...it turns out that the 2004 election was a "statistical dead heat". With just over four months remaining until voters weigh in at the polls, the new survey out Tuesday indicates Obama holds a narrow 5-point advantage among registered voters nationwide over the Arizona senator, 50 percent to 45 percent. That represents little change from a similar poll one month ago, when the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee held a 46-43 percent edge over McCain. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes Tuesday's survey confirms what a string of national polls released this month have shown: Obama holds a slight advantage over McCain, though not a big enough one to constitute a statistical lead. "Every standard telephone poll taken in June has shown Obama ahead of McCain, with nearly all of them showing Obama's margin somewhere between three and six points," Holland said. "In most of them, that margin is not enough to give him a lead in a statistical sense, but it appears that June has been a good month for Obama."
From the National Council On Public Polls:Certainly, if the gap between the two candidates is less than the sampling error margin, you should not say that one candidate is ahead of the other. You can say the race is "close," the race is "roughly even," or there is "little difference between the candidates." But it should not be called a "dead heat" unless the candidates are tied with the same percentages. And it certainly is not a “statistical tie” unless both candidates have the same exact percentages.
From CNN:
And just as certainly, when the gap between the two candidates is equal to or more than twice the error margin – 6 percentage points in our example – and if there are only two candidates and no undecided voters, you can say with confidence that the poll says Candidate A is clearly leading Candidate B.
When the gap between the two candidates is more than the error margin but less than twice the error margin, you should say that Candidate A "is ahead," "has an advantage" or "holds an edge." The story should mention that there is a small possibility that Candidate B is ahead of Candidate A. (CNN) — With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.
p.s. Yes, I was being being slightly facetious with the headline.
The poll, conducted June 26-29, surveyed 906 registered voters and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
99 comments
Yea I noticed that earlier. It said dead heat but Obama has a pretty clear lead in their poll. Something tells me that this election is going to be a blow out with the press trying to spin it so that it's close all the way to election day.
All the recent polls carry the headline "dead-heat" with the candidates being in a statistical tie ; however, none of the articles mention that in all of those
"ties" Obama is in the lead.
Are you just noticing this now? The news agencies have always done this, even with polls during the primaries.
CNN always plays fast and loose with adjectives. Back when Hillary was still in the race, it said Obama's 6 point lead over McCain in some poll was "narrowly ahead", while Hillary's 7 point lead was "a wide margin".
Clearly, somewhere between 6 and 7 everything changes.
CNN, where "fair," "unbiased," "equal coverage," means everything MUST be 50-50 regardless of reality!
What I'm hoping for is to watch John King with his magic fingers saying "Well, Anderson, what we have here, is a route. Americans clearly want Change, and Barack Obama convinced them that he was the one to deliver it."
And then the pundits: "Yes, John. But it was so close just yesterday? What went wrong with the polls? Let's go to Bill Schneider to find out."
Bill: "Well, Anderson - as it turns out, the numbers were close, but they've consistently favored Obama! We've been calling it close because of the margin of error, but if you look all the way back to June, Obama's been leading by about 5 points or more for the entire election season!"
It will be fun to watch them relay this news as if it were news. We all, however, will happily send Nate boxes of chocolate, etc....
Soooo, maybe we need some new language for CNN and its ilk.
"Based on the 3 to 4 point lead that Obama consistently shows in the polls, we are unable to say that there is an underdog in the election fight. And there's also no overdog. Intead, it's dog eat dog."
The real dogs in this race are the mainstream media. And each one is trying to eat the other one's Milkbone.
Thanks for the guidance. Media outlets are more willing to call the race a dead heat because the suspense of an even match keeps up interest. You should compare the electoral projections of news sites with electoral projections of non-news sites. The last time I saw a comparison, there was a pretty incredible difference.
So, in the last month 7% of voters moved from undecided to decided in a 2:1 ratio for Obama, moving his lead outside the margin of error.
There's a dead heat for the press.
While you're at it, you could take a shot at CNN's ridiculous categorization of New Mexico as supposedly leaning towards McCain. They fail to justify this by telling us what the hell their reasoning is.
BTW, the headline on cnn.com/politics currently says "CNN Poll: Obama, McCain in statistical dead heat"
Weren't there people arguing in yesterday's thread on 'credible' poll sources that polls for the media may be considered unbiased? Well, maybe the polls itself are unbiased, but the media does surely have an interest in getting out certain poll results, namely such that show the race to be close.
Nate:
Hardly on topic, but I wanted to know how often the Senate Permathread and the Senate Poll Detail are going to be updated.
Yea, that ridiculous right-wing media...
The idea is to update the Senate polling once a week, usually on Sundays or Mondays.
To paraphrase the National Council on Public Polls: "Statistical dead heat" is, for all intents and purposes, a bulls**t term.
Aside from the media's "fuzzy math" on things like margin of error, they don't understand that a preponderance of polls all pointing in the same direction suggest that the race is moving in that direction.
It's much easier to take one poll and call it a trend and this appeals to the 24/7 media's fundamental laziness.
This reminds me of the 2006 Senate race in Rhode Island. Almost every recent poll showed Whitehouse leading Chafee by about five to seven points. But very close to Election Day, a poll came out showing Chafee down (or up, I can't recall) by a point.
Sure enough, all of the "experts" in the media jumped on the poll as a sign that Chafee was "closing the gap." He wasn't; the poll was an outlier and he lost by - say it with me, kids - seven points.
""They fail to justify this by telling us what the hell their reasoning is.""
CNN has Iowa as a tossup too.
Let's not entertain CNN though...they can't even get their ticker headlines grammatically correct.
CNN claims its estimate "is based on several factors, including polling, voting trends and ad spending."
I wonder what they mean by voting trends. I can only guess that, if you drew a trendline from, say, 1992 to 2004, you could make the argument that New Mexico is trending Republican.
Or maybe they're just assuming that New Mexico is Arizona Jr. and will vote like its papa.
well, when you step outside Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert, it is an odd world. Of course the above are partisan (and amusing) but the CNN/ABC crowd is on crack. it is indeed an odd world where Obama's consistent 5-15 point lead for the past months is spun as a dead heat, just as the press touted Clinton's viability for two months after she was couldn't win by the numbers.
It is mainly, I think, a horse race thing. Since how boring is it to find different say McCain is consistently 5-15 points down in the polls and cannot crack 45%?
A lot can happen between now and November, but anyone who follows the polls knows if the election were held today, it would be President Obama, probably with a Margin between Bush 88 and Cinton 96.
Any halfway objective person on this board, whatever his/her ideology, knows this.
This has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. People have a horrible misunderstanding of the idea of margin of error. When you say the margin of error is +-3%, all you are saying is that the polling results show that the numbers would be within 3% of those in the sample 95% of the time.
Now, if you have a polling result that shows Obama beating McCain by a small percentage that is within the MOE, all that means is that the confidence in that lead is less than 95%. It does NOT mean that the race is "statistically tied." Even a 1% lead in