The battle lines seem to have been drawn in Virginia in the race for the White House as Monday the commonwealth's GOP chairman added a new twist to the story of record Democratic registration in the Old Dominion and across the nation. Jeffrey Frederick accused the Obama campaign and local canvassing organizations of colluding to register new minority voters in Virginia and in some cases to do so fraudulently. His claims were based on the arrests last week of three canvassers accused of submitting fraudulent registration forms in the Hampton area of Virginia. Now, this sort of accusation isn't new. However, Frederick added that voters -- or potential voters in this case -- should steer clear of canvassers because of the potential for identity theft. Identity theft?!? Really? Of course, Democrats in the state were quick to counter Frederick's opening salvo with the old standby accusation that minority vote supprssion was Frederick and GOP's aim.
This appears a fascinating development until it is recalled that Virginia was a member of the confederacy and no stranger to racial tensions in the electoral arena. Honestly, this is simply an extension of the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans in the state during the 2006 midterm elections. That George Allen/Jim Webb race for the senate was never lacking in racial cues; from Allen's "macaca" slur to the accusation that Webb had used the N-word. The addition of the identity theft angle, though, is a clever one meant to subliminally seep into the electorate's consciousness in a way similar to the way Obama's recent trip overseas has been purported to have advanced the idea of Obama as acting president.
But again, this is a logical extension to what we have seen during recent electoral cycles. Frederick's comments cannot neceessarily be equated to the efforts of fictitious groups to caution minority voters that even minor legal infractions disqualify voting, but in the minds of Democrats, they operate on the same plane. That those events (see link above) occurred in Wisconsin, a swing state in its own right recently, furthers the idea that Virginia is, indeed, a closely contested battleground for this cycle. And it is, surprisingly or not. The demographics in the state have certainly shifted with the African American voting bloc coalescing with a growing Democratic bastion in Northern Virginia to pull the state toward Democrats; toward the Democrats and into the purple. And in a competitive environment, the onus is on the parties to find potential voters to swing the state in one direction or another. That's about the time voter fraud accusations start to fly.
Related: FiveThirtyEight on the Tim Kaine as VP speculation.
Recent Posts:
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Iowa and Nebraska: The Caucus Question 2008 Wrap Up
This is more housekeeping than anything else. However, I wouldn't want to pose a question like the caucus question and not gather a full data set for the 2008 cycle. The flooding in Iowa in mid-June pushed the Democratic convention there back two weeks and around that time I was heading out of town (...and thinking about other things). That said, here is how things finished in both Iowa and Nebraska:
Iowa Final Tally: 37.6% of the Vote, 71.1% of the Delegates
Nebraska Finally Tally: 67.5% of the Vote, 66.7% of the Delegates
Just as a refresher, the premise of the caucus question is that there is movement in the level of support for a candidate throughout the steps of caucusing. Factors that intervene are how early the original contest was, how many steps -- and thus opportunities for delegate support to shift -- were there in the caucus process, and how many candidates competed. In most years during the frontloaded campaign era, it is fair to say that with nominations clinched early, competition dropped, making it a foregone conclusion that the front-runner/presumptive nominee would gain as the process progressed. With the Clinton-Obama contest stretching to the last days of actual contests in 2008, there was a natural opportunity to see if, in fact, there was anything to this caucus question idea.
With Iowa and Nebraska, you have two states on opposite ends of the spectrum. Iowa had the earliest contest; one that was competitive to say the least. And the near equal distribution of the vote between Clinton, Edwards and Obama demonstrated that. In Nebraska, Edwards had already dropped out and Obama had apparently laid the grassroots foundation in a caucus state that would, collectively with the other caucus states, prove the cornerstone of his successful nomination run. In other words, Nebraska was not as competitive as Iowa.
In Iowa, then, there was room for improvement for Obama. In Nebraska, on the other hand, any gains would have been hard to come by for Obama or Clinton. The battle for gains in Iowa, though, centered on John Edwards' delegates and most moved over to Obama. The others opted to stick to their guns and continue to back Edwards instead of moving toward Clinton. So, while initial estimates had the delegate breakdown in Iowa pegged at a 16-15-14 Obama/Edwards/Clinton split, Obama ultimately ended up with a 32-4-9 distribution of pledged delegates heading to Denver next month.
In Nebraska, the story was slightly different. Obama won the post-Super Tuesday caucus in the Cornhusker state handily, but had nowhere to go. Even after having clinched the nomination, a total consolidation of Nebraska's delegates didn't happen for Obama as it might have in a less competitive enironment. Clinton was able to improve based on her delegate numbers rounding up at the state convention in two of Nebraska's three congressional districts as well as in the statewide tally.
What emerges from this tale of two states are three possible options: 1) a move toward Obama, 2) a move toward Clinton and 3) no movement at all. Iowa, we can pencil in as a gain for Obama, and Nebraska most resembles the no movement group of caucus states.
That the environment was so close had much to do with the overall lack of movement that we saw throughout the various caucus processes. In a "normal" cycle, the front-runner/presumptive nominee would have been able to peel off most, if not all, of the opposing delegates. But that has a lot to do with the amount of space between first and second place. There was barely any light between Clinton and Obama. That had the effect, in most states, of causing Clinton delegates to stay true to who they backed in the first place. And that is the story of this historic nomination race: that it was so close. That competitiveness overwhelmed the possibility of seeing any variation in the delegate movement based on how early a state held its caucus or how many steps a particular state's caucus process contained.
Note: If I can get a hold of the GOP data for comparison, I'll revisit this. That data though has been difficult to come (and the reason there hasn't been a Republican series of caucus question posts.).
Recent Posts:
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
Iowa Final Tally: 37.6% of the Vote, 71.1% of the Delegates
Nebraska Finally Tally: 67.5% of the Vote, 66.7% of the Delegates
Just as a refresher, the premise of the caucus question is that there is movement in the level of support for a candidate throughout the steps of caucusing. Factors that intervene are how early the original contest was, how many steps -- and thus opportunities for delegate support to shift -- were there in the caucus process, and how many candidates competed. In most years during the frontloaded campaign era, it is fair to say that with nominations clinched early, competition dropped, making it a foregone conclusion that the front-runner/presumptive nominee would gain as the process progressed. With the Clinton-Obama contest stretching to the last days of actual contests in 2008, there was a natural opportunity to see if, in fact, there was anything to this caucus question idea.
