Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[J. J.]

So?  They aren't a pollster to discard, unlike Zogby, who does not publish his internals and is not consistent.  Zogby is only posted because the media will observe it while I think R2000's results are in themselves interesting.

Yes, because the poll is too badly weighted.

If you want an A list, it's Gallup and Rasmussen.

The B list is Hotline.

The Z list are Zogby and Kos.  (Note that theae are both off, in opposite directions, than those other three).

[Tender Branson]

Zogby/Reuters/C-SPAN - Monday, October 13:

Obama: 47.9 (-1.0)
McCain: 43.6 (+0.8 )

[Tender Branson]

Just to illustrate what a difference in party composition means:

Zogby has Obama leading by 17 among Independents in today's release, yet has him only ahead by 4 overall. Zogby uses 38% DEM, 36% REP and 26% IND.

Dailykos has Obama up 10 among Independents, but he leads by 13 overall.

Rasmussen shows Obama up by 8 among Independents and up by 6 overall.

I don't know what Rasmussen's party breakdown is, but because of the fact that both Obama and McCain lead 86-12 in their own parties, it's most likely that Rasmussen uses 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents.

[Zarn]

Define Republican, Democratic, and Independent.

Is it people registered or the way they see themselves on a ideological level?

Also, are people telling the truth?

[Sam Spade]

I don't know what Rasmussen's party breakdown is, but because of the fact that both Obama and McCain lead 86-12 in their own parties, it's most likely that Rasmussen uses 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_rasmussen_reports_partisan_weighting_targets_39_3_democrat_33_0_republican

So, through Rasmussen's dynamic weighting, 39.3% D, 33.0% R, 27.7 I

Today's numbers in Rasmussen are:
DEM:  85.90% Obama, 12.16% McCain
GOP:  9.65% Obama, 88.17% McCain
IND: 50.43% Obama, 38.72% McCain

Zogby is weighting based on the 2006 Exit Polls, just fyi.

[Lunar]

• Gallup: Obama 51%, McCain 41%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 50%-43% Obama lead yesterday.

• Rasmussen: Obama 50%, McCain 45%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 51%-45% Obama lead from yesterday.

• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 48%, McCain 42%, with a ±3.4% margin of error, compared to a 49%-41% Obama lead yesterday.

• Research 2000: Obama 52%, McCain 40%, with a ±3% margin of error, compared to a 53%-40% Obama lead from yesterday.

• Zogby: Obama 48%, McCain 44%, with a ±2.9% margin of error, compared to a 49%-43% Obama lead yesterday.

[Sam Spade]

According to a certain supply-side pundit , the first iteration of the IBD/TIPP poll will come out today showing... Obama 45, McCain 43.

It sounds about right in terms of timing.  IBD/TIPP started doing their tracking poll in 2004 on October 12.

This poll has an excellent record (most accurate poll in 2004, within MOE in 2000 (Bush +1.9%)).  They do not push the leaners very much until the end.

It deserves a separate thread.

[J. J.]

According to a certain supply-side pundit , the first iteration of the IBD/TIPP poll will come out today showing... Obama 45, McCain 43.

It sounds about right in terms of timing.  IBD/TIPP started doing their tracking poll in 2004 on October 12.

This poll has an excellent record (most accurate poll in 2004, within MOE in 2000 (Bush +1.9%)).  They do not push the leaners very much until the end.

It deserves a separate thread.

Is it out yet?

[Sam Spade]

According to a certain supply-side pundit , the first iteration of the IBD/TIPP poll will come out today showing... Obama 45, McCain 43.

It sounds about right in terms of timing.  IBD/TIPP started doing their tracking poll in 2004 on October 12.

This poll has an excellent record (most accurate poll in 2004, within MOE in 2000 (Bush +1.9%)).  They do not push the leaners very much until the end.

It deserves a separate thread.

Is it out yet?

Nope.  Hey, maybe this was psyops for Republicans.

[J. J.]

According to a certain supply-side pundit , the first iteration of the IBD/TIPP poll will come out today showing... Obama 45, McCain 43.

It sounds about right in terms of timing.  IBD/TIPP started doing their tracking poll in 2004 on October 12.

This poll has an excellent record (most accurate poll in 2004, within MOE in 2000 (Bush +1.9%)).  They do not push the leaners very much until the end.

It deserves a separate thread.

Is it out yet?

Nope.  Hey, maybe this was psyops for Republicans.

Just confirmed it on CNBC.

[J. J.]

Here is a reference on the TIPP tracking:

Larry Kudrow:  Just off the press: Obama 45; McCain 43; and 13 percent unsure. The poll of 825 likely voters has an error margin of +/- 3.5 percentage points. Also, McCain has a 48-41 lead among investors with 10 percent not sure. All this is good news for McCain.

The only other one I found was here:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=8&issue=20081013

[Lunar]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

[J. J.]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

The way they define "investors," $10K in the market, it basically includes suburbanites and those with 401K's. 

TIPP had good track record in 2000 and an even better one in 2004.

[Lunar]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

The way they define "investors," $10K in the market, it basically includes suburbanites and those with 401K's. 

TIPP had good track record in 2000 and an even better one in 2004.

Oh, I'm not trashing the pollster.  I'm just not sure if that 9% is a good thing or bad thing for Obama.  If the investor number normally breaks 25% for the GOP and this year it's only 9%, that's a good thing, yaddamean?

