According to John Zogby's online poll — which, according to John Zogby, is "remarkably accurate" — Barack Obama's Electoral College lead over John McCain is practically embarrassing (whether for McCain or Zogby remains to be seen)…
What that means is that, according to these numbers, even if all the undecided states tipped toward McCain, Obama would still lead 273 to 265.
With Obama only beating McCain by a few points in national polls, it seems odd to see him holding such landslide numbers when it comes to the Electoral College. I wonder what could be the factor I'm not considering…
Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents.
Okay, but what about that potato sack who's running on the liberal side?
On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.
Almost two percent?! I am genuinely surprised that Nader is polling that high.
On second thought, when I think about Nader supporters and then I think about all the people I see drooling into their laps on the subway, I guess I'm actually a little surprised he's not polling at an even two percent.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bob Barr, John McCain, John Zogby, Libertarian
According to pollster John Zogby, Barack Obama has closed the gap in Pennsylvania and now trails Hillary Clinton by a single point…
The survey, which was conducted April 15-16, 2008 and came out of the field midway through Wednesday's contentious debate between the two candidates in Philadelphia, shows Clinton at 45% and Obama at 44%, with 12% either wanting someone else or left undecided.
This would be fantastic news for the Obama campaign, except for one little thing: Zogby's polls are always wrong.
At zero hour in 2004, he predicted a John Kerry victory. He had Obama winning California and Ohio. And I'm pretty sure he even predicted that Jim Carrey would win an Academy Award for The Number 23.
Matt Yglesias considers why he's so continually garbagey…
This illustrates a real problem with the public polling game, namely the lack of incentives to get things right. Presumably there's some level of consistent wrongness at which people stop giving you the links, readership, buzz, and whatever else it is you're looking for but it's really not clear where that is. And, indeed, for your average media poll where the objective is to produce an "interesting" article accompanying the poll, you're probably better off being wrong.
Suppose I somehow screwed up my polling and got the result that 50 percent of African-Americans say they'll vote for John McCain in November if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. Does that sound plausible? No. Would it be a big story if I had a poll that said it was true? Yes. And if I'm in the business of producing big stories, then that means I run with the poll and come away very happy with a day's job well done.
That makes sense.
By the way, according to a poll I just conducted, not only will Barack Obama win Pennsylvania with a full 100% of the vote on Tuesday, but he'll also be made an honorary astronaut by NASA.
Now give me links.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Zogby, Pennsylvania