As the Racers Stumble into the Blocks: Polls on Obama vs. McCain

Via RealClearPolitics, a pre-Democratic National Convention poll snapshot to ponder:

Polling Data

Poll	Date		Obama (D)	McCain (R)	Spread
RCP Average	08/14 - 08/24		45.5	43.9	Obama +1.6
CNN	08/23 - 08/24		47	47	Tie
USA Today/Gallup	08/21 - 08/23		48	45	Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post	08/19 - 08/22		49	45	Obama +4
Gallup Tracking	08/21 - 08/23		45	45	Tie
Rasmussen Tracking	08/21 - 08/23		48	45	Obama +3
FOX News	08/19 - 08/20		42	39	Obama +3
CBS News/NY Times	08/15 - 08/19		45	42	Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	08/15 - 08/18		45	42	Obama +3
LA Times/Bloomberg	08/15 - 08/18		45	43	Obama +2
Reuters/Zogby	08/14 - 08/16		41	46	McCain +5

More here.

Obama had what has universally been declared a "bad August" due to excess bodysurfing, etc. McCain has edged closer and is, this part-time Ohio resident can testify, hammering away on the tube with negative ads (more on those later). The net result is that things have gotten a bit tighter on the eve of the DNC in Denver.

Here's a recent poll that includes Libertarian Bob Barr and whatever Ralph Nader is this year:

ABC News/Wash Post

Obama 48, McCain 42, Nader 3, Barr 3

Keep a copy of all this in your scrapbook to look at after we all stop crying for whatever reason in November.

Comments

[BDB]

Still can't believe this election is within the margin of error.

[Zerg]

@BDB

Seriously, who in the fuck would vote for McCain. Conservatives should vote for Barr and every other idiot should be voting Obama. McCain is an old, angry, delusional piece of white trash.

[BDB]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly pretty much. McCain isn't even good where Republicans are *supposed* to be good.

[The Angry Optimist]

I can believe it. Why? Because old people vote, and John McCain is old, old, old.

[The Angry Optimist]

oh, I don't know why (Nick or Matt), but the link to H&R from here goes back to your "Convention 2008" page, instead of back to the main blog.

[squarooticus]

Over the past 20 years, I've seen the GOP move from a party with many things in common with me to a party with *nothing* in common with me: they don't even stand for economic conservatism anymore, so what use do I have for them?

The sad part is that the Democrats are no better: from my perspective, the differences between the parties are so minor at this point as to be virtually non-existent.

Yet another reason to stay home on Election Day and laugh at all the suckers who think their votes matter.

[madmikefisk]

squarooticus: It's not so much that there is no difference between the parties as it is that there is no difference in their usefulness.

[Other Matt]

I can believe it. Why? Because old people vote, and John McCain is old, old, old.

And he comes off as slightly less weasel like than Obama. I'll probably throw something in the mix for Barr just out of frustration, but this election sucks more than any I can recall in my 44+ years of being on this earth.

[joe]

Last week's freakout over that single Zogby poll is looking more and more ridiculous.

The media likes close races and drama. "Obama lead small and steady" just isn't going to get the eyeballs.

[BDB]

Joe the media going for the OMG HILLARY SUPPORTERS HATE OBAMA FORVER! line now.

Seriously, all I'm hearing about on tv his Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. You would think she won the nomination the way they are talking.

[dhex]

i am continually amazed at the "why didn't he pick hillary for vp" narrative, myself. narrative, legend, fever-dream, whatever you want to call it.

[joe]

They love the Hillary storyline, BDB.

Remember how they spent 2 solid months pretending she still had a shot at winning the nomination, when the race had already been determined?

[BDB]

If Bill and Hillary don't make it really fucking clear in their speeches that 1)Obama is their nominee, get over it crybabies and 2)McCain sucks, Obama will have a problem if nothing more than because it feeds the media narrative.

[BDB]

I'm also waiting to see if the Democrats make the same mistake they did in 2000 and 2004 and play nicey-nice with the Republicans, or if they wise up and take the hatchet to them.

[J]

I work with alot of (smart) people from NH, and I am amazed how many of them preferred McCain over any of the other republicans or the democrats. I always thought of NH as a libertarian leaning independent state. It's rather depressing.

[R C Dean]

The polls have been statistically tied, drifting glacially toward McCain to the extent they've moved at all, so its functionally a dead heat. Its kind of frightening to think that this election will be decided by some kind of combination of:

(a) which party can choreograph a better convention and get any kind of bounce to stick;

(b) which candidate drops the smelliest gaffe in the next couple of months; and

(c) which party has the better oppo unit.

I think that's about all that matters at this point, no?

On point (a), the Dems seem to have whiffed on generating any excitement on the VP pick, and are fighting the "what about Hillary?" storyline. We'll see how the Repubs stumble.

