Just one poll today -- and we're on the road -- so we'll be brief. The poll is out of Arkansas, where Rasmussen reports that John McCain is leading Hillary Clinton by 7 points and Barack Obama by 29 points in Arkansas.
This is one of those polls that, although the losing margin is much uglier for Obama, is actually worse news for Hillary because Arkansas is a state that she was expecting to win, whereas Obama has always polled badly there. Why Obama has polled so badly in Arkansas is an open question: the Arkansas is actually fairly reliably Democratic at the state level, and a plurality of the state's voters (41%) described their party ID as Democrat in 2004 exit polling. And for Clinton, there's an open question about whether something is happening to her numbers in the South: this is the second straight poll that has come in much below expectations for her in the region, following yesterday's Rasmussen poll of Georgia.
3.22.2008
3.21.2008
Today's Polls, 3/21
@ 5:41 PM
I'm "lucky" enough to be two hours delayed here at the airport, so I'll take advantage of it by getting today's update out.
Today's polls are relatively inconsequential, but look like decent news on balance for Barack Obama and less so for Hillary Clinton.
The Georgia poll is actually the one I find most interesting, even though neither Democrat will carry the state in a competitive election. The results are identical, almost to the percentage point, to the Survey USA poll in February -- the only other poll conducted in the state. But our regression model was convinced that Clinton's -21 in the SUSA poll was an outlier, and that the underlying demographics aren't bad for her in the state, which Bill Clinton carried in 1992. This may be some evidence that the Clintons' Southern coattails will only carry them so far outside of the Arkansas.
The Minnesota poll is either good or bad news for Obama, depending on what you want to compare it to. It is certainly better for him than the Survey USA poll over the weekend, which had him losing the state, but down from Rasmussen's previous poll in Minnesota, which had him at a healthy +15 in mid-February. The upper Midwest is one of those regions in which Obama needs to maintain his advantage over Clinton to win an argument about electability; so far, he has been, although he hasn't been putting the crooked numbers on the board that he did in February.
By the way, I'm also working on some tweaks to the model, which center around the idea of calibrating the polls based on extremely short-term polling trends. For example, we have only one poll of North Dakota, which showed Obama winning. But that poll came at a time where he was polling exceedingly well pretty much everywhere. Should we adjust those numbers downward? Actually, we probably should. But on the other hand, in a state like Massachusetts, which was polled twice in the last week but relatively little before then, we might want to adjust upward for the short-term trend. That's the sort of thing I'm looking into. I'm also looking at ways of using national polling data as a way to help calibrate the state-by-state results.
UPDATE: Make that three-and-a-half hours late. This is why airports have bars, right?
Today's polls are relatively inconsequential, but look like decent news on balance for Barack Obama and less so for Hillary Clinton.
| State | Agency | Date | Obama | Clinton |
| GA | Rasmussen | 3/20/08 | McCain +13 | McCain +20 |
| MN | Rasmussen | 3/19/08 | Obama +4 | McCain +1 |
| NY | Quinnipiac | 3/17/08 | Obama +11 | Clinton +10 |
The Georgia poll is actually the one I find most interesting, even though neither Democrat will carry the state in a competitive election. The results are identical, almost to the percentage point, to the Survey USA poll in February -- the only other poll conducted in the state. But our regression model was convinced that Clinton's -21 in the SUSA poll was an outlier, and that the underlying demographics aren't bad for her in the state, which Bill Clinton carried in 1992. This may be some evidence that the Clintons' Southern coattails will only carry them so far outside of the Arkansas.
The Minnesota poll is either good or bad news for Obama, depending on what you want to compare it to. It is certainly better for him than the Survey USA poll over the weekend, which had him losing the state, but down from Rasmussen's previous poll in Minnesota, which had him at a healthy +15 in mid-February. The upper Midwest is one of those regions in which Obama needs to maintain his advantage over Clinton to win an argument about electability; so far, he has been, although he hasn't been putting the crooked numbers on the board that he did in February.
By the way, I'm also working on some tweaks to the model, which center around the idea of calibrating the polls based on extremely short-term polling trends. For example, we have only one poll of North Dakota, which showed Obama winning. But that poll came at a time where he was polling exceedingly well pretty much everywhere. Should we adjust those numbers downward? Actually, we probably should. But on the other hand, in a state like Massachusetts, which was polled twice in the last week but relatively little before then, we might want to adjust upward for the short-term trend. That's the sort of thing I'm looking into. I'm also looking at ways of using national polling data as a way to help calibrate the state-by-state results.
UPDATE: Make that three-and-a-half hours late. This is why airports have bars, right?
3.20.2008
Wright and the Obamacans
@ 6:21 PM
One of the many nice things about Survey USA is the extensive set of interactive cross-tabulations that they release with every poll. Survey USA has now released polls in fifteen states that were taken at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy (this past Friday through Sunday). We can compare the demographic groups in these polls to Survey USA's previous set of polls, which were conducted in the last couple days of February.
I will be keeping track of five sets of demographic characteristics that Survey USA included among both sets of polls: gender, age, race, party ID, and orientation on the political spectrum (conservative/moderate/liberal). Another demographic that would be nice to look at -- income levels -- was tracked by Survey USA in their February polls but not in their March polls, so we have no choice but to ignore it.
One other methodological annoyance: Survey USA used different age brackets between the different surveys. Although the 18-34 age group was common to both polls, Survey USA handled the other groups of voters differently. I will be lumping the brackets together as follows:
Here come the numbers:
(That chart might be a little hard to read, so I've temporarily created a larger version of it along the right-hand sidebar. Yes, we're the only website in the world that devotes more space to its sidebar than its main column).
Let's pick through these demographic groups one by one:
Gender: Obama's margin declined by a slightly larger margin among women (7 points) than men (4 points), but the differences are small enough that they're probably not worth worrying about. The gender gap was most noticeable in the Midwestern states. Between Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, Obama declined by 12 points among women but 4 points among men. Elsewhere in the country, the gender differences were roughly equal.
Age: There do seem to be some age-related effects, with the Wright story tending to have done more damage to Obama among older voters, but because of the ambiguities of Survey USA's age brackets, it would be dubious to come to too many conclusions. Taking the 55-64 year olds and shifting them from "Old" to "Mid-Age", as we had to do here, would likely have a deleterious effect on Obama's numbers irrespective of the Wright controversy.
