It's not like averaging a bunch of polls have any genuine statistical meaning. It's like averaging the pH level of all of my neighbors pools and treating mine based upon the reading.
Posted on 07/12/2008 7:38:24 AM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
A unique feature of Freedom's Lighthouse is the "Average of Electoral Vote Projections," which you will see updated daily at the top of the left sidebar (see table below). The table shows the ten sites that are regularly updating their Electoral Vote Projection for the Presidential Race. At the bottom of the table are averages for all the sites. There is an average that includes "tossups" and an average of the sites that do not include "tossups." Right now, Obama leads handily in both averages. Come back and check the table on a regular basis. It will be updated at least daily, and several times a day as changes are made on the various sites.
| Average of Electoral Vote Projections |
|||
| Site | McCain | Obama | Tssup |
| Election Projection |
232 | 306 | 0 |
| 538.com | 229 | 309 | 0 |
| Electoral Vote.com |
215 | 320 | 3 |
| Real Clear Politics |
163 | 238 | 137 |
| Real Clear Politics - no tossups |
234 | 304 | 0 |
| Federal Review |
208 | 296 | 34 |
| Coldhearted- truth |
245 | 293 | 0 |
| 270towin | 154 | 235 | 149 |
| Hedgehog Report | 191 | 347 | 0 |
| Election Junkie |
232 | 306 | 0 |
| AVERAGE | 210 | 296 | 32 |
| AVG. NO TOSSUP |
227 | 311 | 0 |
| Last Updated 7/12/08 7:50 AM CDT
Freedom's Lighthouse.com |
|||
I think this data is useless by the time it is tabulated due to the dynamics and Obama’s plunge. It may not even favor him anymore today.
How in the hell could anyone vote for this phony POS who is dumb as a damn post?
Don’t forget the “Bradley” effect. Put together with his plunge and the PUMA organization (pissed off Hillary voters) and ‘saint happenin. He will not win.
I sure do hope you are right. This country cannot stand to have this POS as CinC.
(Without leaners: *tied*, with leaners: Obama up by one. This is with $5 gasoline and the stock and real estate markets going down the tubes. And not including the Bradley - Wilder effect. Tied. Amazing.)
Yeah...he’s a post turtle.
Easy.
I’d guess that many people still don’t know that much about Barack Obama. The media has done a great job of covering for him and of ensuring that all criticism of his positions is silenced. In fact, they’ve done a pretty good job of keeping his ridiculous agenda under wraps, only focusing on the idiot catch phrases of ‘hope’ and ‘change’.
Of course, the clueless 18-25 year old kids that far and away make up his biggest fanbase haven’t been around long enough to realize that those two words are used in EVERY election and that they’re being played for the ignorant fools that they are.
I truly believe that if McCain were a better CANDIDATE (I stress the word bc that’s ALL I’m going by when I say this...what kind of CANDIDATE has he been so far in every facet that goes into it), McCain would be leading Obama outside the margin of error, even in a so-called potentially catastrophic year for Republicans.
Not only is the feature unique, it’s totally erroneous.
I also believe that if hussien were not black and just some white guy he’d be losing to McCain by double digits...
The truth about this moronic Marxist Messiah must be exposed before the Liberal media should be allowed to print their skewed polls. A candidate that has been endorsed by America’s enemies, e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Chavez, etc. is a disgrace to America and our heritage.
The fat lady has yet to begin her warm-up. ;)
If Hussein wins, get ready for the hardest turn to socialism we’ve had in the USA since FDR. It’ll make LBJ’s “Great Society” look like a plan from the John Birch Society.
Obama’s big problem- he wears thin after repeated viewings. The more you see him, the less you like him. He’s got a major league arrogance problem. Now, that’s not gonna hurt him with the hard line leftists. Venomous haters like Jan Shakowsky, Nostrilitis, Nancy Pelsoi et al, keep get re-elected. But, when it comes to moderate, “normal” human beings, by he time November rolls around, they’re gonna be sick of him.
What are the Rasmussen numbers today?
43-43 without leaners and 46-47 with leaners. No idea how much of a Bradley effect Rasmussen is seeing this season.
Really. If McCain can hold things in place for 4 years, then we have a chance for a serious conservative like a Sarah Palin or a Bobby Jindal. Does anyone seriously think he'd go for a second term?
It's not like averaging a bunch of polls have any genuine statistical meaning. It's like averaging the pH level of all of my neighbors pools and treating mine based upon the reading.
Paul, people are whistling past the graveyard here. These polls are pretty accurate, and McCain is in big trouble. He is showing a few signs of life, however; his fundraising has jumped, and he has come up in a couple of key state polls (MO, for one). But as of right now, Obama would be the next pres.
Not looking great at the moment but things change. We have already seen how much, with the Newsweek poll having Obama up by 15 just weeks ago and now ahead by only 3. Some of these state polls sound a little absurd. Obama ahead or tied in MT and ND, while trailing in MO, and close in OH and MI? Just sounds way out of whack. Either people aren’t being truthful or the pollsters are off base.
“These polls are pretty accurate, and McCain is in big trouble.”
McCain is doing better against his opponent, based on July polls, than the vast majority of his Republican predecessors who won against their Dem opponents.
McCain is sitting pretty.
“Some of these state polls sound a little absurd. Obama ahead or tied in MT and ND,”
I’ll never forget how shocked I was when N.Dakota went for Clinton over Bush Sr. And that was 16 years ago.
I think ND went for Bush in 1992. Thanks to the Perot split, Clinton managed to take CO and MT by small margins, and with under 40% of the vote. I think if Perot had not been in, Mr Bush would have done much better.
There have been three (3) Democrats who have won the White house since the Civil War with a majority of the popular vote -- FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter. When Republicans win, they usually win with a majority of the popular vote, 2000 being an anomaly. When Democrats win, there is usually a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote, and they win with less than 50% (like Clinton did twice).
Yes, Bush #41 would certainly have done better without Ross Perot.
Thankfully, Bob Barr is no Ross Perot.
Unless my memory is seriously failing me, I can remember working the evening shift which I had to do to put myself through college, and ND went blue on the map and all these older workers were in shock and disbelief. They couldn’t believe their state of ND went Democrat. It was the year Clinton won over Bush Sr and my sophmore year in college.
I just looked it up, and you’re right, ND did go for Bush in 92. I have no idea why I remembered it differently. It must have been some other state that went blue that hadn’t in a long time and some of those I worked with talking about it and I thought it was ND because that is where I lived. That’s the only sense I can make of it anyways because I could have sworn it was ND.
Projected electoral count is much more meanfull than national "beauty contest" polls. That's the way Presidents are selected. McCain could have huge percentage leads in the "Red" states, and Obammy could have relatively small ones in his states. The popular vote would look close, but the electoral vote wouldn't be close at all.
If we have $300 oil and the Dow Jones at 5000 by November, McCain could easily lose it. But if we have $300 oil and the Dow at 5000, everyone who can might as well move to Australia, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.