Posted on 11/02/2008 7:18:33 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
Down to the wire, Va. still too close to call, poll shows
The survey of 625 likely voters in Virginia found 47 percent supported Obama, 44 percent preferred McCain and 9 percent were undecided. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Swing state
Should Virginia vote Democratic, Barack Obama probably will win the White House. But should McCain hold the state, the result could portend a McCain comeback nationally.
The earliest signs of who will be the next president might spring from Virginia and how undecided white voters such as John Morris and Sidney Blankenbeckler cast their ballots.
"I'm pretty disappointed in Republicans right now, and I don't think John McCain is offering a lot that's new," said Morris, a retired Navy captain who lives in Chesterfield County, a prosperous Richmond suburb. "But frankly, I'm scared of Obama and some of the things he's been talking about."
Three hundred miles west, in tiny Sugar Grove, a farming and manufacturing community deep in the Appalachians, Blankenbeckler worries that a McCain victory would mean "four more years of kind of dragging along" but that Obama might be "borderline Socialist." Blankenbeckler said he is trying to decide "which is least worst."
Virginia will be among the first states to report results Tuesday night, and should it vote Democratic for the first time in a presidential race since 1964 - as many polls suggest - Barack Obama probably will win the White House. But should McCain hold the state, the result could portend a McCain comeback nationally.
A new poll commissioned by The Virginian-Pilot concludes the state remains up for grabs. The survey of 625 likely voters found 47 percent supported Obama, 44 percent preferred McCain and a crucial 9 percent were undecided. Because the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, the race is technically a dead heat.
The telephone survey was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. on Wednesday and Thursday.
J. Bradford Coker, who oversaw the survey, said the ultimate outcome in Virginia and elsewhere might hinge on whether undecided white voters are willing to vote for Obama, who would be the nation's first African American president.
The Mason-Dixon poll shows that 11 percent of whites are undecided - far more than usual in the closing week of a statewide election, Coker said. The last time the figure was nearly as high was 1989 in Virginia, when Democrat Doug Wilder was elected the nation's first black governor.
Like Obama, Wilder had a small but clear lead in late polls. But on election night, in a phenomenon that came to be known in Virginia as "the Wilder effect," an unexpectedly large Republican vote in predominately white precincts brought GOP nominee Marshall Coleman within a whisker - four-tenths of 1 percentage point - of victory.
Coker said "almost all" of the undecided white voters broke for Coleman on Election Day; a similar break this year could deliver Virginia's 13 electoral votes to McCain.
The same phenomenon occurred in North Carolina's 1990 U.S. Senate race. Democrat Harvey Gantt, an African American, led by 4 percentage points in the final poll only to lose by 6 points on Election Day to Republican Jesse Helms.
"The million-dollar question is whether there will be a Wilder/Gantt effect in the 2008 presidential race," Coker said. "No matter what anyone theorizes, the answer today is that no one knows for sure."
In addition to Virginia, Coker said, the effect could tilt the scales to McCain in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, said he normally expects about a 2 percent dip in white support for a black candidate on Election Day - not enough, he predicted, to tilt victory to McCain nationally or in Virginia.
And Obama's campaign might have insulated its candidate against any drop-off in white support, Sabato said, by registering millions of new voters in minority communities and college towns across the nation where the Democratic nominee appears especially popular.
Obama's strategists dispute the notion of a gap between the Illinois senator's white support in polls and in actual voting. Surveys accurately predicted the votes Obama received in most of the presidential primary elections earlier this year, they note, and Obama split the white vote evenly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Virginia's Democratic primary.
Other analysts note that Virginia's electorate today is a considerably different from 1989, largely because of explosive growth in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and an influx of immigrants.
Bob Holsworth, a political scientist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, said he expects that highly motivated black voters and mostly Latino immigrants unhappy with GOP calls for tighter immigration laws will produce a 65,000-vote margin for Obama in Northern Virginia, more than double the advantage that Democrat John Kerry enjoyed there in 2004.
Holsworth said Obama also might benefit from having taken time to "become a familiar face" to Virginians. While other Democratic presidential candidates have tended to give up early on Virginia, Obama has shown up early and often - going to party functions and stumping for Virginia Democrats such as Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb before he was running himself.
Whatever the impact of race, Obama clearly is benefiting from President Bush's unpopularity in Virginia and around the nation. McCain has been cast as an heir to Bush "and he gets tarred with that brush," said U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, a Fairfax County Republican who is giving up his congressional seat and worries that it, too, will slip into Democratic hands.
