Who's right? Rasmussen or PPP?
OR
Which one's nailed it? The national or state polls?
As a social scientist I hate those questions. They aren't the right questions. And they aren't right because rarely are things as black and white as the eventual results we'll likely get next Tuesday (...or early Wednesday).1 [I'm reminded of Seth Masket's book title.] In other words, the tendency -- or the one I've seen permeate my Twitter feed this morning -- to say one is right and the other is wrong, completely eliminates the possibilities that we'll get something that falls in the middle. The true answer, it could be argued, is somewhere between Rasmussen and PPP or somewhere between the national and state polls.
To some extent, the various polling averages that are out there already account for the distance between the numbers from firms like PPP and Rasmussen. Throw them all in the pot and see what kind of soup you end up with. Fair enough. I'll address the state polls versus national polls issue here. Again, the "which one is right?" question seems utterly ridiculous to me. But I think it is clear that FHQ has cast its lot with the state polls; something that puts us -- fair or not -- into the "provides the Democrats with some solace" group of forecasters. The tie that binds all of those models/formulas2 is a reliance on the state polls.
Here at Davidson, and on some other college campuses, during basketball season there is a saying: "Live by the three, die by the three." The style that the Wildcat cagers use can be heavily reliant on making three point baskets if their inside-out game (usually against BCS conference opponents with sizable frontcourts) is not working. The same is true of any model or formula that uses as its basis either just state polls or just national polls. You live and die by the choices made. But that does not make one right and one wrong. It may make one righter and the other wronger in 2012, but that does not mean that that will be the case in four or eight years time when we may or may not see a convergence between the two sets of polls.
What this tells us is that in a close election, one in which the uncertainty of the outcome is high or very high, there is a higher likelihood of a divergence between those two sets of polls. [Actually, that is better as a testable hypothesis than as a statement. But I'm going to allow it to stand alone -- untested -- for the time being. It is something to consider.]
Fine then. We have a close election, uncertainty is high, and there is a discrepancy between the state and national polls with two emerging explanations. One is the one is right, one is wrong view. The other is what I am calling the convenient narrative. The convenient narrative holds that the numbers in the national polls are driven by enthusiastic Republicans in states that are overwhelmingly likely to vote Republican anyway. The other side of that narrative is that Obama is doing enough better than Romney in toss up states to amass more than enough electoral votes to retain the White House.
But let's take all the polarized camps above -- whether Rasmussen vs. PPP or state vs. national polls or convenient narrative vs. one right, one wrong -- and find some middle ground. Let's consider that the true outcome is or might be somewhere in between.
What does that mean?
Well, let's assume that FHQ -- or the underlying average of state polls really -- is overly rosy for Obama and the Democrats. Further, let's assume that the current Gallup numbers (Romney +5, October 22-28) are equally as optimistic but in Romney's and the Republicans' direction. Where is the middle ground there? Roughly, we can say that Romney is about +5 of that national poll average in Gallup. [Both Real Clear Politics and Pollster have the national average breakdown at a 47-47 tie as of this writing.] Eyeballing it, Virginia is right on that 47-47 number. Now, as FHQ has mentioned before, if Virginia is tied, then Obama will win the electoral college if the established order of states in the Electoral College Spectrum is correct (and it has held pretty steady throughout 2012). If that is the overlap between the state and national polls then FHQ is approximately two points more pro-Obama in how the numbers shake out. This is rough -- very rough not to mention somewhat incongruous -- folks, but that puts a seven point gap between FHQ on one end and Gallup on the other. What happens if we shift things three and a half points over toward the middle.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257/285)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201/344)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221/337)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237/317)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247/301)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253/291)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
Now, FHQ does a lot of talking about how much 2012 looks like 2004. The above Spectrum looks an awful lot like what things looked like in the polls in 2004 but with there being a few more heavily Republican states now relative to then. Obviously, this puts Romney over the top if he were to win the series of toss up states that are on his side of the partisan line. It obviously also brings into play for the Republican challenger all the states that have been on the tips of everyone's tongues this last week; that series of (as FHQ has them categorized now) Obama lean states like Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania.
Of course, this is just one way in which we could reconcile the differences between the national and state polls. Gallup is five points out from the average of national polls at the moment. And perhaps it is not exactly fair to take one poll on one far end of the range of national polls and stack it up against a weighted average of state polls. In our effort to find middle ground a better approach -- not necessarily the best -- is to compare an average of state polls to and average of national polls. Again, if Virginia is the point of overlap between the two series (just as above), then that continues to put FHQ over about two points further in the Obama direction. Splitting that difference to find a middle ground means shifting the averages over by about a point. Contrary to what we saw above, that has a minimal effect. It pushes Florida over to the Romney side of the partisan line, puts Colorado on the Watch List as a state that is only a fraction of a point in Obama's direction, and essentially halves the lead Obama currently has in the FHQ weighted averages. That correction may just be bringing FHQ in line with some of the other polling aggregators out there. And that may not be properly adjusting for how wrong the state polls might be as compared to the national polls.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #2
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
One final alternative could be to find some position between the two examples above. Instead of adjusting by 3.5 points as was the case in Alternative #1 or by a point as in Alternative #2, let's see what things look like if we adjust the state averages by 2.5 points toward the national polls.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 -- Alternative #3
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
IN-11
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
SC-9
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
That has the effect of firming up Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina for Romney. It also brings Florida, Colorado and Virginia over to the former Massachusetts governor's side of the partisan line. That reduces the president's cushion significantly. Iowa and Ohio become virtual ties and New Hampshire (and to a lesser extent Nevada) is not that far behind. Those are the Tier 2 states FHQ has been harping on for the last week. That Iowa/New Hampshire/Ohio group could be hugely consequential, but given the number of electoral votes Ohio holds, it would be the potentially decisive chip instead of either of the two other smaller states.
This alternative also brings those current Lean Obama states (Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania) into play but on the periphery of the category. Still, a toss up is a toss up. Finally, the Lean Obama group of states is really compressed; down to just two states. [The same compression can be seen on the Romney side of the partisan line as well.]
--
What does all of this mean? Well, it is a rough glance at how we can reconcile the difference between the state and national polls without assuming that one of them is right and the other is necessarily wrong. More or less, this is an attempt to split the difference in some way, shape or form between the two; to give us some alternatives -- and likely alternatives -- to consider as we wend our way toward Tuesday.
--
1 This assumes that something other than an electoral college/popular vote split, or a disputed election/recall occurs.
2 The weighted average FHQ uses can hardly be considered a model by conventional academic or statistical standards. It is a simple weighted average; no more, no less. Furthermore, it is a weighted average with some limitations. Mainly, the formula tends to lag just a little behind where the polls have moved. That is good and bad as we have discussed before. On the one hand, it grounds what can be wild fluctuations in the polls overall. On the other, the average tends to be a little less reactive than, perhaps, reflects reality, but definitely a little less than FHQ would like.
No comments:
Post a Comment