Tonight on MSNBC with David Shuster, I referred to Pennsylvania as being "in play". I've also implied similar things in the polling threads over the past couple of days. Since we are showing John McCain as having only about a 2% chance to win Pennsylvania, I've had a couple of readers write in to ask whether I'm contradicting myself. Certainly we would not ordinarily refer to a state as "in play" when one of the candidates trails by 6 to 10 points, and there but a few days to go until the election.
What I want to make clear is that whenever I refer to Pennsylvania as being "in play", you should imagine those little quotation marks around my words. You should also imagine that I'm speaking in the conditional tense. Were the national race to tighten by 5 points or so, then Pennsylvania might actually be in play, rather than being "in play". (Actually, that might have been the subjunctive rather than the conditional, but never mind). We're very focused on those scenarios wherein the national race does in fact tighten substantially, because those are the only scenarios wherein John McCain can win.
What Pennsylvania isn't going to do -- at least I don't think -- is move 5 or 6 or 7 points to the McCain side while everything else stays put. It's a pretty middle-of-the-road state, with its share of big cities and small towns and rural areas and everything in between (this is why it's a swing state in the first place). An idiosyncratic state like West Virgina or New Mexico might occasionally come completely untethered from the national trends, but Pennsylvania is not very likely to. Nor is it the sort of state that's likely to catch anybody surprise (unless Obama supporters are dumb enough to become complacent). It's a big, Democratic machine state, and one where Obama has 78 field offices open, many of which have been open since the primary in April.
Pennsylvania has at various times this year ranged from about 2 points behind Obama's national numbers to 5 points ahead of them. If Obama is at about a +7 nationally, I'd expect him so be somewhere between a +5 and a +12 in PA ... that's about the range permissible by its demographics. Anything outside of that range, and I'd tend to think that the poll in question is an outlier.
Showing newest 24 of 55 posts from 10/26/08 - 11/2/08. Show older posts
Showing newest 24 of 55 posts from 10/26/08 - 11/2/08. Show older posts
11.01.2008
72-Hour Program?
@ 10:29 PM
Taken exactly 72 hours before the polls close in Florida's Panhandle, the McCain-Palin Victory Center in Santa Rosa Beach:
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
Today's Polls, 11/1
@ 7:05 PM
This is beginning to look like a five-state election. Those states are Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Essentially all relevant electoral scenarios involve some combination of these five states.
I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.
We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.
That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:
1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.
(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)
Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:
1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada
That's basically what it comes down to, although I'm sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.
*-*
Sorry to get off on such a tangent about this; I wanted to talk, for a change, about something other than whether the POLLS ARE TIGTHENING (!!!) or not. But as to that question, the evidence is again somewhat mixed. Contrary to other recent days, Obama gained ground in the national trackers on average, picking up points in Research 2000, Gallup and Rasmussen. The Zogby that Matt Drudge went on about turned out to be the only poll where he lost ground, while ABC/Post, IPD/TIPP and Hotline held steady.
However, our model does perceive about a point's worth of tightening in the state polls. And the Pennslyvania polls have probably tightened by more than one point, although it is important to note that the four polls that show the state in the mid- single digits (Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, ARG and Strategic Vision) have all had Republican leans so far this cycle. Pennsylvania is still an extreme long shot for John McCain -- Obama is more likely to win Arizona than McCain the Keystone -- just not quite the long-shot that it had looked like a couple of days ago.
As a final word of warning, proceed cautiously with any polls that were in the field last night. Friday nights are difficult enough to poll, and holidays are difficult enough to poll, but when a Friday night coincides with a holiday (in this case, Halloween), getting an appropriate sample is all but impossible.
I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.
We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.
That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:
1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.
(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)
Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:
1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada
That's basically what it comes down to, although I'm sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.
*-*
Sorry to get off on such a tangent about this; I wanted to talk, for a change, about something other than whether the POLLS ARE TIGTHENING (!!!) or not. But as to that question, the evidence is again somewhat mixed. Contrary to other recent days, Obama gained ground in the national trackers on average, picking up points in Research 2000, Gallup and Rasmussen. The Zogby that Matt Drudge went on about turned out to be the only poll where he lost ground, while ABC/Post, IPD/TIPP and Hotline held steady.
However, our model does perceive about a point's worth of tightening in the state polls. And the Pennslyvania polls have probably tightened by more than one point, although it is important to note that the four polls that show the state in the mid- single digits (Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, ARG and Strategic Vision) have all had Republican leans so far this cycle. Pennsylvania is still an extreme long shot for John McCain -- Obama is more likely to win Arizona than McCain the Keystone -- just not quite the long-shot that it had looked like a couple of days ago.
As a final word of warning, proceed cautiously with any polls that were in the field last night. Friday nights are difficult enough to poll, and holidays are difficult enough to poll, but when a Friday night coincides with a holiday (in this case, Halloween), getting an appropriate sample is all but impossible.
Road to 270: Wisconsin
@ 5:57 PM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the Badger State, Wisconsin.
HOMELAND OF EXTRAORDINARY PHOTOGRAPHER/ADVENTURER BRETTFAVRE MARTY, Wisconsin a significant manufacturing state that votes at very high rates. In 2004, it was the closest contest, shading to John Kerry by the slimmest of margins (0.4%). In 2000, Gore won the state by less than a percent. With those tiny wins, Republicans had good reason for optimism, given that since Nixon resigned only Ronald Reagan (twice) earned Wisconsin's electoral votes on the Republican side. The state seemed to be closing. However, in 2008, Barack Obama put Wisconsin away early, despite the Republican National Convention aimed at moving the upper Midwest into the red column on November 4. And look, we didn't even make a cheese reference.
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
Wisconsin has a high gun ownership rate, a fairly high share of male voters, not many minority voters, and a decent number of white evangelical voters, including in Platteville, where jaded, disaffected youth grow up to one day take photos of campaign offices. There are plenty of hockey moms in Wisconsin, but not enough to tip the scales in the McCain-Palin direction. Wisconsin isn't ideologically shaded against McCain, as it sits fairly close to dead center on the Likert scale, and indeed self-identifying Republicans outnumbered Democrats four years ago. Wisconsin doesn't have a particularly high percentage of youth voters that would tend to help McCain, but in the end McCain's anemic fundraising here foreshadows the lack of traction his campaign has gotten in the state.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Wisconsin's huge primary night win for Barack Obama cemented a momentum swing in his favor that locked down the delegate race. With a large number of Catholic voters, moderate social views, and a lower proportion of military vets, Wisconsin shades in some ways toward a Democratic candidate, but it is similar to Missouri in that many of its data points cluster around the median. Obama simply is popular here. As a Midwestern Senator, Obama began with higher name recognition in Illinois' neighboring state, and his tone and style is pitched very well to a Midwestern audience, as much as any audience. Barack Obama will win the state's ten electoral votes.
What To Watch For
In the House, Republicans hold the three suburban/exurban seats in the southeast surrounding Milwaukee, and Democrats hold urban Milwaukee and the remainder of the state's four seats. The least safe race is Democratic incumbent Steve Kagen's race in the 8th district, in the northeast quadrant that includes Green Bay, but it leans Democratic. There are no Senate or gubernatorial races, so the presidential race is where it's at, but we project Obama to win by double digits. This is one of those states that cut strongly against the purported Bradley Effect in the primaries, where Barack Obama swept to a sizeable victory that outstripped the polling. Though Republicans made feints in the summer toward contesting the state, that never materialized, and look for Wisconsin to be not nearly as dramatic this time around.
HOMELAND OF EXTRAORDINARY PHOTOGRAPHER/ADVENTURER BRETT
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
Wisconsin has a high gun ownership rate, a fairly high share of male voters, not many minority voters, and a decent number of white evangelical voters, including in Platteville, where jaded, disaffected youth grow up to one day take photos of campaign offices. There are plenty of hockey moms in Wisconsin, but not enough to tip the scales in the McCain-Palin direction. Wisconsin isn't ideologically shaded against McCain, as it sits fairly close to dead center on the Likert scale, and indeed self-identifying Republicans outnumbered Democrats four years ago. Wisconsin doesn't have a particularly high percentage of youth voters that would tend to help McCain, but in the end McCain's anemic fundraising here foreshadows the lack of traction his campaign has gotten in the state.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Wisconsin's huge primary night win for Barack Obama cemented a momentum swing in his favor that locked down the delegate race. With a large number of Catholic voters, moderate social views, and a lower proportion of military vets, Wisconsin shades in some ways toward a Democratic candidate, but it is similar to Missouri in that many of its data points cluster around the median. Obama simply is popular here. As a Midwestern Senator, Obama began with higher name recognition in Illinois' neighboring state, and his tone and style is pitched very well to a Midwestern audience, as much as any audience. Barack Obama will win the state's ten electoral votes.
What To Watch For
In the House, Republicans hold the three suburban/exurban seats in the southeast surrounding Milwaukee, and Democrats hold urban Milwaukee and the remainder of the state's four seats. The least safe race is Democratic incumbent Steve Kagen's race in the 8th district, in the northeast quadrant that includes Green Bay, but it leans Democratic. There are no Senate or gubernatorial races, so the presidential race is where it's at, but we project Obama to win by double digits. This is one of those states that cut strongly against the purported Bradley Effect in the primaries, where Barack Obama swept to a sizeable victory that outstripped the polling. Though Republicans made feints in the summer toward contesting the state, that never materialized, and look for Wisconsin to be not nearly as dramatic this time around.
Brett Marty's Ten Predictions -- From the Gut
@ 4:48 PM
[Brett Marty is doing heroic photographic work for FiveThirtyEight. He's a perceptive guy, and there is absolutely no way I could have done this trip without his help, in a hundred ways that don't show up in the proverbial box score. He has his own website here, BrettMarty.com, where Nate and I encourage readers to peruse (and buy!) the now hundreds of photos from this epic journey. He's also written more about the trip along with a massive photo compendium here. Brett has a very non-numbers based gut, and I get the pleasure of hearing his innumerable and varied predictions on a daily basis. On behalf of Nate, I'd like to present to you, our loyal readers, Brett J. Marty's bite at the prediction apple. -- Sean]
-- by Brett Marty
10.) EV: Obama 396 -- Kerry states plus IA, NM, CO, VA, NV, FL, OH, MO, NC, IN, MT, ND, GA. The state Obama will win by the smallest margin will be Georgia, the closest state he'll lose will be West Virginia.
09.) Chris Matthews will be defeated in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary race by Chuck Todd.
08.) Georgia Senate will go to a runoff. Obama organizers will flood Georgia, and Martin will win to capture the 60th democratic seat (including Lieberman).
07.) Nate will lose credibility when photos of his Ashley Todd Halloween costume start showing up on the interwebs.
06.) Turnout: 147,538,538. Obama will win the popular vote by 6.4%.
05.) Sean will be cleared of all wrongdoing.
04.) We'll know the election is over when the nets call Virginia for Obama at 8:40pm EST.
03.) Barack will personally request I be his White House photographer, and I will take it under advisement.
02.) On November the 5th, FiveThirtyEight will shock the political world by turning into a porn site -- but a high quality one that continues to challenge conventional wisdom.
01.) No how, no way:
Full Disclosure: But, you know, I'm just a photographer.
-- by Brett Marty
10.) EV: Obama 396 -- Kerry states plus IA, NM, CO, VA, NV, FL, OH, MO, NC, IN, MT, ND, GA. The state Obama will win by the smallest margin will be Georgia, the closest state he'll lose will be West Virginia.
09.) Chris Matthews will be defeated in the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary race by Chuck Todd.
08.) Georgia Senate will go to a runoff. Obama organizers will flood Georgia, and Martin will win to capture the 60th democratic seat (including Lieberman).
07.) Nate will lose credibility when photos of his Ashley Todd Halloween costume start showing up on the interwebs.
06.) Turnout: 147,538,538. Obama will win the popular vote by 6.4%.
05.) Sean will be cleared of all wrongdoing.
04.) We'll know the election is over when the nets call Virginia for Obama at 8:40pm EST.
03.) Barack will personally request I be his White House photographer, and I will take it under advisement.
02.) On November the 5th, FiveThirtyEight will shock the political world by turning into a porn site -- but a high quality one that continues to challenge conventional wisdom.
01.) No how, no way:
Full Disclosure: But, you know, I'm just a photographer.
Technical Note
@ 4:17 PM
I'm going to be making a small change to the model for the polling update that we'll run in an hour or two today. Specifically, I'm going to increasing that the premium that the model places on the recentness of a poll. If this is the kind of detail that makes your eyes glaze over, just skip ahead to Sean's Georgia overview. Otherwise, read on.
When I originally designed the model back in the spring, I designed it to be fairly tolerant of "old" polls -- far more so than other aggregation sites like Real Clear Politics or Electoral-Vote.com. This was not an arbitrary decision; on the contrary, it was dictated by some empirical work I had done on state-level polling the 2004 and 2000 elections, which suggested that including some comparatively "old" polls produced a more accurate result than an RCP-type calculation in which polls are dumped from the average fairly quickly.