Obama approaches Election Day with an overwhelming money advantage over McCain, stemming from his decision to for go federal financing of his campaign and raise cash on his own. As a result, Obama has opened 50 campaign offices around Virginia and has outspent McCain on broadcast advertising by more than 3-to-1.
The Mason-Dixon poll shows Obama with a 61 percent to 31 percent lead in populous Northern Virginia and a 50 percent to 40 percent lead in Hampton Roads. McCain is ahead in all other regions.
Among whites, McCain holds a 53 percent to 36 percent lead. Among blacks, Obama has a 92 percent to 5 percent advantage.
Each campaign boasts an army of more than 10,000 volunteers to lead what it predicts will be an unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort on Tuesday.
"I've never seen anything like this," said Del. Kenneth Melvin, D-Portsmouth, who supports Obama. "It's incredible. There's electricity in the air."
Morton Blackwell, one of the state's two representatives on the Republican National Committee, said, "I can tell you that many conservative interest groups out there are not sitting on their hands in this election."
Blackwell identified organizations that are pro-gun rights, anti-abortion and anti-union and added that if it were not for the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, "a lot of these conservative interest groups would not be involved."
only high GOP turnout will bring this about
Agreed. Obama and the MSM crowning him king and Pelosi Queen got the GOP and Independents off their butts, believe me.
Okay, here’s the thing....
....every damn election year the MILITARY, yes the military, all those stupid lawyer-generals involved in the military, where they hadn’t oughta be, should do a job suited just for them.
Specifically they should examine the ballots of each and every state, examine them under a microscope, pass them around, meet as a group to go over them. Then they should publish for each state just how to properly vote. If the state needs a witness then make sure the grunts know they need a witness. Provide them a list of volunteer witnesses if need be.
If the state’s ballot requires a mark here, a check there, a sig over there, have these military types check it out and MAKE SURE THE TROOPS DON’T LOSE THEIR MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT TO VOTE...exactly why they are serving to begin with.
This crap happens every year as the proud, proud and honest Dems try to steal the election and it’s about time those closest to the problem take control of the matter.
How demoralyzing must it be for the troops to realize, while they might be far from home and family, that their vote has been tossed away like some stinky garbage.
And the military shouldn’t oughta want demoralyzed troops. It’s as simple as that.
Show me where anyone on this site has said that the polls being wrong means we don't have to turn out and vote. Not just me, but anybody. That's your premise if you're calling us Pollyannas, that we believe everything is totally spiffy.
now that it’s turned against us after the Wall Street collapse and Obama and the Media’s fairly successful strategery to blame Bush and hence McCain, the polls are all bogus and wrong
The polls are being regarded as wrong because their conclusions don't make sense, period. Really, do you believe West Virginia was going for Obama by 8 just a couple of weeks ago and McCain is up 10 today? Do you really believe that McCain is losing men by 25% or more compared to Bob Dole and G.W. Bush?
I agree they almost all lean Democrat and some are crazy weighed Democrat but I don’t think every single tracking poll in America is part of a conspiracy
They weren't part of a conspiracy in 1994, yet they all missed the upcoming Republican blowout. There are many cases of pollsters all making a bad call (either by calling the wrong winner or calling a race a five or six point race when it's really a squeaker) because they're all working off false assumptions that screw up their models.
These people didn't catch on to the fact that Americans were going to swap out Congress for the first time in 40 years, and you don't think they could be missing some stuff about Obama? And if I think they are, I'm a Pollyanna?
The fact that McCain is fighting in these states is a reflection of an election that should have (given the circumstances) gone to the Dems easily and is still winnable.
If Hillary had been the nominee, I think we’d be losing this one.
You’re in Stafford?
Cedric, take note. Looks like we have a new one for your list.
GO VOTE!!! Bump.
it's not about being right for me, it's about folks here being truthful about the polls and about past polls when they reference them
i have seen polls cherry picked from 1980, 1996, 2000, and 2004 to prove a point and yet cherry picked poll ignores a dozen or so other polls from referenced time slot that defies the poster's assertion.
it's just intellectually dishonest...something the Dems do
my view is that some of the polls are propaganda, some are not.
i believe we were ahead a month ago after the convention and Palin but are not now
i think the polls showed a direction away from Mccain...unfairly but there
i think there is a tightening that has been going on a week now but it's not where i would like it
i have seen talk here that Dems are oversampled this year versus in the past but have seen no concise proof given how many pollsters don't grant archived internals...
further, I don't think pollsters like to be wrong....at least the professional ones...George Gallup said in 1948 that his industry might never recover and some didn't
the fact that some polls are wacky or that some are very volatile does not negate the trends I just mentioned and all that will stop that is record GOP turnout.
