Mark Blumenthal has a rundown of the pollsters that are including cellphone numbers in their samples. Apparently, Pew, Gallup, USA Today/Gallup (which I consider a separate survey), CBS/NYT and Time/SRBI have been polling cellphones all year. NBC/WSJ, ABC/Washington Post and the AP/GfK poll have also recently initiated the practice. So too does the Field Poll in California, PPIC, also based in California, and Ann Selzer. There may be some others too but those are the ones that I am aware of. (EDIT: A representative of the PPIC survey in California has kindly written to let me know that, while they use a cellphone supplement for some of their public policy surveys, they have not done so thus far this year for most of their Presidential trial heats (they did do so in July). The remainder of this article has been corrected accordingly.
Let's look at the house effects for these polls -- that is, how much the polls have tended to lean toward one candidate or another. These are fairly straightforward to calculate, via the process described here. Essentially, we take the average result from the poll and compare it to other polls of that state (treating the US as a 'state') after adjusting the result based on the national trendline.
Since ABC, NBC/WSJ and AP/GfK all just recently began using cellphones, we will ignore their data for now. We will also throw out the data from three Internet-based pollsters, Zogby Interactive, Economist/YouGov, and Harris Interactive. This leaves us with a control group of 36 37 pollsters that have conducted at least three general election polls this year, either at the state or national level.Pollster n LeanSix of the seven
========= ====
Selzer 5 D +7.8
CBS/NYT 14 D +3.7
Pew 7 D +3.4
Field Poll 4 D +2.8
Time/SRBI 3 D +2.4
USA Today/Gallup 11 D +0.4
Gallup 184 R +0.6PPIC 4 R +1.3
AVERAGE D +2.8 +2.3
CONTROL GROUP (37 Pollsters) D +0.0 +0.1eight cellphone-friendly pollsters have had a Democratic (Obama) lean, and in several cases it has been substantial. On average, they had a house effect of Obama +2.8 +2.3. By comparison, the control group had essentially zero house effect a house effect of Obama +0.1 (**), so this would imply that including a cellphone sample improves Obama's numbers by 2.8 points. (Or, framed more properly, failing to include cellphones hurts Obama's numbers by approximately 2 2-3 points).
The difference is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Perhaps not coincidentally, Gallup, Pew and ABC/WaPo have each found a cellphone effect of between 1-3 points when they have conducted experiments involving polling with and without a cellphone supplement.
A difference of 2-3 points may not be a big deal in certain survey applications such as market research, but in polling a tight presidential race it makes a big difference. If I re-run today's numbers but add 2.2 points to Obama's margin in each non-cellphone poll, his win percentage shoots up from 71.5 percent to 78.5 percent, and he goes from 303.1 electoral votes to 318.5 (EDIT: I have not changed this part of the analysis in reflection of the new numbers, as it should still get the general point across). The difference would be more pronounced still if Obama hadn't already moved ahead of McCain by a decent margin on our projections.
So this is my plea to pollsters: let's get it right. Perhaps the cellphone effect will prove to be a mirage after all, but that's something for the data to determine on its own, rather than the pollster.
(**) Keen observers will wonder why the average house effect is greater than zero. This is because in determining our house effect coefficients, we weight based on how many polls each pollster has conducted. A couple of pollsters that account for a large proportion of our data, like Rasmussen and ARG, have had slight (very slight, but enough to skew the numbers) GOP leans.
9.20.2008
Estimating the Cellphone Effect: 2.8 2.2 Points
@
8:05 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
550 comments
How exactly do the pollsters obtain mobile phone numbers? Are they able to legally cold-call them (unlike telemarketers) or would the number had to have been disclosed to the pollster in some other context?
Turning Virginia makes all the difference.
Nate, I'm not following some of your math here. If the difference between the cellphone sample and the land-line sample is 2.2%, the difference between cellphones + land lines has to be considerably LESS THAN 2.2%, and will be proportional to the ratio between the cellphones and the land lines. Isn't that right? Did I miss something?
R2K/Kos tracker:
Obama 50
McCain 42
Let the whining begin.
VERY important difference. I have only a cell and I'm an Obamaniac.
We count.
Oh yeah. I know a bunch of people like me who don't want to pay for a landline when cells are exceptionally reliable. There must be more that 2.2%, and I'm probably reading that wrong, that have cells only.
There's a lot of us.
My family have only cells. There are 8 of us and we are all McCain supporters. It can go either way.
Matt, I don't see a pollster rating for the Kos poll. Is it excluded because it's considered internal for Democrats? Any opinion on how much house effect it contains?
I bet the cell thing matters in states with older population that still have landlines. Like Florida. I see that now in your projections.
Nevermind.
Denise:
Do you phone sex?
michael, the kos poll is conducted by Research 2000, which is Nate's 8th highest rated pollster.
They've not been cited by Nate as having a pronounced house effect, but GOPers generally don't like the poll because it is sponsored by Kos.
Nate, I think you should revisit the question of racist Democrats affecting this election, given this article:
Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
It's about an opinion poll plus interviews of respondents, not just some bullshit made-up stuff.
Thanks, Matt. Much as many liberals dislike Rasmussen because of his views, rather than his track record as a pollster.
Nate --
Wouldn't the addition of cell phone numbers also lower the average age of those polled (as cell phone use is more prevalent among younger users)?
If so -- and if older voters are, as widely assumed, the most reliable voters to show up on election day -- couldn't the inclusion of cell phone numbers decrease the accuracy of these polls?
Just a little nervous worry-mongering....
This cell phone effects adds to the students allowed to vote in their campus states effect, as they are unlikely to have a landline on the campus. And very likely to vote for Obama.
Sorry, I messed up my link above. I'll try again:
Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
Denise,
Please ignore the post from Mort.
As I guy, I am ashamed for my fellowmen!
Re your post, please reread Nate's post. He did NOT say that all or even 60% of cell only users were Obama supporters.
All that Nate said was that the difference in marginal support for Obama among cell ONLY users was greater than those who have land lines.
My guess is that you did not read Nate's post carefully, or really think about he said, and just reacted emotionally to it, i.e. I am a McCain supporter and I only use cell phones!
Please consider Nate's post among marginal differences of 2+ odd percentage points, purely from a mathematical angle. Math and stats are what Nate is about, so you should pay very close attention to exactly what Nate is saying and what is NOT saying, math and stat- wise.
So the cell phone only crowd makes up for just about the same amount as the racist democrats.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13658.html
"Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
The poll suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points. "
Amy-
Good point, but the young voters did show up in record numbers during the primary, so there is hope they will show up in the regular.
As for race, the article I posted does not take into account the higher turnout among blacks which will take away some of the racist effect.
Ron Fournier is a republican hack, and the fact is that once someone asks you "What is your opinion of "the blacks", a lot of non-racists would hang up.
Now - how many of those white racist Democrats have cell phones? ;-)
We live in Virginia. My wife and I are both Democrats and strong Obama supporters, and are both cell-phone only, and neither of us has ever been "polled" as far as I know.
and so the race-biting begins.............
ty for ur pointless posts, fred and Michael.
Michael-
The real question is about the Bradley Effect. Are there voters who will say they wil vote for Obama in a poll, but won't when they get into the booth. I think theses racist voters are polling for McCain, so we are seeing the real numbers in the polls...AND OBAMA IS AHEAD and moving farther ahead.
