Nearly conservative I've read says that this election, three weeks away, is over.

I'm pretty surprised considering that I'm usually the more pessimistic one. Just last month we thought this election was in the bag and now we're saying its over? The poll numbers, while bad, generally aren't in double-digit territory. What has happened is that a very small and impressionable portion of the population (say 10%) has changed their mind, not because of anything Obama or McCain have done but rather because the economic death spiral causes them to want Democrats the same a way a terrorist attack would make them want Republicans. If some calm is restored then people will be able to think more rationally about the situation.

Everybody is also trashing the McCain campaign as no better than Bush in 1992 or Dole in 1996, the last two Republican defeats. But at this time in 1992 Bush was down 13 points while he only lost by 5.5. Dole was down twelve to twenty-two points in the same time period in 1996 (with the Gallup tracking poll showing a 16 point gap on election day). He lost by 8.5. The point is that even those awful campaigns managed to dig into sizable Democrat leads under unfavorable circumstances. I think it's safe to say that this election has been closer than the last two in terms of polling. Throw the Bradley effect in there and the race may not be as lopsided as it seems.

We shouldn't say its over until its over.

Are The Polls Hiding A McCain Lead?

Despite the polls trending toward Obama as of late, he is still only three points ahead in the latest Rasmussen poll, and tied with McCain in the latest Gallup poll. By all accounts, the race is still neck and neck, but are the polls really hiding a lead for McCain?

There are two reasons to believe that McCain may actually be about 2 to 4 points ahead of Obama at this point in the race. One reason has been talked about quite a bit in this race, but the other, and arguably just as important reason, has been almost completely ignored. 

The first reason is the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect states that black politicians(and indeed other minority candidates) tend to do better in the polls than they do on election day. Many pollsters and pundits are saying that there is no Bradley Effect in play, because they did not see it in the primaries. 

This is not a good measure of the Bradley Effect for the general election. The reason there was no Bradley Effect in the primary, is because most of the voters that would have contributed to the Bradley Effect, never said they would vote for Obama. They said they would, and did, vote for Hillary Clinton. She acted as a lighting rod, eliminating almost completely any evidence of a Bradley Effect. 

Though the Bradley Effect will probably be at least a small factor, it should not sway the race any more than about 2 points. At this point in the race, a Bradley Effect would put McCain and Obama in a dead tie.

The second and more significant reason is the youth vote. This is because youth voters are notoriously unreliable on election day. This is not for lack of support of their candidate, it is that they do not show up to the polls on election day. 

This youth problem is a much bigger problem than the Bradley Effect. The "youth effect" could have up to a 3 to 5 point effect on the race in McCain's favor. Though not many pollsters are discussing this, it is a very real factor, and one the Obama campaign is discussing. 

At this point in the race, with these effects factored in, there is reason to believe McCain could be ahead as much as 3 points. At the very least, these effects have McCain and Obama tied at this point.

Will the Bradley Effect and the youth vote come into play and hurt Obama on election day? Only 40 more days until we know for sure.

What I Want to See from the Polling Averages

There's no question that the polling average first pioneered by RealClearPolitics has demonstrably improved media reporting on polls. Media outlets have been forced to walk back on the inherent fraud of reporting on their poll as the most important and/or only recent poll. Outliers are no longer reported on as Holy Writ. The result is a much more stable and accurate picture of the race.

Still, there's still something wanting about the overall state of polling today. Despite the tremendous technological advantages allowing us to reach more respondents cheaper either through robocalling or the Internet, we still don't have a real-time picture of the election.

The current RCP average includes interviews taken from September 9th, 10 days ago. Is this really a reflection of where the race is today? Do we really have to wait until the Tuesday after a convention to assess what the bounce was?

The Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll points the way in some respects. They are releasing results from individual nights. And these results are well within the 5.1% margin of error, and don't evince much of the jumpiness pollsters warn us about in one night samples. The last three nights were Obama +5, Obama +8, and Obama +8. I may think the poll overall is 2-3 points too pro-Democratic, but even skewed polls usually get the trendline right.

What if all pollsters would release similar one-night figures and we were able to aggregate these into an RCP or Pollster-style average? Wouldn't that eliminate a lot of the uncertainty of low sample sizes in the same way that RCP eliminated the uncertainty of CNN hawking its relatively high MOE poll while NBC/WSJ did the same?

