Posted on 07/18/2008 8:05:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Two radically different story lines are emerging in the presidential race, depending on what kind of poll you look at.
If you look at the national-level data, Barack Obama seems to be underachieving. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the presumptive Democratic nominee holds a scant two-point edge over John McCain. The margin is also two points in Rasmussen's daily poll—which also shows a dead-even race when "leaners" are factored in. Some other recent polls have been a little more favorable to Obama, but the combined weight of the available national data strongly suggests that Obama, despite his personal popularity and the enormous built-in advantages his party enjoys this year, is locked in a much closer race than he should be.
But if you ignore the national numbers and instead consider individual state polls, a realigning landslide suddenly seems to be within Obama's reach. In state after state, he's performing far better than John Kerry did in 2004, and numerous Republican bastions are seemingly in play. Consider Indiana, which George W. Bush won by 21 points in 2004 and which lasted voted for a Democrat 44 years ago—and which Obama leads by one point in the most recent survey. Or North Carolina, which Bush carried by 12 points in '04 but where the latest poll has Obama within three. And so on. In North Dakota, the race is tied. In South Dakota, Obama trails by just four. Ditto for Alaska, perhaps the most Republican state in the union. He also leads in Montana and Colorado and in all but one recent survey in Virginia.
And the trend isn't just evident in red states. In states where Kerry eked out victories last time around, polls now give Obama sizable leads. Kerry nearly fumbled away Minnesota (a three-point nail-biter), but Obama has a 17-point advantage in the most recent poll. Wisconsin and New Hampshire were photo-finishes in '04, but Obama has opened a double-digit lead there. Plus, Obama is running ahead in states that Kerry barely lost, like Iowa (by an average of seven points), New Mexico and Nevada.
On top of all this, Obama is performing as well as any Democratic nominee is supposed to in the biggest blue states—California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts—and leads (in some cases substantially) in every recent swing state except Florida, where the average of recent polls gives McCain a three-point edge.
There are some traditionally Republican states where Obama is performing at a more typical (for a Democrat) level, like Utah, Alabama and Tennessee, but overall at the state-by-state level he seems positioned to win the November election going away. So how is it—with Obama so close to McCain in so many red states and so far ahead in all of the big blue states—that the national polls show such a close race? With all of the dramatic strides Obama is making in individual states, shouldn't his national margin be much wider?
One tempting thought is that the national polls might seem so different because many of the red states where Obama is overachieving are so small. So while there might be palpable movement in his direction in, for instance, North Dakota (which accounts for 0.2 percent of the U.S. population), it's possible that in a national survey of 500 voters, only one North Dakotan—or maybe even none—is actually interviewed.
But if we take the average result from recent polls in each state and weight each state according to its share of the national population, we get an overall national result that's entirely consistent with current national polling: Obama 46.2 percent, McCain 42.7—a 3½-point race. So there really is no inconsistency between the close national horse race and Obama's clearly superior position in individual state polls.
The most obvious explanation for this is the large number of undecided voters included in most polls, which makes it tough for either candidate to break 50 percent in most states right now. In South Carolina, for example, Obama is clearly running better than Kerry did (or Al Gore, for that matter) and trails McCain by just six points in an average of that state's most recent polling. But as surprisingly close as the race is, Obama's raw number—39 percent support, on average—is nothing new for a Democrat in the state (Kerry finished with 41 percent in '04).
The same is true in many other states, red and blue. Obama leads by an average of 17 points in dark-blue New York, but he's only averaging 53 percent of the vote there (while Kerry took 58 in '04). He's slaughtering McCain in California, but only averaging 53 percent support there. And he's opened leads in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also isn't securing the level of support that Kerry had in those states on Election Day four years ago.
This doesn't mean that Obama is in trouble in any of these blue states or that the number of undecided voters is unusually high. It's simply a partial explanation for how seemingly solid polling data in individual states can translate into lukewarm national numbers.
