TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 12:15 AM
November 19, 2008 | 5:54 PM
November 19, 2008 | 5:27 PM

November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM
November 19, 2008 | 9:29 PM
November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.02.2008
About Those Dueling California Polls

As you might have seen elsewhere, the two new California polls out today show wildly diverging results: Zogby has Obama up 49-36, while SurveyUSA has Clinton up 52-42. As Josh Marshall says, somebody's gonna end up looking pretty stupid. Most likely they both will--I don't expect the final tally to be more than five or six points in either direction. But SurveyUSA will probably end up looking worse.

I took a look at the crosstabs of the SurveyUSA poll (I can't seem to find them for Zogby--if any commenters can, please link!). Unfortunately, one of the most relevant things to look at is the relative proportion of African-American and Latino votes in the electorate (since, by all accounts, Obama will win the black vote overwhelmingly and Clinton will win the Latino vote easily, though by a smaller margin). In the 2004 Democratic primary, 16 percent of voters were Latino and 8 percent were black. SurveyUSA estimates the 2008 Democratic electorate as being 26 percent Latino and 9 percent black. To be frank, I would be shocked if those numbers end up being correct--particularly given the disproportionate surge in black turnout we saw in South Carolina. If I had to guess, I'd say the proportions will be about 19 and 11--which is more in line with what other pollsters predict. This alone would swing the result several points toward Obama from what SurveyUSA has.

In addition, SurveyUSA has Hillary beating Obama by one point in the Bay Area, which defies all conventional wisdom. The Field Poll, which has more expertise polling California than anyone, had Obama winning in the Bay Area 41-31--and this was just at the beginning of what looks like a late Obama surge in the state. Hillary will win the state if turnout in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are large enough, but, again, I'd be very surprised if she won the Bay Area (full of latté liberals and African-Americans) outright.

One final point: SurveyUSA doesn't say what percentage of Democratic primary voters are unaffiliated with either party (or "decline to state" in California parlance). But most models, I think, are underestimating these voters (who break heavily for Obama) as a share of the electorate. Field had them at 13 percent of Democratic primary voters, and far be it from me to question the oracle. But consider: decline-to-state voters can only vote in the Democratic primary, and it's easy for them to do so--they just show up at the polling place and ask for a Democratic ballot. They constitute 31 percent of eligible Democratic primary voters--that is, if you add up the number of Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the state, the latter make up 31 percent of that total. Now, of course, some of those folks lean Republican, and decline-to-state voters are less likely to vote in a primary generally--so the total decline-to-state share of the electorate won't approach 31 percent. But given the salience of the race and the enthusiasm it seems to be generating, I'd bet decline-to-state voters will make up closer to 20 percent of the electorate. This would add another couple points to Obama's total. Without having seen the crosstabs, I'd bet that Zogby has Obama up by so much because (1) he has a more favorable black/Latino composition for Obama, and (2) he has a more generous estimate of the decline-to-state share of the vote.

Bottom line, the race remains very, very close--Clinton's advantage among voters who have already mailed in their ballots should not be underestimated. But I will make two predictions. First, Obama will win among voters who go to the polls today. And second, Clinton will not win by double digits. (Obama probably won't either, but there's an outside shot.)

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:10 PM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ChanRobt said:

I'm not sure what the value of polls are except to give the media something to talk about when they don't know nuthin'.  

And to potentially screw up the election by influencing voters.

It is a perfidious game and we'd be better off just listening to the pundits pund.

February 5, 2008 12:40 PM

schrek2000 said:

This is really helpful---thanks for putting it up. And I think both sides have pretty much staked out their pre-spin (presumably based on good internal polling) so that in Obama's case if he wins Utah, Kansas, Georgia, maybe Alabama he can say he won "a number" of states (regardless of how utterly irrelevant they might be for the fall) and did within a hundred on delegates. Hillary in turn can boast of having won "most" of the states and besting him in delegates regardless of the spread.

But nonetheless, there's a lot to learn tonight, especially if Obama can break open his demographics, if Hillary can recover substantially in states where she's been losing ground, etc.

We're not at the conference finals yet, to be sure, but should be one heck of a wild card round. Fasten your seat belts, boys.

February 5, 2008 12:57 PM

twalker said:

Which sport has both a wild card round and seat belts?

February 5, 2008 1:03 PM

jhildner said:

I have a question:  Superdelegates can vote for whomever they want always.  Even if they endorse a candidate, they're not bound to support that candidate at the convention, and can freely change their minds at any time.  Is that right?

February 5, 2008 1:20 PM

knishycous said:

Wheelchair basketball

February 5, 2008 1:24 PM

schrek2000 said:

It's coming next year on FOX....A new reality show called "Who Wants To Be An NFL Quarterback?" starring NASCAR drivers trying out for guest shots in pro football by having real quarterbacks driving their cars wheel to wheel in Daytona.