This at least has the advantage of being an apples to apples comparison. The current polling averages encompass polls taken on different dates, often not overlapping.

We'd still have rolling samples, but as a political operative, I want to see the immediate impact of the financial crisis on the polls. Pollsters have told us that these one-night results are supposedly invalid, because of 1) low sample sizes, and 2) swings caused by one day news stories.

Averaging solves the first part, and -- excuse me -- aren't the one-day swings relevant in that they are possibly leading indicators of lasting shifts? If the media's time horizon for covering the campaign is a single news cycle, isn't it only fair that we measure the campaign that way too? And aside from AB/EV, Election Day is a single day event -- not a three-day composite.

Second, I'd like to see an RCP-style average for demographic groups. Though I don't deny there has probably been an Obama shift the last few days, have white women really swung eleven points in a week? I don't think we can make that contention without seeing the RCP/Pollster average for white women. Because pollsters can't hawk their topline data as a unique product anymore, they focus on the closely guarded crosstabs, which are even less accurate than a single poll. An RCP style average for key groups would give us a real (and fascinating) picture of how different groups have really shifted over time.

Time to panic?

I glanced at gallup and rasmussen and Obama has gained major ground....

In fact he has gained more ground/maintained the same ground since the end of the convention even though he hasn't done anything...

I'm guessing here that the terrible poll numbers are a result of media scrutiny of Palin, in combination with the post-convention bounce for the deomocrats. I'm not sure how long post-covention bounces last, but you would think given the intensity of coverage that they would fade faster in this election than others. If this isn't fixed fast the ticket could be doomed. Let's hope the RNC intro is good....

UPDATE: 2000 Polls

Gallup, 8 days after RNC Convention: Bush 56, Gore 40 (Likely voters)

But among registered voters they were still tied....

The DNC Convention merely pushed Gore back to a tie, although he gained more ground in September.

UPDATE II: For the entire month of August (which included the RnC/DNC conventions), Bush's average poll lead was 5 points.

The Obama Effect

Crossposted at Right Minds

The big story of the past few weeks has been the fact that Barack Obama is not running away with the presidential race. In a political climate in which the GOP is very unpopular (generic congressional ballot polls indicate that Democrats lead Republicans by double digit margins), most pundits think that Obama should have a huge lead over McCain. Instead, the race is tight—the RealClearPolitics poll average puts Obama up by only 3.6 points. This turn of events has Republicans feeling a bit of hope, while Democrats wonder what is wrong with the Obama campaign.
Still, Obama is considered the favorite—InTrade gives him a 60-40 edge over John McCain. He has kept his lead in the polls, however narrow (since May, only poll has put McCain on top), he leads in the RCP electoral count 238-163 (without counting toss up states), and his favorable ratings hover a few points above those of McCain. Liberals worry about Obama’s poll numbers, but console themselves with the thought that if the election were held today, the polls indicate Obama would win, and win by a reasonably comfortable margin.
But the polls always indicate the Obama will win. The Dinkins Effect is one of the most notorious phenomenons in politics—black candidates almost always do much better in the polls than in the actual election. And Obama will almost certainly be affected by this trend.
The Dinkins Effect has already had a significant effect on the Democrat primaries. After the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton was doomed. She had finished third in Iowa and trailed Obama by massive margins (Rasmussen had her down by seven) in New Hampshire. If she lost two consecutive contests, she was finished—and given Obama’s impressive poll lead, her chances of pulling out a victory were next to none. Some pundits speculated that if she could keep her margin of defeat to a few points, she would have done well.
Clinton won New Hampshire by three points.
Rasmussen is an accurate pollster, and virtually every other polling organization gave Obama a similar lead. The fact that he lost was a staggering and wholly unforeseen defeat. But it was not the last such defeat.
After Super Tuesday (which Obama did win decisively, though he did manage to turn a one point Rasmussen lead in California into a nine point loss) and the resulting Obama tsunami (Obama won twelve straight primaries), the next important states were Ohio and Texas. Winning either state would give Obama the nomination. Rasmussen gave Clinton a six point lead in Ohio, and put Obama up by one in Texas. Clinton trounced Obama by ten in Ohio, and won Texas by four. Once again, Obama had underperformed expectations.
Still, Obama could seal the nomination by winning Pennsylvania. Rasmussen (why do I always use Rasmussen? Because heir polls are considered very accurate, and they have an easily searchable website) had Clinton up by five, which put Obama in striking distance. But Hillary blew him out by ten points.
New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, California, Pennsylvania—all are important states. And Obama underperformed in all of them—and his dismal performances all fell either out of or at the outer reaches of the margin of error.
Of course, polling primaries (particularly a primaries where the candidates have so much in common; about the only that separated Obama and Hillary is race and gender) is different from polling a general election. But still, the disparity between Obama’s polling results and election results can’t be good news for the Obama campaign. If we assume that the RCP average of state polls gives Obama three points per state more than he will actually get, his electoral count plummets from the 317 electoral votes to 255.
Perhaps Obama’s general election performance will be entirely different from his results in the primaries, and maybe something will happen between now and November which will make all the current polls wholly obsolete. But if the November political landscape resembles the present one in the least, Democrats should not be overconfident in November. If fact, perhaps they should not be very confident at all.