Race: Perhaps unsurprisingly, Obama lost ground in every state except Oregon amongst whites. He gained ground amongst blacks in all states except the three Southern states: Alabama, Kentucky, and Virginia, where he actually backtracked a little bit. The polling data on Hispanic voters is mixed ... the only two states with a whole lot of Hispanic voters were California and New Mexico, and Obama gained a bunch of ground amongst them in California (+24), while losing a bit in New Mexico (-5). Notice, by the way, how the media seems to have completely forgotten about Hispanic voters now that we have a good ol' fashioned white-black racial controversy to kick around.
Party ID: Obama lost the most ground -- an average of 9 points -- amongst Republicans. This is actually fairly hard to do, because there weren't that many Republicans voting for him to begin with. But for the time being, the Obamacans appear to be in hibernation. The interesting piece of news for Obama is that he lost hardly any ground at all amongst independents, although the results bounced around rather radically from state to state. (Survey USA tends to have fewer self-identified independents in their surveys than other pollsters, and so the sample sizes are a little smaller).
Political Orientation: But here's the weird thing. While Obama lost the most ground amongst Republicans on the party spectrum, he lost the most ground among liberals on the political spectrum: 11 points among libs, as compared to 5 points among moderates and just 2 among conservatives (among whom he had little of the vote to begin with).
What to make of these seemingly contradictory results?
Actually, I don't have a great answer for you. Let's try and get a discussion going. But it certainly looks to be thatliberal and moderate Republicans -- not independents, but specifically voters who identify as Republican -- who were willing to indulge the idea of an Obama vote before, have at least temporarily reverted to their base.
Now, if you accept that this is what has gone on, there are a couple of takes you might have on this. Shall we spin the wheel?
Spin #1. These voters were inherently soft, vulnerable supporters of Obama anyway. It is asking a lot for Republicans to cross over and vote for a Democrat -- only 6 percent of them voted for Kerry in 2004. The way Obama -- or Clinton for that matter -- was always going to win this election was by turning out the base, winning over independents, and taking advantage of the blue-leaning shifts in party identification throughout the country. You do two out of those three things (and one of them is really a gimme), and you'll probably win the election. You do all three, and you win big.
On the other hand, if these voters were soft supporters of Obama, that likely now means that their support for John McCain is also fairly soft. There are really relatively few swing voters in the general election -- 80% of the country is voting reflexively by party ID -- which is why polling numbers in general elections are much more stubborn than polling numbers in primaries. But, sort of Linc Chafee / Olympia Snowe Republicans, and perhaps also libertarian-leaning Republicans, are a group of voters that must feel authentically conflicted about what to do. It doesn't take a lot to shift them from one group to the other -- nor might it take a lot to shift them back.
These may also have been voters who were intrigued by Obama's unity message, a brand which was at least temporarily damaged by Jeremiah Wright.
Spin #2. On the other hand, perhaps this also has to do with media consumption habits. The Wright story was handled very differently from media outlet to media outlet, from a full-frontal assult on Obama on FOX News, to a relatively benign treatment at the New York Times. (This effect is even more noticeable in the wake of Obama's speech on Tuesday, which has acted as a depth charge of sorts for partisan conservative pundits). Do Obamacans still watch FOX News and listen to Rush Limbaugh? My hunch is that they do -- that it forms their sort of home base for media coverage, even if they often disagree with its conclusions. When the conservative media went from playing relatively nice with Obama to bashing him non-stop, there was going to be an effect; the Wright incident may have catalyzed it.
Actually, now that that's written, these are really part and parcel of the same explanation. Swing Republicans were vulnerable to being swung -- and the Wright story, amplified by the conservative media, managed to swing some of them. Will Obama's speech swing them back? I don't know. As I mentioned above, it is inherently an uphill battle to ask a voter to cross party lines for you. On the other hand, I would guess that these folks are fairly sophisticated political animals -- you have to have a fairly well-thought out political philosophy to maintain an identification as a Republican these days, but ponder voting for a Democrat for President. And that means they might have been among the 2.3 million Americans and counting who have seen the director's cut of Obama's speech, rather than the sound byte version. It is likely to take at least a couple of weeks before we know for sure.
I will be keeping track of five sets of demographic characteristics that Survey USA included among both sets of polls: gender, age, race, party ID, and orientation on the political spectrum (conservative/moderate/liberal). Another demographic that would be nice to look at -- income levels -- was tracked by Survey USA in their February polls but not in their March polls, so we have no choice but to ignore it.
One other methodological annoyance: Survey USA used different age brackets between the different surveys. Although the 18-34 age group was common to both polls, Survey USA handled the other groups of voters differently. I will be lumping the brackets together as follows:
Age February March
"Young" 18-34 18-34
"Mid-Age" 35-54 35-49
" " 50-64
"Old" 55+ 65+Otherwise, this is a rather straightforward exercise: I'm merely comparing Obama's net advantage against McCain between the February and the March surveys. If Obama was leading among whites in Oregon by 6 points in February, but he trailed by 2 points in March, that would be recorded as a "-8".Here come the numbers:
(That chart might be a little hard to read, so I've temporarily created a larger version of it along the right-hand sidebar. Yes, we're the only website in the world that devotes more space to its sidebar than its main column).
Let's pick through these demographic groups one by one:
Gender: Obama's margin declined by a slightly larger margin among women (7 points) than men (4 points), but the differences are small enough that they're probably not worth worrying about. The gender gap was most noticeable in the Midwestern states. Between Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, Obama declined by 12 points among women but 4 points among men. Elsewhere in the country, the gender differences were roughly equal.
Age: There do seem to be some age-related effects, with the Wright story tending to have done more damage to Obama among older voters, but because of the ambiguities of Survey USA's age brackets, it would be dubious to come to too many conclusions. Taking the 55-64 year olds and shifting them from "Old" to "Mid-Age", as we had to do here, would likely have a deleterious effect on Obama's numbers irrespective of the Wright controversy.
Race: Perhaps unsurprisingly, Obama lost ground in every state except Oregon amongst whites. He gained ground amongst blacks in all states except the three Southern states: Alabama, Kentucky, and Virginia, where he actually backtracked a little bit. The polling data on Hispanic voters is mixed ... the only two states with a whole lot of Hispanic voters were California and New Mexico, and Obama gained a bunch of ground amongst them in California (+24), while losing a bit in New Mexico (-5). Notice, by the way, how the media seems to have completely forgotten about Hispanic voters now that we have a good ol' fashioned white-black racial controversy to kick around.