Racism will not decide this election, and that is great for America.
mj-
Fuck you! This is a big story, and one of the first polls to try to take the issue straight on. IS this a polling sitre or a site for MJ to feel good.
Talking about a poll is not race baiting, BTW. I am a HUGE Obama supporter. Have you maxed out in your donations? I have.
peter posted:
the fact is that once someone asks you "What is your opinion of "the blacks", a lot of non-racists would hang up.
Very good point, Peter. I would hang up. As a matter of fact, there was an election a few cycles ago that a Republican barely won for some statewide race in New York (Comptroller?), partly by being a demagogue against homosexuality. I was living with my parents at the time. We got a call from Quinnipiac polling after the election and were asked whether we considered "the gay lifestyle" to be "acceptable." This was exactly the despicable line of attack the Republican had used. My father said the question was offensive, he refused to answer it, and the pollster should move on. He kept trying to get an answer, and we eventually hung up on him.
MJ, I don't think that attempts to estimate the number of racist Democrats, if that's possible, are the least bit irrelevant to the statistical discussions here.
One caveat that occurs to me is that pollsters that include cell phones may also tend to have other methodologies that lead to a house effect for Obama. It's not as if pollsters make each methodological choice randomly. I'd suspect that pollsters who include cell phones might be more likely to use a broader likely voter screen, too, because they're clearly thinking about reaching voters who are usually under-polled.
So we're back to the usual conclusion about house effects. Yes, the surveys with cell phones tend to give better results for Obama, than those without, but we don't know whether they're better reflections of what will happen on election day.
There is a tie between the cell phone story and the racism story. Younger folks in this country are much less racist than oldsters, and the youngsters are much more likely to be cell phone only.
I am actually surprised the race number is so low. Lets hope it doesn't flip MI!
sarahklawrencescott-
The good thing right now is the movement of the polls, whether they have repub or dem house effects, is to Obama. I think there is the real possibility of Obama moving farther ahead with just an average showing in the debates, as some folks just need to see him talk issues to improve their comfort level.
I also am an Obama supporter and voted for him in the primaries, as well. I have not contributed any money to his campaign because I'm not rich and don't know if I want to give money to someone who voted for that odious telecom immunity and spying law. Basically, I think Obama has a chance to be a very good and possibly great president, but I don't trust him to do the right thing, especially in terms of presidential power. It's evident to me that McCain would be much worse, though.
Fred, yes, Obama is ahead in the polls, but is it possible that undecided voters may break disproportionately for McCain? I don't think we know the answer to that question yet. And if some undecided white voters are in some measure racist in their thinking, they are more likely to vote for the white guy than if they are not racist.
Michael -
Interesting article, but not surprising. As an Ohio native living in the South, I predict that it won't affect the vote so much down here. Most of these states were going Republican anyway (the racial issue having been subsumed into "traditional values" thirty-plus years ago as part of the Republican Southern strategy).
I think the effect will be felt more in the Midwestern "tipping states" such as Ohio. Or, as a friend of my brother back in Cleveland said the other day, "I've voted Democrat all my life, but they can't make me vote for no n****r". Racism in the North remains a little closer to the surface. Traditionally Democratic voters will lie to themselves about why they're not voting for Obama, but they won't vote for him.
I'm trying to reconcile this post with two previous ones.
About three or four months ago, I think you reported that if a pollster appropriately demographically (age/race) corrected their polling numbers, that you thought that erased the cellphone effect. Do you no longer think that is true? Are they no longer doing that weighting?
Also, a couple weeks ago, I think you discussed whether there should be any parti weighting in polls and I came away from that posting thinking that you disapproved of doing so-- that it was an artificial structure on top of the polling data since the polling was done randomly. Is that relevant to this discussion?
I agree on the debates. Their importance really can't be overestimated.
Michael & fred,
That article was discussing why the election seems to be fairly close right now. That is, it is explaining why many Democrats aren't supporting Obama (though he is doing much better recently), it DOES NOT suggest that there will be some move of undecided voters away from Obama. If you harbor racist views, you are likely to be voting against Obama already, not sitting on the fence. That is, this information does not at all change our view of the contest, since the racist anti-Obama vote is already showing up in polls.
What would affect our view of the race, as fred suggests, would be the existence of a Bradley or Wilder effect. But all of the available evidence suggests that there hasn't been a discernible Bradley effect since the early 1990s. I think it was eve who posted a link to an academic study which found this to be the case. There are also links at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry for Bradly Effect that argue that it doesn't exist anymore.
The cellphone effect, however, is worthy of study because it deals with voters who have set preferences but who don't show up in polls. The difference in the map that Nate has in this post is striking. Obama's job is to make sure that these cell-phone-only voters, many of whom are younger, actually get out and vote.
Nate,
You do some might fine work.
Thanks!
I think theses racist voters are polling for McCain
Agreed, I don't see that the traditional "Bradley effect" is really a factor. There are plenty of reasons for voters, racist or otherwise, to like McCain, and people who don't like Obama for whatever reason can easily rationalize that support.
If anything, there may be a possibility of a "reverse Bradley effect". I live in Chicago, but do a great deal of business in the Ohio valley, and I am forming the impression that there's a growing number of working-class whites who would never dare to openly admit support for Obama, but will vote for him on Election Day.
michael-
I am a lawyer and Obama took exactly the correct position on the FISA bill. The bill will stop them from ever spying again. Having them sued by a million tort lawyers was unlikely to have any greater effect, and it would have created a great distraction. We need to look into Bush administration abuses, not the telecoms they forced into stuff. LEt's keep our eyes on the ball - Busha nd Cheney. Obama was right on FISA.
I agree, the undecideds broke for Hillary in greater number than normal in the primaries. Lets hope the ground game and the youth turnout makes the undecideds irrelevant.
Sedi:
It's simply not accurate, based on the results of the polling described in that article, that Democrats with some racist attitudes are all voting for McCain:
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.
Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.
What we need to know is how many Democrats and independents with some racist attitudes are undecided, and then someone will have to predict the probability they will break one way or the other or stay home.
Fred posted:
"the undecideds broke for Hillary in greater number than normal in the primaries."
I didn't realize that (or have forgotten). In which states was that true?
As for FISA, the Bush Adminstration officials will all be pardoned, and I can't imagine what effective safeguards you think were put in that bill. We risk getting into a long tangent by discussing this, though. I was just explaining why I'm reluctant to donate any money to Obama.
michael-
Can you imagine the uncertainty on that number? We will have to wait until after the election, and I expect there will be a lot of discussion here around cell phone only, racism, black turnout, and youth turnout after the election.
There is just no way to know any of these things with certainty, until after this thing is over.
Great Blog!!!Have a nice weekend.po szkole
Interesting... I'd love to be able to link it on my facebook...
Fred--actually, I think we're moving past the Obama-comfort-level thing. A month ago, most would have been watching the debates to see how Obama did. Now Obama's managed to position himself as a little boring and aloof, but steady. Unless he sighs or looks at his watch or something, he'll probably do about what people expect.
McCain, on the other hand, has recreated himself. Not just as a maverick, but as a flashy maverick. Nobody really knows what to expect him from anymore in a debate, and people will be watching him to see how it goes. If he seems inspired and confident, the polls will turn again. If he seems like he's flailing or baffled, he's in big trouble.
