Obama v McCain Polling

[cyberianpan]

Looks like McCain in real trouble:

538
[excerpt]
In the wee hours of this morning, Public Policy Polling released data from Colorado and New Mexico. The toplines are strong for Obama, giving him leads of 10 and 17 points, respectively in those states. What's worse for McCain, however, is that PPP estimates that nearly two-thirds of Coloradans have already cast their ballots, as have 55-60 percent of New Mexicans, with large majorities of those votes going to Barack Obama.
Should New Mexico and Colorado become safe Obama states, McCain's only realistic path to victory runs through Pennsylvania.

cYp

[FutureTaoiseach]

PPP are Democratic pollsters so take those stats with a pinch of salt.

[hiding behind a poster]

PPP are Democratic pollsters so take those stats with a pinch of salt.

Whereas Fox News polls, on the other hand.....

[President Bartlet]

Interesting reading from CNN's poll of polls

Some tough news for John McCain in his own backyard, as his home state of Arizona moves from “safe McCain” to “lean McCain” in the latest CNN poll of polls.

And the Republican nominee continues to lose ground in reliably-red areas, as North Dakota moves from “lean McCain” to “toss-up” – meaning three electoral votes that had been counted for McCain are now considered up for grabs.

But there’s some good news for McCain down south: Louisiana has moved from “lean McCain” to “safe McCain.” And the movement on the map is far from done.

Barack Obama now leads McCain by 131 electoral votes, up from his 128-vote lead yesterday. CNN now estimates that if the presidential election were held today, Obama would win 291 electoral votes and John McCain 160. There are 87 electoral votes up for grabs. Again, 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House.

This really has to be worrying for McCain

[FutureTaoiseach]

Yesterday's polls:



I would like to make a point about polls showing Obama ahead. Imho, we need to shave a little off Obama's numbers to account for voters casting Provisional Ballots, which are often never counted at all. In Florida for example, around 68% were not counted in 2004. In Delware, only 15% were counted. That is one of the reasons I am giving Florida and Missouri to McCain. Missouri has a stupid law that the Provisional Ballot will not be counted if it was cast in the wrong precinct. The reality is that the vast majority of PBs are historically cast by Democrats and Democratic leaning voters like Blacks, Hispanics and young people. PBs are the only way you can vote if you are not on the electoral-rolls, and the Republicans have been purging these groups from the rolls in order to sequester their votes into PBs which may not be counted after the election. In Ohio in 2004, PBs were around 2.75% of the total, but I believe that it may be higher this time because of the new voters Obama is bringing out, especially in terms of African-Americans. Soem states delete you from the Electoral Register for inactivity, and as only 58% of African-American voters turned out in 2004, it is reasonable to assume many of their votes will not be counted as they will be using PBs this time. So remember - when you see polls giving Obama a tie or 1-3% lead in a Bush state, assume the state will go to Obama unless the Secretary of State in that state and the Governor is a Democrat. The SoS is in charge of elections in each state. If I were Obama, I would also start spending more time in Pennsylvania, which some polls - including Rasmussen today - is showing as a race in single-digits (4% in Rasmussen today).

I strongly believe, based on my analysis of which states are close enough for the outcome to be decided by Provisional-Ballots, as well as perusing which states have Dem/GOP SoS's and their historical tendency to count or otherwise PBs, that an Electoral College Tie is now a possibility (269-269). If that happens and the EC can't muster 270 votes for either candidate when it meets after the election, then the House of Representatives will choose the president on the basis of breaking up into 50 state-delegations and then voting on the basis of 1-state-1-vote. It remains unclear as to whether the existing House or the newly-elected one (which won't meet until next January) will do the voting in this situation. The Senate would then choose the VP, but there might be a problem if the Democrats have less than 60 seats willing to choose Joe Biden, as you need 60 Senators to stop a fillibuster. My rule of thumb is that you need to scrape 3-5% off the Obama lead in any state to take account of the weighted-basket of the following factors including: Provisional Ballots uncounted, GOP SoS suppressing turnout, GOP Governor colluding in suppressing-turnout, voter-suppression and the Bradley-effect. Based on all these factors, I consider a probable outcome as being Obama and McCain winning an EC tie, based on Obama winning the Kerry-states plus Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada.

