Thursday, April 17, 2008

Today's Polls, 4/17: Obama takes a hit, with caveat

SurveyUSA has a new round of polling out in more than a dozen states. Let's run the numbers first and then let's talk.



These are generally, although not uniformly, a poor set of polls for Barack Obama. The ones that are perhaps especially problematic for him are in Virginia and New Mexico, states where SurveyUSA has generally showed him running fairly well. The Ohio result, naturally, is important, although that's consistent with what we've seen in other polling. And SurveyUSA shows a close race for Obama in Massachusetts, as it has all cycle; it would be nice to be able to look at another pollster's numbers on that race.

As you can see, Obama's win percentage against John McCain has declined to its lowest ever number, 41.4%, which leaves him essentially tied with Hillary Clinton, who is presently at 40.2%. When we began this project, the polls indicated that Obama was at a hair over 60% to win an election against John McCain; that number has now fallen by more than 20 points.

But for the Obamaphiles in the crowd who are inclined to panic, a couple of things to keep in mind: Firstly, even in a bad set of surveys, Obama retains some areas of strength. These are, particularly, the Pacific Northwest region and our North Central (e.g. Upper Midwest) region. In Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, as well as in Washington and Oregon, Obama is likely to win fairly easily, whereas all of those states are in play in a Clinton-McCain contest. It's these states, plus neighboring Michigan -- which will not be a slam dunk for Obama but appears to be a better state for him than for Clinton -- that account for why Obama is still at least tied with Clinton overall, in spite of performing worse than her in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Secondly, notice that the SurveyUSA polls were taken over the weekend, just as the bittergate controversy was hitting the radar. Keep in mind my prediction about bittergate, which is that it would have no real impact on the Democratic primary numbers, but perhaps a couple of points worth of medium-term impact on Obama's general election numbers. So far, that prediction has been pretty well borne out.

The other dynamic in play here is something that I call 'timing bias': pollsters tend to release surveys in the wake of major news events. Consider, for instance, that the last time SurveyUSA released a big set of polls was just as the Jeremiah Wright controversy was breaking. Naturally, pollsters (and the clients they work for) want to gauge the electoral reaction to important events in the news cycle. But really, if you buy one of my fundamental arguments about polling, which is that most bounces are just that -- temporary aberrations in the polling numbers -- these are the very worst times to release polls. And it cuts both ways. If, say, Obama wins Indiana, and essentially concludes the nomination with an 'upset' victory, we'll probably see a lot of polls released in the aftermath of that. Those numbers too, I'm guessing, would likely show a fairly big bounce for Obama -- and that bounce too, I'm guessing, might well prove to be ephemeral. It's helpful to have a pollster like Rasmussen on hand, which releases its polling data in dribs and drabs, rather than in big chunks.

Thirdly,
our previous analysis shows that with a unified Democratic party behind him, Obama is likely to have a superior hand to play to Clinton's.

With all that said, there's no doubt that Obama's electability numbers have taken a hit. For one set of advocates, that is precisely the reason to draw the Democratic nomination process to a close, and for the other set, it is precisely the reason to continue it.

p.s. One result I wouldn't worry about for Obama: the TargetPoint poll showing him trailing McCain by 12 points in Colorado. Whatever hit Obama has taken, it does not appear to be in states like Minnesota and Washington, that are similar to Colorado demographically. And TargetPoint surveyed this contest on behalf of a Republican advocacy firm, and over small (~300 voters) sample sizes.

5 comments

Anonymous said...

I admit to being mathematically challenged, but I can't understand how Obama can be over 50% in states giving him a total of 278 EVs on the individual state charts to the left, and yet have only a 41% chance of winning the overall election. Can you toss me a line on this?

cheesie_67 said...

I am a McCain supporter. But the absolute values are meaningless right now. There is a long time between now and November. As you say, Obama started with a 60% chance of winning when you started. These numbers will bounce around based on external events.

The real value of these exercises is in identifying the battleground states. We do not have election in Nov. We have 50 stitched together. The election only real plays out in 5 or six of these states.

538/poblano said...

anon,

Well, Obama is "winning" a lot of states, but look how thin his margin of error is in many of them. He's at 55% in Colorado, 51% in New Mexico, 51% in Pennsylvania, and 52% in Michigan. There are many ways that things could go wrong for him if all those states stay that close. By contrast, there aren't very many states that he's barely *losing* at the moment, except Ohio (39%).

Mike in the Mountain West said...

Based on your earlier analysis of the unity bump both candidates are likely to receive these numbers seem to vastly underestimate Obama's true chances of winning the White House against McCain. They are clearly useful in gauging the relative strength of the two democratic candidates in each state but doesn't tell us very much about their true strength in a general election.

jakam said...

Like Poblano said...the chance that Obama will meet that 55% in CO and that 51% in NM and that 51% in PA and that 52% in MI, combined, is rather less than 50%.

One thing you notice in those state by state polls is that speaking of the black vote overwhelmingly going to Obama or the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly going to Hillary is misleading. In about 40% of those states, the Hispanic vote goes more strongly for Hillary than Obama, but ion another 40% they go more strongly for Obama, and the rest it doesn't make much difference. Also, Obama dominates the black vote in most states as compared to Hillary, but there are a few exceptions where she actually does better with them...like MA.

Also, it seems that Hillary does better with 35-49 year olds (younger Boomers and older Xers) than both the next group younger (18-29) and the next group older (50-64), which seems rather odd, and carries through many states.