Just a quick note to let you know that the site has been updated to reflect today's national tracking polls. There's nothing at all on the state side today.
Obama lost another point in both Rasmussen (bringing the race to a true dead heat) and Gallup (where he retains a 3-point advantage). It's still not yet enough to convince our model that anything serious is going on. Part of what's going on here, by the way, is that we've really had very light polling volume over the past week or so -- the whole notion that Obama's numbers are tanking is really just based on two surveys (Newsweek and the Rasmussen tracker). We should know more soon enough.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Today's Polls, 7/13
-- Nate Silver at 1:21 PM
Labels: national polls, today's polls
175 comments
If McCain is within 5 points the day before the election, he will win on vote day because many independents and even some Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience once they get inside that voting booth.
Rasmussen is cautioning that this could be statistical noise, presumably from a low number in the tracking poll that might be the one in twenty polls expected to be outside of the margin of error.
Gallup is emphasizing the fundamental stability of the race: "Today marks the 14th straight Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which 46% to 48% of voters favor Obama, and between 42% and 44% favor McCain."
But we will see how things develop.
Anon. You may be on to something about the race. I don't think people are quite honest if they are being polled and asked if race will effect their vote. It's something they may not want to admit, but the age for McCain is something they would not mind saying.
If the polls remain where they are now thru election day, boy o boy Obama and McCain got to keep their campaigns in tip-top shape. Obama can't afford another video, while McCain can't afford another Gramm comment.
What an election it is! But if McCain does win, Race could have been a reason why, especially for the senior citizens of this country that grew up in a racial society.
That is a sad commentary on this country but I think that you are correct. Having lived in Central Pennsylvania for the past 20 years I think that the prejudice is alive and well. It makes this a very sad part of the country in which to live but is true none the less. This means that those of us that think that Obama is the best hope for this country need to get out there to raise funds and promote him to every one we see. Obama 2008
Anonymous-- I've never seen too much of evidence to think something of a "Bradley effect" will happen here. It did not seem to happen consistently in the primaries. I can easily think there are many people in this country who "won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience" (and we could more precisely call these people what they are-- very racist), but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be honest about that decision to pollsters earlier in the process. Most polling is automated and anonymous, and the question of could you vote for a black man is no longer hypothetical the more Obama outperforms McCain. I won't be surprised by a drop in Obama's polls for various reasons, but I don't see an argument for a 5 point drop on election day just because.
I believe the Bradley effect is good for at least 3 points in the final regular polls and even in the election-day exit polls. Barack must appear to be ahead by at least 3 points to actually carry the national popular vote.
It'll be interesting to see in which states the Bradley effect is strongest. My guess would be in CA, MA, and NY (among the non-competitive states) and, among the swing states, I'd guess VA, FL, NC, GA, PA, OH, MO, CO, and MI.
P.S. And I think it could go the other way. Now granted I don't hang out with many closet racist people, but one of my good Republican friend is totally against all Obama policies but very on the fence from a purely "Wouldn't it be cool for that to happen" making-history perspective. If she or others like her were mixed on other issues, that could sway things last minute the same way a revelation of internal racism might. I guess you can call both positions "racism" to some extent.
>>even some Democrats just won't be able to vote for a black man in good conscience...<<
In good conscience ?
Congrats - you win today's award for unintentional irony courtesy of a bigot.
I understand why there was a lack of state polls around the Fourth of July. But now it is July 14 and there have been virtually no state polls in the last 4 days. What is going on? Are the pollsters on a month-long holiday?
Let's finally see OH, PA, CO, and VA again for Pete's sake.
The true nature of this election is now coming into focus after the bloom of beating Hillary has faded for Obama.
Voters like Obama but can't get past his total lack of experience and this is his major problem. If he had just one full Senate term or if he had one major accomplishment in his life (community organizer doesn't cut it) he would win in a walk. Obama, in truth, has no executive experience or experience of any kind other than running for the Democratic nomination.
This will be 2000/2004 all over again. Just get used to it.