With Iowa and Nebraska, you have two states on opposite ends of the spectrum. Iowa had the earliest contest; one that was competitive to say the least. And the near equal distribution of the vote between Clinton, Edwards and Obama demonstrated that. In Nebraska, Edwards had already dropped out and Obama had apparently laid the grassroots foundation in a caucus state that would, collectively with the other caucus states, prove the cornerstone of his successful nomination run. In other words, Nebraska was not as competitive as Iowa.
In Iowa, then, there was room for improvement for Obama. In Nebraska, on the other hand, any gains would have been hard to come by for Obama or Clinton. The battle for gains in Iowa, though, centered on John Edwards' delegates and most moved over to Obama. The others opted to stick to their guns and continue to back Edwards instead of moving toward Clinton. So, while initial estimates had the delegate breakdown in Iowa pegged at a 16-15-14 Obama/Edwards/Clinton split, Obama ultimately ended up with a 32-4-9 distribution of pledged delegates heading to Denver next month.
In Nebraska, the story was slightly different. Obama won the post-Super Tuesday caucus in the Cornhusker state handily, but had nowhere to go. Even after having clinched the nomination, a total consolidation of Nebraska's delegates didn't happen for Obama as it might have in a less competitive enironment. Clinton was able to improve based on her delegate numbers rounding up at the state convention in two of Nebraska's three congressional districts as well as in the statewide tally.
What emerges from this tale of two states are three possible options: 1) a move toward Obama, 2) a move toward Clinton and 3) no movement at all. Iowa, we can pencil in as a gain for Obama, and Nebraska most resembles the no movement group of caucus states.
| The Caucus Question: 2008 Movement | |||
| Obama Moves | Clinton Moves | No Movement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Iowa Nevada | Colorado Kansas | Hawaii* Idaho Maine Nebraska North Dakota Wyoming ... Texas** | |
| *The delegate decisions in the Hawaii process were determined by the first step. The decisions made at the Hawaii state convention were bound by the precinct caucus decisions. The Aloha state was prevented from exhibiting any movement. **Texas defies any of these characterizations. Initially the movement from the first to second step was toward Obama. From that point to the state convention, though, some support drifted back toward Clinton. | |||
That the environment was so close had much to do with the overall lack of movement that we saw throughout the various caucus processes. In a "normal" cycle, the front-runner/presumptive nominee would have been able to peel off most, if not all, of the opposing delegates. But that has a lot to do with the amount of space between first and second place. There was barely any light between Clinton and Obama. That had the effect, in most states, of causing Clinton delegates to stay true to who they backed in the first place. And that is the story of this historic nomination race: that it was so close. That competitiveness overwhelmed the possibility of seeing any variation in the delegate movement based on how early a state held its caucus or how many steps a particular state's caucus process contained.
Note: If I can get a hold of the GOP data for comparison, I'll revisit this. That data though has been difficult to come (and the reason there hasn't been a Republican series of caucus question posts.).
Recent Posts:
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
Sunday, July 27, 2008
An Update on the Rasmussen "Leaners" and a Look at How They Affect the Electoral College
We documented earlier this week that there may be a problem with Rasmussen's decision to report two different polling results with each release and have everyone use the newer and different, "with leaners" data when reporting it secondhand or using them in an electoral college analysis. Comparing a poll from Georgia in June that had no inclusion of leaners with a poll from July that did is problematic at the very least. Below is an updated look at the polls that Rasmussen has released since the "with leaners" distinction began appearing in press releases following July 4.
Overall then, there is still a bias toward McCain in cases where "with leaners" data is replacing w the data that does not include them. As I've said, this isn't going to hae major ramifications at the outset, but over time, once a series of polls have been conducted, that collective difference could have a huge impact on what FHQ and others are doing with their electoral college analyses. In the only instance where a state has been polled by Rasmussen more than once since the switch, the results cancelled each other out. The first poll gave McCain a one point edge with leaners while the poll that followed two weeks later saw Obama with the same advantage. Such a result likely won't be the norm, however. In Ohio, for example, using one version or the other shifted the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain and back again. And though that is the only case of a change thus far, that list is likely to grow in the future when new polling data is released.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
So looking at the map, we see that using the without leaners data -- the type that was used prior to July 9 -- shifts the map in Obama's direction with the electoral vote tally reverting to the 298-240 margin that had been in place for most of July until the new Ohio poll surfaced last week. That four point change in Ohio triggered just a 0.34 point change in our weighted average, but that is all that is necessary to move 20 vital electoral votes from one candidate's column to the other's.
It could be said that all were arguing over is whether Ohio is a toss up favoring McCain or Obama when the real point is that the Buckeye state is a toss up. Period. It doesn't really favor anyone. That's a valid point. However, there are differences in other states -- obviously -- but one poll has not been enough to affect change in those cases. Further polling, though, may bring about that change.
Note: I don't know how regularly I'm going to update these figures, but I have built them into my spreadsheet and I'm tracking the differences. When and if any changes occur -- major or minor -- I will bring them to the attention to our readers.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
| Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)* | ||||||
| State | Date | w/o Leaners | w/Leaners | Change | Undecideds Drop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri | 7/7 | +5 | +5 | 0 | -10 | |
| New Jersey | 7/7 | +5 | +3 | +2 | -4 | |
| Illinois | 7/8 | +13 | +11 | +2 | -6** | |
| North Dakota | 7/8 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -7** | |
| Wisconsin | 7/8 | +13 | +10 | +3 | -6 | |
| Louisiana | 7/9 | +20 | +19 | +1 | -2 | |
| South Dakota | 7/9 | +4 | +4 | 0 | -4 | |
| Washington | 7/9 | +9 | +8 | +1 | -6 | |
| Iowa | 7/10 | +10 | +10 | 0 | -9 | |
| Michigan | 7/10 | +8 | +8 | 0 | -5 | |
| Minnesota | 7/10 | +18 | +17 | +1 | 0 | |
| Kansas | 7/14 | +20 | +23 | +3 | -9 | |
| North Carolina | 7/15 | +3 | +3 | 0 | -5 | |
| Oregon | 7/15 | +9 | +9 | 0 | -5 | |
| Nevada | 7/16 | +2 | +2 | 0 | -5 | |
| Virginia | 7/16 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -6 | |
| Alaska | 7/17 | +5 | +5 | 0 | -7 | |
| Arkansas | 7/17 | +10 | +13 | +3 | -4 | |
| Georgia | 7/17 | +9 | +11 | +2 | +1 | |
| Maine | 7/17 | +10 | +8 | +2 | -2 | |
| Colorado | 7/21 | +7 | +3 | +4 | -13 | |
| Ohio | 7/21 | +6 | +10 | +4 | -7 | |
| Florida | 7/22 | +1 | +2 | +1 | -7 | |
| Minnesota | 7/22 | +12 | +13 | +1 | --*** | |
| New Hampshire | 7/23 | +6 | +4 | +2 | -5 | |
| Pennsylvania | 7/23 | +5 | +6 | +1 | -8 | |
| New Mexico | 7/24 | +5 | +6 | +1 | -6 | |
| California | 7/24 | +12 | +10 | +2 | -6 | |
| Avg. Change | +1.00 | -5.7 | ||||
| *The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made. | ||||||
Overall then, there is still a bias toward McCain in cases where "with leaners" data is replacing w the data that does not include them. As I've said, this isn't going to hae major ramifications at the outset, but over time, once a series of polls have been conducted, that collective difference could have a huge impact on what FHQ and others are doing with their electoral college analyses. In the only instance where a state has been polled by Rasmussen more than once since the switch, the results cancelled each other out. The first poll gave McCain a one point edge with leaners while the poll that followed two weeks later saw Obama with the same advantage. Such a result likely won't be the norm, however. In Ohio, for example, using one version or the other shifted the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes from Obama to McCain and back again. And though that is the only case of a change thus far, that list is likely to grow in the future when new polling data is released.