There are a couple reasons why I feel compelled to hedge a bit on this now:
Firstly, 2004 was an unusually stable election, relative to other elections in the past ... the numbers just did not move that much, and when they moved, they did not move quickly. (2000 had roughly average volatility; this year appears to have about average volatility as well. To find a highly volatile election, look at something like 1992 or 1976). If the numbers are stable from period to period in a certain election, then recentness will not be all that important. However, since there is reason to believe that the 2004 election was in some ways atypical, and since at least half of my state-level datapoints were from the 2004 election, this presents an argument for ramping up the premium on recency.
Secondly, it seems likely that one of the reasons why my analysis of the 2000 and 2004 elections was finding it useful to include some "older" polls was because of house effects. Take, for instance, Quinnipiac and Mason-Dixon. Both of these are strong, smart polling firms. However, Quinnipiac polls have been on average about 4 points more favorable to Barack Obama than Mason-Dixon polls. So if Quinnipiac sees Pennsylvania as say an Obama +10 state, Mason-Dixon will probably see it as an Obama +6.
This can create problems if you're using an RCP-type average -- one which places a heavy premium on recency -- because the numbers can float upward or downward based on which polling firms happen to cycle into and out of the average. For instance, say that a Mason-Dixon poll comes online one day, and the same day a Quinnipiac poll drops out. It may look like a state has "moved" toward McCain when in fact you're just seeing an Obama-leaning pollster replaced with a McCain-leaning pollster. This is not optimal. If, however, we can detect and adjust for house effects -- and we do -- this is less of a concern.
Thirdly, this adjustment "feels" right, and when you're dealing with a complex system like our model of the election, I'm a big believer that you trust your gut when in doubt.
The formula that I'm using to adjust for the recentness of a poll is the one that I developed for our senate polling averages. When analyzing senate data, I found that you did in fact do best by increasing the premium on recency as you got closer and closer to the election. (In may not be surprising that this effect turned up in senate data but not in presidential data, since in any year of senate polling, you have a couple dozen races to look at which behave fairly independently from one another, whereas in a presidential election, you really have just one election to look at with 50 manifestations across the different states. The senate data is probably the more robust data set, in order words). The specific formula that I developed for the senate data is as follows...
H = 14 + D * .188
...where 'H' is the half-life of a poll, and 'D' is the number of days remaining until the election. As we approach the election, this number will approach 14, meaning that polls will have a two-week half life; that is, a poll conducted two weeks ago will be given half the weight of a poll conducted today. (Keep in mind that this is not the only way that we keep our data fresh; we also adjust 'old' polls on the basis of our trendline adjustment).
*-*
As you'll see in a bit, it turns out that this adjustment does not make all that much difference. It brings John McCain a little bit closer in Pennsylvania (but certainly not a lot closer), and Obama a little closer in a couple of states like North Dakota. Still, every little bit of accuracy helps, especially when we're dealing with highly sensitive calculations like our tipping point states.
When I originally designed the model back in the spring, I designed it to be fairly tolerant of "old" polls -- far more so than other aggregation sites like Real Clear Politics or Electoral-Vote.com. This was not an arbitrary decision; on the contrary, it was dictated by some empirical work I had done on state-level polling the 2004 and 2000 elections, which suggested that including some comparatively "old" polls produced a more accurate result than an RCP-type calculation in which polls are dumped from the average fairly quickly.
There are a couple reasons why I feel compelled to hedge a bit on this now:
Firstly, 2004 was an unusually stable election, relative to other elections in the past ... the numbers just did not move that much, and when they moved, they did not move quickly. (2000 had roughly average volatility; this year appears to have about average volatility as well. To find a highly volatile election, look at something like 1992 or 1976). If the numbers are stable from period to period in a certain election, then recentness will not be all that important. However, since there is reason to believe that the 2004 election was in some ways atypical, and since at least half of my state-level datapoints were from the 2004 election, this presents an argument for ramping up the premium on recency.
Secondly, it seems likely that one of the reasons why my analysis of the 2000 and 2004 elections was finding it useful to include some "older" polls was because of house effects. Take, for instance, Quinnipiac and Mason-Dixon. Both of these are strong, smart polling firms. However, Quinnipiac polls have been on average about 4 points more favorable to Barack Obama than Mason-Dixon polls. So if Quinnipiac sees Pennsylvania as say an Obama +10 state, Mason-Dixon will probably see it as an Obama +6.
This can create problems if you're using an RCP-type average -- one which places a heavy premium on recency -- because the numbers can float upward or downward based on which polling firms happen to cycle into and out of the average. For instance, say that a Mason-Dixon poll comes online one day, and the same day a Quinnipiac poll drops out. It may look like a state has "moved" toward McCain when in fact you're just seeing an Obama-leaning pollster replaced with a McCain-leaning pollster. This is not optimal. If, however, we can detect and adjust for house effects -- and we do -- this is less of a concern.
Thirdly, this adjustment "feels" right, and when you're dealing with a complex system like our model of the election, I'm a big believer that you trust your gut when in doubt.
The formula that I'm using to adjust for the recentness of a poll is the one that I developed for our senate polling averages. When analyzing senate data, I found that you did in fact do best by increasing the premium on recency as you got closer and closer to the election. (In may not be surprising that this effect turned up in senate data but not in presidential data, since in any year of senate polling, you have a couple dozen races to look at which behave fairly independently from one another, whereas in a presidential election, you really have just one election to look at with 50 manifestations across the different states. The senate data is probably the more robust data set, in order words). The specific formula that I developed for the senate data is as follows...
H = 14 + D * .188
...where 'H' is the half-life of a poll, and 'D' is the number of days remaining until the election. As we approach the election, this number will approach 14, meaning that polls will have a two-week half life; that is, a poll conducted two weeks ago will be given half the weight of a poll conducted today. (Keep in mind that this is not the only way that we keep our data fresh; we also adjust 'old' polls on the basis of our trendline adjustment).
*-*
As you'll see in a bit, it turns out that this adjustment does not make all that much difference. It brings John McCain a little bit closer in Pennsylvania (but certainly not a lot closer), and Obama a little closer in a couple of states like North Dakota. Still, every little bit of accuracy helps, especially when we're dealing with highly sensitive calculations like our tipping point states.
Road to 270: Georgia
@ 3:08 PM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the Peach State, Georgia.
ALWAYS ON OUR MIND, Georgia might be the Election Night shocker on two counts -- Presidential and Senatorial. There's always a shocker, and this would be the On the Road crew's nominee. FiveThirtyEight pulls into Atlanta early tomorrow. Bill Clinton won the state for Democrats in 1992 by 1%, and lost by the same margin four years later. Since native son Jimmy Carter was on the ballot, Democrats have found Georgia tough sledding. But with African-American turnout soaring to unprecedented levels, Georgia may be a state where the public polling models are off, and indeed Barack Obama has put last minute advertising resources into the state in an effort to both go over 400 electoral votes as well as help a rising tide lift Jim Martin's boat against Max Cleland-smearing incumbent Saxby Chambliss.
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
Georgia is home to a large white evangelical base that identifies with "American" ancestry at a high clip, given that much of northern Georgia is in Appalachian territory. Not many Catholics live in Georgia, a demographic that shades Democratic, and self-identifying Republicans still outnumber Democrats. Bush won here by double digits twice, and bigger the second time. Moreover, Barack Obama had a sizeable ground operation here earlier in the general election, left a skeleton staff and a large volunteer base, and only now is getting back to the state with any kind of spending. As a southern state, the cultural tilt still works in McCain's favor; Democrats are still seen as the party that tried to let black people vote in the 60s, and that ruffled a lot of feathers. However, unlike neighboring Alabama and South Carolina, Georgia has more of an urban base and many young voters, so attitudes have shifted a bit quicker here than in other parts of the South, and Georgia is generally going to be the first state in the five-state Louisiana-South Carolina arc to go blue. McCain should have enough Republican votes to barely hang on, but look for Georgia to be tighter than the polls predict.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Only two states have more black voters than Georgia, and it appears a gigantic wave of individuals in the Obama-supporting demographic is brazenly attempting to exercise its Constitutional rights. Georgia has many young voters, more Starbucks than Walmarts, not many military vets by comparison, and a surprisingly high number of same-sex households. All of these factors help Obama, as does the lower number of senior voters (only three states have fewer). Obama likely has the benefit of a contended Senate race helping upticket, simply because we've seen overwhelmingly more energy on the Democratic organizing side this year. We expect to confirm ourselves tomorrow.
What To Watch For
It's entirely possible Georgia will give the Democratic Party its 60th Senate seat on Election Night, if Jim Martin beats Saxby Chambliss. All the House seats are pretty much safe, with incumbent Democrat Jim Marshall in central Georgia facing the toughest re-election in Georgia's Republican-gerrymandered districts. Republicans are on defense all across the board again this cycle, so if Marshall survived in 2006, he should pull it off again in 2008. If the polls close in the eastern time zone and the nets can't call Georgia for John McCain because it's "too close to call," we'll all know who the next President-Elect will be.
ALWAYS ON OUR MIND, Georgia might be the Election Night shocker on two counts -- Presidential and Senatorial. There's always a shocker, and this would be the On the Road crew's nominee. FiveThirtyEight pulls into Atlanta early tomorrow. Bill Clinton won the state for Democrats in 1992 by 1%, and lost by the same margin four years later. Since native son Jimmy Carter was on the ballot, Democrats have found Georgia tough sledding. But with African-American turnout soaring to unprecedented levels, Georgia may be a state where the public polling models are off, and indeed Barack Obama has put last minute advertising resources into the state in an effort to both go over 400 electoral votes as well as help a rising tide lift Jim Martin's boat against Max Cleland-smearing incumbent Saxby Chambliss.
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
Georgia is home to a large white evangelical base that identifies with "American" ancestry at a high clip, given that much of northern Georgia is in Appalachian territory. Not many Catholics live in Georgia, a demographic that shades Democratic, and self-identifying Republicans still outnumber Democrats. Bush won here by double digits twice, and bigger the second time. Moreover, Barack Obama had a sizeable ground operation here earlier in the general election, left a skeleton staff and a large volunteer base, and only now is getting back to the state with any kind of spending. As a southern state, the cultural tilt still works in McCain's favor; Democrats are still seen as the party that tried to let black people vote in the 60s, and that ruffled a lot of feathers. However, unlike neighboring Alabama and South Carolina, Georgia has more of an urban base and many young voters, so attitudes have shifted a bit quicker here than in other parts of the South, and Georgia is generally going to be the first state in the five-state Louisiana-South Carolina arc to go blue. McCain should have enough Republican votes to barely hang on, but look for Georgia to be tighter than the polls predict.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Only two states have more black voters than Georgia, and it appears a gigantic wave of individuals in the Obama-supporting demographic is brazenly attempting to exercise its Constitutional rights. Georgia has many young voters, more Starbucks than Walmarts, not many military vets by comparison, and a surprisingly high number of same-sex households. All of these factors help Obama, as does the lower number of senior voters (only three states have fewer). Obama likely has the benefit of a contended Senate race helping upticket, simply because we've seen overwhelmingly more energy on the Democratic organizing side this year. We expect to confirm ourselves tomorrow.
What To Watch For
It's entirely possible Georgia will give the Democratic Party its 60th Senate seat on Election Night, if Jim Martin beats Saxby Chambliss. All the House seats are pretty much safe, with incumbent Democrat Jim Marshall in central Georgia facing the toughest re-election in Georgia's Republican-gerrymandered districts. Republicans are on defense all across the board again this cycle, so if Marshall survived in 2006, he should pull it off again in 2008. If the polls close in the eastern time zone and the nets can't call Georgia for John McCain because it's "too close to call," we'll all know who the next President-Elect will be.
Senate Projections, 11/1
@ 1:14 PM
Democrats appear to be on the verge of wrapping up several more pickups of Republican-held seats -- but their odds of finishing with 60 or more seats are becoming longer.
The good news for Democrats comes in several races that already leaned Democratic, and now appear to be more solidly so. Further polling in Oregon confirms that Jeff Merkley has established a lead there. Frankly, since much of the vote has come in from Oregon and Republican turnout is depressed there, I think it's more likely that Merkley will win by double-digits than Gordon Smith will hold on to his seat. In North Carolina, we have added polls from Research 2000, Elon, and CNN, all of which give Kay Hagan leads ranging from 5 to 9 points; the race remains competitive, but sits on the brink of "lean" and "likely" Democrat. There is abundant polling of New Hampshire, and John Sununu does not appear poised to make any kind of late surge.
Meanwhile, in Alaska, Research 2000 has become the second firm to poll the race since Ted Stevens' guilty verdict, and gives Democrat Mark Begich a 22-point lead. That, plus the 8-point lead that Begich had in an earlier Rasmussen poll, lead the model to conclude that the race is essentially unwinnable for Stevens. Notwithstanding the weird things that can happen to turnout in a state like Alaska should the presidential race get called early, it too looks like a safe Democratic seat.
Those races, along with Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia, which we had already "called" for the Democrat, constitute what look to be 7 fairly certain pickups (although partisans on either side of the Dole-Hagan race should still be making all the phone calls they can muster); this would give the Democrats a 58-seat caucus counting independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. The 59th and 60th seats, however, may be tougher. Minnesota remains about as much of a toss-up as any race can get; the only poll added since our last update, from Research 2000, gives Norm Coleman a 3-point lead. My sense is also that Minnseota may behave fairly independently from the trend nationwide; that is, I could see Coleman holding onto his seat even given a fairly bad night for the Republicans overall, and to a lesser extent the reverse holding true for Franken. (The contrast might be something like North Carolina, which feels like more of a 'surge'/wave election).
