Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Today's Polls, 7/1

Tom Schaller argues in the New York Times that Barack Obama should abandon the South, or at least the South outside of Florida and Virginia. I don't agree with the entirety of Schaller's reasoning. In particular, while I see the same inverse correlation that Schaller does -- the greater the number of black voters in a Southern state, the fewer white voters tend to vote for the Democrat -- I don't necessarily see a causation. Our regression model seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the Southern vote without any reference to some sort of racial interaction effects, by focusing instead on things like the number of white evangelicals in the state and income levels.

Nevertheless, I do tend to agree with Schaller's conclusion: the South (again excluding Florida and Virginia) is fairly likely to disappoint the Democrats again. We have a number of polls today to back that up.



Let's focus first on the results in Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina. Obama did get a bounce from Strategic Vision's last poll of Georgia, where he had previously trailed by 14 points. But he remains 8 points behind, and while Bob Barr is pulling 3 percent of the vote away from McCain in Georgia, it doesn't appear to me that Barr will have the resources to improve that number significantly. In North Carolina, Obama has been stuck at 3-5 points behind John McCain for quite a long time; the PPP poll today confirms that conclusion. And in Louisiana, Southern Media & Opinion Research has Obama 16 points behind, just as it did in April.

It seems to me that Obama's numbers in states like North Carolina and Georgia are liable to come in within a relatively narrow range. He'll do better than a Democrat like John Kerry did there, with substantial support from blacks (although Schaller is right that African-American turnout has not been particularly low), students, information-sector workers, and new migrants to the region -- as PPP notes, Obama is leading by 6 points among people who have moved to North Carolina from outside the state, but trails by 13 among people who were born and raised there. But where Obama is disliked in the South, he tends to be disliked a lot; his "very unfavorables" tend to be pretty high in the region. There just aren't that many swing voters in the South, and the Democrats are left watching the paint dry and the demographics gradually become more favorable to them in states like North Carolina and Georgia. North Carolina could be 2012's Virginia, and Georgia could be 2016's, but it's probably too soon for a non-Southern Democrat to be winning states in the interior of the region.

Florida, however, remains its own demographic entity, and there an Obama win is more plausible. PPP has him leading by 2 there -- a big move upward from their only previous poll of the state, which had Obama 11 points behind in March -- although Strategic Vision has him trailing by 6. The fact is that Florida remains something like Obama's Plan C or Plan D for winning the election, but any state with 27 electoral votes and where the polling appears to be this volatile will need to be closely monitored.

And once we move entirely outside of the South, Obama appears to be doing quite well. SurveyUSA now has him 20 points ahead in New York -- up from 10 points before -- and he's holding onto a 5-point advantage in both major national tracking polls. From everything we can tell, Obama's post-primary bounce has plateaued, but not peaked, though it does appear to be concentrated in particular regions, some of which (like the Rust Belt states of Ohio and Michigan) have been quite helpful to Obama, and others of which (like New York and California) are fairly superfluous.

Finally, one quick methodological aside: the Strategic Vision polls were "leaked" today by Political Wire with a limited number of details. I have filled in my guesstimates of survey dates and sample sizes based on their typical patterns, but we will correct those tomorrow as needed.

56 comments

Adzam13 said...

Nate,
To what extent do you think that land-line only surveys introduce sampling bias into the data? Do you know if polling firms adjust data for demographic differences in households who are cell only?

Clearly, younger people are more likely to not have land-line telephones:

"Age is another factor in landline abandonment, as 18-24 and 25-29 year-olds were far more likely to go wireless (31 and 34.5 percent, respectively) than adults aged 30-44 (15.5 percent), 45-64 (8 percent), and 65 or older (2.2). Adults living in poverty (27.4 percent) were more likely to live in a household with wireless telephones than those with higher income."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080514-more-americans-snipping-landlines-in-favor-of-cell-phones.html

If, as we seem to be seeing, there is a large demographic disparity between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, do you think land line only surveys are biased towards McCain?

Interested in your thoughts...

Anonymous said...

Please not the cell phone thing again... wasn't talking about it everytime a poll came out in 2004 enough?

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. How did Obama's win % go up?

The net from the 2 FL polls raised McCain's average in FL. The new polls have him up in GA, LA, and NC and down in NY (duh!) which only lowered his NY win % from 3% to 2%. Random noise in the simulations?

Nate said...

Relative to the previous polls from the respective organizations, Obama got a 10-point bounce in NY from SUSA, a 6-point bounce in GA from Strategic Vision, and a 13-point bounce from PPP in Florida. He lost 1 point in PPP's NC poll, and moved neither upward or downward in LA. But, on average, that's a average 5-6 point improvement for him in the state polling (there are no trendlines to look at in Strategic Vision's Florida poll), plus he remains fairly close to his high water mark in the national tracking polls. So it actually was a fairly decent polling day for Obama, the way the trendline model tends to think about these things, but we are learning more about exactly which regions Obama is realizing the post-primary bounce in.

Anonymous said...

The flaw in Schaller's reasoning is that the Presidential race is not the only election this year. Registering voters and boosting turnout, even in deep red states, will have a favorable impact on downticket races for Democrats. For that reason, it's worth doing.

Anonymous said...

