What The Polls Predict

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Chris Bowers has an excellent post analyzing what exactly can be gleaned from pre election polls in this contest. Chris' analysis demonstrates that Obama wildly overperformed polling in caucus states while Clinton overperformed polling in most primary states. I think Chris misses an essential point in discussing polling in primary states. Chris writes:

Obama wildly outperformed the polls in caucus states such as Colorado, Minnesota and Washington, each of which only had one poll that was more than a week old. However, he also outperformed the polls by double digits in primary states like Alabama, Delaware, D.C., Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. By contrast, Clinton has never outperformed the polls by more than 10%, although she did do quite well in California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

All of these states had outsized African American populations and most were largely uncontested by Clinton. In essence large leads became even larger. But in contested states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Arizona, Clinton outperformed the polling.

These polling issues closely mirror the last test for Obama - win a big contested state. Texas and Ohio (where there is a rumor of a SUSA poll showing Obama within 9) provide the last electoral test for Obama to pass to secure the nomination.

< Candidates Call for Release of Political Prisoners in Cuba | Candidates' Last Minute Pitches to Wisconsin Voters >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What The Polls Predict | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST

and south Carolina were uncontested by Clinton?

Largely (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST

Yes. Uncontested.

But OR is an important word.

I forgot to mention the other OR. Caucuses.


MOST (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST

is the key word. Not or. My apologies.


AND is another important word (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST

This is beyond confusing. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST

Conjunction junction (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST

what's your function?


"Or," most,, "and" . . . (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST

Just words?


When included in a text (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST

they have a function too.


: The text, i.e., post, makes sense. (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST

The comments critiquing the text don't one the text changes.

Still trying to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:24:44 PM EST

Why the formula is "big contested state."

If it's just because they have a lot of people, we should just look at aggregate vote totals. That tells us who won more people.

If it's because states like OH, FL, and PA are crucial in the general election, it should be "contested swing states." CA, TX, MA, and NJ should be excluded and CO, NM, WI, MO, VA, etc. should be included.

I truly cannot understand a formula that leads to the conclusion CA, NJ, MA, OH, PA, and TX are crucial while GA, VA, MO, MD, and NC are not.

And this isn't even mentioning that GA is bigger than NJ or MA, VA and NC are also bigger than MA, and WA, MD, WI, MO are pretty big as well.

Let's see if this helps you (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:36:49 PM EST

01 California
02 Texas
03 New York
04 Florida
05 Illinois
06 Pennsylvania
07 Ohio
08 Michigan
09 Georgia
10 New Jersey

Of those 10, let's assume Clinton wins Texas Ohio and Pennsylvania. Then Clinton wins 8 of 10 with Obama winning his HOME STATE and Georgia, with a very large A-A population, but sure to go to the Republicans in November.

To wit, Obama won the two UNCONTESTED big states.

Clinton has won ALL of the contested big states SO FAR.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe you do not understand it.


Of course Clinton's win in NY (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST

is similarly discountable.


I understand (none / 0) (#23)
by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST

That Hillary has won the big contested states. I do not understand why that, in itself, is important.

If Obama loses OH, TX, and PA by small margins but retains a clear lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, he should get the nomination. The argument that he shouldn't because he didn't win "big contested states," while based on a true factual premise, wouldn't make much sense to me.


Meaning, the Super Ds should just (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST

give up their independent judgment and vote for Obama.


Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST

Inouye is voting for Clinton, then. I happen to like what he's saying about it, too.


: I'm unhappy with his votes in (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST

Congress lately but on this point I agree w/him.

I do nto disagree (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST

with that. But he will be a much weakened candidate.

Moreover, it it seems unlikely TO ME he will still hold the PV lead in such a case.


The reason (none / 0) (#31)
by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST

is that winning the GE requires the same sort of campaign that winning a big contested state does.

There will be millions of voters in the GE. You can't just hold one big rally and send everyone out to swamp the low-turnout caucuses the next day.

If Obama can't win a big contested state, the argument goes, some of the superdelegates are going to start to wonder how electable he is in situations with no opportunity for retail campaigning.


Is Geogia uncontested (none / 0) (#30)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST

because of the favorable demographic for Obama or because it is a sure-fire red state in the general?

If the latter then why are CA and TX contested?


What about Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#4)
by kid oakland on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:12:13 PM EST

Must win general state. Heavily contested on the ground and on the air. Primary state.

Voting today.

I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I do know that it is significant.

"Must win" for which candidate? (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST

Well (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:16:17 PM EST

I expect a big win for Obama.

But do you think Wisconsin is a big state?

When I think big, I think of the 10 or 12 largest states, the ones Dems always need in November.


you'll love this (none / 0) (#11)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST

I voted today lots of independents in line.


Early voting in Texas? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST

: Early voting started today in TX (none / 0) (#38)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST

Big state for setting the media narrative (none / 0) (#12)
by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST

for the next two weeks.


: Doubtful (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:38:44 PM EST

Unless Clinton scares Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, unless he wins by 15 or 20, Wisconsin is not likely to produce a positive storyline for him. Just more of the same.
But if Clinton scares him, it can produce a positive storyline for Clinton. The pitfalls of being the frontrunner.

Is Texas a swing state now? (none / 0) (#26)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST

I keep going back to this...can we actually ever win Texas in the general? If not, why (other than raw delegate numbers and perhaps some extrapolation of demographic trends) is Texas so important?