Meanwhile, the three Southern seats in Georgia, Kentucky and particularly Mississippi are increasingly looking close-but-not-quite for the Democrats. The surges of Jim Martin and Bruce Lunsford in the first two races appeared to be dictated principally by the financial crisis and the attendant bailout, as the Republican incumbents in both races voted for the bailout bill. However, given the relative lack of bad financial news over the past couple of weeks, it is not surprising that they have stalled out some. Martin, though, probably remains in a stronger position than our numbers indicate, as I think some of these turnout models are conservative in Georgia given what has transpired in the early voting; at the very least, he has a good chance of salvaging a run-off.
In Mississippi, Roger Wicker is neither a particularly unpopular incumbent (he was wise enough to vote against the bailout) nor has Ronnie Musgrove been a particularly compelling opponent. Although Musgrove might theoretically benefit from a black turnout surge, Wicker is now winning a comparable percentage of the white vote to John McCain.
We'll have at least one more of these updates before Tuesday, and possibly two as polls and events dictate.
The good news for Democrats comes in several races that already leaned Democratic, and now appear to be more solidly so. Further polling in Oregon confirms that Jeff Merkley has established a lead there. Frankly, since much of the vote has come in from Oregon and Republican turnout is depressed there, I think it's more likely that Merkley will win by double-digits than Gordon Smith will hold on to his seat. In North Carolina, we have added polls from Research 2000, Elon, and CNN, all of which give Kay Hagan leads ranging from 5 to 9 points; the race remains competitive, but sits on the brink of "lean" and "likely" Democrat. There is abundant polling of New Hampshire, and John Sununu does not appear poised to make any kind of late surge.
Meanwhile, in Alaska, Research 2000 has become the second firm to poll the race since Ted Stevens' guilty verdict, and gives Democrat Mark Begich a 22-point lead. That, plus the 8-point lead that Begich had in an earlier Rasmussen poll, lead the model to conclude that the race is essentially unwinnable for Stevens. Notwithstanding the weird things that can happen to turnout in a state like Alaska should the presidential race get called early, it too looks like a safe Democratic seat.
Those races, along with Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia, which we had already "called" for the Democrat, constitute what look to be 7 fairly certain pickups (although partisans on either side of the Dole-Hagan race should still be making all the phone calls they can muster); this would give the Democrats a 58-seat caucus counting independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. The 59th and 60th seats, however, may be tougher. Minnesota remains about as much of a toss-up as any race can get; the only poll added since our last update, from Research 2000, gives Norm Coleman a 3-point lead. My sense is also that Minnseota may behave fairly independently from the trend nationwide; that is, I could see Coleman holding onto his seat even given a fairly bad night for the Republicans overall, and to a lesser extent the reverse holding true for Franken. (The contrast might be something like North Carolina, which feels like more of a 'surge'/wave election).
Meanwhile, the three Southern seats in Georgia, Kentucky and particularly Mississippi are increasingly looking close-but-not-quite for the Democrats. The surges of Jim Martin and Bruce Lunsford in the first two races appeared to be dictated principally by the financial crisis and the attendant bailout, as the Republican incumbents in both races voted for the bailout bill. However, given the relative lack of bad financial news over the past couple of weeks, it is not surprising that they have stalled out some. Martin, though, probably remains in a stronger position than our numbers indicate, as I think some of these turnout models are conservative in Georgia given what has transpired in the early voting; at the very least, he has a good chance of salvaging a run-off.
In Mississippi, Roger Wicker is neither a particularly unpopular incumbent (he was wise enough to vote against the bailout) nor has Ronnie Musgrove been a particularly compelling opponent. Although Musgrove might theoretically benefit from a black turnout surge, Wicker is now winning a comparable percentage of the white vote to John McCain.
We'll have at least one more of these updates before Tuesday, and possibly two as polls and events dictate.
Pennsylvania Sanity Check
@ 11:02 AM
Suppose that Barack Obama were to concede Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Literally, concede them. Throw 'em back, like a Chase Utley home run at a Cubs game. How often would he still win the election?
...89.0% of the time, according to our most recent run of simulations, along with another 2.4% of outcomes that ended in ties. This is because in the vast majority of our simulations, Obama either:
a) was winning at least 291 electoral votes, meaning that he could drop Pennsylvania's 21 and still be over 270, and/or
b) was winning at least 270 electoral votes, while already being projected to lose Pennsylvania in the first place.
(a) was much, much more common than (b), obviously.
...89.0% of the time, according to our most recent run of simulations, along with another 2.4% of outcomes that ended in ties. This is because in the vast majority of our simulations, Obama either:
a) was winning at least 291 electoral votes, meaning that he could drop Pennsylvania's 21 and still be over 270, and/or
b) was winning at least 270 electoral votes, while already being projected to lose Pennsylvania in the first place.
(a) was much, much more common than (b), obviously.
10.31.2008
Trick or Treat
@ 10:55 PM
Do you spook easily?
Judging by the response in my inbox, some of you do.
Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.
There are a couple of significant problems with this.
Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.
Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.
Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.
Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).
So go out to your Halloween parties and enjoy yourself, and we'll be back to covering the polls for you tomorrow.
Judging by the response in my inbox, some of you do.
Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.
There are a couple of significant problems with this.
Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.
Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.
Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.
Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).
So go out to your Halloween parties and enjoy yourself, and we'll be back to covering the polls for you tomorrow.
Road to 270: Missouri
@ 10:02 PM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the Show-Me State, Missouri.
HOME OF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT'S BELOVED ST. LOUIS BLUES HOCKEY CLUB, Missouri and its eleven electoral votes hang in precarious balance. If you look at our chart below, Missouri doesn't rank in the top ten or bottom ten of any category except for white evangelicals, where it ranks tenth. In 12 of the 26 demographic breakdowns we show, Missouri ranks in the median ten. In 17 of the 26 data points, Missouri ranks in the median twenty. In 25 of 26, the median thirty. Sitting at an Obama projection of 0.1% today, Missouri is truly the median state of the 2008 election, and it could go either way. On election night, either John McCain or Barack Obama are going to have to show this Missouri native who wants it more.
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
Missouri is a more socially conservative state in the rural areas, and Obama can't be happy about more Walmarts than Starbucks. A few more than the median own guns, report "American" ancestry, are military vets, are Mormon, aren't Catholic. And the education rate is slightly below normal, despite half of FiveThirtyEight's writing staff putting in 12 good public school years in the state. McCain has reason to hope Missouri stays red despite a far worse ground campaign; the Ozark and Bootheel areas are particularly resistant to black candidates in a way they wouldn't to someone like Claire McCaskill, and Obama hasn't personally spent as much time in rural Missouri. Still, McCain is in rough shape in St. Louis County, and this native expects Obama to overperform there.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Barack Obama just turned out 100,000 people in St. Louis, and 75,000 in Kansas City, but that doesn't necessarily translate to votes -- Obama brought out large crowds in Pennsylvania during the primary and didn't win. Missouri is a state with two poles of Democratic support -- St. Louis and Kansas City -- and a whole lot of red turf in between. The challenge for any Democratic candidate is to hold down the losses in the "Missour-uh" parts of the state and rack it up in the "Missour-ee" areas. Also, keep in mind that Sarah Palin attacked the Blues starting goalie Manny Legace recently, tripping him on her carpet and then devouring his left knee like a crazed wolverine (note: some of this sentence isn't true). Obama should get a good Legace Bounce.
What To Watch For
The presidential race is the biggie, and one House race -- the open 9th district seat which incumbent Republican Kenny Hulshof gave up to run for Governor -- is a pure tossup. The Governor's race between Democrat Jay Nixon and Hulshof leans Democratic, and House district 6 in the northwest part of the state between former Democratic K.C. mayor Kay Barnes and incumbent Republican Sam Graves leans Republican. In statewide Missouri races, the St. Louis County suburbs are where races tend to be decided. With a vote percentage of around 19% in that county alone, Barack Obama will have to win by a McCaskill-like margin of around 12 points as well as maximize turnout. John Kerry carried the county by 9 points, but it wasn't enough. On Super Tuesday primary night, Missouri provided the biggest drama when it NBC called it for Clinton and had to reverse itself and give the state to Obama. On Friday before the election, Missouri is projected for Barack Obama by one-tenth of one percent, the closest state in our current projections.
HOME OF FIVETHIRTYEIGHT'S BELOVED ST. LOUIS BLUES HOCKEY CLUB, Missouri and its eleven electoral votes hang in precarious balance. If you look at our chart below, Missouri doesn't rank in the top ten or bottom ten of any category except for white evangelicals, where it ranks tenth. In 12 of the 26 demographic breakdowns we show, Missouri ranks in the median ten. In 17 of the 26 data points, Missouri ranks in the median twenty. In 25 of 26, the median thirty. Sitting at an Obama projection of 0.1% today, Missouri is truly the median state of the 2008 election, and it could go either way. On election night, either John McCain or Barack Obama are going to have to show this Missouri native who wants it more.
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
Missouri is a more socially conservative state in the rural areas, and Obama can't be happy about more Walmarts than Starbucks. A few more than the median own guns, report "American" ancestry, are military vets, are Mormon, aren't Catholic. And the education rate is slightly below normal, despite half of FiveThirtyEight's writing staff putting in 12 good public school years in the state. McCain has reason to hope Missouri stays red despite a far worse ground campaign; the Ozark and Bootheel areas are particularly resistant to black candidates in a way they wouldn't to someone like Claire McCaskill, and Obama hasn't personally spent as much time in rural Missouri. Still, McCain is in rough shape in St. Louis County, and this native expects Obama to overperform there.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Barack Obama just turned out 100,000 people in St. Louis, and 75,000 in Kansas City, but that doesn't necessarily translate to votes -- Obama brought out large crowds in Pennsylvania during the primary and didn't win. Missouri is a state with two poles of Democratic support -- St. Louis and Kansas City -- and a whole lot of red turf in between. The challenge for any Democratic candidate is to hold down the losses in the "Missour-uh" parts of the state and rack it up in the "Missour-ee" areas. Also, keep in mind that Sarah Palin attacked the Blues starting goalie Manny Legace recently, tripping him on her carpet and then devouring his left knee like a crazed wolverine (note: some of this sentence isn't true). Obama should get a good Legace Bounce.
What To Watch For
The presidential race is the biggie, and one House race -- the open 9th district seat which incumbent Republican Kenny Hulshof gave up to run for Governor -- is a pure tossup. The Governor's race between Democrat Jay Nixon and Hulshof leans Democratic, and House district 6 in the northwest part of the state between former Democratic K.C. mayor Kay Barnes and incumbent Republican Sam Graves leans Republican. In statewide Missouri races, the St. Louis County suburbs are where races tend to be decided. With a vote percentage of around 19% in that county alone, Barack Obama will have to win by a McCaskill-like margin of around 12 points as well as maximize turnout. John Kerry carried the county by 9 points, but it wasn't enough. On Super Tuesday primary night, Missouri provided the biggest drama when it NBC called it for Clinton and had to reverse itself and give the state to Obama. On Friday before the election, Missouri is projected for Barack Obama by one-tenth of one percent, the closest state in our current projections.
Today's Polls, 10/31
@ 8:41 PM
Is Pennsylvania John McCain's last, best hope?
Perhaps it is. But that speaks as much to McCain's problems elsewhere on the map as any success he has had in the Keystone State. Pennsylvania does seem to be narrowing a bit: the Muhlenberg / Morning Call tracker is now down to "only" a 10-point lead for Senator Obama, while a Strategic Vision poll puts the race at O +5. Strategic Vision has had a Republican lean and some very erratic polling in Pennsylvania all year, so our model treats that result as the equivalent of a +7 or a +8. Nevertheless, with little progress being made elsewhere, McCain will take what he can get.
Indeed, unlike other recent days, there is no good news for McCain in the national tracking polls. McCain gained a point in the Rasmussen tracker; the other seven all moved toward Obama, although by mere fractions of a point in the cases of Zogby and IBD/TIPP.
McCain’s most severe problems, however, remain at the state level:
As we alluded to this morning, the numbers from PPP out of Colorado and New Mexico, which used very large, list-based samples, are awful news for McCain in states where majorities of the electorate have already voted. Contrary to Rick Davis’s assertions, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that McCain is competitive in Iowa, and there is a slew of evidence that Obama is on track to win New Hampshire, even if the UNH Tracking Poll is now coming a bit off its outlier-ish numbers. Ohio is another big problem for McCain. Except for the Strategic Vision poll, everything else we’ve added to the database over the past several days shows Obama with leads ranging from 3 points to 16 (though the latter result, from Ohio University, looks very much like an outlier). In North Carolina, which seemed to be tightening last week, Obama now appears to be holding on to a very small lead, and much of that state has voted too.
So given this morass, Pennsylvania seems to be the one thing that McCain has to hang his hat on. But he remains very unlikely to win it, and even if he does, Obama has any number of firewall states that could preserve a victory for him. McCain’s win percentage is down to 2.8 percent, his lowest number of the year.