One indicator in the polls to watch, since this site is focused on polling and demographics: McCain's "very unfavorable" ratings have been rising in most polls, while Obama's stay the same. If that continues, they'll soon cross. That's an indication that the election has become more of a referendum on McCain than on Obama, something I never thought would happen! (For those who wonder, the "very favorable" numbers showed a spike for McCain after the Palin pick and the convention, but have been gradually dropping. They're also still far lower than Obama's corresponding number, so there's no indication they'll cross on that end.)
Michael-
Here is an article on the undecideds breaking Clinton:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/21/undecideds-flock-to-clinton/
I think it continued in PA too.
Denise: My family have only cells. There are 8 of us and we are all McCain supporters.
Denise - what state do you live in?
The number of mobile-phone users in the U.S. surpassed the number of conventional land-based phone lines in the second half of 2004 according to our government. Of course, that doesn't give us the number of cell phone-only users.
Nate gave us the cell-phone only percentages by age in an earlier post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/cellphone-problem-revisited.html
Michael-
The Bushies will not be pardoned after Obama gets elected, and that is when we may see more charges brought. That is all I will say on FISA, to keep the discussion on point.
Stop this nonsense of comparing the impact of racism to the impact of cell phones on accuracy of polling.
There is no reason at all a racist will lie when being polled. He/she will just tell the pollster i'm going to vote for McCain. So any racist factor is already accounted for in the polls. So there is no impact on the polls, no matter how big a factor racism is.
Since some pollster are not polling cell phone only people any bias of this group is not completely reflected in the current polls. Therefore there could be an impact (either way).
Good job to investigate how big the cell phone only impact might be.
Denise-
All cell phone only folks do not support Obama, but the few polls done show cell phone only folks skew Obama by alot more than the general population.
SarahLawrenceScott said...
One caveat that occurs to me is that pollsters that include cell phones may also tend to have other methodologies that lead to a house effect for Obama.
---
Thanks, I was going to write that if nobody had already. Nate needs to at least acknowledge the possibility in his article. Still, as he notes, the figure aligns well with individual experiments.
gerbie-
Read the posts, noone said that. I did say the cell phone only number skews Obama by about the same amount as predicted in that one article.
I did note something about youth being more cell phone only and less racist (as shown in polls), but noone equated them one for one. It was just interesting that the numbers corresponded.
histocrat-
Gallup uses cell phones intheir daily tracker (the only daily tracker that does???) and they skew republican.
Michael,
I agree that not ALL of those who have any racist view are already committed to not voting for Obama. What I meant was this: the strongest and most virulently racist are almost certainly not voting for Obama and have already decided. Others might be on the fence or planning to vote for him, but their racist views are probably far less pronounced.
The nature of the findings also might not hurt Obama so much. Take the lazy number you cite. It is self-evident that Obama is NOT lazy, given the insanely busy and challenging schedule that he has maintained for most of the past 18 months. The 25 percent who said that blacks would be better off if they worked harder is especially telling. Those who hold such views are probably more inclined to vote for Obama, since he could be a role model for what blacks can accomplish if they work hard [note that this is NOT my view]. Indeed, one could argue that many people could think that if Obama gets to be POTUS it goes to show that is blacks can accomplish anything, so it will lead to less affirmative action and blacks blaming racism for their lack of advancement.
I realize that this is a complicated and touchy subject. I think you make a fair point when you say that the undecided might break against Obama if a large enough percentage of them harbor even mild racist views. But I think this is not so likely, for the reasons I just described. The late breakers in the Democratic primary were split, with the very, very late breakers going more to Clinton but the one-week-before deciders going for Obama. A Democratic primary is much different, though, than a general election because both Clinton and Obama represent a very dramatic break from Bush, while McCain does not. If late deciders break against incumbency, McCain is more likely to be hurt than Obama. Reasonable people can differ on this question, though.
Good post Nate,
I wonder how pollsters acquire their cell-phone data. It could be that they are underestimating cell-phone-only voters because that´s another trend progressing with each single day.
Do all cell-phone-only voters vote for Obama? No. I bet there was a fair share of Republican cell-phone-only users, working in the banking/lending/housing/investment sector...you get the picture: the free-market yuppies. I think those people are going to be very disillusioned now and so the difference between landline- and cellphone pollsters will increase.
Isn´t it strange how the more rigid, more traditional pollsters have a republican house-effect? robo/push-pollsters like Rasmussen; old names like Gallup. But the more free-floating pollsters, and I have Selzer in my mind, the ones that don´t project their own perception onto their result (via voter ID), are leaning towards Obama... I think we´re going to see a huge surprise this year. I know we have already said this 4 years ago, but 4 years ago, the internet campaign (Howard Dean) couldn´t live up to the hype. 4 years later things have changed.
If anything, there may be a possibility of a "reverse Bradley effect". I live in Chicago, but do a great deal of business in the Ohio valley, and I am forming the impression that there's a growing number of working-class whites who would never dare to openly admit support for Obama, but will vote for him on Election Day.
That's an interesting observation, and every bit as plausible as the "fear of exposing oneself as racist" effect.
However, I still think undecideds will break for McCain, not because of racism directly, but because of a combination of perceived experience and xenophobia. That is to say, if Obama were a traditional black American, and not one with a "funny name" that happens to make paranoid people think about Islam and Saddam Hussein, his xenophobia blowback would be far less.
I live in Missouri, and we have a land line,and I have a cell. That means, if I were to be contacted by one of the polls on my cell, and they already contacted my house (I've gotten a couple of pollster calls on my landline), then Obama would have 2 votes from the same poll, from this household, instead of one. Done with several other homes, this would, eventually, render the math incorrect. I've not granted permission for the pollsters to contact my cell. I wonder if they are getting the cell phone numbers from the website registration information, you fill out, before gaining a free password, and such?
MAINE-RASMUSSSEN
Obama: 50
McCain: 46
Last month it was Obama up 49-36 here. McCain won't win Maine most likely, but it shows his shots at taking NH from the Dems are really good right now. Pollster has McCain up 2 points there.
What were the dates on the ME poll?
By the way,
the post that hooked me up on this site was this one,
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/black-youth-and-latino-turnout-and.html
Maybe there will come the time, at the day before the election, to factor in all the hidden effects we have talked about, house effect, cell-phone effect, higher turnout, higher enthusiasm, and then combine them into a final prediction. A prediction that, although many of the effects are congruent, will carry Obama to a 375+ EV win.
09/17/2008
Rasmussen Daily Tracking
Obama: 48
McCain: 47
I don't get why ME is moving away from Obama when the rest of the country is moving to him, but maybe we missed a Palin inspired move to McCain up there.
Very unlikely BO loses ME, lets hope he also gets NH. McCain got some significant boos at the NH NASCAR race last week.
Alex S.-
I think Obama is realy ahead in OH, VA, CO, and NM based on these effects. Time will tell, if the election were help today I bet OBama would get 300 EV+.
Maine is a rural outpost with republican senators. New Hampshire is getting "liberalized" by Massachusetts. A small effect, but one that keeps New Hampshire blue.
Fred. You are so wrong about OH. Look at the polls, something like 10 of the last 12 show McCain up here. Northeast Ohio was Hillary Country, and some local liberal politicians are suggesting the unthinkable: McCain could take Northeast Ohio, an area that goes to the dems 60-40% every election.
OH will go red by 4-5 points election day because of Hillary not on the ticket and race. Had she been on the ticket, Obama would win 4-5 points election day.
Now CO-NM are leaning Obama right now I'll give you that, and VA is leaning Red.
I'm moving from trueblue Massachusetts to Maine on November 1st. Maybe I can actually cast a meaningful vote!
