When we stopped into Barack Obama’s field office in Nebraska ten days ago, Obama’s State Director John Berge sat down with us for a fascinating conversation about the innards of Democratic efforts in the state, the most overt goal being the attempt to win one single, solitary Electoral Vote in the second congressional district.
Only Nebraska and Maine divide their state electoral votes on a district-by-district basis rather than winner take all. For those who remember the proportional allocation of the Democratic delegate race during the nomination battle, Nebraska is significant because a wider statewide loss can be mitigated by strength in a particular area. Rather than lose 5-0, Obama could lose 4-1 and gain a 2 EV swing. Omaha is a compact congressional district, one of three in Nebraska, and clearly the most Democratic district.
Were Obama to win Kerry states and add Iowa and New Mexico (very strong probabilities, with New Hampshire at Obama +4.5% as the closest current projection and Iowa and New Mexico outside the margin of error), he would have 264 electoral votes. Adding Omaha would pretty much end any thought of a 269-269 tie. In addition, Obama projects leads in Colorado (6.1%), Virginia (4.5%), Florida (2.2%), Ohio (2.1%), Nevada (1.9%), and North Carolina (0.1%).
Berge told us that we’d know if the Nebraska 2d congressional district internals had the McCain camp worried if we started seeing Republican surrogates in the area. With every day's time so precious for each candidate -- an issue of resource allocation -- campaigns have to prioritize where the smartest expenditure of time will be. The nominee or VP nominee going to an area is a big deal.
Tomorrow night, a mere month before the election, not a surrogate but Sarah Palin herself is visiting Omaha, while Barack Obama just opened a second field office. Early voting is already underway.
"Oh c'mon, do we have to?" aside, if the McCain campaign is defending Omaha rather than spending time in Michigan, there is no bluffing going on -- McCain is holding on for dear life at this stage.
Consider Omaha in play.
10.04.2008
Senate Polling Update, 10/4
@ 8:50 PM
Anti-incumbent sentiment is as strong as it has been all year, and that is working to the benefit of the Democrats in our latest Senate projections:
The Democrats have gained ground in several races this week, including North Carolina, where for the first time we have Kay Hagan listed as a favorite to unseat Elizabeth Dole, New Hampshire, where Jeanne Shaheen appears to have bounced back after some tight polling in mid-September, and Mississippi, where Rasmussen shows the race closing to two points. In addition, polling in Georgia and Texas indicates that those races may be viable pickup opportunities in a wave election, and even Nebraska has tightened a bit, with that race retaining a fairly high percentage of undecideds.
About the only good news the Republicans got this week was in Kentucky, where Rasmussen gives Mitch McConnell a 9-point lead, and is not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon and call that race a toss-up. Republican challengers in Iowa and Michigan have also picked up a bit of ground, suggesting that the anti-incumbent sentiment may to some extent be a two-way street. However, in neither case do the Republicans have a good candidate, leaving them poorly placed to take advantage of it (they remain at least 100-to-1 longshots in each state).
Overall, the Democrats now project as the favorites in seven seats currently held by the Republicans, with anywhere from 3-7 further GOP seats conceivably in play depending on how generous you want to be. This is the strongest position that they have been in all year, and it seems to be improving by the day.
The Democrats have gained ground in several races this week, including North Carolina, where for the first time we have Kay Hagan listed as a favorite to unseat Elizabeth Dole, New Hampshire, where Jeanne Shaheen appears to have bounced back after some tight polling in mid-September, and Mississippi, where Rasmussen shows the race closing to two points. In addition, polling in Georgia and Texas indicates that those races may be viable pickup opportunities in a wave election, and even Nebraska has tightened a bit, with that race retaining a fairly high percentage of undecideds.
About the only good news the Republicans got this week was in Kentucky, where Rasmussen gives Mitch McConnell a 9-point lead, and is not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon and call that race a toss-up. Republican challengers in Iowa and Michigan have also picked up a bit of ground, suggesting that the anti-incumbent sentiment may to some extent be a two-way street. However, in neither case do the Republicans have a good candidate, leaving them poorly placed to take advantage of it (they remain at least 100-to-1 longshots in each state).
Overall, the Democrats now project as the favorites in seven seats currently held by the Republicans, with anywhere from 3-7 further GOP seats conceivably in play depending on how generous you want to be. This is the strongest position that they have been in all year, and it seems to be improving by the day.
Today's Polls, 10/4
@ 7:29 PM
With the first set of tracking polls out to incorporate at least one full day of post-debate interviewing, there is no indication that John McCain and Sarah Palin have made progress in closing their gap with Barack Obama. In fact, Obama ticked upward in three of the four national tracking polls that published today, although he lost a point in Rasmussen. In addition, Ipsos/McClatchy has come out with a poll showing that the debate moved undecideds slightly toward the Obama ticket, confirming the results of most of the snap polling conducted on Thursday evening.
Beyond that, this is the slowest polling day that we've had in some time. The only fresh state poll out is in Maine, and it's actually a pretty good one for John McCain: Rasmussen has him trailing there by just 5 points, little changed from their survey two weeks ago that had him down 4. Although several recent polls have shown Maine tightening, our model will need additional evidence before it concludes that Maine is any sort of toss-up state, as Obama's polling has been strong there all year and as things are going well for him in the Northeast region (as they usually do for a Democrat). Nevertheless, Maine is a very cheap state to and compete in, so our return-on-investment index likes it as a long-shot play; the McCain campaign's decision to commit resources there looks wise.
Finally, just a couple of bits of housekeeping. Firstly, we have corrected the results from the Elon Poll in North Carolina that we published yesterday. We had originally listed the poll as showing a 2-point Obama lead; however, these were the results of a question asking which candidate would handle the economy better, and not the Presidential horse race. The horse race numbers are there, but require a bit of digging to find; they show a virtual dead heat (Obama 38.9, McCain 38.8).
Also, our poll detail chart will now list state tracking polls in a different way. Instead of seeing this:
...that is, each day's results from a tracking poll listed individually (but with very small weightings because few new interviews are conducted each day), you will instead see this:
...that is, a weighted average of the tracking poll's results consolidated onto one line (and highlighted in a salmon color).
This is purely a cosmetic/presentation issue; behind the scenes, our model will continue to treat each day's results from a tracking poll as a separate data point. But it gets very messy to show things to you this way.
Beyond that, this is the slowest polling day that we've had in some time. The only fresh state poll out is in Maine, and it's actually a pretty good one for John McCain: Rasmussen has him trailing there by just 5 points, little changed from their survey two weeks ago that had him down 4. Although several recent polls have shown Maine tightening, our model will need additional evidence before it concludes that Maine is any sort of toss-up state, as Obama's polling has been strong there all year and as things are going well for him in the Northeast region (as they usually do for a Democrat). Nevertheless, Maine is a very cheap state to and compete in, so our return-on-investment index likes it as a long-shot play; the McCain campaign's decision to commit resources there looks wise.
Finally, just a couple of bits of housekeeping. Firstly, we have corrected the results from the Elon Poll in North Carolina that we published yesterday. We had originally listed the poll as showing a 2-point Obama lead; however, these were the results of a question asking which candidate would handle the economy better, and not the Presidential horse race. The horse race numbers are there, but require a bit of digging to find; they show a virtual dead heat (Obama 38.9, McCain 38.8).
Also, our poll detail chart will now list state tracking polls in a different way. Instead of seeing this:
...that is, each day's results from a tracking poll listed individually (but with very small weightings because few new interviews are conducted each day), you will instead see this:
...that is, a weighted average of the tracking poll's results consolidated onto one line (and highlighted in a salmon color).
This is purely a cosmetic/presentation issue; behind the scenes, our model will continue to treat each day's results from a tracking poll as a separate data point. But it gets very messy to show things to you this way.
Dueling Minnesota Polls
@ 2:20 PM
I'm hoping to get a full senate polling update out later today, but in the meantime, I've been getting a lot of e-mails about the conflicting results in Minnesota, where SurveyUSA shows Norm Coleman 10 points ahead of Al Franken, but the Minnesota Star Tribune has Franken 9 points ahead of Coleman. (The one thing the polls agree on? Third-party candidate Dean Barkley is a factor).
While SurveyUSA provides plenty of crosstabular detail, there's very little from the Star-Tribune in the way of demographics, making comparison of the polls difficult. The Star-Tribune does, however, provide their party ID split (as does SurveyUSA):
There's something else weird going on, too. Look at that table above and add the three numbers together. In the Star-Tribune's poll, they add up to 95 percent, which means that 5 percent of voters are "missing". And in the SurveyUSA poll, they add up to 88 percent, which means that 12 percent of voters are "missing".
Those "missing" voters aren't actually missing, of course; they probably identify themselves as part of some sort of third party, or refused to provide their party ID. There may also be some ambiguities related to Minnesotans identifying themselves as part of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party as opposed to straight Democrats.
So who's right? I'm not sure that I'd trust either of these polls. The Minnesota senate race, most likely, is a toss-up.
While SurveyUSA provides plenty of crosstabular detail, there's very little from the Star-Tribune in the way of demographics, making comparison of the polls difficult. The Star-Tribune does, however, provide their party ID split (as does SurveyUSA):
Poll D R I D +/-
Star-Tribune 42 26 27 +16
SurveyUSA 37 30 21 +7The Democrats hold a 16-point edge in partisan ID in the Star-Tribune poll, as compared with a 7-point edge in the SurveyUSA poll. In 2004, Democrats had a 3-point party ID edge in Minnesota. Since then, however, Democrats have gained about 8 points in party ID nationwide. If the trend can be extrapolated linearly to Minnesota, that would imply that their edge in the state should be about a +11 -- roughly in between the two surveys.There's something else weird going on, too. Look at that table above and add the three numbers together. In the Star-Tribune's poll, they add up to 95 percent, which means that 5 percent of voters are "missing". And in the SurveyUSA poll, they add up to 88 percent, which means that 12 percent of voters are "missing".
Those "missing" voters aren't actually missing, of course; they probably identify themselves as part of some sort of third party, or refused to provide their party ID. There may also be some ambiguities related to Minnesotans identifying themselves as part of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party as opposed to straight Democrats.
So who's right? I'm not sure that I'd trust either of these polls. The Minnesota senate race, most likely, is a toss-up.
10.03.2008
Today's Polls, 10/3
@ 8:05 PM
Another day, another good set of polling for Barack Obama -- with one important exception:
Nevada looks good for Obama. New Hampshire looks really good for him -- and that was one of those states where we hadn't shown much bounce for him before.Yet another North Carolina poll shows Obama ahead; for the first time, we now have him as a (very, very slight) favorite in the state. Obama seems to be gaining a point in that Morning Call tracking poll in Pennsylvania almost every single day. (EDIT: The Elon poll seems to be a poll of who would handle the economy the best -- not the horse race numbers. We will delete it with tomorrow's update).
But what's going on with Minnesota -- where SurveyUSA actually gives McCain a one-point lead?
The poll may be a mild outlier. SurveyUSA has generally shown more favorable numbers for John McCain in Minnesota than other agencies that have surveyed the state. But they aren't the only pollster to come up with numbers like this; Quinnipiac and the Star Tribune also show Minnesota close, although CNN and Rasmussen don't.
Markos Moulitsas has data on advertising expenditures that may explain the difference. Overall, in the week ended 9/30, Obama spent about 2.5x as much as John McCain on advertising. This is likely an underappreciated reason behind his recent polling surge. But in Minnesota, McCain outadvertised Obama better than 3:1. In fact, Minnesota was the only state in the entire country where McCain out-advertised Obama.
So McCain may literally have bought his way into a competitive race in Minnesota. It now rates as the 7th most important state in the election according to our tipping point metric, behind the traditional Big Three (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida), the New Two (Colorado, Virginia), and Michigan, which should probably now be scratched off the list.
It hasn't come cheaply, however, as McCain has now spent tens of millions of dollars on the state -- money that didn't go into Florida, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or Virginia, where Obama has had the advertising edge, and where the McCain campaign is now on its heels. Those are also resources that didn't go into Michigan, where McCain has withdrawn from.
So, yes, you can beat a state into submission if you really want to -- I mean, if Obama decided he really wanted to win South Dakota, he could probably do so. But whether it's been a good use of resources, we will have to see. In certain ways, this is starting to remind one a lot of the Herschel Walker trade. And Obama campaign is not exactly unready, leading McCain in field offices in Minnesota 28 to 9.
(n.b. The cool new chart we unveiled yesterday that includes national polls is on a hiatus for technical reasons, but will return tomorrow.)
Nevada looks good for Obama. New Hampshire looks really good for him -- and that was one of those states where we hadn't shown much bounce for him before.
But what's going on with Minnesota -- where SurveyUSA actually gives McCain a one-point lead?
The poll may be a mild outlier. SurveyUSA has generally shown more favorable numbers for John McCain in Minnesota than other agencies that have surveyed the state. But they aren't the only pollster to come up with numbers like this; Quinnipiac and the Star Tribune also show Minnesota close, although CNN and Rasmussen don't.
Markos Moulitsas has data on advertising expenditures that may explain the difference. Overall, in the week ended 9/30, Obama spent about 2.5x as much as John McCain on advertising. This is likely an underappreciated reason behind his recent polling surge. But in Minnesota, McCain outadvertised Obama better than 3:1. In fact, Minnesota was the only state in the entire country where McCain out-advertised Obama.
So McCain may literally have bought his way into a competitive race in Minnesota. It now rates as the 7th most important state in the election according to our tipping point metric, behind the traditional Big Three (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida), the New Two (Colorado, Virginia), and Michigan, which should probably now be scratched off the list.
It hasn't come cheaply, however, as McCain has now spent tens of millions of dollars on the state -- money that didn't go into Florida, or North Carolina, or Indiana, or Virginia, where Obama has had the advertising edge, and where the McCain campaign is now on its heels. Those are also resources that didn't go into Michigan, where McCain has withdrawn from.