Party ID: Obama lost the most ground -- an average of 9 points -- amongst Republicans. This is actually fairly hard to do, because there weren't that many Republicans voting for him to begin with. But for the time being, the Obamacans appear to be in hibernation. The interesting piece of news for Obama is that he lost hardly any ground at all amongst independents, although the results bounced around rather radically from state to state. (Survey USA tends to have fewer self-identified independents in their surveys than other pollsters, and so the sample sizes are a little smaller).
Political Orientation: But here's the weird thing. While Obama lost the most ground amongst Republicans on the party spectrum, he lost the most ground among liberals on the political spectrum: 11 points among libs, as compared to 5 points among moderates and just 2 among conservatives (among whom he had little of the vote to begin with).
What to make of these seemingly contradictory results?
Actually, I don't have a great answer for you. Let's try and get a discussion going. But it certainly looks to be thatliberal and moderate Republicans -- not independents, but specifically voters who identify as Republican -- who were willing to indulge the idea of an Obama vote before, have at least temporarily reverted to their base.
Now, if you accept that this is what has gone on, there are a couple of takes you might have on this. Shall we spin the wheel?
Spin #1. These voters were inherently soft, vulnerable supporters of Obama anyway. It is asking a lot for Republicans to cross over and vote for a Democrat -- only 6 percent of them voted for Kerry in 2004. The way Obama -- or Clinton for that matter -- was always going to win this election was by turning out the base, winning over independents, and taking advantage of the blue-leaning shifts in party identification throughout the country. You do two out of those three things (and one of them is really a gimme), and you'll probably win the election. You do all three, and you win big.
On the other hand, if these voters were soft supporters of Obama, that likely now means that their support for John McCain is also fairly soft. There are really relatively few swing voters in the general election -- 80% of the country is voting reflexively by party ID -- which is why polling numbers in general elections are much more stubborn than polling numbers in primaries. But, sort of Linc Chafee / Olympia Snowe Republicans, and perhaps also libertarian-leaning Republicans, are a group of voters that must feel authentically conflicted about what to do. It doesn't take a lot to shift them from one group to the other -- nor might it take a lot to shift them back.
These may also have been voters who were intrigued by Obama's unity message, a brand which was at least temporarily damaged by Jeremiah Wright.
Spin #2. On the other hand, perhaps this also has to do with media consumption habits. The Wright story was handled very differently from media outlet to media outlet, from a full-frontal assult on Obama on FOX News, to a relatively benign treatment at the New York Times. (This effect is even more noticeable in the wake of Obama's speech on Tuesday, which has acted as a depth charge of sorts for partisan conservative pundits). Do Obamacans still watch FOX News and listen to Rush Limbaugh? My hunch is that they do -- that it forms their sort of home base for media coverage, even if they often disagree with its conclusions. When the conservative media went from playing relatively nice with Obama to bashing him non-stop, there was going to be an effect; the Wright incident may have catalyzed it.
Actually, now that that's written, these are really part and parcel of the same explanation. Swing Republicans were vulnerable to being swung -- and the Wright story, amplified by the conservative media, managed to swing some of them. Will Obama's speech swing them back? I don't know. As I mentioned above, it is inherently an uphill battle to ask a voter to cross party lines for you. On the other hand, I would guess that these folks are fairly sophisticated political animals -- you have to have a fairly well-thought out political philosophy to maintain an identification as a Republican these days, but ponder voting for a Democrat for President. And that means they might have been among the 2.3 million Americans and counting who have seen the director's cut of Obama's speech, rather than the sound byte version. It is likely to take at least a couple of weeks before we know for sure.
Obama Retains Electability Advantage, but Both Democrats Below 50%
@ 3:53 PM
The invaluable Survey USA released a boatload of new polling information today. All of their surveys were conducted over the weekend -- March 14 through 16 -- amidst the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
We also have a new Rasmussen poll for Massachusetts, which -- this is a bad habit of Rasmussen's -- has three different margins listed for Clinton: she's listed as a 15-point favorite over McCain in the text of the survey write-up, a 21-point favorite in the adjoining table, and a 19-point favorite in the headline on Rasmussen's front page. We'll go with the 19-point number but really it doesn't matter; she's not going to lose the state. Let me give you the numbers and then some discussion:
In general, Obama continues to run stronger than Clinton in the places where he usually runs stronger than her, although the difference is narrower than in other recent rounds of surveys. Obama fares better in Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin -- in some cases by small margins -- while Clinton does better in in Alabama, Kansas, Massachusetts (in both polls), Minnesota (this is a reversal from most polling data) and New York. The two Democrats do equally well in New Mexico.
Although my headline is a little melodramatic -- the model now lists John McCain as a 51/49 favorite over Barack Obama, and a 57/43 favorite over Hillary Clinton -- this is actually not a terrible set of polling for either Democrat, showing the Democrats winning a variety of purple and blue-tinged states at one of the worst times in the news cycle for them. Interestingly, Obama has now dropped below 50% in his overall win percentage even while retaining a slight popular vote advantage over McCain, but at other points in the cycle the electoral math has favored Obama and I'm not sure what can be concluded from such trends.
The one state that I have the toughest time figuring is Massachusetts. Our regression model thinks that Massachusetts should love Obama, who fundraised very well there, but he's yet to establish a double-digit lead in any public poll of the state. I have a pet theory that there may be a sort of subconscious association among Bay Staters between Obama and Deval Patrick, who is not particularly popular in the state.
We also have a new Rasmussen poll for Massachusetts, which -- this is a bad habit of Rasmussen's -- has three different margins listed for Clinton: she's listed as a 15-point favorite over McCain in the text of the survey write-up, a 21-point favorite in the adjoining table, and a 19-point favorite in the headline on Rasmussen's front page. We'll go with the 19-point number but really it doesn't matter; she's not going to lose the state. Let me give you the numbers and then some discussion:
| State | Agency | Date | Obama | Clinton |
| AL | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +27 | McCain +18 |
| CA | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +14 | Clinton +18 |
| IA | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +6 | McCain +4 |
| KS | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +12 | McCain +19 |
| MA | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Tie | Clinton +13 |
| MA | Rasmussen | 3/18/08 | Obama +7 | Clinton +19 |
| MN | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +1 | Clinton +3 |
| NM | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +6 | Clinton +6 |
| NY | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +8 | Clinton +13 |
| OR | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +9 | Clinton +6 |
| VA | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +1 | Tie |
| WA | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +11 | Clinton +5 |
| WI | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | Obama +4 | Clinton +1 |
In general, Obama continues to run stronger than Clinton in the places where he usually runs stronger than her, although the difference is narrower than in other recent rounds of surveys. Obama fares better in Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin -- in some cases by small margins -- while Clinton does better in in Alabama, Kansas, Massachusetts (in both polls), Minnesota (this is a reversal from most polling data) and New York. The two Democrats do equally well in New Mexico.