Perhaps it is. But that speaks as much to McCain's problems elsewhere on the map as any success he has had in the Keystone State. Pennsylvania does seem to be narrowing a bit: the Muhlenberg / Morning Call tracker is now down to "only" a 10-point lead for Senator Obama, while a Strategic Vision poll puts the race at O +5. Strategic Vision has had a Republican lean and some very erratic polling in Pennsylvania all year, so our model treats that result as the equivalent of a +7 or a +8. Nevertheless, with little progress being made elsewhere, McCain will take what he can get.
Indeed, unlike other recent days, there is no good news for McCain in the national tracking polls. McCain gained a point in the Rasmussen tracker; the other seven all moved toward Obama, although by mere fractions of a point in the cases of Zogby and IBD/TIPP.
McCain’s most severe problems, however, remain at the state level:
As we alluded to this morning, the numbers from PPP out of Colorado and New Mexico, which used very large, list-based samples, are awful news for McCain in states where majorities of the electorate have already voted. Contrary to Rick Davis’s assertions, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that McCain is competitive in Iowa, and there is a slew of evidence that Obama is on track to win New Hampshire, even if the UNH Tracking Poll is now coming a bit off its outlier-ish numbers. Ohio is another big problem for McCain. Except for the Strategic Vision poll, everything else we’ve added to the database over the past several days shows Obama with leads ranging from 3 points to 16 (though the latter result, from Ohio University, looks very much like an outlier). In North Carolina, which seemed to be tightening last week, Obama now appears to be holding on to a very small lead, and much of that state has voted too.
So given this morass, Pennsylvania seems to be the one thing that McCain has to hang his hat on. But he remains very unlikely to win it, and even if he does, Obama has any number of firewall states that could preserve a victory for him. McCain’s win percentage is down to 2.8 percent, his lowest number of the year.
Quick Notes
@ 7:40 PM
Running the numbers. Looks like they'll contain good news for Senator Obama.
Also, I'll be a guest on Charlie Rose tonight.
Here is the polling dump while I get the write-up ready...
EDIT: Aww, crap. Got the numbers reversed on a Kentucky poll. Re-running numbers.
...In the meantime, check out Swing State Project's terrific map of poll closing times.
Also, I'll be a guest on Charlie Rose tonight.
EDIT: Aww, crap. Got the numbers reversed on a Kentucky poll. Re-running numbers.
...In the meantime, check out Swing State Project's terrific map of poll closing times.
The Big Empty
@ 2:40 PM
As the only reporter during this election who has actually visited upwards of 50 of John McCain's field offices around the country (13 battleground states and counting), this piece by Matthew Mosk at the Washington Post comes as no surprise:
The busiest McCain office we saw was in Arlington, at the national HQ, but tight security prevented us from getting any pictures. Ironically, that was our first full office, in our 11th battleground state.
Offices in Troy, Ohio were closed on Saturday October 11. With perfect coincidental timing, two elderly women dropped by to volunteer but found the office shut. At Republican state headquarters in Columbus later the same day, one lonely dialer sat in a sea of unoccupied chairs. In Des Moines on September 25, another empty office. In Santa Fe on September 17, one dialer made calls while six chatted amongst themselves about how they didn't like Obama. In Raleigh this past Saturday, ten days before the election with early voting already open, two women dialed and a male staffer watched the Georgia-LSU game. In Durango, Colorado on September 20, the Republican office was locked and closed. Indiana didn't have McCain Victory offices when we were there in early October.
When the offices are open, they have reduced hours. We can confidently plan to get evening good-light photographs of a town after we visit the local McCain office, because we know it will be closing by 5 pm, as the office in Wilmington, North Carolina was this past Sunday. The plan is, get to inevitably closed/closing McCain office, get an hour of photos near sunset, then visit the bustling local Obama office.
In Cortez, CO, we had Republican volunteers pose for action-shot photos. The same in Española, New Mexico. Posed. For some time at the outset, we were willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They convinced us they were really working, and that we had just had unfortunate timing. It wasn't until the pattern of "just missed it" started to sound like a drumbeat in our ears that we began to grow skeptical. We never "just missed" any of the Obama volunteer work, because it goes on nonstop, every day, in every office, in every corner of America.
We found scattered nuggets of activity. Colorado Springs, Colorado held eight dialers and two front office volunteers. Albemarle County, Virginia had a busy office of 15 volunteers, and we reported that. Last night in Tampa, nine phonebankers were busy dialing at the Republican Party of Florida Hillsborough County HQ when we arrived at 8:00 pm. Seven dialers sat in McCain's Hickory, North Carolina office this past Saturday afternoon.
Those offices seemed busy to us, naturally, because they were explosively full relative to other offices we've stopped in on. But even the Colorado Springs office was dwarfed by the Obama Colorado Springs operation.
These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester's 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers -- by a mile -- than John McCain's 2006 presidential campaign.
When Republican volunteers talk to us about how much enthusiasm and participation they notice in fellow volunteers, they mention how many people have come to pick up yard signs or bumper stickers. We haven't yet seen a single Republican canvasser. (The one in Cortez, CO was staged; she said canvassing is the kind of thing she would do, and we made a decision to do the picture because we were concerned with not presenting "balance." There is no balance in the facts.)
When we attempted to visit the Republican HQ in Maryland Heights, Missouri, we saw a couple volunteers populating the office, and we were subsequently denied the opportunity to even speak to volunteers specifically selected so as to be "on message." By contrast, Obama's volunteers own such a piece of the campaign (Respect-Empower-Include) that the problem is they often have too much information, and when the campaign allows me to talk with them on the record I can ask a too-precise series of questions that result in publishing details the campaign later realizes it didn't want published.
We read the published comments from McCain spokespeople that argue the dialing/canvassing numbers are ahead of where they were at the same time four years ago. Well, either the Bush ground game of 2004 was the Big Myth, or those spokespeople are flat lying to reporters, who have no context to challenge those claims because they haven't seen the empty offices the way we have.
When the final chapters are written in this election about the ground game, many thousands of words will recognize that the Obama campaign truly was this:
But the other story, the story on which we've had a running eight-week exclusive in 36 separate On the Road pieces and counting, is that John McCain's ground campaign is just not happening. It hasn't been happening, without Sarah Palin there might be four or five volunteers across the entire nation left, and now, per Mosk's piece at WaPo, it looks like it will be happening even less.
*_*
One dialer, Santa Fe:
One dialer, Albuquerque:
Staged, Española:
Closed, Durango:
Posed, Cortez:
Closed, Grand Junction:
Des Moines, empty of volunteers:
Troy, Ohio, locked:
Columbus HQ, one dialer:
Toledo, two volunteers and one security guard:
Sterling, VA, closing at 5, one dialer:
Empty, Fredericksburg, VA:
Richmond, VA, one dialer:
Raleigh, NC HQ, two dialers:
Wilmington, NC, closing at 5 and yawny, empty:
The decision to finance a final advertising push is forcing McCain to curtail spending on Election Day ground forces to help usher his supporters to the polls, according to Republican consultants familiar with McCain's strategy.
The vaunted, 72-hour plan that President Bush used to mobilize voters in 2000 and 2004 has been scaled back for McCain. He has spent half as much as Obama on staffing and has opened far fewer field offices. This week, a number of veteran GOP operatives who orchestrate door-to-door efforts to get voters to the polls were told they should not expect to receive plane tickets, rental cars or hotel rooms from the campaign.
"The desire for parity on television comes at the expense of investment in paid boots on the ground," said one top Republican strategist who has been privy to McCain's plans. "The folks who will oversee the volunteer operation have been told to get out into the field on their own nickel."
The busiest McCain office we saw was in Arlington, at the national HQ, but tight security prevented us from getting any pictures. Ironically, that was our first full office, in our 11th battleground state.
Offices in Troy, Ohio were closed on Saturday October 11. With perfect coincidental timing, two elderly women dropped by to volunteer but found the office shut. At Republican state headquarters in Columbus later the same day, one lonely dialer sat in a sea of unoccupied chairs. In Des Moines on September 25, another empty office. In Santa Fe on September 17, one dialer made calls while six chatted amongst themselves about how they didn't like Obama. In Raleigh this past Saturday, ten days before the election with early voting already open, two women dialed and a male staffer watched the Georgia-LSU game. In Durango, Colorado on September 20, the Republican office was locked and closed. Indiana didn't have McCain Victory offices when we were there in early October.
When the offices are open, they have reduced hours. We can confidently plan to get evening good-light photographs of a town after we visit the local McCain office, because we know it will be closing by 5 pm, as the office in Wilmington, North Carolina was this past Sunday. The plan is, get to inevitably closed/closing McCain office, get an hour of photos near sunset, then visit the bustling local Obama office.
In Cortez, CO, we had Republican volunteers pose for action-shot photos. The same in Española, New Mexico. Posed. For some time at the outset, we were willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. They convinced us they were really working, and that we had just had unfortunate timing. It wasn't until the pattern of "just missed it" started to sound like a drumbeat in our ears that we began to grow skeptical. We never "just missed" any of the Obama volunteer work, because it goes on nonstop, every day, in every office, in every corner of America.
We found scattered nuggets of activity. Colorado Springs, Colorado held eight dialers and two front office volunteers. Albemarle County, Virginia had a busy office of 15 volunteers, and we reported that. Last night in Tampa, nine phonebankers were busy dialing at the Republican Party of Florida Hillsborough County HQ when we arrived at 8:00 pm. Seven dialers sat in McCain's Hickory, North Carolina office this past Saturday afternoon.
Those offices seemed busy to us, naturally, because they were explosively full relative to other offices we've stopped in on. But even the Colorado Springs office was dwarfed by the Obama Colorado Springs operation.
These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester's 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers -- by a mile -- than John McCain's 2006 presidential campaign.
When Republican volunteers talk to us about how much enthusiasm and participation they notice in fellow volunteers, they mention how many people have come to pick up yard signs or bumper stickers. We haven't yet seen a single Republican canvasser. (The one in Cortez, CO was staged; she said canvassing is the kind of thing she would do, and we made a decision to do the picture because we were concerned with not presenting "balance." There is no balance in the facts.)
When we attempted to visit the Republican HQ in Maryland Heights, Missouri, we saw a couple volunteers populating the office, and we were subsequently denied the opportunity to even speak to volunteers specifically selected so as to be "on message." By contrast, Obama's volunteers own such a piece of the campaign (Respect-Empower-Include) that the problem is they often have too much information, and when the campaign allows me to talk with them on the record I can ask a too-precise series of questions that result in publishing details the campaign later realizes it didn't want published.
We read the published comments from McCain spokespeople that argue the dialing/canvassing numbers are ahead of where they were at the same time four years ago. Well, either the Bush ground game of 2004 was the Big Myth, or those spokespeople are flat lying to reporters, who have no context to challenge those claims because they haven't seen the empty offices the way we have.
When the final chapters are written in this election about the ground game, many thousands of words will recognize that the Obama campaign truly was this:
But the other story, the story on which we've had a running eight-week exclusive in 36 separate On the Road pieces and counting, is that John McCain's ground campaign is just not happening. It hasn't been happening, without Sarah Palin there might be four or five volunteers across the entire nation left, and now, per Mosk's piece at WaPo, it looks like it will be happening even less.
*_*
One dialer, Santa Fe:
One dialer, Albuquerque:
Staged, Española:
Closed, Durango:
Posed, Cortez:
Closed, Grand Junction:
Des Moines, empty of volunteers:
Troy, Ohio, locked:
Columbus HQ, one dialer:
Toledo, two volunteers and one security guard:
Sterling, VA, closing at 5, one dialer:
Empty, Fredericksburg, VA:
Richmond, VA, one dialer:
Raleigh, NC HQ, two dialers:
Wilmington, NC, closing at 5 and yawny, empty:
Irrational Exuberance in Arizona?
@ 1:36 PM
In contrast to what most candidates do in the closing days of a race, Barack Obama is expanding his list of targets, making an ad buy in Arizona as well as Georgia and North Dakota:
And needless to say, it is hard to elucidate a scenario in which Arizona serves as some sort of tipping point state. Obama will not perform better in Arizona than in New Mexico, Nevada, or Colorado, neighboring states that have been polling anywhere from 5-20 points more strongly for him. Suppose somehow that Obama were to insult the Pittsburgh Steelers or something and lose Pennsylvania; could Arizona matter then? Not really. The Kerry states less Pennsylvania, but plus Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona total 267 electoral votes, three fewer than Obama needs for victory. Obama would also have to win something like Montana for it to matter (while losing Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina etc.). Our model thinks that the odds of this happening are something like 800,000-to-1 against.
Of course, this is probably not an ad buy framed around marginal electoral strategy; it is one framed around marginal media strategy. As Chris Cillizza notes, the tightish polls in Arizona, which the campaign can draw attention to with this maneuver, provide Obama with a good piece of evidence to argue that the national race is not particularly close. An ad buy in Arizona -- and I'd expect this to be a very small, largely symbolic ad buy -- is David Plouffe's version of a Drudge Siren.
