There has been alot written in the recent past about the tightening of the polls.  Then we hear about the 80,000 expected to hear Sen. Obama's speech versus the small numbers that show up for McCain.  Obama gets $51 million versus $27 million for McCain.  Two million new donors for Obama and some new fancy "bundlers" for McCain.

What gives?

There's a little thing that wins Presidential campaigns that unfortunately has been missing from that of one Barack Obama - it's called FIGHTING.  It can be base.  It can be immature at times.  But in the back of the electorate's mind it is often a necessary component when it comes to picking  their President, and, as usual, we have not been doing enough of it nor doing it in an effective manner.  

We tend to be a bit obsessive about polls here (the title being the headline of Greg Sargent's posting at TPM today).  We also tend to want to offer advice to our candidate and his campaign, although many would say just sit back and relax; let the pros handle it.
 
On the first point, polls (with their inherent flaws and limitations) are feedback and feedback tells you something about how you're doing at a moment in time.  So I do believe you need to pay attention to them and try to read the tea leaves underneath the top line numbers.  We may see white noise or we may see cause and effect - at least a little - in play here with this latest report on the state of play in the race.

On the second point, where many would say just sit back and relax - good advice, thank you.  However, I also post on the Miami Dolphins sports pages blog just what a mess the offensive (or defensive) coaches made of their supposed "game plan" that Sunday - so in the spirit of true Monday Morning Quarterback-itis, I will have to take a pass on sitting back and relaxing.

Fortunately my boss is out today--I'm at work and finding it all but impossible to concentrate.

The talk that the running mate may be annnounced today is very distracting. I do really wish the Obama campaign would make the announcement. There are some people whose name I definitely would not want to hear, but let's get it over with already!

Then I read on politicalwire that the LA Times/Bloomberg will be releasing a new poll today. As you can see here it sounds ominous for Obama. This poll did show him with a 12 point lead last time, 15 points when third parties are included, so some decline was inevitable. Still this wording is not comforting:

Cross-posted from DMIBlog

Today the Drum Major Institute (DMI -- where I'm director of research) released its first annual Survey on the Middle Class and Public Policy.  The nationwide poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group, aimed to learn how those Americans who see themselves as middle class (the vast majority of us, it turns out) think about the direction of the country, public policy ideas that could improve the nation, and their relationship with their own elected representatives. What we found were middle-class households filled with "fearful families": Americans worried about the present, pessimistic about the future, but not nearly so divided on issues of public policy as the typical media reports of a country divided by red and blue might lead us to believe. In fact, there’s broad bipartisan support for a range of progressive policies.

It's been quite a while since I crunched some political numbers, so I thought I'd check back in with a series of diaries.  Today, the latest edition of the Bush approval map.

Click to enlarge.

My, that's pretty!

Memo to Democrats:  this is an anvil for the falling Republicans.  Please use it.

The following parody news story appeared seven years ago today. It was published and distributed by Yossarian Universal News Service (YU), the world’s first satiric news syndicate founded in 1980.

YU News Dispatch 037
Yossarian Universal News Service 081801
3:01:30:05 PM PST
START

WORLDWIDE POLL SHOWS MANY BELIEVE BUSH TO BE MISSING GREY MATTER
Pretend President Disputes Data And Tries To Cut Down Giant Sequoia With Plastic Spoon

Paris (YU) --A new joint survey released today, conducted by the International Herald Tribune and Yossarian Universal News Service, found that a majority of the world's citizens who were polled earlier
this month regarding their opinion of Presidential Pretender George W. Bush, overwhelmingly chose the word "lunkhead" when asked to pick a word that best described him.
        The survey of about 1,000 people in each country is the first of its kind to measure the attitudes of the international community toward an American leader.

Somebody named Cokie Roberts is wondering out loud on TV whether Hawaii is too elite for a vacation spot. This does bring up a legitimate question. Is Cokie Roberts an imbecile? Or is she just pandering to morons? In either event, drivel is the result.

However, it really isn't a bad marketing strategy.

Cross-posted at Calitics

Beacon Media News, publishers of Sierra Madre Weekly, Monrovia Weekly, Pasadena Independent, and Arcadia Weekly, note the results of a Russ Warner-paid-for poll of the 26th district. The poll shows Dreier's vulnerability in the district.