So, yes, you can beat a state into submission if you really want to -- I mean, if Obama decided he really wanted to win South Dakota, he could probably do so. But whether it's been a good use of resources, we will have to see. In certain ways, this is starting to remind one a lot of the Herschel Walker trade. And Obama campaign is not exactly unready, leading McCain in field offices in Minnesota 28 to 9.
(n.b. The cool new chart we unveiled yesterday that includes national polls is on a hiatus for technical reasons, but will return tomorrow.)
On the Road: St. Louis County, Missouri
@ 3:20 PM
“We arrived in St. Louis at noon. I took a walk down by the Mississippi River and watched the logs that came floating from Montana in the north – grand Odyssean logs of our continental dream.”
– Jack Kerouac, “On the Road”
The meat of this post is below the slideshow, and it’s about the McCain ground game. It's probably going to make a little stir.
Our apologies in advance to the Obama organizers and volunteers who aren’t going to get the full justice they deserve in this post. They believe Missouri is going blue this year, and they’re working their bodies into the ground to make that happen.
We’re getting used to this relentless Obama operation: organizers trained in both tactics and campaign culture, working so hard they have trouble remembering what happened 48 hours ago – it’s too distant – and convinced that if they stay in their lane and trust the structure it’ll pay off in the end.
Obama has 40 offices now open in Missouri, and Justin Hamilton, Obama’s Press Secretary for Missouri, told us that while he couldn’t confirm below or above the published reports of 150 organizers (it didn’t come from the campaign), the campaign is only adding to its ground force. Organizers have now recruited 2500 neighborhood team leaders statewide, folks who do the far more effective work than any 30-second ad or yard signs, actual face-to-face contact and persuasion of their neighbors.
For a Democrat to win Missouri, he or she has to follow the Claire McCaskill map, which is win the blue urban centers in Kansas City and St. Louis city by wide margins, hold down the losses in outstate Missouri (McCaskill spent huge time in and around Springfield, and got to 42% there while Kerry only managed 37%), and then win highly populated St. Louis County (20% of Missouri’s overall vote) by enough votes to hold on for a win. McCaskill won St. Louis County by 12, Kerry only won it by 9. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the County, 63% to 36%.
Something interesting is happening with John McCain’s campaign. Up until now, we’ve had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we “shouldn’t or don’t need to be talking to.” (McCain’s Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that’s not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we’d probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we’re regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I’d hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
Here on out, our skepticism is going to be higher. We truly respect organizers on both sides, because it is grindingly hard work for minimal pay. It’s powered by a belief in doing what’s right. We do not quote them or get them in trouble. Moreover, we truly respect direct action by volunteers – who do exist on the McCain side, just as a tiny, tiny fraction of the Obama side – but if the attitude continues on this unhelpful and obstructive turn, we’re going to spend less time making excuses for what we observe. Less benefit of the doubt. Show us real work and we'll cover it. We want to.
We'll be up in Chicago tonight making Nate pound RCP shooters. Then, Indiana. There's a huge story unfolding in Indiana.
– Jack Kerouac, “On the Road”
The meat of this post is below the slideshow, and it’s about the McCain ground game. It's probably going to make a little stir.
Our apologies in advance to the Obama organizers and volunteers who aren’t going to get the full justice they deserve in this post. They believe Missouri is going blue this year, and they’re working their bodies into the ground to make that happen.
We’re getting used to this relentless Obama operation: organizers trained in both tactics and campaign culture, working so hard they have trouble remembering what happened 48 hours ago – it’s too distant – and convinced that if they stay in their lane and trust the structure it’ll pay off in the end.
Obama has 40 offices now open in Missouri, and Justin Hamilton, Obama’s Press Secretary for Missouri, told us that while he couldn’t confirm below or above the published reports of 150 organizers (it didn’t come from the campaign), the campaign is only adding to its ground force. Organizers have now recruited 2500 neighborhood team leaders statewide, folks who do the far more effective work than any 30-second ad or yard signs, actual face-to-face contact and persuasion of their neighbors.
For a Democrat to win Missouri, he or she has to follow the Claire McCaskill map, which is win the blue urban centers in Kansas City and St. Louis city by wide margins, hold down the losses in outstate Missouri (McCaskill spent huge time in and around Springfield, and got to 42% there while Kerry only managed 37%), and then win highly populated St. Louis County (20% of Missouri’s overall vote) by enough votes to hold on for a win. McCaskill won St. Louis County by 12, Kerry only won it by 9. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the County, 63% to 36%.
Something interesting is happening with John McCain’s campaign. Up until now, we’ve had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we “shouldn’t or don’t need to be talking to.” (McCain’s Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that’s not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we’d probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we’re regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I’d hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
Here on out, our skepticism is going to be higher. We truly respect organizers on both sides, because it is grindingly hard work for minimal pay. It’s powered by a belief in doing what’s right. We do not quote them or get them in trouble. Moreover, we truly respect direct action by volunteers – who do exist on the McCain side, just as a tiny, tiny fraction of the Obama side – but if the attitude continues on this unhelpful and obstructive turn, we’re going to spend less time making excuses for what we observe. Less benefit of the doubt. Show us real work and we'll cover it. We want to.
We'll be up in Chicago tonight making Nate pound RCP shooters. Then, Indiana. There's a huge story unfolding in Indiana.
VP Debate a Ratings Winner
@ 2:13 PM
Gary Holmes at Nielsen writes me with the following:
So, based on the preliminary numbers, the ratings for the VP debate exceeded those of last Friday's presidential debate by 42%. Since the Obama-McCain debate drew an audience of about 52 million, that would translate into something like 70-75 million viewers for the VP debate. If it clears the 70 million hurdle once the ratings are finalized, it will become the first debate to do so since Reagan-Carter in 1980. It certainly will blow any other VP debate out of the water; the previous high was 56.7 million for Bush-Ferraro in 1984.
This certianly seems to attest to Sarah Palin's ability to draw a crowd -- even if some of those viewers may have watched in the hopes of seeing a train wreck. But also, it may be evidence that the first presidential debate was significantly hampered by having occurred on a Friday, and having had little promotional blast behind it (since the McCain campaign was threatening to pull out until the last minute). I would expect the final two presidential debates to be somewhere in the 60-80 million viewers range.
Nielsen just released the ratings for last night's Biden/Palin debate. This is for the 55 local markets where Nielsen has electronic meters.
* The overall rating was 45.0 -- much higher than the Obama/McCain debate, which had a rating of 31.6
* The Baltimore market had the largest TV audience, with a household rating of 59.1
* Los Angeles market had the lowest household rating: 34.4.
National ratings for Thursday night’s debate will be available from Nielsen Friday afternoon, and if these numbers hold up, this could be one of the most-watched debates ever.
To see the full list of 55 markets and more historical information on Presidential debates, please visit our blog at:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=1928
So, based on the preliminary numbers, the ratings for the VP debate exceeded those of last Friday's presidential debate by 42%. Since the Obama-McCain debate drew an audience of about 52 million, that would translate into something like 70-75 million viewers for the VP debate. If it clears the 70 million hurdle once the ratings are finalized, it will become the first debate to do so since Reagan-Carter in 1980. It certainly will blow any other VP debate out of the water; the previous high was 56.7 million for Bush-Ferraro in 1984.
This certianly seems to attest to Sarah Palin's ability to draw a crowd -- even if some of those viewers may have watched in the hopes of seeing a train wreck. But also, it may be evidence that the first presidential debate was significantly hampered by having occurred on a Friday, and having had little promotional blast behind it (since the McCain campaign was threatening to pull out until the last minute). I would expect the final two presidential debates to be somewhere in the 60-80 million viewers range.
McCain and Michigan
@ 1:04 PM
I never had the chance to comment on yesterday's big news that the McCain campaign is pulling out of Michigan and re-directing those resources to other states. To evaluate this strategy, we need to ask at least three distinct questions:
1) Was the McCain campaign spread too thin?
2) If so, was Michigan the right state to pull out of?
3) Are they redirecting those resources to the right states?
1) Was the McCain campaign spread too thin?
The Obama campaign has essentially succeeded in what it wanted to do: forcing McCain to play a big map. While Obama has had to give up on a couple of states they had hoped to compete in originally -- North Dakota, Alaska, and maybe Montana -- they have been able to maintain tight races in states like North Carolina and Indiana, as well as all of the states that people expected to be swing states to begin with, like Virginia and Colorado, as well as the more traditional battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida.
McCain's problems ultimately stem back to the early summer, when his campaign decided to throw a ton of money into negative advertising rather than to build a robust field operation. That decision might have "worked" in the near term, as McCain chipped Obama's lead down from about 5 points in mid-June to a virtual tie heading into the conventions. But, as with many McCain campaign decisions, it may have been one more engineered to win the battle rather than the war, as Obama's position has bounced back with surprising vigor in the past two weeks, and the Britney Spears ads now seem like a distant and irrelevant memory.
That said, the McCain campaign can't go back and redo the resource allocation decisions it made in June, and pulling out of one or more states may be the correct adaptation to the current milieu. I suspect the facts that North Carolina and Florida have shown especially strong numbers for Obama and now clearly require their attention were major motivating factors behind their decision.
2. Was Michigan the right state to pull out of?
If you look at yesterday's return on investment index in the four large Kerry states that McCain had hoped to compete in, this is debatable:
With that said, I know that as of a couple of weeks ago, the Obama campaign had been more worried about Michigan than any of these other three states. Also, according to the New York Times, they had held three events in Michigan since Mid-September, as compared with two in Wisconsin, one in Pennsylvania, and none in Minnesota. So I suspect they'll be pretty relieved not to have to compete there.
3) Are they redirecting those resources to the right states?
We have less information about where the McCain campaign is putting resources into than where they are pulling out of, but Jonathan Martin's article reels off a whole litany of states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and thefirst second Congressional District of Maine (which our return on investment index thinks is a smart decision). All of these states are perfectly reasonable ones to put resources into, although Wisconsin, where Obama overperformed during the primaries, which has same-day registration, and which the Obama campaign can flood with volunteers from Illinois is on Election Day, is tenuous.
There is also a question about whether Minnesota and Wisconsin offer large enough electoral prizes. If Obama wins the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia -- all states where it appears to hold significant leads -- he would still have a winning map if he lost Minnesota or Wisconsin, but could not win without Pennsylvania.
On the whole, however, this is a pretty reasonable reaction to what has become a very tough election for McCain. But remember that Obama campaign now gets to pull its resources out of Michigan too, although there are some sunk costs (like rent paid on field offices) that it won't be able to recoup.
1) Was the McCain campaign spread too thin?
2) If so, was Michigan the right state to pull out of?
3) Are they redirecting those resources to the right states?
1) Was the McCain campaign spread too thin?
The Obama campaign has essentially succeeded in what it wanted to do: forcing McCain to play a big map. While Obama has had to give up on a couple of states they had hoped to compete in originally -- North Dakota, Alaska, and maybe Montana -- they have been able to maintain tight races in states like North Carolina and Indiana, as well as all of the states that people expected to be swing states to begin with, like Virginia and Colorado, as well as the more traditional battlegrounds like Ohio and Florida.
McCain's problems ultimately stem back to the early summer, when his campaign decided to throw a ton of money into negative advertising rather than to build a robust field operation. That decision might have "worked" in the near term, as McCain chipped Obama's lead down from about 5 points in mid-June to a virtual tie heading into the conventions. But, as with many McCain campaign decisions, it may have been one more engineered to win the battle rather than the war, as Obama's position has bounced back with surprising vigor in the past two weeks, and the Britney Spears ads now seem like a distant and irrelevant memory.
That said, the McCain campaign can't go back and redo the resource allocation decisions it made in June, and pulling out of one or more states may be the correct adaptation to the current milieu. I suspect the facts that North Carolina and Florida have shown especially strong numbers for Obama and now clearly require their attention were major motivating factors behind their decision.
2. Was Michigan the right state to pull out of?
If you look at yesterday's return on investment index in the four large Kerry states that McCain had hoped to compete in, this is debatable:
Michigan 2.4
Pennsylvania 1.9
Minnesota 1.9
Wisconsin 1.7That is, Michigan actually appeared to be a slightly better place to spend their marginal resources than states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin; a dollar there goes about 2.4 times as far as one spent in an average state. However, the differences are not large, and certainly within the range where McCain's internal polling could plausibly have informed his decision. In addition, we are not yet reflecting the new SurveyUSA poll that actually shows McCain with a 1-point lead in Minnesota. So Michigan is probably as reasonable a place to pull out of as anywhere else.With that said, I know that as of a couple of weeks ago, the Obama campaign had been more worried about Michigan than any of these other three states. Also, according to the New York Times, they had held three events in Michigan since Mid-September, as compared with two in Wisconsin, one in Pennsylvania, and none in Minnesota. So I suspect they'll be pretty relieved not to have to compete there.
3) Are they redirecting those resources to the right states?
We have less information about where the McCain campaign is putting resources into than where they are pulling out of, but Jonathan Martin's article reels off a whole litany of states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and the
There is also a question about whether Minnesota and Wisconsin offer large enough electoral prizes. If Obama wins the Kerry states plus Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia -- all states where it appears to hold significant leads -- he would still have a winning map if he lost Minnesota or Wisconsin, but could not win without Pennsylvania.
On the whole, however, this is a pretty reasonable reaction to what has become a very tough election for McCain. But remember that Obama campaign now gets to pull its resources out of Michigan too, although there are some sunk costs (like rent paid on field offices) that it won't be able to recoup.
Vice-Presidential Debate Post-Mortem, Live From π in the Loop
@ 1:05 AM
Tonight, we didn't see any major game changing, trainwreck moments. The big question is: putting aside Sarah Palin's final comment about how great more of these debates would be, how much exposure will Steve Schmidt allow her? With the exception of a few short, scripted rally speeches, vis-a-vis the press will she go straight to Dick Cheney's bunker, do not pass go, do not collect $200?
I suspect she will. Despite what I view as the correct, hammering demand to have Palin face questioning in a press conference format from the grand old men of the blogosphere, Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan, I don't suspect the Obama campaign will much push the issue, and the McCain people have to be scared to death to have any more Couric-style answers out there. They want to lock this performance in and keep it in stasis.
