Colin Powell set to endorse Obama

Black Swan

Among other things, since the Powell endorsement, the national and state polls continue to generally move in favour of Obama and away from McCain (during a time when polling tends to merge this close to an election). If this trend continues up to 4 November, Obama could win by a landslide.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Karl Rove's last minute October Surprise better be huge, or this election may be over already for McCain-Palin (being only 11 days or so away)?

The Mad Hatter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Among other things, since the Powell endorsement, the national and state polls continue to generally move in favour of Obama and away from McCain (during a time when polling tends to merge this close to an election). If this trend continues up to 4 November, Obama could win by a landslide.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Karl Rove's last minute October Surprise better be huge, or this election may be over already for McCain-Palin (being only 11 days or so away)?

All I've seen reported over the last few days has shown the polls merging, and even shown McCain drawing even with Obama in a few.

That said, with Obama having recently bought half an hour of prime time air time on the major networks, I doubt the Republicans are the only ones with a surprise up their sleeve.

Black Swan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

All I've seen reported over the last few days has shown the polls merging, and even shown McCain drawing even with Obama in a few.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's lead over Republican rival John McCain has grown to 12 points in the U.S. presidential race, with crucial independent and women voters increasingly moving to his side, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday."

Zogby:
21 October Obama +8
22 October Obama +10
23 October Obama +12

"Obama has made steady gains over the last four days and has tripled his lead on McCain in the past week of polling."

But this is only one poll, look at the ones reported in the below link, then look back over the past few weeks to see the trend increasing state and national towards Obama. The sea of blue Obama leads over the few red McCain favoured polls says a lot in itself? See:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

There are 35 state and national polls for 23 October alone, and Obama is leading in 30, frequently double digit (21 polls).

herobear

to add a little bit to Blue_Lagoon's post:

from 538.com

Black Swan

A bit more to contribute to herobear's post.

"Thursday, October 23, 2008...
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That seven-point lead is Obama’s largest in nearly two weeks. This is also the first time since October 11 that the Democratic candidate has reached the 52% level of support, his highest total of the year."

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Although this poll is not widening the Obama gain, it is not narrowing either, but remaining relatively constant:

"(CBS) With just twelve days left until Election Day, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama holds a 13-point lead over Republican rival John McCain, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.

Obama now leads McCain 52 percent to 39 percent among likely voters nationwide, roughly the same lead he held last week. Just five percent are undecided, and more than 9 in 10 of each candidate’s supporters say their mind is made up."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/23/opinion/polls/main4541781.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline

It's interesting to note that the CBS News/NYT and Rasmussen national polls both show Obama with 52 percent?

Hobbes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

All I've seen reported over the last few days has shown the polls merging, and even shown McCain drawing even with Obama in a few.

Every poll I've seen suggests that Obama is way ahead of McCain. Be interested to know who is reporting it otherwise.

Although again, it is the voting that counts. Polls mean dick if no one shows up or people are suppressed from voting.

Ludo

Hobbes wrote: »

Every poll I've seen suggests that Obama is way ahead of McCain. Be interested to know who is reporting it otherwise.

Although again, it is the voting that counts. Polls mean dick if no one shows up or people are suppressed from voting.

Some of the latest polls from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/



As you can see some of them are tight and some are landslides for obama (ranges from 1 point to 13 points)...there are outliers in both directions and depending on your point of view, you will only pay attention to the ones that suit you. Most people would average them though to get an accurate(ish) reading so it is a 7 point race right now roughly.

If you only read the Drudge Report you may think it is closer though as he has the close polls in a place of priority and the wider gaps hidden away.

is_that_so

Tipp part of the IBD/Tipp poll above have their claim to fame as having been the most accurate in 2004. They got within 0.3% of the final Bush total.

Ludo

I wonder why 538.com only rate their accuracy as 1 out of four then. Not trying to be smart or anything...just curious. Must look up those ratings later when I get a chance.