[Click Map to Enlarge]So looking at the map, we see that using the without leaners data -- the type that was used prior to July 9 -- shifts the map in Obama's direction with the electoral vote tally reverting to the 298-240 margin that had been in place for most of July until the new Ohio poll surfaced last week. That four point change in Ohio triggered just a 0.34 point change in our weighted average, but that is all that is necessary to move 20 vital electoral votes from one candidate's column to the other's.
It could be said that all were arguing over is whether Ohio is a toss up favoring McCain or Obama when the real point is that the Buckeye state is a toss up. Period. It doesn't really favor anyone. That's a valid point. However, there are differences in other states -- obviously -- but one poll has not been enough to affect change in those cases. Further polling, though, may bring about that change.
Note: I don't know how regularly I'm going to update these figures, but I have built them into my spreadsheet and I'm tracking the differences. When and if any changes occur -- major or minor -- I will bring them to the attention to our readers.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
The Electoral College Map (7/27/08)
Well, there's a lot to go over today. The latter half of the week saw a break from the 10 poll norm we had settled into over the course of the last few electoral college breakdowns with a typical amount of polling from Rasmussen (six new polls) in addition to another four swing state polling release from Quinnipiac. In total 17 new polls from 15 states were released since Wednesday. As I have mentioned in previous weeks, there seems to have been a relative settling down of FHQ's weighted averages while at the same time the polls have been fairly volatile (A state like Minnesota comes to mind. Results out of the North Star state have ranged anywhere from a 2 to 18 point lead for Obama recently.). And that pattern is continued with this new polling.
One thing you will notice that is different about the New Polls table is that all the information from Rasmussen is included: both "with leaners" and "without leaners" results. And I should note that I'll continue to use the "with leaners" data to compile the information for our electoral college maps. Fret not, though. I plan on regularly updating the differences in those two numbers from Rasmussen and will chart those changes on a separate map as warranted. The map "with leaners" will continue to be the official FHQ electoral college map, though. As of now the only change from using either set of numbers continues to be Ohio. The map below (with leaners) shows the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes going to McCain. When the leaners are excluded, Obama takes an equally narrow lead. That is the only case where a state's electoral votes change hands or categories.
...for now. Additional future polling could--and probably will--change that.
All those polls and the only change is South Carolina moving more solidly toward McCain into the Arizona senator's lean category. The last time South Carolina shifted was following the Zogby poll that gave Obama a one point edge in the Palmetto state. As I said then, I didn't really think of South Carolina as or expect it to necessarily be an Obama state come early November. I said then, and I still maintain, that South Carolina is a state that Obama can improve upon past Democratic nominee's performances, but to win it would be a tremendous coup, not to mention an indication that Obama has won a landslide victory. Even when the Zogby poll is omitted, South Carolina remains a McCain lean. This is due in large part to the fact that this most recent Research 2000 poll in the Palmetto state is the only one to place the race outside of the single digit range. This poll, then, acts to pull the average here back into the range where we would expect South Carolina to be.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
Let's talk about landslides for a minute. An Obama victory that includes South Carolina may be considered a landslide but that characterization may be an exaggeration depending upon how landslide is defined. If you rank the states for each candidate (1 through 51) based on the states' current averages South Carolina would rank 34 on Obama's list. On the current map McCain has 26 states and 260 electoral votes while Obama holds leads in 24 states (and the District of Columbia) totalling 278 electoral votes. If South Carolina is the last state on the list that Obama is able to pick off from McCain (and assuming the Illinois senator wins the states between South Carolina and where his list of states ends), he would gain 101 electoral votes (That's a group of states that includes all thoes above shaded in pink and Alaska.) on the total in the map above. His advantage over McCain in that scenario would be 379-159, a margin comparable to Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral college win over the first president Bush (370-168). Was 1992 a landslide? Maybe. Maybe not. Compared to both Reagan blowouts or Nixon's thrashing of Mondale in 1972, that doesn't look so bad. But compared to the tight margins of the 2000 and 2004, it could be portrayed as such in November by the media. Is such a scenario likely? No, but I suppose it is possible.
The reality of the situation now is that this appears to be a pretty close election given the current state of the polls and where most handicappers have things pegged currently (Though this appears to be up for debate. See the discussion between Abramowitz, Mann and Sabato and Campbell.). Obama has a lead, but not an insurmountable one. By our calculations, that margin is but 18 electoral votes, 278-260. During the latter half of this past week, McCain shifted South Carolina's 8 electoral votes into his lean category. And while that brings the Arizona senator total between strong and lean states to 157, that number still falls shy of Obama's stong total of 175. It should be noted, however, that the Obama's lean and toss up electoral vote totals are both currently hovering around 50. The Illinois senator has a solid coalition of states put together, but there still may be work to do putting together a winning combination. All of those (both light blue and blue) states are state where McCain is challenging Obama.