Joe Biden was strongest tonight in the beginning and in the end -- much the way high school students are coached to write strong essays. Capture your audience's attention at the beginning and the end, because psychological studies tell us we remember the first and last things we hear more than other parts of the larger whole. And in the middle, try not to screw it up.
Body language-wise, I'll have to watch the debate again, silently, to get a better feel. But it didn't have the uncomfortable hostility of the first McCain-Obama debate. Biden seemed perfectly relaxed, and Palin was a bit nervous, but nobody will hold that against her. These two were comfortable looking at each other. Once she got the blood flowing, Palin seemed to relax and enjoy the sparring and grew more comfortable as time went on.
Tomorrow, the big story is unlikely to be anything major from this debate. It'll be the House attempting to pass the economic bailout package. Particularly if the House fails to pull this off, the story will change, and we'll be on to the next cycles. Ah the press cycle, she is a fickle mistress.
My early read on the mood of Palin's supporters is they're pleased with her performance, and didn't seem to let down any. The other read was that the debate really wasn't going to change their opinion much. To the base, this is someone who is one of them. "Sarah!" we heard supporters yelling to each other in the parking lots after the debate.
It's been another wild and fascinating day on the road that, for me, began at the Democratic convention and hasn't relented yet. Thanks for bearing with us through the Blogger problems that had us tearing our hair out, and look for a resumption of the On the Road series tomorrow. Here comes Brett with a beer. (That's a hell of a photographer.) G'night.
I suspect she will. Despite what I view as the correct, hammering demand to have Palin face questioning in a press conference format from the grand old men of the blogosphere, Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan, I don't suspect the Obama campaign will much push the issue, and the McCain people have to be scared to death to have any more Couric-style answers out there. They want to lock this performance in and keep it in stasis.
Joe Biden was strongest tonight in the beginning and in the end -- much the way high school students are coached to write strong essays. Capture your audience's attention at the beginning and the end, because psychological studies tell us we remember the first and last things we hear more than other parts of the larger whole. And in the middle, try not to screw it up.
Body language-wise, I'll have to watch the debate again, silently, to get a better feel. But it didn't have the uncomfortable hostility of the first McCain-Obama debate. Biden seemed perfectly relaxed, and Palin was a bit nervous, but nobody will hold that against her. These two were comfortable looking at each other. Once she got the blood flowing, Palin seemed to relax and enjoy the sparring and grew more comfortable as time went on.
Tomorrow, the big story is unlikely to be anything major from this debate. It'll be the House attempting to pass the economic bailout package. Particularly if the House fails to pull this off, the story will change, and we'll be on to the next cycles. Ah the press cycle, she is a fickle mistress.
My early read on the mood of Palin's supporters is they're pleased with her performance, and didn't seem to let down any. The other read was that the debate really wasn't going to change their opinion much. To the base, this is someone who is one of them. "Sarah!" we heard supporters yelling to each other in the parking lots after the debate.
It's been another wild and fascinating day on the road that, for me, began at the Democratic convention and hasn't relented yet. Thanks for bearing with us through the Blogger problems that had us tearing our hair out, and look for a resumption of the On the Road series tomorrow. Here comes Brett with a beer. (That's a hell of a photographer.) G'night.
Post-VP Debate Thoughts
@ 12:30 AM
As with the Obama-McCain debate last Friday, the vast majority of the insta-polls went to the Democratic ticket. Biden won the CBS poll of undecideds 46-21, and the CNN poll of debate watchers 51-36. Independents in the large MediaCurves focus group panel went for Biden about 2:1.
The internals, however, weren't nearly as bad for Palin as the topline results. She got a jump in preparedness in the CBS poll, and the CNN found that a large majority of voters concluded that she had beaten their expectations.
Palin's largest problem, to my eyes, is that she was tangibly nervous for most of the debate, rushing through talking points and canned jokes alike with unsually little inflection. I doubt that this will impact her favorables much -- in fact, it seems likely that her favroables will improve. But it may contribute to the increasing feelings of dis-ease that some voters have with the McCain campaign, which no longer seems like the manifestly safer choice.
The McCain campaign did not opt, in the end, for Sarah Barracuda. They wanted
Palin scripted, and in some cases she seemed to have her lines literally memorized. This was the more risk-averse choice, but provided for few genuine moments of spontaneity.
It also allowed Joe Biden to get a lot of free shots in at John McCain, several of which were quite effective. Perhaps, in the end, this wasn't as difficult a debate for Biden to prepare for as it had been made out to be. Hammer McCain, knowing that Palin would have to go off-script to defend him. It also allowed Biden to be the more emotive candidate.
Sean will talk more about this, but I suspect that the Sarah Palin chapter of the campaign is largely over. She may draw large crowds in her next couple of public appearances; it's also not out of the question that the media will sour on her performance in the forthcoming days, once it's been removed somewhat from her safety net of low expectations. But after that, she may largely fade into the background, and if she is making news, it may not be for reasons the McCain campaign likes.
At the end of the day, this is another missed opportunity for the McCain campaign, a fact which is only betrayed by conservative commentators' hyperbolic attempts to spin to the contrary. But McCain may well have been willing to take that settlement ahead of time, figuring they had more to lose tonight than to gain.
The internals, however, weren't nearly as bad for Palin as the topline results. She got a jump in preparedness in the CBS poll, and the CNN found that a large majority of voters concluded that she had beaten their expectations.
Palin's largest problem, to my eyes, is that she was tangibly nervous for most of the debate, rushing through talking points and canned jokes alike with unsually little inflection. I doubt that this will impact her favorables much -- in fact, it seems likely that her favroables will improve. But it may contribute to the increasing feelings of dis-ease that some voters have with the McCain campaign, which no longer seems like the manifestly safer choice.
The McCain campaign did not opt, in the end, for Sarah Barracuda. They wanted
Palin scripted, and in some cases she seemed to have her lines literally memorized. This was the more risk-averse choice, but provided for few genuine moments of spontaneity.
It also allowed Joe Biden to get a lot of free shots in at John McCain, several of which were quite effective. Perhaps, in the end, this wasn't as difficult a debate for Biden to prepare for as it had been made out to be. Hammer McCain, knowing that Palin would have to go off-script to defend him. It also allowed Biden to be the more emotive candidate.
Sean will talk more about this, but I suspect that the Sarah Palin chapter of the campaign is largely over. She may draw large crowds in her next couple of public appearances; it's also not out of the question that the media will sour on her performance in the forthcoming days, once it's been removed somewhat from her safety net of low expectations. But after that, she may largely fade into the background, and if she is making news, it may not be for reasons the McCain campaign likes.
At the end of the day, this is another missed opportunity for the McCain campaign, a fact which is only betrayed by conservative commentators' hyperbolic attempts to spin to the contrary. But McCain may well have been willing to take that settlement ahead of time, figuring they had more to lose tonight than to gain.
10.02.2008
Vice-Presidential Debate Liveblog #2: Live From Wash U.
@ 10:00 PM
10:06 CDT: [Nate] The CBS poll of undecideds had Biden winning the debate 46-21, with 33 percent calling it a tie. But few votes were moved as as result. Among the undecideds, 18 percent committed to Obama, and 10 percent committed to McCain, but 71 percent remained uncommitted.
Biden won the CNN and CBS focus groups. Palin won the Luntz focus group. The candidates tied in the Halperin focus group.
9:38 CDT: [Sean] Brett and I are going to rush over to SLU where Sarah Palin is having a rally, and then later a few well-earned drinks in the Loop. Nate will do some post-mortem thoughts in a bit.
9:37 CDT: [Nate] I think this one is likely to go to Biden in the post-debate polling, and perhaps by a fair margin. The expectations game is much more important for the media than for the public, and for a lot of people, she's going to come across as too scripted, come across way too close to the SNL caricature.
9:29 CDT: [Sean] The woman too chicken to face a press conference says she sure doggone bumdiggity wishes there could be more of this with less of that pesky media involved.
9:24 CDT: [Sean] Biden is really hitting it strong here at the end. Really emotionally connecting with kitchen table issues and middle class struggles while Palin has been cutesy throughout.
9:23 CDT: [Sean] Wow, Nate.
9:22 CDT: [Nate] What kind of prop odds could you have gotten on Biden being the one to cry?
9:21 CDT: [Sean] Biden has had a number of moments where he has emotionally connected, including that moment just there, where he looked like he was choking up about a child who might not make it. Biden's best moment of the night, hands down.
9:19 CDT: [Nate] I think her VP answer might be one of those things that turns out to be a bigger deal after the fact.
9:16 CDT: [Nate] Actually, the dial-testers liked her last answer. [Sean] It was a "Whoa!" breathtaking moment here in the crowd when she said the teachers' reward would be in heaven. Given that Obama has argued for increased teacher pay, I have to believe this is going to be an issue the Obama camp pushes in the coming days.
9:14 CDT: [Sean] Palin's suggestion for the vice-presidency, as a tweak? Maybe give it a little more power. There has been open laughter at Palin the last few minutes. Wish I could see those dials.
9:12 CDT: [Sean] Palin on Biden's teacher wife: "God bless her, her reward is in heaven, right?" That is the sound of every teacher in America voting for Barack Obama. Wow. What a mistake.
9:07 CDT: [Sean] It seems the meta thru-line of Governor Palin's performance tonight is that we need change from the folks who've been in Washington for a long time. That can't be a good thematic element.
Biden, on the other hand, was strongest in the beginning when he was middle classing it up left and right. He's gotten away from that.
9:00 CDT: [Nate] For those of you with CNN HD, watching the analyst scorecards reminds one an awful lot of watching Olympic Boxing.
Biden won the CNN and CBS focus groups. Palin won the Luntz focus group. The candidates tied in the Halperin focus group.
9:38 CDT: [Sean] Brett and I are going to rush over to SLU where Sarah Palin is having a rally, and then later a few well-earned drinks in the Loop. Nate will do some post-mortem thoughts in a bit.
9:37 CDT: [Nate] I think this one is likely to go to Biden in the post-debate polling, and perhaps by a fair margin. The expectations game is much more important for the media than for the public, and for a lot of people, she's going to come across as too scripted, come across way too close to the SNL caricature.
9:29 CDT: [Sean] The woman too chicken to face a press conference says she sure doggone bumdiggity wishes there could be more of this with less of that pesky media involved.
9:24 CDT: [Sean] Biden is really hitting it strong here at the end. Really emotionally connecting with kitchen table issues and middle class struggles while Palin has been cutesy throughout.
9:23 CDT: [Sean] Wow, Nate.
9:22 CDT: [Nate] What kind of prop odds could you have gotten on Biden being the one to cry?
9:21 CDT: [Sean] Biden has had a number of moments where he has emotionally connected, including that moment just there, where he looked like he was choking up about a child who might not make it. Biden's best moment of the night, hands down.
9:19 CDT: [Nate] I think her VP answer might be one of those things that turns out to be a bigger deal after the fact.
9:16 CDT: [Nate] Actually, the dial-testers liked her last answer. [Sean] It was a "Whoa!" breathtaking moment here in the crowd when she said the teachers' reward would be in heaven. Given that Obama has argued for increased teacher pay, I have to believe this is going to be an issue the Obama camp pushes in the coming days.
9:14 CDT: [Sean] Palin's suggestion for the vice-presidency, as a tweak? Maybe give it a little more power. There has been open laughter at Palin the last few minutes. Wish I could see those dials.
9:12 CDT: [Sean] Palin on Biden's teacher wife: "God bless her, her reward is in heaven, right?" That is the sound of every teacher in America voting for Barack Obama. Wow. What a mistake.
9:07 CDT: [Sean] It seems the meta thru-line of Governor Palin's performance tonight is that we need change from the folks who've been in Washington for a long time. That can't be a good thematic element.
Biden, on the other hand, was strongest in the beginning when he was middle classing it up left and right. He's gotten away from that.
9:00 CDT: [Nate] For those of you with CNN HD, watching the analyst scorecards reminds one an awful lot of watching Olympic Boxing.
Vice-Presidential Debate Liveblog #1: Live From Wash U.
@ 8:58 PM
8:57 CDT: [Sean] Biden gives very strong answer right after Nate offers constructive criticism; maybe Biden's having better luck reloading blogger.com.
8:54 CDT: [Nate] Biden has getting a little bit too wordy in the last couple of responses.
8:53 CDT: [Sean] Awww, they both love Israel! Too cute!
8:51 CDT: [Nate] If any of the pundits are watching the audience meters, I don't think they'll say that she's beating expectations.
8:49 CDT: [Sean] I think a lot of regular Joes and Janes are empathizing with Palin, who is giving it her level best. The pro-Obama crowd we're sitting with is not getting the Miss Teen South Carolina show it expected. Now Biden is smirking as Palin talks about diplomatic relations with enemies.
8:46 CDT: [Sean] On the split screen as Biden gives this strong answer on which is a greater threat, Palin was smirking.
8:45 CDT: [Sean] I can foresee the praise for Palin's performance on the post-mortem cable shows already. She has beaten expectations -- the lowest expectations in history.
8:42 CDT: [Nate] To be completely frank if that were anyone other than Sarah Palin on stage, this would be regarded as a blowout at this point.
8:38 CDT: [Sean] Palin seems a lot more relaxed than she was at the outset. But I'm not sure that's a good thing, it makes her go freestyle, and freestyle hasn't really worked very well recently.
8:35 CDT: [Nate] Biden has figured out that he can take a bunch of free shots at McCain since Palin can't go off-script. Fairly well played.
8:34 CDT: [Sean] Thanks for bearing with us. Not blogger.com's finest hour.
8:30 CDT: [Sean] "I'm not sure what her position is" is a good way to provoke Palin to have to explain.
8:29 CDT: [Nate] Palin's peaks on the audience meter keep getting lower. I think a fraction of people are tuning her out at this point. It feels to me that they might have decided to play it safe and concede a tie or a small loss for the sake of avoiding some kind of catastrophe.
8:25 CDT: [Sean] Palin: “How long have I been at this, like, five weeks?”
