I got dinner and drinks yesterday with a couple of friends from St. Louis, and inquired whether they had heard about the takeover of Anheuser-Busch by Belgian beer conglomerate InBev. I was met with a couple of incredulous stares. Asking a St. Louisan about whether they've heard about the Anheuser-Busch takeover is tantamount to asking them they've ever seen Albert Pujols hit a fastball. This is very big news in St. Louis and other parts of Missouri.
The objections aren't just a matter of patriotic pride over Anheuser-Busch's flagship Budweiser brand, which might be the most recognizably American brand in the world. Rather, the issue is that it is a near-certainty that InBev will cut jobs. If InBev is smart, it will delay or limit the number of job cuts in St. Louis itself. But consolidation and cost-savings are how money is made in mergers between mature companies, and that means a certain number of 'redundant' positions are going to be eliminated. Indeed, Anheuser-Busch had already announced job cuts of 10-15 percent in June in an effort to trim its fat and make itself a less meaty target for InBev, whose takeover bid it initially considered hostile.
Ordinarily, it would be hard to tie the takeover to the political campaign. Like it or not, this is capitalism at work, and it is not clear that the merger had anything to do with the recession. Alcohol stocks are notoriously recession-proof, and BUD had remained basically flat over the past two years before ticking upward on rumors of the InBev bid, which paid its shareholders a substantial premium.
However, Cindy McCain is the chairwoman of Phoenix-based beer distributor Hensley & Co, which has substantial holdings in Anheuser-Busch. The Wall Street Journal reports that Hensley & Co stands to make around $1 million on the transaction.
This is still an issue involving a candidate's wife, rather than the candidate himself, and so the Obama campaign might need to handle it fairly delicately; it might be territory better suited for a 527 group, for instance. The other issue is that it is not immediately clear what policies might have been implemented to prevent the transaction, as Obama himself said in a trip to St. Louis earlier this month.
There is, however, one potential remedy. The deal arguably runs afoul of antitrust laws, as it increases the amount of consolidation in the domestic macrobrew industry, which SmartMoney.com describes as "basically an oligopoly of Anheuser, SABMiller and Molson Coors. Though InBev does not own any domestic labels, it does owns three of the ten best-selling brands of imported beers: Heineken, Beck's and Amstel Light.
Obama, therefore, could pressure the Federal Trade Commission on the matter, or request oversight hearings from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Consumer Rights.
The ranking member of the Antitrust Committee is Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl; Russ Feingold is also one of its 11 members. The Wisconsin Senators can speak to the the likely job cuts in Milwaukee brought about by the recent Miller-Coors merger, which bypassed both Milwaukee and Denver to place its new headquarters in Chicago. One can imagine Obama and Feingold holding a "Save our Jobs" rally outside Anheuser-Busch headquarters in St. Louis, with Feingold promising to hold hearings on the InBev merger and Obama pledging to appoint FTC commissioners who will aggressively defend American interests. John McCain, because of his wife's interests in the transaction, would be in no position to rebut their proposals.
That's meat-and-potatoes politics at its best, and nothing goes better with meat and potatoes than a little beer.
7.26.2008
Today's Polls, 7/26
@ 5:49 PM
Mixed news on the day, as Barack Obama gets two relatively weak results in state polling while continuing to gain ground in the national trackers.
In California, Obama leads John McCain by 10 points according to Rasmussen. This is quite a step down from Rasmussen's result in June, when Obama had led McCain by 28 points. Their other California polling, however, had been closer, showing Obama in the lead by margins ranging from 7 points to 15. Regardless, California polling is mostly an academic endeavor in this year's election. The state is not competitive, and so far as I can tell, the Obama campaign does not even have a field office open there.
In South Carolina, it's McCain by 13 in a new Research 2000 poll for DailyKos.com. This is Research 2000's first poll in South Carolina, and so there are no trendlines for comparison. Nevertheless, this is the first South Carolina poll to show McCain with a lead in the double digits.
Obama is just about at his high water marks in the national tracking polls, however. Gallup shows him ahead by 7 points, tying his best-ever margin in that poll, while Rasmussen has him ahead by 6. What Obama's foreign policy trip may have done, and particularly his speech in Berlin, is to refresh enthusiasm among his core supporters. Fully 60 percent of Democrats now have a very favorable opinion of Obama, according to Rasmussen's latest numbers. That number is improved from 53 percent a week ago. During that time frame, Obama has gained 6 points of support among Democrats, capturing 82 percent of their votes rather than 76. Half of that gain comes from undecided voters, while the other half comes from McCain.
In California, Obama leads John McCain by 10 points according to Rasmussen. This is quite a step down from Rasmussen's result in June, when Obama had led McCain by 28 points. Their other California polling, however, had been closer, showing Obama in the lead by margins ranging from 7 points to 15. Regardless, California polling is mostly an academic endeavor in this year's election. The state is not competitive, and so far as I can tell, the Obama campaign does not even have a field office open there.
In South Carolina, it's McCain by 13 in a new Research 2000 poll for DailyKos.com. This is Research 2000's first poll in South Carolina, and so there are no trendlines for comparison. Nevertheless, this is the first South Carolina poll to show McCain with a lead in the double digits.
Obama is just about at his high water marks in the national tracking polls, however. Gallup shows him ahead by 7 points, tying his best-ever margin in that poll, while Rasmussen has him ahead by 6. What Obama's foreign policy trip may have done, and particularly his speech in Berlin, is to refresh enthusiasm among his core supporters. Fully 60 percent of Democrats now have a very favorable opinion of Obama, according to Rasmussen's latest numbers. That number is improved from 53 percent a week ago. During that time frame, Obama has gained 6 points of support among Democrats, capturing 82 percent of their votes rather than 76. Half of that gain comes from undecided voters, while the other half comes from McCain.
7.25.2008
Name ... that ... Subgroup!
@ 8:05 PM
Bloomberg on a slow news day:
July 25 (Bloomberg) -- Political strategists and pollsters are on the hunt for the ``soccer moms'' and ``Nascar dads'' of 2008, the blocs of swing voters with enough clout to turn the tide in the presidential race.
Pollsters haven't yet popularized catchy labels for key demographic groups, like the minivan-driving suburban ``soccer moms'' deemed crucial in 1996.
There is one group that's up for grabs and could swing the election to Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain: women in their 50s and 60s without a college education.
Yes, the outcome of this election will be entirely determined by non- college educated white women between the ages of 50 and 69. In fact, political strategists have determined even more specifically that it will be 57-year-old women named Cynthia who skipped their high school reunion and live within three miles of a Pottery Barn.
Today's Polls, 7/25
@ 5:45 PM
The game of electoral ping-pong continues, with a considerably stronger polling day for Barack Obama:
In addition to these state-level results, Obama also gained ground in the Gallup and Rasmussen national tracking polls, which have him ahead by 6 and 5 points respectively.
Scott Rasmussen's polling suggests that the Berlin speech played fairly well, but then again, you might have thought the same about Obama hanging out with the troops and sinking three-pointers, or the imagery of his flying in a helicopter above Baghdad with General Petraeus and Chuck Hagel, and those didn't seem to move the numbers much. There is, I suppose, a distinction in that there is no real policy issue on the table in Germany in the way there is in Iraq -- and Obama's speech was notably light on specifics.
In any event, people seem to like these sort of big, cinematic moments, and that's something to keep in mind as we head into the conventions. When I saw Howard Dean speak in Austin, he seemed to be dropping hints at some of the themes the Democrats will emphasize in Denver: they were all fairly high-minded, with one of the big ones being the face that Obama presents to the world. I'd expect the Democratic Convention to be a big-budget, high-production, optimistic, patriotic, and somewhat nebulously saccharine affair. In other words, I'd expect it to be the sort of convention you'd normally expect from the Republicans. I've been critical of Obama in recent days for his inability to channel his Inner Bubba, but perhaps the Reagan model is the one he was cut out for all along.
Mind you, none of this has much to do with any of today's polling results in particular. I think we're at one of those points where we need to wait a few days for the news cycle to settle down before we determine who, if anyone, has emerged with momentum.
In addition to these state-level results, Obama also gained ground in the Gallup and Rasmussen national tracking polls, which have him ahead by 6 and 5 points respectively.
Scott Rasmussen's polling suggests that the Berlin speech played fairly well, but then again, you might have thought the same about Obama hanging out with the troops and sinking three-pointers, or the imagery of his flying in a helicopter above Baghdad with General Petraeus and Chuck Hagel, and those didn't seem to move the numbers much. There is, I suppose, a distinction in that there is no real policy issue on the table in Germany in the way there is in Iraq -- and Obama's speech was notably light on specifics.
