More On the Polls: Inside The Numbers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:31:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

The differentials in the polls are pretty easy to decipher. Take PPP. It has Obama up 3 in PA. And how it gets there is clear. It has low white turnout (76% of the total), high A-A turnout (18% of the total) and Obama only losing the white vote by 14, 52-38 (it has the by now standard 8-1 A-A win for Obama.)

The Q Poll, which has Clinton up 7, has White voters backing Sen. Clinton 57-38 percent (with A-A going for Obama 84-10). By my calculation, Q has a more convention turnout model, somewhere around 81% of the vote will be whites and A-A around 15%.

There are two factors now, the turnout of whites and A-As, and how close can Obama run with whites. Demography is political destiny in this race. NOTE - The final Ras poll has Clinton up 5, up 2 from its last poll, and demography is key again:

Clinton leads by eighteen percentage points among White Voters and does especially well among White Women. Obama dominates among African-Americans. . . . It is far more challenging to project turnout in a Primary Election than a General Election. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of this survey sample are women, 42% men. Eleven percent (11%) are under 30 and 57% are over 50. Eighty-two percent (82%) are White and 15% African-American.

< Hillary Clinton On Olbermann's Countdown Tonight | Poor Report On Popular Vote Count From Bloomberg >

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.

More On the Polls: Inside The Numbers | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why over? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST

This will go down in history, the winner never gets more than 45% and we don't count two big states. You thought 2,000 was a rip off, look at this.

But like Kathy I will only read the polls that have her double digits.

Why so glum (none / 0) (#16)
by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST

Polls are polls, tomorrow will be interesting either way. My spidey sense (same one that told me she'd take TX by 4) tells me she will break 10 (just barely, but she will).

If anything this may help lower expectations.

[ Parent ]

: Love spidey (none / 0) (#17)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: I hope so (none / 0) (#25)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:16:02 AM EST

because I can't see any logical reason why he should have closed that gap that fast. I knew money was important, but I guess I never understood how important. This will show it one way or another.

[ Parent ]

How's this (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:34:45 AM EST

I think PPP is right about Demographics but wrong about the percentage of the white vote Obama will get.

That is bad new for Hillary it seems to me (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST

76% of the vote is a problem for her.

[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST

I really don't want a muddled result, but it looks like that's what we're headed towards.

I could, of course, be wrong about black turnout. If it had been as big in TX (proportionally) as I'm predicting it will be for PA, he would have won there.

[ Parent ]

I am not sure (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:41 AM EST

where the expectation of a huge increase in A-A vote is coming from. A-As have always had high turnout in PA is my understanding.e

[ Parent ]

: That is correct (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:03:17 AM EST

and if they reach their apex, which is what happened in 2004, they will make up about 17 percent of DEMOCRATS.

[ Parent ]

I also wonder about the lists... (none / 0) (#3)
by Exeter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST

...the different pollsters are using. If they are working off of a list of people they KNOW are registered dems, versus people that SAY they are, it seems that results would be somewhat different.

A Tale of Two Cities (none / 0) (#4)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM EST

I firmly believe that the contest will be decided in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Pittsburgh will probably tell the tale in the percentage of whites going for Obama--it's a major metro area, where Obama tends to do well in, but it's also a very white area of western PA, that Clinton has been polling well in up to now. Philadelphia will need to have a strong showing if Obama wishes to gain the victory, or keep it within a few points in PA. The turnout of Philadelphia and the way Pittsburgh breaks will decide it.

Pittsburgh's an amazing city to analyze, btw. Lots of colleges (Duquesne, Pitt, among others), but also a strong base of blue collar workers--the very heart of the Rust Belt. It is a metro-urban area, a typical Obama type stronghold, but with an inordinate number of white voters, which Obama does not do very well in. This is probably the single most important city in PA for this primary election.

By The Way (none / 0) (#8)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST

I predict a 2 point win for Sen. Clinton in PA. I think Pitt will go more Obama than one might expect.

[ Parent ]

: I am sure that if Obama wins PA or comes (none / 0) (#9)
by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:46:01 AM EST

close, McCain will get a spike in donations.

[ Parent ]

The only poll that matters (none / 0) (#6)
by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST

is the one on Tuesday.

Go Hillary!

Q seems to have (none / 0) (#7)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST

5% fewer undecided white people, indicating to my untrained eye that the undecided whites might be breaking Clinton's way.

It will be interesting to see the SUSA internals to see what the heck happened there in the last day or so. Now that it wrecked my day, I'm curious.

Why is the race tightening (none / 0) (#10)
by TalkRight on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST

"Almost Obscene Spending:" Gov. Rendell said yesterday the "the race has tightened because of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's `almost obscene' spending."

Given the Poll numbers, the only thing that shifts the numbers is the demographics as has been discussed here at TL.. Any one has a take on how the money can change the demographics if at all?? One that was discussed here was suppress the voter turnout...

Maybe ads can increase voter (none / 0) (#15)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM EST

turnout also. Thas is just my speculation. Also, I'm sure a lot of his spending is on generating turnout - getting people out going door to door and getting people to the polls, if not the "street money" Obama has said he is not giving out. I wonder if he actually does give some out.

[ Parent ]

Decrease Voter Turnout More Likely (none / 0) (#19)
by BDB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST

Obama has gone heavily negative in the ads and that tends to suppress voter turnout. If I had to guess, I'd say that's his strategy, to suppress the white vote. Indeed, I think that's been his strategy all along, which is why we heard for so many weeks Hillary couldn't win.

