An odd day of polling, but one attention-grabbing result dominates the rest. That is from Ohio, where Public Policy Polling has Barack Obama ahead by 11 points. While Public Policy Polling developed a reputation as being somewhat Obama-friendly in the primaries, its track record is fairly strong, and its prior Ohio poll -- taken way back in March -- had shown McCain ahead by 8 points. As Ohio is probably the single most important state in this election (it's by no means the only important state, but it's pretty darned important), this result is enough to drive Obama past the 67 percent threshold in our overall electoral projection; we presently have him as about a 2:1 favorite to win the election.
In Minnesota, however, SurveyUSA has Obama with just a 1-point lead over McCain. SurveyUSA's methodology takes a more fluid view of party identification, and so it tends to produce results that can be more encouraging for the non-dominant party in a particular state. Its most recent previous Minnesota poll, taken back in May, had shown Obama ahead by 6 points.
In North Carolina, Civitas has John McCain ahead by 4 points -- down a tick from the 5-point lead he held a month ago. Obama has yet to show a lead in North Carolina, but has trailed by somewhere between 2 and 4 points in the three most recent polls of the state.
There is also a SurveyUSA poll out in Kentucky that shows Obama trailing by 12 points. This poll made it across our wires too late to be included in our metrics, but it speaks to the extent that Obama is starting to improve his numbers among lapsed, Clinton-leaning Democrats, particularly in Appalachia. Obama had trailed by 24 points in Survey USA's May poll of Kentucky, and by as many as 36 points previously.
There are also a series of national polls out, all of which have consolidated in the area of Obama +4, exactly the popular vote margin that we attribute to him based on the state-by-state polling results.
So what to make of the meme that Obama's numbers haven't been bouncing? The only way that you can come to that conclusion is if you cherrypick results. There have been a few dozen polls released since Clinton conceded the primaries, and our methodology extracts an average bounce of about 4 points between them. Four points is not so large that some individual polls won't show a bounce, particularly if the bounce is concentrated in particular states and regions. But bounce Obama has, and the longer Republicans remain in denial about it, the less time they'll have to catch up.
6.17.2008
Today's Polls, 6/17
by Nate Silver @ 4:11 PM...see also bounces, kentucky, minnesota, north carolina, ohio, today's polls
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

50 comments
Is it just me, or did the beginning points on the trend line of the "Super Tracker" shift big time today? Earlier it seemed that McCain was +6 in Jan, and now Obama is at about that level as of the end of Jan. Did the end points just change, or did something else happen? Not sure this means anything (and the current chart seems much more intuitively correct anyway).
But bounce Obama has, and the longer Republicans remain in denial about it, the less time they'll have to catch up.
Geez, man. Don't tell them!
Dems - everything's horrible! Work Harder!
Reps - everything's fine! Take a nap!
Nate, I'd love to hear your comments on the crosstabs for Minnesota's poll. Obama winning older voters and McCain winning younger voters. Safe to say, that poll is a mess.
Doof,
I'm now calculating the trendline based on solely on polls from February 1 onward, as there were too few polls before then to produce reliable results.
I understand there is a bounce, there almost always is at the end of June.
It is way early to tell if its permanent or not. In about 6 weeks if the numbers are the same or better you have something to blog about.
Gore and Kerry both had that bounce and both lost the election. Wait and see if these numbers settle back down. I kind of doubt that an evenly split country took that type of bounce and will remain so, but it could happen I guess.
I understand you are all Obama supporters, but you should at least show some pretense of neutrality in the way numbers are spun.
One more day like this and the Obama landslide odds will pass up the odds of McCain winning.
Glad you gave positive mention to PPP. It was possible to interpolate from their SC poll most subsequent primary results. I would not say they were biased toward Obama. Just more accurate.
Nate,
The cross-tabs on the PPP poll were bizarre. Obama was only +1 with the 18-29 segment, which strikes me as very strange. Not sure what to make of it, but the poll seems too good to be true. Also, by definition the ABC story *is* cherry picking results--specifically, the result of ABC's one poll.
Higgly,
The site doesn't posit that the bounce is permanent. If Obama's polls fall in the next few weeks, states that have been adjusted up in projection will be adjusted back down. Just because we like Obama doesn't mean the numbers are being spun to his benefit (if they are, please provide a factual or methodological objection that we can look at).
That SUSA MN poll is crazy. BHO is losing the Twin Cities area but winning the rest of the state. He is tied with McCain among young voters (18-35) but winning seniors by 11 pts. I guess you print the results you get, but one would think this would be so contra other results that the pollsters would figure something was wrong.