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign on Friday into two once reliably Republican states and further bedeviled rival John McCain by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona.I have to say that I'm not a big fan of this from standpoint of marginal electoral strategy. A slew of recent polls in Arizona show the state close, by margins ranging from 1 to 8 points. However, this is the time of year when "close" means something very different from "functionally tied". A 3-to-5 point lead in a state, which is where the Arizona polls average out, is fairly significant at this stage of the contest. That lead still belongs to John McCain.
Obama's campaign, capitalizing on his vast financial resources and a favorable political climate, announced that it was going back up with advertising in Georgia and North Dakota, two GOP states that it had teased with ads earlier in the general election campaign but then abandoned.
And needless to say, it is hard to elucidate a scenario in which Arizona serves as some sort of tipping point state. Obama will not perform better in Arizona than in New Mexico, Nevada, or Colorado, neighboring states that have been polling anywhere from 5-20 points more strongly for him. Suppose somehow that Obama were to insult the Pittsburgh Steelers or something and lose Pennsylvania; could Arizona matter then? Not really. The Kerry states less Pennsylvania, but plus Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona total 267 electoral votes, three fewer than Obama needs for victory. Obama would also have to win something like Montana for it to matter (while losing Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina etc.). Our model thinks that the odds of this happening are something like 800,000-to-1 against.
Of course, this is probably not an ad buy framed around marginal electoral strategy; it is one framed around marginal media strategy. As Chris Cillizza notes, the tightish polls in Arizona, which the campaign can draw attention to with this maneuver, provide Obama with a good piece of evidence to argue that the national race is not particularly close. An ad buy in Arizona -- and I'd expect this to be a very small, largely symbolic ad buy -- is David Plouffe's version of a Drudge Siren.
On the Road: Miami, Florida
@ 12:17 PM
"There's Dr. Dan! There's Jose the air-conditioning man!" said Sen. John McCain. Other notables attending McCain's "Joe the Plumber" rally at Everglades Lumber in Miami included Gus the Homebuilder, Jeb the Former Governor, Mel and Lindsey the Senators, Pete the Exterminator, Lincoln and Mario the Congressional brothers, Joe the Connecticut-for-Lieberman Party leader, Joe the Engineer, Tom the Color-Coder, and Charlie the Early Vote Extender.
In a forceful and passionate speech that whipped the crowd into an enthusiastic roar, John McCain pronounced his full intention to win Tuesday's election. "I'm an American and I choose to fight!" he proclaimed. Repeating "fight" and "stand up" in a battering conclusion to his speech, McCain gave the crowd the feeling that he would never go down without full effort.
Notably, however, McCain still failed to mention the "middle class," only saying "I know you are worried" about the economic climate. In an otherwise strong speech, it seemed the only weakness. McCain attacked Obama as "more interested in controlling (wealth) than creating it." Playing to the anti-Castro Cuban-American crowd, McCain painted Obama as a socialist and a "redistributionist" who wants to take "your money" and give it to someone else.
As for readiness to meet crises at home and abroad, McCain assured the crowd, "I've been tested, my friends, I've been tested." The biggest crowd reaction came when McCain said he would bring the troops home, "but NOT in defeat!"
As I sat in the media area wrapping up work after the rally, several different crowd members walked by and demanded that we "be objective" and "report the truth." It was apparent that just being in the media area meant an implicit assumption of unfairness. One woman was in her 80s and I had to lean in to hear her repeat her demand twice. Another man, with whom I engaged in brief conversation, insisted that I wasn't being objective and asked me to basically tell all the rest of the reporters to deliver the message. We noticed this same attitude in other rallies, notably Palin's Wilmington, Ohio rally several weeks ago. In Republican minds, the media and ACORN are stealing this election, and that's that.
When we left the rally, we saw a disturbing scene that involved two Obama supporters in distress from an angry crowd. We reported on it here.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and President Clinton also spent the day stumping around Florida, and we stopped at some McCain and Obama offices before driving three hours back up to Kissimmee for the midnight rally. Brett's access to the buffer zone was denied (ironically on the day we passed the New York Times' circulation figures), so the photos aren't as exciting (we did get a shot of a girl on the beach with "Miami Beach" on her butt, so there's at least that).
Bill Clinton spoke as powerfully on Barack Obama's behalf as I've seen this year, despite a curious line early on: "Even a few old white guys like me, you haven't cut my demographic out yet." Um, what?
Still, Bill Clinton is at his very best when he gives a declarative line and then launches into, "and let me tell you why." At his convention speech that many liked but I thought was mediocre, Clinton only said that Obama was ready to be president but offered no "and let me tell you why" behind it, which is his trademark. In Kissimmee, Clinton met that standard and more, arguing point by point why Barack Obama would be the better president.
According to Clinton, Obama had better (1) governing philosophy; (2) policies; (3) ability to make decisions; and (4) ability to execute those decisions. He laughed at the "redistributionist" argument John McCain had continued promulgating earlier in the day. Referring to the Republican-controlled government of the recent past, "they just presided over the biggest distribution of wealth upward since the 1920s, and we all know what happened (then)."
Referring to his own record, "We made more millionaires and billionaires" than the Republicans did, it's just that it doesn't get noticed because the middle class also saw its incomes rise.
Clinton highlighted Obama's superior economic, education, health care and energy plans. "Just look at his plans!" Clinton challenged.
In all, it was a passionate, full-throated argument for Barack Obama that many Democrats wished had come earlier in the campaign, but one that in the closing days will certainly resonate with any of the last few Clinton Democrats uncertain about getting on board with the Democratic nominee.
Some, of course, will never come aboard, and one of these incidents presented a personal highlight for me. At the McCain event in Miami, a woman approached Brett and me inside the media area to ask what media outlet we were with, and subsequently to pitch her argument. She said she was a "blogger with No Quarter" and I thought, oh, this is going to be good.
Sure enough, she proceeded to argue that there were many former Clinton supporters now supporting John McCain because they were outraged at Obama's lack of experience, a claim that is absurd on its face. (Nobody ever gets outraged about someone's "lack of experience." It doesn't drive anger. Bad policies might drive anger. Not inexperience.)
Brett had to leave because he couldn't take the barrage of ridiculousness, and half an hour later bailed me out with the fake "phone call" move. For my part, I listened to her patiently. When she finally paused, I looked her dead in the eye and calmly told her that her site was "rancid." Everything about what Larry Johnson was doing was scummy, I told her squarely, his site was a grotesque disgrace. I'm not sure that was the reaction she expected, but I even got her complimenting me on my honesty and forthrightness and reasonable tone with which I explained how horrifyingly unacceptable the racist bile on Larry Johnson's site truly was.
But then it just went on waaay too long. Eventually she thought she had me trapped. "I hear you talk about racism, but nothing about sexism." I replied that it is unacceptable to make racism and sexism into a race to see which one is worse, when they're both awful things. She asked me to think long and hard about whether I was a sexist, because I was in the media, and so was the sexist Chris Matthews and the sexist Andrea Mitchell, who had commented on Sarah Palin's clothes in a sexist way. Yeah, you heard me. For half an hour. Til Brett did the phone call thing.
Later, catching up with the great Al Giordano over a pint of Guinness in Tampa, he recounted having a similar conversation with this same woman (by description) who trapped him next to a broken elevator in Denver during the convention. "Oh man, that woman was crazy!" he recalled.
We visited McCain offices and Obama offices in Miami and the region, and we noticed that McCain's effort is clearly ramping up as the election gets closer. At around 3pm in one of McCain's Victory offices in Miami-Dade, the phone bank was half full with a promise of a bigger effort that night, which we believed. There was a clear sense of activity, even if the Obama side is still much bigger.
Obama's central offices during this early voting GOTV period have mostly emptied into staging areas. "Every Day is Election Day" is the mantra. The big news was Charlie Crist's expansion of the voting hours. Theories we heard ranged from the cynical ("he knows Obama's going to win and wants to position himself as a hero," "he's angry with McCain for passing him over,") to the optimistic ("he sincerely believes in voting rights") to the practical ("there would have been a massive backlash if he hadn't made this move, and if courts reverse it he can legitimately say he tried.")
Whatever the cause, Crist got a very tepid response in front of the Republican audience at his speech on behalf of McCain (he'd made the announcement the day before), and is uniformly praised among Florida Democrats in the past few days.
Obama's staging locations are spread out, having blossomed all over the state in the closing days. We didn't talk to any Obama volunteers in our breakneck day that involved an impromptu report on the fracas in Miami, so we hope you'll excuse their absence in this report.
It's on to Tampa (where we spoke with Voter Protection Obama volunteers and saw a busy McCain office on Thursday night), then Daytona Beach today and the Panhandle tomorrow. 11,781 miles.
In a forceful and passionate speech that whipped the crowd into an enthusiastic roar, John McCain pronounced his full intention to win Tuesday's election. "I'm an American and I choose to fight!" he proclaimed. Repeating "fight" and "stand up" in a battering conclusion to his speech, McCain gave the crowd the feeling that he would never go down without full effort.
Notably, however, McCain still failed to mention the "middle class," only saying "I know you are worried" about the economic climate. In an otherwise strong speech, it seemed the only weakness. McCain attacked Obama as "more interested in controlling (wealth) than creating it." Playing to the anti-Castro Cuban-American crowd, McCain painted Obama as a socialist and a "redistributionist" who wants to take "your money" and give it to someone else.
As for readiness to meet crises at home and abroad, McCain assured the crowd, "I've been tested, my friends, I've been tested." The biggest crowd reaction came when McCain said he would bring the troops home, "but NOT in defeat!"
As I sat in the media area wrapping up work after the rally, several different crowd members walked by and demanded that we "be objective" and "report the truth." It was apparent that just being in the media area meant an implicit assumption of unfairness. One woman was in her 80s and I had to lean in to hear her repeat her demand twice. Another man, with whom I engaged in brief conversation, insisted that I wasn't being objective and asked me to basically tell all the rest of the reporters to deliver the message. We noticed this same attitude in other rallies, notably Palin's Wilmington, Ohio rally several weeks ago. In Republican minds, the media and ACORN are stealing this election, and that's that.
When we left the rally, we saw a disturbing scene that involved two Obama supporters in distress from an angry crowd. We reported on it here.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and President Clinton also spent the day stumping around Florida, and we stopped at some McCain and Obama offices before driving three hours back up to Kissimmee for the midnight rally. Brett's access to the buffer zone was denied (ironically on the day we passed the New York Times' circulation figures), so the photos aren't as exciting (we did get a shot of a girl on the beach with "Miami Beach" on her butt, so there's at least that).
Bill Clinton spoke as powerfully on Barack Obama's behalf as I've seen this year, despite a curious line early on: "Even a few old white guys like me, you haven't cut my demographic out yet." Um, what?
Still, Bill Clinton is at his very best when he gives a declarative line and then launches into, "and let me tell you why." At his convention speech that many liked but I thought was mediocre, Clinton only said that Obama was ready to be president but offered no "and let me tell you why" behind it, which is his trademark. In Kissimmee, Clinton met that standard and more, arguing point by point why Barack Obama would be the better president.
According to Clinton, Obama had better (1) governing philosophy; (2) policies; (3) ability to make decisions; and (4) ability to execute those decisions. He laughed at the "redistributionist" argument John McCain had continued promulgating earlier in the day. Referring to the Republican-controlled government of the recent past, "they just presided over the biggest distribution of wealth upward since the 1920s, and we all know what happened (then)."
Referring to his own record, "We made more millionaires and billionaires" than the Republicans did, it's just that it doesn't get noticed because the middle class also saw its incomes rise.
Clinton highlighted Obama's superior economic, education, health care and energy plans. "Just look at his plans!" Clinton challenged.
In all, it was a passionate, full-throated argument for Barack Obama that many Democrats wished had come earlier in the campaign, but one that in the closing days will certainly resonate with any of the last few Clinton Democrats uncertain about getting on board with the Democratic nominee.
Some, of course, will never come aboard, and one of these incidents presented a personal highlight for me. At the McCain event in Miami, a woman approached Brett and me inside the media area to ask what media outlet we were with, and subsequently to pitch her argument. She said she was a "blogger with No Quarter" and I thought, oh, this is going to be good.
Sure enough, she proceeded to argue that there were many former Clinton supporters now supporting John McCain because they were outraged at Obama's lack of experience, a claim that is absurd on its face. (Nobody ever gets outraged about someone's "lack of experience." It doesn't drive anger. Bad policies might drive anger. Not inexperience.)
Brett had to leave because he couldn't take the barrage of ridiculousness, and half an hour later bailed me out with the fake "phone call" move. For my part, I listened to her patiently. When she finally paused, I looked her dead in the eye and calmly told her that her site was "rancid." Everything about what Larry Johnson was doing was scummy, I told her squarely, his site was a grotesque disgrace. I'm not sure that was the reaction she expected, but I even got her complimenting me on my honesty and forthrightness and reasonable tone with which I explained how horrifyingly unacceptable the racist bile on Larry Johnson's site truly was.
But then it just went on waaay too long. Eventually she thought she had me trapped. "I hear you talk about racism, but nothing about sexism." I replied that it is unacceptable to make racism and sexism into a race to see which one is worse, when they're both awful things. She asked me to think long and hard about whether I was a sexist, because I was in the media, and so was the sexist Chris Matthews and the sexist Andrea Mitchell, who had commented on Sarah Palin's clothes in a sexist way. Yeah, you heard me. For half an hour. Til Brett did the phone call thing.