In any event, people seem to like these sort of big, cinematic moments, and that's something to keep in mind as we head into the conventions. When I saw Howard Dean speak in Austin, he seemed to be dropping hints at some of the themes the Democrats will emphasize in Denver: they were all fairly high-minded, with one of the big ones being the face that Obama presents to the world. I'd expect the Democratic Convention to be a big-budget, high-production, optimistic, patriotic, and somewhat nebulously saccharine affair. In other words, I'd expect it to be the sort of convention you'd normally expect from the Republicans. I've been critical of Obama in recent days for his inability to channel his Inner Bubba, but perhaps the Reagan model is the one he was cut out for all along.
Mind you, none of this has much to do with any of today's polling results in particular. I think we're at one of those points where we need to wait a few days for the news cycle to settle down before we determine who, if anyone, has emerged with momentum.
McCain Ups the Ante
@ 7:08 AMFrom a hot-off-the-presses interview between McCain and the Columbus Dispatch:
This is not wholly different from what McCain told voters in New Hampshire, or told Katie Couric. But after taking some heat for his remarks, McCain is not backing down. In fact, he has broadened his criticsm: now anybody who fails to acknowledge the success of the surge -- and probably anyone who opposed it in the first place -- is apparently branded as something just short of a traitor.Q: Does that mean it's the same as putting politics ahead of country?
A: It means ... I said, I will repeat my statement again, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.
The McCain campaign has taken a couple of cheap shots at the Obama campaign while he has been in Europe and the Middle East. This is one of them, and the other was McCain's new commercial directly blaming Obama for high gas prices. This is smart politics I suppose, considering that Obama's staff isn't in a good position to respond. But McCain clearly thinks this phrasing is a winner for him, and if the Obama people don't get on the case pronto, they may find themselves going down John Kerry's well-worn path.
Lessons from the Overseas Trip
@ 3:22 AM
Let's give this until at least the middle of next week before we conclude that Obama hasn't gotten some kind of bounce from his trip abroad; some of the polls that came in after the deadline today were pretty good for him. But one speculative conclusion might be as follows: placing more emphasis on foreign policy may not be a winner for Barack Obama -- even if he closes the gap with McCain on the issue.
We might think of it like this. Suppose that, in the status quo, 75 percent of voters base their vote on domestic policy, and those voters go to Obama 60:40. The remaining 25 percent base their votes on foreign policy, and they vote for McCain 70:30. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by five points:
What you're hoping for in the long-run, of course, is something like this:
Granted, this has been a rather arbitrary exercise. But it wouldn't surprise me if something like this is going on. You're still giving McCain a sort of home-court advantage by fighting every day over foreign policy, even if you're winning some of the skirmishes.
The other substantive takeaway is that it may be a mistake for Obama to pick a Vice President who shifts the emphasis to foreign policy. So those of you who had Mssrs. Biden, Clark, Reed, Hagel, or Nunn in the Democratic Veepstakes, it may be time for a short.
We might think of it like this. Suppose that, in the status quo, 75 percent of voters base their vote on domestic policy, and those voters go to Obama 60:40. The remaining 25 percent base their votes on foreign policy, and they vote for McCain 70:30. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by five points:
[Status Quo] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 25 30 70
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 52.5 47.5Now suppose this: Obama emphasizes foreign policy. As a result, he cuts his deficit with McCain on that issue from 70-30 to 65-35. But he also increases the percentage of the public that base their decision on foreign policy from 25 percent to 35 percent. (Indeed, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, attention to Iraq and Afghanistan has increased by about that margin within the past week). The electorate now looks as follows:[FP Emphasis] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 35 35 65
Domestic Policy 65 60 40
============================================
Total 100 51.25 48.75Now, instead of leading by five points, Obama leads by just two-and-a-half -- even though the strategy succeeded in improving perceptions about his ability to handle foreign policy.What you're hoping for in the long-run, of course, is something like this:
[Long-Term?] % Voting Obama McCain
Foreign Policy 25 35 65
Domestic Policy 75 60 40
============================================
Total 100 53.75 46.25That is, in the long-run, the public's emphasis shifts back to domestic policy, which is where Obama wants it. But among those voters who do want to vote on foreign policy, he has assuaged some concerns and made some permanent gains. This results in him leading by 7.5 points rather than five.Granted, this has been a rather arbitrary exercise. But it wouldn't surprise me if something like this is going on. You're still giving McCain a sort of home-court advantage by fighting every day over foreign policy, even if you're winning some of the skirmishes.
The other substantive takeaway is that it may be a mistake for Obama to pick a Vice President who shifts the emphasis to foreign policy. So those of you who had Mssrs. Biden, Clark, Reed, Hagel, or Nunn in the Democratic Veepstakes, it may be time for a short.
7.24.2008
What Barack Obama Needs to Win
@ 7:12 PM
(As inspired by Mark Halperin).
- To speak to a national television audience at least once a week through a variety of venues.
- To speak to age 18-30 voters on a regular basis, through mechanicsms such as online chats that you host at your website.
- To develop a 30-second soundbyte answer to the question of high gas prices that everybody can recite by rote.
- To embody some of Bill Clinton, let your guard down, and speak to people's economic pain every day.
- To embody some of Hillary Clinton, develop more than one gear, and keep the McCain team off-balance.
- To speak to the importance of your role as a father, and to use it to highlight the moral imperative that we face in keeping the environment safe for our children.
- To pick some quick-and-dirty populist pieces of legislation that appeal to particular swing constituencies, such as the Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights.
- To determine whether Hillary Clinton is able and willing to be a high-profile surrogate for you and, if so, to deploy her on the trail immediately.
- To get some better advertising people, and run more ads less often rather than fewer ads more often.
- To quit being so deferential to John McCain.
- To let the press in all the way, except FOX NEWS.
- To avoid the temptation to pick a Vice President by focus group.
- To make some high-profile admission of an error in judgment that you made, and to get your self-effacing sense of humor back.
- To highlight an issue like your support for gays in the military that polls better than the Republicans realize, and attempt to lure them into re-fighting the culture wars.
- To continue going after uncharted ground like Montana, North Dakota and Indiana where the McCain campaign can't spend resources without losing face.
- To poll the hell out of the cellphone problem and determine if it gives you an advantage, and if so, in which states.
- To quit acting like you have a 10-point lead. You don't.
Note: This is analysis, not advice.
- To speak to a national television audience at least once a week through a variety of venues.
- To speak to age 18-30 voters on a regular basis, through mechanicsms such as online chats that you host at your website.
- To develop a 30-second soundbyte answer to the question of high gas prices that everybody can recite by rote.
- To embody some of Bill Clinton, let your guard down, and speak to people's economic pain every day.
- To embody some of Hillary Clinton, develop more than one gear, and keep the McCain team off-balance.
- To speak to the importance of your role as a father, and to use it to highlight the moral imperative that we face in keeping the environment safe for our children.
- To pick some quick-and-dirty populist pieces of legislation that appeal to particular swing constituencies, such as the Airline Passenger's Bill of Rights.
- To determine whether Hillary Clinton is able and willing to be a high-profile surrogate for you and, if so, to deploy her on the trail immediately.
- To get some better advertising people, and run more ads less often rather than fewer ads more often.
- To quit being so deferential to John McCain.
- To let the press in all the way, except FOX NEWS.
- To avoid the temptation to pick a Vice President by focus group.
- To make some high-profile admission of an error in judgment that you made, and to get your self-effacing sense of humor back.
- To highlight an issue like your support for gays in the military that polls better than the Republicans realize, and attempt to lure them into re-fighting the culture wars.
- To continue going after uncharted ground like Montana, North Dakota and Indiana where the McCain campaign can't spend resources without losing face.
- To poll the hell out of the cellphone problem and determine if it gives you an advantage, and if so, in which states.
- To quit acting like you have a 10-point lead. You don't.
Note: This is analysis, not advice.
Today's Polls, 7/24
@ 3:30 PM
New Quinnipiac polling in four states contains pretty good news for John McCain.
In Colorado, Quinnipiac has McCain ahead by 2 points, 46-44. This is the only Colorado poll in which McCain has led all year, save for an oddball results from the GOP-affiliated firm TargetPoint Consulting back in early April. Obama had led by 5 points in Quinnipiac's prior poll of Colorado, taken at the height of Obama's post-primary bounce last month.
Obama maintains his lead in the other three states in this box set, but it is smaller than before in each instance. In Michigan, Obama now leads by 4 points after having been 6 points ahead in June. In Wisconsin, his lead is down from 13 points to a still-healthy 11-point margin. But in Minnesota, the tightening is far more substantial, with Obama's lead going from 17 points to just 2.
Rasmussen also has numbers out today from another swing state, New Hampshire, where Obama holds a 4-point lead -- broadly in line with the recent UNH and ARG surveys -- after having led by 11 in June.
