State Polls Indicate Obama's Tidal-Wave Potential...

[babylonsister]

State Polls Indicate Obama's Tidal-Wave Potential, But National Polls Are Tight; Both Are Right
by Steve Kornacki | July 18, 2008


Campaigning in North Carolina earlier this summer
Getty Images



Two radically different story lines are emerging in the presidential race, depending on what kind of poll you look at.

If you look at the national-level data, Barack Obama seems to be underachieving. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the presumptive Democratic nominee holds a scant two-point edge over John McCain. The margin is also two points in Rasmussen's daily poll—which also shows a dead-even race when "leaners" are factored in. Some other recent polls have been a little more favorable to Obama, but the combined weight of the available national data strongly suggests that Obama, despite his personal popularity and the enormous built-in advantages his party enjoys this year, is locked in a much closer race than he should be.

But if you ignore the national numbers and instead consider individual state polls, a realigning landslide suddenly seems to be within Obama's reach. In state after state, he's performing far better than John Kerry did in 2004, and numerous Republican bastions are seemingly in play. Consider Indiana, which George W. Bush won by 21 points in 2004 and which lasted voted for a Democrat 44 years ago—and which Obama leads by one point in the most recent survey. Or North Carolina, which Bush carried by 12 points in '04 but where the latest poll has Obama within three. And so on. In North Dakota, the race is tied. In South Dakota, Obama trails by just four. Ditto for Alaska, perhaps the most Republican state in the union. He also leads in Montana and Colorado and in all but one recent survey in Virginia.

And the trend isn't just evident in red states. In states where Kerry eked out victories last time around, polls now give Obama sizable leads. Kerry nearly fumbled away Minnesota (a three-point nail-biter), but Obama has a 17-point advantage in the most recent poll. Wisconsin and New Hampshire were photo-finishes in '04, but Obama has opened a double-digit lead there. Plus, Obama is running ahead in states that Kerry barely lost, like Iowa (by an average of seven points), New Mexico and Nevada.

On top of all this, Obama is performing as well as any Democratic nominee is supposed to in the biggest blue states—California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts—and leads (in some cases substantially) in every recent swing state except Florida, where the average of recent polls gives McCain a three-point edge.

more...

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/state-polls-indicate-obamas-tidal-wave-potential-national-polls-are-tight-both-are-rig

[grantcart]

1. No one documents it better than our own prhigndumass

Here is today's link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6513566

[babylonsister]

4. Wow, thanks. Fancy schmancy! nt

[AZ Criminal JD]

2. Both polls can't be right

If they are close or even in the national polls it is a mathematical impossibility for Obama to be doing better in red states and holding his own in blue states. This writer clearly doesn't know the math of polling and how the state numbers are mixed in.

[babylonsister]

3. Tell that to Chuck Todd; this is what the polls are showing.

Tweety even asked him about the discrepancy. It's happening whether you believe it or not.

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. I know polling

I have been involved heavily in campaigns. I know how the state polls are made up and how they are mixed based on population into national polling. Both sets of polls can not be right. Todd just reports what is put in front of him. He has never been actually involved in creating anything so he doesn't know what is behind what he is being paid to read.

[Inuca]

7. What is the typical sample for a national poll?

around 1000 I would guess. No way that they can have a representative sample for each state, and if they have some criteria to select certain states where to use a larger sample (I have no idea how it works, just some rusty statistical knowledge) then the pollsters introduce their own bias. I have no ieda why there is such a discrepancy between state and national polls, but I do not think that the results are inconsistent.

[Buck Rabbit]

8. You're correct, the author slightly mis-spoke.

Obama is in a position to win certain formerly red states, hold the Blue, while getting trounced worse than Kerry in the hardcore red states that Kerry lost anyway.

Just like the Obama campaign in the primary was focused on delegates more than popular vote, his general election electoral vote (the one that counts) is on track to way outperform his popular vote numbers.

[undeterred]

5. Gee, I guess the Hillary people were wrong

about a lot of things...