Later, catching up with the great Al Giordano over a pint of Guinness in Tampa, he recounted having a similar conversation with this same woman (by description) who trapped him next to a broken elevator in Denver during the convention. "Oh man, that woman was crazy!" he recalled.
We visited McCain offices and Obama offices in Miami and the region, and we noticed that McCain's effort is clearly ramping up as the election gets closer. At around 3pm in one of McCain's Victory offices in Miami-Dade, the phone bank was half full with a promise of a bigger effort that night, which we believed. There was a clear sense of activity, even if the Obama side is still much bigger.
Obama's central offices during this early voting GOTV period have mostly emptied into staging areas. "Every Day is Election Day" is the mantra. The big news was Charlie Crist's expansion of the voting hours. Theories we heard ranged from the cynical ("he knows Obama's going to win and wants to position himself as a hero," "he's angry with McCain for passing him over,") to the optimistic ("he sincerely believes in voting rights") to the practical ("there would have been a massive backlash if he hadn't made this move, and if courts reverse it he can legitimately say he tried.")
Whatever the cause, Crist got a very tepid response in front of the Republican audience at his speech on behalf of McCain (he'd made the announcement the day before), and is uniformly praised among Florida Democrats in the past few days.
Obama's staging locations are spread out, having blossomed all over the state in the closing days. We didn't talk to any Obama volunteers in our breakneck day that involved an impromptu report on the fracas in Miami, so we hope you'll excuse their absence in this report.
It's on to Tampa (where we spoke with Voter Protection Obama volunteers and saw a busy McCain office on Thursday night), then Daytona Beach today and the Panhandle tomorrow. 11,781 miles.
McCain's Mountain of a Problem
@ 10:34 AM
Our model does not make any specific adjustments for early voting, but it is presenting a major problem for John McCain in three states in the Mountain West region, where Barack Obama has a huge fraction of his vote locked in.
In the wee hours of this morning, Public Policy Polling released data from Colorado and New Mexico. The toplines are strong for Obama, giving him leads of 10 and 17 points, respectively in those states. What's worse for McCain, however, is that PPP estimates that nearly two-thirds of Coloradans have already cast their ballots, as have 55-60 percent of New Mexicans, with large majorities of those votes going to Barack Obama. This is backed up to some extent by Michael McDonald's turnout statistics. In Colorado, the state had already processed approximately 1.3 million ballots as of Thursday, around 60 percent of the total 2004 turnout. In Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico (statewide figures are not available), 145,000 ballots had been cast as of Wednesday, equaling 55 percent of 2004's total.
Should New Mexico and Colorado become safe Obama states, McCain's only realistic path to victory runs through Pennsylvania. Even if McCain were to win the Keystone, however -- say that Philadelphia remains in a collective stupor from the Phillies' win and that there is some sort of Bradley Effect in the Alleghanies -- Obama has a pretty decent firewall in the form of Virginia and Nevada, which had already achieved 53 percent of its 2004 voting totals as of Wednesday, and where Democrats have a 23-point edge in ballots cast so far in Las Vegas's Clark County (and perhaps more impressively, a 15-point advantage in Reno's Washoe County, a traditionally Republican area). The Kerry states less Pennsylvania, but plus Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia, total 270 electoral votes: an ugly, nail-biter of a win for Obama, but still one that would get him to 1600 Pennsylvania all the same.
In the wee hours of this morning, Public Policy Polling released data from Colorado and New Mexico. The toplines are strong for Obama, giving him leads of 10 and 17 points, respectively in those states. What's worse for McCain, however, is that PPP estimates that nearly two-thirds of Coloradans have already cast their ballots, as have 55-60 percent of New Mexicans, with large majorities of those votes going to Barack Obama. This is backed up to some extent by Michael McDonald's turnout statistics. In Colorado, the state had already processed approximately 1.3 million ballots as of Thursday, around 60 percent of the total 2004 turnout. In Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), New Mexico (statewide figures are not available), 145,000 ballots had been cast as of Wednesday, equaling 55 percent of 2004's total.
Should New Mexico and Colorado become safe Obama states, McCain's only realistic path to victory runs through Pennsylvania. Even if McCain were to win the Keystone, however -- say that Philadelphia remains in a collective stupor from the Phillies' win and that there is some sort of Bradley Effect in the Alleghanies -- Obama has a pretty decent firewall in the form of Virginia and Nevada, which had already achieved 53 percent of its 2004 voting totals as of Wednesday, and where Democrats have a 23-point edge in ballots cast so far in Las Vegas's Clark County (and perhaps more impressively, a 15-point advantage in Reno's Washoe County, a traditionally Republican area). The Kerry states less Pennsylvania, but plus Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia, total 270 electoral votes: an ugly, nail-biter of a win for Obama, but still one that would get him to 1600 Pennsylvania all the same.
Senate Projections, 10/31
@ 7:45 AM
We are beginning to get a much clearer idea of where the action is going to be on Election Day. Although the Democrats are on the verge of wrapping up several pickups, their chances of earning a 60th seat have somewhat declined.
Democrats were always going to pick up seats in Virginia and New Mexico, and remain in position to do so. You can add Colorado to that list. Mark Udall now has double-digit leads in essentially all polling, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of the state has already voted; he will become the next senator from the Rocky Mountain State.
Our model also classifies New Hampshire as "safe", meaning that it attributes Jeanne Shaheen with at least a 95 percent chance of picking up John Sununu's seat. But I wouldn't completely turn out the lights on this race. While Shaheen remains comfortably ahead in most polling, there has emerged a pretty significant gap between her support and Barack Obama's, meaning that there are fair numbers of Obama-Sununu voters. That isn't so out of character for New Hampshire, which contains as many independent voters as anywhere in the country, but if for some reason the polls are overestimating Obama's performance, perhaps Sununu could make a race of it. Still, Sununu has been behind all year, he remains that way, and his time has basically run out.
Oregon is breaking Jeff Merkley's way, as a hot-off-the-presses poll from PPP gives him an 8 point lead, his largest on the year to date. This follows polling earlier in the week by SurveyUSA and the Portland Tribune which had shown him ahead by 7 and 5 points, respectively. Gordon Smith has been left to fend for himself in Oregon, where John McCain never developed any momentum, and there is evidence that turnout is down in areas where his base might be located. With many of Oregon's ballots already having been turned in, Smith's chances of pulling this race out may be less than the 16 percent that the model assigns to him.
In Alaska, we have a post-conviction poll from Rasmussen, and have wiped out all pre-conviction data. That poll shows Mark Begich ahead by 8 points. The regression model is still a bit confused by this race and thinks it could be closer than expected, but I'm not really buying that. If the Research 2000 poll comes back this weekend with strong numbers for Begich, it will move toward the Safe Democratic category.
You can draw a line right about here ... those are the six Democratic pickups that I'd describe as relatively safe (partly in the belief that the model is conservative on both Merkley and Begich for the reasons articulated above). We then get into what will be the three most closely-watched races on Election Night:
The first of these is in North Carolina, which continues to lean toward Demcoratic challenger Kay Hagan, but where we are waiting to gauge the reaction to Elizabeth Dole's controversial new ad which implies that Hagan, an elder at the First Presbyterian Church, is an athiest. The ad has drawn a harsh reaction from the local media and a Rasmussen poll conducted on Wednesday night, just as the controversy was starting to brew, had Hagan moving into a 6-point lead. But, the Carolinas have a long tradition of last-minute attack advertising, and the only reason it has that tradition is because sometimes such things work. Dole's ad is callous enough that it seems likely to be one of the exceptions, but this remains a race to watch.
In Minnesota, polling from PPP and the Humphrey Institute is showing movement toward Al Franken, but polling from Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon showing just the opposite and breaking in Norm Coleman's direction. Such highly volatile polling is sometimes characteristic of races involving third party candidates, and Dean Barkley continues to hold onto about 15 percent of the vote in this race. As I suggested on Tuesday, it is likely that some of that Barkley vote will collapse, and there are some hints that is more likely to break toward Franken, but characterizing this race as anything other than a toss-up would be generous.
The other contest that will be watched very closely is in Georgia, where Jim Martin remains stuck about 2-3 points behind Saxby Chambliss in most polling, but where both early voting patterns and the nature of the undecided vote suggest that the race may in fact be closer to a toss-up. My guess is that there's at least a 40-50 percent chance that the race is headed for a runoff, which is what would happen should neither candidate receive an outright majority of the vote.
The last group of races to watch are two contests breaking away somewhat from the Democrats, constraining their opportunity to pick up a 60th seat. The first of these races is in Kentucky, where Bruce Lunsford has stalled out at about 44 percent of the vote; he will need the undecideds to break to him in a big way if he's going to win. The other is in Mississippi, where Rasmussen has become the second consecutive poll to give Roger Wicker a double-digit advantage. Our regression model seems to think that Obama may have more coattails in Mississippi than the polls are letting on. But Ronnie Musgrove has gotten somewhat boxed in, being portrayed as a liberal in attack ads by Wicker, but seen as too conservative by many progressive Democrats to warrant their money and attention, which has instead gone to candidates like Lunsford and Martin. The DSCC may need to look at its internal polling and figure out whether it wants to try and preserve an opportunity for Musgrove, or perhaps go all-in instead on a race like Kentucky.
There is no longer really any sort of fourth tier of races, though Nebraska hasn't been polled in a long time. The two Democratic-held seats that the Republicans had hoped to put into play, in Louisiana and New Jersey, continue to look completely safe for the incumbents.
Democrats were always going to pick up seats in Virginia and New Mexico, and remain in position to do so. You can add Colorado to that list. Mark Udall now has double-digit leads in essentially all polling, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of the state has already voted; he will become the next senator from the Rocky Mountain State.
Our model also classifies New Hampshire as "safe", meaning that it attributes Jeanne Shaheen with at least a 95 percent chance of picking up John Sununu's seat. But I wouldn't completely turn out the lights on this race. While Shaheen remains comfortably ahead in most polling, there has emerged a pretty significant gap between her support and Barack Obama's, meaning that there are fair numbers of Obama-Sununu voters. That isn't so out of character for New Hampshire, which contains as many independent voters as anywhere in the country, but if for some reason the polls are overestimating Obama's performance, perhaps Sununu could make a race of it. Still, Sununu has been behind all year, he remains that way, and his time has basically run out.
Oregon is breaking Jeff Merkley's way, as a hot-off-the-presses poll from PPP gives him an 8 point lead, his largest on the year to date. This follows polling earlier in the week by SurveyUSA and the Portland Tribune which had shown him ahead by 7 and 5 points, respectively. Gordon Smith has been left to fend for himself in Oregon, where John McCain never developed any momentum, and there is evidence that turnout is down in areas where his base might be located. With many of Oregon's ballots already having been turned in, Smith's chances of pulling this race out may be less than the 16 percent that the model assigns to him.
In Alaska, we have a post-conviction poll from Rasmussen, and have wiped out all pre-conviction data. That poll shows Mark Begich ahead by 8 points. The regression model is still a bit confused by this race and thinks it could be closer than expected, but I'm not really buying that. If the Research 2000 poll comes back this weekend with strong numbers for Begich, it will move toward the Safe Democratic category.
You can draw a line right about here ... those are the six Democratic pickups that I'd describe as relatively safe (partly in the belief that the model is conservative on both Merkley and Begich for the reasons articulated above). We then get into what will be the three most closely-watched races on Election Night:
The first of these is in North Carolina, which continues to lean toward Demcoratic challenger Kay Hagan, but where we are waiting to gauge the reaction to Elizabeth Dole's controversial new ad which implies that Hagan, an elder at the First Presbyterian Church, is an athiest. The ad has drawn a harsh reaction from the local media and a Rasmussen poll conducted on Wednesday night, just as the controversy was starting to brew, had Hagan moving into a 6-point lead. But, the Carolinas have a long tradition of last-minute attack advertising, and the only reason it has that tradition is because sometimes such things work. Dole's ad is callous enough that it seems likely to be one of the exceptions, but this remains a race to watch.
In Minnesota, polling from PPP and the Humphrey Institute is showing movement toward Al Franken, but polling from Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon showing just the opposite and breaking in Norm Coleman's direction. Such highly volatile polling is sometimes characteristic of races involving third party candidates, and Dean Barkley continues to hold onto about 15 percent of the vote in this race. As I suggested on Tuesday, it is likely that some of that Barkley vote will collapse, and there are some hints that is more likely to break toward Franken, but characterizing this race as anything other than a toss-up would be generous.
The other contest that will be watched very closely is in Georgia, where Jim Martin remains stuck about 2-3 points behind Saxby Chambliss in most polling, but where both early voting patterns and the nature of the undecided vote suggest that the race may in fact be closer to a toss-up. My guess is that there's at least a 40-50 percent chance that the race is headed for a runoff, which is what would happen should neither candidate receive an outright majority of the vote.