And the Watch List? Well, North Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin have exited. The first is firmly within the toss up category, but favors McCain enough that new (and negative to McCain) polling won't necessarily move North Dakota into Obama territory. South Carolina, after a brief stay in the toss up category, is now firmly within the McCain lean area. And Wisconsin edges above the cut off point, but solidly within the Obama lean category. New Mexico is the only addition to the list. The Land of Enchantment's weighted average has been around 6 points (similar to Wisconsin) for a while now. Recently, it has been just above six, but with the new poll (Rasmussen +6) comes in just under that line. And that puts it on the watch. Essentially, Wisconsin and New Mexico switched places.
I'll be back later today with an updated look at the recent Rasmussen numbers and some other stuff too.
Recent Posts:
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
| New Polls (July 23-26) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin (With Leaners/ Without Leaners) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Rasmussen | +10/+12 | |
| Colorado | Quinnipiac | +2 | |
| Colorado | Frederick | +4 | |
| Florida | Rasmussen | +2/+1 | |
| Maine | Critical Insights | +20 | |
| Michigan | Quinnipiac | +4 | |
| Minnesota | Quinnipiac | +2 | |
| Minnesota | Rasmussen | +13/+12 | |
| Mississippi | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +9 | |
| New Hampshire | Rasmussen | +4/+6 | |
| New Jersey | Gannett | +14 | |
| New Mexico | Rasmussen | +6/+5 | |
| North Dakota | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +3 | |
| Pennsylvania | Rasmussen | +6/+5 | |
| South Carolina | Research 2000/Daily Kos | +13 | |
| Virginia | Public Policy Polling | +2 | |
| Wisconsin | Quinnipiac | +11 | |
One thing you will notice that is different about the New Polls table is that all the information from Rasmussen is included: both "with leaners" and "without leaners" results. And I should note that I'll continue to use the "with leaners" data to compile the information for our electoral college maps. Fret not, though. I plan on regularly updating the differences in those two numbers from Rasmussen and will chart those changes on a separate map as warranted. The map "with leaners" will continue to be the official FHQ electoral college map, though. As of now the only change from using either set of numbers continues to be Ohio. The map below (with leaners) shows the Buckeye state's 20 electoral votes going to McCain. When the leaners are excluded, Obama takes an equally narrow lead. That is the only case where a state's electoral votes change hands or categories.
...for now. Additional future polling could--and probably will--change that.
| Changes (July 23-26) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | Toss Up McCain | McCain lean | |
All those polls and the only change is South Carolina moving more solidly toward McCain into the Arizona senator's lean category. The last time South Carolina shifted was following the Zogby poll that gave Obama a one point edge in the Palmetto state. As I said then, I didn't really think of South Carolina as or expect it to necessarily be an Obama state come early November. I said then, and I still maintain, that South Carolina is a state that Obama can improve upon past Democratic nominee's performances, but to win it would be a tremendous coup, not to mention an indication that Obama has won a landslide victory. Even when the Zogby poll is omitted, South Carolina remains a McCain lean. This is due in large part to the fact that this most recent Research 2000 poll in the Palmetto state is the only one to place the race outside of the single digit range. This poll, then, acts to pull the average here back into the range where we would expect South Carolina to be.
[Click Map to Enlarge]Let's talk about landslides for a minute. An Obama victory that includes South Carolina may be considered a landslide but that characterization may be an exaggeration depending upon how landslide is defined. If you rank the states for each candidate (1 through 51) based on the states' current averages South Carolina would rank 34 on Obama's list. On the current map McCain has 26 states and 260 electoral votes while Obama holds leads in 24 states (and the District of Columbia) totalling 278 electoral votes. If South Carolina is the last state on the list that Obama is able to pick off from McCain (and assuming the Illinois senator wins the states between South Carolina and where his list of states ends), he would gain 101 electoral votes (That's a group of states that includes all thoes above shaded in pink and Alaska.) on the total in the map above. His advantage over McCain in that scenario would be 379-159, a margin comparable to Bill Clinton's 1992 electoral college win over the first president Bush (370-168). Was 1992 a landslide? Maybe. Maybe not. Compared to both Reagan blowouts or Nixon's thrashing of Mondale in 1972, that doesn't look so bad. But compared to the tight margins of the 2000 and 2004, it could be portrayed as such in November by the media. Is such a scenario likely? No, but I suppose it is possible.
The reality of the situation now is that this appears to be a pretty close election given the current state of the polls and where most handicappers have things pegged currently (Though this appears to be up for debate. See the discussion between Abramowitz, Mann and Sabato and Campbell.). Obama has a lead, but not an insurmountable one. By our calculations, that margin is but 18 electoral votes, 278-260. During the latter half of this past week, McCain shifted South Carolina's 8 electoral votes into his lean category. And while that brings the Arizona senator total between strong and lean states to 157, that number still falls shy of Obama's stong total of 175. It should be noted, however, that the Obama's lean and toss up electoral vote totals are both currently hovering around 50. The Illinois senator has a solid coalition of states put together, but there still may be work to do putting together a winning combination. All of those (both light blue and blue) states are state where McCain is challenging Obama.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | from Strong McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Florida | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Georgia | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Mississippi | from McCain lean | to Strong McCain | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| North Carolina | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
And the Watch List? Well, North Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin have exited. The first is firmly within the toss up category, but favors McCain enough that new (and negative to McCain) polling won't necessarily move North Dakota into Obama territory. South Carolina, after a brief stay in the toss up category, is now firmly within the McCain lean area. And Wisconsin edges above the cut off point, but solidly within the Obama lean category. New Mexico is the only addition to the list. The Land of Enchantment's weighted average has been around 6 points (similar to Wisconsin) for a while now. Recently, it has been just above six, but with the new poll (Rasmussen +6) comes in just under that line. And that puts it on the watch. Essentially, Wisconsin and New Mexico switched places.
I'll be back later today with an updated look at the recent Rasmussen numbers and some other stuff too.
Recent Posts:
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Guam: Oh Well, So Much for Frontloading the General Election
There's actually quite a bit of Guam news this morning. Well, any bit of news from Guam is usually quite a bit of news. But I'm one to talk: I've featured the island in at least three posts this election cycle. Anyway, Ballot Access News is reporting that the acting Guamanian governor (Lt. Gov. Michael W. Cruz) vetoed the bill that would have moved the island's straw vote for president from November to coincide with its primary election in September.
Here's the news from the web page of Guam's governor:
It is funny that this news should come out now because the answer to this question was actually independently verified by a Guam (or former Guam) resident who stumbled on that post. Here are his or her comments which actually contain some useful information about the island's ideological and demographic make up:
Recent Posts:
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
Is Florida a Swing State?