I am fascinated (or still fascinated, since I've noticed this before) by the fact that in 10000 trials you get *zero* repeats of the 2004 or 2000 electoral maps. It isn't obvious to me at all why some reasonable fraction of the narrow McCain wins don't replicate the past.
I know people talk about this year changing the map, but especially for a McCain win, I wouldn't expect the map to be that terribly different from recent history. It's not like DC and Oklahoma switched voting patterns or anything. Is there any way of characterizing why this is so rare? Is Iowa just so blue now that Obama only loses it if he also loses several other Kerry states, or something like that?
So glad you weighed in on that Jake Tapper idiocy. I was actually going to post a comment asking you to debunk that nonsense. So, well done. Thanks.
I can't wait to see tomorrow's update once the Kentucky number is mixed in. The overall affect on the similar-to states of Obama closing Kentucky like that, just the way he did in Arkansas and W. Virginia, is putting states like PA, OH, NC, and VA much more in grasp... If he's closing on those hostile areas, then the hostile pockets of the swing states will definitely close
I love how Nate conveniently leaves out the fact that this PPP Ohio poll sampled Democrats at a nearly 2:1 clip versus Republicans.
Why do you love it? He takes all polls "as it," so there's no selection bias, and if PPP is wrong there will no doubt be another poll in a few days that will provide a corrective.
Oliver, I'd venture a guess that the reason "identical to 2000 or 2004" are so rare is that Obama is so highly favored in Iowa compared to, say, Michigan. To match 2000 or 2004 he'd have to win MI but lose IA, as well as all the other states lining up perfectly.
That Minnesota poll is completely out of whack. Either they got something wrong, or that is the strangest aberration I've ever seen. Youth going to McCain, seniors to Obama... urban to McCain, rural to Obama. Not a chance in hell. Rural Minnesota is strong GOP country and urban is at least 65-35 DFL.
Greg, the PPP poll sampled a random group of Ohio residents. If these residents identify with the Dems on a 2:1 ratio to the Republicans, the poll then would predict that overall turnout on election day will favor Dems by a large margin. You can't assume it would be a 50/50 split on election day and say anything other than that in the poll indicates inaccurate results.
I agree with you Stuart, but part of me still wants to say that the combination of ~40% chance Obama wins Kerry states and ~9% chance McCain wins Bush states equals ~3% chance for an identical map.
It would be very cool if we could see what some of the most often hit electoral maps from the 10k simulation look like.
I would suggest one alternative explanation for the strange MN crosstabs: perhaps young Obama voters are more likely to use their cell phones exclusively than are young McCain voters?
I looked at that PPP poll and noticed right away it was a telephone poll -- notoriously unreliable. OH is not that much of a runaway for Obama, not by a long shot.
The MN poll today had bizzare cross tabs suggesting Obama actually picking up strenth as the demographics skewed older.
This is a strange year and I suspect there will be many more surprises to come. Obama will need a 5% lead with minimal undecideds and low margin of error to feel comfortable about taking a state.
higgly, what exactly leads you to believe that the country is "evenly split" when Democrats have a large advantage over Republicans in party ID, the fundamentals are horrendous for the incumbent party, and most polling data is indicating exactly what you'd expect, that the candidate whose party has the edge and isn't incumbent is winning? Perhaps the country is truly "evenly split," but I'd be interested in seeing some evidence to refute the developing picture that it actually favors Obama.
Both the PPP Ohio poll and the SUSA MN poll are too crazy to be taken seriously. The crosstabs of the MN poll are ridiculous as everyone has pointed out. Plus it goes against every other recent poll of MN with Obama up big.
The Ohio poll has a party gap of 25%. In Ohio. That's bigger than the gap in California! If that's true then why bother polling the state anymore? It's surely not a swing state. But even with the 25% gap, Obama was only up 11 points... not that good.
The Obama bounce is disappointing. The consensus among the pundits I heard said he would be up 8-10 points after clinching, not 4.
"I looked at that PPP poll and noticed right away it was a telephone poll -- notoriously unreliable."
Huh? Aren't most polls telephone polls? In fact, aren't the most unreliable polls usually the internet ones?
Is there another kind of poll that I'm not aware of? Perhaps an in-person one, but I've never heard of one being done at a state level before. Certainly, all of the major pollsters (Rasmussen, Gallup, SurveyUSA, etc) use telephone polls.