I'm guessing I can register in advance even I'm not living there yet, right? Otherwise I'll have to drive three hours back to Boston to vote on election day.
Also, I can attest that Maine and NH are very different. Rural western and northern Maine are a lot like a sub arctic Alaska. Every time I drive from Rangeley to Eustice I see moose!
From the bullshit "racial misgivings" article:
"Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama"
We who look at all the real results of state and national polling know that this is dead wrong, and that Obama is fast approaching the 89% of dems number achieved by Kerry in 2004 - which coincidentally is all he needs to do to win an overwhelming victory on Nov 4. Only in the bright red states where he's trailing by 20 pts or more, does Obama only pull 70% of dems.
Huh?
Look at the 538 numbers on OH. McCains straight polling average is only plus 1.7, and the 538 trend is OH to BO right now.
bede the youthful,
you have to live there 30 days before the election.
And when it comes to Maine, there are a lot of very conservative people outside of Portland who hunt moose. In fact, free-range moose is a big problem on the highways up there.
Has anyone here actually been part of one of these polls? Anyone been called? Did they call your cell or landline?
bryen193-
All signs point Obama right now. Did you hear McCainhammering Obama as a Washington insider yesterday, after he excoriated him for having no Washington experience? I think he confused even his most ardent supporters.
Can't wait for Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin tonight on SNL.
Anybody know what kind of polling Obama would have had on Friday night to pull ahead?
Is Tina Fey doing Palin again?
I agree that the racist vote should already be reflected in the polls. When polled, the racists don't even have to admit race is affecting their vote - they just say they're voting for McCain.
Nate,
Just to clarify, when you count a poll as a "cellphone poll" you mean it's a poll that does both cell and land phones, correct? Or is it a poll that calls only cell phones? Also, do the polls publish what percentage of those polled were using cell or land?
All reports are Tina Fey will do Palin again tonight. NBC had its biggest internet hit ever (by five fold) so she will be back. SNL also had its highest opening night ratings in a decade or so last week.
All signs point to Tina doing Palin ALOT more...
Tina Fey is also getting a name for herself, she is very succcessful, but her name recognition is going way up over this.
50%-42% eh? Well, it will be worth watching to see what the other daily trackers do. That's quite a divergence from Rasmussen, and as much as I disagree with the calls by Reps to discount the Daily Kos association, the further out that poll gets, the harder it is to argue against.
Incidentally, for those who may be interested, I just posted a large set of observations based on an analysis of the internals of the recent CBS/NYT poll. Some interesting stuff buried in there.
Poll Details and Observations: CBS / NY Times Poll of September 17, 2008
"I agree that the racist vote should already be reflected in the polls. When polled, the racists don't even have to admit race is affecting their vote - they just say they're voting for McCain."
Where it *won't* show up is the undecideds. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that Obama is going to lose a vast majority of undecideds who choose whom to vote for in the booth.
"Continue to Spread the Word!!! said...
Rasmussen Daily Tracking"
You are aware that that's showing McCain moving down in a poll he's consistently held a +1 or tie in for a long time? That's not good news for him.
"OH will go red by 4-5 points election day because of Hillary not on the ticket and race. Had she been on the ticket, Obama would win 4-5 points election day.
Now CO-NM are leaning Obama right now I'll give you that, and VA is leaning Red."
And what you don't seem to understand is that Obama doesn't need OH and/or VA, but McCain absolutely does. If VA and/or OH is called for Obama on 11/4, the night's over for McCain, because it's essentially impossible for him to lose those and win MI/MN/WI.
Bede -- you might want to check on how to vote early in Massachusetts.
charles-
I really want to see the Ras Party ID numbers week by week. What will happen when they correct for it Monday? Has Ras just increased his volatility to something approaching ridiculous through this weekly party ID change? Time will tell...
"And what you don't seem to understand is that Obama doesn't need OH and/or VA, but McCain absolutely does. If VA and/or OH is called for Obama on 11/4, the night's over for McCain, because it's essentially impossible for him to lose those and win MI/MN/WI."
That depends on PA and MI. Obama is weak in both states right now, and I'm particularly concerned about a potential NRA ad bombardment in October in these states.
Nobody has answered Reader's question (comment 1 - BTW, can we please have numbered comments like at Crooked Timber?) as to how pollsters get the cellphone numbers. State and city directories, I would have thought. But directories must be less complete for cells than landlines. So the cell-only young population may still be under-represented in the sample, and Obama's support still underpolled. The bias is unlikely to be the other way. But I'd still like to know exactly how they do it.
Rhonda's scenario of double polling is very unlikely. A random sample of 1,000 in Missouri, population 5,8 million, say 4 million adults, should double-count her once in 4,000 tries conditionally and once in 16 million absolutely.
Charles-
BO numbers in PA and MI are both trending back to strong blue, and you know it. If BO holds Kerry states plus IA McCain has to hold all the big ones - FL, OH, VA - and I doubt he can do it.
james-
Pollster must get the cell phone numbers from other sources. Cell phone numbers arenot listed ina nice little directory. IT is expensive and time comsuming.
The probably purchase them from the telephone companies.
Though Research 2000's regular state poll sare fine, the Daily Kos/Researc 2000 tracking poll is biased by at kleast 5 points to Obama because of its disclosed demographics which are highly erroneous.
1. The Dem ID margin over GOP ID margin is +9 in Daily Kos instead of +5-6 for the Hotline, Rasmussen, and (I think Gallup) trackers.
2. Women inexpicably have a 53% to 47% ratio to men in Daily Kos compared to 52% to 48% (or 51% to 49%) in other trackers.
3. BIGGEST KOS ERROR: Although Latinos make up 15% of the population, the Pew Hispanic Center says they only make up 8% of actual voters. Yet the Kos/Research 2000 tracker has Latinos as a whopping 13% of likely voters.
The KOS tracking poll is garbage.
No Tina Fey on SNL tonight, she will be back next week.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/cuprisin/archive/2008/09/20/on-tv-no-tina-fey-this-week.aspx
1. The pollster.com article on cellphones says that including them has either no effect or at most a .5% difference.
The undercounting of younger people with cellphones only is actually offset by thefact that older voters over 65+ are the ones least likely to cooperate with pollsters and take polls once they are reached.
Here's a non-rhetorical question:
The cell phone effect is one of the two reasons I've believed that polls are skewing to the right. I'd love to hear you address the other.
Is it true, as I've sometimes read, that most pollsters define 'likely voters' as people who voted in the last election? That seems more significant a qualification than in any other election I know of, given the demonstrable mobilization of young voters (who actually did come out in the primaries, not just make a lot of noise, yes?), and the number of anecdotal experiences I've had with people saying "I haven't voted in x decades, but I'm voting this year!" due to enthusiasm about Obama.
I'm guessing there's an earlier post here somewhere that I've missed. If so, I'd be grateful to be directed to it. If not, please examine the question. I value your insights tremendously.
Rasmussen was underweighting Republicans after the conventions. Because of this all of the trackers had McCain up 3-5 points and Rasmussen was tied. Rasmussen then changes their model to include the previous 30 days Voter ID. This number was inflated for Republicans due to the bubble from the Palin-effect that has since deflated. They are now over-weighting Republicans. If their poll used the same Party ID methodology that they used 2 weeks ago Obama would be up in there poll similar to the Research 2000. Though, I wouldn't argue that Daily KOS is biased (that'd be a silly argument). I'm not sure Research 2000 is. If nothing else, the polls seem to indicate Obama's up 5 or so. Research 2000 has been closer to the truth than Rasmussen. I'd say Research 2000, subtract 2 points Dem. Rasmussen throw out until further notice.