Here's the news from the web page of Guam's governor:
Acting Governor Michael W. Cruz vetoed Bill No. 287 yesterday which would have moved Guam's "straw poll" vote for President and Vice-President of the United States from the general election to the primary election.That's interesting not only because of the veto news, but because it answers one of the questions that emerged from the post concerning bill #287 in the first place. Namely, when does Guam actually vote? On election day, which would be prior to the mainland US or after the rest of the US votes. Guamanians seem to take pride in being the first to vote. Hmmm, Guam as a bellwether. Interesting.
"It seems conducting the "straw poll" hours before the rest of the United States begins voting would garner more attention than conducting a "straw poll" during the primary election," Acting Governor Cruz said. "If Guam is going to conduct a "straw poll" we should vote the same as all other American citizens which is during the general election."
Although residents of Guam do not officially vote for these positions, Guam has been conducting what is called a "straw poll" casting of ballots for the President and Vice-President hours before the rest of the United States begins voting.
It is funny that this news should come out now because the answer to this question was actually independently verified by a Guam (or former Guam) resident who stumbled on that post. Here are his or her comments which actually contain some useful information about the island's ideological and demographic make up:
Hey there! I saw this blog through a google search and I was deeply intrigued. To answer the questions posted on the comments, yes.. Guam does vote a straw poll during election day..... but... as Guam is a day ahead of the mainland US (hence the term, "Where America's Day Begins," we actually do this voting almost a whole day before the US Mainland does their General Election. I myself am privy to this fact as I, being a Liberal Democrat, was part of the 33% Guamanian minority who voted for Kerry in 2004. As I am currently on Hawaii, I plan on making this vote "count" for Obama (As if that matters in this solidly blue state... har har). This year we may see a break of this pattern though (i.e. the Guam straw poll being predictive of the US General Election results). Guam is a peculiar territory.... deeply rooted in Catholic beliefs. If anything, I would brand the electorate there EXTREMELY socially conservative (even the Democrats there are Pro-Life), yet EXTREMELY economically liberal (even the Republicans there support HUGE governement spending on social programs and hiring their close family friends to run them). Obama himself won the island by 7 votes..... and counting the super-delegates in the island, Hillary pulled ahead (you see, Hillary was a symbol to Guam voters as a "What can you do for ME" kinda politician). Obama, does not seem to play to this pandering as much as Hillary.... this may in turn hurt him in the Guam straw poll, but may very well help him in the US Mainland GE. Here's to a hope of broken PATTERNS!!!And so ends today's lesson on Guam. Any questions?
Recent Posts:
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
Is Florida a Swing State?
Friday, July 25, 2008
A Game of Vice Presidential Chicken
The clock is ticking on both presidential candidates to select running mates and there is even less for them than you might think. Sure the Democratic convention kicks off one month from today, leaving the candidates just over four weeks to make a selection. However, sixteen of those days will be devoted to the Olympic games and may not be the most opportune time to make such an announcement. With the games starting two weeks from today, both McCain and Obama will have to either fit their decisions into that two week window or make an announcement during the Olympic period.
The consensus is that Obama will make the first move because the Democratic convention is first. McCain is at a disadvantage here because the GOP convention gets underway just a week after the Democrats' gathering in Denver. In other words he can't fall back on the time between conventions as a viable time in which to make his VP selection public. Viewed from this angle, reports of McCain potentially making his decision this week make that possibility seem less farfetched (going before Obama, perhaps would make it more unusual).
So we have a predicted order of selections, and the timing has yet to be determined, but is severly constrained at this point. Let's talk about the Olympics as an obstacle to these decisions (And the games are not supposed to be political.) for a moment. During the last two cycles the Olympics had no real effect on vice presidential selection. In 2000, the Sydney games were not until mid-September, after both conventions and both VP selections. In 2004, Bush already had his man in Cheney and Kerry had countered that soon after he wrapped up the Democratic nomination by selecting John Edwards. But even though, the Olympics didn't play a role in the VP decisions in 2004 they may have had an effect on the presidential race. And I haven't seen this discussed anywhere. However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released their controversial ad on August 5, 2004, just eight days prior to Athens games commencing. Now, that leaves three weeks, one before the games and two during, for that to percolate before Kerry could/would effectively respond (He did file a complaint with the FEC during the games.). Did those games stand in the way of an effective response though? And what does that mean for the VP selections to come?
Well, the Olympics are a distraction and just enough of a distraction to allow for something underground like the Swift Boat ad to spread. However, something like a VP announcement would likely be viewed as a political move during an apolitical event. So while the Swift Boat Veterans may have been able to get away with it, McCain (or Obama) likely would not. It isn't that the games would overshadow the announcement so much that the announcement would be a move contrary to the overarching tenor of the games.
If Obama is supposed to go first then, he may be playing a game of brinksmanship with McCain and his campaign now. To stretch the decision out this far either forces McCain to move first or decide at a bad time (during the games or the Democratic convention). Nate Silver covered this earlier in the week when the report of McCain's imminent announcment surfaced, but didn't include the Olympics angle. But McCain is up against it on this one. Obama is holding all the cards and, if he is the one to move first, could hold them until the eve of the games. The flipside, of course, is that Obama forces a move out of McCain but leaves himself little time to respond or respond effectively. As adept as the Obama campaign has seemed though, it would appear unlikely that they would be playing such a game of chicken without some contingency plans. There are only so many rabbits McCain can pull out of that VP hat.
[Update: Chris Cillizza over at The Fix has more on the implications of the Olympics on VP selection.]
Thanks to Rob Shewfelt for getting the ball rolling on this one in the comments to the Florida post (linked below.).
Recent Posts:
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
Is Florida a Swing State?
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The consensus is that Obama will make the first move because the Democratic convention is first. McCain is at a disadvantage here because the GOP convention gets underway just a week after the Democrats' gathering in Denver. In other words he can't fall back on the time between conventions as a viable time in which to make his VP selection public. Viewed from this angle, reports of McCain potentially making his decision this week make that possibility seem less farfetched (going before Obama, perhaps would make it more unusual).
