Rasmussen daily graph for 2/9/08 - Clinton up 1 (48), Obama down 1 (42)

[DavidDvorkin]

Wait, is Rasmussen now the most accurate or the least accurate of the major polls? And which will it be tomorrow? I can't keep track.

These graphs are all contained on one Web page at http://www.dvorkin.com/rastrack.html

Gallup now has a daily tracking poll graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104107/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx








(Pretend that the 10 and 20 lines are actually 0. Does anyone know how to make Excel label different parts of the axis differently?)

Rasmussen links:
Data in tabular form
Discussion

[NJSecularist]

1. Seriously, who gives a shit about national polls anymore

Don't you realize that we don't have a national primary anymore?

Don't you realize that half of the states in the U.S. have already voted?

[my3boyz]

2. Is this national or based upon the states that we have left?

If this is national then it does not matter. I don't care if it had Barack up +20, it still would not matter. Most of the country has already voted. The purpose of the polls is to predict who might win nationally. Half of the country has already voted so it is meaningless.........

[DavidDvorkin]

9. National

Like the Gallup poll, which is also national.

I don't know that any polling company does a poll of all the remaining primary states combined.

[UALRBSofL]

3. It seems to me Rasmussen's polls have been off lately

I use to think they were the most accurate but I can't really believe any polls lately.

[samrock]

4. I do not understand

IF that poll is accurate .. Why is Clinton down 15+ in VA/MD?? and down by lots in WA and NE as well as LA??? I have seen any ME polling data...

[CoffeeCat]

5. These national polls mean absolutely NOTHING...

Let's back up to before the first state in our primary season had their caucus--Iowa.

Before the Iowa caucus, and before the candidates' campaigns were in full force in Iowa---these
national polls reflected an electorate that had not met the full force of any candidate campaigns.

People answering these polls were not really plugged into the political process. They
barely knew the candidates. However, these national polls gave significant advantage to
Hillary because she was the "inevitable" candidate for more than a year and because of her name recognition.

So then...the candidates begin campaigning in Iowa. The Iowa polls reflect the national
trends at first (Clinton leading, other candidates lagging), but as the campaigns go
into hyperdrive, shifts happen and the race tightens. I live in Iowa and you could
watch Hillary trend downward daily and Obama and Edwards trending upward. However,
the national polls still reflected the "pre campaign" mentality--Hillary in strong leads.

In Iowa, Obama won, Edwards was 2nd and Hillary third. Simultaneously, the national polls
still reflected Hillary in the lead.

Then, we go to New Hampshire. Hillary's lead in that state eroded into a close Obama/Clinton
race. Meanwhile the national polls show double-digit Clinton leads. Look at the national
polls after Obama's blowout in South Carolina. Rasmussen and others were still showing
Clinton double-digit leads.

As these campaigns enter these individual states--the races tighten and in many cases
Obama garners leads. The national polls still contain a large contingent of people
who are not "plugged in" politically because they haven't voted yet and because they
haven't yet met the campaigns.

As the primary season progresses--you see the national race tightening--because the numbers
of "plugged in" people are increasing--as more states have voted and have experienced
the full force of each candidate campaign.

Does that make sense?

The local, state polls are the only polls that are relevant. They reflect the true impact of
the campaigns, and how people will vote in imminent elections.

These national polls will fully reflect a plugged-in, informed, exposed-to-the-candidates mentality--
pretty much before the last state elections--when nearly all of those polled will have been exposed
to each campaign. That won't happen for a while.

In the meantime, those state polls are the polls that really matter.

The national polls matter, as far as the long-term trends are concerned, but they
still contain the opinions of many Americans, and those opinions will change after the
campaigns land in their states and towns.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. National numbers vs. state numbers

The poll could be perfectly accurate for the nation as a whole. Individual states will always differ from the national picture.

[Rock_Garden]

6. I always appreciate your efforts, DavidD.

[goldcanyonaz]

7. Thank you, David.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Polls only matter when they show Obama in the lead!

Polls are fixed and owned by the Clintons!*


*This must be true, I read it on DU.

[anamandujano]

17. Yeah, they were counting states instead of delegates on super Tues.

They would go for national polls if it favored him.

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Kick

For an utterly worthless poll because it's national and those numbers never mean anything but here they are anyway for your amusement, entertainment, and sexual gratification if you're the kinky kind of person who gets sexual gratification from graphs.

[bilgewaterbill]

12. Thanks for pulling that together. Very interesting!

Can't tell what it means, though. Guess I'll keep my day job.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. It's perfectly obvious what it means!

And as soon as the primaries are over and the Democrats have a candidate, I'll explain it all to you.

[bilgewaterbill]

14. It's an obvious secret! I see.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Exactly

And it can't be revealed till all the results are in, at which point the meaning of everything becomes clear through the power of 20-20 hindsight.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. Obama can't break 44 among Democrats

[anamandujano]

18. The cross over voters are having a big party and laugh

as we speak, and their trollers are here celebrating.