Obama's Lost Poll Lead

Crossposted at Right Minds

Everything went right for Barack Obama during his world tour. Nouri al-Maliki seemed to endorse his plan for Iraq. (Not quite, but its not like most voters will care enough to bother finding out what al-Maliki really meant). He got a crowd of 200,000 for his Berlin speech, which was, according to the media, quite brilliant. All in all, his trip was perfect—as superb as the three-pointer he effortlessly drained for the media. (Give Obama credit; making threes isn’t easy, and he would have looked pretty foolish if he had missed). Barack Obama couldn’t ask for more.
John McCain could. It would be unfair to say he had a bad week—he didn’t make any significant gaffes—but he couldn’t say he had a very good week either. He was supposed to visit an oil rig, but he didn’t, he was (according to Bob Novak) supposed to name his running mate, but he didn’t, and he was supposed to publish a New York Times op-ed, but he didn’t. (In fairness to McCain, the Times wouldn’t accept his op-ed, which was staggeringly biased even for them. Even more staggeringly, some in the left-wing blogosphere claimed this represented bias towards McCain). Barack Obama had a good week, McCain didn’t.
Then why does Obama only lead McCain by three points?
That’s the RCP national poll average. True, some polls put Obama up by more (a recent Gallup poll has Obama up eight), and one poll puts McCain up four (among likely voters; that poll was also done by Gallup), but three points is probably a safe estimate of Obama’s lead (that’s what Rasmussen has). And if an unpopular Republican party, adoring media coverage, and well-managed foreign tour doesn’t give Obama a bounce, nothing will.
It’s hard to explain the situation. I’m an optimistic sort of person, as least as regards the GOP’s electoral hopes, (I actually clung to the hope that the Republicans would pull out a stalemate in the 2006 elections), but this is beyond what even the most relentlessly positive Republican could hope for. The most obvious explanation is the notion that Hillary voters are still angry at Obama and haven’t given him their full support yet, which probably accounts for some of the disparity. Another explanation may lie in the fact that at least some voters may be uneasy with the idea of a black president, which may also keep Obama from leading by more. But neither of these explanations is wholly satisfactory—most Hillary voters are probably over there loss, and any racist voters are probably negated by voters happy to have a black presidential candidate.
A more probable reason for Obama’s lack of a larger lead is that he never should have had one anyone. Many of the perceptions of the Obama campaign resemble the point of view of those who supported Ron Paul—against all logic, Paulians constructed an elaborate fantasy world about their candidate, proposing “clever” strategies to ensure his primary victory, and then “crafty” dodges to snatch victory right out of McCain’s hands at convention. The media has done likewise for Obama—it is just barely possible that maybe Obama isn’t the defining, changing movement that so many hoped he was (note how I slipped “hope” and “change” into that sentence—clever, huh?), and that maybe the country isn’t quite as weary of Republican presidents as it is supposed to be.
Back in November, Obama truly seemed unstoppable. He was pulling huge crowds, getting adulatory media attention, and had the luxury of watching his weak GOP opponents try to tear each other down. McCain was hardly in the race—all the other candidates were crushing him in the polls. So naturally, when Fox News did a head to head poll…McCain led Obama by four points. In early January, Rasmussen put McCain up by three. Even after Obama’s Iowa caucus bump, McCain was still tied with him in the polls. McCain still led in a USA Today/Gallup poll as late as early May.
So perhaps the reason Obama isn’t getting his expected lead in the polls is because such expectations weren’t based on reality. Obama was never the transformational leader, the “agent of change”, the Messiah the media billed him as. He was merely a very good (but not great, or even Clintonian) politician. He is not the most capable politician to ever run, or even the most talented of this election cycle. (Mike Huckabee was). Ace writes that “given the wild-eyed zealotry of Obama's cultists, I know that previous voter-turnout models are wrong. I just don't know how wrong.” I predict that the previous voter-turnout models are right (at least as much as anything is “right” in politics). Obama is more John Kerry (typical politician) than Franklin Roosevelt (transformational historical figure).