There is no evidence of a Bradley effect. There was no evidence of a Bradley effect in the primaries. Chuck Todd, NBC's numbers guru, says he has seen no evidence of Bradley Effect throughout the primary. Polling in the primary campaign was often wrong, but it was wrong to Barack's advantage as much as it was wrong to his disadvantage.
The only person pushing a Bradley effect is Chris Matthews. His mom must of told him she was sneaking one by the pollsters.
Theres been a lot of talk of Bradley Effect which is to be expected. The polling in the primary was often way off and Obama is Black. Thats the only evidence. But often the polling was off for Hillary and there was no "Jennifer effect."
Is there racism, sure. No doubt. There are parts of the country where we know it exists, the rust belt being the most troubling electorally for Obama. But that doesen't mean racists are duping pollsters. We have no evidence of that.
Again I am not saying there is no Bradley effect, I am saying we have no proof. And having a "Feeling" doesn't qualify.
Just to throw my two cents in - My dad is in his seventies and harbors some racist tendencies (though he wouldn't admit to it). He definitely says things sometimes that make me uncomfortable - not good dinner conversation. He is originally from Virginia, where he lived until he was in his late twenties. He then moved to the midwest (Michigan and now, a Republican-leaning Chicago suburb). He considers himself more of a conservative independent, but he voted for Clinton and Kerry, and plans to definitely vote for Obama because he can't stand the direction that Republicans have been taking the country the past decade or so (very opposed to the Iraq war). Obviously this isn't something that can be extrapolated nationwide, but I'm willing to bet that there are indeed some 'racist'-esque individuals who will punch for Obama in the election, if only because they are opposed to some key Republican policies.
The reason why Obama won't win is because he is very, very, liberal. He views government as the save-all to everything. And those who work the hardest would get taxed the most. People don't like that sort of thing. Think McGovern or Mondale.
Here is when the state results are much more important.
Let's say that because of Obama's "move to the middle", he's cost himself 2% vote from liberals, but gained 1% from independents, for that net 1% downtrend.
Nate, can you do a "what-if" with your data and take away 2% of Obama's vote from the 10 most liberal states and give him 1% more in the next 10 states on that scale..I'm sure he improves his chances in the election.
You don't get bonus points for winning NY, CA and MA by ridiculous margins. Give up some cushion there and add half their loss to OH, PA and VA and it's a plus.
Too many 'explanations,' too few elections.
But what's missing here is a systematic comparison of what a macroeconomic model would predict vs. one based more on idiosyncratic factors such as candidates, campaign strategy, and issue framing.
Here's a useful summary of the different approaches, especially if you click on the links.
Sides' Monkey Cage
Ok, here it comes....if Obama is losing it is because we are a racist society.....its not because he has mostly far left ideas....its not because he can't be trusted (evidenced by convenient shifting positions)....it can't be because most Americans are more comfortable with the values and policies of McCain.
+And those who work the hardest would get taxed the most.+
There is some but not a lot of correlation between those who work the hardest and those who earn the most. When you talk to very successful executives they'll often talk about the hard work they put in, but also about the impossible-to-predict lucky breaks that were critical to their success paths. When you talk to the lower middle class folks struggling to get by, you'll be shocked by how hard they work, often two or three jobs to make it all work.
Is Obama a liberal? The liberals themselves are ready to strip him of the label after looking at his recent positions
What executive experience does John McCain have?
Barack Obama has legislative experience in the US Senate and the Illinois Senate. He also worked in community organizing and as a college teacher.
Barack Obama has run an excellent campaign. John McCain has not.
Now, as to hidden racists, some of which can defend this feeling by the inexperience attack: this may be present but some of these folks will simply not vote and many were voting Republican anyway. The young voters may see this as a non-issue. It is superficial, but the president in the TV show 24 was African-American and there have been others. Turn out is everything. Nat: please study turn out primary vs general election, party registrations, etc.
Oh no! More anons I agree with and anons I don't. How to address them? They're all jumbled up. How about using a