So we have a predicted order of selections, and the timing has yet to be determined, but is severly constrained at this point. Let's talk about the Olympics as an obstacle to these decisions (And the games are not supposed to be political.) for a moment. During the last two cycles the Olympics had no real effect on vice presidential selection. In 2000, the Sydney games were not until mid-September, after both conventions and both VP selections. In 2004, Bush already had his man in Cheney and Kerry had countered that soon after he wrapped up the Democratic nomination by selecting John Edwards. But even though, the Olympics didn't play a role in the VP decisions in 2004 they may have had an effect on the presidential race. And I haven't seen this discussed anywhere. However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released their controversial ad on August 5, 2004, just eight days prior to Athens games commencing. Now, that leaves three weeks, one before the games and two during, for that to percolate before Kerry could/would effectively respond (He did file a complaint with the FEC during the games.). Did those games stand in the way of an effective response though? And what does that mean for the VP selections to come?
Well, the Olympics are a distraction and just enough of a distraction to allow for something underground like the Swift Boat ad to spread. However, something like a VP announcement would likely be viewed as a political move during an apolitical event. So while the Swift Boat Veterans may have been able to get away with it, McCain (or Obama) likely would not. It isn't that the games would overshadow the announcement so much that the announcement would be a move contrary to the overarching tenor of the games.
If Obama is supposed to go first then, he may be playing a game of brinksmanship with McCain and his campaign now. To stretch the decision out this far either forces McCain to move first or decide at a bad time (during the games or the Democratic convention). Nate Silver covered this earlier in the week when the report of McCain's imminent announcment surfaced, but didn't include the Olympics angle. But McCain is up against it on this one. Obama is holding all the cards and, if he is the one to move first, could hold them until the eve of the games. The flipside, of course, is that Obama forces a move out of McCain but leaves himself little time to respond or respond effectively. As adept as the Obama campaign has seemed though, it would appear unlikely that they would be playing such a game of chicken without some contingency plans. There are only so many rabbits McCain can pull out of that VP hat.
[Update: Chris Cillizza over at The Fix has more on the implications of the Olympics on VP selection.]
Thanks to Rob Shewfelt for getting the ball rolling on this one in the comments to the Florida post (linked below.).
Recent Posts:
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
Is Florida a Swing State?
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
Is Obama Getting a Bounce from His Trip Abroad? A Different Approach
This may be less an approach than an observation, but I've spent a fair amount of time looking at the Rasmussen polls recently; especially the distinction between the "leaners" and "without leaners" data. And while polls thus far have indicated that the trip has yet to yield any noticeable bounce for the Illinois senator, there is some evidence, coincidental though it may be, that there is something positive to take away from the trip. Let me show you what I'm talking about. First, let's look at the table from the other day's post examining the Rasmussen reporting switch, but let's organize the states chronologically (based on when they were conducted) instead of alphabetically (And I'll add in the new polls from New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania as well.):
Above that yellow line, Louisiana is the only state where the "with leaners" distinction favored Obama. But since Obama started his trip overseas, and incidentally this is where the coincidence potentially comes in, four of the seven polls to be released show Obama with the edge when leaners are included. Does this mean that leaners are starting to break for Obama? And, further, does the trip have anything to do with it?
Are leaners breaking toward Obama?
It certainly looks that way. Are these simply Obama states in the first place, though? With the exception of Florida, all seven states are states that are Obama states in FHQ's most recent look at the electoral college (Well, Ohio changes sides depending on whether you use Rasmussen's leaners or without leaners data.). But that wasn't the case in the polls taken before Obama left. Of the 12 states where there was a difference between the with leaners and without leaners numbers, six were Obama states and all six saw drops in the margin when leaners were added. The other eight states, where there was no difference in the margins once leaners were added, were equal parts McCain and Obama states and all broke in McCain's direction. It seems then, that it isn't just a matter of the states polled since Obama left being Obama states.
Fine, just more than half of the seven states where polls have been conducted since Obama left have leaners favoring him now (Well, that does quintuple the number of states that were in that category in the first place.). That is a switch, but does that mean that the trip is what triggered the change? Maybe, maybe not. Rasmussen's own daily tracking poll does have Obama bouncing. And the "with leaners" numbers at least appear to show Obama gaining among that group in states where respondents have been surveyed since Obama left at the outset of last weekend. Coincidence it may be, but it is an interesting way of going about assessing whether Obama has gained anything out of this trip. If this is evidence--and even I'm skeptical of that--of Obama getting a boost from this overseas tour, then it is among the group in the middle that is likely to decide this election.
Recent Posts:
Is Florida a Swing State?
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
| Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)* | |||||
| State | w/o Leaners | w/Leaners | Change | Undecideds Drop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri | +5 | +5 | 0 | -10 | |
| New Jersey | +5 | +3 | +2 | -4 | |
| Illinois | +13 | +11 | +2 | -6** | |
| North Dakota | 0 | +1 | +1 | -7** | |
| Wisconsin | +13 | +10 | +3 | -6 | |
| Louisiana | +20 | +19 | +1 | -2 | |
| South Dakota | +4 | +4 | 0 | -4 | |
| Washington | +9 | +8 | +1 | -6 | |
| Iowa | +10 | +10 | 0 | -9 | |
| Michigan | +8 | +8 | 0 | -5 | |
| Minnesota (7/10) | +18 | +17 | +1 | 0 | |
| Kansas | +20 | +23 | +3 | -9 | |
| North Carolina | +3 | +3 | 0 | -5 | |
| Oregon | +9 | +9 | 0 | -5 | |
| Nevada | +2 | +2 | 0 | -5 | |
| Virginia | 0 | +1 | +1 | -6 | |
| Alaska | +5 | +5 | 0 | -7 | |
| Arkansas | +10 | +13 | +3 | -4 | |
| Georgia | +9 | +11 | +2 | +1 | |
| Maine | +10 | +8 | +2 | -2 | |
| Polls below this point were conducted after Obama left to go abroad (7/19/08). | |||||
| Colorado | +7 | +3 | +4 | -13 | |
| Ohio | +6 | +10 | +4 | -7 | |
| Florida | +1 | +2 | +1 | -7 | |
| Minnesota (7/22) | +12 | +13 | +1 | --*** | |
| New Hampshire | +6 | +4 | +2 | -5 | |
| Pennsylvania | +5 | +6 | +1 | -8 | |
| New Mexico | +5 | +6 | +1 | -6 | |
| Avg. Change | +0.96 | -5.5 | |||
| *The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. ***Previous poll had been taken after "with leaners" change had been made. | |||||
Above that yellow line, Louisiana is the only state where the "with leaners" distinction favored Obama. But since Obama started his trip overseas, and incidentally this is where the coincidence potentially comes in, four of the seven polls to be released show Obama with the edge when leaners are included. Does this mean that leaners are starting to break for Obama? And, further, does the trip have anything to do with it?