I don't trust one single poll alone; however, PPP poll results are similar to the latest SurveyUsa poll in Ohio, from a month ago, that showed Obama 48% vs. McCain 39% with 13% undecided. Now comes PPP with Obama at 50% and McCain at 39% with 11% undecided. So, there is some sort of consistency. Remember that SurveyUsa has been one of the most reliable pollsters in this primary season.
Nonetheless, SurveyUsa's poll in Minnesota makes wonder whether they "lower" the standard. The crosstabs are a total aberration of what every single national and state poll shows. Obama and McCain tied among people under 30? Obama winning by double digits people over 65? Obama losing urban areas and winning rural areas? Something is very wrong about this Minnesota poll.
The PPP results may be skewed because they use a likely voter model. Similarly, the SurveyUSA polls are reweighted to reflect regional demographic data.
Nate, have you looked into using the demographic data from the crosstabs, rather than the demographic data from the state, in your analysis? I can see the benefits and drawbacks of doing both, but I'm curious as to whether one is clearly better than the other.
Ever since Survey USA began doing their VP matchup polls, their results have been bizarre in both directions. The crosstabs for MN make no sense as others have pointed out.
Moreover, how could Obama be up 4 points nationwide but only 1 point ahead in MN?
As for PPP, see my next comment.
The question is, with how intensive the primary was, and how screwed up the country is: WHY ISN'T OBAMA AHEAD BY MORE?!
the PPP poll of OH is just plain absurd.
1. How could Obama be up 4 points nationwide but ahead by 11 points in OH? Impossible.
2. The summary from PPP says: "PPP surveyed 733 likely voters on May 17th and 18th." Say what?
3. RCP lists PPP as a Democratic party-affiliated polling outfit so there is some pro-Dem bias built in.
4. In the primaries, PPP was pretty bad. Even though it is based in Raleigh, PPP was waaaaaay off in predicting the outcome in its home state of NC.
5. The PPP summary says Obama leads by 4 among Ohio whites and has a 75-21 point lead among blacks. That's absurd. In any state where Obama leads among whites, Obama would have 94% of the black vote.
How do some of these pollsters keep getting work? They are guilty of pollster malpractice.
Would the MN results make sense if we simply swap the names of the candidates? I have seen stupider errors made.
Mike H in Cali, I gree both these polls seem suspect, I do not understand your "How could Obama be up 4 points nationwide but ahead by 11 points in OH? Impossible" or "Moreover, how could Obama be up 4 points nationwide but only 1 point ahead in MN?". I am sure I am just missing something. Are you saying he should be ahead by 4 everywhere? Is it also impossible for him to be up by 17 in Washington as SUSA has him. I think I must be missing something about your point. Could you please explain? Thanks...
I don't buy the 55-30-15 partisan ID in Ohio (D-R-I). If we re-weight to an imho more realistic distribution of 46-36-18, Obama's up by 2. Which feels about right.
The MN poll is screwy too. I guess they offset to some extent.
Hey, look: green swing state analysis. I'm guessing this is so people don't think "Obama's Tipping Point States" and "McCain's Must-Win States?"
Tulle-
I think Mike's point is that if Obama were up by 11 in a state that's as close as Ohio usually is, we would expect a much larger national lead than 4. Likewise, if he were only up by 1 in the relatively blue MN, we wouldn't expect such consistent 4 point leads in nationwide polls.
Tulle, I think Mike H believes OH should tend to be about where the country is nationally, and that MN should trend more Democratic than the rest of the country.
Jinx.
Tulle,
Danny and Anonymous correctly described my point. If Obama were up by 4 nationally, he'd be up by more than that in heavily blue MN (which has gone Dem every election since 1976).
Ohio is a close, Republican-leaning state that is usually not too far from the national average. So if Obama truly leads by 4 nationally, he could not be up by a staggering 11 points in OH, which is more than Kerry won California by in 2004.
Looking at the methodology for determining pollster accuracy, I was wondering if there is enough data to determine not just the pollster-induced error for each pollster, but the PIE for each pollster with respect to individual states, instead of in aggregate.
The theory at least would be that pollsters' methods can work much better in certain states or regions - thus giving cause to weight some pollsters highly for their polls in some states but not others. For example, the PPP poll that is being questioned above of Ohio is a state which PPP nailed in the primary. Should PPP be given more weight in Ohio, even over 'better' pollsters?
I don't know if such a distinction would be valuable or not - aggregate PIE might be more representative of a pollsters accuracy than individual state PIE regardless, especially if there's less data - but I think it's possible that some pollsters with just 'get' certain states with respect to weighting in a way they don't others.