My analysis is derived from the following info: Of the John Kerry states, all now have Democratic SoS's except for Michigan and Washington, which also have Democratic Governors. Recent polls in Michigan suggest double-digit leads for Obama, which suggests to me that the efforts of the Republican SoS Terri Lynn Land and the party to purge the rolls (which has been frustrated by a recent court ruling) will probably not succeed - and in any case optical-scanners rather than DREs are used here. In Washington state, 37 of the 39 counties only have postal-voting, while it is optional in King and Pierce counties (the 2 largest). Again, that avoids the evil DRE machines that are so bug-ridden and prone to tampering with the results. A few redstates also have Dem SoS's, including Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico. In Ohio and New Mexico, the Governors are also Democrats. The Ohio SoS wanted to get rid of all the DRE touchscreen machines but the GOP legislature refused, so the state's counties have 2 voting-systems - Optical scanners counting paper-ballots, and DREs with paper audit trails (including the notorious Diebold and ES+S machines, which throw out thousands of votes and vote-flip respectively). In Missouri, all the counties now use optical-scanners, but unfortunately for Obama, this doesn't include St.Louis county, which contains 20% of the population, which uses the notorious ES+S DRE machines - and there are already reports coming from there of vote-flipping. Considering McCain now leads Obama narrowly in the RCP average, and the problems with these machines, I am giving Missouri to McCain. I think Obama may well carry all the Kerry states (though I have some concerns about Pennsylvania, where most counties are using DREs (mostly not ES+S) and where none of them have a paper-trail (a few counties - not including the largest city of Philadelphia - are using optical-scanners). I think the counts in New Mexico will be relatively fair as the Governor and SoS is a Democrat. I also think on balance that Obama will win Nevada, as the SoS is a Democrat too - but I have some concerns about the fact that all Nevada's counties are using touchscreen DREs (though not ES+S) but with a paper-trail. I just do not trust those DRE machines, and if e-voting is ever introduced in Ireland, they must be optical-scanners that count paper-ballots - not touchscreens and certainly not without a paper-trail. BTW, the vote-flipping scandal has now spread to Colorado - as usual the problem concerns the Ivotronic ES+S machines. The number of counties in the swing states using the ES+S DRE voting-machines are as follows: Colorado: 2, Indiana: 16 (10 as backups), Ohio: 9 (1 as backups), Pennsylvania: 23 (1 backup), West Virginia: 41 (9 backups), Virginia: 5, Wisconsin: 2 as backups, North Carolina: 37. Given that fact, I would be most concerned about Pennsylvania being stolen by the GOP if I were Obama.

And BTW, now the problems have spread to Diebold and Hart InterCivic.

[jfk2008]

Maybe you should leave the blogosphere now and again and experience the real world.

Up to about last week, you were convinced McCain was going to win because the US was a conservative country.

Now you're claiming that about the only way McCain'll lose is through Republican-inspired or Republican-led fraud.

Your refusal to countenance the virtues of consistency is admirable in some ways, but I sure as hell wouldn't want you in my political party.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Maybe you should leave the blogosphere now and again and experience the real world.

Up to about last week, you were convinced McCain was going to win because the US was a conservative country.

Now you're claiming that about the only way McCain'll lose is through Republican-inspired or Republican-led fraud.

Your refusal to countenance the virtues of consistency is admirable in some ways, but I sure as hell wouldn't want you in my political party.

There is nothing inconsistent about changing your mind when new facts come to light. In fact it's arguably inconsistent to continue holding an opinion when the facts on which that opinion was based are shown to be untrue or when they change.

[jfk2008]

How many different political parties have you supported or been a member of?

A ball-park figure will do.

[wombat]

You should wait until after the election to start on the conspiracy theories.

[FutureTaoiseach]

How many different political parties have you supported or been a member of?

A ball-park figure will do.

Probably just the PDs (ages ago) - though that is still unclear for reasons I explained before.