Trojan

Then we have the interesting question of whether a poll is accurate based on the counted results, or based on the exit polls (which I trust more). In that case Tipp may be considered to have been way off the mark

Manic Moran

Trojan wrote: »

Then we have the interesting question of whether a poll is accurate based on the counted results, or based on the exit polls (which I trust more). In that case Tipp may be considered to have been way off the mark

I'm not sure I follow. Surely the counted results are going to be the defacto 'correct answer' against which all polls should be compared? Why believe exit polls more than the official tally?

NTM

is_that_so

Trojan wrote: »

Then we have the interesting question of whether a poll is accurate based on the counted results, or based on the exit polls (which I trust more). In that case Tipp may be considered to have been way off the mark

True but as commented above they're all just tracking polls. If it is so untrustworthy or lacking in credibility then why publish it? If it's a case of adding polls for the sake of it they could easily throw up that rest of the world poll as well.

This is what they claim themselves. http://www.tipponline.com/accurate.html

Ludo

I'd like to know what they are basing their poll samples on. I.E. some companies are polling registered voters based on the results of the last election 4 years ago (i.e. they look for 52% reps v 48% dems or whatever is was then). Is this realistic now given all the new influx of people who MAY vote this time and in fact did in the primaries?
Not sure which tipp are doing.

Find ti hard to believe their poll results have gone from 6 to 1 in just 2 days..looks a bit dodgey!

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow. Surely the counted results are going to be the defacto 'correct answer' against which all polls should be compared? Why believe exit polls more than the official tally?

Because I believe in 04 that the Republicans stole hundreds of thousands of votes. The reported count does not reflect the number of people who actually voted.

On the other hand, exit polls have been proved to reliably indicate actual results in many, many elections worldwide. In a lot of countries exit polls are used to determine if one candidate was cheating (and by that litmus, there is no doubt that the Republicans did so).

axer

Only Osama can win it for McCain now.

Ludo

The Tipp tracking poll is back up to 3.5 today from 1.1 yesterday. Looks like yesterday was a glitch. Still cant understand how they come up with such wildly swinging results like that in a tracking poll.

Black Swan

Ludo wrote: »

The Tipp tracking poll is back up to 3.5 today from 1.1 yesterday. Looks like yesterday was a glitch. Still cant understand how they come up with such wildly swinging results like that in a tracking poll.

Pre-election polls are gross indicators, not precision ones. They give you a general idea in terms of trending over days and weeks before an election. Some variation in polling is due to random variation, as well as error, hence you have a confidence interval that is plus or minus so many points. Comparing polls that use different sampling methods, sampling sizes, and data collection methods (phone, mail, etc.) is problematic indeed. But one thing is evident from all the different state and national polls for this election, Obama is leading in most, and McCain is behind, be it single or double digits in the spread.

Ludo

But tracking polls are meant to take an average over the course of a few day polling...say 5 days with the most wieght given to the latest numbers. Every day the oldest numbers are dropped out and new ones added. This SHOULD lead to slower changes than the drastic ones Tipp seem to be experiencing.

Maybe they do it differently though and only count one days polling.

Manic Moran

Trojan wrote: »

On the other hand, exit polls have been proved to reliably indicate actual results in many, many elections worldwide. In a lot of countries exit polls are used to determine if one candidate was cheating (and by that litmus, there is no doubt that the Republicans did so).

Oh, heaven forbid that after the 2000 debacle a bunch of Americans decided to play "Let's screw with the media." I know I would have. Before the 2004 election a poll showed that twice as many Democrats than Republicans would even talk to an exit pollster. How's that going to screw up your survey?

Evidently unlike yourself, I still have faith that the system overall is pretty accurate, that my vote will count to the best of practical effect, and that people who have no patience to wait for an official result deserve to be screwed with. (It's like those people who rush onto an airplane or train. We're all going to get there at the same time, have a little patience.) Especially when the people with no patience are the media, who are just trying to make a scoop by 'calling' results before the opposition channels and before the results are published.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk_jr_right.html

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/04/bias_in_2004_ex.html

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

Indeed, specifically addressing the claim of reliability outside the US, this quote popped up.