Although my headline is a little melodramatic -- the model now lists John McCain as a 51/49 favorite over Barack Obama, and a 57/43 favorite over Hillary Clinton -- this is actually not a terrible set of polling for either Democrat, showing the Democrats winning a variety of purple and blue-tinged states at one of the worst times in the news cycle for them. Interestingly, Obama has now dropped below 50% in his overall win percentage even while retaining a slight popular vote advantage over McCain, but at other points in the cycle the electoral math has favored Obama and I'm not sure what can be concluded from such trends.
The one state that I have the toughest time figuring is Massachusetts. Our regression model thinks that Massachusetts should love Obama, who fundraised very well there, but he's yet to establish a double-digit lead in any public poll of the state. I have a pet theory that there may be a sort of subconscious association among Bay Staters between Obama and Deval Patrick, who is not particularly popular in the state.
3.19.2008
Today's Polls, 3/19
@ 1:41 PM
We have a fairly heavy dosing of polling data today, and little of it is good news for Barack Obama:
The polls in Ohio, where both Survey USA and PPP now show McCain losing to Clinton but beating Obama, and to a lesser extent Missouri, would tend to be the biggest concerns for Obama. It's clear that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has had at least some near-term effect on Obama's trial heat numbers. Essentially all of these polls were taken over the weekend, including on Friday, which according to Rasmussen was the worst single day of polling for Obama (in his head-to-heads against Clinton) since the primary campaign began.
I have already blogged about the Wright "anti-bounce". On the one hand, the fivethirtyeight.com polling averages are designed to be forward-looking. If you're going to make electoral projections this far out, you'll find you'll do better to look at a wider cross-section of data, rather than just the polls that came out in the last week; history tells us you'll make a better prediction that way. So, Obama's new, "bad" polling numbers are a part of his reality -- but only a part of his reality. On the other hand, any exercise based on polling is inherently backward-looking to a certain extent, as we are at the mercy of awaiting new polling data. There may be more bad polling data coming down the pike for Obama -- or there may not be as the Wright controversy fades.
For the time being, I think we can say there has been a measurable effect, especially in white, working class states like Ohio. These are to McCain's ultimate benefit, rather than really to Clinton's., who has little to brag about in these numbers.
How long will the effect last? That we cannot say yet.
Obama's overall win probability against McCain is now 51.4%; Clinton's is 39.0%.
| State | Agency | Date | Obama | Clinton |
| CO | Rasmussen | 3/17/08 | Tie | McCain +14 |
| KY | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +36 | McCain +10 |
| MO | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +14 | McCain +2 |
| NH | Rasmussen | 3/16/08 | McCain +3 | McCain +6 |
| OH | Survey USA | 3/15/08 | McCain +7 | Clinton +6 |
| OH | PPP | 3/16/08 | McCain +8 | Clinton +1 |
The polls in Ohio, where both Survey USA and PPP now show McCain losing to Clinton but beating Obama, and to a lesser extent Missouri, would tend to be the biggest concerns for Obama. It's clear that the Jeremiah Wright controversy has had at least some near-term effect on Obama's trial heat numbers. Essentially all of these polls were taken over the weekend, including on Friday, which according to Rasmussen was the worst single day of polling for Obama (in his head-to-heads against Clinton) since the primary campaign began.
I have already blogged about the Wright "anti-bounce". On the one hand, the fivethirtyeight.com polling averages are designed to be forward-looking. If you're going to make electoral projections this far out, you'll find you'll do better to look at a wider cross-section of data, rather than just the polls that came out in the last week; history tells us you'll make a better prediction that way. So, Obama's new, "bad" polling numbers are a part of his reality -- but only a part of his reality. On the other hand, any exercise based on polling is inherently backward-looking to a certain extent, as we are at the mercy of awaiting new polling data. There may be more bad polling data coming down the pike for Obama -- or there may not be as the Wright controversy fades.
For the time being, I think we can say there has been a measurable effect, especially in white, working class states like Ohio. These are to McCain's ultimate benefit, rather than really to Clinton's., who has little to brag about in these numbers.
How long will the effect last? That we cannot say yet.
Obama's overall win probability against McCain is now 51.4%; Clinton's is 39.0%.
3.18.2008
An Objective (?) Take on Obama's Speech
@ 6:23 PM
Intrade has Obama trading upward today, presumably on generally favorable reaction to his speech in Philadelphia. This graph is going to be a little hard to see, but...
What this shows is that Obama was trading at about 77% to win the Democratic nomination this time a week ago. Those numbers dropped down to about 72% after the Wright controversy reached full volume. And now, post-speech, they seem to have stabilized in the 75% range.
So Intrade's snap conclusion is that about 60% of the damage from the Wright controversy (Obama recovered 3 out of 5 percentage points that he had lost) was redeemed by today's speech.
I'm actually not a huge fan of futures markets, by the way -- I love the concept, but think they lack both the liquidity and the highly informed pool of traders to make them truly useful as predictive tools. And I think futures markets really tend to be lagging rather than leading indicators. But, they can be a pretty interesting way to put a quantitative spin on the conventional wisdom.
What this shows is that Obama was trading at about 77% to win the Democratic nomination this time a week ago. Those numbers dropped down to about 72% after the Wright controversy reached full volume. And now, post-speech, they seem to have stabilized in the 75% range.
So Intrade's snap conclusion is that about 60% of the damage from the Wright controversy (Obama recovered 3 out of 5 percentage points that he had lost) was redeemed by today's speech.
I'm actually not a huge fan of futures markets, by the way -- I love the concept, but think they lack both the liquidity and the highly informed pool of traders to make them truly useful as predictive tools. And I think futures markets really tend to be lagging rather than leading indicators. But, they can be a pretty interesting way to put a quantitative spin on the conventional wisdom.
Today's Polls, 3/18
@ 5:08 PM
The most interesting poll at the state level today comes from Public Policy Polling, which shows John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by 11 points in Florida, but with Hillary more competitive at 4 points behind. This is really the first state poll result we've had that was conducted in the midst of the Wright controversy; PPP last surveyed the state in early January, when it had Obama down by 6 and Clinton down by the same 4-point margin. It should come as refreshing news to Hillary after last week's Rasmussen poll showed Obama performing better than her in Florida. Nevertheless, neither Democrat can be thrilled with their position in Florida; of the eight polls in our Florida database, Clinton won just one, while Obama has gone oh-fer.
