Gallup: big dip in numbers for Obama since debate

[WRL]

I could have seen this coming, with that dreadful performance by Obama in the last debate, it's no wonder Gallup has shown a huge dip for Obama's national numbers, according to the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, it's Obama 47 Clinton 43, a statistical tie... And now there is talk that Obama will not agree to anymore debates, least he do anymore damage to his campaign. It's probably a good move politically speaking, probably, or it could make him look weak, and like he's desperately trying to ride this thing out. So what does everyone think, is this just a glitch in Obama's quest for the Democrat's nomination, or has his racist Pastor, his comments about American's clinging to their Religion and guns out of 'desperation' and his fumbling in the debates finally catching up to him, and is it to late?

In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3. That stronger showing for Clinton helped to snap Obama's streak of statistically significant leads in the three-day rolling averages Gallup reports each day. Until today, he had led Clinton by a statistically significant margin in each of the prior 11 Gallup releases.

The full impact of the debate -- and the ensuing media coverage of it -- will be apparent in the coming days, and it will soon be clear if the debate has produced a shift back to a more competitive race, or if Clinton may have received just a temporary boost in support.

 

[Onceler]

He's also got a 20-point lead in the last Newsweek poll - taken during the same time period.

He's also got a 4 pt. lead over McCain in the latest L.A. Times poll.

Ha ha.

 

[WRL]

Saturday, April 19, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows John McCain leading both potential Democratic candidates by seven percentage points. McCain leads Barrack Obama 48% to 41% and also leads Hillary Clinton 49% to 42%.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama leads Clinton nationally 45% to 43%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll



There confirmed by a second poll, Obama is taking a hit from his dismal debate performance.

 

[WRL]

Gallup now has Clinton up nationally...

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Big dip? The three points he appears to have lost is within the MOE. Not to mention, the number is not shockingly consistent with every other poll Gallup has done.

WRL, go suck an egg. This is embarrassing, even for you.

 

[WRL]

lol, I've shown three polls taken since the debate, one showing an 11 point drop since the debate and you're acting as if it's a three point drop, I even posted the chart for you. Face it Obama's racist preacher, his comments about American's clinging to Guns and Religion out of desperation, the fact he's an untested rookie who can't give an answer unless it's in speach form, is shining through, once again, Democrats went with the no name silver tounged canidate, just like with John Kerry, and I'm willing to bet once again, it'll backfire. Think about it, no Democrat is going to win the White House without, PA, OH, FL, the swing states, and coninsidentaly all the states Obama has lost.

So go on, tell yourself, Rassmussen, and Gallup are full of it. You wouldn't be democarats if you couldn't mess up this election.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Did you not read the numbers on your own graph?

 

[ib1yysguy]

As far as your Rass link:

"While that appears to be a tightening of the race, today’s results are consistent with the general range of support enjoyed by both candidates in recent weeks. Obama has been within three percentage points of the 48% level every day and Clinton has stayed within three points of the 43% level.
While the national numbers are fairly stable, Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania is down to three percentage points."

Doesn't say he's in a freefall exactly does it?

 

[WRL]

within 5 days, he went from an 11 point lead, to being down one point, that's a far cry from what did you say, three points... The way I learned to count that's 12 points...

 

[Just1Joe]

Polls?? It amazes me that they can call up around 600 Americans and then declare that they know how Americans feel and rank any and all of the candidates... 600 can statistically represent 300,000,000 (+ or - 3 to 4 percent).

I'd rather wait and count the votes. But how many worthless statistical jobs would be eliminated? Not sure the economy can handle even the slightest loss that might cause... Maybe they should do a poll asking the American people if polling should end!

 

[WRL]

Polls?? It amazes me that they can call up around 600 Americans and then declare that they know how Americans feel and rank any and all of the candidates... 600 can statistically represent 300,000,000 (+ or - 3 to 4 percent).

I'd rather wait and count the votes. But how many worthless statistical jobs would be eliminated? Not sure the economy can handle even the slightest loss that might cause... Maybe they should do a poll asking the American people if polling should end!

lol, I for the most part agree with you, I mean some do an ok job, but then you have many other firms that are biased and over sample, I remember looking up a recent poll, that was stacked 60/40 Democrat, and McCain still came out on top, but Democrats hold polls above all else, it's why their policies sway with the wind, like voting for a war, then bad mouthing the war, but never acting to end the war, polls are a very bad way to legislate from, but in elections it can offer some insight into the electorates moods, and since Democrats put so much stock in em, I say talk to em in their language...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The fact that scientific polls so often get within the range of the votes that they claim, and also spit out the same results consistently, proves their worth. In that past, people would call up millions for their opinion to get a "result" for a poll, beleving that randomly sampling the most people possible was the best way. It fits very well into conservative logic. It was an utter failure.

BTW, you're "It amazes me that they can call up" argument is argument from ignorance. I.E., you are stating that you are ignorant of how it can happen, and therefore it is impossible. In fact, the fact that you are ignorant does not prove it is impossible, it merely proves you ignorant.

 

[Just1Joe]

I'm sure that polls do provide some value internally to Dems and Repubs, but watching the media over analyze one poll one day and another (with vastly different results) the next is just crazy.

The bigger issue is that the 24 hour news networks have become bland Entertainment buffets with only a sprinkling of news for taste.

 

[ib1yysguy]

WRL, read up on statistical averages. His number has remained surprisingly consistent. And if you knew anything about MOE, this would all make sense. I'm not concerned and you know what? Most Americans are smarter than you are. I'm positive of this fact. That means most Americans know that all of the tripe they've been hearing about Obama has been utter bullshit for diddoheads like you to gobble up like your momma's pussy.