One might think that there is no reason why voters in stable democracies should conceal or lie about how they have voted, especially because nobody is under any obligation to answer in an exit poll. But in practice they often do. The majority of exit polls carried out in European countries over the past years have been failures

It's quoting the ACE Project, which receives UN funding. The source document has dropped off the net, at least, the link is broken.

NTM

Ludo

Couldn't agree more Moran.

I cannot believe that the media are allowed to behave like they are. Free speech be damned...there ought to be a law saying NO media outlet can "call" any state until ALL polls are closed in EVERY state. That includes Hawaii so NO results until then. It is stupid that the election can be effectively over by 9pm eastern when the polls are still open for hours in the west. Why would people coming home from work bother voting there if the result is known already.

Manic Moran

Ludo wrote: »

But tracking polls are meant to take an average over the course of a few day polling...say 5 days with the most wieght given to the latest numbers. Every day the oldest numbers are dropped out and new ones added. This SHOULD lead to slower changes than the drastic ones Tipp seem to be experiencing.

Maybe they do it differently though and only count one days polling.

I'm beginning to think there's a bit of a sea change going on, but damned if I can figure out the cause (unless it's the impression that the economy is starting to fix itself). A few days ago an AP poll had the difference at about 1%. Then the Tipp poll is at 3%, and Zogby now has the difference at 5.3%, with the Sunday one-day-poll at 3%. The first was treated as an anomaly, the second unusual, and now a third?

[Edit: Now Zogby's down to 4.8%]

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

(unless it's the impression that the economy is starting to fix itself).

It's way to premature to assume that the economy will rebound no matter what is done. Nor would "impressions" be supported by the stock market, or unemployment, or credit markets. The data does not support it.

The equity (stock market) indexes would not support this impression, they were ALL falling (and have been showing net losses during the recent weeks going into the election). Friday, 24 October close:

NASDAQ 1552.03 -51.88 -3.23%
DJIA 8378.95 -312.30 -3.59%
S&P 500 876.77 -31.34 -3.45%
NASDAQ-100 1202.27 -36.89 -2.98%
NASDAQ-100 PMI 1152.11 -87.05 -7.02%
NASDAQ-100 AHI 1198.52 -3.75 -0.31%
Russell 1000 471.53 -16.54 -3.39%
Russell 2000 471.12 -18.80 -3.84%

Unemployment contributes to the economic failure impression:

"In September, employers took 2,269 mass layoff actions, seasonally
adjusted, as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance bene-
fits during the month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today. Each action involved at least 50
persons from a single employer; the number of workers involved totaled
235,681."

The current month doesn't show improvement for unemployment or credit:

"October 2008 will be remembered as the time in which the credit crunch came to a head not only for the economy as a whole but for the tech community in particular. Startups have begun preparing themselves for a bleak and uncertain economic future by cutting costs and focusing on efficiency. This has been achieved most obviously through layoffs, which can reduce burn rates quickly and dramatically for web companies that require little physical capital."

Source:http://www.techcrunch.com/layoffs/

The answer in the narrowing of the polls may be here:

"Things are trending back for McCain. His numbers are rising and Obama's are dropping on a daily basis. There seems to be a direct correlation between this and McCain talking about the economy," pollster John Zogby said.

Geeeeeee, is McCain cutting back on character assassination and increasing focus on what is important to Americans during this economic meltdown?