Yeah, I'm starting to think the DK/R2K poll is suspect as well. I wouldn't say "garbage" but at the very least it is leaning too far in Obama's direction.
I'm also starting to wonder why it shows such harsh negatives towards Palin that aren't showing up in other places.
mrinsight-
New data seems to change that assumption. Pollsters have a very strong incentive to argue for limited cell phone effects, it makes their job much harder of it is true.
Equation:
Obama's net
Cell Phone Users
Ground Game
Extra African-American Vote and
Extra Youth Vote
minus
Dems or Independents that would vote Democrat, but not this Democrat because of race.
=
More or less than zero
Maine is one of two states that allocates its electoral votes as 1 per congressional district plus 2 bonus EVs for the statewide winner.
The 1st district in the South based in Portland is liberal and heavily Democratic.
The 2nd district in the North is filled with moose, snowmobiles, and conservatives so it is Palin country.
With Rasmussen saying Maine is overall up for 4 for Obama, the northern district is available to McCain. He and Palin should campaign there because picking up that one moose country EV would break an otherwise 269-269 tie.
Gaining NH plus ME's moose country EV might well give McCain the election in a squeaker.
It would be madness for McCain to waste a day campaigning in Maine because ONE poll shows him within four points, on the off chance he could shift one electoral vote in the event of a tie.
McCain - if you are reading this, please hire Mr Insight as your new campaign manager.
Eric-
That net is alot more than zero, because most of the racist vote for McCain IS showing up in the polls, and many of the pro-Obama effects ae NOT showing up in the polls.
However, I still think undecideds will break for McCain, not because of racism directly, but because of a combination of perceived experience and xenophobia.
You may be right, but depending on how the next few weeks play out (if the past days are at all predictive), undecideds may break for Obama because McCain (and Palin, god help us) seem like the riskier choice.
All week long, Obama's come across as so cool, so calm, so "presidential," while McCain's changing his tune each day.
I think McCain/Palin has a lower ceiling than Obama/Biden; the issue of cell phones raises O/B's ceiling, even if only by a fraction of a percent - that fraction could very well affect the outcome!
So it's very possible:
Obama takes CO-NM-IA-Kerry States minus NH.
McCain takes NH and District 2 of Maine and he = 270?
Boy would that hurt Obama to lose that way!
The Research 2000 tracker hasn´t been around for too long. It could be as sensitive to bounces as the Gallup tracker is. And remember that Gallup said that Thursday´s numbers were among the most Obama-friendly numbers ever. I wouldn´t be surprised if we saw a +6 or +7 in Gallup today.
Is that lead real? No, if the McCain campaign doesn´t collapse, it isnt. It just shows the trackers´ sensibility to bounces. But I think a +5 Obama is realistic.
I agree with the post on Maine, though they may need some internal polling to verify that one poll.
That 43-42 O Michigan poll is actually 45-42 O when including the VPs names.
If Obama picks up the red states of IA, NM, and CO but McCain picks up blue NH and the moose country EV in Maine's northern district, McCain wins with 270 EVs to 268 EVs for Obama.
McCain should definitely send the Palin family into northern Maine next time they stop in NH.
Alex-
Is this finally the brekout folks have been waiting for? Some CNN expert this morning was implying that it could be, seems different than a bounce, much stronger and not at a regular time for a bounce.
fred said...
Eric-
That net is alot more than zero, because most of the racist vote for McCain IS showing up in the polls, and many of the pro-Obama effects ae NOT showing up in the polls.
Not so sure Fred. Kerry got the youth vote out pretty well last time. Obama's ground game is good, but McCain's is probably catching up some. The cell phone-only crowd is primarily youth and again Kerry did great last time there. There's a big number of undecideds in a lot of these polls. The argument many analysts are making is they say they're undecided because they're not willing to vote for Obama, even though on issues many should fall in his camp and would vote generic democrat. I don't think it's quite 70-30% for McCain on undecideds, but I'd guess it'll be a net gain for him. That's not showing up in the polls.
@ fred:
It could just be a "bounce". But it´s a VERY bad sign for McCain if people flock to Obama during a time of crisis.
CNN reported Friday that while holding a football, Joe Biden told the Delaware Blue Hens football team that they could "kick Ohio State's ass!"
Will Obama now have to say "Goodbye Columbus," to the swing area of Ohio?
This follows Obama in PA calling Penn State the "Nitally Lions" twice.
What were the Kerry numbers on youth?
What were the AA numbers, and how much will turnout increase int hat group?
I have seen studies that show the AA vote alone is two points, and if this cell phone only is two points, it looks very good for Obama right now.
Did anybody here about John McCain's recent suggestions of deregulating healthcare to make it more like banking.
"The KOS tracking poll is garbage."
Their top line number (Obama +8) might be overstated for the demographic reasons you mentioned, but this poll's trend movement over the last week (inching toward Obama), has been pretty much in line with the movement shown in all the other trackers - with the exception of yesterday's Hotline tracker which had McCain closing. It will be interesting to see their next number.
Does anybody know what Obama would have had to Poll lastnight in order to pull ahead by 1 in Rass?
I tend to be a realist that leans toward pessimism so though I'm biased in favor of Obama, I assume the worst most of the time for my "team".
That being said, I agree with posters above. I think there's about a 50% chance this thing is over already. There hasn't been a candidate down substnatially going into the debates that came back and won. Never. There are a lot of dynamics that seem to make it possible for McCain, after all he was the one up 5 points about 10 ddays ago. Also, if we look at the electoral college,there aren't any tipping point states that jump and scream Obama's got this one in the bag, but it feels like Obama might have a lead that he can hold onto all the way through. We'll have to see. I do believe an evenly split popular vote would favor MCCain in the elctoral college and that's a distinct possibility.
"Did anybody here about John McCain's recent suggestions of deregulating healthcare to make it more like banking."
Why no I didn't! I was too hypnotized by Joe Biden's shiny opinions on college football! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Great summary. I am curious, though, if the comparison between 'with cell phones' and 'without' by adding 2.2, isn't that compounding the effect? All of the polls by pollsters that use cell numbers have already been included in the 71.5% win percentage, have they not? We just need to compensate for the polls that don't include cell phones. (Let's say that the polls by cell-including pollsters represent 30% of the database. Wouldn't you add 70% of 2.2 to bring the others up?)
Sorry if I missed something. Sorry, too, if somebody already pointed this out.
eric I hear what you're saying. And I think that it will be over before November 4th but that's because I think the Obama campaign will take advantage of Early Voting.
mr insight-
I think football fans understand this is not a football game, although McCain has picked a cheerleader.
M51
O45 in NC according to Rass
So the Daily Kos poll is a couple points pro Obama, so? Its a tracking poll, forget the margin and look at the trends. Just because it leans Obama doesn't mean we can't learn anything from it. Right now Rassmussen is leaning Republican because of the party weighting that they changed mid-month after the GOP convention, should we throw them out as well? of course not.
I can't believe all the talk about race, DUH. What a surprise, some white folks won't vote for the black guy. You think the Obama folks don't know this? This was always going to be an impediment but it won't be the deciding factor. It's built in.