8:23 CDT: [Nate] I'm watching the CNN audience meters. Biden is doing distinctly better than Palin so far, although she had one or two very favorable responses.
8:21 CDT: [Sean] "The Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere!" [Nate] I actually think that answer could have been a little bit tighter. Biden got a little bit too caught up in the details at the end.
8:20 CDT: [Nate] You can tell she's scripted because she's literally rushing through her lines.
8:18CDT: [Nate] Over under on number of “middle classes?” 20? [Sean] Gimme the over, baby.
8:17 CDT: [Sean] Biden’s other mission – to hammer the issue of taxes and fairness and middle class. And” “the governor didn’t answer the question.”
8:15 CDT: [Sean] And I think we have our theme – Joe Biden: “she did not answer the question.” And the reply. “I’m not gonna answer the question, and people are gonna love my spunk!” Biden finds this hilarious. The split screens on C-Span are priceless.
8:11 CDT: [Sean] Biden is not going after Palin, he’s explaining why John McCain’s philosophy has led to this economic crisis.
8:07 CDT: [Nate] Holy run-on sentence, Batman! [Sean] Joe Biden is definitely letting her talk.
8:07 CDT: [Sean] We have the C-Span feed here, by the way. She seems very rehearsed. Biden seems relaxed. Palin endorses new and different change, not someone who's been in the Senate for a long time. Coming soon: Obama-Palin '08!
8:07 CDT: [Nate] Palin is doing well enough so far, but sounds very nervous.
8:05 CDT: [Nate] Is Biden sick or is this his way to take an exceptionally sober tone?
7:58 CDT: [Sean] Hello from Washington University in St. Louis. This is kind of home turf for me, as I grew up in neighboring University City and Clayton and went to public schools nearby. During high school I spent many hours in Olin Library.
We’re going to do our best, given Blogger.com’s major problems, to bring you a good liveblog. If we have gaps, we'll keep timestamping our comments and update when we can.
8:54 CDT: [Nate] Biden has getting a little bit too wordy in the last couple of responses.
8:53 CDT: [Sean] Awww, they both love Israel! Too cute!
8:51 CDT: [Nate] If any of the pundits are watching the audience meters, I don't think they'll say that she's beating expectations.
8:49 CDT: [Sean] I think a lot of regular Joes and Janes are empathizing with Palin, who is giving it her level best. The pro-Obama crowd we're sitting with is not getting the Miss Teen South Carolina show it expected. Now Biden is smirking as Palin talks about diplomatic relations with enemies.
8:46 CDT: [Sean] On the split screen as Biden gives this strong answer on which is a greater threat, Palin was smirking.
8:45 CDT: [Sean] I can foresee the praise for Palin's performance on the post-mortem cable shows already. She has beaten expectations -- the lowest expectations in history.
8:42 CDT: [Nate] To be completely frank if that were anyone other than Sarah Palin on stage, this would be regarded as a blowout at this point.
8:38 CDT: [Sean] Palin seems a lot more relaxed than she was at the outset. But I'm not sure that's a good thing, it makes her go freestyle, and freestyle hasn't really worked very well recently.
8:35 CDT: [Nate] Biden has figured out that he can take a bunch of free shots at McCain since Palin can't go off-script. Fairly well played.
8:34 CDT: [Sean] Thanks for bearing with us. Not blogger.com's finest hour.
8:30 CDT: [Sean] "I'm not sure what her position is" is a good way to provoke Palin to have to explain.
8:29 CDT: [Nate] Palin's peaks on the audience meter keep getting lower. I think a fraction of people are tuning her out at this point. It feels to me that they might have decided to play it safe and concede a tie or a small loss for the sake of avoiding some kind of catastrophe.
8:25 CDT: [Sean] Palin: “How long have I been at this, like, five weeks?”
8:23 CDT: [Nate] I'm watching the CNN audience meters. Biden is doing distinctly better than Palin so far, although she had one or two very favorable responses.
8:21 CDT: [Sean] "The Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere!" [Nate] I actually think that answer could have been a little bit tighter. Biden got a little bit too caught up in the details at the end.
8:20 CDT: [Nate] You can tell she's scripted because she's literally rushing through her lines.
8:18CDT: [Nate] Over under on number of “middle classes?” 20? [Sean] Gimme the over, baby.
8:17 CDT: [Sean] Biden’s other mission – to hammer the issue of taxes and fairness and middle class. And” “the governor didn’t answer the question.”
8:15 CDT: [Sean] And I think we have our theme – Joe Biden: “she did not answer the question.” And the reply. “I’m not gonna answer the question, and people are gonna love my spunk!” Biden finds this hilarious. The split screens on C-Span are priceless.
8:11 CDT: [Sean] Biden is not going after Palin, he’s explaining why John McCain’s philosophy has led to this economic crisis.
8:07 CDT: [Nate] Holy run-on sentence, Batman! [Sean] Joe Biden is definitely letting her talk.
8:07 CDT: [Sean] We have the C-Span feed here, by the way. She seems very rehearsed. Biden seems relaxed. Palin endorses new and different change, not someone who's been in the Senate for a long time. Coming soon: Obama-Palin '08!
8:07 CDT: [Nate] Palin is doing well enough so far, but sounds very nervous.
8:05 CDT: [Nate] Is Biden sick or is this his way to take an exceptionally sober tone?
7:58 CDT: [Sean] Hello from Washington University in St. Louis. This is kind of home turf for me, as I grew up in neighboring University City and Clayton and went to public schools nearby. During high school I spent many hours in Olin Library.
We’re going to do our best, given Blogger.com’s major problems, to bring you a good liveblog. If we have gaps, we'll keep timestamping our comments and update when we can.
A Brief Interview With Chairman Dean
@ 7:30 PM
DNC Chairman Howard Dean just spoke to the students here on campus at Washington University at the Edison Theater. We hung around backstage and had the chance to chat with Dean after his speech.
We asked him to explain how the 50-state strategy had benefited Barack Obama and Democratic candidates during this 2008 cycle. He was ready with the answer – when you go into places like Utah and South Carolina and Alaska, you give yourselves the opportunity not only to develop the Democratic voter file there, you lay the groundwork for having the infrastructure to support legitimate candidates like Mark Begich, a slight favorite to topple the indicted Ted Stevens.
I asked about Democratic use of Catalist, and how it compared with the RNC-owned VoterVault. Both of these are highly advanced datamining tools that campaigns use to target their voter universes for ground game. (When I say universes, I mean any groupings of voters selected for organizing purposes -- undecideds, sporadic voting Ds/Rs, newly registered voters, etc.) Dean told me that Republicans have used theirs longer (7 cycles) compared to this being only the 2d cycle for Democrats, but confidently stated that "ours is better."
Dean cited the Catalist's capacity for prediction with 85% accuracy using credit card data whether a voter falls into a particular targeted universe. The amount of streamlining this enables a campaign's ground operation to achieve is hard to overstate. He argued that having only 30 variables versus VoterVault's 250 variables allowed for easier use.
In addition, Dean cited the importance of the primaries, where as a condition of being granted access to the voter file, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were required to return the files with updated data. With a contested primary or caucus in virtually every state, and hundreds of thousands of volunteer organizing hours powering that list-refinement, the voter files Dems are operating with just this cycle are both more up to date than the Republican files as well as being worked much, much harder right now during the general election. Of course, Michigan -- where Dems did not have a contested primary, just came off the board today.
Dean also argued that in response to the current economic crisis, Barack Obama had displayed calm, thoughtfulness, and poise when the chips were down. By contrast, Dean said, John McCain had spent most of the past week "running around like a chicken with his head cut off."
During his approximately 20-minute address to students here at Washington University, Dean worked the room like a human quote machine. "If all you do is vote you get a D."
Referring to the closeness of recent political ground fights, "you don't win elections because you're right, you win elections because you work harder than the other guy."
Speaking about the generational moment this election represents: "Barack Obama is John F. Kennedy, and John McCain is Richard Nixon."
Making his urgent pitch to the students here about a lifetime commitment to staying in the public sphere: "Don't you ever get out of politics!"
And of course, on the value of community organizers: "Community organizers are the people who coach Sarah Palin's kids when they're playing youth hockey."
We regret that we did not have time to ask Chairman Dean about yard signs. We're sure it would have been a beaut.
We've had huge difficulty with Blogger.com today, unable to publish things for hours at a time, including this post. We apologize for the inconvenience. We are here to liveblog and provide pictures of the scene at this epic vice-presidential debate, live from the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. We hope Blogger.com will let us do that.
We asked him to explain how the 50-state strategy had benefited Barack Obama and Democratic candidates during this 2008 cycle. He was ready with the answer – when you go into places like Utah and South Carolina and Alaska, you give yourselves the opportunity not only to develop the Democratic voter file there, you lay the groundwork for having the infrastructure to support legitimate candidates like Mark Begich, a slight favorite to topple the indicted Ted Stevens.
I asked about Democratic use of Catalist, and how it compared with the RNC-owned VoterVault. Both of these are highly advanced datamining tools that campaigns use to target their voter universes for ground game. (When I say universes, I mean any groupings of voters selected for organizing purposes -- undecideds, sporadic voting Ds/Rs, newly registered voters, etc.) Dean told me that Republicans have used theirs longer (7 cycles) compared to this being only the 2d cycle for Democrats, but confidently stated that "ours is better."
Dean cited the Catalist's capacity for prediction with 85% accuracy using credit card data whether a voter falls into a particular targeted universe. The amount of streamlining this enables a campaign's ground operation to achieve is hard to overstate. He argued that having only 30 variables versus VoterVault's 250 variables allowed for easier use.
In addition, Dean cited the importance of the primaries, where as a condition of being granted access to the voter file, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were required to return the files with updated data. With a contested primary or caucus in virtually every state, and hundreds of thousands of volunteer organizing hours powering that list-refinement, the voter files Dems are operating with just this cycle are both more up to date than the Republican files as well as being worked much, much harder right now during the general election. Of course, Michigan -- where Dems did not have a contested primary, just came off the board today.
Dean also argued that in response to the current economic crisis, Barack Obama had displayed calm, thoughtfulness, and poise when the chips were down. By contrast, Dean said, John McCain had spent most of the past week "running around like a chicken with his head cut off."
During his approximately 20-minute address to students here at Washington University, Dean worked the room like a human quote machine. "If all you do is vote you get a D."
Referring to the closeness of recent political ground fights, "you don't win elections because you're right, you win elections because you work harder than the other guy."
Speaking about the generational moment this election represents: "Barack Obama is John F. Kennedy, and John McCain is Richard Nixon."
Making his urgent pitch to the students here about a lifetime commitment to staying in the public sphere: "Don't you ever get out of politics!"
And of course, on the value of community organizers: "Community organizers are the people who coach Sarah Palin's kids when they're playing youth hockey."
We regret that we did not have time to ask Chairman Dean about yard signs. We're sure it would have been a beaut.
We've had huge difficulty with Blogger.com today, unable to publish things for hours at a time, including this post. We apologize for the inconvenience. We are here to liveblog and provide pictures of the scene at this epic vice-presidential debate, live from the campus of Washington University in St. Louis. We hope Blogger.com will let us do that.
Today's Polls, 10/2
@ 6:25 PM
Let's just start things off with a nice, big chart:
You should notice a couple of new features. Firstly, I am now listing the national polls that have come out since the last update -- today there are a ton of them -- just so that we can be more fully transparent. Also, we now have a way to indicate tracking polls: they are designated with a slash. So, for instance, a "3000/3" (as for the Rasmussen Tracker) means that the poll included a rolling sample of 3,000 voters conducted over a 3-day window.
Obviously, there are a lot of great numbers for Obama today. Essentially all of the CNN polls look good for him, as do the other couple of Florida polls. Rasmussen has him maintaining his lead in North Carolina, and PPP has him way ahead in Michigan -- enough, apparently, that MCcain has now given up on winning the state (more on this when I get a moment).
There are also a handful of good numbers for McCain -- Mason-Dixon in Virginia, and the New Mexico polls show Obama stalling a bit, though still comfortably ahead. McCain is still clinging to a tiny lead in Indiana. But clearly, it's been a big Obama day, and the McCain campaign now seems to be aware that their electoral map is falling apart.
Somewhat counterintuitively, Obama's national win percentage did not increase; in fact, it went down just a tick from yesterday. This is principally because the model had already "priced in" a lot of these sorts of results. It expected, for instance, that when CNN again polled a state like Florida, it was going to show a very nice result for Obama, since CNN had been relatively favorable to Obama in Florida before. Also, when there is such a high volume of data to process, the regression models that underlie the model can be significantly recalibrated, which can shift things by a point or so here and there.
Let's not get bogged down in the technicalities, however. Certainly, the McCain campaign is now on the defensive, and needs to knock a couple of points off Obama's numbers across the board before it starts to scratch together some sort of winning electoral map. Tonight's debate could be a step in the right direction -- or, if things go badly for Sarah Palin, a near-fatal blow.
You should notice a couple of new features. Firstly, I am now listing the national polls that have come out since the last update -- today there are a ton of them -- just so that we can be more fully transparent. Also, we now have a way to indicate tracking polls: they are designated with a slash. So, for instance, a "3000/3" (as for the Rasmussen Tracker) means that the poll included a rolling sample of 3,000 voters conducted over a 3-day window.
Obviously, there are a lot of great numbers for Obama today. Essentially all of the CNN polls look good for him, as do the other couple of Florida polls. Rasmussen has him maintaining his lead in North Carolina, and PPP has him way ahead in Michigan -- enough, apparently, that MCcain has now given up on winning the state (more on this when I get a moment).
There are also a handful of good numbers for McCain -- Mason-Dixon in Virginia, and the New Mexico polls show Obama stalling a bit, though still comfortably ahead. McCain is still clinging to a tiny lead in Indiana. But clearly, it's been a big Obama day, and the McCain campaign now seems to be aware that their electoral map is falling apart.