It's going to bridge that SuperBowl-March Madness gap.  

February 5, 2008 1:36 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Re superdelegates: Yes.

February 5, 2008 1:49 PM

williamyard said:

I'm in that happy post-voting glow that, in my younger years, would have entailed a cigarette to go with the warm washcloth.

Business was brisk this morning at my local flag-festooned garage near the top of Nob Hill.  I was especially happy to vote for Proposition 99.44, the little-known Indian gaming measure that would allow a tiny tribe, the Dirt Gully Band of Polyglot Indians, to install another 55,000 slots on their 10-acre rancheria/truckstop 13 miles east of Barstow.

In return, the State of California gets no money for education, health care, or other warm and fuzzies. However, every California man, woman, and child gets $1,000 in quarters, some trinkets and shiny beads worth about $24, a free pull on the General Custer Giant Mega-Slot at the casino, and some nifty antique blankets.

The Dirt Gully Band (no relation to the '70s group that opened for the Doobie Brothers) realized it would be far cheaper to just pay us all off than to buy statewide TV commercials like the proponents of the other four gaming propositions on the ballot.  The California State Legislature put the initiative on the ballot, after the intense effort of the Indians' lobbying group, Even More Blowjobs For Sacramento PAC.

Critics point out that, the last time the blankets changed hands, nearly all of the recipients died of smallpox. To which I say, haven't you heard of the statute of limitations, pal?

So, for my fellow Californians who have yet to vote I say, get off your duffs!  Vote Yes on Prop. 99.44: the Ninety-Nine and Forty-Four Hundredths Percent Pure initiative!  It floats!

February 5, 2008 2:13 PM

jobeek2 said:

I just posted a review of this item here on a forum, now that the actual results are in:

"Hillary's victory in California seems to be based on Latinos and Asians, among whom she leads massively. Among whites she just leads by 3. On that note, kudos to Survey USA!

Earlier today, Pollster.com looked at the Survey USA and Zogby polls that were published on the very day of the primaries, and headlined the item, "Somebody's Gonna Be Wrong".

Now, the top line numbers of those polls were as follows:

Survey USA: Clinton 52%, Obama 42%

Zogby: Obama 46%, Clinton 40%

That alone tells you who has turned out to be wrong. With the exit polls at the moment pointing to a result of Clinton 53, Obama 39, SUSA definitely wins credibility points, and Zogby loses face.

But its not just the totals they got to, its how they got there too. On TNR, Josh Patashnik commented sceptically on the SUSA poll at the time:

______

SurveyUSA will probably end up looking worse.

I took a look at the crosstabs of the SurveyUSA poll [..]. Unfortunately, one of the most relevant things to look at is the relative proportion of African-American and Latino votes in the electorate (since, by all accounts, Obama will win the black vote overwhelmingly and Clinton will win the Latino vote easily, though by a smaller margin). In the 2004 Democratic primary, 16 percent of voters were Latino and 8 percent were black. SurveyUSA estimates the 2008 Democratic electorate as being 26 percent Latino and 9 percent black. To be frank, I would be shocked if those numbers end up being correct--particularly given the disproportionate surge in black turnout we saw in South Carolina. If I had to guess, I'd say the proportions will be about 19 and 11--which is more in line with what other pollsters predict. [..]

In addition, SurveyUSA has Hillary beating Obama by one point in the Bay Area, which defies all conventional wisdom. [..] Hillary will win the state if turnout in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are large enough, but, again, I'd be very surprised if she won the Bay Area (full of latté liberals and African-Americans) outright.

______

Well...

According to the exit polls,

* Latinos made up 29% of the electorate - even more than SUSA had predicted;

* Blacks made up just 6% of the electorate - even less than SUSA had predicted;

* Clinton led Obama in the Bay area, not just by 1 point, but by 7

So on every of the counts Patashnik mentioned, SUSA's numbers were apparently born out.

Of course, we're talking preliminary exit polls, which will still be updated, but it looks like SUSA wasnt just right - it was right because it got a number of underlying determinants correct even when it went right against the common wisdom of the moment.

But apart from the meta-review of polling, these numbers raise interesting/disturbing questions.

Considering that Obama succeeded in enthusing a massive turnout among African-Americans throughout the South, back in the SC primary and today again, why not, apparently, here?

And considering that overall turnout in California is very high, does the increased weight exerted by the Latinos mean that their turnout was *extremely* high, and why exactly? It's Obama who defended the right of even illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses, Hillary was against - but she obviously inspires a fierce and deep-seated loyalty - at least in this state.

February 6, 2008 1:42 AM

The Plank said:

So, having been disastrously wrong in my analysis of the dueling California polls, I owe SurveyUSA an

February 6, 2008 10:56 AM