Republican Congressman David Dreier falling below the crucial 50% support threshold for re-election. After voters hear biographical statements on both Warner and Dreier, the race pulls into a statistical tie.

The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a respected national polling firm, with a sample size of 400 likely voters in California's 26th district.

According to Cokie Roberts (if that it is her real name) last week:

Roberts: ...going off this week I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place. He should be at Myrtle Beach and if he’s going to take a vacation at this time. I just think this is not the time to do that.

Unfortunately, AFP has a cold glass of STFU it needs her to drink:

Obama's poll standing unhurt by Hawaii getaway

by Jitendra Joshi 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - As Barack Obama prepares to rejoin the fray of the White House campaign, the Democratic hopeful can take heart from holding his own in the polls despite sequestering himself in Hawaii for the past week.

Does anyone know where I can find archived election polls from past presidential elections online?

I trying to prove to some of my fellow Obama supporters that polls don't matter at this point and to stop worrying. I'm thinking if I can show them polls from elections past I can help put a little perspective on the issue of polling. I've searched on and off line, but so far I'm having no luck, so I'm asking for your help. Specific elections I'm focusing on are 1932, 1952, 1960, 1976, and 1992. I know it sounds like a lot to ask, but I think a lot people on the netroots could use a little perspective on election polls.

I hope this is no trouble to any of you.

Update:thanks to everyone that has provided links so far!

The 8/1 edition of this feature is here, when the tally was Obama 336, McCain 202. Remember, I award states to whoever leads in the Pollster.com polling aggregates.

For this edition, Obama has actually slipped a bit and now wins Obama 312, McCain 226.

Compared to two weeks ago, Obama has lost his razor thin lead in Florida, though McCain's 1.6-point lead isn't exactly commanding. The state is effectively deadlocked. In Obama's favor, Alaska is now a narrow Obama lead. Like Montana, it's hard to believe that Alaska would sport even a temporary Obama lead, but it's that kind of year. Obama truly is outperforming past tickets in the West. It's east of the Mississippi were things tighten up most.

Now let's look at the map with competitive states yellowed out:

I consider a state "competitive" if it's within single digits in the polling, and thus far, about half the states remain competitive. But if you tally up the EVs, you see that Obama is sitting in much more solid ground.

Two weeks ago, Obama had 210 electoral votes in his safe column, essentially his base states, compared to 72 EVs for McCain. . This week, it's Obama 200, McCain 82. Oregon, which has been giving Obama a roughly 10-point lead, has tightened up slightly, given him a 7-point lead. And Delaware should've been in yellow all along, since an old SUSA poll in February gave Obama a 9-point lead. It's not really a competitive state, but by the rules of this exercise, I must include it.

Bottom line, Obama has 200 solid EVs out of the 270 electoral votes he needs, while McCain needs 188 of the remaining 253 EVs, or a whopping 74 percent of them, to win the election.

Why oh why isn't Obama doing better! This is all great news for McCain.

One more exercise -- I tightened the "swing state" screen to states where the margins are closer than five points:

This map gives us Obama 264, McCain 154. That leaves 120 EVs up for grabs, of which McCain must win 97 percent to win the election. Al Obama has to do is pick up six more EVs from those yellow states. Nevada has five, Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota each have three, the rest of those yellow states would single-handedly push Obama over the top.

I don't know how the news for Obama can get any worse than this...

Wednesday's Philadelphia Daily News reported the findings of a new Keystone Poll as follows:

Poll: Obama leads in Pa., but not by much

Obama leads McCain by eight points, 44 percent to 36 percent among registered voters, and by five points, 46 percent to 41 percent, among likely voters.

Poll director Terry Madonna said that the survey shows that Obama hasn't been able to pull away despite signs it should be a big Democratic year in Pennsylvania.

It's utter bullshit.  Barack Obama -- based on this poll's own raw data -- actually leads John McCain among registered voters by thirteen and among likely voters by a ten point margin.  Let me explain.

The key is sample demographics, and this something on which I've criticized the Keystone Poll for more than three years.   The poll, which is run by Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, PA, consistently oversamples its Republican part of the state, undersamples pro-Democratic Philadelphia and the Southeast, and produces results that are always skewed against Democrats.  When I called once to ask them if they corrected for turnout, the response was "we can't predict turnout."

And that's just false, and lazy.  The Keystone Poll has the following regional sample:

I now have a final few questions for statistical purposes only.
CNTY. Region of state (What is the name of the county you live in?)