OK, so maybe its not over

Hmm... maybe the polls really are BS:

--The current Gallup tracking poll shows Obama with an eight point lead among registered voters...

--While the USA Today/Gallup Poll (conducted on the same days) shows Obama with a three point lead among registered voters...

--And Obama losing to McCain by four points among likely voters...

The Gallup people are calling it "statistical noise".

What is that supposed to mean?

I guess I have to refine my previous statements. People who don't actually vote liked Obama's trip. People who do vote thought it was a dud or worse.

UPDATE: Rasmussen has Obama up by 3 among likely voters (down from 6), or back where he was beforehand. That still would indicate a dud trip.  

Does this bother anybody else?

So Gallup is showing that Obama may be getting something of a bounce after Thurday's speech. He's now up six points compared to two points yesterday. Since the poll represents a three day average he probably was up even more on Thursday night.

Even allowing for the uncritical media treatment, shouldn't it bother us that four percent of the electorate changed their minds on the basis of nothing more than an empty cliche-ridden speech to a large crowd of Germans? Four percent isn't much but it could have swung the last two elections in the Democrat's favor. 

According to Gallup, Obama gained two points worth of undecided voters out of 12%. That means that at least 17% of undecideds decided they will back him because of his speech alone.

These are the people who get to decide our elections. Scary, isn't it?

If this bounce is either large or long, then the election is over. If people have bought into Obama because of his wall metaphors then they will certainly buy into whatever crap he will try to sell on the last week of the election. Just imagine: it's November and the polls are tied but on November 3 Obama delivers an "eloquent" speech in front of a huge crowd about the housing crisis where he talks about how the American dream is being stolen by Bush and McCain and he'll restore it. At this point he can just make up the facts. He gets a four point bounce and the next day he's in....

...Or maybe I'm just over-reacting.

Gallup: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Conservative Economic Policies

As the GOP in Congress appears about to be taking an "every man for himself" strategy for the fall elections, Gallup has just given the Republicans another gift (Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy). The results of this poll show that if the GOP ever gets back to preaching and adhering to the simple message that they used to have - one that they've previously ridden to victory on - they'd be shoe-ins in 2008. Whether or not the Republicans have cleaned their own house enough to take advantage of something like this remains to be seen.

Barack Obama is running on an economic platform that promises to "restore fairness to the tax code". On the same page of his campaign website that that quote came from, Obama also refers to Bush's "Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class". Put the two of them together and the message that Obama is sending to the public is that he wants to take money from the wealthy and give to the middle class - the very definition of the "Income Redistribution" that this Gallup poll measures public opinion on. Obama doesn't even have to actively do much for this redistribution to happen - all he has to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire.

The numbers in this poll are staggering. Overall, Americans are against the core principle behind Barack Obama's domestic economic policy - income redistribution - by an astounding 84% to 13%. Republicans oppose it 90%-9%, Independents oppose it 85% to 13%, and even Democrats oppose it 77% to 19%.

Gallup has been the gold standard of polling for Democrats for decades. These days, the media is continually promoting Obama's theory of "bringing back fairness" to the tax code. In fact, the "tax fairness" war-cry has been at the core of the Democrats' message machine, and has been endlessly promoted by their minions in the media, since 2000. With those facts in mind, these particular poll results are breathtaking. To give you an idea of how important even Gallup thinks this poll is, the explanatory narrative that goes along with the results were written by Dennis Jacobe, Gallup's Chief Economist:

PRINCETON, NJ -- When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

In this poll, Gallup also asked another question - is the government, in general, doing too much or too little? While the results on this question aren't quite as dramatic as the results on the income distribution question, the poll still shows that a majority of Americans believe that the government is doing too much (read: screwing it up) as opposed to too little.

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country's problems (43%). This broad question is not directed specifically at the economy, but reinforces the general idea that many Americans are leery of too much direct government intervention in fixing the country's problems.

