It's very early, but both of the national tracking polls are showing results that are consistent with the notion of a "unity bounce" for Barack Obama.
Rasmussen:The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows what may be the beginning of a bounce for Barack Obama. Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. That five-point lead for Obama is up from a two-point advantage over the past couple of days. Before that, for much of last week, McCain had enjoyed a slight edge.
Gallup:The latest results include two nights of interviewing since Obama declared victory over Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night in the Democratic delegate contest. Although Wednesday night's interviewing showed no immediate bounce in national support for Obama versus McCain, Thursday night's results were quite favorable to Obama. It will be important to see if Obama can maintain this support over the coming days.
We don't know that this is triggered by Clinton-supporting Democrats coming back into the fold. It could just have easily be independent voters who are caught up in the excitement of the past couple days, or were turned off by John McCain's awful speech. Both of those phenomena are likely to be more transient than a true unity bounce. Naturally, it could also just be statistical noise.
But as someone who has been pitching the notion of a unity bounce for a long time, my expectation is that some of this is going to stick in the near-to-medium terms.
There's also a chance -- I wouldn't call it probable, but it's distinctly possible -- that Obama is going to gain several points over the next couple of weeks and essentially never give them back. When I saw Mitt Romney on Morning Joe the other day and he was really lowballing expectations for McCain (e.g. "it's amazing that we're tied"), I got the impression that this is something the Republicans stay up late worrying about.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Some signs of a unity bounce
-- Nate Silver at 2:50 PM
Labels: defectors, national polls
32 comments
I'm curious how many Clinton supporters will come through on their threats to withhold support from their own nominee.
You're reading noise.
I agree with the conclusions, but not with the evidence.
p.s. I miss the logo with the Donkey and the Elephant and the question mark. Aside from that, the mainpage has to be the densest display of useful information this side of the library of congress.
If the rest of you find this site as useful as I do, you might consider making a contribution with the button on the lower left.
I think that there will be a unity bounce, but I don't think this is it. First of all, it will take a little more time to show up, no matter what, due to the fact that Hillary's supporters are still coming to terms with her loss. The whole "she must be VP" thing strikes me as pretty classic "bargaining" phase of grief, so we are still waiting for "acceptance".
I really don't think we will start to see any bounce effect until after the joint appearance and endorsement on Saturday.
I've give it two weeks. We'll known then.
Two Weeks! I want to know now!
:)
The democratic nominee ALWAYS starts off far ahead, usually by double digits. This is beacuse this is what the media wants. Some suggest that the media influenecs a 15 point advantage for the democratic nominee.
Carter-Reagan, Bush-Dukakis, Bush-Gore, Bush-Kerry, the democratic candidate always started off far ahead. And this one is a dead heat.
Another reason to be agnostic about the size or durability of any Unity Bounce at this time is that there could be a bounce-back if Clinton supporters are expecting the reward of a VP slot for her.
This is why I suggested a few days ago that Obama may need to settle on his VP choice quickly (by end of June) so that he can remove all doubt; and then, with the finality of the campaign at last settling in, perhaps there may be a slow recovery from grief by Clinton supporters.
"I got the impression that this is something the Republicans stay up late worrying about."
Yeah, it should be! Because it's something I stay up late laughing gleefully about! Oh, they are SO, SO VERY TOAST!!
Thanks for the statistical confirmation. Oh, and I agree with your prediction-- Obama picks up a few points in the coming two weeks and never gives them back.
Nate - did your time at the University of Chicago intersect with Obama's? Did you by any chance have the opportunity to take a course where he was the lecturer?
"
Thanks for the statistical confirmation. Oh, and I agree with your prediction-- Obama picks up a few points in the coming two weeks and never gives them back."
That´s in fact not his prediction.
He says he doesn´t know if the effect is temporary or permanent.
Nate,
Could you please provide us with a history post, abot the kind of suggestion raised by the McCain supporter?
You democrats aren't going to be able to stand the heat of McCains bottled hot water and dehydrated babies!! They're comin to get ya!!!!
Anon@13:47
I do remember that being sort of true, but both of them ran terrible campaigns, particularly Kerry, who probably had the worst idea for a convention ever ("Bush may be the worst president ever, but let's not mention his name!")
Let's also not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election.
Question: Could someone explain the vertical aspect of the Electoral Vote Distribution chart at the right?
What is the x-axis?
Thanks from a fascinated non-statistician!
The real unity bounce will come when Clinton starts traveling around the country giving speeches and campaigning for Obama (which I sure hope is what she's planning).
OK, dumb question:
How are you defining a "must-win" state, as opposed to a "swing" state? I assume it's a close state that has more EVs than the margin of victory, but if I'm correct, how exactly would that be defined?
Just curious; love the new design!
anon@13:59
I assume you mean the y-axis (the x-axis is the # of electoral votes).
I'm not Nate, but if I understand it correctly, that's the number of computer simulations (out of 10k) that resulted in that number of electoral votes.
the number of computer simulations (out of 10k) that resulted in that number of electoral votes.
Ah! I get it now - thanks!
Answer to anonymous's question:
That chart maps the number of electoral votes Obama scores in the 10,000 simulations. The x-axis (horizontal) is the sum of electoral votes Obama wins in an simulation, and the y-axis (vertical) is the number of simulations in which Obama scored that many votes.
As we can see, the most commonly occuring scenario (the mode) is somewhere around 275 EVs, which makes sense, as the Kerry states + CO + IA + NM (which seems to be the most likely scenario as far as the pundits and the polls are concerned) is 273 EVs, and there are a multitude of similar scenarios (swap WI and MI for OH and VA, steal a few of NE electors but lose NH, etc.).
How do you calculate "identical map to 2000"? What win percentage do you assign in the Supreme Court? Do you just set that to R+11, as you used to with DC?
Thanks Robby!
God I love this site!