On point (b), the Dems are now putting two gaffe machines front and center. We'll see whether charisma and Biden's curious brand of drunken-uncle charm ban inoculate them on that front. I'm somewhat amazed that the only McCain gaffe of any note so far is the one about his wife's houses, so I'm sure there is still a deep vein of gaffe to be mined there.

On point (c), I think it will come down to whether the media is willing to pursue Obama's Chicago years; if the Rezko/Annenberg/Weatherman buddies storyline gets serious play, it could really hurt Obama's core "New Kind of Politician" play. And let's not forget Rev. Wright is supposed to have a book come out in the next month or so; every headline he gets is another blow to Obama at this point. I don't know what could possibly be left undiscovered on McCain at this point, but we'll find out, I have no doubt.

[MSM]

We'll have a media blackout on Reverend Wright's book. It wouldn't be fair (or keeping with the spirit of McCain/Feingold) to do otherwise.

[BDB]

So we're going to have Wrightmare III: October Surprise?

[BDB]

Nevermind, the book thing isn't true.

http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/08/daughter-rev-wr.html

[McCain Opposition Research]

The Obama campaign ahs hidden the Rev Wright deep in the bush of darkest Africa.

"He said that he also got an email, but was unable to respond since he's in email hell," Wright said, meaning in a place in Ghana where it's difficult to send and receive email.

How convenient.

[BDB]

I'm sure McCain wishes he could do the same thing with Bush and Cheney.

[William Walsh]

Both candidates and both parties are awful, I agree, but there is one difference that hasn't been mentioned enough: Obama wants to raise taxes; MaCain wants to 'not raise' taxes. Both will end up raising them, I agree, but. . .

[Elemenope]

I work with alot of (smart) people from NH, and I am amazed how many of them preferred McCain over any of the other republicans or the democrats. I always thought of NH as a libertarian leaning independent state.

It's his folksy charm. McCain has been able to tap into whatever passes for a zeitgeist in NH since at least 2000.

[joe]

The polls have been statistically tied

"Statistically tied" - as opposed to plain old "tied" - is a term that's used to refer to a poll that has a result within the margin of error. Given the sample size, a poll is only accurate within, for example, 3 points one way or the other. So, with the same sample size that is equally representative of a population, polls of a race that is plain-old-tied, which have a margin of error of 3, would look something like: 0, +2, -1, +3, -3, +2, -2, -1.

If, instead, a set of polls with a margin of error of 3 look like this: +3, +2, +2, +1, 0, -1, +3, +2, +3, then it is highly unlikely that the race is tied.

[Elemenope]

Obama wants to raise taxes; MaCain wants to 'not raise' taxes.

That's simplistic, and crap besides. They both want to raise *and* lower taxes, just on different groups.

[joe]

I work with alot of (smart) people from NH, and I am amazed how many of them preferred McCain over any of the other republicans or the democrats. I always thought of NH as a libertarian leaning independent state.

People in New Hampshire remember the McCain of 2000, the one who was a conservative but not a religious right conservative. Not only is that more of their kind of a candidate, but it also demonstrated some independence from the overwhelmingly religious-right party, and New Hampshirites like independence.

[dan k]

There will be an election - CNN will call it historic, like everything else they cover with the "best political team on television" - which I always thought was like saying "the best spot in the shower at Aushwitz"

[BDB]

Also, New Hampshire this year had a pick between McCain and Romney. McCain was lucky he had an opponent with no moral core at all.

[joe]

"best political team on television"

"Prettiest hooker in Fitchburg."

[BDB]

Hey, did everyone know that CNN is really, really concerned that Barack Obama may not win the election because of Hillary Clinton?

Really! What a shocker! They just said it!

[GG]

I'm glad to see the MSM is finally shedding all pretense of impartiality and journalistic integrity.

[Brandybuck]

Still can't believe this election is within the margin of error.

That is a combination of the two party system and the fast feedback loop from modern communication. We saw the same thing in the past few elections. The country has been divided exactly down the middle.

Pick any single issue, and you will hardly ever get a 50/50% split. Put take presidential politics and it becomes common. That's because the parties have positioned themselves equidistant from center. It's like two sumo wrestlers circling the ring. Without a dominant issue to stir stuff up, expect another 50/50 +/-2% election result.

[R C Dean]

Brandybuck, props on your visual image of the Presidential campaigns as sumo wrestlers. Full of win. Works on so many levels. Hear, hear!

[Gene]

"Still can't believe this election is within the margin of error."

Well, Obama wins blacks and Hispanics by a large margin so the question is why is Obama doing so poorly among whites?

Maybe after you figure that out you can get to why David Duke always lost the black vote.

[BDB]

Gene-

Hes slightly outperforming John Kerry with the white vote. Hes about where Al Gore was with the white vote at this point, which a'int bad given all the race baiting going on.