Your analysis has McCain up about 6, I would say this is accurate and would not be surprised if this swells to close to 10.

For information and visuals... (Below threshold)
gawfer Author Profile Page:

For information and visuals, I have taken the data available in this post and created charts that illustrate movement for clarity. if you are interested, send an email and I'll send the revised post with corrosponding data and charts.

thanks,
g

wizbang is lying about the ... (Below threshold)
bush_is_moron Author Profile Page:

wizbang is lying about the numbers
depp=true
notiz=Go brush your teeth with that brush you're using.

An odd thing not included... (Below threshold)
Marc Malone:

An odd thing not included is something that got noted last week. Support for Obama is growing mostly in the blue States (where he's already winning), whereas McCain's increasing support is more spread out. I don't know whther or not that would affect the likelihood of a Repub getting the poll call. I should think it wouldn't matter, nationally, but it was mentioned that it does matter in the purple states. When McCain gains ground in overall support, it translates more in the purple States, than an equal Obama gain.

I have to say, despite the very personal effrontery displayed by DJ, he does seem to be right. Your data lists the numbers for the week as through the 18th, for which you lacked data. Still, it should be very revealing when the new numbers come in to reflect the effect of the Meltdown.

Gallup ProblemsGal... (Below threshold)
Not Fooled Author Profile Page:

Gallup Problems

Gallup Poll is amongst the most reputable of Pollers. However, they have been having some problems with this election analysis. There is a bias in the relative numbers of Democrats and Republicans in their sampling. They have had 12-33% more Democrats than Republicans in their sampling over the last several months. They will not respond to my questions about it.

The pollsters may not be doing it intentionally. This could be done through the manipulation of information management systems and the phone contact information. It is happening. Question Everything.




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:

tips@wizbangblog.com

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