[BCrago66]

Click the link; the final result of 43 v. 41 cannot be cut and pasted.

I know nothing about this new tracking poll, but I've learned in recent days about the strange apparent over-sampling of Democrats in most other tracking polls.

See the Campaign Spot blog on national Review Online: __________________________

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjlmZWJjZmYyNDk4Yjg4MWI5ZTJjNzQ2NzIxZjA5ZTc=

What Were the Partisan Breakdowns in 1974 and 1976?

Dan Riehl calls my attention to another poll that has a wild partisan split, noting that in Gallup, McCain and Obama are getting about the same amount of their base, and McCain is winning independents, 32 percent to 23 percent. Yet Obama is ahead by 8 percent in the tracking poll for this time period. This means that the sample has enough Democrats to not only overcome the margin among independents, but to provide Obama with a large margin.

Again, to refresh:

In 1988, Democrats had a three-point party ID advantage over Republicans (38-35). In 1992, Democrats still had a three-point party ID advantage over Republicans (38-35). In 1996, that advantage increased to four - a shift of one point (39-35). In 2000, Democrats were steady, up by four (39-35), and in 2004 they dropped to even (37-37).

In 2006, the Democrats returned to the lead... 38 percent to 35 percent.

Now, look. I realize Obama has the greatest turnout machine of all time, and the Republican base, at one point very jazzed about a McCain-Palin ticket, is disheartened by Obama's lead and frustrated with McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear. But are we really talking about a split of nine percent, or fourteen percent, or sixteen percent, even Rasmussen's comparably mild 5.5 percent?

I am hunting for the partisan breakdowns in the electorate in 1974 and 1976. The former was seen as a referendum on the Watergate scandal (Nixon had resigned about two months earlier), with the Republicans losing 48 seats in the House. Wikipedia says the split in 1980 was 43 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican, but I'd like to double-check that.)

[BCrago66]

Here’s a clickable link to the Campaign Spot blog:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjlmZWJjZmYyNDk4Yjg4MWI5ZTJjNzQ2NzIxZjA5ZTc=

[AmericaUnited]

and the Republican base, at one point very jazzed about a McCain-Palin ticket, is disheartened by Obama's lead and frustrated with McCain's insistence that his opponent is decent and nothing to fear.

That's rubbish as related to the base turning out! We'll be going over broken glass and razor wire to STOP the most most dangerous Marxist/Socialist threat EVER to have a stab at becoming POTUS. It's Hillary fright X 10!!!

[freemama]

These nationwide polls mean little. You have to look at the toss up states and see which way they lean.

[lonestar67]

I think you are understating this problem.

People can say what they want about the Obama ground game but there is zero empirical evidence to suggest that the Democrats could have even the Rasmussen 5% advantage. The best reasonable guess to favor them is 3% based on 2006.

Even that guess is a weak one because congressional elections are not good predictions for voter turnout since it is so much higher in Presid years.

Moreover, does anyone really think that less than 5% of dems are going to vote for mcCain? Does anyone think that less than 5% of dems will sit it out to protest Hillary’s loss?

I have never in my life seen so many angry democrats eager to vote against the nominee. I think these combined numbers could easily be toward 30%.

Last week I watched and angry black female supporter of Clinton back an entire hallway of Obama supporters into a small corner with her vociferous complains about civil rights violations committed by Obama workers during the primaries. The media does not cover this but Dems are keenly aware of this. It left a mark and as the more crass are want to say, “payback is a b****”

That is going to be very true in November.

I think the media knows this and they are screwing with the numbers big time.

[Chet 99]

LOTS of undecideds in this poll. Most pollsters “push” people until they give a response. TIPP obviously does not.

[txrangerette]

This is the only polling outfit that ever called me, of the major polls.

The poll worker did a nice job on the phone.

I did not feel like she was trying to bias the poll.

I’m not talking about being polled this year, but in a past election.

[DHarry]

Geraghty’s four point find in 1996 is the widest in a generation and there is no way on God's green earth turnout will be as low for our side as it was in 1996.

In ‘96 we all knew Dole was dead, Newt was watching Clinton, and Clinton wasn't scary just slick (kinda’ missing him now, though *sigh*).

Did you see the rage at McCain's townhalls? Oh, brother, we will be turning out. I live in L.A. and can't wait to vote for Palin and against the little messiah.

We. Will. Turn Out.

[uscabjd]

What is the track record for this poll? Has it been accurate in the past?

[Repeal 16-17]

If McCain wins, Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby should be made to apologize for their stupidity in their polling (I’m being generous when I say “stupidity”).

[jwalsh07]

[jwalsh07]

There is good news in the IBD/TIPP poll. ANd that good news is that Obama's lead in large part accomplished by a large lead in the Northeast. Which is expected btw. But it is large enough to skew the poll results to Obama. The point is we don't really care how much Obama wins the Northeast by.

Disappointing in the poll is the large Jewish vote for Obama and the even split by Catholics, the latter really pisses me off btw.

[TornadoAlley3]

13% undecided? Are they lying? How can someone not know who they will vote for with 3 weeks to go.

[Salvation]

This sounds like the most accurate poll that I have seen.