Latest poll show the Presidential race is tied at 42% [Archive]

Big Red Ron

9/4/2008, 08:19 PM

(CBS) ~ The presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain is now even at 42 percent, according to a new CBS News poll conducted Monday-Wednesday of this week. Twelve percent are undecided according to the poll, and one percent said they wouldn't vote.

This is in contrast to a poll conducted last weekend, where the Obama-Biden ticket led McCain-Palin by eight points, 48 percent to 40 percent.

McCain has also closed the enthusiasm gap some with Obama, but it still exists. Fifty-five percent of Obama's supporters are enthusiastic about their choice, and now so are 35% of McCain's. Last weekend, just 25 percent of McCain's supporters were enthusiastic about him, compared to 67 percent of Obama's supporters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/polls/main500160.shtml

LosAngelesSooner

9/4/2008, 08:23 PM

Sooner_Havok

9/4/2008, 08:29 PM

Obama knows he was wrong. McCain has argued they didn't have enough troops from the start. The surge worked but the war would have been easier all along had McCain been president. We would have left in 'defeat' had Obama been president.

and btw, even before Palin spoke last night, 'homeboy' didn't have a lead. They were all tied up.

CBS Poll released yesterday (Mon-Wed):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/polls/main4416798.shtml

fail.

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2bDaily.aspx

Interestingly though, Fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) (really a pretty good numbers site for the election) has Obama gaining on McCain since Palins speech.

According to the numbers they look at (they tend to aggregate all of them), Palins speech seemed to energize both bases. For instance, Obama is apparently on pace to raise $10 Million just in the time frame from the end of Governor Palin's speech to the beginning of McCain's speech....From over 130,000 donors. Thats kind of astounding...I'd expect her to have that effect on McCains campaign, but to have that effect on Obamas too is certainly odd.

.

Big Red Ron

9/4/2008, 08:34 PM

Once the microscope is firmly on Obama, once the moderates and undecideds get to hear his history, the things he's said and how completely unqualified he is, and once the Convention After Glow has worn off his mulatto cheeks...you'll see the numbers drop below their previous high.

He freakin' ruined this election.

Fixed

And I agree, how the Dems managed to screw this deal up is beyond me.

lexsooner

9/4/2008, 09:02 PM

Ha, ha. Ron, I saw this news story on line and thought of you. So actually McCain is ahead because the polls are liberal-leaning?

JohnnyMack

9/4/2008, 09:11 PM

Why didn't you include the Gallup or Rasmussen polls? Their sample size is much larger and shows different results.

swardboy

9/4/2008, 09:13 PM

Dems are giving like crazy since Palin's speech because they.are.scared.to.death.of.her.........

Mandibleclaw

9/4/2008, 09:15 PM

Dems are giving like crazy since Palin's speech because they.are.scared.to.death.of.her.........

You mean the 10 million Obama's raised in the last 6 days, I wouldn't call it fear as much as they are determined to not allow this woman to cost them the election. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_money_1

Curly Bill

9/4/2008, 09:16 PM

Why didn't you include the Gallup or Rasmussen polls? Their sample size is much larger and shows different results.

Hey JM, are you able to get any sleep these days knowing that in your absence the board conservatives might be on here saying something pro-McCain/Palin or anti-Brack/Plagiarizer? It just seems that you are always here, always vigilant to defend the cause. :D

lexsooner

9/4/2008, 09:16 PM

Why didn't you include the Gallup or Rasmussen polls? Their sample size is much larger and shows different results.

It's a new sport called "Dead heat hunting."

Widescreen

9/4/2008, 09:22 PM

Once the microscope is firmly on Palin, once the moderates and undecideds get to hear her history, the things she's said and how completely unqualified she is
And if there's any justice in the world, everyone will realize the same thing about Obama.

Hot Rod

9/4/2008, 09:23 PM

Oh, from the CBS poll? Then this must be gospel.

JohnnyMack

9/4/2008, 10:13 PM

Hey JM, are you able to get any sleep these days knowing that in your absence the board conservatives might be on here saying something pro-McCain/Palin or anti-Brack/Plagiarizer? It just seems that you are always here, always vigilant to defend the cause. :D

Yeah I'll leave the night shift to that old coot from SE Oklahoma.

Curly Bill

9/4/2008, 10:15 PM

Yeah I'll leave the night shift to that old coot from SE Oklahoma.