I hope that there is no longer any question that this is more than just statistical noise. Yes, there are individual results we can critique. It's hard to imagine Obama running 9 points stronger in Wisconsin than he does in Minnesota, for instance. And Quinnipiac's results from Colorado are a little odd, as Obama leads among independent voters and does as well as McCain does amongst his party, but trails slightly overall (Quinnipiac does not weight its results by party ID). Our model is designed to account for this noise in a variety of different ways, and for the moment, it doesn't take the possibility of a McCain win in Minnesota seriously, and still regards Obama as a very narrow favorite in Colorado.
But our model is also designed to evaluate trends, and there is an increasingly large body of evidence that Obama is now polling somewhere between 3-4 points off his peak numbers. In the grand scheme of things, that doesn't mean all that much -- it means that perhaps 1 in every 60 strangers you encounter on the street has switched from Obama to McCain within the last month. The more relevant question is where the downtrend dates from. If you look at our tracking graph, it seems to have started -- or at least steepened -- coming out of the July 4 holiday, when some of the Obama is a flip-flopper narrative began to take root. I am less convinced that Obama is getting an anti-bounce out of his trip abroad, and would remind you that their is a lagged effect before certain stories take hold, particularly in the dog days of the summer when the public's attention span for campaign coverage is limited.
The alternate hypothesis is that this is simply a reflection of McCain's greater investments in advertising in the early campaign, something we'll explore at greater length soon.
In Colorado, Quinnipiac has McCain ahead by 2 points, 46-44. This is the only Colorado poll in which McCain has led all year, save for an oddball results from the GOP-affiliated firm TargetPoint Consulting back in early April. Obama had led by 5 points in Quinnipiac's prior poll of Colorado, taken at the height of Obama's post-primary bounce last month.
Obama maintains his lead in the other three states in this box set, but it is smaller than before in each instance. In Michigan, Obama now leads by 4 points after having been 6 points ahead in June. In Wisconsin, his lead is down from 13 points to a still-healthy 11-point margin. But in Minnesota, the tightening is far more substantial, with Obama's lead going from 17 points to just 2.
Rasmussen also has numbers out today from another swing state, New Hampshire, where Obama holds a 4-point lead -- broadly in line with the recent UNH and ARG surveys -- after having led by 11 in June.
I hope that there is no longer any question that this is more than just statistical noise. Yes, there are individual results we can critique. It's hard to imagine Obama running 9 points stronger in Wisconsin than he does in Minnesota, for instance. And Quinnipiac's results from Colorado are a little odd, as Obama leads among independent voters and does as well as McCain does amongst his party, but trails slightly overall (Quinnipiac does not weight its results by party ID). Our model is designed to account for this noise in a variety of different ways, and for the moment, it doesn't take the possibility of a McCain win in Minnesota seriously, and still regards Obama as a very narrow favorite in Colorado.
But our model is also designed to evaluate trends, and there is an increasingly large body of evidence that Obama is now polling somewhere between 3-4 points off his peak numbers. In the grand scheme of things, that doesn't mean all that much -- it means that perhaps 1 in every 60 strangers you encounter on the street has switched from Obama to McCain within the last month. The more relevant question is where the downtrend dates from. If you look at our tracking graph, it seems to have started -- or at least steepened -- coming out of the July 4 holiday, when some of the Obama is a flip-flopper narrative began to take root. I am less convinced that Obama is getting an anti-bounce out of his trip abroad, and would remind you that their is a lagged effect before certain stories take hold, particularly in the dog days of the summer when the public's attention span for campaign coverage is limited.
The alternate hypothesis is that this is simply a reflection of McCain's greater investments in advertising in the early campaign, something we'll explore at greater length soon.
The Reverse Nader Effect
@ 9:03 AM
I've commented once before on how Ralph Nader could actually wind up helping Barack Obama, but until Chris Bowers pointed it out, I hadn't realized how much better Obama was running in polls where the third-party candidates are called out by name. According to Chris's data, Obama is polling fully two-and-a-half points better in national polls that have run versions both with and without Nader and Bob Barr -- and the differences seem to be increasing rather than decreasing.
There is a fancier explanation here involving green M&M's and the Monty Hall Problem, but the the basic one is commonsensical. When a voter indicates that their first choice is Ralph Nader, we can reasonably infer that they do not like Barack Obama. These Nader votes are not coming from people on the progressive left who are trying to play it cute; 2000 taught Democrats a lesson that they won't forget until they take back the White House. Instead, they're coming from PUMAs and other left-of-center voters who find Obama unacceptable for one or another reason (if they were right-of-center voters who found Obama unacceptable, they'd just vote for McCain). We should not be surprised that, having determined that these voters consider Obama unacceptable, they'd pledge their votes to McCain if he's the only other choice.
But McCain isn't the only other choice; Nader and Barr will appear on the ballot in most states, and you can always sit out the election, undervote the Presidential race, or write somebody's (Hillary's?) name in. The general rule of thumb is that third party votes decrease as we get nearer to the election; that's why most polling -- and almost all of our state polling -- does not call out Nader and Barr. But if McCain is picking up 2 or 3 points' worth of support from aggrieved Clinton voters who say they prefer Nader when given the choice, I'm not sure how many of those votes he can expect on Election Day.
There is a fancier explanation here involving green M&M's and the Monty Hall Problem, but the the basic one is commonsensical. When a voter indicates that their first choice is Ralph Nader, we can reasonably infer that they do not like Barack Obama. These Nader votes are not coming from people on the progressive left who are trying to play it cute; 2000 taught Democrats a lesson that they won't forget until they take back the White House. Instead, they're coming from PUMAs and other left-of-center voters who find Obama unacceptable for one or another reason (if they were right-of-center voters who found Obama unacceptable, they'd just vote for McCain). We should not be surprised that, having determined that these voters consider Obama unacceptable, they'd pledge their votes to McCain if he's the only other choice.
But McCain isn't the only other choice; Nader and Barr will appear on the ballot in most states, and you can always sit out the election, undervote the Presidential race, or write somebody's (Hillary's?) name in. The general rule of thumb is that third party votes decrease as we get nearer to the election; that's why most polling -- and almost all of our state polling -- does not call out Nader and Barr. But if McCain is picking up 2 or 3 points' worth of support from aggrieved Clinton voters who say they prefer Nader when given the choice, I'm not sure how many of those votes he can expect on Election Day.
7.23.2008
Charts Updated (Finally)
@ 9:39 PM
Numerous technical glitches have made this a not-very-fun day, but the tables and graphs on the site have now been updated. Obama's win percentage is back up to where it was a couple of days ago, in the low 60s. I recognize that some people think there's too much volatility in the model -- but when the polls are volatile, so will the model be. With so many states being close, a change of even so much as half a percentage point in the popular vote has profound implications for the electoral college.
In the polling thread, I also suggested that the model would consider Florida to be a swing state. This was guesswork on my part, and in fact the model is not ready to do that quite yet -- it still rates McCain as about a 3-point favorite. If the new Quinnipiac poll, which ought to be out any day now (Quinnipaic typically publishes on Thursdays), shows Obama maintaining or increasing his lead, we may have a different story.
In the polling thread, I also suggested that the model would consider Florida to be a swing state. This was guesswork on my part, and in fact the model is not ready to do that quite yet -- it still rates McCain as about a 3-point favorite. If the new Quinnipiac poll, which ought to be out any day now (Quinnipaic typically publishes on Thursdays), shows Obama maintaining or increasing his lead, we may have a different story.
Today's Polls, 7/23
@ 5:49 PM
Alachua. Baker. Brevard. Broward. It's eight years after the fact, and the name of Florida's 67 counties are still seared into my memory. It had appeared, at least, that we might avoid having a major electoral showdown in Florida this year. While recent polling had shown the state being winnable for Barack Obama, it had also been running a few points less favorably for him than Ohio. So long as that was the case, it was hard to imagine him winning Florida whilst losing Ohio -- and winning Ohio is probably a sufficient condition for his winning the election.
But now, just has his numbers in Ohio have fallen, his numbers in Florida may be on the rise. According to new data from Rasmussen, Obama now holds a 2-point lead in Florida. Obama had trailed significantly in all prior Rasmussen polling of the state, including a survey conducted in late June that had McCain ahead by 7. Our model now rates both Florida and Ohio as toss-ups.
Are we looking at noise in the data, or are there any reasons why Obama should be gaining ground in Florida while losing it in Ohio? Exit polling from 2004 might provide a clue. In Florida, 41 percent of voters identified a foreign policy issue (Iraq or terrorism) as their #1 concern, as opposed to 29 percent who identified an economic issue (jobs, health care or taxes). But in Ohio, just 30 percent picked foreign policy, while 35 percent picked the economy. This is, I suppose, just common sense: Ohioans tend to vote on pocketbook issues, whereas Floridians -- with their particular concerns on Israel and Cuba -- are more engaged in foreign policy. So, it seems plausible that Obama's international trip is helping to reassure voters in Florida, while at the same time it distracts him from focusing on the economic concerns that might be of most interest to Ohio.