Manic Moran

On the other hand, things which are important to people on a daily basis are improving. The credit markets -have- thawed, the LIBOR is now under the Federal target of 1.5%, from the 6.8% during the height of the crisis. Credit is starting to move again. Sales of existing houses in the Bay Area shot up last month by the largest percentage since September 2003 with an increase of 5.3%. And most importantly, oil prices have plummeted. We're paying over a quarter less now for petrol than we were six months ago, and they're still falling. This is particularly important for Americans living in colder places because home heating oil is a major expense in winter months. Unemployment and stock market are pretty much academic for most voters until it hits them personally. They're more likely to be worried about their own concerns.

Even the stock market has a silver lining: There are a lot of experts, including Buffet, saying it's time to start buying, and they believe it has overcorrected.

However, I have thought of another possibility for the closing poll figures: The dilution effect of those who have early-voted no longer being in the polls. I believe the impression is that most early-voters were leaning Obama, so with a smaller pool left to survey, it might be accounting for the apparent discrepancy.

NTM

Denis Irwin

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, I have thought of another possibility for the closing poll figures: The dilution effect of those who have early-voted no longer being in the polls. I believe the impression is that most early-voters were leaning Obama, so with a smaller pool left to survey, it might be accounting for the apparent discrepancy.

NTM

Very true in fact some analysts reckon that by the time the polls open on Tuesday week a third or more of the electorate will have already voted and as you have already stated most were leaning towards Obama.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, I have thought of another possibility for the closing poll figures: The dilution effect of those who have early-voted no longer being in the polls. I believe the impression is that most early-voters were leaning Obama, so with a smaller pool left to survey, it might be accounting for the apparent discrepancy.

Sounds plausible. And if this is the case, then there is a chance for a landslide victory for Obama, because he is still leading in most state and national polls by single digits.

todolist

Powell was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.He's only endorsing Obama because he's black.Plain and simple.

oscarBravo

todolist wrote: »

Powell was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.

Simplistic, and barely relevant if at all.

He's only endorsing Obama because he's black.Plain and simple.

I'm sure you didn't mean that as a blatantly racist remark, but I'm not quite sure what you did mean by it.

todolist

Powell supported and lied for Bush to facilate the invasion of Iraq.He now switches over to the anti war canditade and endorses him.He's no credibility.And why this racist accusation against anyone who's not a Obama supporter.A bit like anyone who questions israel in the middle east..out comes the old 'you must be an anti semite'.

Overheal

todolist wrote: »

Powell was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq.He's only endorsing Obama because he's black.Plain and simple.

Colin Powell endorsed the war on the assumption that it was going to be played very differently, ie. with Overwhelming force. But 2003 came and the Bush Administration went ahead and went with what they tried to call a Rolling Start, using minimal numbers of troops. Its very well explained in Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. The reason they did not choose the Powell option was because the buildup of forces would require anywhere from 6 to 9 months to organise, and would have given Saddam more time to bunker down, clean up house, etc.

After they went with this option, and after it generally failed, Powell left the Administration. I'm sure theres even more to it than that, but I havent read the book in quite some time. To insinuate that Powell is endorsing Obama for Race, is asinine.

And as Colbert deftly put it:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

The only reason Barack Obama got this endorsement is because Colin Powel is black.

Also the only reason Admiral John Naftman, Brigadier General James Smith, Four Star General Meryl McPeak, and Twenty other Military Leaders have endorsed Barack Obama is because Colin Powell is Black.

By the way... Rush Limbaugh can be wrong.

oscarBravo

todolist wrote: »

Powell supported and lied for Bush to facilate the invasion of Iraq.He now switches over to the anti war canditade and endorses him.He's no credibility.

If "credibility" means "sticking to the same position long after it's been demonstrated to be false", then sure: he lacks credibility.

And why this racist accusation against anyone who's not a Obama supporter.

Nice straw man. I didn't accuse you of racism - I gave you an opportunity to explain how your statement could be interpreted as something other than racism - but even if I had, it would have been because of the racist overtones of what you said, rather than because you don't support Obama.

Once again, because you seem to need things spelled out clearly for you: if what you said wasn't racist, how else is it to be interpreted?