Posted on 09/08/2008 10:25:13 AM PDT by rivercat
48% to 48% Interviews with 1,022 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on September 5-7, 2008. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
By now, CNN polsters are on a first name basis with the people they poll.
Adults. But if that doesn't work, look for a random telephone poll of children by CNN.
Now that every poll is out showing McCain in the lead they switch to their own ""in house poll" showing its tied.
The timing? Nothing to see here....
BASED ON 942 REGISTERED VOTERS
Not "Likely Voters". GOP turns out people MUCH better than the Dims. Typical Dim voters are very likely to be drunk, stoned, arrested, or asleep ALL day on election day.
If these poll numbers stick, then we'll soon see if Sarah has coat(skirt)tails.
This is series...
It’s funny how CNN is desperately trying to find a poll that doesn’t show McCain ahead.
CNN had no issue quoting Gallip last week to show an Obama convention bounce.
We knew both canidates were going to get a bounce.
It will settle back down, and be a 2 or 3 point race again.
I thought the CNN polling question was: You really don’t want to be considered a racist by voting for that raging nutcase George Bush clone and his Christian zealot trailer trash running mate, do you?
No, that's not right. It's a poll of registered voters. But it doesn't break down the respondents by party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, or Independent) -- and that makes me very suspicious of this poll.
A much better indicator is Rasmussen. He has McCain up by one point, but he points out that he is weighting his poll by party affiliation and that right now he may be overstating Democrats as Republicans are starting to close the gap in declared party affiliation among likely voters. As he explains it, "For a variety of reasons, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll is less volatile than some other polls and always shows a somewhat smaller convention bounce than reported by others. This is primarily because we weight our results by party identification (see methodology). Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008."
Translation: now that GOPers are becoming proud to be GOPers again (thank you Sarah, and thank you John for picking Sarah!), they are now more willing to identify themselves as Republicans rather than Democrats or Independents.
Or more. The USA/Gallup poll (not the same as the tracking poll) had McCain up four among registered voters, but up a whopping 10 points among likely voters.
Gallup has serious problems with their likely voter screens, their +10 is an outlier and should be ignored.
Still, McCain is +4 in their USA today poll (based on RV) and +5 in the tracker. The Gallup poll is volatile and some of this bounce will probabaly go away in a week, imo.
All other polls besides Gallup (Rasmussen, CNN, Hotline) show the race tied or with a tiny lead for McCain. Of course, many things may happen in 3 weeks before the first debate, but I would guess the polls will show an even race within a week from now, and will stay this way till the debate.
This is going to be very, very close.
I see Bradley Effect in every post about polls, but lets get honest here, do not depend on it do not even figure it in. The Bradley Effect was over 20 years ago and we live in a new era. Does it still exist? Who knows, but play as if you are down 6 points and you are on the 1 yard line and have 1:50 left to drive 99 yards for the go ahead touchdown.
One thing (at least) seems funny about this poll. They claim to have interviewed about 1000 adults, but to be basing results on about 900 “registered” voters. They never would have found that many registered voters out of a total of 1000 interviews. What am I missing?
to UNLEASH Bill and Hillary!!!
The other point is that polling is and has been becoming more and more unreliable for 2 reasons, A) the prohibition against calling cell numbers for polling, and B) the undoubted and growing tendency of people to flat out lie to pollsters.
Exactly how does them not calling a cell bias a poll? If there methodology is solid then the poll will be solid, home phone or not. And I stick by my Bradley effect assertion, nobody should be thinking about it or depending on it. It shouldnt exist as long as you are trying to win votes.
On the other topic, by barring pollsters from calling cell #s for their polls, the sample population that is available to pollsters is considerably skewed toward older and poorer voters. Straight demographics, no political statement at all, and the effect is both blindingly obvious and absolutely apodeictic.
yes. It is a good sign for us because it shows Obama has lost the “coolness” factor.
...most of all, ask Ken Blackwell...Ohio is an important state if there is still a Bradley effect.
based on the 1 sentence here, they asked 1022 random people... no mention of registered or even likely voters... weird poll if you asked me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.