In regards to Schaller's piece. One thing that kept going through my mind while I was reading is that if you live in a Southern state that has no chance in hell of electing a Democrat, wouldn't you be more likely not to bother voting? If Obama can make a state at least appear competitive, could there be some interactive effect of bringing more voters out?

DU said...

As long as Obama wins, I'm not going to be "disappointed" by losing the South. It will be Yet More Evidence that a lot of our problems have been caused by the GOP's deliberate embrace of racism.

Alex said...

Competitive races have higher turnouts on both sides, so I don't know how the perception of competition would shake out for this race.

It would be nice if Southern Media & Opinion Research were a Group. Then we could happily refer to them as SMORG.

Anonymous said...

If Obama wins Florida, it will be a landslide. As long as Florida stays close, Obama can force McCain to spend money there allowing Obama to use his resources to gain an edge else where(Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Michigan).

The republicans have out maneuvered Democrats the last two presidential elections, both were certainly winnable. (Hell, Al Gore did win)

The Obama campaign has shown maneuvering and strategy is one of their strong suits, just ask Hillary. If its close, the edge goes to Obama.

Clark Miller said...

The second flaw in Schaller's reasoning is enthusiasm. He suggests that turnout and new registration will be a wash between dems and repubs, but all indications are (at least to date) that dems are much more enthusiastic this year than republicans and so likely to turn out and register in higher proportions.

The third flaw is Party ID shifts. Again, to date, we have had significant national movement in Party ID, from Republican to Democrat. That would need to be measured on a state-by-state basis, of course, but it doesn't seem impossible for Obama to do 7% better among whites in Mississippi, for example, netting 21% of the white vote and making the state competitive.

kubla000 said...

The general net 5% plateau that seems to have been solidified could be set in stone for several reasons:

1) Party ID Preferences
2) National Mood
3) Change vs. McBush (See Gallup)
4) Enthusiasm Gap

I think there are several things which will can cut into that 5% net:

1) Bradley Effect on Election Day
2) GOP Bounces post Convention/Veep
3) Obama mistakes/ Wright flare up
4) Unknown information
5) Terrorist strike

1 and 2 would pull things even, 3-5 could give McCain a 3-5% lead.

At the end of the day, the election could be very close, but more likely as 3-5 are very unlikely possibilities though not impossible, is that the 5% stays put until the Dem Convention which we'll then see the 5% grow to 8-10%, then settle in after Oct 20th back to the 5%.

If Obama wins with 5% of the vote against a war hero, as the first Black President, it'll be considered a Landslide due to the odds..

jsh1120 said...

Nate...

Great comment on NC being the 2012 Virginia and Georgia being the 2016 Virginia. I continue to hold out some hope that North Carolina may shift barely to Obama as a result of high turnout, but it's a stretch.

As far as other states are concerned, as the nation goes, so goes Florida, I think. Though no state adequately mirrors the nation's electoral demographics, Florida comes closest, I think. The GOP "tilt" in the state is similar to Rasmussen's traditional poll tilt.

BTW, this site continues to improve, especially in the quality of the comments.

Anonymous said...

One question I was interested in ever since Nate published his relative electoral history charts was how we could use them to gauge the “new map” claim for Obama. I’m still waiting for Nate to do this properly, but today I had some free time so here are some observations.
First, take the relative electoral result in each given state and compare it to the relative electoral result in the previous elections. NV was relative r0 in 04 after being relative r4 in 00; it thus moved, relatively speaking, by 4 points.
Now we can find the average relative movement from one election to the next. Note: elections can flip from +10D to +10R nationally, but they may still be relatively the same if the swing is the same in all states. Then it is fair to say that the public mood has moved but “the map” remained the same. Thus, average relative moment (ARM) from one election to the next is a measure of the “newmapness” of the elections.
I find, calculating by hand, that 92 to 96 had 5.2 ARM, 96 to 00 had 5.3 ARM and 00 to 04 had 3.7 ARM. This answers to the intuitive sense that 00 to 04 was especially stable, but note also that the gradual erosion of the Perot effect should create some ARM in both 92 to 96 and 00 to 04, as Perot was far from being evenly spread across all states.

Now I compare 04 with Nate’s projection from yesterday. I get 5.8 ARM which is indeed very high (especially as there’s no third party effect), but not unreasonably so. Thus there is some validity to the notion that the elections appear right now to be on the more newmappy side.

But it is interesting to see the fine grain of the new map. The bulk of it is a major relative pro-Obama in Big Sky and Prairie which falls far short of changing the competitiveness of states (ND 16 relative movement, UT 15, etc). There is somewhat significant relative movement against Obama in a couple of Appalachian states (AR 8, TN 7), which once again should go Republican anyway.

And then, the bulk of Obama’s improved electoral standing relative to Kerry stems not from newmapness but from states that are simply carried by the rising tide – states whose swing is almost precisely the 5-6 national predicted DEM swing from Kerry to Obama:
Small relative pro-Obama shifts which end up as either a close Kerry becoming a stronger Obama or as a Bush to Obama potential flip:
NH NC VA IA MN WI CO NV OR

Small relative anti-Obama shifts which however do not outright flip a Kerry state but do make it closer than it should be:
MI OH PA NM

There is precisely one significant “new map” state, with a big relative pro-Obama shift which makes a strong Bush state competitive: Indiana.

In short, it appears that Obama creates a wider pl