Keep an eye out for PPP, by the way. They're doing more and more polling, had a pretty good track record in the primaries, and are refreshingly candid in their analysis.
The only other thing we've got for you is a Mansfield University survey in Pennsylvania, which shows Obama 0.7 points ahead of McCain, but McCain 3.1 points ahead of Clinton (yes, they include the decimal place, so I will too). However, this is actually a somewhat old poll, conducted over a long time window from February 13 through March 6. The fivethirtyeight.com averages use the median date that the poll was conducted -- not the date the poll was posted -- and so it will be discounted appropriately.
Both Democrats have moved down slightly overall; Obama's win percentage against McCain now stands at 56.1%, and Clinton's at 38.4%.
Keep an eye out for PPP, by the way. They're doing more and more polling, had a pretty good track record in the primaries, and are refreshingly candid in their analysis.
The only other thing we've got for you is a Mansfield University survey in Pennsylvania, which shows Obama 0.7 points ahead of McCain, but McCain 3.1 points ahead of Clinton (yes, they include the decimal place, so I will too). However, this is actually a somewhat old poll, conducted over a long time window from February 13 through March 6. The fivethirtyeight.com averages use the median date that the poll was conducted -- not the date the poll was posted -- and so it will be discounted appropriately.
Both Democrats have moved down slightly overall; Obama's win percentage against McCain now stands at 56.1%, and Clinton's at 38.4%.
3.17.2008
Damage Done?
@ 3:52 PM
Putting on my Obama hat for a second and at the risk of being accused of spin, I would tend to take a positive view of today's Gallup tracking poll, which shows Barack Obama having fallen two points behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination (it's 47 Clinton, 45 Obama).
This particular Gallup tracking poll is significant in that it's the first one to consist entirely of post-Wright interviewing, assuming that one uses Friday to demarcate the proliferation of the Wright story into the public consciousness (and I do use Friday, because that's the day on which it got wall-to-wall coverage on Morning Joe -- as good a leading indicator of the state of the news cycle as any).
Remember, tracking polls are lagging indicators. All polls are lagging indicators, in fact. But tracking polls are particularly prone to misinterpretation, because which day is dropped from the tracking poll matters as much as which day is added. If, for example, Obama had finished 16 points ahead of Hillary on Thursday -- the day that got dropped from the tracking poll today -- he could have beaten her by 1 point in Sunday interviewing and the poll would have shown the same 5-point downward movement.
That is not to say that the Wright story hasn't done any damage. Clearly, there has been some downward movement, and it doesn't do anyone any good to cover their ears and scream: "IT'S JUST RANDOM NOISE!"
But over the very worst three days of the campaign that Obama has had since he announced his candidacy last February, he still only trailed Hillary by 2 points in the Gallup tracker -- within the margin of error.
Any sort of bounce or "anti-bounce" in the polling numbers can be described with two parameters: its depth (how large the bounce is at its apex), and its depth (how long it lasts). On the depth front, the Wright story was a Bad Thing for Obama -- but not fatal, nor on the brink of being fatal, nor on the brink of the brink of being fatal. (On the brink of the brink of the brink of being fatal, perhaps? OK, you got me). On the breadth front, we will find out soon enough, though Obama's big speech tomorrow gives the chance for the media to give this issue some closure (at least until the general election cycle begins in earnest).
In the meantime, the Democrats' main concern should be with their declining numbers against John McCain; what's interesting is that both Democrats seem to have suffered in the Rasmussen national tracker since the story broke. McCain getting face time in Iraq while the Democrats squabble and work to put out fires -- it doesn't take a genius to figure out that is not a good visual. And ironically, by the way, I think Obama's speech tomorrow has the potential to be helpful to Hillary's head-to-head numbers too. This is a pretty good excuse for the Democrats to stand down, at least until we get closer to the Pennsylvania primary.
EDIT: FWIW, there is at least one other poll showing Obama with a comfortable lead over Hillary over the same interview period. But I am actually more inclined to "believe" the Gallup Tracker. You'll hear me say it time and time again, but polling numbers in the primaries are inherently very soft, and something as major as the Wright controversy "should" have an impact on the numbers. Precisely because the support is soft, however, is also why the opportunity is there for a quick recovery.
This particular Gallup tracking poll is significant in that it's the first one to consist entirely of post-Wright interviewing, assuming that one uses Friday to demarcate the proliferation of the Wright story into the public consciousness (and I do use Friday, because that's the day on which it got wall-to-wall coverage on Morning Joe -- as good a leading indicator of the state of the news cycle as any).
Remember, tracking polls are lagging indicators. All polls are lagging indicators, in fact. But tracking polls are particularly prone to misinterpretation, because which day is dropped from the tracking poll matters as much as which day is added. If, for example, Obama had finished 16 points ahead of Hillary on Thursday -- the day that got dropped from the tracking poll today -- he could have beaten her by 1 point in Sunday interviewing and the poll would have shown the same 5-point downward movement.
That is not to say that the Wright story hasn't done any damage. Clearly, there has been some downward movement, and it doesn't do anyone any good to cover their ears and scream: "IT'S JUST RANDOM NOISE!"
But over the very worst three days of the campaign that Obama has had since he announced his candidacy last February, he still only trailed Hillary by 2 points in the Gallup tracker -- within the margin of error.
Any sort of bounce or "anti-bounce" in the polling numbers can be described with two parameters: its depth (how large the bounce is at its apex), and its depth (how long it lasts). On the depth front, the Wright story was a Bad Thing for Obama -- but not fatal, nor on the brink of being fatal, nor on the brink of the brink of being fatal. (On the brink of the brink of the brink of being fatal, perhaps? OK, you got me). On the breadth front, we will find out soon enough, though Obama's big speech tomorrow gives the chance for the media to give this issue some closure (at least until the general election cycle begins in earnest).
In the meantime, the Democrats' main concern should be with their declining numbers against John McCain; what's interesting is that both Democrats seem to have suffered in the Rasmussen national tracker since the story broke. McCain getting face time in Iraq while the Democrats squabble and work to put out fires -- it doesn't take a genius to figure out that is not a good visual. And ironically, by the way, I think Obama's speech tomorrow has the potential to be helpful to Hillary's head-to-head numbers too. This is a pretty good excuse for the Democrats to stand down, at least until we get closer to the Pennsylvania primary.
