NC-08: Obama tops McCain by 4 in district Bush won twice with 54%

[Tender Branson]

Raleigh, N.C. – Barack Obama leads John McCain in North Carolina’s 8th Congressional District, where George W. Bush won 54% of the vote in both of his elections, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.

Obama has 43% to McCain’s 39%. Bob Barr is at 7%. Obama’s lead is coming from the two groups that were most important to his securing the Democratic nomination- black voters, among whom he polls at 83%, and voters under 30, with whom he leads 53-22.

“The Eight District is the kind of place Barack Obama needs to win to have any chance in North Carolina,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Ancestrally Democratic, it has tended to vote Republican in recent national elections. The way the vote goes there this fall will be a pretty strong bellwether for the state as a whole.”

...

PPP surveyed 541 likely voters from July 2nd to July 5th. The survey’s margin of error is +/- 4.2%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce
additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CD8_708.pdf

[WalterMitty]

whst a crappy poll.

[Sam Spade]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

[agcatter]

They polled over the 4th of July weekend?

Uh, ok.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

Why not poll Barr? I mean he is on the ballot in Nov.

[Sam Spade]

They polled over the 4th of July weekend?

Uh, ok.

That too.

[Sam Spade]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

Why not poll Barr? I mean he is on the ballot in Nov.

I am not questioning the polling of Barr, rather I am questioning the policy of naming him first on a list.  It feels odd, and likely impacts some voters.

[emailking]

Is the order on the ballot already set? Or does it automatically go by last name? If the voters are going to see his name first then I think this practice is logical.

[Sam Spade]

Is the order on the ballot already set? Or does it automatically go by last name? If the voters are going to see his name first then I think this practice is logical.

The order and placement on a ballot for the general election is rarely set earlier than a couple of months before the election (I don't have exact numbers for NC, but it sounds right).  After all, NC just finished its primary runoffs a couple of weeks ago.

The candidate list has Barack Obama first, John McCain second and Barr third.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/ (see right hand side of page)

[MarkWarner08]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

A seven point lead seems a little high.  What's interesting is that both candidates have nearly even positives and negatives. Voters have made up their minds here.

[Sam Spade]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

A seven point lead seems a little high.  What's interesting is that both candidates have nearly even positives and negatives. Voters have made up their minds here.

Not really, imho...  Though I agree that there will be little movement here - no candidate's ever getting higher than 55% here, period.  Reminds me of another CD, actually.

[MarkWarner08]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

A seven point lead seems a little high.  What's interesting is that both candidates have nearly even positives and negatives. Voters have made up their minds here.

Not really, imho...  Though I agree that there will be little movement here - no candidate's ever getting higher than 55% here, period.  Reminds me of another CD, actually.

Yeah. What's interesting is that Kissell's negatives are so high. Hayes's worker comp. ad  probably played a role in that.

[Sam Spade]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

A seven point lead seems a little high.  What's interesting is that both candidates have nearly even positives and negatives. Voters have made up their minds here.

Not really, imho...  Though I agree that there will be little movement here - no candidate's ever getting higher than 55% here, period.  Reminds me of another CD, actually.

Yeah. What's interesting is that Kissell's negatives are so high. Hayes's worker comp. ad  probably played a role in that.

If you're an incumbent in a questionable situation, run ads early and often to damage your opponent - that's the lesson Jesse Helms taught us all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The order and placement on a ballot for the general election is rarely set earlier than a couple of months before the election (I don't have exact numbers for NC, but it sounds right).  After all, NC just finished its primary runoffs a couple of weeks ago.

In South Carolina at least, the order was set well before the nominees were even established.  For 2008 it will be:

Green
Republican
Libertarian
Petition
Democrat
Constitution
Working Families
Independence

With Labor probably added at the end since it's a newly registered party. (I'm not certain if it was added before or after the Independence Party was shuffled from the top to the bottom.)  The order for 2010 will be the same as 2008 except that the Green Party will be moved from the top to the bottom.  Assuming that these same parties all remain registered and that the regulations for ballot order are unchanged, the Democrats will next be at the top of the lists of candidates in the 2016 election cycle.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why Barr first again?  Anyway, PPP is getting close to deserving the (D) beside it.  In fact, I would probably do it, but I abhor the whining it would engender.

Kissell is about where I would expect him, otoh...

Why not poll Barr? I mean he is on the ballot in Nov.

Simply listing him at all along with the other two candidates gives his name extra weight that it simply will not have on the ballot.  I mean, why not list the Constitution Party candidate?  The Green candidate?  Socialist Worker candidate?

The preferred way of treating a poll would be to ask whether or not a voter will be supporting "Barack Obama, John McCain, or someone else" for President.  And when given "someone else," inquire who that "someone else" is.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why are they polling districts only? Over 4th of July weekend? Barr with 7%? Yeah right....

[Mr.Phips]

Winning this district does not equal a statewide victory.  When Democrats win statewide they have won the district by double digits. 

[kevinatcausa]

If this poll were accurate, it would be very good for Obama.  According to the NCCivitas (warning: Huge PDF file) data Bush had a 11.1% margin in the district in 2004 which is close enough to his 12.4% margin statewide that a uniform swing of the magnitude given in the poll would send the state to Obama. 

Too bad then that it's trash. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why are they polling districts only? Over 4th of July weekend? Barr with 7%? Yeah right....

It was a poll done for Kissell's benefit that also asked about the Presidential race.  Because it showed encouraging numbers for Obama, they released that info too.

[Mr.Phips]

If this poll were accurate, it would be very good for Obama.  According to the NCCivitas (warning: Huge PDF file) data Bush had a 11.1% margin in the district in 2004 which is close enough to his 12.4% margin statewide that a uniform swing of the magnitude given in the poll would send the state to Obama. 

Too bad then that it's trash. 

IT went for Bush by a nine point margin, not 11. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

The preferred way of treating a poll would be to ask whether or not a voter will be supporting "Barack Obama, John McCain, or someone else" for President.  And when given "someone else," inquire who that "someone else" is.
[/quote]

Wrong!

It should list the candidates on the ballot with rotation of the names.

The method you are suggesting introduces a bias into the survey.

[Hash]

After county and regional polls, get ready for crappy CD polls!

Next up in Crappy Polls: Voting intentions in Moundridge, Kansas! (Obama leads by 20 of course)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Maybe they'll poll Orange and Durham counties soon just so we can see if Obama is leading there.

[emailking]

Simply listing him at all along with the other two candidates gives his name extra weight that it simply will not have on the ballot.  I mean, why not list the Constitution Party candidate?  The Green candidate?  Socialist Worker candidate?

The preferred way of treating a poll would be to ask whether or not a voter will be supporting "Barack Obama, John McCain, or someone else" for President.  And when given "someone else," inquire who that "someone else" is.

The ballot doesn't have "someone else" so doing it like this gives extra weight to John McCain and Barack Obama that they will not have on the ballot. They should list all known  possibilities.

[Alcon]

Simply listing him at all along with the other two candidates gives his name extra weight that it simply will not have on the ballot.  I mean, why not list the Constitution Party candidate?  The Green candidate?  Socialist Worker candidate?

The preferred way of treating a poll would be to ask whether or not a voter will be supporting "Barack Obama, John McCain, or someone else" for President.  And when given "someone else," inquire who that "someone else" is.

The ballot doesn't have "someone else" so doing it like this gives extra weight to John McCain and Barack Obama that they will not have on the ballot. They should list all known  possibilities.

Trouble is, the "real" effect is that it vastly overestimates third-party performance because it's seen as an "other"/protest option, which it's rarely used for at the polls.

Badnarik regularly polled 3-6% when included by name.