35% Central
15% Southeast
14% Northeast
11% Allegheny
10% Southwest
8% Northwest
7% Philadelphia

Here, by way of comparison, is the 2004 CNN Exit Poll breakdown of the Pennsylvania vote:

VOTE BY REGION  

Philadelphia (12%)
Phila. Suburbs (21%)
Northeastern Pa. (14%)
Pittsburgh Area (23%)
Central/North Tier (30%)

[Based on Keystone's regional definitions, Phila. Suburbs = "Southeast", Pittsburgh Area = "Allegheny" + "Southwest", and "Central/North Tier" = Keystone's "Central" + "Northwest".]

The 2006 PA-SEN and PA-GOV race had almost the same breakdown.  Now, you see the problem: Philadelphia and its suburbs should be 33% of the sample instead of 22%, Central and Northwest PA should be at 30%, and instead takes up 43% of the state.  That's a pretty big swing between what Keystone polled and how Pennsylvania actually votes.

How big?  The math's not hard.  (Okay, granted: I'm a former high school mathlete.)  If you take the regional breakdown that Keystone provides -- at the bottom of page 9, Table A-1, and multiply the results for each region by the percentages in the 2004 exit poll breakdown, you can extrapolate out a new set of results re-weighted to actual 2004-06 turnout.  

This GoogleDoc shows my calculations, and the result is instead of a 44%-36% lead among registered voters, Obama actually leads 47%-34%.  

And if that lead expands from 8% to 13%, then it is reasonable to believe that Obama's lead among likely voters is not six percent, but is actually closer to ten percent, about 48% to 38% over McCain.  Terry Madonna, please do a better job next time.

One more thing:  In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry 63%-37% in the Central & Northern Tier.  If Barack Obama is only trailing McCain by a point or two in these traditionally Republican areas, the Pennsylvania race is over.  He's going to come out of Philadelphia alone with a 400,000 vote lead, and there will be no way for McCain to catch up.  None.  

A poll shows how much WIsconsin loves it's Dems and thinks Bush is a poopy lair.

Just read a Politico story, carried in the Boston Globe, that makes me want to smash in computer monitors:

THE MOST remarkable fact of the 2008 presidential election is that it remains a close race. Democrats have not known such favorable political terrain since 1932, yet what should be a blowout is looking like a blanket finish.

The fundamental reason is white men. Like Al Gore in the summer of 2000, Barack Obama is roughly splitting white women. But only 34 to 37 percent of white men support Obama, according to the Gallup Poll's latest weekly index of 6,000 voters.

In fairness to Obama, he inherited the problem. Not since 1976, when Democrats last achieved a majority, has a Democrat won more than 38 of every 100 white, male voters. That Obama is nearly at par with Democrats' poor performance is hardly good.

MEA CULPA - I think.  I'm working on pretty serious sleep deprivation, so my sense reality's is admittedly questionable:  When I first saw reference to this article on Yahoo this morning, I SWEAR that it said Likely, as did the AP Title when I clicked through.  

I closed out the article and I don't have a cached version.  It now reads Unlikely - but how the heck is it news that Obama won't have a landslide in week when the message has been that he has been 'underperforming' and doing less well than expected?  

So the message is that he'll win but it won't count because it's not a BIG ENOUGH win? THAT story only makes sense in the context of talking about keeping votes from being stolen, which isn't what this story is about.

'Likely' is a man bites dog story, 'unlikely' is just a dog and oughta be deleted as a diary except that the discussion should be allowed to stand.

One of the trends this year that hasn't got much press yet is the slow but steady bluing of the West.

In Reagan times, the West was very Red with only CA and HI staying blue.

That changed in '06 with some states adding Blue Congressfolks.  But would that trend continue in '08?

In an absolute stunner of a poll, a polling organization called Hays (I have no idea who these guys are, but perhaps some Alaskan Kossacks can educate) has released a poll showing Obama up +5 in Alaska.  That's right.....deep Red Alaska.

Now since this is an unknown organization, I couldn't blame anyone for discounting the result.  However, I became more curious about Obama's prospects in the state after Governor Palin seemed to go out of her way to praise Obama's energy plan, and provided no more than lip service to McCain.  It puzzled me because Palin has been talked about as a VP candidate and some very conservative organizations have been pushing her hard to Camp McCain.

http://www.pollster.com/...