Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[J. J.]

Well, I'm assuming that's the 10 point Carter bounce Gallup is referring to. Going from 29 to 39.

You're right that it's far from the same situation as this year, just pointing out that incumbent party candidates can still get big convention bounces and lead in the polls even when their party is insanely unpopular.

The thing is, neither Carter nor the Democrats were insanely unpopular at that point.  It was just a post GOP convention bounce versus the DNC bounce.

Not as unpopular as Bush, that's true. But low enough that it should've been obvious that Reagan was likely to win.

Gallup poll Carter approval ratings

Actually less popular than Bush is now, at least in terms of who'd the voter vote for.  After the RNC, it was Carter 29, Reagan 45.

[J. J.]

+4 is the bounce; it's what I expected.  Chill until at least Friday, if not Monday.

[J. J.]

Well, I'm assuming that's the 10 point Carter bounce Gallup is referring to. Going from 29 to 39.

You're right that it's far from the same situation as this year, just pointing out that incumbent party candidates can still get big convention bounces and lead in the polls even when their party is insanely unpopular.

The thing is, neither Carter nor the Democrats were insanely unpopular at that point.  It was just a post GOP convention bounce versus the DNC bounce.

Not as unpopular as Bush, that's true. But low enough that it should've been obvious that Reagan was likely to win.

Gallup poll Carter approval ratings

Actually less popular than Bush is now, at least in terms of who'd the voter vote for.  After the RNC, it was Carter 29, Reagan 45.

Have we seen a poll of Bush v Obama? No.

Actually we have. Rasmussen did one in July. It had Obama 54%, Bush 34%.

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

I think Bush's negatives were higher than Carter's then.

[J. J.]

Well, I'm assuming that's the 10 point Carter bounce Gallup is referring to. Going from 29 to 39.

You're right that it's far from the same situation as this year, just pointing out that incumbent party candidates can still get big convention bounces and lead in the polls even when their party is insanely unpopular.

The thing is, neither Carter nor the Democrats were insanely unpopular at that point.  It was just a post GOP convention bounce versus the DNC bounce.

Not as unpopular as Bush, that's true. But low enough that it should've been obvious that Reagan was likely to win.

Gallup poll Carter approval ratings

Actually less popular than Bush is now, at least in terms of who'd the voter vote for.  After the RNC, it was Carter 29, Reagan 45.

Have we seen a poll of Bush v Obama? No.

Actually we have. Rasmussen did one in July. It had Obama 54%, Bush 34%.

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

I think Bush's negatives were higher than Carter's then.

Let me get this straight.

1. Bush has a lower approval rating than Carter.
2. Bush would lose by a wider margin to the opposition candidate than Carter.
3. Therefore, Bush is more popular than Carter.

Please, tell me how you get to 3.

Your proposition #1 is wrong.  Bush, at the time of the poll was higher than Carter at the time of the poll.

[J. J.]

Today's numbers might be something as simple as a bad sample.

[J. J.]

9/11/08

McCain 48% (nc)

Obama 44% (+1)

Midweek poll.  If there is a lead, it's lower.  If this were next Monday or Tuesday, I'd be very happy.

[J. J.]

Both Rasmussen and Gallup agree.  Very interesting.

[J. J.]

Both Rasmussen and Gallup agree.  Very interesting.

Reassuring to me, too, that the shifts in party ID post-RNC may have been ephemeral.

Rasmussen was actually an increase.

[J. J.]

Statistical noise.

Potentually a trend.  On Gallup, by Tuesday, Obama should be ahead.

[J. J.]

Saturday, 9/13/08

McCain 47%, -1

Obama 45%, nc

[J. J.]

Not bad. McCain is still clearly out in front.

It includes one day of the weekend.  I'm waiting for Monday's results.  I would be surprised to see MCain gain or stay the same on Wednesday.

[J. J.]

Not bad. McCain is still clearly out in front.

Hardly "Out in front."  He's ahead by 2, and that lead has been going down steadily.  We'll be tied by Wednesday, I'd say.

RAS has him up by 3.

Then RAS will have them tied on Tursday or Friday.

I love wishful thinking.

Very wishful think.  We have to make two assumption:

1.  The isn't an Obama weekend bounce.

2.  There is a bad sample in the Rasmussen number.

At least one of those assumptions is probably wrong.

[J. J.]

As I said, these numbers are rock solid.  McCain should be leading 2-3 points nationally now; no more, no less.

The Rasmussen update tomorrow on CO, VA, PA, FL and OH should be interesting, considering McCain gained 2-3% over the week nationally.