Somewhat counterintuitively, Obama's national win percentage did not increase; in fact, it went down just a tick from yesterday. This is principally because the model had already "priced in" a lot of these sorts of results. It expected, for instance, that when CNN again polled a state like Florida, it was going to show a very nice result for Obama, since CNN had been relatively favorable to Obama in Florida before. Also, when there is such a high volume of data to process, the regression models that underlie the model can be significantly recalibrated, which can shift things by a point or so here and there.
Let's not get bogged down in the technicalities, however. Certainly, the McCain campaign is now on the defensive, and needs to knock a couple of points off Obama's numbers across the board before it starts to scratch together some sort of winning electoral map. Tonight's debate could be a step in the right direction -- or, if things go badly for Sarah Palin, a near-fatal blow.
Technical Difficulties...
@ 5:19 PM
...finally seem to be behind us now. One of the annoying things about having technical difficulties is that you can't make a post to say that you're having technical difficulties. Our apologies for the slow load times on the site today.
RCP Follow-Up
@ 1:27 PM
I just concluded a long, and understandably fairly contentious phone conversation with John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics.
John strongly disputes the notion that he is cherry-picking polls to achieve a particular partisan result (pro-GOP or otherwise).
It is clear to me that there is substantial subjectivity in how RCP selects the polls to include in its averages. RCP does not publish an FAQ, or any other set of standards. Nor, in my conversation with John, was he willing to articulate one. In my view, the fact that RCP does not disclose a set of standards means ipso facto that they are making judgment calls -- that there is some subjectivity involved -- in how their polls are selected.
However, it does not necessarily follow that these judgment calls reflect any deliberate partisan leaning, i.e. any "bias". That is a much stronger accusation, and it is the one that John objects to. I take John at his word that this is not the case. I hope to have a spirited rivalry with RCP, but my post this morning may have made things too personal.
At the same time, I believe that RCP leaves themselves open to this type of accusation until and unless they improve their level of disclosure. I have strongly encouraged John to publish an FAQ or other set of standards on his website.
John strongly disputes the notion that he is cherry-picking polls to achieve a particular partisan result (pro-GOP or otherwise).
It is clear to me that there is substantial subjectivity in how RCP selects the polls to include in its averages. RCP does not publish an FAQ, or any other set of standards. Nor, in my conversation with John, was he willing to articulate one. In my view, the fact that RCP does not disclose a set of standards means ipso facto that they are making judgment calls -- that there is some subjectivity involved -- in how their polls are selected.
However, it does not necessarily follow that these judgment calls reflect any deliberate partisan leaning, i.e. any "bias". That is a much stronger accusation, and it is the one that John objects to. I take John at his word that this is not the case. I hope to have a spirited rivalry with RCP, but my post this morning may have made things too personal.
At the same time, I believe that RCP leaves themselves open to this type of accusation until and unless they improve their level of disclosure. I have strongly encouraged John to publish an FAQ or other set of standards on his website.
Obama Projects 269 Electoral Votes Even With Six-Point Cushion
@ 11:45 AM
We have been calling "battleground states" those states projected within five points, and states projected between 5-10 points "penumbra states." These are somewhat arbitrary labels, though ground game’s outer limit when one is overwhelmingly better than another is about five points.
When we last updated 538’s battleground states, we were in the midst of John McCain’s post-convention, post-Palin bloom-on-the-rose period. At that time, McCain’s projected win would be 274-264. Today, Barack Obama has 269 electoral votes outside the battleground zone. That is, if you only give Obama the states he is projected to win by more than five points, that is enough to get him an Electoral College tie, which is essentially the same as a win.
Note that when you see the decimal point Electoral Vote pie chart projection in the upper left hand corner every day, you are seeing the aggregate result of our 10,000 daily simulations. Of course, on Election Day, each candidate will win or lose a particular state. For purposes of this post, we’re not running simulations but handing the total electoral vote victory to the leader.
To break down the math, we project all Kerry states save New Hampshire outside of five points, so that’s 252 minus 4, or 248. Then add Iowa (7 EV), New Mexico (5 EV) and Colorado (9 EV), and Obama hits 269. As Nate has explained, that would be as good as an Obama win. In fact, if we put the line at six points, we’d get the same result. Obama projects to win Colorado by 6.1%
As of this morning before today's polls update, we project Obama victories in Virginia (4.4%), New Hampshire (3.4%), Ohio (2.4%), Florida (2.4%), and Nevada (2.1%), with Indiana a tie. Give all these states to McCain, it’s 269-269 and an Obama presidency. Allocated by lead, it’s Obama 338, McCain 189, 11 tossup. McCain also projects precarious wins in North Carolina (0.1%) and Missouri (0.4%).
This does not include ground game, which is about the effectiveness of each side turning out voters who are reporting their presidential preferences over the phone to pollsters. Nor do all pollsters effectively capture the cellphone effect.
A major caveat. The fact that the race can swing this dramatically in this short a time reflects the truth that a few days in presidential politics can be a lifetime. We are both close to the end and yet nowhere near.
When we last updated 538’s battleground states, we were in the midst of John McCain’s post-convention, post-Palin bloom-on-the-rose period. At that time, McCain’s projected win would be 274-264. Today, Barack Obama has 269 electoral votes outside the battleground zone. That is, if you only give Obama the states he is projected to win by more than five points, that is enough to get him an Electoral College tie, which is essentially the same as a win.
Note that when you see the decimal point Electoral Vote pie chart projection in the upper left hand corner every day, you are seeing the aggregate result of our 10,000 daily simulations. Of course, on Election Day, each candidate will win or lose a particular state. For purposes of this post, we’re not running simulations but handing the total electoral vote victory to the leader.
To break down the math, we project all Kerry states save New Hampshire outside of five points, so that’s 252 minus 4, or 248. Then add Iowa (7 EV), New Mexico (5 EV) and Colorado (9 EV), and Obama hits 269. As Nate has explained, that would be as good as an Obama win. In fact, if we put the line at six points, we’d get the same result. Obama projects to win Colorado by 6.1%
As of this morning before today's polls update, we project Obama victories in Virginia (4.4%), New Hampshire (3.4%), Ohio (2.4%), Florida (2.4%), and Nevada (2.1%), with Indiana a tie. Give all these states to McCain, it’s 269-269 and an Obama presidency. Allocated by lead, it’s Obama 338, McCain 189, 11 tossup. McCain also projects precarious wins in North Carolina (0.1%) and Missouri (0.4%).
This does not include ground game, which is about the effectiveness of each side turning out voters who are reporting their presidential preferences over the phone to pollsters. Nor do all pollsters effectively capture the cellphone effect.
A major caveat. The fact that the race can swing this dramatically in this short a time reflects the truth that a few days in presidential politics can be a lifetime. We are both close to the end and yet nowhere near.
Real Credibility Problems
@ 9:08 AM
EDIT: Please see also my follow-up post here.
Last week, I discussed Real Clear Politics' decision to exclude the Research 2000 daily tracking poll from their national averages. After a lengthy discussion with RCP founder John McIntyre, I decided to defend them, pointing out that while RCP may have a debatable framework for deciding which polls they do or do not include, they at least appeared to have applied this framework consistently.
My gut-level takeaway from my conversation with McIntyre was somewhat different from what I represented, however. My gut-level feeling was that RCP was in fact cherry-picking those results that were to its liking, and then coming up with post-facto rationalizations to justify its decisions.
RCP made a decision yesterday that convinces me I should have trusted my gut. Specifically, it was their decision to re-include polls from American Research Group (ARG) in their state-by-state averages.
ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.
Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible.
As you may know, I am not much of a fan of ARG myself. However, while ARG ranks toward the back end of our pollster ratings, so do a lot of other pollsters that RCP has no problems with.
What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.
No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.
This is not RCP's sole problem with consistency. Take a look, for example, at which polls they presently include in their averages for Virginia:
You'll see three polls -- SurveyUSA, Mason-Dixon, and ABC/Post -- that were conducted at essentially the same time. The ABC/Post poll was in the field from the 18th to the 21st, Mason-Dixon from the 17th to the 22nd, and SurveyUSA from the 19th to the 21st. And yet, the Mason-Dixon and ABC/Post polls are included in its average whereas SurveyUSA is not. Guess which one had the strongest numbers for Obama?
A similar example from Minnesota. The Star-Tribune conducted polling from September 10th through September 12th; SurveyUSA conducted polling from September 10th to September 11th. The Star-Tribune poll, which shows a tie, is included; the SurveyUSA poll, which showed Obama ahead by 2, is not.
As long as we're having fun with this, how about Alaska? Anchorage-based pollster Ivan Moore had released a poll in July, then showing just a 3-point race between McCain and Obama. We included it, Pollster.com included it, and RCP did not. But then last month, when the same firm released a fresh poll showing the profound effect that Sarah Palin had on the race (McCain +19), RCP decided they were a worthy pollster.
Or how about North Carolina Senate? RCP presently includes two weeks-old polls from SurveyUSA and Research 2000, whch had shown Elizabeth Dole with a solid lead in her race against Kay Hagan. But they didn't bother to include more recent polls from Elon and Civitas, which show the race essentially tied.
Why is one of Mitch McConnell's internal polls included in their Kentucky Senate averages?
Why, a week or so ago, did RCP include a poll from the Marketing Resource Group of Lansing, Michigan, which the Detroit News describes as a "Republican consulting firm", while excluding a Nevada poll that came out on the same day from Project New West, a Democratic strategy firm? Might it have had anything to do with the fact that the Michigan poll showed McCain ahead -- and the Nevada poll showed him behind?
Look -- I'm not going to tell you that my site is completely devoid of spin. I am a Democrat, and I see the world through a Democratic lens. But what I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.
Unfortunately, that is not a choice you have at RCP. Their partisan leaning is infused into their numbers. If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not.
You do, however, have a number of good alternatives in the marketplace. So here is a recipe for RCP detox.
For polling averages, you can of course look here. But otherwise, I would recommend Pollster.com. Pollster.com has the most unbiased standard imaginable: they simply include every poll.
For content aggregation, I would recommend Memeorandum or PoliticsHome, each of whom refresh their material on a 24/7 basis.
We're not asking that you go cold turkey. Do bookmark and continue to read Jay Cost at RCP, who is an outstanding analyst.
Full disclosure: RCP is a competitor, so I have every incentive to tell you this. (I'm pretty sure they see me as a competitor too, as I don't think they've linked to me in about a month). But the fact is that there's not an exceptionally high degree of difficulty in simply collecting a bunch of polls and averaging them together. There's no excuse not to do it right.
Last week, I discussed Real Clear Politics' decision to exclude the Research 2000 daily tracking poll from their national averages. After a lengthy discussion with RCP founder John McIntyre, I decided to defend them, pointing out that while RCP may have a debatable framework for deciding which polls they do or do not include, they at least appeared to have applied this framework consistently.
My gut-level takeaway from my conversation with McIntyre was somewhat different from what I represented, however. My gut-level feeling was that RCP was in fact cherry-picking those results that were to its liking, and then coming up with post-facto rationalizations to justify its decisions.
RCP made a decision yesterday that convinces me I should have trusted my gut. Specifically, it was their decision to re-include polls from American Research Group (ARG) in their state-by-state averages.
ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.
Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible.
As you may know, I am not much of a fan of ARG myself. However, while ARG ranks toward the back end of our pollster ratings, so do a lot of other pollsters that RCP has no problems with.
What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.
No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.
This is not RCP's sole problem with consistency. Take a look, for example, at which polls they presently include in their averages for Virginia:
You'll see three polls -- SurveyUSA, Mason-Dixon, and ABC/Post -- that were conducted at essentially the same time. The ABC/Post poll was in the field from the 18th to the 21st, Mason-Dixon from the 17th to the 22nd, and SurveyUSA from the 19th to the 21st. And yet, the Mason-Dixon and ABC/Post polls are included in its average whereas SurveyUSA is not. Guess which one had the strongest numbers for Obama?
A similar example from Minnesota. The Star-Tribune conducted polling from September 10th through September 12th; SurveyUSA conducted polling from September 10th to September 11th. The Star-Tribune poll, which shows a tie, is included; the SurveyUSA poll, which showed Obama ahead by 2, is not.
As long as we're having fun with this, how about Alaska? Anchorage-based pollster Ivan Moore had released a poll in July, then showing just a 3-point race between McCain and Obama. We included it, Pollster.com included it, and RCP did not. But then last month, when the same firm released a fresh poll showing the profound effect that Sarah Palin had on the race (McCain +19), RCP decided they were a worthy pollster.
Or how about North Carolina Senate? RCP presently includes two weeks-old polls from SurveyUSA and Research 2000, whch had shown Elizabeth Dole with a solid lead in her race against Kay Hagan. But they didn't bother to include more recent polls from Elon and Civitas, which show the race essentially tied.
Why is one of Mitch McConnell's internal polls included in their Kentucky Senate averages?
Why, a week or so ago, did RCP include a poll from the Marketing Resource Group of Lansing, Michigan, which the Detroit News describes as a "Republican consulting firm", while excluding a Nevada poll that came out on the same day from Project New West, a Democratic strategy firm? Might it have had anything to do with the fact that the Michigan poll showed McCain ahead -- and the Nevada poll showed him behind?
Look -- I'm not going to tell you that my site is completely devoid of spin. I am a Democrat, and I see the world through a Democratic lens. But what I can promise you is that we'll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.
Unfortunately, that is not a choice you have at RCP. Their partisan leaning is infused into their numbers. If RCP disclosed their methodology -- articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not.
You do, however, have a number of good alternatives in the marketplace. So here is a recipe for RCP detox.
For polling averages, you can of course look here. But otherwise, I would recommend Pollster.com. Pollster.com has the most unbiased standard imaginable: they simply include every poll.
For content aggregation, I would recommend Memeorandum or PoliticsHome, each of whom refresh their material on a 24/7 basis.
We're not asking that you go cold turkey. Do bookmark and continue to read Jay Cost at RCP, who is an outstanding analyst.