But things get more revealing if we take the numbers a step further and try to adjust the current state averages to account for the voters who are now undecided or threatening to vote for third-party candidates. For the sake of this exercise, let's award the undecided/third party vote in each state proportionally, based on the current average levels of support for both candidates. For instance, the Massachusetts average now has Obama leading, 52 to 36.2 percent. If we adjust that proportionally, Obama ends up with 58.96 percent to McCain's 41.04 percent. Do this for all 50 states, and Obama ends up with 51.98 percent of the national popular vote, with McCain at 48.02 percent.
This doesn't exactly look like a landslide, and yet in all but four states, Obama's final number would be an improvement—substantial in many cases—over Kerry's '04 performance. In some cases, this means trimming 30-point Kerry deficits in dark red states to 20 or 15 points, a nice accomplishment that won't change the bottom line in those states. But in other cases, it means cutting 15-point Kerry losses in half (or more) and moving within theoretical striking distance in a state. What's striking about this data is that just about all of the improvement in individual states from '04 is on the Democratic side. McCain may end up holding on to the traditional red states that now seem in doubt, but he's not threatening in any of the traditional blue states.
This all shows us two things. For one, even if Obama's surprising standing in red states endures through November, it won't mean he's a shoe-in on Election Day. If he comes close without flipping any of them over, McCain would still have a chance in the Electoral College and Obama would not automatically score a runaway victory in the national popular vote. In that sense, the current national polls that show a tight race are spot on.
But the individual state polls that seem so rosy for Obama aren't misleading, either, in the sense that they reflect the potential for an Obama landslide. Obama is only flirting with the possibility now—his prospects may fade by Election Day—but he has the potential to win over a handful of states the other party has long counted on winning. McCain doesn't.
In other words, the race really is close, and McCain has the potential to win. But only Obama has the potential to win big.
If you want the Great Society verson 2.0, higher taxes, emboldened jihadis and $10 gallons of gasoline, vote for the empty suit. I'm John McRINO, and I approve this message.
John McRINO looks better every day.
With extreme devastation to follow in his wake.
I call BULL.
They fail to mention Obamao under performing his poll numbers, it happened election after election in the Dhimmi Nominating process...
All the Obamao may end up doing is tightening races that were blowout Republican in the past, but the NH, NM, NV, polls are a problem, Mad Jon should be doing better in those states.
My gut is telling me this is a repeat of Clinton vs. Dole in 1996. I have not read one indication McCain is going to peel away a state won by Kerry and all the indicators are pointing to Obama possible flipping several former Bush states. Obama might not top 50% nationally, no D has done that since LBJ, but he will pick off enough former red states for a comfortable electoral college victory.
I thought that was Utah.
In other words, Obama is doing slightly better than the average recent Democrat. McCain, with his history and huge shift to the center, is way behind recent Republican performance. That makes logical sense.
Of course NObama will win big....
He has an extra 3 state advantage over the normal 50 states....
Please explain this to me, then:
New AOL Straw Poll: McCain winning in all 50 states.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045530/posts
On-line polls are easily faked, historically erratic and unreliable, and who says most of those voting for Obama have computers, or go to anything other than pron sites?
“My gut is telling me this is a repeat of Clinton vs. Dole in 1996.”
I don’t think so. After securing the nomination, Obama should be way ahead in the polls.
Clinton was a known entity by ‘96. People knew about his affairs, but didn’t care. Obama isn’t well known, and the more people learn about him, the more they don’t like him.
I see this as more like Bush vs Dukakis in 1988. I think Obama will fade throughout the fall, beginning after Labor Day.
What about the remaining 4?
**The most obvious explanation for this is the large number of undecided voters included in most polls, which makes it tough for either candidate to break 50 percent in most states right now. **
The line in the sand.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will fommand to spread by the swoind things only evil and inhuman, such as his crd the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“I see this as more like Bush vs Dukakis in 1988. I think Obama will fade throughout the fall, beginning after Labor Day.”
For all our sakes, I hope you’re right.
In the last four of five elections, the June leader in the poll average went on to lose.
Remember, we have not had one debate yet. Not one.
Obama cannot hide from that forever.
The dude does not think well on his feet when challenged.
McCain is going to carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
These type of straw grabbing stories will begin to appear more and more as the individual demographic groups begin to look worse and worse for barack mcgovern. Just yesterday we saw data pointing to him doing under 60 with Jews. clinocchio and algore did 80, frenchie did 76. 60 is a very big drop.