Excuse me!! that's SOUTH Carolina!
vanessa-
There are people who try to estimate the nightlies on the trackers, but the uncertainty is high.
The Ras numbers are down 4-5 points for OBama since the first, through his two perty ID changes, on first of month and last week. If the party ID number has shifted back, Ras will have a huge shift to Obama next week.
That 43-42 O Michigan poll is actually 45-42 O when including the VPs names.
The Palin effect?
Shouldn't the result used be Obama/Biden up 3, not Obama up 1? FWIW RCP is using the Obama +1 number.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race finds McCain leading Obama 51% to 45%. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Obama voters are voting with enthusiasm for him while just 9% are voting primarily against McCain. As for McCain supporters, just 63% are enthusiastic about their candidate while 34% are voting primarily against Obama
Sorry to post off-topic, but I agree with some posters from previous topics who were asking whether there's been any polling in Nebraska's 2nd district. It would be very interesting to see what's going on there.
OMG at South Carolina!
As an Evangelical, I believe you can't underestimate the effect Sarah Palin will have. The Book of Revelations portends that the End Times are upon us and we require a leader of Sarah's caliber to lead us through them and unto the Rapture. Obama strikes me as a Satan-like figure. Vote for him at your peril.
Wow! BO only down 6 in SC! Wow! A good youth/black turnout could flip that state.
I want to see NC, this could be moving to landslide territory...
vernon-
Great post, very insighful and great use of numbers.
How long Does RCP usually keep the Nationals on before taking them out?
Vanessa said...
M51
O45 in NC according to Rass
Thats South Carolina, Vanessa.
@ vernon:
Ah, nice of you to show your true colors...
Yeh when I glanced at that Rass SC poll I immediately thought it was NC. When I saw SC I couldn't believe it!
Has anyone noticed that Florida, Virginia, Indiana, and North Carolina have polls all over the place? I think it has to do with demographics. Most of these polls are not even using accurate voting models in their polling to account for all factors properly. It's obvious that this time in particular Obama has a huge advantage with some demographics and regions and McCain with others. It's the obvious explanation, but unfortuantley doesn't get us to the truth. Looking at historical polling from previous elections helps some. I'd have to guess all 4 states above are slightly more red than the national polls, but OBama might need one as a tipping point. It'd be nice if any polling was accurate.
Yeh I corrected it in a Subsequent message Matt. Thanks for the heads up though.
On the "Bradley Effect" or racists showing up as undecideds in polling: The Rev. Wright issue made saying you weren't going to vote for Obama because he's black an acceptable answer. Now, it is possible, as the subject changed and people's attention moved elsewhere, that some of the unmentioned racism managed to sneak its way back into the "indecision" of undecided voters, but you can be pretty confident that the effect would be very small at this point.
Polling with no cellphones may understate Obama's support by 2-3 points. However, polling in general understates the 2-3 point mysterious shift from exit polling data towards the Republicans in swings states that use electronic voting machines (2000-2004). So on the bright side, the landline-only polls may be more accurate in the long run!
vanessa-
they tend to make it up. RCP has specific policy to remove polls after any period, unless they are replaced by newer ones from the same pollster.
Watch for yourself, pro-McCain polls stay up longer.
Vanessa:
Rasmussen shows a poor trend for McCain.
9/17/2008 48.6 48.1
9/18/2008 47.4 46.8
9/19/2008 48 46.1
McCain support declining quick - he was at 49.1 on 9/16. Obama is on the way up. The partisan ID difference for these numbers is Dems +5.1%. It seems to be that there has been at least some buyers remorse in the move to the GOP since McCain's speech/Palin annoucement, and Ras will show that change starting Sunday. On the other hand, the new PEW numbers, a very respected pollster and research entity, showed very strong gains for GOP identity and favorability - could be because Bush was getting pushed into background and now with crisis he'sss baaaackkkk....and hurting mccain.
@ Rasmussen internals:
34% of McCain voters are voting primarily against Obama. There you have the racists (and anti-liberals). McCain´s lead among independents has shrunk from 20% to 10%
Although to be fair, Rasmussen had McCain up only 9 pts in June - when Obama was at his highest numbers after beating Hillary Clinton. Still, if this is even better...with Rasmussen´s bias (does he use the same Voter ID as in the national tracker?)... this is huge.
Nate: Can you comment on the AP/Yahoo poll on race/racism that is appearing in Newsweek magazine's web site today? It's a study that tries to quantify how much of an effect race (racial prejudice) is playing in the Obama presidential race (campaign). After I read the article my take away is that all current polling - nation wide and state wide - is already factoring in race. In other words, the numbers are close right now and would not be as close if Obama were white or if a white person (Hillary?) were the Democratic nominee. What are your thoughts? I'm asking in a neutral way: I just want to be able to quantify the effect on the election polling. It's like Obama has given McCain a 4 to 6 point handicap in this election.
Eric, agreed. While Palin's sheer popularity has been overstated, her entrance in the race cut across demographics, both positively and negatively, that are very hard to poll. Hence, its all over the place.
cbsmith--
Nate's not talking about adding 2.2 points to every poll, just those that didn't use cell phones (to try to "account" for what the cell phone-only people would have said). Just tacking on a whole new 2.2 points at the end would double-count it.
oceankayak-
Diebold still accounts for about a third of all voting machines. Diebold's problem is, if they fake it again and the repub losers, they will get investigated. If the dems have both houses of Congress they still might get investigated. I hope, pray, that the voting will be more correct this time. Also add that dems arein charge in most swing states, a big change fromthe prior two.
"I agree that the racist vote should already be reflected in the polls. When polled, the racists don't even have to admit race is affecting their vote - they just say they're voting for McCain."
May very well be true. I was calling supposedly "undecided" voters for the Obama campaign here in NE FL the other night, most on the list turned out to McCain Supporters. I was surprised by the lack of "southern hospitality" displayed to me by many (people in NE Florida are generally extremely polite and friendly); it seemed to go way beyond the response you would expect from someone relating to someone from an opposing campaign. It is just a hunch; but I suspect race was definitely a determining factor for many of the McCain supporters I spoke to (and not in a good way). I am certainly in no way suggesting all or even the majority of McCain supporters are racially biased in area; however, to deny it is a factor is foolish. By the way I am a 42 y/o white male - not that there is anything wrong with that : )
Patrick, that AP poll story doesn't measure the counterveiling effect of white people voting FOR Obama to appear not racist when they might have voted for McCain otherwise.
It's all in how you ask the questions, which questions you ask and how you report the numbers.
This is a huge story btw...Obama's people are pushing it to all media
Patrick,
That was a Ron Fournier Desperate Hit piece that feels the need to introduce race as a way to win McCain the election.
The guy's emails between himself and Karl Rove saying "Keep up the struggle" were exposed not too long ago.
Nate,
I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I think you're overstating the case for cell phone only households. Yours is the only analysis I've seen that shows a substantial difference for cellphone users. Be sure to check yourself before you start tweaking any numbers.
Geoff why would Obama's people want this in the media?
Fascinating post! Great discussion too, once you cut through all the wow-this-is-proof-that-my-party-will-win rhetoric. Nate, I hope you do a follow up to this article after the election is done! Thank you!
Sperkins, as a fellow vet of phonebanking, I think you may be underestimating the generic hatred for all political machines that call.
I got a LOT of that in South Carolina from similiar southern folks....and Ohioians, and Georgians, and Floridians over the years.