I wouldn't were I you, I suspect he might be up to something. :D

...He's already started a thread about how he's now solid for McCain. You aren't gonna let him get away with that?

Big Red Ron

9/4/2008, 10:23 PM

Why didn't you include the Gallup or Rasmussen polls? Their sample size is much larger and shows different results.
Because thus us the one that I just happened to see. I wasn't looking for polls. I would bet a pizza that McCain wikk have the kead after Palin and his speech are accounted for in the next polls.

tommieharris91

9/4/2008, 10:58 PM

...? Well, at least Obama's lead is falling...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

sooner2b09

9/4/2008, 11:06 PM

Once the microscope is firmly on Palin, once the moderates and undecideds get to hear her history, the things she's said and how completely unqualified she is, and once the Convention After Glow has worn off her rosy cheeks...you'll see the numbers drop below their previous high.

She freakin' ruined this election.

Well thank goodness its only the vice president and both of the presidential candidates are extremely qualified and have so much experience.... :rolleyes:

Veritas

9/4/2008, 11:08 PM

Why didn't you include the Gallup or Rasmussen polls? Their sample size is much larger and shows different results.
Gallup and Rasmussen polls are the only ones worth looking at (if you consider polls worth a crap, which you probably should not).

Reason is that sample size thing Mack mentions. You would think that the larger the sample, the more accurate the results. Well, yes, but not significantly so. I won't whip out the formula for determining the minimum statistically significant sample size, but it maxes out at about 1500. That's why Gallup/Rasmussen polls usually show a number around that range or slightly below, but may be higher depending on a few arcane factors.

So. To summarize, polls are probably all rubbish, but Gallup and Rasmussen are the most scientifically credible.

lexsooner

9/4/2008, 11:23 PM

Gallup and Rasmussen polls are the only ones worth looking at (if you consider polls worth a crap, which you probably should not).

Reason is that sample size thing Mack mentions. You would think that the larger the sample, the more accurate the results. Well, yes, but not significantly so. I won't whip out the formula for determining the minimum statistically significant sample size, but it maxes out at about 1500. That's why Gallup/Rasmussen polls usually show a number around that range or slightly below, but may be higher depending on a few arcane factors.

So. To summarize, polls are probably all rubbish, but Gallup and Rasmussen are the most scientifically credible.

Dunno, man. The polls were dead-on in 2004. Bush led most of the way and it got closer, and most polls had Bush up one to two percentage pts. on election eve, and in the end Bush won by one and a half percentage pts. in the popular vote.

So why wouldn't some of the polls get a proper sample size? In order to rush out something to the news media in order to make money? That is all I can think of. What is it, a t-test to determine the amount of probability the results are by chance, with the probability lessening with increased n? I have nearly forgotten my college stats class from long ago. Just curious.

Tulsa_Fireman

9/5/2008, 01:44 AM

Four out of five people will vote McCain/Palin as per the most recent Tulsa Fire Department Station 25 poll.

20% of all those polled are undecided.

Margin of error +/-20%. Poll results based on comprehensive datamining of a field of 5 firemen. This post is freakin' awesome and you should give me some money.

StoopTroup

9/5/2008, 05:15 AM

He who liveth by the Poll....shall dieth by the Pole.

Harry Beanbag

9/5/2008, 07:24 AM

I laugh at you people and your polls.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/twgquick/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

Veritas

9/5/2008, 09:01 AM

So why wouldn't some of the polls get a proper sample size? In order to rush out something to the news media in order to make money? That is all I can think of. What is it, a t-test to determine the amount of probability the results are by chance, with the probability lessening with increased n? I have nearly forgotten my college stats class from long ago. Just curious.
You're dead on about news media polls. They contact as many people as they can before the story goes to press, which is usually the cluster of people around the watercooler.

I can't remember the exact formula for determining the minimum sample. My bidness partner is the one with the doctorate in econometrics. But it's something like:
(1.96 * SD )/(P * CI)
Where 1.96 is...well...1.96, the target t-stat. SD is standard dev. P is population size. CI is confidence interval. Yeah, that formula isn't remotely right, but the factors are right. End of the day, it's like 1100 - 1200 in most cases.

sooneron

9/5/2008, 09:03 AM

I'm surprised the JSM isn't leading by more than 5%.