And despite being a good pollster, that's a disturbingly high MoE, making it hard to infer much except that Obama is getting a lot of support that could perhaps be pushed into supporting him.

[J. J.]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

The way they define "investors," $10K in the market, it basically includes suburbanites and those with 401K's. 

TIPP had good track record in 2000 and an even better one in 2004.

Oh, I'm not trashing the pollster.  I'm just not sure if that 9% is a good thing or bad thing for Obama.  If the investor number normally breaks 25% for the GOP and this year it's only 9%, that's a good thing, yaddamean?

Considering the market and the number of investors, I'm happy with it.

And despite being a good pollster, that's a disturbingly high MoE, making it hard to infer much except that Obama is getting a lot of support that could perhaps be pushed into supporting him.

Not great, but still good.  Still I'll need to see much more polling.

[Lunar]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

The way they define "investors," $10K in the market, it basically includes suburbanites and those with 401K's. 

TIPP had good track record in 2000 and an even better one in 2004.

Oh, I'm not trashing the pollster.  I'm just not sure if that 9% is a good thing or bad thing for Obama.  If the investor number normally breaks 25% for the GOP and this year it's only 9%, that's a good thing, yaddamean?

Considering the market and the number of investors, I'm happy with it.

But what if that margin is normally 40%?  It's a very Republican-skewed demographic.  I'm not saying it's THAT skewed, but it actually be bad news in disguise or completely neutral news.

[J. J.]

13% undecided with three weeks to go?  Not sure why McCain's 9 point lead among investors is "good news" unless placed in the context of partisan identification...

The way they define "investors," $10K in the market, it basically includes suburbanites and those with 401K's. 

TIPP had good track record in 2000 and an even better one in 2004.

Oh, I'm not trashing the pollster.  I'm just not sure if that 9% is a good thing or bad thing for Obama.  If the investor number normally breaks 25% for the GOP and this year it's only 9%, that's a good thing, yaddamean?

Considering the market and the number of investors, I'm happy with it.

But what if that margin is normally 40%?  It's a very Republican-skewed demographic.  I'm not saying it's THAT skewed, but it actually be bad news in disguise or completely neutral news.

It shows a shift in the internals, but not an overall one.

[Sam Spade]

Finally have the internals...

October 6-12, 825 LV

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=308790300872940#pollb

Small sample size per day, but there shouldn't be ridiculous movement, as this poll is highly weighted.  I think the party ID has always been 39D, 35R, 26I (2000/2004 as well).

[J. J.]

One advante is a four day sample; it won't be affected as much by a skewed sample.

Sam, how does the weighting look to you?

[Verily]

Finally have the internals...

October 6-12, 825 LV

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=308790300872940#pollb

Small sample size per day, but there shouldn't be ridiculous movement, as this poll is highly weighted.  I think the party ID has always been 39D, 35R, 26I (2000/2004 as well).

Unless they're defining "Midwest" very strangely, I find it highly unlikely McCain is leading in the region. (Kerry won it under any reasonable definition.)

[J. J.]

Finally have the internals...

October 6-12, 825 LV

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=308790300872940#pollb

Small sample size per day, but there shouldn't be ridiculous movement, as this poll is highly weighted.  I think the party ID has always been 39D, 35R, 26I (2000/2004 as well).

Unless they're defining "Midwest" very strangely, I find it highly unlikely McCain is leading in the region. (Kerry won it under any reasonable definition.)

It might include KY and TN.  I'd really like to see a few days worth of polling.

[Sam Spade]

One advante is a four day sample; it won't be affected as much by a skewed sample.

Sam, how does the weighting look to you?

Four-day sample?  Looks like a 7-day sample to me.

I know that party ID is somewhere between D+2 to D+4.  I'm pretty sure it's D+4, but I'm willing to be corrected.  As for the rest of the weights, they look ok to me (with the usual MOE caveats), but I don't have exact percentages.

[Sam Spade]

Finally have the internals...

October 6-12, 825 LV

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=308790300872940#pollb

Small sample size per day, but there shouldn't be ridiculous movement, as this poll is highly weighted.  I think the party ID has always been 39D, 35R, 26I (2000/2004 as well).

Unless they're defining "Midwest" very strangely, I find it highly unlikely McCain is leading in the region. (Kerry won it under any reasonable definition.)

MOE, Verily.  I doubt the sample here is larger than 200 or so.

[J. J.]

One advante is a four day sample; it won't be affected as much by a skewed sample.

Sam, how does the weighting look to you?

Four-day sample?  Looks like a 7-day sample to me.

I know that party ID is somewhere between D+2 to D+4.  I'm pretty sure it's D+4, but I'm willing to be corrected.  As for the rest of the weights, they look ok to me (with the usual MOE caveats), but I don't have exact percentages.

You are correct, I thought it was a seven day sample.

Plus four over Democrats?

[Sam Spade]

One advante is a four day sample; it won't be affected as much by a skewed sample.

Sam, how does the weighting look to you?

Four-day sample?  Looks like a 7-day sample to me.

I know that party ID is somewhere between D+2 to D+4.  I'm pretty sure it's D+4, but I'm willing to be corrected.  As for the rest of the weights, they look ok to me (with the usual MOE caveats), but I don't have exact percentages.

You are correct, I thought it was a seven day sample.

Plus four over Democrats?

I always thought it was D+4, but it's definitely between D+2 and D+4.  The distinction in the actual numbers with D+2 vs. D+4 is not really meaningful.