The last group of races to watch are two contests breaking away somewhat from the Democrats, constraining their opportunity to pick up a 60th seat. The first of these races is in Kentucky, where Bruce Lunsford has stalled out at about 44 percent of the vote; he will need the undecideds to break to him in a big way if he's going to win. The other is in Mississippi, where Rasmussen has become the second consecutive poll to give Roger Wicker a double-digit advantage. Our regression model seems to think that Obama may have more coattails in Mississippi than the polls are letting on. But Ronnie Musgrove has gotten somewhat boxed in, being portrayed as a liberal in attack ads by Wicker, but seen as too conservative by many progressive Democrats to warrant their money and attention, which has instead gone to candidates like Lunsford and Martin. The DSCC may need to look at its internal polling and figure out whether it wants to try and preserve an opportunity for Musgrove, or perhaps go all-in instead on a race like Kentucky.
There is no longer really any sort of fourth tier of races, though Nebraska hasn't been polled in a long time. The two Democratic-held seats that the Republicans had hoped to put into play, in Louisiana and New Jersey, continue to look completely safe for the incumbents.
Road to 270: Nevada
@ 12:18 AM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the [Nate] Silver State, Nevada.
GAMBLY AND WHORISH, Nevada is one of 2008's biggest battlegrounds. Its caucuses were debacles on both the Democratic and Republican side (Democratic attendance overwhelmed a totally unprepared Nevada Democratic Party, and Ron Paul voters forced the Republicans to discard the rules and appoint loyal delegates). As we've been tracking for some time, Washoe County (19% of the state's vote) has flipped blue, with 1,264 more Democratic registrations than Republicans, who held a 17,500 vote advantage in August 2007. Overall, Democrats have moved up to a 111,559 registration edge from the approximately 4,100 edge they held four years ago. Due to the huge change, Republicans are left scrambling to challenge the validity of votes by apparently finding anyone who will agree to sue:
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
Many military veterans, a long time Republican lean to the state's politics, and nearly even fundraising per capita with Barack Obama will help John McCain. Nevada felt to us more organized and energized on the Republican side when we visited, compared with places like New Mexico and Colorado, but again that is relative, since we're not excited about any of the Republican effort on the ground anywhere. But this is a very male-voting state, contains a high number of conservative Mormon voters, the education rate is very low, and voter apathy among youth voters has long been a problem in Nevada. The Republican organization is used to winning elections and knows who its voters are. Republicans will get their voters to the polls, it's up to Democrats to pass them by.
What Obama Has Going For Him
An incredible ground organization that dwarfs the Republican effort, to start with. Those dedicated organizers shifted over 107,000 voter registrations in the Democratic direction. A very large Latino population will help Obama here, as well as a high unemployment rate that tends to favor Democrats. The Starbucks:Walmart ratio is over 8-to-1, and same-sex households rank in the upper third. The Clark County population, continually booming and shifting blue, will be a big help. John Kerry lost Nevada by 21,500 votes four years ago, and 5 times that number of registration shift has happened because Obama organized aggressively here for over a year. The population shades to the younger side, with fewer voters over 65 and an above-the-median number of voters under 30. Not many "American" ancestry respondents either.
What To Watch For
Three big races in Nevada -- the presidential race, which favors Obama, and two House races. Incumbent Jon Porter is in a tossup contest with Dina Titus, who unsuccessfully ran for Governor two years ago. Turnout will be the key, and the incredible Obama operation will help a rising tide lift all boats. Jill Derby (D) and incumbent Dean Heller (R) are in a rematch from two years ago in the 2d House district, which encompasses all of the state minus most of Clark County, and Republicans worry they will lose this seat in a wave. Derby is a good candidate, and has worked the rural parts of her district for years. People know her, and it's not hard to envision some McCain-Derby voters. Heller remains favored, but this is one of those that every last drop of GOTV has to make the Heller folks very nervous.
GAMBLY AND WHORISH, Nevada is one of 2008's biggest battlegrounds. Its caucuses were debacles on both the Democratic and Republican side (Democratic attendance overwhelmed a totally unprepared Nevada Democratic Party, and Ron Paul voters forced the Republicans to discard the rules and appoint loyal delegates). As we've been tracking for some time, Washoe County (19% of the state's vote) has flipped blue, with 1,264 more Democratic registrations than Republicans, who held a 17,500 vote advantage in August 2007. Overall, Democrats have moved up to a 111,559 registration edge from the approximately 4,100 edge they held four years ago. Due to the huge change, Republicans are left scrambling to challenge the validity of votes by apparently finding anyone who will agree to sue:
The strong Democratic turnout has Republicans mulling possible legal challenges. “We question whether these are valid registrations,” said Smith, the Washoe County GOP chairwoman.
While talking to Smith, she was interrupted by a cell phone call, which she inadvertently put on the speakerphone. It was the state GOP executive director Zachery Moyle, and the two discussed what could be done about the tsunami of Democratic Party registrations.
“I’m looking for people to sign on to a lawsuit,” Moyle said to Smith, who fumbled with the phone while turning off the speaker. “You didn’t hear that,” she said glancing in my direction.
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
Many military veterans, a long time Republican lean to the state's politics, and nearly even fundraising per capita with Barack Obama will help John McCain. Nevada felt to us more organized and energized on the Republican side when we visited, compared with places like New Mexico and Colorado, but again that is relative, since we're not excited about any of the Republican effort on the ground anywhere. But this is a very male-voting state, contains a high number of conservative Mormon voters, the education rate is very low, and voter apathy among youth voters has long been a problem in Nevada. The Republican organization is used to winning elections and knows who its voters are. Republicans will get their voters to the polls, it's up to Democrats to pass them by.
What Obama Has Going For Him
An incredible ground organization that dwarfs the Republican effort, to start with. Those dedicated organizers shifted over 107,000 voter registrations in the Democratic direction. A very large Latino population will help Obama here, as well as a high unemployment rate that tends to favor Democrats. The Starbucks:Walmart ratio is over 8-to-1, and same-sex households rank in the upper third. The Clark County population, continually booming and shifting blue, will be a big help. John Kerry lost Nevada by 21,500 votes four years ago, and 5 times that number of registration shift has happened because Obama organized aggressively here for over a year. The population shades to the younger side, with fewer voters over 65 and an above-the-median number of voters under 30. Not many "American" ancestry respondents either.
What To Watch For
Three big races in Nevada -- the presidential race, which favors Obama, and two House races. Incumbent Jon Porter is in a tossup contest with Dina Titus, who unsuccessfully ran for Governor two years ago. Turnout will be the key, and the incredible Obama operation will help a rising tide lift all boats. Jill Derby (D) and incumbent Dean Heller (R) are in a rematch from two years ago in the 2d House district, which encompasses all of the state minus most of Clark County, and Republicans worry they will lose this seat in a wave. Derby is a good candidate, and has worked the rural parts of her district for years. People know her, and it's not hard to envision some McCain-Derby voters. Heller remains favored, but this is one of those that every last drop of GOTV has to make the Heller folks very nervous.
10.30.2008
Field Poll Shows Close Call on Gay Marriage Ban
@
11:10 PM
The Field Poll's final numbers on Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in California, are not out yet, but a statement put out by the No on 8 folks provides the following tease:
EDIT: Per a commenter, the measure is trailing 49-44. My guess was pretty good! But ballot initiatives are notoriously hard to poll, so this is probably best considered to be a toss-up.
"The Field Poll shows that Prop 8's deceptive campaign has failed to move their numbers much at all. Prop 8 is trying to run a campaign to get to a Yes vote, yet they have remained in this and other polls well below the 50 percent margin necessary for success. We are running a No campaign, and we are successfully keeping our opponents below 50 percent.Field's previous poll in September had the 'No' side winning 55-38 ... a 'no' vote protects gay marriage in California. From reading this memo it looks like ... the 'no' side is winning 50-45 or somewhere thereabouts? We will know shortly.
"We are highly energized across the state and we believe this will be a close election. We reject any suggestion that there will be a last minute surge for Prop 8 in a year where California is expected to go overwhelmingly for Sen. Barack Obama.
"In fact, today Prop 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert released a blog statement fretting that the presidential election would be called early on the East Coast, thereby depressing conservative voting in California.
"Finally, we note that the Field Poll has a stellar record on initiatives and has been accurate 94 percent of the time."
EDIT: Per a commenter, the measure is trailing 49-44. My guess was pretty good! But ballot initiatives are notoriously hard to poll, so this is probably best considered to be a toss-up.
Today's Polls, 10/30
@ 10:40 PM
Man, I thought I trained you guys better than this.
There is a lot of consternation in my inbox about two polls. One, from Mason-Dixon, shows John McCain just 4 points down in Pennsylvania. The other, from FOX News, shows McCain down just 3 points nationwide.
Let's start with the Pennsylvania result. Mason-Dixon is a pretty strong pollster. So, however, are many others from among the literally dozen or so agencies that have conducted polling within Pennsylvania over the past 72 hours. And none of those other pollsters shows the race that tight.
Mason-Dixon has also had a Republican "lean" this cycle of perhaps 2-3 points. They are quite frequently the most favorable number for John McCain in any given state. That doesn't mean that they are "biased", and it doesn't mean that they are wrong – there are many different (and legitimate!) ways to think about this election. But it does mean that their polls need to be interpreted in that context. Let's say the average poll in Pennsylvania has Obama ahead by 9.5 points. Mason-Dixon will probably start out seeing a 9.5-point state at a 7-point state. If they then end up toward the McCain side of their margin of error -- and they don't use huge sample sizes – that’s how you get to Obama +4.
Now, look. I don't think we need to be in the habit of ripping a poll apart every time that we don't like the result. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with this poll. It's simply that we need to look at in concert with the rest of the evidence. In this case, we have an abundance of evidence, and it suggests on balance that Pennsylvania is neither particularly close, nor is it particularly "tightening" (Mason-Dixon's prior poll of the state, in Mid-September, had Obama up by 2).
It might also help to come at this from the other direction. Here is one poll out of many, out of one "must-win" state out of many, that shows that John McCain is sorta kinda close? This is the best news he can muster? On Monday, I laid out specific criteria for what I'd want to see in order to conclude that the race has tightened materially:
*-*
As for the FOX poll, I'm a little bit taken aback at the number of people who assume that, just because the poll is from FOX, it must somehow have been cooked. Sixteen times out of 20, an aberrant result (and I'm not sure you can really call this "aberrant", since a couple of other pollsters show the race at about 3 points right now) is the result of statistical noise. Perhaps 3 times out of 20, it might be the result of a poor sampling procedure. And then there might be that one case in 20 where the pollster feels compelled to put his finger on the scale in some way -- but these cases are extremely rare. And there's no particular reason to accuse FOX News of this behavior. Their polls haven't had much of a partisan lean this cycle, and for that matter, they were among the only pollsters to have John Kerry winning the popular vote in 2004. If there's a problem with FOX News polls, it's not that they're biased, but that they're simply not all that good.
It's true that FOX's sample included a materially higher percentage of Republicans this time around. FOX, however, does not choose its sample; its sample chooses itself. In this case, when they drew their ping-pong balls out of the jar, they came up with a slightly higher percentage of red ones. This kind of thing will happen all the time unless a pollster weights by party ID, which FOX News and many other pollsters do not. The Pew poll that came out the other day, for instance, had a big increase in the number of Democrats in its sample.
Nevertheless, the change in the partisan ID of their sample does cut against the notion that the race is tightening. What we are ultimately interested in is whether the same voters are starting to look at the race in a different way -- making up their minds, or changing their minds. In this case, however, it appears mostly that FOX was talking to different voters -- a more Republican-leaning set of voters -- rather than reaching the same sorts of voters and finding that they were thinking about the race differently. John McCain did pick up a few points among independents, but the numbers among Republicans and Democrats were essentially unchanged.
Numeros:
Boy, that's a lot of data. If there's anything that jumps out here, it's that we probably shouldn't be too quick to conclude that the race comes down to exactly Virgnia, Colorado and Pennsylvania. There are two polls out of Virginia today that show that state a little tighter than most of the other recent numbers; on the other hand, Ohio is becoming a real problem for John McCain, and perhaps North Carolina is too.
Lastly, although it's probably too early to conclude anything much about whether the Obama infomercial was successful, the Rasmussen and SurveyUSA state polling that was in the field last night seemed to contain pretty good numbers for him, slightly better than for much of the past week.
There is a lot of consternation in my inbox about two polls. One, from Mason-Dixon, shows John McCain just 4 points down in Pennsylvania. The other, from FOX News, shows McCain down just 3 points nationwide.
Let's start with the Pennsylvania result. Mason-Dixon is a pretty strong pollster. So, however, are many others from among the literally dozen or so agencies that have conducted polling within Pennsylvania over the past 72 hours. And none of those other pollsters shows the race that tight.
Mason-Dixon has also had a Republican "lean" this cycle of perhaps 2-3 points. They are quite frequently the most favorable number for John McCain in any given state. That doesn't mean that they are "biased", and it doesn't mean that they are wrong – there are many different (and legitimate!) ways to think about this election. But it does mean that their polls need to be interpreted in that context. Let's say the average poll in Pennsylvania has Obama ahead by 9.5 points. Mason-Dixon will probably start out seeing a 9.5-point state at a 7-point state. If they then end up toward the McCain side of their margin of error -- and they don't use huge sample sizes – that’s how you get to Obama +4.