There is some other polling out today too, but none of it is quite as interesting. In Virginia, Obama holds a 2-point lead in a new survey from Public Policy Polling; he led by the same margin in their June release. Rasmussen has Obama 13 points ahead in Minnesota -- a slight downtick from the 17-point margin he held two weeks ago, but still nowhere near the numbers McCain needs to make the state competitive. And in New Jersey, a poll from Monmouth/Gannett has Obama with a safe-looking 14-point lead (this is actually a downgrade from April, when Gannett had shown Obama 24 points ahead, but that poll had looked like an outlier at the time).
Note: There will be a slight delay before we get the charts and graphs updated.
But now, just has his numbers in Ohio have fallen, his numbers in Florida may be on the rise. According to new data from Rasmussen, Obama now holds a 2-point lead in Florida. Obama had trailed significantly in all prior Rasmussen polling of the state, including a survey conducted in late June that had McCain ahead by 7. Our model now rates both Florida and Ohio as toss-ups.
Are we looking at noise in the data, or are there any reasons why Obama should be gaining ground in Florida while losing it in Ohio? Exit polling from 2004 might provide a clue. In Florida, 41 percent of voters identified a foreign policy issue (Iraq or terrorism) as their #1 concern, as opposed to 29 percent who identified an economic issue (jobs, health care or taxes). But in Ohio, just 30 percent picked foreign policy, while 35 percent picked the economy. This is, I suppose, just common sense: Ohioans tend to vote on pocketbook issues, whereas Floridians -- with their particular concerns on Israel and Cuba -- are more engaged in foreign policy. So, it seems plausible that Obama's international trip is helping to reassure voters in Florida, while at the same time it distracts him from focusing on the economic concerns that might be of most interest to Ohio.
There is some other polling out today too, but none of it is quite as interesting. In Virginia, Obama holds a 2-point lead in a new survey from Public Policy Polling; he led by the same margin in their June release. Rasmussen has Obama 13 points ahead in Minnesota -- a slight downtick from the 17-point margin he held two weeks ago, but still nowhere near the numbers McCain needs to make the state competitive. And in New Jersey, a poll from Monmouth/Gannett has Obama with a safe-looking 14-point lead (this is actually a downgrade from April, when Gannett had shown Obama 24 points ahead, but that poll had looked like an outlier at the time).
Note: There will be a slight delay before we get the charts and graphs updated.
Do High Gas Prices Help Obama?
@ 9:46 AM
If Mark Halperin says so, it must be the conventional wisdom -- but I'm not sold.
It probably cannot be debated that economic turmoil in general helps the Democratic candidate -- but gas prices carry a particular symbolic weight that may reframe the issue in ways favorable to the Republican.
For one thing, there are the specific remedies that McCain has proposed: a reduction in the gas tax and a relaxation of the moratorium on offshore drilling. The former is a mixed bag electorally -- Obama did an admirable job of arguing the issue in the primaries -- but the latter is probably worth something to McCain. Offshore drilling polls well, and while the Obama campaign has some good arguments to make about its lack of connection to near-term gas prices, it has not really been devoting sufficient bandwidth to the economy to make them.
Secondly, while both candidates have placed some attention to the inexorably linked issues of climate change and energy security, for McCain the emphasis has been energy security / climate change, whereas for Obama it has been climate change / energy security. High gas prices may reduce the public's tolerance for seeing reductions in greenhouse gases as a moral and generational imperative (and a long-run economic imperative) and instead favor a more pragmatic approach that purports to lower gas prices first and ask questions later.
Thirdly, in what is arguably a reversal from the usual Democratic / Republican positions, Obama has run a far more optimistic campaign -- and that messaging may go over less well when people are grumpy about what they're paying at the pump.
Now, I think the Obama campaign could win the argument over high gas prices. But I don't know that they are winning it, and as such, that gives McCain some openings on the economy that he might lack otherwise.
* Let me also make clear: I think too much attention is paid to the price of gas as opposed to other commodities.
It probably cannot be debated that economic turmoil in general helps the Democratic candidate -- but gas prices carry a particular symbolic weight that may reframe the issue in ways favorable to the Republican.
For one thing, there are the specific remedies that McCain has proposed: a reduction in the gas tax and a relaxation of the moratorium on offshore drilling. The former is a mixed bag electorally -- Obama did an admirable job of arguing the issue in the primaries -- but the latter is probably worth something to McCain. Offshore drilling polls well, and while the Obama campaign has some good arguments to make about its lack of connection to near-term gas prices, it has not really been devoting sufficient bandwidth to the economy to make them.
Secondly, while both candidates have placed some attention to the inexorably linked issues of climate change and energy security, for McCain the emphasis has been energy security / climate change, whereas for Obama it has been climate change / energy security. High gas prices may reduce the public's tolerance for seeing reductions in greenhouse gases as a moral and generational imperative (and a long-run economic imperative) and instead favor a more pragmatic approach that purports to lower gas prices first and ask questions later.
Thirdly, in what is arguably a reversal from the usual Democratic / Republican positions, Obama has run a far more optimistic campaign -- and that messaging may go over less well when people are grumpy about what they're paying at the pump.
Now, I think the Obama campaign could win the argument over high gas prices. But I don't know that they are winning it, and as such, that gives McCain some openings on the economy that he might lack otherwise.
* Let me also make clear: I think too much attention is paid to the price of gas as opposed to other commodities.
Raising Kaine?
@ 3:03 AM
I caught the following ad here on this website and a couple of others:
That's a little weird. Kaine's not up for re-election this year -- and he won't be up for re-election in 2010 since Virginia governors cannot serve more than one consecutive term. In fact, Kaine would seem to be one of the more star-crossed politicians around. Once Mark Warner wins his race and joins Jim Webb in the Senate, the earliest Kaine could plausibly run for that office would be ... 2018, assuming that Webb had been defeated in 2012 (of course, Webb might also have Presidential ambitions that year). Kaine could also run for governor again in 2014, although just one Virginia governor since Reconstruction has ever pulled a Cleveland. Or he could run for the House, but it's fairly unorthodox for an ex-Governor to do so.
The point is, if Kaine has long-term political aspirations and doesn't want a big gap in his resume, it behooves him to hitch his star to Barack Obama and hope for a job in his administration: that and Chairman of the DNC would seem to be the only reasonably high-profile jobs available to him between 2010 and at least 2014.
One of those cabinet jobs, of course, is that of the Vice President; Kaine presently ranks fifth in the Intrade Democratic Veepstakes, behind only Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. "FIRED UP FOR CHANGE"? It practically seems like he's campaigning for the position, as the ad feels like one of those Heisman Trophy PR kits.
Of all the prospective Democratic VP nominees, Kaine may have the fewest obvious drawbacks. The only problem is that he isn't all that popular in the state he is supposed to help Barack Obama to carry -- Virginia. In a Rasmussen poll conducted last week, 50 percent of Virginian likely voters rated Kaine's performance as "fair" or "poor", as opposed to 48 percent who rated it "good" or "excellent". And his numbers were even worse among independent voters: 58 percent "fair" or "poor" against 37 percent "good" or "excellent". A major turning point was the end of the Virginia General Assembly session earlier this month, which ended in gridlock as the Assembly failed to pass a significant roadway funding bill and to fill vacancies on the Virginia Supreme Court.
I don't mean to throw the guy under the bus; he's a good public servant and might be second in line behind John Edwards for the Attorney General position (or maybe first, if the Drudge Report gossip about Edwards is true). But if Obama picks Kaine to be his VP, it should be for reasons other than his ability to carry Virginia.
That's a little weird. Kaine's not up for re-election this year -- and he won't be up for re-election in 2010 since Virginia governors cannot serve more than one consecutive term. In fact, Kaine would seem to be one of the more star-crossed politicians around. Once Mark Warner wins his race and joins Jim Webb in the Senate, the earliest Kaine could plausibly run for that office would be ... 2018, assuming that Webb had been defeated in 2012 (of course, Webb might also have Presidential ambitions that year). Kaine could also run for governor again in 2014, although just one Virginia governor since Reconstruction has ever pulled a Cleveland. Or he could run for the House, but it's fairly unorthodox for an ex-Governor to do so.
The point is, if Kaine has long-term political aspirations and doesn't want a big gap in his resume, it behooves him to hitch his star to Barack Obama and hope for a job in his administration: that and Chairman of the DNC would seem to be the only reasonably high-profile jobs available to him between 2010 and at least 2014.
One of those cabinet jobs, of course, is that of the Vice President; Kaine presently ranks fifth in the Intrade Democratic Veepstakes, behind only Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. "FIRED UP FOR CHANGE"? It practically seems like he's campaigning for the position, as the ad feels like one of those Heisman Trophy PR kits.