[ Parent ]

: That makes sense. Thanks! (none / 0) (#28)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:29:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Internals for both camps (none / 0) (#14)
by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST

are two to three. Both camps on this morning showing the same result. I expect grumbling for the superdeez to end this before 'more damage is done to Obama and the party.' My motivation to keep donating is drying up, not because I don't think she can get the nom, but because she won't go for the knockout. I appreciate that she keeps going but does she want it bad enough?

2 to 3.... cr@p. :(

I Don't Believe Anything Either Campaign Says (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by BDB on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:24 AM EST

They are both trying to get their vote out at this point.

[ Parent ]

I doubt either camp (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST

would shae their real internals with the media. This is all about setting expectations.

If Hillary's internals showed her about to lose or even win by only 2-3%...I have to believe she would have bowed out before now. She does not strike mw as someone who would continue to stay in if she didn't believe and have evidence to back up her assertions she can win.

I still say Hillary by 10-12%.

[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0) (#18)
by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST

do you think her internals show 2-3? I was just in PA and that was NOT the impression I had. It showed a tighter race than they might like, but not a 2-3 point lead...

[ Parent ]

Rendell on MSNBC (none / 0) (#24)
by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST

Talking heads from both camps were on MSNBC. Rendell for Clinton and I do not know who the guy for Obama is. They both said 2 to 3 and Joe Scarborough said that they are seeing something that the other polls don't and their internals must show that as they both agree.

If the camps disagreed, I would look at other polls but I'm going with the 2 to 3 as that is what both camps are saying and I am not happy about it.

[ Parent ]

Saying "it's very close" will help ... (none / 0) (#32)
by cymro on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:57:33 AM EST

... to get out the vote, I think. So the Clinton campaign would not be saying "We're well ahead" even if their internal polling showed that.

[ Parent ]

A thought (none / 0) (#33)
by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST

They both have reasons to message the data:

Clinton camp: get every vote out you can, close the pop vote gap. If you say you are winning by 10 some say "well, she is winning."
Obama camp: get every vote out you can, close the loss gap. If you say you are losing by 10 some people go "it doesn't matter."

We'll see soon enough.

[ Parent ]

Gawd (none / 0) (#21)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:13:19 AM EST

There will be books written on this primary alone, and I hope they satisfactorily explain what has happened here.

If she only wins by 3%, I don't see how she can stay in. For one thing donations will just dry up. I don't think there will be a big clamor for her to get out until after Indiana-NC next week, but I think it will all be over but the shouting if she does not win by double digits tomorrow.

Obama will then 'magnanimously' agree to seat FL and MI as they stand according to the priamry results, and the unity pony will ride off to get slaughtered by McCain in November.

But hey, don't call me bitter.

[ Parent ]

MSNBC is on in the background (none / 0) (#20)
by kenosharick on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST

(I know, I Know) and they are talking about polls and a "surprise victory" for Obama. I am praying for the media to eat their words.

This is getting ridiculous for me (none / 0) (#23)
by Lil on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:14:53 AM EST

Yesterday I'm all optimistic, today completely deflated. At this point does any of these polls make sense? And I'm curious about how some folks know about internals?

I know how you feel. (none / 0) (#27)
by ahazydelirium on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST

I woke up to the polls that have Hillary beating Obama by a slim, slim margin. I can't take these primaries anymore: I'm too emotionally invested, and these figures just eat away at me. My hopes for a sweeping double digit win are equaled only by my despair over the prospect of her loss (hastened by the rabid hatred of her over the rabid love of him).

[ Parent ]

It makes mroe sense if you're in PA... (none / 0) (#29)
by smott on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST

I'm in Pittsburgh and in the gym every day, and the radio is always on to rock stations and so on.
There is an Obama spot, Every. Single. Break.
Every one.
The money he's spending must be insane.

But with that kind of saturation his nbrs can only improve.

[ Parent ]

: There was talk of people getting fed up (none / 0) (#30)
by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:48:00 AM EST

Just last week there was talk that people in PA were fed up of the non-stop Obama onslaught.

[ Parent ]
: ESPN (none / 0) (#31)
by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST

I was in a bar on Friday night in Philadelphia, which had ESPN on. In 35 minutes, there were SIX Obama ads! 2 positive, 1 negative, each played two times. Ridiculous. I wanted to scream by the time the 6th one came on. Thank goodness the sound was muted.

[ Parent ]

SUSA agrees with the Q poll (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST

on the white vote.

I think my prediction is a much closer race than I expected yesterday.

undecided voters (none / 0) (#35)
by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST

I think will move this from the current 5 to 7 point lead Clinton has. So it could stay around 5-7, but it may very well move to 10 based on how they go. I'll be happy with 5, but I'm hoping for 10. Fingers crossed.

I'm of the opinion that history will repeat (none / 0) (#36)
by jcsf on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST

Namely - Obama shaves off a lot of Clinton's initial lead.

So we go from +19 in the SUSA poll, to now, +6 in the SUSA poll, right?

Then, on the final two days, there is some Obama buyer's remorse, and there is a 2 to 4 point shift back to Clinton.

Meaning, Clinton will win by 8 to 10.

Clinton will then spin it as a big win, considering the last week of polling.

Obama will spin it as a big win, considering he drew close from the +19.

This goes on then, to NC and Indiana, where the main battleground will be Indiana.