Americans of all incomes, social strata, and political affiliations get it - we can't tax our way out of this, and the government isn't the right entity to save us. The Republican message to Americans - before the Congressional GOP became the party of pork, earmarks, and corruption - was to keep taxes low and focus on improving both the economy and job creation by encouraging business to do what they are designed to do and do best - employ people and make money. As for the old "limited government" question - a subject of heated debate even within the ranks of conservatives today - this poll shows that the public clearly thinks that less government is better government.

Unless I'm mistaken, all of these results show support for - dare I say it - Reagan-brand conservatism. Even after all this time - after all the liberal garbage that the Democrats and the media relentlessly shove in our faces - when the public is faced with an economic crisis, Reagan's conservative message of low taxes and limited government still wins.

This poll clearly shows that the conservative message, especially on the economy, has gotten through. What's still unclear, however, is if the current group of Republicans are the right ones to take the GOP back to majority status. The Republicans in Congress have to be united and show some guts, something that they seem reluctant to do. For instance, the report in today's New York Times on the expansion of earmarks (Earmarks Persist in Spending Bills for 2009), especially coming after the Democrats rode to victory in 2006 promising to end them, is particularly embarrassing for the GOP. A true no-brainer, an earmark moratorium by the Republicans would send out a signal of fiscal responsibility to the public during a time of economic crisis that the Democrats would never be able to match, and the media would never be able to cover up. Coupling that with a promise to submit requests for funding all future non-emergency local projects to the appropriate committees to be inserted into the appropriate bills - where they can be seen and debated by all, including the public - is a political winner. Why the Republicans haven't taken these simple steps this year is beyond my comprehension.

I don't know what else can be said to convince the GOP to take such logical actions and re-embrace their conservative values, other than to point out the fact that if this bunch of Republican Senators and Congressmen don't get it, perhaps the next bunch will...

Polling Trends Improve Huckabee's VP Odds

Over in camp Huck we keep an eye on polls.

Not so much on the unscientific internet kind, (although those are fun too) as much as on the national polling done on the state of the race between the two presumptive nominees.

We're not so blind in our support of Huckabee and our platform, as to not realize that McCain's eventual pick for veep will be the one who can help him win, based on the strategic play for state flips between the two.

We were, as a result, pretty bummed to read after Ted Strickland announced he was taking himself off the table for democratic vp, that Obama seemed to be ceding the rustbelt to McCain and had started to float the idea of a strategy of trying to flip Nevada, New Mexico,Colorado, and other mountain west states. http://patriotroom.com/?p=432

Anybody with a political brain knows that's advantage Mitt territory.

(And Nooo I'm not hating on Mitt, I'm just saying Mike's my guy, so it didn't feel great to see his chances appearing to slip away.)

Some may well say that the rustbelt blue states also play to Mitt's strengths, and that may be true, but only if he runs in them as a 'populist,' fairly similar to how he ran in MI, and that didn't go over so well with the fiscon wing of the base. And I don't think he'd want to 'sully' his conservative credentials for the future in taking that rout, but that's just my opinion.

We think Mike is actually the stonger veep pick for the Penn/Ohio heartland pickups because of his significant appeal to Hillary's blue collar crowd. (Mike's true base was always more working class than 'evangelical'.. class was the lowest common denominator across all of his support groups)

In fact, you could almost lay John King's democratic and republican big boards over one another on primary nights and find an exact match between Mike and Hillary and Obama and McCain. There is no doubt that Hillary's rural vote is going to be a serious game changer here.

But I digress..

Word was, McCain was holding the rustbelt on his own without veep help and Obama was turning his eyes west. It looked like Mike would get to keep his new day job at Fox after all.

And then came the latest round of polls: Former congresman John Leboutellier on his blog comments: http://leboutillier.blogspot.com/

The new spate of Quinnipiac polls from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have rocked the GOP political establishment.

Here is the brief overview from Quinnipiac:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University polls show:

Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;

Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;

Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

In the three states, Obama leads McCain 10 to 23 percentage points among women, while men are too close to call. The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state. "Finally getting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Believe me: these results - especially in Florida (thought to be secure for McCain) and Ohio (very winnable for the GOP - especially with Governor Ted Strickland stating he would not accept the Veep slot from Obama) - have shaken the McCain campaign and renewed the fear that an anti-GOP, anti-Bush tsunami is rolling in this fall - and it may take not only McCain along with it but dozens of GOP House and Senate hopefuls, as well.

