Interesting explanation for Obama's "Surge" of late in Gallup Poll

Wizbang ^ | 9-19-2008 | DJ Drummond

[grey_whiskers]

(snip) It's only a point, but again we see McCain's numbers in this group went up.

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response. (snip>

[lepton]

This is the first election since 1984 that there is a conservative on the ticket.

The VP in 1988 and 1992 doesn't count?

[lepton]

As a result I read polls with a grain of salt. Lets not forget in 2000 Rasmussen, Gallup, and Battleground all indicated a sizable win for Bush.

Well, the drunk driving thing convincing a lot of conservatives to sit home could account for that. That said, there is a lot of difference based upon who is excited enough to go vote on the actual election day. I think the convention bounce does reflect a firming up in people's minds, and a growth or diminishing in enthusiasm. ...how meaningful that is for November is every bit as debatable as your post implies.

[1035rep]

Bookmark for reference.

[word_warrior_bob]

It’s different this time around, many think McCain intends on only serving one term and VP’s were more of an afterthought then.

[1035rep]

bttt