A little light on the subject of Gallup results...

[RichardRay]

Nate at 538 confesses that he is "having a hell of a time figuring out what to make of the post-convention polling."

One thing he does discount is the big bump portrayed in Gallup's numbers. Specifically, he references the following paper published in Public Opinion Quarterly:

Likely (and Unlikely) Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics - Erikson, Panagopoulos and Wleizien

Abstract
Only in recent years has the "likely voter" technology been extended to polls well in advance of an election. In the case of the 2000 U.S. presidential election, CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking polls indicated considerable fluctuations in likely voter preferences, greater than among the larger pool of registered voters surveyed. This article explores how Gallup’s likely voter model exaggerates the reported volatility of voter preferences during the campaign. Much of the reported variation in candidate preference reported by Gallup in that election is not due to actual voter shifts in preference but rather to changes in the composition of Gallup’s likely voter pool. The findings highlight dangers of relying on samples of likely voters when polling well before Election Day.

The conclusion is that 'Likely Voter' polling methodology seems to have some problems this far out from the election. For all the bouncing around, Nate's treatment of the numbers is designed to take the sturm und drang out of polling and presents these results:



Definitely down a few points from the days immediately after the Democratic Convention, but not quite the same as a 10 point lead for McCain/Palin.

[RichardRay]

1. Self-kick since the information still seems to be needed

There's still a lot of noise about the Gallup results and post-convention bounce. Please read the above linked paper if you'r really interested in knowing how to view those polling results.

[chicagoexpat]

2. The Gallup polls are not considered valid by the pros

It has serious methodological problems.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gallup_daily_the_worst_thing_i.php

All the polls do show something of a bounce for McCain -- WHICH ALWAYS HAPPENS WITH A PARTY'S CONVENTION

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I E-Mailed Gallup For Their Previous Election Graphs... I Wonder If They Will Reply

They changed the URL and the graphs I had bookmarked were no longer operative...

In September and October of 2000 they showed Bush* with a 13% lead at times...I knew, intutitively, it didn't make sense... The end results vindicated my intuition unless you want to believe Gore closed a 13% gap and then some...

We don't have anything to match pre-election polls to but other pre-election polls so it's frustrating... Gallup seems to do a decent job in their final pre-election poll in matching the actual result...

[VolcanoJen]

4. 538 has been invaluable all year.

I read that site every day just to get a little bit grounded after another freak-out day at DU. :-)

[Qutzupalotl]

5. Thanks for this. Also consider the number of third-party candidates on the ballot

that are not reflected in these surveys.

Bob Barr, for instance, is on the ballot in 41 states:
http://www.lp.org/ballot-access

Even if he only gets 1 or 2 percent, it could be enough to tip a state or two into our column.

(And despite what you see on lp.org, both Obama and McCain qualified to be on the ballot in Texas.)

[ClarkUSA]

6. Nate predicted point-spreads during the primaries much more accurately than any pollster.

He's a genius at statistical analysis. Believe him.