Of all the prospective Democratic VP nominees, Kaine may have the fewest obvious drawbacks. The only problem is that he isn't all that popular in the state he is supposed to help Barack Obama to carry -- Virginia. In a Rasmussen poll conducted last week, 50 percent of Virginian likely voters rated Kaine's performance as "fair" or "poor", as opposed to 48 percent who rated it "good" or "excellent". And his numbers were even worse among independent voters: 58 percent "fair" or "poor" against 37 percent "good" or "excellent". A major turning point was the end of the Virginia General Assembly session earlier this month, which ended in gridlock as the Assembly failed to pass a significant roadway funding bill and to fill vacancies on the Virginia Supreme Court.
I don't mean to throw the guy under the bus; he's a good public servant and might be second in line behind John Edwards for the Attorney General position (or maybe first, if the Drudge Report gossip about Edwards is true). But if Obama picks Kaine to be his VP, it should be for reasons other than his ability to carry Virginia.
7.22.2008
Today's Polls, 7/22
@ 7:52 PM
For the first time since shortly after clinching the Democratic nomination, we now have Barack Obama as less than a 60 percent favorite to win the election. Our simulations presently project Obama to win the election 58.4 percent of the time, with McCain winning the remaining 41.6 percent.
The main culprit for the decline are the new numbers out of Ohio, where Rasmussen shows John McCain jumping into a 10-point lead. We have already discussed this particular poll at length. Are the changes caused by differences in measuring party identification? No, not really. Rasmussen assumes a slightly redder electorate than other pollsters, but Obama's numbers had declined among Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Could there be problems related to the sampling of young voters in this survey, who went surprisingly strongly for McCain? That is a more viable explanation. But it still would not account for the entirety of the decline.
There is also new polling out from American Research Group, which has Florida and New Hampshire moving in John McCain's direction. In Florida, Obama now trails by 2 after having led by 5 points, and in New Hampshire, he leads by 2 after having led by 12.
The sky is not falling for Obama in Colorado, where Rasmussen has him retaining a 3-point lead (the lead is 7 points before leaners are factored in). This is consistent with the polling in Colorado throughout the election; Obama's leads have generally been in the small single digits, but he has almost always held one.
When we throw everything into the 538 blender, what we find is Ohio rating strictly as a toss-up. The fact that Ohio appears to be polling a point or two behind the national numbers for Obama rather than a point or two ahead has significant implications across the map. Viable 'Plan B' states like Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and perhaps Montana become even more important, as they, rather than Ohio, may now represent the path of least resistance toward an Obama electoral victory.
The main culprit for the decline are the new numbers out of Ohio, where Rasmussen shows John McCain jumping into a 10-point lead. We have already discussed this particular poll at length. Are the changes caused by differences in measuring party identification? No, not really. Rasmussen assumes a slightly redder electorate than other pollsters, but Obama's numbers had declined among Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. Could there be problems related to the sampling of young voters in this survey, who went surprisingly strongly for McCain? That is a more viable explanation. But it still would not account for the entirety of the decline.
There is also new polling out from American Research Group, which has Florida and New Hampshire moving in John McCain's direction. In Florida, Obama now trails by 2 after having led by 5 points, and in New Hampshire, he leads by 2 after having led by 12.
The sky is not falling for Obama in Colorado, where Rasmussen has him retaining a 3-point lead (the lead is 7 points before leaners are factored in). This is consistent with the polling in Colorado throughout the election; Obama's leads have generally been in the small single digits, but he has almost always held one.
When we throw everything into the 538 blender, what we find is Ohio rating strictly as a toss-up. The fact that Ohio appears to be polling a point or two behind the national numbers for Obama rather than a point or two ahead has significant implications across the map. Viable 'Plan B' states like Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and perhaps Montana become even more important, as they, rather than Ohio, may now represent the path of least resistance toward an Obama electoral victory.
The Cellphone Problem, Revisited
@ 4:50 PM
Let me comment on a bit more length on the so-called "cellphone problem" -- the fact that many voters are unreachable to pollsters whose samples consist of landline numbers only. This may have some relevance in explaining the Rasmussen results today in Ohio which showed John McCain with a fairly large lead.
The basic issue with cellphone-only households is that their incidence is not distributed evenly throughout the population. Minorities are more likely to be cellphone-only than whites, and men are more likely to be cellphone-only than women. But the most important differences are in terms of the age of the voter.
The below is data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control on the number of cellphone-only adults by age cohort. Actually, it is not just cellphone-only adults -- the CDC also tracks another category which I call "cellphone-mostly" adults. These are people that have a landline, but also have a mobile phone, and use their mobile phone to receive most or all of their calls. I know, personally, a lot of people who fall into this category: they may use their landlines only to make local calls, only to connect to the Internet, only as an emergency in case their cellphone service is down, and they may have the service only because it came bundled with their cable or wireless package. If their friends and family are in the habit of calling them on their cellphones, they may be very suspicious of calls coming into their landlines -- assuming that they are likely to be from telemarketers -- and not make a practice of answering them.
Table 1. Cellphone-Only and Cellphone-Mostly Adults by Age Cohort
As you can see, fully half of all adults under the age of 30 fall into the cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly buckets, and the number is growing every day. About a third of adults aged 30-44 are cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly, and then the numbers trail off once adults pass the midpoint of their lives.
Obviously, if polling firms did not weight by age, this would be an utter disaster for any election in which preferences vary significantly by age. Suppose for example that the following represented the true distribution of the likely voter population in Big Industrial State:
Pollsters can get around this problem by weighting groups that are likely to be cellphone-only more heavily -- in particular younger voters. This is what nearly all smart pollsters do, and it is considerably better than the alternative of not weighting at all. However, it creates a couple of additional problems.
The first and more commonly-discussed problem is that the cellphone-only voters may not be the same as their landline counterparts, even once we control for age and other variables like race and gender. Urban voters are about 50 percent more likely to be cellphone-only than rural voters, for instance, and while some pollsters weight by geography, others do not. Thus, you may wind up with a biased sample.
But even if the sample were unbiased -- the pollster is smart enough to figure out how to balance all the weights properly -- what you're still doing in effect is to magnify the importance of sampling error. Suppose that a pollster wants to sample 500 likely voters in a state. Roughly speaking, about 20 percent of these -- 100 of them -- are likely to fall into the 18-29 age range. But, about half of those voters can't be reached because they are cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly. So your effective sample size for this subgroup is 50 voters, which carries a margin of error of +/- 14 points. Sometimes, the luck of the draw will come through for you and you'll wind up with a pretty good sample, but other times you'll be pretty far off.
If you are not fortunate enough to wind up with a good sample, what you are going to wind up doing is compounding your problems, because you have to weight all the young voters that you do sample more heavily to make up for the ones that you can't reach because they depend on cellphones.
So what you should get in the habit of doing, where such information is available, is to check the cross-tabs for groups that are known to have problems with non-response bias -- by which I mean check them for younger voters because of the cellphone-only problem. If the pollster was unlucky and wound up with a poorly-representative sample of such voters, it may skew their overall results, as such responses wind up being weighted more heavily.
Is this an issue with the Rasmussen poll in Ohio? Actually, it may be. The poll has McCain leading 50-39 among voters aged 18-29, and 67-33 among voters aged 30-39. Obama leads 55-36 among voters in their 40s, and then McCain leads by single-digit margins among voters aged 50 and up. Such an age distribution is inconsistent with most other polling that we have seen in this election.
This does not mean that Rasmussen screwed up. This problem has nothing to do with Rasmussen; it is common to all pollsters that don't include a cellphone supplement, which means all pollsters except Gallup and Selzer. These pollsters are trying to do everything they can to work around a vexing problem -- that about half the young voters they might want to sample can't be reached, and that they are stuck with small sample sizes of such voters as a result. But it does mean that, if there is greater error in their sample of young voters, it will lead to greater error in their poll as a whole.
The basic issue with cellphone-only households is that their incidence is not distributed evenly throughout the population. Minorities are more likely to be cellphone-only than whites, and men are more likely to be cellphone-only than women. But the most important differences are in terms of the age of the voter.
The below is data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control on the number of cellphone-only adults by age cohort. Actually, it is not just cellphone-only adults -- the CDC also tracks another category which I call "cellphone-mostly" adults. These are people that have a landline, but also have a mobile phone, and use their mobile phone to receive most or all of their calls. I know, personally, a lot of people who fall into this category: they may use their landlines only to make local calls, only to connect to the Internet, only as an emergency in case their cellphone service is down, and they may have the service only because it came bundled with their cable or wireless package. If their friends and family are in the habit of calling them on their cellphones, they may be very suspicious of calls coming into their landlines -- assuming that they are likely to be from telemarketers -- and not make a practice of answering them.
