Rasmussen daily GE graph for 7/8/08 - Obama 46, McCain 40 (M down 1)

[DavidDvorkin]

With leaners, Obama 49, McCain 43 (M down 1)














These Rasmussen graphs are all contained on one Web page at http://www.dvorkin.com/rastrack.html


Gallup has Obama 46, McCain 44:


Rasmussen links:
Data in tabular form
Discussion

[phrigndumass]

1. Six-point spread, no matter how you look at it

Beyond the margin of error, looking great!

:hi:

[DFLforever]

2. I've got to hand it to Rasmussen

considering the pressure he must be under from the GOp to 'round off' those numbers.

Great that the leaners are going to Obama, not McCain. That's a switch.
Maybe the attacks from both the right AND the left are paying off unexpectedly for Obama.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. But he's also under business pressure to be accurate

That's the selling point for any pollster. These polls are their advertising.

[Youphemism]

3. This is a meaningless chart. I wish they'd give it up.

If the 2000 election wasn't enough to educate the public about how meaningless the popular vote is, then just look back to the Primaries, and Hillary Clinton's desperate clinging to that number.

It doesn't matter. It indicates nothing whatsoever.

The media is tracking this dumb number every day, probably because it makes the race look closer than it is, which is what they want for the sake of ratings.

The electoral map information we get from those fabulous "The Math" posts indicates the state of the election.

This Rasmussen number is nothing more than statistical jerking off.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Jerking off is good

And for some of us, the relative positions candidates in the opinion of the public is fascinating in itself.

[Youphemism]

8. As with relativity itself, there is no standard to measure against...

Sure, there's *some* connection between overall popular vote and electoral votes, in that you can't get 3% of the popular vote and 90% of the electoral college vote -- Diebold issues aside.

But that's about as much as you can say in favor of the popular vote. It's very misleading.

I guess there's no harm in looking at it as long as you bear that in mind. What's bothering me is that this is being quoted daily in the news at the same time the electoral picture is being largely ignored.

For the sake of the simple, the popular vote polls should be prefaced with "for amusement only."

[DavidDvorkin]

9. There are problems with tracking the Electoral College vote at this point

The quality and frequency of the polls vary greatly from state to state. At least Rasmussen is the same poll every day, and the same with Gallup.

It's more than amusement, anyway. When I was doing these graphs during the primary season, people kept attacking me because of the presumed unreliability of Rasmussen. As I pointed out then, even if a poll is biased, as long as the bias is consistent, then any major trends it shows are meaningful. Random error in a poll is trickier, I admit.

As for the correlation between the nationwide popular vote and the EC numbers, of course it's tenuous. Every four years, I let myself hope that the difference will finally lead to the abolition of the EC. I keep hoping.

[Youphemism]

10. Abolish the EC and you may as well let New York run the country...

Well, this probably isn't the right place to debate it, but I can't let a statement like this wander past unremarked:

> Every four years, I let myself hope that the difference will
> finally lead to the abolition of the EC. I keep hoping.

Abolish the electoral college and you'll have candidates campaigning in the 10 most populated cities in the US and nowhere else. They'll have platforms to pump city sludge into less populous territories -- because screw 'em, if they don't have voting power.

The folks who wrote the constitution were pretty smart. They knew this. It's obviously the reason we have a Senate to balance the House, as well. Without a check to balance territory with population, like the Electoral College and the Senate do, 40+ states would never again see a presidential candidate in the GE, and they certainly wouldn't be well represented by them.

[DavidDvorkin]

11. On the contrary. Campaigns would become national.

The EC favors the big states. No other democracy has anything equivalent, and no democracy needs this absurdity.

The framers of the Constitution weren't being smart, they were compromising politically, primarily with the slaveowners.

[Youphemism]

12. Anything based on votes favors big states. The EC mitigates that...

New York City would outweigh 10-20 small states. You're suggesting that folks would even stop in those states rather than just playing to issues important to New York City, Los Angeles, etc.?

You're dreaming.

[DavidDvorkin]

14. They would stop in the cities and they'd advertise in the media

[Moloch]

6. McCain's fallen.......

and he can't get up.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Hah!

[barack the house]

13. That's it more Bob Barr signs they are working a treat maybe we can stump for him....

Viva the Bob Barr revolution!!! Split that McCain vote nice and good. :)