EDIT: FWIW, there is at least one other poll showing Obama with a comfortable lead over Hillary over the same interview period. But I am actually more inclined to "believe" the Gallup Tracker. You'll hear me say it time and time again, but polling numbers in the primaries are inherently very soft, and something as major as the Wright controversy "should" have an impact on the numbers. Precisely because the support is soft, however, is also why the opportunity is there for a quick recovery.
The Six Types of Voters
@ 1:43 AM
Although the story hasn't quite yet broken through to the dead-tree media, some influential online writers are starting to pick up upon the fact that strength in the primaries is not necessarily so strongly related to strength in the general election. Noam Schieber noticed that the same Strategic Vision poll that had Clinton leading by 18 points in the Pennsyvania primary had Obama performing a couple of points better against McCain in the general election. MSNBC's First Read discovered this too.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen Reports has put out a whole number of polls this week that show Obama running at least as well as Clinton in so-called "Clinton states":
It might help to abstract the situation and consider the rest of the electoral cycle from the perspective of Instant Runoff Voting. Suppose you asked each voter to rank her choices -- Clinton, Obama and McCain -- from one to three. There are six possible permutations -- and each of them can reasonably be associated with one or another demographic group, or at least a stereotype thereof.
1. Clinton-Obama-McCain. These are likely to be the choices of mainline, establishment Democratic voters, especially women, Hispanics, and working-class voters outside of the South. If you look at the choices of Democratic voters so far in the primaries, they form a sort of donut hole: Obama does better among voters on the far left, and he also does better among moderates and independents. But Clinton does better with the "median", more traditional Democratic voter in the middle of the donut.
2. Obama-Clinton-McCain. The most likely order of preference for blacks, young voters, and progressives and other "latte liberals".
3. Clinton-McCain-Obama. This ordering may be fairly common among two groups: Southern Baptsits and other evangelical Democrats, and some older voters.
4. Obama-McCain-Clinton. Probably a common ranking for independents, as well as some anti-establishment (and anti-Clinton) voters to the left and center of the political spectrum.
5. McCain-Clinton-Obama. According to Mark Blumenthal, this was a common ordering in Mississippi. A lot of Republicans may have voted tactically in the Democratic primary -- but unless they were lying to exit pollsters, it also appears that they genuinely preferred Clinton to Obama as their #2 choice. I think we'd find the majority of social conservatives in this group, especially in the South, as well many national security conservatives, and a significant minority of suburban women.
6. McCain-Obama-Clinton. On the other hand, I'd guess that most economic conservatives and many libertarians end up here, and certainly most right-leaning independents; also perhaps some anti-Bush and anti-war Republicans.
So, these are the six fundamental classes of voters. Of course, you could get more technical than this if you'd like. For example, we've neglected those voters who might vote for one and only one candidate; I suspect the decision rule for some black voters, for instance, is "Vote Obama, otherwise sit out". But sticking with these groups, it is fairly easy to manipulate the numbers so that we can produce pretty much any result we like -- including primary results that differ substantially from general election results. We might hypothesize the following distribution of voters in Pennsylvania, for instance:
In this case, we have a plurality (30%) of Type 1 voters -- mainline, working-class Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama, but Obama to McCain. That sounds a lot like Pennsylvania. And what happens? We have Clinton winning 60-40 in a match-up between Clinton and Obama. Both both Democrats draw 50 percent of the vote against McCain. (The eagle-eyed among you will notice that we have McCain-preferring voters voting in the Democratic 'primary', but since we have them splitting their votes evenly, it shouldn't matter very much).
On the other hand, in Mississippi -- where Obama beat Clinton in the primary, but Clinton has done better against McCain in general election polls -- perhaps the electorate looks like this:
To get this result, you need a lot of Type 2 voters, and Type 5 voters. Our Type 2 classification includes most African-Americans, whereas our Type 5 classification includes most religious conservatives. Sounds a lot like Mississippi.
Each state is going to have its own unique fingerprint. In Nevada -- where Obama significantly outperforms Clinton in general election polls -- you probably have a lot of Type 1's (Clinton-Obama-McCain) but also some Type 4's (Obama-McCain-Clinton). In Illinois, where Obama beat Clinton easily, but both Democrats trounce McCain, there might be a lot of Type 2's.
This is not to say that there is no relationship between voting in the general election and the primary. If we compare the Obama-Clinton margin in the primaries in the states that have voted so far (counting Florida but not Michigan), to the current differences in general election polling in the fivethrityeight.com modified polling averages, we certainly can see some correlation:
However, there are also enough differences that a state can wind up in one column in the primaries and another in the general -- including particularly those states that are close enough to begin with where such differences are likely to matter. Following are our present win percentage estimates in all the states where Clinton claims victory (including Florida and Michigan, as well as Texas, but not states like Pennsylvania that haven't voted yet):
We see Clinton running more strongly by notable margins in Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and New Jersey, and slightly stronger in Massachusetts and New York. On the other hand, Obama does considerably better in New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire; a reasonable amount better in Michigan, and a little bit better in California.
If we multiply the win percentage by the number of electoral votes in each state, we come up with 151.9 for Obama and 156.3 for Clinton -- that is Clinton has an overall advantage of 4 or 5 electoral votes in states that Clinton won. That's a trivial difference, one that for example can be explained by Arkansas alone (although, we shouldn't dismiss Arkansas; those are six electoral votes that Clinton will get and Obama won't).
Now, let's look at the Obama states:
There are some Obama states, like Georgia and Utah, in which neither Democrat really has a chance. And there are also a couple -- like Mississippi -- where the general election advantage tips to Clinton. However, there is also a group of about a half-dozen states -- Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa -- in which Obama has a substantial advantage over Clinton in general election polling, as well as some longer shots like North Dakota and Alaska. All together, Obama projects to get 112.7 electoral votes out of "Obama states" to Clinton's 74.1 -- close to a 40-EV advantage.
For the time being -- and that is an important caveat, because these numbers may be changing even as we speak -- Obama has at least a 15% advantage in win percentage over Clinton in 18 states totaling 113 electoral votes:
Virginia (13), Washington (11), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Connecticut (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Nebraska (5), New Hampshire (4) Maine (4), Hawaii (4), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Montana (3)
And Clinton has at least a 15% advantage over Obama in five states totaling 64 electoral votes:
Florida (27), New Jersey (15), Tennessee (11), Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5)
For Clinton to win an electability argument based on the polls, she'd have to be much more likely than Obama to win states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and New York. But presently, that is not what the numbers show; the Democrats either perform about equally in those states (as in Ohio and Pennsylvania), or the states are unlikely to be contested in a competitive election (as in California -- where Obama is actually outpolling her -- or New York).