What your graph shows is two very close candidates with returns falling within the MOE of statistical accuracy. And no matter which of these two candidates gets the nomination, your guy loses. I'd bet you good money.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I could have seen this coming, with that dreadful performance by Obama in the last debate, it's no wonder Gallup has shown a huge dip for Obama's national numbers, according to the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, it's Obama 47 Clinton 43, a statistical tie... And now there is talk that Obama will not agree to anymore debates, least he do anymore damage to his campaign. It's probably a good move politically speaking, probably, or it could make him look weak, and like he's desperately trying to ride this thing out. So what does everyone think, is this just a glitch in Obama's quest for the Democrat's nomination, or has his racist Pastor, his comments about American's clinging to their Religion and guns out of 'desperation' and his fumbling in the debates finally catching up to him, and is it to late?

Little willie.....you are such a hopeless partisan hack. You're just looking at the data YOU want to see with absolutely no objectivity at all.

Zogby show's that Clinton and O'Bama are dead even. That is they are within the MOE of each other. Considering how Clinton was 10 pts ahead of Obama a month ago, it appears he's made considerable gains.

Additionally, you must not have seen the debate or have lived in rural America. The only performance that was pathetic in that debate was of the moderators and their insiped, lame and largely irrelevant questions. Several times I cracked up laughing cause they would asked some moronic question and Obama would give them a "WTF" look!

As for Obama's "Guns and Religion" comment. He's absolutely right. Why else would rural Americans so consistantly support conservative policies that are so manifestly against their best interest?

I come from a rural farming region and there's only three political issues that count there. Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun control......all of which are about 385th on my list of priorities. So if Obama is guilty of anything, it's of being honest and objective.....oh.....sorry...I forgot little willie.....you don't know what those are.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The fact that scientific polls so often get within the range of the votes that they claim, and also spit out the same results consistently, proves their worth. In that past, people would call up millions for their opinion to get a "result" for a poll, beleving that randomly sampling the most people possible was the best way. It fits very well into conservative logic. It was an utter failure.

BTW, you're "It amazes me that they can call up" argument is argument from ignorance. I.E., you are stating that you are ignorant of how it can happen, and therefore it is impossible. In fact, the fact that you are ignorant does not prove it is impossible, it merely proves you ignorant.

BINGO! You hit the nail right on the head Water. They use the same arguments from ignorance when they try to refute evolution.

 

[Just1Joe]

Interesting that you have to call someone "ignorant" to make your point. It speaks to your character among other things.

Polls are often wrong. I am in my 40s and I have yet to get the "Poll phone call". At this point, I'd rather they call someone else anyway.

They do a poll that has Obama leading Clinton nationally by more than 10 points today and another poll that has them within the margain of error the very next day. I tend to doubt that a 10 point swing is very likely in one day. But maybe people flip flop on a dime and maybe 600 speaking for 300,000,000 is accurate. Can't wait to see where 600 Americans think we all stand today.

The fact that scientific polls so often get within the range of the votes that they claim, and also spit out the same results consistently, proves their worth. In that past, people would call up millions for their opinion to get a "result" for a poll, beleving that randomly sampling the most people possible was the best way. It fits very well into conservative logic. It was an utter failure.

BTW, you're "It amazes me that they can call up" argument is argument from ignorance. I.E., you are stating that you are ignorant of how it can happen, and therefore it is impossible. In fact, the fact that you are ignorant does not prove it is impossible, it merely proves you ignorant.

 

[Socrtease]

If you go here http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ you will see that at the top middle of the page it says this

Although it looks like Clinton's lead is slightly growing by Zogby, read John Zogby's detailed writeup and you will see that Obama was ahead 46% to 44% in his final day of polling and would therefore be very strong when they release new numbers tomorrow if things hold up.

So it would appear that the numbers are still pretty fluid. Funny how no one seems to remember that when this long space in primaries began Hillary was up by 17%. But it is Obama that has taken the HUGE dip in the polls, If they are dead even as of yesterday according to Zogby, then HC has taked the big dip.

 

[Just1Joe]

That is logic I can agree with. I will likely vote for McCain unless something significant changes my reasons for voting for a Presidential Candidate. Not likely, but possible.

Right now not much is happening on the Repub side, so I'm following the Dems day to day. I do think that more time is being spent rationalizing poll numbers than addressing the issues. I'm waiting to see vote numbers on Tuesday.

Clinton is on the ropes again. If she wins strong (10 pts or more) she remains on the ropes but will appear to be slugging it out like a champ. If she wins by a lesser margain, she will look like an underdog taking blow after blow but refusing to drop to the map. She may go on, but most will be saying "throw in the towell" and leave knowing you gave it your all.

If Obama throws a knock-out punch and beats Rocky... I mean Hillary, then we can all expect a sequel some years down the road.

I will say if it weren't for the Dems, this campaign would be boring. As much as I admire McCain, he's about as exciting as Bob Dole (another man I admire).

If you go here http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ you will see that at the top middle of the page it says this

So it would appear that the numbers are still pretty fluid. Funny how no one seems to remember that when this long space in primaries began Hillary was up by 17%. But it is Obama that has taken the HUGE dip in the polls, If they are dead even as of yesterday according to Zogby, then HC has taked the big dip.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Am I the only person here who's taken a statistics class?

Anyone dumb enough to say, "It's only 600 people" is someone who never graduated from college or wasn't paying attention. The MOE grows with the fewer number of people, but assuming the methodology was correct (and it's Gallup, come on) then it's probably pretty damn accurate given the MOE.