Now, look. I don't think we need to be in the habit of ripping a poll apart every time that we don't like the result. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with this poll. It's simply that we need to look at in concert with the rest of the evidence. In this case, we have an abundance of evidence, and it suggests on balance that Pennsylvania is neither particularly close, nor is it particularly "tightening" (Mason-Dixon's prior poll of the state, in Mid-September, had Obama up by 2).
It might also help to come at this from the other direction. Here is one poll out of many, out of one "must-win" state out of many, that shows that John McCain is sorta kinda close? This is the best news he can muster? On Monday, I laid out specific criteria for what I'd want to see in order to conclude that the race has tightened materially:
John McCain polling within 2 points in 2 or more non-partisan polls ... in at least 2 out of the 3 following states: Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania.We have yet to see any such results in any of these three states.
*-*
As for the FOX poll, I'm a little bit taken aback at the number of people who assume that, just because the poll is from FOX, it must somehow have been cooked. Sixteen times out of 20, an aberrant result (and I'm not sure you can really call this "aberrant", since a couple of other pollsters show the race at about 3 points right now) is the result of statistical noise. Perhaps 3 times out of 20, it might be the result of a poor sampling procedure. And then there might be that one case in 20 where the pollster feels compelled to put his finger on the scale in some way -- but these cases are extremely rare. And there's no particular reason to accuse FOX News of this behavior. Their polls haven't had much of a partisan lean this cycle, and for that matter, they were among the only pollsters to have John Kerry winning the popular vote in 2004. If there's a problem with FOX News polls, it's not that they're biased, but that they're simply not all that good.
It's true that FOX's sample included a materially higher percentage of Republicans this time around. FOX, however, does not choose its sample; its sample chooses itself. In this case, when they drew their ping-pong balls out of the jar, they came up with a slightly higher percentage of red ones. This kind of thing will happen all the time unless a pollster weights by party ID, which FOX News and many other pollsters do not. The Pew poll that came out the other day, for instance, had a big increase in the number of Democrats in its sample.
Nevertheless, the change in the partisan ID of their sample does cut against the notion that the race is tightening. What we are ultimately interested in is whether the same voters are starting to look at the race in a different way -- making up their minds, or changing their minds. In this case, however, it appears mostly that FOX was talking to different voters -- a more Republican-leaning set of voters -- rather than reaching the same sorts of voters and finding that they were thinking about the race differently. John McCain did pick up a few points among independents, but the numbers among Republicans and Democrats were essentially unchanged.
Numeros:
Boy, that's a lot of data. If there's anything that jumps out here, it's that we probably shouldn't be too quick to conclude that the race comes down to exactly Virgnia, Colorado and Pennsylvania. There are two polls out of Virginia today that show that state a little tighter than most of the other recent numbers; on the other hand, Ohio is becoming a real problem for John McCain, and perhaps North Carolina is too.
Lastly, although it's probably too early to conclude anything much about whether the Obama infomercial was successful, the Rasmussen and SurveyUSA state polling that was in the field last night seemed to contain pretty good numbers for him, slightly better than for much of the past week.
Election Night Preview with Dan Rather
@ 6:46 PM
This weekend, I sat down with Dan Rather in Austin, Texas -- where Obama yardsigns outnumber McCain yard signs by 15-to-1 -- to preview what to watch for on election night, when I'll be joining Dan live from HDNet's set in Washington. Clip follows below the jump.
Road to 270: Washington
@ 3:30 PM
Today we continue our Road to 270 series with the Evergreen State, Washington.
STARBUCKS HEAVEN, Worshington state, my friends, has 13.63 Starbucks for every Walmart. Larry David ordering a "Vanilla Bulls**t" notwithstanding, the power of coffee-drinking liberals in Worshington is not to be mocked. Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama will carry the state's eleven electoral votes.
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
Lots of military vets live in Worshington, so do a lot of Mormons, and a not-uncompetitive number of Republicans live in the state. Factors that normally favor Obama strongly aren't as prominent here (female voters are under the median, youth voters are only just past the median, black voters are under the median), so it's not an obvious state where a Western-based Republican couldn't compete. The problem McCain faces -- aside from not actually competing here -- is that the large eastern expanses of the state, where he'll do well, don't have enough people to offset the large population base in the SEA-TAC corridor.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Hipsters. Lots and lots of them. They love Obama. They're educated, they live in their same-sex households, they donate to Obama at a much higher clip than most states, and they're going to wear ironic clothing and send in their permanent absentee ballots for the Democratic candidate for president. The state has a higher percentage of Hispanic voters than African-American voters, and Obama is winning independents here at a strong enough rate that he should even bring in some coattails for downballot candidates like Darcy Burner in Worshington's 8th U.S. House district.
What To Watch For
The Christine Gregoire-Dino Rossi rematch for the governorship and the aforementioned Darcy Burner-Dave Reichert race is where all the drama unfolds in Worshington, my friends. The Gregoire-Rossi race was the most dramatic of 2004, where recounts ultimately produced a 129-vote win for the Democrat. Six Democratic House seats are safe, as are the two Republican seats comprising the eastern 2/3 of the state. The 8th district, smack in the west-central part of the state extending from the eastern Seattle suburbs into the rural county areas, saw Reichert narrowly hold onto his seat in the 2006 wave, and Democrats have coveted winning a seat for Burner for several years now. The race is a tossup, due to Reichert's personal popularity (he famously and successfully led the investigation into the Green River serial killings) in the face of a national headwind for Republicans. If Burner manages to take the seat, expect to see netroots Democrats taking special pleasure in the win. If Reichert holds on, expect strong disappointment, including from Burner donor Brett Marty.
STARBUCKS HEAVEN, Worshington state, my friends, has 13.63 Starbucks for every Walmart. Larry David ordering a "Vanilla Bulls**t" notwithstanding, the power of coffee-drinking liberals in Worshington is not to be mocked. Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama will carry the state's eleven electoral votes.
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
Lots of military vets live in Worshington, so do a lot of Mormons, and a not-uncompetitive number of Republicans live in the state. Factors that normally favor Obama strongly aren't as prominent here (female voters are under the median, youth voters are only just past the median, black voters are under the median), so it's not an obvious state where a Western-based Republican couldn't compete. The problem McCain faces -- aside from not actually competing here -- is that the large eastern expanses of the state, where he'll do well, don't have enough people to offset the large population base in the SEA-TAC corridor.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Hipsters. Lots and lots of them. They love Obama. They're educated, they live in their same-sex households, they donate to Obama at a much higher clip than most states, and they're going to wear ironic clothing and send in their permanent absentee ballots for the Democratic candidate for president. The state has a higher percentage of Hispanic voters than African-American voters, and Obama is winning independents here at a strong enough rate that he should even bring in some coattails for downballot candidates like Darcy Burner in Worshington's 8th U.S. House district.
What To Watch For
The Christine Gregoire-Dino Rossi rematch for the governorship and the aforementioned Darcy Burner-Dave Reichert race is where all the drama unfolds in Worshington, my friends. The Gregoire-Rossi race was the most dramatic of 2004, where recounts ultimately produced a 129-vote win for the Democrat. Six Democratic House seats are safe, as are the two Republican seats comprising the eastern 2/3 of the state. The 8th district, smack in the west-central part of the state extending from the eastern Seattle suburbs into the rural county areas, saw Reichert narrowly hold onto his seat in the 2006 wave, and Democrats have coveted winning a seat for Burner for several years now. The race is a tossup, due to Reichert's personal popularity (he famously and successfully led the investigation into the Green River serial killings) in the face of a national headwind for Republicans. If Burner manages to take the seat, expect to see netroots Democrats taking special pleasure in the win. If Reichert holds on, expect strong disappointment, including from Burner donor Brett Marty.
Anatomy of a Polling Disaster
@ 1:58 PM
Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal has the scoop on the bizarre internals in that IBD/TIPP poll, which as we noted last week, found John McCain as having a substantial lead among young voters. I speculated that this result could only be possible if IBD/TIPP were radically undersampling young voters, and indeed that seems to have been the case:
Now, read those paragraphs carefully, because there are several problems with this pollster's process:
1. 75 young voters out of a 1,000-person panel is an awfully low target. In 2004, about 93 out of every 1,000 voters were age 18-24, according to statistics compiled by the Census Bureau. Now, we can debate about whether that number is going to go up this year (youth turnout increased by about 50 percent as a share of the Democratic primary electorate), but it's certainly not going to go down.
2. That notwithstanding, their target may be a moot point, it doesn't appear that the pollster felt any compulsion to weight for age-based demographics in the first place. "This small sample size at first didn’t trouble Mayur" ... well, it ought to have troubled him, because if only 3 percent of your sample consists of 18-24 year-olds, when that fraction should be closer to 9 percent even assuming no increase in youth voter support, you're going to significantly understate Barack Obama's margins. A superior pollster would have flagged this problem long before it became manifest to the entire world.
3. Lastly, Mayur appears to have "resolved" the problem by relying on non-random sampling techniques. Now, I don't want to be too critical of this decision, because Mayur has been kind enough to disclose his process. I'm sure that he isn't the first pollster to take a few shortcuts in the process of creating his sausage, and I'm sure that he won't be the last. Still, this would seem to violate one of the most basic premises of survey research, which is that of the random sample ... in "resolving" his young votes problem, Mayur could very easily have introduced a whole host of others, the effects of which may be harder to detect.
The point of all of this is that just because some pollster puts some numbers together in a PDF doesn't mean that they have any particular idea what they're doing. This pollster apparently made its name for itself because they had forecasted the results of the 2004 popular vote accurately. Notwithstanding that one result isn't anywhere near enough information to conclude that a pollster is strong, the 2004 election was perhaps the easiest one in history to forecast. The electorate was highly partisanized with few undecideds, and both bases turned out in roughly equal numbers; it wasn't just IBD/TIPP that got it right -- almost everyone did. This election is considerably more difficult to poll, and it's exposing the weaker pollsters.
Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica, told me he was equally surprised by the results, saying the widespread perception that Obama is leading by a large margin in that group “is my perception, too.” He blamed the result on a small sample size. Each daily tracking poll includes about 1,000 interviews spread over the prior five days; each day a new set of survey respondents is added and the oldest set is discarded.
Ideally, Mayur would like to have 75 of all those respondents fall into the youngest age range. Some pollsters would have preferred more; this age group makes up 13% of the adult population, though its voting rate historically has been lower than average. His sample fell far short even of his lower goal, typically including just 25 to 30 respondents from age 18 to 24 — meaning just five or six new interviews with these young voters were being conducted each day. “We are not able to get to speak to as many as we would like to in that group,” he said.
He blamed that on several factors. For one thing, nearly one-third of adults in that age range lack landline phones, and Mayur’s pollsters don’t dial cellphones. (He points out that when calling cellphones, the chance that the person who picks up lacks a landline and is in the relevant age range is quite low.) Furthermore, among those who do live in households with landlines, young people may be away at school or in the military, Mayur said.
This small sample size at first didn’t trouble Mayur, as Obama led among these voters in the first three tracking polls. But when the results started to break McCain’s way as suddenly and dramatically as they did, Mayur began to question his own methodology. On the day McCain’s lead widened in this group to 52 points, Mayur added a footnote to the 18-to-24-year-old group: “Age 18-24 has much fluctuation due to small sample size.” He says he didn’t add a similar one to the Jewish subgroup, with just half the sample size as the young voters, because the Jews in his sample consistently stated a preference for Obama, as he expected.
Now, read those paragraphs carefully, because there are several problems with this pollster's process:
1. 75 young voters out of a 1,000-person panel is an awfully low target. In 2004, about 93 out of every 1,000 voters were age 18-24, according to statistics compiled by the Census Bureau. Now, we can debate about whether that number is going to go up this year (youth turnout increased by about 50 percent as a share of the Democratic primary electorate), but it's certainly not going to go down.
2. That notwithstanding, their target may be a moot point, it doesn't appear that the pollster felt any compulsion to weight for age-based demographics in the first place. "This small sample size at first didn’t trouble Mayur" ... well, it ought to have troubled him, because if only 3 percent of your sample consists of 18-24 year-olds, when that fraction should be closer to 9 percent even assuming no increase in youth voter support, you're going to significantly understate Barack Obama's margins. A superior pollster would have flagged this problem long before it became manifest to the entire world.
3. Lastly, Mayur appears to have "resolved" the problem by relying on non-random sampling techniques. Now, I don't want to be too critical of this decision, because Mayur has been kind enough to disclose his process. I'm sure that he isn't the first pollster to take a few shortcuts in the process of creating his sausage, and I'm sure that he won't be the last. Still, this would seem to violate one of the most basic premises of survey research, which is that of the random sample ... in "resolving" his young votes problem, Mayur could very easily have introduced a whole host of others, the effects of which may be harder to detect.
The point of all of this is that just because some pollster puts some numbers together in a PDF doesn't mean that they have any particular idea what they're doing. This pollster apparently made its name for itself because they had forecasted the results of the 2004 popular vote accurately. Notwithstanding that one result isn't anywhere near enough information to conclude that a pollster is strong, the 2004 election was perhaps the easiest one in history to forecast. The electorate was highly partisanized with few undecideds, and both bases turned out in roughly equal numbers; it wasn't just IBD/TIPP that got it right -- almost everyone did. This election is considerably more difficult to poll, and it's exposing the weaker pollsters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
267 comments
Post a Comment