Thanks all I get it now
Greg: "I love how Nate conveniently leaves out the fact that this PPP Ohio poll sampled Democrats at a nearly 2:1 clip versus Republicans."
That's a possibly correct, albeit debatable, weighting on PPP's part.
Keep in mind that polling shows party identification registering in the low 50's for Dems and high 20's for the GOP.
Which is, in fact, a nearly 2:1 ratio.
PPP is not to fault if that accurately reflects current party identification. You might have to blame the Republicans for that.
.
Mike H in Cali: "Ohio is a close, Republican-leaning state..."
Not sure that's a good description for Ohio. Taking a look at it's congressional delegations and governorship, one would be inclined to describe it as 'Democratic-leaning' currently.
That said, Ohio has voted for the winning candidate in the last 11 presidential elections. That is pretty much the definition of a swing state, i.e., one that always picks the winner or always picks the loser, regardless of party.
The only way in which Ohio could be described as Republican-leaning is that it matched the country's record of selecting mostly Republican presidents over the past 11 years.
So Ohio, like MO, is a swing state. Or a barely leaning-dem swing state, just as MO would be a barely leaning-R swing state.
.
Mike H,
According to Survey USA's report card for the North Carolina primary PPP was the most accurate by a majority of their measures for determining accuracy:
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nc-pollster-report-card-potus-050608.JPG
I made a typo on the dates the Ohio poll was conducted- it was actually June 14th and 15th.
Thanks for your comments,
Tom Jensen
PPP
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but since there isn't an "open thread", it seems this is as good a place as any: I'm impressed by how well the 538 Regression Model is anticipating changes in the polling recently in most states. However, one pair of states that seems strange to me is Nevada and New Mexico. By most accounts, New Mexico is a toss-up, or even a lean Democratic state this year. On the other hand, Nevada, while certainly competitive, would seem to lean Republican. New Mexico has a much larger Hispanic population, and Democratic candidates have done better there recently, so what is it exactly in the regression model that leads to a relatively solid 8 point Obama victory prediction for Nevada but a squeaker in New Mexico? If anybody has any insight into what I'm missing, feel free to chime in. Thanks and keep up the great work.
Help me out here.
I'm looking at the FL Poll Details. Every poll from 3/28 to 5/17 has McCain ahead. The 538 regression has Obama +0.3. Admittedly tiny and meaningless, but how can this happen when Obama is leading in not one single poll? Is there evidence that there has been a move toward Obama from inferences based on demographics?
I don't get it.
To Gustavo:
I don't know anything about the internals of the model for Florida or whether they have changed recently, but...
One explanation for why Obama's poll numbers in Florida diverge from his predicted outcome based on demographics could be that he didn't campaign at all inside the state until a couple weeks ago (whereas McCain campaigned heavily in the leadup to their January 29 primary, and Obama has campaigned in almost every other state in the union). If one believes that the 538 regression represents the full potential of both campaigns representing themselves on equal footing, then it would seem that Obama needs to redouble his efforts in Florida in order to "catch up" on lost campaigning.
Note the similar ~5 pt. deficit between the polls and the regression prediction in Michigan, where he also did not campaign in the primary.
Then again, I could be totally wrong. :)
VitoF,
Those "low" numbers for Obama in NM may (this is pure speculation) be due in part to the fact that
New Mexico's Hispanic population is atypical vs. other parts of the US. It is older and less dominated by recent immigrants, and is culturally very conservative while remaining very pro-Democratic party for traditional patronage and machine politics reasons as much as for policy reasons.
Also, the local economy is dominated by US Govt. spending (especially Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Energy), which tends to create a sympathy for the military which might help McCain. I know quite a few voters in the state who are concerned about what is going to happen with Federal spending in NM now that St. Pete our patron saint of pork-barrel spending is retiring from the Senate. DOE laboratory and Air Force base closings in particular are the third rail of NM politics. Hopefully Tom Udall is giving Obama good advice on this score.
NM should be leaning for Obama, but could turn on how well he gives a speech about overcoming the partisan divide between Red and Green (i.e. which type of chile does he prefer?).
The diplomatic answer is "both", but the better answer is "whatever you've got that's hottest" - just don't cry when you eat it. We don't need another Muskie 1972 moment.
Here and elsewhere I am seeing discussions about the "Obama Bounce." Perhaps I have missed something. "bounce is a term that has been applied post-convention. It makes little sense as a phenomenon "post-mathematical clinching."
Indeed, a web search suggests to me that no one applied the bounce concept to McCain (who actually FELL vis a vis Obama after clinching the nomination).
Is this just partisan gamesplaying?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
Post a Comment