Doubtful (none / 0) (#36)
by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST

from what I read down in Texas, they're still pretty red. I think that Clinton could get it, though, because down there sexism isn't as bad as racism (from what I've read in the papers, from family member accounts). I can see the women getting behind Clinton after the dust settled. I can't believe how much racism I'm seeing (the "I could never vote for a black" junk).


I disagree. Sexism is institutionalized (none / 0) (#40)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:26 PM EST

through sex mis education.

I don't think we have a chance in hell for TX.


: Democrats don't have a chance in hell in TX (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:24:53 PM EST

Anyone who says different is blowing smoke. Or smoking something really good.

It is not a "must win" general state (none / 0) (#14)
by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM EST

And it hardly qualifies as a big state. "I have no idea what the outcome will be." No, none of us can see the future, but I suspect you've seen the polls and you are trying to push a story favorable to your candidate.


I agree (none / 0) (#21)
by Meurs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST

It'll give us a clue about Ohio.

I predict Obama wins this state by 10 and wins among blue collar men. The media narrative then gets even worse for HRC.


wow. (none / 0) (#27)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST

that seems going out on a limb.


: Bah, it's the internets (none / 0) (#47)
by Meurs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:55:17 PM EST

...unfounded predictions are easy and risk-free. :)

Why significant? Not a big state (none / 0) (#32)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST

but we like it that way in Wisconsin. If you have evidence that Chicago is creeping our way so much that we will become a big state, please advise. We will prevail upon Congressman Senselessbrenner to amend his bill so as to move this wall a bit north -- not at the Rio Grande but at our state line. . . .


Polls are like: (none / 0) (#10)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST

Polls are the election trolls, the more they get fed, the more they come out with gibberish. It's become a real destructive when people are guided to vote by what the polls say. Particularly annoying are the General Election polls, remember the same ones that predicted blow out victories by Gore and Kerry at this stage.

I have stopped looking.

I don't think (none / 0) (#15)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST

people are driven by polls, but i do agree with you that they are junk. Especially now that we are in states that have never really been polled at this scale.

I really don't believe any of the Texas polls, I just can't imagine that people know how to do turnout models, both by region and demographics to get it right.


: I Agree on Turnout Model (none / 0) (#34)
by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST

It was off by a lot in California in the last Field Poll, which had been the gold standard for this State.
In some of these states, with few competitive primaries in their histories and several voting demos that historically under vote but maybe not this year (youth, hispanic), it's almost impossible to figure who will go to the polls. And in most of the big contested states, it appears that has decided it.

But polls (none / 0) (#33)
by muffie on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST

at best only give a snapshot at a particular moment in time. I think it's not surprising that the states where Obama outperformed the polls by double digits are ones with large AA populations, as there was a fairly dramatic swing in AA voting following the dust-up over race.

Obama Continues to Gain Nationally (none / 0) (#37)
by Aaron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST

So why is Clinton losing middle-aged women and Hispanic voters? Why is Obama gaining among core Democrats?

Obama Gaining Among Middle-Aged, Women, Hispanics: Also Running Even with Clinton among Core Democrats -- Gallup Poll

Obama -- 49%

Clinton -- 42%

Simple, just as I've been saying since October, once the American people get a chance to see Barack Obama, most prefer him over Clinton.

Errr, check again (none / 0) (#41)
by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST

Gallup Daily Tracking for Today


The trouble with polls (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:55:41 PM EST

They change daily.


What is interesting to me... (none / 0) (#43)
by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:15:38 PM EST

...is the sudden reversal of the trend with 1 day of new data. It may be nothing (1 day does not a trend make), except its the day after the "plagiarism" news story.

That is all I was saying.


Yes manufactured plagiarism stories... (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by Aaron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:27:07 PM EST

...really help you swing the moron vote.

The Clinton campaign manufacturers a controversy, and the next thing you know CNN and the networks are playing it up as the greatest atrocity since Watergate. CNN's Candy Crowley used the term "busted" and I just saw Jack Cafferty reading e-mail from someone who was supposedly an Obama supporter, but after he saw the depths of his former candidates depravity, he's now changed to Clinton. He used the term "status quo" in his e-mail. Of course CNN chooses these e-mails randomly, they would never help manufacture false outrage, would they. I find them totally transparent.

The scum at Time Warner are backing Hillary Clinton all the way, and they're using their new service as a propaganda arm for the Hillary campaign. Look for some apparatchik to plant cocaine on Obama, slip a little baggy into his suit pocket when no one is looking, and then the DEA will receive an anonymous tip and drag him off the podium in front of the cameras.

Barack Obama is the biggest threat to the establishment status quo that anyone has seen in modern history, and they'll do anything to keep him out of the White House, anything. This is just the beginning.


: The issue really isn't plagiarism but that the (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST

Obama campaign is simply phony and he's been slickly packaged to sell like a brand of soap or chips.
Two politicians with the same campaign manager and they become indistinguishable, say generic candidate one and two. That may explain why Obama's speeches sound to me like commercials for a feminine hygiene product.
It's new, it's fresh, it's ...

I thought we'd decided all the pollsters (none / 0) (#45)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST

were either Zogby style charlatans or too stupid to breath on their own :-)


BTD, please look downthread (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:29:54 PM EST

at the comment from an "Aaron":

"The scum at Time Warner are backing Hillary Clinton all the way, and they're using their new service as a propaganda arm for the Hillary campaign. Look for some apparatchik to plant cocaine on Obama, slip a little baggy into his suit pocket when no one is looking, and then the DEA will receive an anonymous tip and drag him off the podium in front of the cameras."

I think this crosses the line. (And "Aaron" has a writing style that seems familiar from a few days ago.) Thanks.