It appears that Obama may be neutralizing some of McCain's opportunities to pick up blue states. That leaves us status quo until you discover the progress that Obama is making towards flipping some states that went red in the last general election.

First, Iowa. Mccain didn't really campaign there during the primaries, focusing his energies on NH. But it was unlikely,'white as the driven snow' Iowa, that gave Obama his first big win and set him on the path to the nomination. They 'know' him, and like him there, a lot.

James Barnes in a National Journal article today reports:


“Because Iowans have a relationship [with Obama] they’re less likely to buy into the negative imaging attacks that McCain and, especially, the [independent] ‘527s’ will do in Iowa,” Norris said. “Iowans are going to say, ‘This guy is not that; he won the caucuses.’ ”

And on Mccain's chances:

If his campaign has sometimes created the impression that McCain is indifferent to Iowa, his opposition to popular subsidies at times has made him seem downright hostile to the state’s interests.

In opening a town hall meeting in Des Moines last month, McCain attacked another economic boon to the state, the farm bill with its many crop supports. Playing his favorite role of maverick, the Arizonan told Iowans that if he were president he’d veto the measure.

Iowa, is one reason McCain should give Huckabee a secod look for veep. The only way he is going to hold Iowa red, is if he can maximise the turnout in Iowa's rural conservative base, and Huckabee has proven that he can do that on a dime.

Another recent polling indicator that may shift the veep winds Huckabee's way, is bad news out of the south. Obama is now in a polling dead heat with McCain in Georgia, and showing signs of strengthening his positions in other swing states like Missouri.

From Insider Advantage 6/19: http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_619_444.aspx

June 19, 2008A New InsiderAdvantage / PollPositionsurvey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote.  The telephone survey of 408 registered likely voters is weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 5%. It was conducted with InsiderAdvantage’s research partner Majority Opinion Research. PollPosition is InsiderAdvantage’s new branding name (look for additional information and expansion of PollPosition in the coming months). 

The Results:

McCain: 44%

Obama: 43%

Barr: 6%

Undecided: 7%

My view is that Georgia, the 9th largest state in the nation with 15 electoral votes, will remain a major new battleground state through November. This changes the landscape of electoral politics as Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and perhaps another surprise southern state, join Florida as potential “swing states,” that cannot be presumed to vote Republican in 2008.”

Now granted, earlier polling did not reveal as much strength for Obama on the southern front, but as they say, time heals all wounds, and some of Hillary's voters may be going home.

There is a chance that the winds of change may blow through the polls once again, but as emotions stabalize after the bitter democratic primaries, I think the trends we are seeing will hold fast and expand.

That means, as of now, Mccain needs a vice presidential pick who can help him hold Iowa, as well as southern states that are trending Obama, he also needs someone with enough blue colar appeal to stengthen his chance of taking the rustbelt to counter any losses that he may absorb in the south/mountain west, (although, for the record USA Survey polling showed that Huckabee polled extremely well in many swing states not traditionally considered his forte. ) http://www.teamhuck.com/

SurveyUSA Polling Strongly Indicates that Voters Prefer Huckabee
6/3: Massachusetts Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: New York Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Lieberman, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Iowa Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Kentucky Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/3: Alabama Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman & Pawlenty, 4th: Romney

6/2: Minnesota Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Pawlenty, 2nd: Huckabee & Romney, 4th: Lieberman

6/2: Oregon Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/2: Washington State Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Romney, 2nd: Huckabee, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

6/1: Nebraska Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/30: Wisconsin Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee & Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/29: Kansas Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd:Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

5/23: Ohio Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Lieberman, 3rd: Romney, 4th: Pawlenty

5/21: California Polling vs. Obama (see how results were calculated)
Best: Huckabee, 2nd: Romney, 3rd: Lieberman, 4th: Pawlenty

There are many conservatives who do not like Huckabee on a personal or political level. But I think those seeking to put forward the argument that he brings 'nothing' to the table as a vp pick are living in dreamland.

Huckabee supporters  are prepared to accept the outcome if the path to victory overlooks picking Mike as vp. We may not like it, but would embrace any clearly pro-life vp in a heartbeat. The question is, would the rest of the GOP base get on board if the path to victory included accepting Mike Huckabee as VP. Sadly, I'm not so sure of that.

Time will tell the tale.

Syndicate content