Full disclosure: RCP is a competitor, so I have every incentive to tell you this. (I'm pretty sure they see me as a competitor too, as I don't think they've linked to me in about a month). But the fact is that there's not an exceptionally high degree of difficulty in simply collecting a bunch of polls and averaging them together. There's no excuse not to do it right.
10.01.2008
In Contrast to House, Few Signs of Electoral Politics in Senate Bailout Vote
@ 11:45 PM
In opposition to the House, where essentially every representative in a swing district voted against the bailout bill (the exceptions were mostly in wealthy, investor-class districts), many senators in tough races were willing put their backing behind the measure.
Among those senators in races that might even vaguely be considered competitive (all the races on Swing State Project's list, including their snowball's-chance-in-hell category called "races to watch"), the only to oppose the measure were four Southern fiscal conservatives -- Liddy Dole, Roger Wicker, James Inhofe, and Democrat Mary Landrieu -- all of whom might well have opposed the bill even if they were running against Mickey Mouse. But Ted Stevens, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell et. al. all voted for the measure, and with an exception or two like McConnell, few had institutional imperatives to do so.
So what does this tell us?
a. Sens. Obama and McCain, who both voted for the measure, wield far more influence than any other politicians in America, including the President and the House leadership;
b. The "sweeteners" in the bill worked well enough for all sides;
c. The Senate and House have different institutional philosophies;
d. The Dow's performance over the past 72 hours scared them, and/or their constituents, into supporting the bill;
e. All of the above.
The complete tally follows.
Among those senators in races that might even vaguely be considered competitive (all the races on Swing State Project's list, including their snowball's-chance-in-hell category called "races to watch"), the only to oppose the measure were four Southern fiscal conservatives -- Liddy Dole, Roger Wicker, James Inhofe, and Democrat Mary Landrieu -- all of whom might well have opposed the bill even if they were running against Mickey Mouse. But Ted Stevens, John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell et. al. all voted for the measure, and with an exception or two like McConnell, few had institutional imperatives to do so.
So what does this tell us?
a. Sens. Obama and McCain, who both voted for the measure, wield far more influence than any other politicians in America, including the President and the House leadership;
b. The "sweeteners" in the bill worked well enough for all sides;
c. The Senate and House have different institutional philosophies;
d. The Dow's performance over the past 72 hours scared them, and/or their constituents, into supporting the bill;
e. All of the above.
The complete tally follows.
AK Stevens AYE
GA Chambliss AYE
KY McConnell AYE
ME Collins AYE
MN Coleman AYE
MS WICKER NAY
NH Sununu AYE
NC DOLE NAY
OK INHOFE NAY
OR Smith AYE
SC Graham AYE
TX Cornyn AYE
Republicans -- Competitive Races: 9 Aye, 3 Nay (75%)
Republicans -- Safe: 25 Aye, 12 Nay (68%)
LA LANDRIEU NAY
NJ Lautenberg AYE
Democrats -- Competitive Races: 1 Aye, 1 Nay (50%)
Democrats -- Safe: 40 Aye, 8 Nay, 1 N/V (83%)
{Independents -- Safe: 1 Aye, 1 Nay}
Total Competitive: 10 Aye, 4 Nay (71%)
Total Noncompetitive: 64 Aye, 21 Nay, 1 N/V
Nate with Dan Rather, and Keith Olbermann
@ 2:49 PM
Yes, I'm enjoying my 15 minutes...
With Dan Rather, back when it looked like the Mets might still make the playoffs:
And my appearance on Countdown last night follows below the fold.
With Dan Rather, back when it looked like the Mets might still make the playoffs:
And my appearance on Countdown last night follows below the fold.
Debategate
@ 2:20 PM
Like Andrew Sullivan, I think that the Obama campaign has little to lose and everything to gain by encouraging the CPD to have Gwen Ifill to pull out of moderating the VP debate.
It's not that the right's critique isn't utterly transparent, but media backlash was one of the principal dynamics in motivating the Palin bounce in the first place.
But there's another factor here too. In preparing for a debate, you are often preparing nearly as much for the "judge" or moderator as for the opponent. Both campaigns probably have a pretty good idea of what types of questions she is likely to ask, how he is likely to ask them. Palin and Biden have undoubtedly watched videotapes of Ifill moderating the 2004 debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney.
By changing the moderator, you're throwing everyone a curveball, and catering to the candidate who is better able to adapt on the fly. Which, most likely, is not going to be Sarah Palin.
It's not that the right's critique isn't utterly transparent, but media backlash was one of the principal dynamics in motivating the Palin bounce in the first place.
But there's another factor here too. In preparing for a debate, you are often preparing nearly as much for the "judge" or moderator as for the opponent. Both campaigns probably have a pretty good idea of what types of questions she is likely to ask, how he is likely to ask them. Palin and Biden have undoubtedly watched videotapes of Ifill moderating the 2004 debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney.
By changing the moderator, you're throwing everyone a curveball, and catering to the candidate who is better able to adapt on the fly. Which, most likely, is not going to be Sarah Palin.
Washington Post Chat Starts Momentarily
@ 11:50 AM
With the pollster.com guys at this location.
Turning comments off in this thread. Talk in Today's Polls. That's where the action is.
Turning comments off in this thread. Talk in Today's Polls. That's where the action is.
Today's Polls, 10/1
@ 11:29 AM
Gonna try and make it to the Cubs game tonight, which means that I've got a ton of work to do this afternoon, which means that ... you're getting a rare AM edition of Today's Polls. And it's a good one for Barack Obama:
What's up with those Quinnipiac polls? Why have I listed them twice?
Well, Quinnipiac broke its sample into two halves: pre-debate and post-debate. For all intents and purposes, these are two separate surveys, and so that's how I list them. Obama gained ground in the post-debate versions in all three states (OH, PA, and FL).
More importantly, however, the polls represent significant gains for Obama since the last time Quinnipiac had been in the field in early September, particularly in Florida, where he had been 7 points behind before.
The McCain camp is going a little crazy over these polls. Usually, when a campaign does something like that, it's worried about morale. But do their complaints have any basis in fact?
Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.
At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia).
The most critical point may be that the McCain campaign now faces something of a Hobson's choice. In terms of states where they had hoped to play offense, Michigan began to break away from them a week or so ago, and now Pennsylvania -- which had initially reacted well to Sarah Palin -- seems to be doing the same. But if all they're doing is playing defense, that gives Obama so many scratch-off tickets -- Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps Indiana, Nevada, and Missouri -- that it's essentially inevitable that he'll get lucky in one or more of those states, several of which he already appears to have the lead in.
My gut instinct if I were the McCain campaign is that it might be time to pick one of Pennsylvania and Michigan -- whichever state my internals liked better -- and consolidate my offense there. McCain certainly can't be spending time in Iowa, where he spent much of yesterday, but where he has never led a single public poll against Obama.
What's up with those Quinnipiac polls? Why have I listed them twice?
Well, Quinnipiac broke its sample into two halves: pre-debate and post-debate. For all intents and purposes, these are two separate surveys, and so that's how I list them. Obama gained ground in the post-debate versions in all three states (OH, PA, and FL).
More importantly, however, the polls represent significant gains for Obama since the last time Quinnipiac had been in the field in early September, particularly in Florida, where he had been 7 points behind before.
The McCain camp is going a little crazy over these polls. Usually, when a campaign does something like that, it's worried about morale. But do their complaints have any basis in fact?
Quinnipiac's polls have shown a slight Democratic lean this cycle -- they've been 1-2 points more favorable to Dems than contemporaneous polls of their states. From what I can tell, their head of polling (Peter Brown) has fairly conservative politics, so I don't know that it can be called a partisan lean. But that is the side that the polls have tended to end up upon nevertheless.
At the same time, they are highly-rated polls, use large sample sizes, and have plenty of rich trendlines for comparison. Is it possible that they are outliers to a certain degree? Possibly -- maybe even probably -- but as I intimated yesterday, with Obama's surge nationally it was inevitable that we were eventually going to get an oh sh*t set of state polling for Obama. There clearly seems to have been some movement toward Obama in Florida, as well as in Pennsylvania, where the Morning Call tracker has had him gaining a point literally every day since its inception. Ohio, I am somewhat less convinced about, but InsiderAdvantage also gives him the lead there (as well as a 6-point lead in Virginia).
The most critical point may be that the McCain campaign now faces something of a Hobson's choice. In terms of states where they had hoped to play offense, Michigan began to break away from them a week or so ago, and now Pennsylvania -- which had initially reacted well to Sarah Palin -- seems to be doing the same. But if all they're doing is playing defense, that gives Obama so many scratch-off tickets -- Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps Indiana, Nevada, and Missouri -- that it's essentially inevitable that he'll get lucky in one or more of those states, several of which he already appears to have the lead in.
My gut instinct if I were the McCain campaign is that it might be time to pick one of Pennsylvania and Michigan -- whichever state my internals liked better -- and consolidate my offense there. McCain certainly can't be spending time in Iowa, where he spent much of yesterday, but where he has never led a single public poll against Obama.
9.30.2008
What Obama Accomplished at the Debate
@ 11:56 PM
The national polls have been relatively flat since Friday night's debate -- this in spite of the fact that essentially all post-debate surveys had concluded that Obama had "won" the affair. However, not all momentum manifests itself in a candidate converting undecided voters, or flipping voters from the other candidate. Instead, sometimes it looks more like this:
This graph is lifted from today's release (PDF) of the Diageo-Hotline poll. Note the progression of the blue line ... where as 60 percent of Democrats felt enthusiastic about their candidate before, that figure is up to 69 percent now.
There are hints of this pattern in other surveys. Rasmussen reports that 40 percent of voters now have a very favorable view of Barack Obama, the highest that this number has been all year, and an improvement from 36 percent in their last release before the debate. And voters feel safer about Obama. In today's ABC News poll, which actually had McCain gaining back some ground overall, 55 percent of voters said they considered Obama a "safe" choice, as opposed to 50 percent for McCain. In mid-June, the last time that ABC had asked this question, McCain led in this category 57-50.
So Obama may not have persuaded that many voters on Friday night (I don't think his performance, frankly, was all that persuasive). But he may have reassured and locked in some of his soft supporters -- perhaps Clinton voters and working class Dems.
What that means is that Obama's floor is higher (and therefore McCain's ceiling is lower). What it also means is that negative attacks may be less effective for McCain, which are often targeted at soft supporters of the opposing candidate. The CW is that McCain ought to go starkly negative on Obama, but I'm not sure that he wouldn't stand a better chance by zigging when everyone expects him to zag, rebuilding his inherently strong brand, campaigning on the big-picture themes that dominated the GOP convention, and leaving it to the 527's to do his dirty work.
This graph is lifted from today's release (PDF) of the Diageo-Hotline poll. Note the progression of the blue line ... where as 60 percent of Democrats felt enthusiastic about their candidate before, that figure is up to 69 percent now.
There are hints of this pattern in other surveys. Rasmussen reports that 40 percent of voters now have a very favorable view of Barack Obama, the highest that this number has been all year, and an improvement from 36 percent in their last release before the debate. And voters feel safer about Obama. In today's ABC News poll, which actually had McCain gaining back some ground overall, 55 percent of voters said they considered Obama a "safe" choice, as opposed to 50 percent for McCain. In mid-June, the last time that ABC had asked this question, McCain led in this category 57-50.
So Obama may not have persuaded that many voters on Friday night (I don't think his performance, frankly, was all that persuasive). But he may have reassured and locked in some of his soft supporters -- perhaps Clinton voters and working class Dems.
What that means is that Obama's floor is higher (and therefore McCain's ceiling is lower). What it also means is that negative attacks may be less effective for McCain, which are often targeted at soft supporters of the opposing candidate. The CW is that McCain ought to go starkly negative on Obama, but I'm not sure that he wouldn't stand a better chance by zigging when everyone expects him to zag, rebuilding his inherently strong brand, campaigning on the big-picture themes that dominated the GOP convention, and leaving it to the 527's to do his dirty work.
The Tongue Jut
@ 9:48 PM
Last night on The Colbert Report, Dr. Stephen T. Colbert (DFA) noted that John McCain was doing something peculiar with his tongue. The upshot of the joke was that McCain was repeatedly sticking his tongue out like a reptile.
While the late-night laughanistas were having their fun, as a professional poker player I instantly recognized an increasingly well-known poker tell that I’ve been able to use to my advantage at the table.
Retired FBI agent Joe Navarro, a Bluff Magazine columnist and author of Read ‘Em and Reap, a book on poker tells culled from his professional interrogation experience, has written about the “tongue jut,” which is exactly what McCain was doing in the Colbert debate clips. Its significance?
A few examples:
“Greed is rewarded. Excess is rewarded.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker.”
“I don’t believe we’re gonna go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen”
“... loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we’ve made of American blood and treasure which grieves us all.”
Take a look:
What can we conclude from this? I’m not a trained psychologist, but I have used observation of this particular tell in the past to my financial advantage. Usually when I’m observing two players are in a hand against each other, one decides to make a laydown, and the other tongue juts when that happens, I’ll mentally capture their entire body language during the hand in my memory bank, and when I see it again, I’ll assign greater likelihood that the opponent is bluffing. I’ve profited from this tell.
Does that mean McCain is getting away with something he knows he shouldn't? Not necessarily -- he could be excited to be scoring points -- but Navarro's long FBI experience tells us this unconscious reptile-brain mimic is in that ballpark. Perhaps trained body language experts will see the clips and make more definitive conclusions about what McCain is doing here.
Looked at as a composite body of jut-work, I notice these are definitely moments when McCain is feeling pretty good about himself and the points he's making. McCain partisans may even like this clip being out there, because, juts or no juts, they're a lot of the comments he wanted to get in. Every mention of General Petraeus seems to be something McCain feels good about, for example.
Or he could just have a really hilarious tic and it could mean nothing.
[PS – the other day I heard a crazy rumor about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert (DFA)’s future programming. Now I can’t remember what it was. Maybe I’ll recall by Tuesday of next week. Thanks to our intrepid photographer Brett for editing the clips together, he's very excited about the MNF-style donkey-elephant smashup.]
