I particularly loved the skit from 1991 that featured the debate not to be the Democratic nominee so as not to lose to Bush. For instance:
Congressman Dick Gephardt: Well, hold on! Now, if you wanna talk about shambles, let's talk about the U.S. House of Representatives, of which I am the Majority Leader. You know, the real enemy facing this country isn't the Soviets, it isn't the Japanese - it's people like me! And the American people know it. The fact is, I couldn't beat David Duke in Harlem! What this party needs is someone with the vision, the integrity, and the guts of an Al Gore.
Everyone: Gore! Gore! Gore! Gore!
Tipper Gore: That isn't fair! My husband isn't here tonight to answer to that kind of smear!
Congressman Dick Gephardt: Then, I have to ask you, if your husband doesn't think he should be this party's nominee, why didn't he bother to show up here tonight?
Tipper Gore: My husband is with our kids at a gay porno theater.
"This is confusing apples with oranges. Party ID gap and likely voter turnout by party ID are two different things."
From what I understand, McInturff was addressing LV turnout, saying that LV polls should show a spread right now of closer to 6-8 points, that he hopes it's 4. He was making an apples to apples comparison to shoot down the ABC poll.
I'm just pointing out facts. It may be that their presumptions are wrong this year. But when it comes to past performance, R2K has, at least in the last couple of years, hit Republican turnout correct, more or less, and underpredicted Democratic turnout.
You see the pollster pegging Republican support correctly, or within about a point, while underestimating Democratic support. It happened in last year's Kentucky Governor race (final poll had it 55/40 in favor of the D, ended up 59/41). It happened in the Nevada Governor race in 2006 (final poll had it 47/41 in favor of the GOP, ended up 48/44). It happened in the Iowa Governor race in 2006 (final poll 50/45 in favor of the D, ended up 54/44). It happened in the Wisconsin Governor race in 2006 (final poll was 50/44 in favor of D, ended up 53/45). Those are just the few that I found relatively quickly.
Yeah, McCain's bounce appears to have subsided in North Carolina. It will still be tough for Obama to win there, as it always has been, but it doesn't seem particularly likely that he will pull out there, either -- especially considering the upside in the state (15 electoral votes) is significantly higher than it is in North Dakota (3 EVs).
McCain's numbers more or less didn't move in blue states (just a 2 point shift), and only marginally moved in purple states (4.5 points). McCain's big gains -- to the tune of an 8.5 percentage point swing -- came in the red states. And that was all at the peak of McCain's bounce, which has since receded.
Yep, Gallup's 55 percent to 42 percent likely voter spread in favor of George W. Bush at this very moment in the 2004 campaign was dead on, and all the other polling showing the race between Bush and John Kerry to be close was dead wrong...
Yes, it's a sham -- but it's a sham in the same way that relying on likely voter numbers and a likely voter model that will produce wildly greater swings than are actually apparent in the electorate two months out from election day is a sham. Take Gallup in 2004, for instance. At this point in the election, they had George W. Bush up 13 points among likely voters (9/13-15/04, B-55/K-42), a spread that was not borne out in other polling in the field at the same time and was not borne out on election day.
I don't know what the answer is, except to say that there are problems with vesting too much faith in either model -- likely voter or registered -- at this moment in the campaign, and that it is better to base conclusions on as broad a range of data as possible (i.e. not just Gallup).