I wish we'd stop chatting up the race talk, I'm sick of hearing it from both democrats and republicans. No democrats don't believe all republicans are racist, and no McCain has not run a racially charged campaign, and Yes Obama will lose votes because he's black, and yes some voters are undecided but not going to vote for Obama because he's black.
I'm sick of hearing this shit. All the media wants to talk about is Race and gender. All primary was "Working class white people" and "Hispanics" and "Appalachia" wouldn't vote for the black guy.
Aren't you guys tired of this crap? I'm sick of it. The media would rather have an analyst fight about who's more racist or sexist than why the economy is tanking, or why the country is 10 trillion in debt, or which candidate actually has the best proposals.
Stop the madness.
Pray for a strong large youth/black vote. You better hope the Sun will be shining nationwide if you want that to happen....
In my political science class, of the 40 kids in there, only about 20 have expressed an interest in voting, the other 20 could careless, and many are not registered.
Van - simple - it paints McCain supporters as racists, and people dont want to be associated with racism generally, right?
Think low information voters
Geoff said...
Eric, agreed. While Palin's sheer popularity has been overstated, her entrance in the race cut across demographics, both positively and negatively, that are very hard to poll. Hence, its all over the place.
Is this the same Geoff? You gave the impression you were too partisan in previous posting, now you seem very rational with intelligently thought out, non-biased views.
Anyway, yeah Palin has a big effect to polarize folks. Obama too. Rural whites will go McCain in bigger numbers than usual. Urban African-Americans more Obama than usual. Youth more Dem than usual, Older more McCain than usual. When the demographics vote tighter spreads, it doesn't matter as much if you get them right, but for instance if Obama wins AA vote 90-10%, than a pollster better estimate that number close to right. If they underpoll AAs in a state with a fair amount, it will skew toward McCain and vice versa overpolling would skew Obama. The internals of these polss rarely reflect this.
Michael-
The point is not that 20 of the kids in your class won't vote, it is that 20 of the kids in your class will vote, and it used to be 10.
I'm pretty sick of it too Matt, but that's a big part of the election and this story will carry in the media for a bit.
And to correct the record, the piece only calls crossover Dems racists - GOP'ers are noted to vote against any dem candidate, regardless of race. I think its divisive.
No I think it's trying say that Obama can't get white votes. I guess the Obama campaign can determine the impact of this better than I can.
Are you sure they are passing this along to reporters?
eric-
This is avery hard year for any "likely voter" model as it is hard to know who will actually show up.
Cellphones + Ground game = why I keep insisting Obama will win NC, as long as he is within around 5points down or better. This is a state where the strong Obama voters tend to be very weighted toward cell use: tech geeks, creative types, and college students are his base, and this is a state where he's had a harder time shoring up the "bread-and-butter" dems. Maybe less so after this week, tho. PPP is hinting at some interesting results for their NC poll coming out tonight.
The media is just trying to keep this race close. I think they underestimate the fear of this financial crisis and how much it marginalized gov.palin@yahoo.co and some racism articles.
I don't think the AP story helps or hurts either campaign; at the end of the day, if there is some huge Bradley effect and half of white voters can't vote for Obama, then there is nothing he can do about it at this point. Maybe he can come back in 20 years as younger generations replace older generations in the voting populace.
That said, I think this Bradley effect thing is bogus and that any racists are already polling for McCain.
Looking at South Carolina, Obama should ignore this margin just like McCain should ignore the Maine margin. These states aren't flipping
i agree eric re palin - the election is certainly polarizing now in blocks.
The big story however in my view is not Palin anymore - its the bailout and crisis.
The Pakistan bombing will give McCain some space to lessen the economic volume - but I really think the next week and how the economy debate plays out in the midst of a 700 billion dollar package (biggest ever, hello socialism, think about the GOP line of attack on health care - nationalizing the economy?) will decide this election.
thisniss can you post those results again?
thisniss, your link was broken, but that looks very tantalizing from PPP. Possibly tied or slight Obama lead in NC?
@ thisniss:
I think you have a good point there. Some states have more cell-phone only users than others. North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado are probably among those states with more cellphones. Older states like Florida and Pennsylvania probably not.
Agreed re economy first now Vanessa.
What was teh SC poll?
The Obama team on my campus is registering voters left and right, and the school paper did an article on it, asking these kids if they'll vote.
Very few said they would, because they think politicians are liars or because they do not care.
This is why registered polls are fishy, as are likely polls. In these registered polls, they always show about 100-200 voters who will not be voting, which cuts it down to Likely voters.
Both aren't accurate, but I would not be jumping for joy with the registered polls... That is the only way Obama wins, is if turnout in each state is 70%!
Yeh it's going to be difficult for John McCain to defend the line that he wants the Health Care system to Mimic the Banking system
Patrick said...
... the numbers are close right now and would not be as close if Obama were white or if a white person (Hillary?) were the Democratic nominee. What are your thoughts? I'm asking in a neutral way: I just want to be able to quantify the effect on the election polling. It's like Obama has given McCain a 4 to 6 point handicap in this election.
No Patrick, Obama has not given McCain a 4-6 point edge in this election, the racists in this country have. We can't start blaming the black people for white prejudice.
Frankly. I'll be happy in 25 years when all the Dixie race-baters are dead and the majority are the new generation without these outdated attitudes.
No PPP NC poll results published yet Vanessa. Later today, according to their blog:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
Geoff,
Here is an article from the Politico:
AP has a provocative story that's going to drive chatter for a while on something most people who have covered the campaign in places have always known anecdotally: That, as an Ohioan told me last month, "There's some folks around here, they wouldn't vote for a black man if he came walking across the water with Moses and Christ."
What's new about the poll AP writes up -- without sharing the methodology in detail -- is the attempt to quantify this effect: "Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice."
If true, that's a big number.
The morsels of consolation for the Obama campaign: The race numbers appear to be priced into the polling market; there was no sign in the primary that prejudiced Democrats lied about it to pollsters. And some share of that can be reversed by another race-related factor, historic black turnout.
There's also the question of how the chatter around the new poll plays. In general, the discussion of race and racism is itself polarizing, and something Obama has avoided. But the perception that the only reason to vote for McCain is racism could really damage the Republican with white voters who don't, and don't want to, see themselves as racists.
Poll Reveals 430 New Demographics That Will Decide Election
A recent election poll indicates vegan independents and skydiving widowers are among the groups that will have a major impact in November
Portrayal Of Obama As Snob Hailed As Step Forward For Blacks
Overjoyed civil rights leaders say that Barack Obama has paved the way for future black politicians to be smeared as country club snobs.
Wow.... my guess for NC: Obama +5
Perhaps the cell phone effect is something to adjust down for polls that use these in their sample as opposed to adjusting up polls that don't use them? Isn't it possible that cell phone respondents are a demographic that skew results like Zogby inter active's self-selecting sample? Perhaps those people that answer polls on their cell phones are more liberal?
fred said...
eric-
This is avery hard year for any "likely voter" model as it is hard to know who will actually show up.
It's not just "likely voters" being hard to predict.
Example:
The CNU Virginia poll was McCain 48-39%
10% of poll respondents were African-American
3% of poll respondents were 18-29
2004 numbers were AA 22%, 18-29 16%
If you switch 12% of the polled respondents from white to black, you probably have whites voting 60-40% McCain to AA 90-10% Obama would then be about even in that poll. 44-44, maybe slightly ahead. That doesn't take into account the low number for youth vote in the poll. It also doesn't take into account the likelihood that the AA number will actually be higher than 22%. I don't know if I've lost most of you with my explanation, but my point is many of the polls are completely wrong. Not even close. I'm sure Nate gets it, he's a stats guy. Nate if you read this explain it better than I am and verify or tell me I'm wrong. no one is talking about this.