While the late-night laughanistas were having their fun, as a professional poker player I instantly recognized an increasingly well-known poker tell that I’ve been able to use to my advantage at the table.
Retired FBI agent Joe Navarro, a Bluff Magazine columnist and author of Read ‘Em and Reap, a book on poker tells culled from his professional interrogation experience, has written about the “tongue jut,” which is exactly what McCain was doing in the Colbert debate clips. Its significance?
Tongue-jutting behavior is a gesture used by people who think they have gotten away with something or are “caught” doing something. I have seen this behavior in flea markets both in the United States and in Russia, among street vendors in Lower Manhattan, at poker tables in Las Vegas, and in business meetings. In each case, the person made the gesture – tongue between the teeth without touching the lips – at the conclusion of some sort of a deal or as a final nonverbal statement. This behavior has several meanings – depending on specific situations – but is usually associated with one of these: I got caught (taking candy from a drawer), gleeful excitement (look at what I just did, Mom), I got away with something (and I didn’t get caught), I did something foolish, or I am naughty.Naturally, this made me curious as to what exactly McCain was saying when his tongue jutted. So, today, I watched a replay of the whole debate tape.
A few examples:
“Greed is rewarded. Excess is rewarded.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker.”
“I don’t believe we’re gonna go back to the Cold War. I am sure that that will not happen”
“... loss of all the fragile sacrifice that we’ve made of American blood and treasure which grieves us all.”
Take a look:
What can we conclude from this? I’m not a trained psychologist, but I have used observation of this particular tell in the past to my financial advantage. Usually when I’m observing two players are in a hand against each other, one decides to make a laydown, and the other tongue juts when that happens, I’ll mentally capture their entire body language during the hand in my memory bank, and when I see it again, I’ll assign greater likelihood that the opponent is bluffing. I’ve profited from this tell.
Does that mean McCain is getting away with something he knows he shouldn't? Not necessarily -- he could be excited to be scoring points -- but Navarro's long FBI experience tells us this unconscious reptile-brain mimic is in that ballpark. Perhaps trained body language experts will see the clips and make more definitive conclusions about what McCain is doing here.
Looked at as a composite body of jut-work, I notice these are definitely moments when McCain is feeling pretty good about himself and the points he's making. McCain partisans may even like this clip being out there, because, juts or no juts, they're a lot of the comments he wanted to get in. Every mention of General Petraeus seems to be something McCain feels good about, for example.
Or he could just have a really hilarious tic and it could mean nothing.
[PS – the other day I heard a crazy rumor about Dr. Stephen T. Colbert (DFA)’s future programming. Now I can’t remember what it was. Maybe I’ll recall by Tuesday of next week. Thanks to our intrepid photographer Brett for editing the clips together, he's very excited about the MNF-style donkey-elephant smashup.]
Today's Polls, 9/30
@ 4:54 PM
It is difficult to gauge the immediate reaction to yesterday's financial meltdown in the polling, particularly as several other aspects of the campaign, such as last Friday's debate, are also still echoing onto the numbers. Barack Obama lost 2 points in the Gallup Tracker, bringing his lead back to a +6, while gaining ground in the other national trackers.
Either way, Barack Obama remains in a commanding position nationally -- but it is less clear how much of his advantage is translating into particular swing states.
Firstly, we have a trio polls from ARG, each of which show Obama a couple of points behind in some critical swing states. Oddly, ARG's national poll has Obama doing just fine, moving into a 4-point advantage nationally. The thing about ARG polls is not necessarily that they're "bad", but that their behavior tends to be erratic, jutting around in ways that aren't particularly correlated with one another or with other polling firms. So, while I'm happy to include ARG's numbers in our model, I'm not going to invest a particular amount of time in trying to decode them.
On the other hand, the SurveyUSA polls in Indiana and Ohio may well mean something, as they show Obama gaining ground, but remaining slightly behind in those states. The reason the model still projects Obama with a slight advantage in Ohio, when the two most recent polls (SurveyUSA and Rasmussen) gave McCain a 1-point lead, is because those polls (especially Rasmussen; less so SurveyUSA) have tended to be toward the lower end of Obama's projected performance in Ohio. And those polls have shown gains for him -- just not enough to give him a lead. The model assumes that when pollsters like Quinnipiac or CNN or National Journal, which had been friendlier to Obama before (shown him tied or ahead in Ohio), refresh their data, they too will show gains for Obama, and will probably show him several points ahead.
If the model's guess is wrong, it is wrong, and it will quickly correct itself. But a lot of times, people think they are seeing "movement" in the polls when all that they're really seeing is the mix of pollsters in a particular state change. Obama has been gaining ground everywhere lately; there is no particular reason to conclude that he isn't gaining ground in Ohio, when his numbers have been improving in neighboring states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and even Kentucky. The model does not assume, by the way, that the movement across different states is uniform; instead, it searches for demographic patterns that might explain it. For the time being, none of those demographic clues would exclude Ohio from the fun. With all that said, Florida, where PPP today shows Obama ahead by 3 points, may well be on the verge of surpassing Ohio as a potential tipping point state.
Either way, Barack Obama remains in a commanding position nationally -- but it is less clear how much of his advantage is translating into particular swing states.
Firstly, we have a trio polls from ARG, each of which show Obama a couple of points behind in some critical swing states. Oddly, ARG's national poll has Obama doing just fine, moving into a 4-point advantage nationally. The thing about ARG polls is not necessarily that they're "bad", but that their behavior tends to be erratic, jutting around in ways that aren't particularly correlated with one another or with other polling firms. So, while I'm happy to include ARG's numbers in our model, I'm not going to invest a particular amount of time in trying to decode them.
On the other hand, the SurveyUSA polls in Indiana and Ohio may well mean something, as they show Obama gaining ground, but remaining slightly behind in those states. The reason the model still projects Obama with a slight advantage in Ohio, when the two most recent polls (SurveyUSA and Rasmussen) gave McCain a 1-point lead, is because those polls (especially Rasmussen; less so SurveyUSA) have tended to be toward the lower end of Obama's projected performance in Ohio. And those polls have shown gains for him -- just not enough to give him a lead. The model assumes that when pollsters like Quinnipiac or CNN or National Journal, which had been friendlier to Obama before (shown him tied or ahead in Ohio), refresh their data, they too will show gains for Obama, and will probably show him several points ahead.
If the model's guess is wrong, it is wrong, and it will quickly correct itself. But a lot of times, people think they are seeing "movement" in the polls when all that they're really seeing is the mix of pollsters in a particular state change. Obama has been gaining ground everywhere lately; there is no particular reason to conclude that he isn't gaining ground in Ohio, when his numbers have been improving in neighboring states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and even Kentucky. The model does not assume, by the way, that the movement across different states is uniform; instead, it searches for demographic patterns that might explain it. For the time being, none of those demographic clues would exclude Ohio from the fun. With all that said, Florida, where PPP today shows Obama ahead by 3 points, may well be on the verge of surpassing Ohio as a potential tipping point state.
More Media
@ 12:52 PM
Busy, busy, busy.
1. I'm beginning a live chat at the Washington Times ASAP -- as in RIGHT NOW. Happy to take any of your questions.
2. Tonight at 8 PM Eastern (re-airing at 11 PM Eastern), HDNet is airing a very, very in-depth segment that I shot with Dan Rather. It was a thrill to meet Dan, and I hope you'll enjoy the segment. We also hope to have a clip for you shortly.
3. Tomorrow, there will be another opportunity to chat with me at the Washington Post, where I'll be doing a joint segment with Pollster.com's Charles Franklin at Noon Eastern.
4. Finally, I may be on the MSNBC lineup tonight, but details are still coming together on that.
1. I'm beginning a live chat at the Washington Times ASAP -- as in RIGHT NOW. Happy to take any of your questions.
2. Tonight at 8 PM Eastern (re-airing at 11 PM Eastern), HDNet is airing a very, very in-depth segment that I shot with Dan Rather. It was a thrill to meet Dan, and I hope you'll enjoy the segment. We also hope to have a clip for you shortly.
3. Tomorrow, there will be another opportunity to chat with me at the Washington Post, where I'll be doing a joint segment with Pollster.com's Charles Franklin at Noon Eastern.
4. Finally, I may be on the MSNBC lineup tonight, but details are still coming together on that.
On Dumping Palin
@ 9:11 AM
It’s important to reinforce what Nate wrote Sunday night. Not gonna happen. It would be overt surrender. As most of you know, I’ve been on the road for the past three weeks, so far visiting at least a dozen McCain campaign offices in six battleground states as well as Palin’s first solo rally in Carson City, Nevada. If McCain dumps Palin, it is over.
In the Colorado Springs volunteer office, “you could hear a pin drop” in the days before Palin was picked. In Reno, the volunteering had been anemic; the Saturday morning after the Palin pick, organizers arrived to an early morning volunteer line waiting at the door.
Our direct observation shows McCain is being overwhelmingly outworked on the ground as it is; take Palin away and you can add 2-5% to Obama’s total in every close state due to ground game. As Bill Paxton once said, "Game over, man, game over!"
There really isn’t much more to say. It’s already the Obama v. Nobama election – you overhear it in all the volunteer-to-volunteer discussions. “Obama Scares Me” is not just the unofficial motto, it’s actually a button we’ve seen sported.
But that’s not good enough to win. Bush v. Not Bush didn’t turn out well for Democrats, and Obama v. Nobama in a huge partisan ID switching and massive new voter reg year isn’t going to get the job done for Republicans.
Taking away Sarah Palin is not an option – it would be worse than having never put her on the ticket in the first place. This ticket is soldiering on til the bitter end, or else they're giving up.
In the Colorado Springs volunteer office, “you could hear a pin drop” in the days before Palin was picked. In Reno, the volunteering had been anemic; the Saturday morning after the Palin pick, organizers arrived to an early morning volunteer line waiting at the door.
Our direct observation shows McCain is being overwhelmingly outworked on the ground as it is; take Palin away and you can add 2-5% to Obama’s total in every close state due to ground game. As Bill Paxton once said, "Game over, man, game over!"
There really isn’t much more to say. It’s already the Obama v. Nobama election – you overhear it in all the volunteer-to-volunteer discussions. “Obama Scares Me” is not just the unofficial motto, it’s actually a button we’ve seen sported.
But that’s not good enough to win. Bush v. Not Bush didn’t turn out well for Democrats, and Obama v. Nobama in a huge partisan ID switching and massive new voter reg year isn’t going to get the job done for Republicans.
Taking away Sarah Palin is not an option – it would be worse than having never put her on the ticket in the first place. This ticket is soldiering on til the bitter end, or else they're giving up.
What's Wrong With the Battleground Poll?
@ 1:42 AM
I have gotten an increasing number of questions about the GWU/Battleground Poll, which presently gives John McCain a 2-point national lead, even as essentially every other current national poll shows Barack Obama with a lead of at least 5 points.
Just because a poll is an outlier doesn't necessarily mean that it's doing something wrong. Pollsters may have legitimate reasons for having a different perspective on the election, and they may also occasionally produce odd results due to chance alone.
In this case, however, the poll seems to be making a relatively fundamental mistake: it is not weighting by age.
Take a look for yourself at the "weighted tables" that Battleground released a couple of days ago (PDF). These crosstabs provide a ton of detail -- kudos to Battleground for doing so -- but unfortunately there is one red flag. This is the age makeup of their weighted sample:
It is highly unlikely that Battleground has deliberately decided to set their weightings this way. Instead, very probably they simply aren't weighting by age groups at all. Since getting young voters to respond to polls is difficult because of the cellphone problem and other reasons, unweighted data will skew substantially older.
Battleground actually has a fairly good track record; they had a slight GOP-leaning house effect in 2004, but not a dramatic one, and before that had a couple of strong elections in a row.
Until fairly recently, however, it was probably not absolutely necessary to weight by age groupings. This year it is, because two factors have coalesced at once:
(1) Voter preferences are much more strongly correlated with age than they have been in recent elections. In 2000, Al Gore won young (age 18-29) voters by just 2 points, barely different than his overall margin against George Bush. In 2004, John Kerry won young voters by 9 points. But this year, young voters are going for Barack Obama by anywhere from 15 to perhaps as many as 35 points, depending on which poll you look at.
(2) In addition, principally because of cellphones, young voters are becoming much harder to reach than they used to be, and so the age skew of unweighted samples will be significantly greater.
Indeed, it is fairly predictable that a poll that had otherwise been fairly accurate but which did not weight by age groupings would encounter slight a Republican skew in 2004, and then a much more dramatic Republican skew in 2008.
Battleground has a rich history and should be given the benefit of the doubt -- if and when they correct this problem, or provide a cogent explanation of why they believe it doesn't need fixing (which I would be happy to publish here). Until then, this should be presumed to be a bug rather than a feature, and their tracking poll should not be taken especially seriously.
_______
** Note: the Census Bureau uses slightly different age groupings from Battleground -- in particular, they group 18-24 year-old voters together, and 25-44 year-old voters together. To match the results to Battleground's numbers, I have assumed that half the Census Bureau's age 25-44 voters are between ages 35-44, and the other half are between ages 25-34, which are then lumped together with the 18-24 voters.
Just because a poll is an outlier doesn't necessarily mean that it's doing something wrong. Pollsters may have legitimate reasons for having a different perspective on the election, and they may also occasionally produce odd results due to chance alone.
In this case, however, the poll seems to be making a relatively fundamental mistake: it is not weighting by age.