OU-HSV

9/5/2008, 09:08 AM

Palin is exactly what McCain needed to help him pull through toward November. She's a feisty, intelligent, qualified individual to be V.P.

If you dems out there can't see that she's sparked things up then you're drinking way too much of that Obama koolaid or your blind and have a hearing loss issue. It's okay for you dems to admit that she was a strategic and excellent get as the VP candidate. You can admit that and still say that you think Obama will win, it's okay to do that you know.

I'm looking forward to the VP debate to see if Palin holds her own or even "beats" Biden. I imagine between now and then we're goin to hear the media building this debate up as if Biden will blow her away, but as of now I feel like she will do great. Last week before I knew much about her I admit that I was worried that Biden would be able to tear into her though. After learning more about her and seeing her attitude the other night, I'm pretty certain that she may even tear into him.

Ike

9/5/2008, 09:09 AM

lexsooner

9/5/2008, 11:38 AM

You're dead on about news media polls. They contact as many people as they can before the story goes to press, which is usually the cluster of people around the watercooler.

I can't remember the exact formula for determining the minimum sample. My bidness partner is the one with the doctorate in econometrics. But it's something like:
(1.96 * SD )/(P * CI)
Where 1.96 is...well...1.96, the target t-stat. SD is standard dev. P is population size. CI is confidence interval. Yeah, that formula isn't remotely right, but the factors are right. End of the day, it's like 1100 - 1200 in most cases.

Thanks. This makes me think back to a time earlier in my career when our corporate office kept track of "key indicators" in the organization, like medical malpractice claims. There was one in the previous quarter, and their key indicator formula showed an outlier the next quarter because there were two such claims, TWICE the number as before. I was so tempted to be a smart ars and show them this variation was 99 plus percent likely to be the result of mere chance because of the tiny sample size, but I merely pointed out the small n size and kept my job. Silly.

Vaevictis

9/5/2008, 11:39 AM

Hell, at a sample size in the >=1000 range, would you even bother with Student-t? You're well past the point of Student-t being essentially the normal distribution.

Veritas

9/5/2008, 11:44 AM

Thanks. This makes me think back to a time earlier in my career when our corporate office kept track of "key indicators" in the organization, like medical malpractice claims. There was one in the previous quarter, and their key indicator formula showed an outlier the next quarter because there were two such claims, TWICE the number as before. I was so tempted to be a smart ars and show them this variation was 99 plus percent likely to be the result of mere chance because of the tiny sample size, but I merely pointed out the small n size and kept my job. Silly.
Yeah, it carcks me up when people start talking about statistics, especially averages. An average is a worthless number without knowing the standard deviation.

The example I always give is this. It's 3rd and 4. You have two backs: one averages 12 yards a carry, but his standard deviation is 10 yards. Your other back averages 6 yards with a standard deviation of 1.5 yards. Which back do you put in?

Big Red Ron

9/5/2008, 11:47 AM

roughly, the margin of error can be guestimated as sqrt(N)/NYep, a handy formula is .9604 / sample size sqrt of that.

JohnnyMack

9/5/2008, 11:49 AM

The example I always give is this. It's 3rd and 4. You have two backs: one averages 12 yards a carry, but his standard deviation is 10 yards. Your other back averages 6 yards with a standard deviation of 1.5 yards. Which back do you put in?

The correct answer is: Adrian Peterson.

OUstudent4life

9/5/2008, 01:43 PM

Nation-wide general polls = teh succ, since that's not how our elections work, anyway. And I've always said that, no matter who is leading.

KC//CRIMSON

9/5/2008, 02:59 PM

Because thus us the one that I just happened to see. I wasn't looking for polls. I would bet a pizza that McCain wikk have the kead after Palin and his speech are accounted for in the next polls.

Obama still up.

Free pizza, everyone!

mdklatt

9/5/2008, 03:20 PM

Nation-wide general polls = teh succ, since that's not how our elections work, anyway.

http://www.pollster.com/

260 for Obama, 179 for McCain, 99 toss-up (270 needed to win).

Echoes

9/5/2008, 03:37 PM

Egh. Don't trust the polls. They are fun to look at and aruge about, but really they don't mean much. For every example someone gives when they are dead on, you can probably find a couple when they are way way off.

I have had enough statistics/experimental psyc classes to know the ways of human polling.

JohnnyMack

9/5/2008, 04:17 PM