Are leaners breaking toward Obama?
It certainly looks that way. Are these simply Obama states in the first place, though? With the exception of Florida, all seven states are states that are Obama states in FHQ's most recent look at the electoral college (Well, Ohio changes sides depending on whether you use Rasmussen's leaners or without leaners data.). But that wasn't the case in the polls taken before Obama left. Of the 12 states where there was a difference between the with leaners and without leaners numbers, six were Obama states and all six saw drops in the margin when leaners were added. The other eight states, where there was no difference in the margins once leaners were added, were equal parts McCain and Obama states and all broke in McCain's direction. It seems then, that it isn't just a matter of the states polled since Obama left being Obama states.
Fine, just more than half of the seven states where polls have been conducted since Obama left have leaners favoring him now (Well, that does quintuple the number of states that were in that category in the first place.). That is a switch, but does that mean that the trip is what triggered the change? Maybe, maybe not. Rasmussen's own daily tracking poll does have Obama bouncing. And the "with leaners" numbers at least appear to show Obama gaining among that group in states where respondents have been surveyed since Obama left at the outset of last weekend. Coincidence it may be, but it is an interesting way of going about assessing whether Obama has gained anything out of this trip. If this is evidence--and even I'm skeptical of that--of Obama getting a boost from this overseas tour, then it is among the group in the middle that is likely to decide this election.
Recent Posts:
Is Florida a Swing State?
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Is Florida a Swing State?
The answer to that question depends on several things. However a few things stand out as factors that could affect Florida's status in 2008 as a toss up state. First of all the Sunshine state is one that as been trending Republican. A simple look at partisanship within the state legislature over the last thirty plus years provides a clear illustration of this. Clear Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature gave way to Republican control in the mid-1990s. Following the elections in 2006, the GOP held an almost 2 to 1 advantage in both the Florida House and Senate (No wonder Democrats had no other recourse than to go along with the January 29 presidential primary that a GOP-controlled state government initiated.). The flip side of this is that voter registration in Florida during 2008 has favored Democrats by an advantage of over 6.5 to 1. Whether these two factors cancel each other out depends in large part on whether these newly registered Democrats actually become voters in November (and vote for Obama). Even if the newly registered don't turn out in high numbers, though, will GOP turnout be as depressed as their registration numbers have been? Neither issue is likely to be even close to determined until those 72 hour get-out-the-vote campaigns kick in as the calendar turns to November.
While we cannot definitively determine how each side will do on the turnout front in Florida, there are a couple of issues that the candidates will have to navigate there that will help us gain a glimpse into how close Florida may turn out to be. For McCain, if the Arizona senator continues to push offshore drilling as an answer to high gas prices. The latest Rasmussen poll out of the state (released yesterday) showed nearly 3/5ths of Floridians surveyed were in favor of drilling while only a third still favored keeping the ban in place. Despite that though, McCain has dropped in the Sunshine state of late at the very time when he is pushing his drilling plan the hardest. That may be coincidental because that downswing may have more to do with the issue that Obama must overcome in order to make Florida a true swing state.
On some level, Obama's trip abroad this week has sought to address his issue in Florida. The carefully managed trip through Israel and the West Bank when viewed through the lens of the Jewish American vote makes a lot of sense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Israel comments have made some in the Jewish community wary of Obama. That is compounded by the fact that many of them (in Florida and elsewhere) supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama, then, is faced with having to woo a vital portion of the traditional Democratic coalition back into the fold. His ability to gain that segment's votes in Florida, thus keeping them from defecting to McCain or Nader, will have a lot to say in whether Florida will be close in November. I don't have access to the premium material on Rasmussen's site, but would be interested to see how the Jewish preferences came out in yesterday's poll that had Obama ahead in the Sunshine state.
Regardless, how these issues work out, they will help us to determine whether Florida will, in fact, be a toss up state in the general election.
Recent Posts:
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08)
While we cannot definitively determine how each side will do on the turnout front in Florida, there are a couple of issues that the candidates will have to navigate there that will help us gain a glimpse into how close Florida may turn out to be. For McCain, if the Arizona senator continues to push offshore drilling as an answer to high gas prices. The latest Rasmussen poll out of the state (released yesterday) showed nearly 3/5ths of Floridians surveyed were in favor of drilling while only a third still favored keeping the ban in place. Despite that though, McCain has dropped in the Sunshine state of late at the very time when he is pushing his drilling plan the hardest. That may be coincidental because that downswing may have more to do with the issue that Obama must overcome in order to make Florida a true swing state.
On some level, Obama's trip abroad this week has sought to address his issue in Florida. The carefully managed trip through Israel and the West Bank when viewed through the lens of the Jewish American vote makes a lot of sense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Israel comments have made some in the Jewish community wary of Obama. That is compounded by the fact that many of them (in Florida and elsewhere) supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama, then, is faced with having to woo a vital portion of the traditional Democratic coalition back into the fold. His ability to gain that segment's votes in Florida, thus keeping them from defecting to McCain or Nader, will have a lot to say in whether Florida will be close in November. I don't have access to the premium material on Rasmussen's site, but would be interested to see how the Jewish preferences came out in yesterday's poll that had Obama ahead in the Sunshine state.
Regardless, how these issues work out, they will help us to determine whether Florida will, in fact, be a toss up state in the general election.
Recent Posts:
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners"
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Deal with Those Rasmussen "Leaners" [Update]
Yeah, what is the deal with that switch? On its simplest level, the chart below looks at the difference in the Rasmussen poll margins based on whether leaners were included in the data. That distinction seems to have been instituted following July 4. The polls that started coming out on July 9 began to use the language "with leaners" to describe the alternate numbers to what was in the headline. "With leaners" data gives McCain about a one point bump when we look at how the margin between McCain and Obama is affected based on whether leaners are included. It has been rare that Obama has gained once "leaners" are included with those who directly answer the candidate preference question. Interestingly, the two polls today gave the Illnois senator a boost once leaners are included.
