Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[Sam Spade]

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 53
McCain 43

LV (traditional)
Obama 51
McCain 45

which one is better?

Since they really don't describe how they come to a determination, it is hard for me to say what exactly the method is and why one should be better.  My question for Vorlon to ask Gallup is which of the 13 questions do they remove in the new model.

I note that the traditional determination (for today) produces a 76.6% RV turnout, whereas the new voter model produces an 82.0% RV turnout.

RV turnout in 2004 was 72.9%.  Therefore, I would tend to go with the traditional model.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 53
McCain 43

LV (traditional)
Obama 51
McCain 45

which one is better?

Since they really don't describe how they come to a determination, it is hard for me to say what exactly the method is and why one should be better.  My question for Vorlon to ask Gallup is which of the 13 questions do they remove in the new model.

I note that the traditional determination (for today) produces a 76.6% RV turnout, whereas the new voter model produces an 82.0% RV turnout.

RV turnout in 2004 was 72.9%.  Therefore, I would tend to go with the traditional model.

yes, and given the excitement in the GOP base for Palin, I would think it's closer to the traditional model.

Obama has shattered the blindness he once preached of ending the war and bringing all the troops home, so I think the youth vote (which rarely materializes anyway) is not going to markedly increase over 2004 levels.

[J. J.]

J. J.'s Second Rule. 

[Lunar]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

[Lief 🗽]

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 53
McCain 43

LV (traditional)
Obama 51
McCain 45

which one is better?

Since they really don't describe how they come to a determination, it is hard for me to say what exactly the method is and why one should be better.  My question for Vorlon to ask Gallup is which of the 13 questions do they remove in the new model.

I note that the traditional determination (for today) produces a 76.6% RV turnout, whereas the new voter model produces an 82.0% RV turnout.

RV turnout in 2004 was 72.9%.  Therefore, I would tend to go with the traditional model.

yes, and given the excitement in the GOP base for Palin, I would think it's closer to the traditional model.

Obama has shattered the blindness he once preached of ending the war and bringing all the troops home, so I think the youth vote (which rarely materializes anyway) is not going to markedly increase over 2004 levels.

Yeah, youth voters are hardly single issue. They still care about the environment, the economy, healthcare, education, etc. and they're still pretty damn excited.

[J. J.]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

[Lunar]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

All someone did was say that they did *not* see any increased relative youth turnout... what group are you seeing? 

[J. J.]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

All someone did was say that they did *not* see any increased relative youth turnout... what group are you seeing? 

"b. really going to turn out and swing the election"

This rule was proven incorrect when John Kerry carried Florida in 2004.

[Lunar]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

All someone did was say that they did *not* see any increased relative youth turnout... what group are you seeing? 

"b. really going to turn out and swing the election"

This rule was proven incorrect when John Kerry carried Florida in 2004.

I'm still confused.  Quote me the post in this thread you're talking about... because all I see is this, right before your posst:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm just trying out if your rule now applies to the inverse of your rule so I can avoid breaking it! We can't say that things will turnout and we can't say that they probably won't turnout now?

[J. J.]

These:

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 53
McCain 43

LV (traditional)
Obama 51
McCain 45

which one is better?

Since they really don't describe how they come to a determination, it is hard for me to say what exactly the method is and why one should be better.  My question for Vorlon to ask Gallup is which of the 13 questions do they remove in the new model.

I note that the traditional determination (for today) produces a 76.6% RV turnout, whereas the new voter model produces an 82.0% RV turnout.

RV turnout in 2004 was 72.9%.  Therefore, I would tend to go with the traditional model.

yes, and given the excitement in the GOP base for Palin, I would think it's closer to the traditional model.

Obama has shattered the blindness he once preached of ending the war and bringing all the troops home, so I think the youth vote (which rarely materializes anyway) is not going to markedly increase over 2004 levels.

[Nym90]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

Except this is a special case because they are being polled, but the pollsters can't bring themselves to believe that they'll actually vote even though they say they will. So they hedge their bets and include two poll results, one if they do vote, and one if they don't.

[J. J.]

Your rule says that people aren't allowed to guess that turnout levels will be the same as 2004 and no substantial hidden groups will emerge?  I thought it said the opposite.

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

Except this is a special case because they are being polled, but the pollsters can't bring themselves to believe that they'll actually vote even though they say they will. So they hedge their bets and include two poll results, one if they do vote, and one if they don't.

Then they are being polled, aren't they? 

[Likely Voter]

From what I can tell it is the McCain supporters who are talking about an unpolled group, or the racists within their hoped for Bradley effect. The 'new voters' and 'young voters' seem to be showing up now in Gallups 'expanded' likely voter model.

[Zarn]

From what I can tell it is the McCain supporters who are talking about an unpolled group, or the racists within their hoped for Bradley effect. The 'new voters' and 'young voters' seem to be showing up now in Gallups 'expanded' likely voter model.

I would be very careful about any assumptions of any kind.

[Sam Spade]

October 15, 2008

RV
Obama 50 (-1)
McCain 43 (+1)

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 52 (-1)
McCain 44 (+1)

LV (traditional)
Obama 49 (-2)
McCain 46 (+1)

[J. J.]

Probably at least partly due to Obama's weekend bounce dropping out. 

Keep cool everyone. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

October 15, 2008

RV
Obama 50 (-1)
McCain 43 (+1)

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 52 (-1)
McCain 44 (+1)

LV (traditional)
Obama 49 (-2)
McCain 46 (+1)

Please don't give me reason to wish.  I was content with hopelessness.

[Gustaf]

Is there someone keeping track of the days who can tell whether this was likely to be a bad sample or if it has any significance?

[Zarn]

Is there someone keeping track of the days who can tell whether this was likely to be a bad sample or if it has any significance?

Swedes live in the future... you tell us!

/Lametimezonejoke

Even a day that looks like an outlier may not be one. I'm not saying it isn't, though.

[Sam Spade]

I personally suspect the sample dropping off tomorrow is a pro-Obama sample, but with the Dow doing as it is today, it may be replaced by a similar one.

[TheGlobalizer]

I personally suspect the sample dropping off tomorrow is a pro-Obama sample, but with the Dow doing as it is today, it may be replaced by a similar one.

Yikes, just Google Finance-d the Dow.

[Eraserhead]

October 15, 2008

RV
Obama 50 (-1)
McCain 43 (+1)

LV (new voter formula)
Obama 52 (-1)
McCain 44 (+1)

LV (traditional)
Obama 49 (-2)
McCain 46 (+1)

Boo!

[Eraserhead]

I personally suspect the sample dropping off tomorrow is a pro-Obama sample, but with the Dow doing as it is today, it may be replaced by a similar one.

Yikes, just Google Finance-d the Dow.

I guess we know what the first debate question will refer to...

[Ronnie]

Obama is up by only 3 in the second likely voter model!

[Ty440]

Obama is up by only 3 in the second likely voter model!

Add the M.O.E. plus the unknown bradley effect which there MAY or MAY NOT be...Well you do the math