Take a look for yourself at the "weighted tables" that Battleground released a couple of days ago (PDF). These crosstabs provide a ton of detail -- kudos to Battleground for doing so -- but unfortunately there is one red flag. This is the age makeup of their weighted sample:
18-34 17%
35-44 12%
45-64 40%
65+ 31%Intuitively, this probably looks fairly wrong to you -- almost twice as many age 65+ voters as age18-34 voters? And in fact, it almost certainly is wrong. By comparison, here is the approximate age composition of the electorate in 2004, as according to the US Census Bureau**:18-34 26%
35-44 17%
45-64 38%
65+ 19%Battleground's numbers are not even close. About 19 percent of voters were aged 65 and older in 2004, as compared to the 31 percent in the Battleground sample. On the other hand, 43 percent of voters were aged 18-44, as opposed to Battleground's 29 percent. These differences are much, much too large to be attributable to chance alone. (And all of this is assuming that turnout in 2008 will match that in 2004, even though youth turnout increased markedly in the primaries and is at least somewhat probable to do so in the general election.0It is highly unlikely that Battleground has deliberately decided to set their weightings this way. Instead, very probably they simply aren't weighting by age groups at all. Since getting young voters to respond to polls is difficult because of the cellphone problem and other reasons, unweighted data will skew substantially older.
Battleground actually has a fairly good track record; they had a slight GOP-leaning house effect in 2004, but not a dramatic one, and before that had a couple of strong elections in a row.
Until fairly recently, however, it was probably not absolutely necessary to weight by age groupings. This year it is, because two factors have coalesced at once:
(1) Voter preferences are much more strongly correlated with age than they have been in recent elections. In 2000, Al Gore won young (age 18-29) voters by just 2 points, barely different than his overall margin against George Bush. In 2004, John Kerry won young voters by 9 points. But this year, young voters are going for Barack Obama by anywhere from 15 to perhaps as many as 35 points, depending on which poll you look at.
(2) In addition, principally because of cellphones, young voters are becoming much harder to reach than they used to be, and so the age skew of unweighted samples will be significantly greater.
Indeed, it is fairly predictable that a poll that had otherwise been fairly accurate but which did not weight by age groupings would encounter slight a Republican skew in 2004, and then a much more dramatic Republican skew in 2008.
Battleground has a rich history and should be given the benefit of the doubt -- if and when they correct this problem, or provide a cogent explanation of why they believe it doesn't need fixing (which I would be happy to publish here). Until then, this should be presumed to be a bug rather than a feature, and their tracking poll should not be taken especially seriously.
_______
** Note: the Census Bureau uses slightly different age groupings from Battleground -- in particular, they group 18-24 year-old voters together, and 25-44 year-old voters together. To match the results to Battleground's numbers, I have assumed that half the Census Bureau's age 25-44 voters are between ages 35-44, and the other half are between ages 25-34, which are then lumped together with the 18-24 voters.
Road to 270: Utah
@ 12:32 AM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the Beehive State, Utah.
SUNSET SANDSTONE RED, Utah projects as John McCain’s safest state in 2008. It was the number one Bush margin state in 2004, and set the baseline for the most conservative state in the Likert scale. 57 percent of voters identified as Republicans in 2004 (the most) and only 19 percent identified as Democrats (2d lowest). Though Democrats are making inroads all over the Mountain West, Utah is not going to yield any time soon. Republicans hold the statewide offices as well as a 3-1 edge in state legislature representation. Both Senators (neither up for re-election) are Republican, and two of the three Congressmen are Republicans as well. Only Jim Matheson, a popular House Member who survived Salt Lake redistricting after the 2000 census, represents Democrats at the federal level.
Key Demographics
Note: Factors colored in red can generally be thought to help McCain. Factors in blue can generally be thought to help Obama. Factors in purple have ambiguous effects. Except where otherwise apparent, the numbers next to each variable represent the proportion out of each 100 residents in each state who fall into that category. Fundraising numbers reflect dollars raised in the 2008 campaign cycle per eligible voter in each state. Figures for seniors and youth voters are proportions of all residents aged 18+, rather than all residents of any age. The figure for education reflects the average number of years of completed schooling for all adults aged 25+. The figure for same-sex households reflects the number of same-sex partner households as a proportion of all households in the state. The liberal-conservative index is scaled from 0 (conservative) to 100 (liberal), based on a Likert score of voter self-identification in 2004 exit polls. The turnout rates reflect eligible voters only. Unemployment rates are current as of June 2008.
What McCain Has Going For Him
When you start out with a 3-1 edge in R to D self-identification, you’re only going to lose if you lose every state. Utah, of course, is heavily Mormon/LDS, which tracks with Republican voting. McCain almost equaled Obama in fundraising per capita, and low unemployment indicates voters here may be more satisfied relative to other voters on the economic front. Given the current economic crisis, that's a purely relative statement.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Barack Obama did well in the caucus here in February, but a big part of that was Hillary Clinton's anathema status in the Mountain West over gun control as well as her campaign’s decision to cede the field. Utah has the most youth voters in the country, and the 2d fewest elderly. Ordinarily that would help Obama. Utah is not a high military veteran state, a statistic that would tend to favor Republicans, and it’s fairly well educated, which favors Democrats. Utah also has a fairly high percentage of same-sex households. That’s about the best you can say for Obama’s chances in the demographic and socioeconomic data.
What To Watch For
That's a tough one. Like Rhode Island yesterday, there's basically zero drama in Utah with the presidential and all three House races locked into a clear result, and I can't quite bring myself to feign interest in the NBA with a Utah Jazz reference. Will Barack Obama get 50.6% of the undecideds in Utah? The state is one of the explicit 50-state strategy targets, and some Democratic insiders hated Howard Dean's attempt to send staffers to train on ground activists in every corner of the nation. That, of course, was a long-term strategy, and in Utah might be a multi-decade arc if it happens at all. The bottom line with Utah this year is the way volunteers from the state will fan out into neighboring Nevada and Colorado, two of the most intense battlegrounds of the cycle.
SUNSET SANDSTONE RED, Utah projects as John McCain’s safest state in 2008. It was the number one Bush margin state in 2004, and set the baseline for the most conservative state in the Likert scale. 57 percent of voters identified as Republicans in 2004 (the most) and only 19 percent identified as Democrats (2d lowest). Though Democrats are making inroads all over the Mountain West, Utah is not going to yield any time soon. Republicans hold the statewide offices as well as a 3-1 edge in state legislature representation. Both Senators (neither up for re-election) are Republican, and two of the three Congressmen are Republicans as well. Only Jim Matheson, a popular House Member who survived Salt Lake redistricting after the 2000 census, represents Democrats at the federal level.
Key Demographics
Note: Factors colored in red can generally be thought to help McCain. Factors in blue can generally be thought to help Obama. Factors in purple have ambiguous effects. Except where otherwise apparent, the numbers next to each variable represent the proportion out of each 100 residents in each state who fall into that category. Fundraising numbers reflect dollars raised in the 2008 campaign cycle per eligible voter in each state. Figures for seniors and youth voters are proportions of all residents aged 18+, rather than all residents of any age. The figure for education reflects the average number of years of completed schooling for all adults aged 25+. The figure for same-sex households reflects the number of same-sex partner households as a proportion of all households in the state. The liberal-conservative index is scaled from 0 (conservative) to 100 (liberal), based on a Likert score of voter self-identification in 2004 exit polls. The turnout rates reflect eligible voters only. Unemployment rates are current as of June 2008.
What McCain Has Going For Him
When you start out with a 3-1 edge in R to D self-identification, you’re only going to lose if you lose every state. Utah, of course, is heavily Mormon/LDS, which tracks with Republican voting. McCain almost equaled Obama in fundraising per capita, and low unemployment indicates voters here may be more satisfied relative to other voters on the economic front. Given the current economic crisis, that's a purely relative statement.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Barack Obama did well in the caucus here in February, but a big part of that was Hillary Clinton's anathema status in the Mountain West over gun control as well as her campaign’s decision to cede the field. Utah has the most youth voters in the country, and the 2d fewest elderly. Ordinarily that would help Obama. Utah is not a high military veteran state, a statistic that would tend to favor Republicans, and it’s fairly well educated, which favors Democrats. Utah also has a fairly high percentage of same-sex households. That’s about the best you can say for Obama’s chances in the demographic and socioeconomic data.
What To Watch For
That's a tough one. Like Rhode Island yesterday, there's basically zero drama in Utah with the presidential and all three House races locked into a clear result, and I can't quite bring myself to feign interest in the NBA with a Utah Jazz reference. Will Barack Obama get 50.6% of the undecideds in Utah? The state is one of the explicit 50-state strategy targets, and some Democratic insiders hated Howard Dean's attempt to send staffers to train on ground activists in every corner of the nation. That, of course, was a long-term strategy, and in Utah might be a multi-decade arc if it happens at all. The bottom line with Utah this year is the way volunteers from the state will fan out into neighboring Nevada and Colorado, two of the most intense battlegrounds of the cycle.
9.29.2008
Today's Polls, 9/29
@ 9:27 PM
When the Democrat is polling even with the Republican in states like North Carolina, and polling 7-8 points ahead of them in a state like Pennsylvania, that means the Republican is in a lot of trouble. While there are isolated results in this batch of polling that seem decent for John McCain -- he may have closed the gap in Colorado a bit -- several of these polls have Obama at or near the highest numbers he's been at all year. Likewise with the national trackers.
If it's any consolation to McCain, it's not necessarily clear to me that that the continued movement upward for Barack Obama is a direct result of Friday night's debate. Obama's polls yesterday (Sunday) weren't much better than the polls conducted Friday, before the debate had occurred. On the other hand, Friday's polls were markedly better for Obama than those from earlier last week. It appears that the principal driving factor is that, with each shock to the financial markets, John McCain has continued to dig himself in deeper. Although the debate and Sarah Palin's PR crisis may be contributing factors, that portends poorly for him given the news of the day.
Pelosi Tips the Scales?
@ 6:55 PM
The more that I think about this, the more I think that the failure of the bailout package in Congress today was something of an inevitability -- perhaps the only way to right the perverse incentives that had been at work.
The Republicans' best-case scenario was the bill passing the House by one vote -- with as few as those votes as possible coming from Republicans.
Their worst-case scenario for them might have been ... what just happened this afternoon. Opposing the bailout had been a political freeroll before because it wasn't manifest to the public what the risks of a nay vote would be. But with the Dow having dropped 780 points today, the risks are now painfully obvious. What had looked to be a politically prudent position 24 hours ago now looks cavalier and reckless. And yet, the Republicans will still by and large will get blamed for putting us in this predicament in the first place. Plus, the failure of the bill is an embarrassment to John McCain...
I'm not saying that Pelosi's ostensibly partisan speech today (which I still haven't heard) was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the bill. The margin was such that the bill was almost certainly headed for failure regardless. But her risks were pretty well hedged if the bill failed -- much better, it turns out, than the Republicans' were. Roy Blunt and John Boehner ought to have known to build in a fudge factor. They didn't, and now their party is liable to suffer as a result.
The Republicans' best-case scenario was the bill passing the House by one vote -- with as few as those votes as possible coming from Republicans.
Their worst-case scenario for them might have been ... what just happened this afternoon. Opposing the bailout had been a political freeroll before because it wasn't manifest to the public what the risks of a nay vote would be. But with the Dow having dropped 780 points today, the risks are now painfully obvious. What had looked to be a politically prudent position 24 hours ago now looks cavalier and reckless. And yet, the Republicans will still by and large will get blamed for putting us in this predicament in the first place. Plus, the failure of the bill is an embarrassment to John McCain...
I'm not saying that Pelosi's ostensibly partisan speech today (which I still haven't heard) was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the bill. The margin was such that the bill was almost certainly headed for failure regardless. But her risks were pretty well hedged if the bill failed -- much better, it turns out, than the Republicans' were. Roy Blunt and John Boehner ought to have known to build in a fudge factor. They didn't, and now their party is liable to suffer as a result.
More Bailout Thoughts
@ 4:33 PM
WARNING: This stuff is a little bit above my pay grade, but I hope you'll indulge my thinking out loud:
1. It's highly likely that some sort of bill will pass the Congress. What kind of bill, I don't know. But the Dow is liable to act as something of a thermostat. The lower the Dow goes, affecting people's 401Ks, the more banks that fail, the less unpopular the bailout becomes, and the more of those swing district congressmen will flip over to support the package.
2. Now, if the Dow is rational, it ought to recognize all of this. What were the chances as of this morning that the 110th Congress was going to pass some sort of bailout bill before it adjourned? 90 percent, I'm guessing? What are the chances now? Higher than you'd think because of the thermostat effect I described above -- perhaps 75 percent. So if a 15 percent reduction in the probability of the bailout passing was worth 600 points on the Dow (and granted, that 15 percent number is plucked out of thin air), what would a complete failure to pass the bailout translate into? A 4000 point loss?
3. Yes, the Democrats absolutely have the Republicans by the short and curlies. An LA Times/Bloomberg poll released last week revealed that 32 percent of persons blame Wall Street for the financial crisis -- generally conceived of as a Republican institution -- and 26 percent blame the Bush Administration. Just 11 percent blame Congress. The worse the economy gets, the more of a hole the Republicans have to dig themselves out of.
4. Having said all of the above, the schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. I tend to see this more as a failure of our democracy than a reaffirmation of it. The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure.
1. It's highly likely that some sort of bill will pass the Congress. What kind of bill, I don't know. But the Dow is liable to act as something of a thermostat. The lower the Dow goes, affecting people's 401Ks, the more banks that fail, the less unpopular the bailout becomes, and the more of those swing district congressmen will flip over to support the package.
2. Now, if the Dow is rational, it ought to recognize all of this. What were the chances as of this morning that the 110th Congress was going to pass some sort of bailout bill before it adjourned? 90 percent, I'm guessing? What are the chances now? Higher than you'd think because of the thermostat effect I described above -- perhaps 75 percent. So if a 15 percent reduction in the probability of the bailout passing was worth 600 points on the Dow (and granted, that 15 percent number is plucked out of thin air), what would a complete failure to pass the bailout translate into? A 4000 point loss?
3. Yes, the Democrats absolutely have the Republicans by the short and curlies. An LA Times/Bloomberg poll released last week revealed that 32 percent of persons blame Wall Street for the financial crisis -- generally conceived of as a Republican institution -- and 26 percent blame the Bush Administration. Just 11 percent blame Congress. The worse the economy gets, the more of a hole the Republicans have to dig themselves out of.
4. Having said all of the above, the schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. I tend to see this more as a failure of our democracy than a reaffirmation of it. The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
