Fit This Into The Media Narrative

Okay, this is from Gallup. How can you possibly square this with a media narrative that has Obama up by double digits almost everywhere? A narrative that has him with the best ground game EVAH! and focused on getting people to vote, especially early voters? The media has told us there is no enthusiam for John McCain. So ....

Just try and fit this actual bit of data into the media narrative. The fact is, you can't.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking data indicate that about 11% of registered voters who plan to vote have already voted as of Wednesday night, with another 19% saying they plan to vote before Election Day. Roughly equal percentages of Barack Obama supporters and John McCain supporters have taken advantage of the early voting opportunity -- so far.

Comments

[Concerned Citizen]

HotAir has a video from Fox and Friends: Rush Limbaugh on Polling

[Concerned Citizen]

"Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights"

Must-Read article written by a Democrat

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/081017light.html

[Fred Beloit]

Landslide? Landslide? Maybe, could be. But I don't see it yet, except in the eyes of the audaciously hopeful.

[Jake]

I wouldn't trust that, Dan. Some Obama voters are waiting until the 4th to vote so they can get their airplane-size bottle of Jack Daniels and a moonpie.

[mark l.]

they have the numbers sitting right in front of them, but fail to report the actual %.

"Roughly equal percentages of Barack Obama supporters and John McCain supporters have taken advantage of the early voting opportunity"

the implication of this statement is that by their reported polling numbers of supporters, we'll say 50-45, the early voting results should be running 50-45.

my favorite line from gallup?

"Roughly equal percentages of Barack Obama supporters and John McCain supporters have taken advantage of the early voting opportunity -- so far."

a polling service is describing their results as 'roughly'?

what exactly is the margin of error of 'roughly'?

I had been worried that gallup might have resisted playing politics with their polling unit, but after this 'report' there is no doubt.

I guess one could say that gore 'roughly' won in 2000, and kerry won 'roughly' in 2004.

[jaime]

Dan "Macaca '06" Riehl...is not a big fan of context.

You accidentally on purpose forgot to include this little nugget:

"early voting generally reflects the same Obama lead evident in the overall sample."

In addition, there are plenty of articles of ACTUAL early vote totals...like this:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/massive-democratic-advantage-early-voting-nevada/

"After six days of early voting in Nevada (5 electoral votes), Democratic turnout exceeds Republican turnout 57 percent to 27 percent."

Of course these articles do not reside in the sand or up your ass, where you seem to want to keep your head.

[mark l.]

if their numbers had been consistent with their poll, they would have been bragging,

'our poll is consistant with the early voting'.

headlines they wanted to write but couldn't?

"Obama leads in poll among early voters"-even if it was by 1% they would have run with the headline. It wasn't.
My guess is that mccain is ahead in the early voting by 5-8 pts.

[chris]

My guess is that you're just another right-wing idiot in denial.

But, who knows - right?

[mark l.]

what is really bizarre?

exit polls have by history favored dems.

mccain is beating obama in the exit polls?
Don't hold your breathe waiting for those hillary voters to show up...they would rather she was the nominee, and the last chance they have to get that done is by obama losing, not winning.

[mark l.]

"According to Gallup's mega-final-ultra poll out Sunday evening, 30% of registered voters in Florida have already voted, either through early voting or by absentee. Of those who have already voted, Kerry leads President Bush 51% to 43%."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18139-2004Nov2.html

gallup early voting numbers from 04 had kerry ahead in florida by 8 pts. kerry lost by 5.

gallup currently has them even...

[mary]

Speaking of Hillary. Rush Limbaugh just asked what "he" has on her. Apparently, while "he" is visiting with grandma, Hillary is taking up the slack.

Guess she forgot when he said he wouldn't help extinguish her huge campaign debt.

[Cynic]

In 2000 and 2004, early voters nationwide chose George W. Bush by a 60-40% margin. So running "roughly even" would indicate a 20-point swing. The reason that Gallup didn't release precise numbers is that its sample of 2,700 voters includes around 300 early voters who have already cast their ballots. That's the group in which Gallup reports that Obama enjoys a lead commensurate with his overall lead - 4-6%, depending on the sampling technique. Among the larger group of 30% of voters who intend to vote early or have already voted, Gallup has actually released its numbers, and it has Obama leading 31-29%.

So, for those keeping score at home, Gallup's numbers are by far the most optimistic for the McCain campaign that have surfaced to date. Rasmussen has early voters at roughly 55-45%, Zogby puts it around 60-40% for Obama, and Pew puts it at 58-34%. The problem here is that most early voters are in the south and west, where states permit the practice. That's where Republicans need to run well ahead of Democrats if they're going to win nationally. And instead, they're running a little behind. Gallup is *bad* news for the GOP, not good news.

[hdtv]

I think you misread.

The way I read this is 10% of Obama supporters already voted and 9% of McCain supporters already voted. Not that 10 percent of all voters already voted Obama and 9 percent of all voters already voted McCain.

If you look at the "By Candidate Support" chart halfway down the article, I think you will find that the vote totals support my point.

[hdtv]

Here's Gallup's textual summary:

"Thus, while equal percentages of Obama and McCain voters have voted early, there are more of the former than of the latter, meaning that early voting generally reflects the same Obama lead evident in the overall sample."

[rightwingprof]

Of course, no votes have been counted, nor will they until 11/4, so the only thing we have to go on is the word of people who consented to be surveyed.

[mark l.]

"In 2000 and 2004, early voters nationwide chose George W. Bush by a 60-40% margin."

source please...

[mark l.]

"Twenty-seven percent of IOWA adults surveyed said they had already voted. Kerry leads Bush, 52 percent to 41 percent, among that group of early-bird voters."
October 31, 2004
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/10/31/in_iowa_kerry_leads_in_early_voting.html

"FLORIDA: Kerry leads 56%-39% among early voters"
October 28, 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1196761

In theory, the 60-40 split might be true, but we wouldn't know until the votes are counted.

I have just pointed to two states where it was reported that Kerry held a decided advantage in 'reported' early voters and proceeded to lose both states.
Kerry +17 in FL, became -5.
Kerry +11 in IA, became +0.

[Rasputin]

Thank you, hdtv. Riehl, it would help if you took off the rose colored glasses and actually read the whole Gallup post. When you crib Drudge you often miss the actual facts.

I love this "media narrative" excuse for Obama's numbers. The public couldn't actually think that a washed up old senator and his hood ornament vp are bad candidates -- the media must be telling them what to do. Get out the tinfoil and let's make hats!

[Dan Riehl]

While I get the point I think there's still another to be made. Obama is the one concentrating on getting early voters out. They've been bragging on that and the general ground game all along. So, you are saying despite that effort, each candidate has been able to turn out the same relative share of their voters? Shouldn't Obama be way ahead? Of course, if the top line poll behind this is over sampling Dems to start with - it could mean Obama has actually gotten a greater percentage of his own voters out because in the end, the numbers assigned from the Gallup track are too high.