I already know that black turnout here in Nashville is record level from folks I know working early voting and I doubt this is peculiar to Nashville
we shall see but I will stick to my premise that ignoring the polling aggregate and simply saying they are all wrong or in cahoots is indeed pollyanna
if the polling aggregate was within 1-2 points I'd agree but it's not unfortunately
you can't deny that folks here cheer when polls are in their favor and dismiss them when they aren't
i recall just two years ago folks said those polls were lies too
the tipping point for me came about a month ago watching Sean and Scott Rassmussen and I could tell from Sean's poor poker face that our edge had turned south.
i saw the same worry on Rove’s face just last Thursday..
i hope they and I are wrong about the polls veracity or that our side really turns out Tuesday...that could happen if folks get scared enough
if so it will be the biggest upset since 48...one for the record books
if someone had told me 10 years ago that a black radical socialist could get elected POTUS I'd never believed it
if someone had told me one day I woulda thought a Hillary presidency was preferable to what we may be facing now...again I'd a never believed that
it's like TM said to me today....perfect so I'm appropriating it..:
Demography is Destiny...is it ever.
"I dreamt of fire and the Hindenburg blew up, therefore I predicted the Hindenburg disaster" and "I oversampled Dems like never before and then Obama won, therefore my polls are valid" are the same animal, and I'm not going to pretend that they aren't just because my guy loses.
it's not about being right for me, it's about folks here being truthful about the polls and about past polls when they reference them
I appreciate the accusation of lying. Of course, you have no evidence that I'm lying and there is no motive for me to lie (since I'm asking everyone to turn out like crazy) so your pointless accusation appears to mean you're a jackass of some sort.
i have seen polls cherry picked from 1980, 1996, 2000, and 2004 to prove a point and yet cherry picked poll ignores a dozen or so other polls from referenced time slot that defies the poster's assertion.
What I did was compare mainstream "reputable" major polls to the results of the last three election cycles. Cherry pick? Not me.
i have seen talk here that Dems are oversampled this year versus in the past but have seen no concise proof given how many pollsters don't grant archived internals...
The problem is that they don't match turnout in past elections. On this very thread there's a turnout analysis of VA voters in 200 and 2006 that shows the pollsters are assuming a massive growth in Virginia Dem turnout. Then there's the national polls which in some cases have a 40 or 41% Dem sample...We all know there hasn't been a 40% turnout Dem or GOP in the last three presidential cycles (or a seven point gap between Dem and GOP turnout in a Presidential cycle), so we hardly need to look at archived internals to know that's a load of crap.
Lastly, in poll after poll the oversample of Dems matches or exceeds the lead Obama has over McCain. One doesn't need to look at archived internals to know that doesn't bode well for The One. Does it mean they couldn't be right? No, but it sure doesn't seem like pollyannaism to be skeptical of something that's so silly on its face.
further, I don't think pollsters like to be wrong....at least the professional ones...George Gallup said in 1948 that his industry might never recover and some didn't
Well then, it's a good thing they haven't been wrong any time since 1948...except in 1994 (and all the other times they've been wrong). Do you think they liked being wrong then? Do you think they were wrong on purpose, or just had bad assumptions about the way people were going to vote? Again, do you really believe these people (ALL of them) didn't catch on to the fact that Americans were going to swap out Congress for the first time in 40 years, but they couldn't possibly be missing some stuff about Obama?
we shall see but I will stick to my premise that ignoring the polling aggregate and simply saying they are all wrong or in cahoots is indeed pollyanna
Yeah, sure, I'm asking everyone to turn out like mad but I'm a pollyanna. I say we could lose this thing and I'm a polllyanna. If you met a real pollyanna your brain would probably freeze up.
you can't deny that folks here cheer when polls are in their favor and dismiss them when they aren't
What's that got to do with anything? Either I'm right or I'm wrong, because I'm pointing to specific data, not saying "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong."
i recall just two years ago folks said those polls were lies too
Those internals made sense. These don't. Dems weren't oversampled then. They are now. The GOP was ready to throw guys out then. They aren't ready to have Emperor Obama now.
the tipping point for me came about a month ago watching Sean and Scott Rassmussen and I could tell from Sean's poor poker face that our edge had turned south. i saw the same worry on Rove’s face just last Thursday..
Good grief...you're criticizing people for having a biased view of the polls and you're bringing facial expressions from a TV show as evidence for your premise? Gee, do you have some empirical data from the Magic Eight Ball, too?