Table 1. Cellphone-Only and Cellphone-Mostly Adults by Age Cohort
As you can see, fully half of all adults under the age of 30 fall into the cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly buckets, and the number is growing every day. About a third of adults aged 30-44 are cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly, and then the numbers trail off once adults pass the midpoint of their lives.
Obviously, if polling firms did not weight by age, this would be an utter disaster for any election in which preferences vary significantly by age. Suppose for example that the following represented the true distribution of the likely voter population in Big Industrial State:
Age %/LV Obama McCain
18-24 10 69 31
25-29 10 60 40
30-44 30 50 50
45-64 35 46 54
65+ 15 40 60
------------------------------
TOTAL 100 50 50These numbers have been 'rigged' such that each of Obama and McCain receive exactly 50 percent of the vote. Suppose, however, that we exclude cellphone-only and cellphone-mostly voters from our sample, according to their proportions in the CDC data. What you'd instead wind up with is the following:Age %/LV Obama McCain
18-24 7 69 31
25-29 6 60 40
30-44 28 50 50
45-64 39 46 54
65+ 20 40 60
------------------------------
TOTAL 100 48.5 51.5What ought to have been a tie instead turns into a 3-point lead for John McCain. (And keep in mind that the numbers in this example are hypothetical -- but they probably look something like this).Pollsters can get around this problem by weighting groups that are likely to be cellphone-only more heavily -- in particular younger voters. This is what nearly all smart pollsters do, and it is considerably better than the alternative of not weighting at all. However, it creates a couple of additional problems.
The first and more commonly-discussed problem is that the cellphone-only voters may not be the same as their landline counterparts, even once we control for age and other variables like race and gender. Urban voters are about 50 percent more likely to be cellphone-only than rural voters, for instance, and while some pollsters weight by geography, others do not. Thus, you may wind up with a biased sample.
But even if the sample were unbiased -- the pollster is smart enough to figure out how to balance all the weights properly -- what you're still doing in effect is to magnify the importance of sampling error. Suppose that a pollster wants to sample 500 likely voters in a state. Roughly speaking, about 20 percent of these -- 100 of them -- are likely to fall into the 18-29 age range. But, about half of those voters can't be reached because they are cellphone-only or cellphone-mostly. So your effective sample size for this subgroup is 50 voters, which carries a margin of error of +/- 14 points. Sometimes, the luck of the draw will come through for you and you'll wind up with a pretty good sample, but other times you'll be pretty far off.
If you are not fortunate enough to wind up with a good sample, what you are going to wind up doing is compounding your problems, because you have to weight all the young voters that you do sample more heavily to make up for the ones that you can't reach because they depend on cellphones.
So what you should get in the habit of doing, where such information is available, is to check the cross-tabs for groups that are known to have problems with non-response bias -- by which I mean check them for younger voters because of the cellphone-only problem. If the pollster was unlucky and wound up with a poorly-representative sample of such voters, it may skew their overall results, as such responses wind up being weighted more heavily.
Is this an issue with the Rasmussen poll in Ohio? Actually, it may be. The poll has McCain leading 50-39 among voters aged 18-29, and 67-33 among voters aged 30-39. Obama leads 55-36 among voters in their 40s, and then McCain leads by single-digit margins among voters aged 50 and up. Such an age distribution is inconsistent with most other polling that we have seen in this election.
This does not mean that Rasmussen screwed up. This problem has nothing to do with Rasmussen; it is common to all pollsters that don't include a cellphone supplement, which means all pollsters except Gallup and Selzer. These pollsters are trying to do everything they can to work around a vexing problem -- that about half the young voters they might want to sample can't be reached, and that they are stuck with small sample sizes of such voters as a result. But it does mean that, if there is greater error in their sample of young voters, it will lead to greater error in their poll as a whole.
Dueling Ohio Polls
@ 1:11 PM
Rasmussen has a new poll out in Ohio where they show John McCain with what they headline as a "modest lead". Actually, McCain's lead is 6 points, and 10 including leaners, which I would probably describe as a little bit more than modest. This comes on the heels of a PPP poll released just yesterday that had shown Obama with a not-so-modest lead of 8 points.
So, what the hell is going on here? Is this the party identification issue again -- PPP tending to identify more Democrats in its sample than Rasmussen?
Only up to a point. Neither pollster lists their party ID figures explicitly, but from what best I can tell, Rasmussen has the numbers at about 36/43/21 (Republican/Democrat/Independent) and PPP at 32/44/24. The party ID advantage accounts for about 4 points' worth of difference. For instance, if you took PPP's internals and weighted them as Rasmussen does by Rasmussen's party ID numbers, Obama would hold a 4-point lead rather than 8. That's still pretty significantly different from McCain leading by 10 points.
What else accounts for the differences between the two polls? Rasmussen initially permits one to select a third-party candidate -- and 7 percent of voters do -- whereas PPP does not. But then they push voters who have picked a third-party candidate toward one of the major-party candidate with a standard "who are you leaning toward?" question -- and most of those leaners wind up with McCain. So it's possible that you have a number of fairly conservative voters who are dissatisfied with John McCain and are flirting with the idea of voting for Bob Barr -- but will gravitate back toward McCain in the end.
The polls were also conducted at different times; all of Rasmussen's interviews were conducted Monday whereas PPP's were conducted Thursday through Sunday. The conventional wisdom has been -- and frankly, my assumption has been -- that Obama would get a little bit of a bounce out of his Iraq trip. This would directly contradict that, although I think we'll need to see quite a bit more evidence before we can reach a firm conclusion.
So, what the hell is going on here? Is this the party identification issue again -- PPP tending to identify more Democrats in its sample than Rasmussen?
Only up to a point. Neither pollster lists their party ID figures explicitly, but from what best I can tell, Rasmussen has the numbers at about 36/43/21 (Republican/Democrat/Independent) and PPP at 32/44/24. The party ID advantage accounts for about 4 points' worth of difference. For instance, if you took PPP's internals and weighted them as Rasmussen does by Rasmussen's party ID numbers, Obama would hold a 4-point lead rather than 8. That's still pretty significantly different from McCain leading by 10 points.
What else accounts for the differences between the two polls? Rasmussen initially permits one to select a third-party candidate -- and 7 percent of voters do -- whereas PPP does not. But then they push voters who have picked a third-party candidate toward one of the major-party candidate with a standard "who are you leaning toward?" question -- and most of those leaners wind up with McCain. So it's possible that you have a number of fairly conservative voters who are dissatisfied with John McCain and are flirting with the idea of voting for Bob Barr -- but will gravitate back toward McCain in the end.
The polls were also conducted at different times; all of Rasmussen's interviews were conducted Monday whereas PPP's were conducted Thursday through Sunday. The conventional wisdom has been -- and frankly, my assumption has been -- that Obama would get a little bit of a bounce out of his Iraq trip. This would directly contradict that, although I think we'll need to see quite a bit more evidence before we can reach a firm conclusion.
Did the New Yorker Get Snubbed from the Obama Campaign Plane?
@ 2:31 AM
Rachel Sklar at Huffington Post passes on the story that the Obama campaign had no room on its Iraq-bound campaign plane for Ryan Lizza, who penned a somewhat unflattering but fair and well-reported piece on Obama in last week's New Yorker (the same edition that featured Barry Blitt's editorial cartoon on the cover).
Let me approach this from a couple of different angles. On the one hand, I have very little doubt that political campaigns can behave vindictively. I say this because, in our work over at Baseball Prospectus, we have occasionally encountered baseball teams behaving in this fashion when it comes to issuing credentials. If baseball teams act vindictively based on what they perceive as negative coverage -- and many of them go out of their way to be fair, but some of them are capable of it -- I have little doubt that political campaigns are capable of it too. When this does happen, the excuse given is invariably the same one that the Obama campaign gave to the New Yorker -- "sorry, there's no room".
At the same time, space actually is a problem -- especially in a cramped major league press box or a campaign plane that has room for just 40 correspondents. Does the New Yorker clearly deserve one of those 40 seats?
I have absolutely no idea. But it perhaps isn't a slam dunk. I've attempted to determine which news sources are driving the most Internet traffic based on the present Memorandum rankings. Excluding duplicates and portals that clearly do not have a reporting function, I come up with the following list:
But clearly there is not an open-and-shut case -- and so to report that Lizza was 'barred' or 'snubbed' is a little misleading. At the same time, it's not the act of impropriety that matters so much as its appearance, and the Obama campaign ought to have gone out of its way to accommodate the request.
Let me approach this from a couple of different angles. On the one hand, I have very little doubt that political campaigns can behave vindictively. I say this because, in our work over at Baseball Prospectus, we have occasionally encountered baseball teams behaving in this fashion when it comes to issuing credentials. If baseball teams act vindictively based on what they perceive as negative coverage -- and many of them go out of their way to be fair, but some of them are capable of it -- I have little doubt that political campaigns are capable of it too. When this does happen, the excuse given is invariably the same one that the Obama campaign gave to the New Yorker -- "sorry, there's no room".