Definitely, the one I'm most looking forward to is the CO poll.

I'll look for surprises in FL, VA and OH, but I expect those to be off the table, in as much as I'll be able to predict them.  CO, yes, but PA will be the key for me.

[J. J.]

Gallup's at +2.

Today's sample could have been about Obama -1 to 0 to get this result, right?

Obama should be up by one, at least.

[J. J.]

Gallup doesn't release till 1 PM EST. You are looking at yesterday's numbers.

I really expect Obama to up by one today or tomorrow.

[J. J.]

Not good news for Obama.  It should have closed.

[J. J.]

Not good news for Obama.  It should have closed.

He's only down by 2 points.

It really doesn't matter.

It makes no sense to microanalyze day by day tracking poll trends and then deem such gains or losses as "bad news" for a candidate. Especially when the race is this close.

There should have been a weekend bounce for Obama.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:  "If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You are flirting dangerously close to violating that one.
 

[J. J.]

Not good news for Obama.  It should have closed.

He's only down by 2 points.

It really doesn't matter.

It makes no sense to microanalyze day by day tracking poll trends and then deem such gains or losses as "bad news" for a candidate. Especially when the race is this close.

There should have been a weekend bounce for Obama.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:  "If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You are flirting dangerously close to violating that one.
 

Don't you violate that rule in regards to Pennsylvania?

No, I just said it's still a tossup.  I'm waiting.  I want the bounce to be settled and to see good polls.

[J. J.]

Not good news for Obama.  It should have closed.

He's only down by 2 points.

It really doesn't matter.

It makes no sense to microanalyze day by day tracking poll trends and then deem such gains or losses as "bad news" for a candidate. Especially when the race is this close.

There should have been a weekend bounce for Obama.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:  "If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You are flirting dangerously close to violating that one.
 

Don't you violate that rule in regards to Pennsylvania?

He did constantly during the primaries for Hillary too.

Ah, what part of "I'm waiting for Rasmussen" don't you understand?

[J. J.]

J.J.'s first rule is stupid.

You confuse the words "stupid" with "accurate."

[J. J.]

J.J.'s first rule is stupid.

he has a God-complex.  it can be fun to watch him spew his garbage if you take the right attitude about it.

Meh. He has a manner that eliminates all amusement value from it, unlike AuH2O for example for those who remember him.

I don't really care if you are amused or not; I do care if the rule works.  So far, it has.

[J. J.]

J.J.'s first rule is stupid.

he has a God-complex.  it can be fun to watch him spew his garbage if you take the right attitude about it.

Meh. He has a manner that eliminates all amusement value from it, unlike AuH2O for example for those who remember him.

I don't really care if you are amused or not; I do care if the rule works.  So far, it has.

Yes it certainly worked for Obama against your Hillary hackery (and constant insistence Hillary was going to do better than the polls.)

It worked 4 years ago.  It worked 2 years ago. It looks like it's working this year.

[J. J.]

J.J.'s first rule is stupid.

he has a God-complex.  it can be fun to watch him spew his garbage if you take the right attitude about it.

Meh. He has a manner that eliminates all amusement value from it, unlike AuH2O for example for those who remember him.

I don't really care if you are amused or not; I do care if the rule works.  So far, it has.

Yes it certainly worked for Obama against your Hillary hackery (and constant insistence Hillary was going to do better than the polls.)

It worked 4 years ago.  It worked 2 years ago. It looks like it's working this year.

Yes it did because Hillary didn't win despite your prediction she was underpolling every single time.

Neither rule was violate, though Hilary came close at one point.

[J. J.]

Not good news for Obama.  It should have closed.

He's only down by 2 points.

It really doesn't matter.

It makes no sense to microanalyze day by day tracking poll trends and then deem such gains or losses as "bad news" for a candidate. Especially when the race is this close.

There should have been a weekend bounce for Obama.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:  "If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You are flirting dangerously close to violating that one.
 

Go Yankees is Obama!!! Wow.  I had no idea.

Same holds true for the supports.  It's gotten close a few times.

[J. J.]

Also, this is not good for McCain. McCain should be up by more.

He should? Sen. McCain should be ahead by more? But this is a Democratic year, or at least that is what everyone keeps on saying. The fact is, this isn't good for Sen. Obama, he should be up by at least 5%.

*whoosh*

That's the sound of the point of that post going right over your head.

Weekend bounce on Gallup.  He should have gained some and I was expecting it.  Not by 5%, but there have been some movement.