OK...let's talk numbers, and maybe you can answer the question this time: Do you really believe that McCain is losing men by 25% or more compared to Bob Dole and G.W. Bush?
in this case we have folks going ad hominum on anyone like myself who does not think all the polls are liars or in a conspiracy
i have made it quite clear I think some are wacky and this can be overcome by a large turnout
but yes, I do think a few of the consistent polls are arguably representative of the tenor of this race.
if the race were like in say 2000 where it was within the margin of error RCP average at the stage or in 2004 where Bush held a decent edge I'd be more optimistic
but that's not where we are...simple as that...
I do find it curious that many freepers hail positive polls and dismiss negative polls
live by the poll, die by the poll
it's impossible to say but best case we are down 3-4 points nationally
so, we know what that takes
you mentioned oversampled Dems ...and yes, that is true with most but not all polls....does anyone know or have proof how much more they oversampled this year than in 2000 or 2004....I have never been able to discern that and I have looked at a lot of polls.
look at this angle:
Mccain is living in red states right now except for PA and IA and Obama is living in red states aside from PA...a stop in IA i think too
Mccain has been up to his eyeballs in OH, NC, VA, FL and CO
all formerly red states, now they have their own pollsters too and if they are seeing a need to be in formerly safe GOP states and the public polls say about the same thing then what does that say to you....that is empirical evidence to me.
and yes, I do pay attention when Hannity and Rove look worried.
and I just donated another 500 to Republican national Trust for the last minute Wright ads
I'm up to around 3500 just to them from all my kids and in a year I lost money in business due to rain
as for your name calling....this is a tough crowd....I'm used to it
name calling on this forum is usually just exasperation, I've done it too
we shall see soon how accurate the mainstream polls are......forget the crazy polls like CBS and Time....but a futher tightening of 2-3 points would sure be nice
When are you going to answer my question?
Or is that too hard?
btw...you can hold me to this..
if RCP tracking averages are not within 4 points in final poll released AM Tuesday evening we lose.
i will enjoy having you and Chet rub my nose in it believe me
Obama is up 6.4 now
I would actually like to see Mac within 3....
course they could toss the outliers
Gallup expanded
WashPost and CBS....
lets see here:
toss those three and it’s 5.3...getting closer
the last tracking polls have to be tighter
if we win, it will sure be a sweet one....sweetest I can ever remember even though McCain has never been my favorite policy wise
I’m sorry , did I hurt your feelings?
Do I think Mccain is losing 25% more men’s vote than Dole or Bush?
as a hunch, no....at least not amongst white men
black yes...
latinos, I’m afraid so.
I too can find flaws in individual polls like IDB where they claim 21% of conservatives are supporting Obama
No, I just think when someone makes a lot of noise about integrity and how much he knows about polls and then ignores a question on the content of polls three times, that sends up a red flag.
black yes...
Yeah, sure...what did Bush and Dole get, like 65% of the black vote?
Seriously, that comment shows you're clueless.
boy, this race is all about your ego isn’t it?
answer my question.
if it’s so peachy and the polls are all lies (except the positive ones of course)
why is Mccain having to defend FL, NC, CO, OH, VA, NM, IA, NV and MO and Obama is only on the defensive in PA?
tell me how that works?
the polls are lies and Mccain is spending all his time in formerly red states except PA
can you spin that Silverback?
Oooooh, it appears I touched a nerve!
Why don't you compare Bush's stops in the last couple of weeks in 2004 with your list? And compare McCain's schedule with Obama's schedule? Have you noticed how every time Obama goes somewhere Palin or McCain is there the next day, or a day after that? For example, Obama to Des Moines, Sarah to Dubuque.
Then try this: What does Obama have to do? He has to hold EVERY BLUE STATE and take a red state. McCain's task is about defense. Hold the red states, take a blue only if it's a juicy oppportunity. Obama has to take a red state, so he's in all the states you listed trying to take one, and McCain's trying to keep them. Basically, if their positions were reversed, McCain would probably be in all the same states he's in now.
So there you go. BTW, PA was NOT in play in 2004, despite what the media was saying. Dubya lost it by more than he won Ohio. This time it's in play. That means something.
I think they go where their internals tell them they need to defend or where an opportunity lies....or they go somewhere to make the opponent spend money....not that big an issue this year for Obama admittedly
and it looks like Mccain is doing 9-1 defending and Obama is doing 9-1 attacking
PA is the one semi bright spot and if it fell for Mccain it would offset several red state losses
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.