The problem here is not one of the changes in the margins though. It is one of comparison. You can't directly compare the new "leaner" data to past Rasmussen polls that did not include the respondents that meet that description. Obviously if leaners are pushed in any one direction, the number of undecideds decreases. So, if we look at the data concerning undecideds plus those supporting other candidates (not McCain or Obama) in the most recent polls and in the one immediately prior to the inclusion of leaners, we get a better sense of how much the undecided total has dropped. We can look at this within each poll; looking at the with and without leaners numbers, but what we are trying to capture is the problem of comparing the new, with leaners polls with the old, without leaner polls. And what we see is that on average, the percentage of undecideds drops by more than five points per poll when leaners are included in the topline numbers. Now, we expect to see the number of undecideds drop this time of year...naturally. But we don't expect that decrease to be manufactured. And the catch is that everyone (FHQ included) has been using Rasmussen's "with leaners" numbers since the switch. The result is that comparisons and subsequent analyses--whether used for electoral college projections or not--are open to a potential bias.
In our case, here at FHQ, I took the liberty of changing data to reflect the "without leaners" view across all the Rasmussen data. I altered the margins of these 24 polls then, to pull them in line with the pre-switch polling methodology. The effect that had on our state-by-state averages was negligible. The only change was that Ohio slipped back into Obama's column (Due to the new Rasmussen poll in the Buckeye state, Ohio has moved from an Obama toss up to a McCain toss up.). Again though, that isn't the real issue. One poll among many in the average is not all that consequential. However, when we continue to compile "with leaner" polls, they collectively have the potential to skew our examination of the electoral college. And that just so happens to be contrary to what we want to accomplish with this endeavor. So let's just lop off the Rasmussen data and be done with it. Well, that deprives us of a valuable source of data. Since Rasmussen made the switch (post-July 4) there have been 43 new polls. 24 of those polls have been from Rasmussen. That's approaching 60% of the data. I don't then, want to throw Rasmussen out. What we can do is continue what we've begun here: to chart how much of a difference the "with leaners" data has on our electoral college projections. And as we do with the monthly examinations of how the averages have changed from state to state, we can observe these differences periodically as well. After a month or so, we will then be able to see if there is any significant bias attendant to including the leaner data and how large that impact is.
A belated thanks to reader, SarahLawrenceScott, for getting the ball rolling on this examination.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
| Rasmussen Polls Since w/Leaners Distinction was Added (7/9/08)* | |||||
| State | w/o Leaners | w/Leaners | Change | Undecideds Drop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | +5 | +5 | 0 | -7 | |
| Arkansas | +10 | +13 | +3 | -4 | |
| Colorado | +7 | +3 | +4 | -13 | |
| Florida | +1 | +2 | +1 | -7 | |
| Georgia | +9 | +11 | +2 | +1 | |
| Illinois | +13 | +11 | +2 | -6** | |
| Iowa | +10 | +10 | 0 | -9 | |
| Kansas | +20 | +23 | +3 | -9 | |
| Louisiana | +20 | +19 | +1 | -2 | |
| Maine | +10 | +8 | +2 | -2 | |
| Michigan | +8 | +8 | 0 | -5 | |
| Minnesota (7/10) | +18 | +17 | +1 | 0 | |
| Minnesota (7/22) | +12 | +13 | +1 | 0 | |
| Missouri | +5 | +5 | 0 | -10 | |
| Nevada | +2 | +2 | 0 | -5 | |
| New Jersey | +5 | +3 | +2 | -4 | |
| North Carolina | +3 | +3 | 0 | -5 | |
| North Dakota | 0 | +1 | +1 | -7** | |
| Ohio | +6 | +10 | +4 | -7 | |
| Oregon | +9 | +9 | 0 | -5 | |
| South Dakota | +4 | +4 | 0 | -4 | |
| Virginia | 0 | +1 | +1 | -6 | |
| Washington | +9 | +8 | +1 | -6 | |
| Wisconsin | +13 | +10 | +3 | -6 | |
| Avg. Change | +1.08 | -5.4 | |||
| *The "with leaners" distinction was added to reports that were released beginning on 7/9/08. The date on which these polls were conducted (The ones that these releases were based on) stretches back to 7/7/08. **Rasmussen has only conducted one poll in these states. Therefore, the difference was taken from between the with and without leaner numbers within the same poll in these cases. | |||||
The problem here is not one of the changes in the margins though. It is one of comparison. You can't directly compare the new "leaner" data to past Rasmussen polls that did not include the respondents that meet that description. Obviously if leaners are pushed in any one direction, the number of undecideds decreases. So, if we look at the data concerning undecideds plus those supporting other candidates (not McCain or Obama) in the most recent polls and in the one immediately prior to the inclusion of leaners, we get a better sense of how much the undecided total has dropped. We can look at this within each poll; looking at the with and without leaners numbers, but what we are trying to capture is the problem of comparing the new, with leaners polls with the old, without leaner polls. And what we see is that on average, the percentage of undecideds drops by more than five points per poll when leaners are included in the topline numbers. Now, we expect to see the number of undecideds drop this time of year...naturally. But we don't expect that decrease to be manufactured. And the catch is that everyone (FHQ included) has been using Rasmussen's "with leaners" numbers since the switch. The result is that comparisons and subsequent analyses--whether used for electoral college projections or not--are open to a potential bias.
In our case, here at FHQ, I took the liberty of changing data to reflect the "without leaners" view across all the Rasmussen data. I altered the margins of these 24 polls then, to pull them in line with the pre-switch polling methodology. The effect that had on our state-by-state averages was negligible. The only change was that Ohio slipped back into Obama's column (Due to the new Rasmussen poll in the Buckeye state, Ohio has moved from an Obama toss up to a McCain toss up.). Again though, that isn't the real issue. One poll among many in the average is not all that consequential. However, when we continue to compile "with leaner" polls, they collectively have the potential to skew our examination of the electoral college. And that just so happens to be contrary to what we want to accomplish with this endeavor. So let's just lop off the Rasmussen data and be done with it. Well, that deprives us of a valuable source of data. Since Rasmussen made the switch (post-July 4) there have been 43 new polls. 24 of those polls have been from Rasmussen. That's approaching 60% of the data. I don't then, want to throw Rasmussen out. What we can do is continue what we've begun here: to chart how much of a difference the "with leaners" data has on our electoral college projections. And as we do with the monthly examinations of how the averages have changed from state to state, we can observe these differences periodically as well. After a month or so, we will then be able to see if there is any significant bias attendant to including the leaner data and how large that impact is.
A belated thanks to reader, SarahLawrenceScott, for getting the ball rolling on this examination.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/08)
The Electoral College Map (7/20/08) [Update]
The Electoral College Map (7/16/08)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)