I think Hussein has his people working hard on how o avoid a “Great Debate” altogether or on how to have his teleprompter installed and not shown by any camera. He doesn’t have to answer any question. The rule in these things is to ignore the question or intro your answer with a line that relates the lead word of the question with the lead word of the answer and then go on with your “answer” which does not relate, except by fortuitous accident, to the question.
At this point in the campaign, the liar propagandists usually have the rat ahead of the republican by 15 or more points. That nobama is tied with Mr. McCain is nothing but bad news for the leftist scum.
The lousy numbers for nobama could mean that all the rat states, with a few exceptions, will be competitive for McCain by October.
Ugh. Sad ain’t it?
Our side still hasn't figured out that it is not about policies---it doesn't matter what Obama flip-flops on, it doesn't matter what his view on Iraq is, it doesn't matter how much he will raise taxes. It's all about an image that McCain can't hope to dent, because McCain has no revolutionary image of his own.
Honestly, though, I don't think Romney, or Rudy, or Thompson, or Hunter, or any other Republican right now had the combination of policies and charisma to beat this guy.
Rush can, and will, rightly play gaffe after gaffe by him and it's irrelevant. Your take of Clinton/Dole, where we kept saying, "But he's a liar!, and it had no effect, is dead on.
McCain has a significant lead in the national security/defense category, something this article does not consider.
Past elections have shown this to be a very important part of the electorate’s final decision.
I also would not minimize the effect of forthcoming ads by groups on the Right to Life and the Second Amendment.
First laugh of the day:
Obama to carry Indiana . . .
I think these state polls are worthless at this state of time. They are polling people who are not yet paying much attention to events at all, other than gas prices.
It is the obligation of all of us conservatives to be able to point out Obama’s weaknesses whenever we can to whomever we can. That includes his errors on the war, the purge, his socialism, his love of more taxes, his love of abortion including infanticide on failed late term abortions, his 20 years of listening to Rev. Wright yell anti-white venom from the pulpit, his lack of experience, his -——well, you get the drift.
We all need to pound this into the heads of those who are not yet paying attention to Obama’s real agenda.
Energy Woes Could Mean Dems 'Oil' Washed Up
"That's why polls show that over 70 percent of us support drilling for more oil in wilderness areas and beneath our oceans."
Yeah, that really seems to be affecting the congressional races, doesn’t it?
I wouldn't look at national polls with all of the gerrymandered disticts at this point in time. Look at competitive districts, especially the ones that were lost in 2006. I don't believe the donkey's energy policies and over $4 gallons of gasoline were made an issue in the recently lost special elections.
That’s the point. They weren’t made an issue, nor WILL THEY be made an issue in the right way, unless something changes. Certainly Juan isn’t making them an issue.
Yes it is.
In this day of cell phones and wireless networking, polling data is very questionable. There is a whole new breed of voter who will determine the outcome and surprise a lot of opinionated people. Much like what happened in 2006.
It’s also still early and the majority of voters are involved in Summer activities. Like at this time last year, it was difficult to get any idea of what would develop in the primaries. The polls tried, but the data came back erratic as it is now.
Never underestimate the Media and how they time their agenda. It is still too early to take stock in any poll.
McRINO is talking about drilling. He's saying Obama is further to the left of Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont. The problems of the economy from the housing and energy sectors come from the donkies. The country is not suddenly center-left.
Who Does Obama Think He Is? (A political messiah, who — unlike Reagan and Kennedy — needn't...)
Obama tops the bent one in hubris and Kerry in flip-flops. Over $4 per gallon of gasoline has a message that the GOP should not lose. It's certainly not the fault of conservatives or libertarians.
However, I wanted to try some sensitivity analysis, so I made an assumption that the state polls are oversampling Democrats and adjusted the poll numbers by small increments to see the effect on my model.
By reducing Obama's state poll results by 1.25% and increasing McCain's state poll results by the same 1.25%, the race becomes a tie.
Maybe my model assumptions are suspect, but I'm concluding that it doesn't take much playing with the state poll numbers right now to drastically change the outcome at the national level.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.