Clinton, certainly, can make other sorts of electability arguments not based on the polls -- but those are really the only arguments available to her for right now. And one argument she can't make is to point reflexively to the primary results; we have a robust enough set of general election polling now that such arguments are out of date.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen Reports has put out a whole number of polls this week that show Obama running at least as well as Clinton in so-called "Clinton states":
State Date Obama vs McCain Clinton vs McCainEach of these are states that Clinton won (California), "won" (Michigan), or presumes to win (Pennsylvania). And yet Obama is running better than her in four of the six polls, and is tied with her in the other two. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be pointed out that most of these Rasmussen polls were taken mid-week, before the Jeremiah Wright story really hit the media. As of this writing, ironically, Obama outperforms Clinton in both the Rasmussen and Gallup primary tracking polls -- but Clinton slightly outperforms him against McCain (by small margins in all cases).
CA 3/13 Obama +15 Clinton +7
OH 3/13 McCain +6 McCain +6
FL 3/12 McCain +4 McCain +7
NY 3/11 Obama +13 Clinton +12
MI 3/10 McCain +3 McCain +3
PA 3/10 McCain +1 McCain +2
It might help to abstract the situation and consider the rest of the electoral cycle from the perspective of Instant Runoff Voting. Suppose you asked each voter to rank her choices -- Clinton, Obama and McCain -- from one to three. There are six possible permutations -- and each of them can reasonably be associated with one or another demographic group, or at least a stereotype thereof.
1. Clinton-Obama-McCain. These are likely to be the choices of mainline, establishment Democratic voters, especially women, Hispanics, and working-class voters outside of the South. If you look at the choices of Democratic voters so far in the primaries, they form a sort of donut hole: Obama does better among voters on the far left, and he also does better among moderates and independents. But Clinton does better with the "median", more traditional Democratic voter in the middle of the donut.
2. Obama-Clinton-McCain. The most likely order of preference for blacks, young voters, and progressives and other "latte liberals".
3. Clinton-McCain-Obama. This ordering may be fairly common among two groups: Southern Baptsits and other evangelical Democrats, and some older voters.
4. Obama-McCain-Clinton. Probably a common ranking for independents, as well as some anti-establishment (and anti-Clinton) voters to the left and center of the political spectrum.
5. McCain-Clinton-Obama. According to Mark Blumenthal, this was a common ordering in Mississippi. A lot of Republicans may have voted tactically in the Democratic primary -- but unless they were lying to exit pollsters, it also appears that they genuinely preferred Clinton to Obama as their #2 choice. I think we'd find the majority of social conservatives in this group, especially in the South, as well many national security conservatives, and a significant minority of suburban women.
6. McCain-Obama-Clinton. On the other hand, I'd guess that most economic conservatives and many libertarians end up here, and certainly most right-leaning independents; also perhaps some anti-Bush and anti-war Republicans.
So, these are the six fundamental classes of voters. Of course, you could get more technical than this if you'd like. For example, we've neglected those voters who might vote for one and only one candidate; I suspect the decision rule for some black voters, for instance, is "Vote Obama, otherwise sit out". But sticking with these groups, it is fairly easy to manipulate the numbers so that we can produce pretty much any result we like -- including primary results that differ substantially from general election results. We might hypothesize the following distribution of voters in Pennsylvania, for instance:
In this case, we have a plurality (30%) of Type 1 voters -- mainline, working-class Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama, but Obama to McCain. That sounds a lot like Pennsylvania. And what happens? We have Clinton winning 60-40 in a match-up between Clinton and Obama. Both both Democrats draw 50 percent of the vote against McCain. (The eagle-eyed among you will notice that we have McCain-preferring voters voting in the Democratic 'primary', but since we have them splitting their votes evenly, it shouldn't matter very much).
On the other hand, in Mississippi -- where Obama beat Clinton in the primary, but Clinton has done better against McCain in general election polls -- perhaps the electorate looks like this:
To get this result, you need a lot of Type 2 voters, and Type 5 voters. Our Type 2 classification includes most African-Americans, whereas our Type 5 classification includes most religious conservatives. Sounds a lot like Mississippi.
Each state is going to have its own unique fingerprint. In Nevada -- where Obama significantly outperforms Clinton in general election polls -- you probably have a lot of Type 1's (Clinton-Obama-McCain) but also some Type 4's (Obama-McCain-Clinton). In Illinois, where Obama beat Clinton easily, but both Democrats trounce McCain, there might be a lot of Type 2's.
This is not to say that there is no relationship between voting in the general election and the primary. If we compare the Obama-Clinton margin in the primaries in the states that have voted so far (counting Florida but not Michigan), to the current differences in general election polling in the fivethrityeight.com modified polling averages, we certainly can see some correlation:
However, there are also enough differences that a state can wind up in one column in the primaries and another in the general -- including particularly those states that are close enough to begin with where such differences are likely to matter. Following are our present win percentage estimates in all the states where Clinton claims victory (including Florida and Michigan, as well as Texas, but not states like Pennsylvania that haven't voted yet):
We see Clinton running more strongly by notable margins in Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and New Jersey, and slightly stronger in Massachusetts and New York. On the other hand, Obama does considerably better in New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire; a reasonable amount better in Michigan, and a little bit better in California.
If we multiply the win percentage by the number of electoral votes in each state, we come up with 151.9 for Obama and 156.3 for Clinton -- that is Clinton has an overall advantage of 4 or 5 electoral votes in states that Clinton won. That's a trivial difference, one that for example can be explained by Arkansas alone (although, we shouldn't dismiss Arkansas; those are six electoral votes that Clinton will get and Obama won't).
Now, let's look at the Obama states:
There are some Obama states, like Georgia and Utah, in which neither Democrat really has a chance. And there are also a couple -- like Mississippi -- where the general election advantage tips to Clinton. However, there is also a group of about a half-dozen states -- Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa -- in which Obama has a substantial advantage over Clinton in general election polling, as well as some longer shots like North Dakota and Alaska. All together, Obama projects to get 112.7 electoral votes out of "Obama states" to Clinton's 74.1 -- close to a 40-EV advantage.