At the same time, space actually is a problem -- especially in a cramped major league press box or a campaign plane that has room for just 40 correspondents. Does the New Yorker clearly deserve one of those 40 seats?
I have absolutely no idea. But it perhaps isn't a slam dunk. I've attempted to determine which news sources are driving the most Internet traffic based on the present Memorandum rankings. Excluding duplicates and portals that clearly do not have a reporting function, I come up with the following list:
1. New York Times
2. Washington Post
3. Associated Press
4. CNN
5. The Politico
6. National Review
7. Wall Street Journal
8. Huffington Post
9. Los Angeles Times
10. Talking Points Memo
11. The Atlantic
12. Times of London
13. MSNBC
14. Salon
15. The Hill
16. Reuters
17. ABC News
18. Telegraph (UK)
19. New York Post
20. Bloomberg News
21. Guardian (UK)
22. New Republic
23. Fox News
24. Newsweek
25. Boston Globe
26. McClatchy
27. Jerusalem Post
28. Der Spiegel
29. Daily Mail (UK)
30. Time
31. Weekly Standard
32. USA Today
33. Chicago Tribune
34. CBS News
35. New York Sun
36. Vanity Fair
37. US News & World Report
38. San Francisco Chronicle
39. International Herald Tribune
40. The New YorkerThere is The New Yorker, right on the bubble at #40. Of course, there are several names on that list that probably don't belong (or that had no interest in sending a correspondent), and several others that didn't make the list but undoubtedly do: Lynn Sweet at the Sun-Times was sure as hell going to get a seat on that plane, for instance. Nor is it clear that traffic generation ought to be the standard (though if the seriousness of one's reporting were the metric instead, Lizza would surely belong in the top 40).But clearly there is not an open-and-shut case -- and so to report that Lizza was 'barred' or 'snubbed' is a little misleading. At the same time, it's not the act of impropriety that matters so much as its appearance, and the Obama campaign ought to have gone out of its way to accommodate the request.
7.21.2008
Today's Polls, 7/21
@ 8:20 PM
Sometimes, the polling is stable -- and other times, the polling creates a false sense of stability. This may be one of those times. The armada of polling released today generally points toward a fairly settled race. Obama is not polling quite as strongly as he might have been before the July 4 holiday, but neither are his numbers in any kind of freefall. In Ohio, for instance Public Policy Polling now gives him an 8-point lead -- down from 11 points last month, but still a result that he'd kill for come Election Day. Likewise, in Georgia and Alaska, Rasmussen has him shedding a point or two -- but still polling more strongly than most Democrats usually do in those states.
And in other states, Obama's numbers have improved a notch. EPIC-MRA has him 2 points ahead in Michigan -- a weaker result than he's seen in other polling of the state, but better than in EPIC-MRA's last edition, when he had trailed by 4 points in May. Likewise in New Hampshire, UNH has Obama pulling into a 3-point lead -- not the double-digit margin he's had in the Rasmussen and ARG polls, but an improvement from their April poll, when he trailed by 6.
It's possible, however, that we're in the midst of some sort of destructive superposition: the "Obama, no good dirty flip-flopper" wave is waning, and the "Obama, foreign policy superstar" wave is waxing. The result is not manifest in most state polling yet, but the Gallup daily tracker shows Obama's numbers rebounding in the past 48 hours.
Zugzwang
@ 6:43 PM
What's a good way to generate a lot of buzz? Announce your Vice Presidential selection at an unorthodox time. But this also carries a lot of opportunity cost: this is a card that each candidate gets to play only once.
It wouldn't totally shock me if McCain did announce his Vice Presidential nominee this week -- but if so, it tells you what a huge slam dunk Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe has been. If McCain had the insight to name his VP just before Obama took off for Iraq, that might have been one thing, but to do it during or immediately afterward creates the perception that you're following rather than leading the media cycle. Moreoever, it denies McCain the advantage of picking his VP last and being able to react to Obama's selection, something which he'd inherently seem to have since the GOP holds its convention later.
But what's a good way to generate a little buzz at no cost at all? Tell Bob Novak that you're thinking about announcing your VP choice -- and then don't actually do it. That is the more likely scenario here.
Either way, it is a reminder of the state of zugzwang that McCain campaign finds itself in. They have to make a move to react to Obama's Iraq trip -- but each plausible move weakens their position.
It wouldn't totally shock me if McCain did announce his Vice Presidential nominee this week -- but if so, it tells you what a huge slam dunk Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe has been. If McCain had the insight to name his VP just before Obama took off for Iraq, that might have been one thing, but to do it during or immediately afterward creates the perception that you're following rather than leading the media cycle. Moreoever, it denies McCain the advantage of picking his VP last and being able to react to Obama's selection, something which he'd inherently seem to have since the GOP holds its convention later.
But what's a good way to generate a little buzz at no cost at all? Tell Bob Novak that you're thinking about announcing your VP choice -- and then don't actually do it. That is the more likely scenario here.
Either way, it is a reminder of the state of zugzwang that McCain campaign finds itself in. They have to make a move to react to Obama's Iraq trip -- but each plausible move weakens their position.
Senate Polling Weekly Update, 7/20
@ 11:28 AM
As our travel prevented a Senate update from getting out last week, today's numbers incorporate two weeks' worth of polling. They also incorporate second quarter fundraising numbers, which looked better for the Democrats than they did for the Republicans in most cases.
There are three races that have shifted somewhat significantly since the last update, and a couple of others that have shifted more modestly.
In Oregon, the race appears to be tightening, as Gordon Smith has gone from a 76 percent favorite to win re-election to a 64 percent favorite. Not only did Jeff Merkley beat Smith in fundraising for the quarter, but he also held a polling lead for the first time, as Rasmussen showed him ahead by 2 points. This is beginning to differentiate itself from superficially similar races like Minnesota and appears to be a top-tier pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Smith, for his part, has had trouble staying on message, touting his relationship with Barack Obama in recent advertising.
Kansas, meanwhile, has gone from Likely Republican to Safe Republican, as we now attribute Pat Roberts with a 99 percent chance of winning re-election. This is principally on the strength of new Rasmussen polling that shows Roberts 28 points ahead and with strong favorability ratings. On paper, it is difficult to perceive the pickup opportunity here: red state, reasonably popular incumbent who has had better than a 10:1 fundraising advantage.
Maine remains more viable as a competitive state, but is not really coming together for Tom Allen, as Rasmussen showed Susan Collins holding onto a 10-point lead whereas SMS Atlantic -- in a now somewhat dated survey -- had her ahead by fully 25 points. Allen's fundraising has been quite good, and there is still a lot of money to be spent in this race, but I don't see the angle for defeating Collins, as both Mainers and Collins are a little too sophisticated to be taken by the "Ooga Ooga Republican Bad!" line of argumentation.
A couple other races have shifted slightly. We now classify New Jersey as "Safe Democrat", as Rasmussen, the one agency that had shown the race competitive before, now has Frank Lautenberg with a 13-point lead. Lautenberg is old and sometimes ineloquent enough that there is a little bit of Macaca potential in this race, and Dick Zimmer is a relatively serious opponent, but it will likely take some sort of external event to shift these numbers. North Carolina, meanwhile, has shifted slightly more Republican, as Elizabeth Dole continues to hold on to a lead in the small double digits as time winds off Kay Hagan's clock.
With races like Maine and North Carolina becoming more difficult for them, the prospect of Democrats controlling 60 seats has dimmed slightly and now rates at about 14 percent (or 8 percent if Joe Lieberman is not counted as a Democrat). In order to achieve the 60-seat threshold, the Democrats will need to win all five races that we presently classify as "tilt" or "lean": these are Alaska, Mississippi, Oregon, Kentucky (where Bruce Lunsford has dumped a bunch of his own money into the race) and Minnesota. The Democrats face a decision point soon as to whether to try and consolidate their efforts in those states, or to try and put something exotic like Texas or Idaho into play.
Complete polling follows.
Clinton's Debt Reveals Flaws in Campaign Finance Laws
@ 8:47 AM
The latest FEC filings reveal that Hillary Clinton's campaign owed more than $25 million in debt as of June 30. The problem is not quite as bad as that initial price tag would suggest, as about $13 million of the $25 million in debt is owed to Clinton herself. Under federal finance law, Clinton will not be able to recoup more than $250,000 of that money once the convention occurs and her campaign is officially terminated.