Thisniss mentioned that PPP had leaked some preliminary information.
Geoff the Rass Poll was
M51
O45 in SC.
Sobering.
I explained yesterday that the odds of McCain winning the ME-02 electoral vote are around 20-1. As of this morning, they are 19.994-1. While some use moose to describe what's going on up there, I used numbers.
I've also done a little work regarding NE-02. Note the Survey USA poll from May regarding this. Lack of data or any information is making this race difficult to pin down.
You would think RealClearPolitics would have some data on this. Alas, no.
Vanessa-
I agree, the MSM is NOT skewed Obama, it is skewed to whomever is behind to keep the race close.
well i guess the politico agrees with me :)
eric-
Yes, I get that but it is hard to truly argue it, at least for me, until after the election as we won't know the numbers.
"it is skewed to whomever is behind to keep the race close"
I think that's usualy the case. But since the winter I've heard reporter after reporter say things like Obama's campaign is so infectious, or getting thrills up one's leg, or being inspired, yadda yadda.. Obama's Rasputin hit the frequency just right to penatrate the naive aspirations of the news media which seems stuck in 1968. That's how Obama could give a speech on race in which he blames America for his Rev Wright and the reporters think it's right up there with the Magna Carta.
Vince, as your last post reveals you to be a subject matter expert, what's your take on the obnoxious asshole vote?
charles: typical Obamabot who takes political discussion and turns it into a personal attack.
More Palin fade to report. ::)
The Palin Effect for me is now going beyond the election. Frankly neither party is going to be able to do much - most the budget is locked down by entitlements and not even the tax-and-spenders want taxes up by more than a few percent here and there. International stuff is locked down as well, there's only so much Army to go around.
The knowledge that there are still people like the Palins alive and well in America, and that millions feel about that the way I do - is hope for us all.
(BTW, Vern is NOT Vernon)
I was never one to believe the MSM would tilt coverage to keep a race tight, but following this election has tested this belief.
Coverage certainly seems to swing from candidate to candidate depending on who's ahead.
- Obama big lead in the summer, the press hammered him every day practicably using McCain talking points.
- Obama gets big convention bump and the press goes bat shit over Palin
- McCain starts looking like a front runner and the press hammers McCain about his lying then the Wall st. crises broke and the press was all Obama all week.
- Obama has a small lead so I'm sure McCain's press coverage will get better this week.
I'm not saying I believe there's a press conspiracy to keep it close, but one could make an argument with a lot of circumstantial evidence.
Nate should definetly use the P/VP poll numbers for the MI poll.
Also where is the R2000 Maine poll from 9/11?
My guess for PPP is Obama +5 on the Economy and Obama +1 or Tied overall.
Nate,
I think 2.2 points is overoptimistic (and this is from a guy pulling for O'Biden)...
Obama probably gets a half a point, maybe one point maximum, from the cellphone effect...
Vern, anecdotally, at the fair last night a ton of people has mcpalin signs, and the mccain only signs sat unclaimed.
"In my political science class, of the 40 kids in there, only about 20 have expressed an interest in voting, the other 20 could careless, and many are not registered."
That's depressing, but that's not really that awful a turnout...the 61% electorate turnout in 2004 was the highest in 40 years. If 50% of college-age students show up, Obama is in really good shape. I'd guess that likely voter models are predicting much less.
I was in college four years ago, and from my perspective people my age care a lot more about this election than the last one. (Though I live in a swing state, VA, this year and I didn't four years ago.) Living away from home, and the insular nature of college, are always going to keep that demographic's turnout lower than most.
I'm sick of hearing this shit. All the media wants to talk about is Race and gender. All primary was "Working class white people" and "Hispanics" and "Appalachia" wouldn't vote for the black guy.
Perhaps if we have not ignored the topic for so long, the media and the country would not be so obsessed with it. I hope Obama wins, I am off to his rally here in Jacksonville Florida; but even if he doesn't I think our country is better off because "Race" has been out there for discussion. Thanks Senator O; you are a patriot.
Signed,
White guy more tired of racism than the discussion of racism.
If Obama is only 5% down in SC, I'd like to see some polls from both NC and Virginia.
Andy, PPP's new poll for North Carolina should be along sometime this afternoon.
"Obama probably gets a half a point, maybe one point maximum, from the cellphone effect..."
I don't want to necessarily claim it's real without more evidence (and until after the election), but 2 points seems quite reasonable to me. If 10% of the households in the country are cell-phone only (which actually may be a conservative estimate), and they split 60-40 for Obama (which I think is reasonable), that's a two-point swing in the overall numbers.
matt: A thing I noticed in the Primary .. around the April - May time frame was the altenrating weeks that either Hillary or Obama caused a rucus.
Obama would be hammered over the Wright thing. and Hillary woudl capitalize on that and be getting a wind behind her sail and then she would do something stupid like tell everyone the Secret Service allowed her to run from a plane to a car at a Bosnian airport under weapons fire. Then Obama would be trouble free for a weeks until Father Pfleger shows up. and then Hillary is ok, until she made a comment about RFK (ok. i'm throwing off my timeline)..
I believe that even if Obama does not hold a clear advantage on McCain on the Economy, independents got to see a levelheaded, thoughtful candidate matched up against a rantingly bellicose blamer.
I kinda think that the overall trends of the past 4 years has also influenced the statistics of this race. In the past, we've had a housing bubble and increasing unemployment. It is my guess that this caused people to move around alot in America to areas that used to be strongly one color or another. People had to find jobs and they had the credit to buy houses. If they moved from Chicago to San Antonio, then no doubt they probably did. Just in a matter of speaking in terms of sociology...
Darn, I can't locate the graph maps of US that show what I'm talking about.
Nate: Any chance of connecting threads within a post? We're getting a lot of personal interactions and side discussions that really don't add much to the flow of discourse. I notice that Goddard's site does this to good effect. Thanks.
I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the reaction to that AP poll. As if anyone thought that race wouldn´t be a factor. 6 pts? For sure, add those to Obama´s numbers and you get a lot closer to the generic Democrat vs. generic Republican.
I am going to put my two cents in regarding this poll on race and the election.
1. The poll was not primarily about race. The part where Obama was whooping McCain by 4 or 5 points was not included. (I am not sure which one is RV or LV).
2. Very few whites strongly agreed with the negative statements about black people, but did agree, at least somewhat with the positive statements.
3. In fact at least 67% of respondents felt admiration for black people "moderately often".
4. 62% of white people feel that black leaders are pushing at the right speed.
5. Even if Ron Fournier spurious and sensational conclusions were based on anything substantive, which they do not seem to be, and there are whites who have a negative impression of black people, it does not necessarily hurt Obama, unless he is viewed as a typical white person.
On a personal note, this story sort of offended me. These tools Fournier and Thompson used the responses of a few white people to characterize the whole group, which is what they are saying those few white people are doing also.
You can see the questions and breakdowns of responses:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
Then click on full poll results to come to your own conclusions.
Alex do you think the article hurts Obama?
Great analysis guys.
Nate: Can you post the map above that toggles between w/ and w/o cell phones in your side bar?
Post a Comment