For the time being -- and that is an important caveat, because these numbers may be changing even as we speak -- Obama has at least a 15% advantage in win percentage over Clinton in 18 states totaling 113 electoral votes:
Virginia (13), Washington (11), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Connecticut (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Nebraska (5), New Hampshire (4) Maine (4), Hawaii (4), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Montana (3)
And Clinton has at least a 15% advantage over Obama in five states totaling 64 electoral votes:
Florida (27), New Jersey (15), Tennessee (11), Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5)
For Clinton to win an electability argument based on the polls, she'd have to be much more likely than Obama to win states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and New York. But presently, that is not what the numbers show; the Democrats either perform about equally in those states (as in Ohio and Pennsylvania), or the states are unlikely to be contested in a competitive election (as in California -- where Obama is actually outpolling her -- or New York).
Clinton, certainly, can make other sorts of electability arguments not based on the polls -- but those are really the only arguments available to her for right now. And one argument she can't make is to point reflexively to the primary results; we have a robust enough set of general election polling now that such arguments are out of date.
3.16.2008
A Technical Note
@ 7:04 PM
Some of you may want to bypass this post, but in the interests of full disclosure:
I've made a couple of improvements to the regression model that underlies the analysis. The first adjustment is to weight the regression based on the depth of polling data that we have in a given state. Without this weighting, the regression would treat a state like Wyoming, where we have just one poll, as having as much influence over the model as a state like Pennsylvania, where we are already approaching a dozen. Among other things, this should allow the model to "read-and-react" more quickly to new polling data.
The second improvement is to consider a couple of new variables in the analysis: the percentage of the 2004 electorate that identified themselves as Democrat, Independent, and Republican in 2004, according to CNN exit poll data. Obama does comparatively worse in states where a larger share of John Kerry's vote came from self-reported Democrats, and better where more of his vote came from Republicans and Independents. This is consistent with a finding from the recent Pew Poll, which shows Obama losing more self-identified Democrats to McCain than Clinton does, but getting a larger fraction of the vote from Republicans and Independents. This tends to give the model more confidence in Obama's polling lead in a state like New Hampshire, which has a huge number (44% of the electorate) of self-reported Independents, while harming him in a state like West Virginia, where just 18% of the electorate identify as Independent (but 50% identify as Democrat).
The overall effect of these adjustments is to slightly hurt Obama's win percentage, as he loses a few percentage points in industrial states like Pennsylvania that have relatively few independents (20% Independent, 41% Democrat in 2004). Clinton's numbers have moved up a tiny bit.
To get even more technical, the way the regression model is programmed is to consider eight potential variables:
I've made a couple of improvements to the regression model that underlies the analysis. The first adjustment is to weight the regression based on the depth of polling data that we have in a given state. Without this weighting, the regression would treat a state like Wyoming, where we have just one poll, as having as much influence over the model as a state like Pennsylvania, where we are already approaching a dozen. Among other things, this should allow the model to "read-and-react" more quickly to new polling data.
The second improvement is to consider a couple of new variables in the analysis: the percentage of the 2004 electorate that identified themselves as Democrat, Independent, and Republican in 2004, according to CNN exit poll data. Obama does comparatively worse in states where a larger share of John Kerry's vote came from self-reported Democrats, and better where more of his vote came from Republicans and Independents. This is consistent with a finding from the recent Pew Poll, which shows Obama losing more self-identified Democrats to McCain than Clinton does, but getting a larger fraction of the vote from Republicans and Independents. This tends to give the model more confidence in Obama's polling lead in a state like New Hampshire, which has a huge number (44% of the electorate) of self-reported Independents, while harming him in a state like West Virginia, where just 18% of the electorate identify as Independent (but 50% identify as Democrat).
The overall effect of these adjustments is to slightly hurt Obama's win percentage, as he loses a few percentage points in industrial states like Pennsylvania that have relatively few independents (20% Independent, 41% Democrat in 2004). Clinton's numbers have moved up a tiny bit.
To get even more technical, the way the regression model is programmed is to consider eight potential variables:
- The Kerry-Bush margin in 2004.
- The percentage of Baptists (all Southern Baptists, plus 1/2 of non-Southern Baptists)
- Obama fundraising (dollars raised per 2004 general election voter)
- Clinton fundraising (" ")
- McCain fundraising (" ")
- The percentage of African-Americans in the population
- The percentage of self-identified Democrats
- The percentage of self-identified independents
Obama Clinton
Variable Coeff. t-score Coeff. t-score
Kerry .549 6.20 .714 13.65
Baptist -.261 -2.74 .381 4.00
$_Obama 6.708 3.60 DROPPED
$_Clinton DROPPED 4.627 3.82
$_McCain -9.421 -2.92 -6.236 -2.34
Af-American DROPPED -.173 -1.56
Dem% -.560 -3.09 DROPPED
Ind% DROPPED DROPPED
Constant 24.561 3.78 -3.282 -2.77
Today's Polls, 3/16
@ 1:09 PM
Just one new poll on Selection Sunday, and it's a relatively boring one, with Rasmussen showing Obama beating McCain by 13 points, and Clinton beating him by 12, in the state of New York.
Neither Democrat is at risk of losing the state in a competitive election. However, this result is somewhat worse than other recent New York polls for Clinton. Rasmussen says that "the survey was conducted on Tuesday night at the height of the furor surrounding former Governor Eliot Spitzer", and it's possible that this depressed her numbers some.
Oh, and Public Policy Polling has UNC leading Duke 40-24 in North Carolina.
UPDATE: Well, just as I was flipping the charts and graphs on the site, another new Rasmussen poll came online from Florida, this one showing McCain beating Obama by 3 in the Sunshine State, but Clinton by 7. This is the first Florida poll that has shown Obama faring better than Clinton. It raises Obama's Win % in Florida to 25% and lowers Clinton's to 38%. It also sends Clinton's national win percentage against McCain below the 40% threshold for the first time since our Beta Test report on 2/26.
Neither Democrat is at risk of losing the state in a competitive election. However, this result is somewhat worse than other recent New York polls for Clinton. Rasmussen says that "the survey was conducted on Tuesday night at the height of the furor surrounding former Governor Eliot Spitzer", and it's possible that this depressed her numbers some.
Oh, and Public Policy Polling has UNC leading Duke 40-24 in North Carolina.
UPDATE: Well, just as I was flipping the charts and graphs on the site, another new Rasmussen poll came online from Florida, this one showing McCain beating Obama by 3 in the Sunshine State, but Clinton by 7. This is the first Florida poll that has shown Obama faring better than Clinton. It raises Obama's Win % in Florida to 25% and lowers Clinton's to 38%. It also sends Clinton's national win percentage against McCain below the 40% threshold for the first time since our Beta Test report on 2/26.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