Nevertheless, the other half of the debt -- about $12 million -- takes the form of accounts payable owed to individual vendors. A substantial amount of that ($5.3 million) is owed to Mark Penn's consulting firm, and another million-plus to other pollsters and consultants. But there are also more mundane sorts of expenses. Approximately $2.0 million is owed to event-staging companies such as caterers, equipment rental firms and lighting companies. Another $1.2 million is owed to printers, and $0.5 million to phone banking companies. Almost all of the companies in these categories are small businesses. The Clinton campaign also has about half a million dollars in unpaid phone bills owed to AT&T and Verizon, and $230,000 in uncompensated travel expenses to campaign staff.
Clinton's obligations for paying off her debt are a little murky. In theory, all of her vendors -- yes, even Mark Penn -- are required to make a good-faith effort to collect their debts because otherwise this might constitute an illegal campaign contribution. Consider the following, for instance: Verizon allows the Clinton campaign to accumulate $300,000 in cellphone expenses, but lets the campaign know that it's not going to worry about the bills being paid. This is tantamount to Verizon donating $300,000 directly to the campaign, which is illegal under campaign finance law.
In practice, however, as The Politico's Ken Vogel reports, "Firms that do a lot of work for campaigns understand that complaining to the press or suing over lingering bills are big no-nos sure to get them blacklisted".
The debt can be transfered to future campaign committees of that candidate (in fact, my understanding is that it must be transfered if the candidate runs for office again). Thus, the Hillary for Senate 2012 Committee may start off substantially in the hole. That might seem fair enough, but here too there is a problem. If someone who had already contributed $2,300 to Clinton's primary election fund also contributes $2,300 to Hillary for Senate 2012 to help pay down her primary debt, what they've really done is to donate $4,600 to underwrite her primary campaign, violating the individual contribution limit.
The problem is made far worse if Clinton transfers funds from her general election fund -- which is substantially solvent -- to her next Senate committee, as she is reportedly considering doing. The vast bulk of funds in that pool were raised from high-value donors who had already maxed out their $2,300 limit in the primaries.
In the absence of adequate mechanisms for the repayment of debt without violating other core precepts of campaign finance law, the remedy would seem to be pretty simple: campaigns out not be allowed to accumulate such debts in the first place. A rule, for instance, that a campaign may not accrue obligations in excess of 120 percent of its current cash-on-hand less accounts payable might do the trick. And there need to be real teeth in the rules too: a candidate who commits a major violation of campaign finance law ought to be barred from running for public office for some probationary period thereafter.
EDIT: 'Accounts payable' had been incorrectly referred to as 'accounts receivable'.
Nevertheless, the other half of the debt -- about $12 million -- takes the form of accounts payable owed to individual vendors. A substantial amount of that ($5.3 million) is owed to Mark Penn's consulting firm, and another million-plus to other pollsters and consultants. But there are also more mundane sorts of expenses. Approximately $2.0 million is owed to event-staging companies such as caterers, equipment rental firms and lighting companies. Another $1.2 million is owed to printers, and $0.5 million to phone banking companies. Almost all of the companies in these categories are small businesses. The Clinton campaign also has about half a million dollars in unpaid phone bills owed to AT&T and Verizon, and $230,000 in uncompensated travel expenses to campaign staff.
Clinton's obligations for paying off her debt are a little murky. In theory, all of her vendors -- yes, even Mark Penn -- are required to make a good-faith effort to collect their debts because otherwise this might constitute an illegal campaign contribution. Consider the following, for instance: Verizon allows the Clinton campaign to accumulate $300,000 in cellphone expenses, but lets the campaign know that it's not going to worry about the bills being paid. This is tantamount to Verizon donating $300,000 directly to the campaign, which is illegal under campaign finance law.
In practice, however, as The Politico's Ken Vogel reports, "Firms that do a lot of work for campaigns understand that complaining to the press or suing over lingering bills are big no-nos sure to get them blacklisted".
The debt can be transfered to future campaign committees of that candidate (in fact, my understanding is that it must be transfered if the candidate runs for office again). Thus, the Hillary for Senate 2012 Committee may start off substantially in the hole. That might seem fair enough, but here too there is a problem. If someone who had already contributed $2,300 to Clinton's primary election fund also contributes $2,300 to Hillary for Senate 2012 to help pay down her primary debt, what they've really done is to donate $4,600 to underwrite her primary campaign, violating the individual contribution limit.
The problem is made far worse if Clinton transfers funds from her general election fund -- which is substantially solvent -- to her next Senate committee, as she is reportedly considering doing. The vast bulk of funds in that pool were raised from high-value donors who had already maxed out their $2,300 limit in the primaries.
In the absence of adequate mechanisms for the repayment of debt without violating other core precepts of campaign finance law, the remedy would seem to be pretty simple: campaigns out not be allowed to accumulate such debts in the first place. A rule, for instance, that a campaign may not accrue obligations in excess of 120 percent of its current cash-on-hand less accounts payable might do the trick. And there need to be real teeth in the rules too: a candidate who commits a major violation of campaign finance law ought to be barred from running for public office for some probationary period thereafter.
EDIT: 'Accounts payable' had been incorrectly referred to as 'accounts receivable'.
7.20.2008
Obama and al-Maliki
@ 2:13 PM
Is the quasi-endorsement of Barack Obama's withdraw timetable by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki a transformative event in the campaign? Marc Ambinder -- and his Republican source -- certianly seem to think so.
I tend to think the impact will be felt too, but perhaps somewhat indirectly. Foreign policy is the one area where the American public does not have a great deal of patience for nuance and detail -- even a detail as important as this one. At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective.
This does, however, put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that.
I tend to think the impact will be felt too, but perhaps somewhat indirectly. Foreign policy is the one area where the American public does not have a great deal of patience for nuance and detail -- even a detail as important as this one. At a soundbyte level, the Republican counter-spin "see, the surge worked!" -- is liable to be at least somewhat effective.
This does, however, put McCain on the defensive on foreign policy, which is especially problematic as this was one of the few issues where he had the opportunity to play offense. Getting the boys home -- which seemed like a slam-dunk winner for the Democrats six months ago -- might not have been one by November. Polling in key swing states had begun to show slight majorities opposed to a specific withdraw timetable, and unless the Republicans do an exceptionally good job of winning the spin war, this will change all of that.
Obama and Austin, Take II
@ 1:59 PM
I wanted to extend and revise my remarks from the other day about the enthusiasm for the Obama campaign at the Netroots Nation Conference in Austin. I would maintain that there is somewhat less gusto for Obama than there might have been a couple of months ago. But there is an alternate explanation for this, apart from the notion that people are dissatisfied with the nominee: confidence -- perhaps overconfidence -- about Obama's electoral prospects in November. Everyone I spoke with this weekend expects Obama to win, to a degree that somewhat exceeds the relatively tight standing in the polling.
While such confidence might seem natural coming from the liberal/progressive base, it has not always been that way in the past. Liberals can sometimes be a pessimistic bunch, and John Kerry's defeat in 2004 had left many people feeling especially bitter. By contrast, it would be hard to overstate the importance of the 2006 election in terms of buoying and reinforcing activism, particularly in the online sphere. If the Democrats had not won back both chambers of Congress in 2006, one imagines that there would have been much less comfort in Barack Obama's business model, and that Hillary Clinton would have received a larger fraction of support from thought leaders both in the netroots and in the party establishment.
Are there dangers to Obama in all of this? Certainly there are some. Turnout is going to be high almost no matter what, but if people have concluded that the presidential race is fairly safe, they may begin to donate their time and money to Senate, House and local candidates rather than the Presidential effort; their attention already seems to be somewhat directed that way. Obama's July fundraising number -- which will serve as a baseline in a relatively newsless month -- is going to be worth paying particular attention to.
p.s. Also somewhat contrary to my earlier reporting, the Obama campaign did have some presence here. Deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand spoke on a panel yesterday, and Obama addressed the conference by means of a video message.
While such confidence might seem natural coming from the liberal/progressive base, it has not always been that way in the past. Liberals can sometimes be a pessimistic bunch, and John Kerry's defeat in 2004 had left many people feeling especially bitter. By contrast, it would be hard to overstate the importance of the 2006 election in terms of buoying and reinforcing activism, particularly in the online sphere. If the Democrats had not won back both chambers of Congress in 2006, one imagines that there would have been much less comfort in Barack Obama's business model, and that Hillary Clinton would have received a larger fraction of support from thought leaders both in the netroots and in the party establishment.
Are there dangers to Obama in all of this? Certainly there are some. Turnout is going to be high almost no matter what, but if people have concluded that the presidential race is fairly safe, they may begin to donate their time and money to Senate, House and local candidates rather than the Presidential effort; their attention already seems to be somewhat directed that way. Obama's July fundraising number -- which will serve as a baseline in a relatively newsless month -- is going to be worth paying particular attention to.
p.s. Also somewhat contrary to my earlier reporting, the Obama campaign did have some presence here. Deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand spoke on a panel yesterday, and Obama addressed the conference by means of a video message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
