TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.02.2008
About Those Latest Polls...

One thing to keep in mind as you peruse those latest Wisconsin and (especially) Ohio and Texas polls is that African American support for Obama continues to be implausibly low. We've seen similar numbers leading up to primaries in South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, and Missouri--all places where Obama attracted in the neighborhood of 80 percent of the black vote (and often closer to 90) on Election Day.

This is a big deal, since Ohio and Texas have significant African American populations--14 and 21 percent of the 2004 Democratic primary electorate, respectively. The difference between a merely strong showing among African Americans and an overwhelming one can be several points overall. For example, consider this recent Quinnipiac poll in Ohio showing Obama up 64-17 among African Americans. If, as seems plausible, the final number ends up closer to 85-15, where it was in nearby Missouri, and the black share of the primary electorate ticks up a few points relative to 2004 (as it consistently has), we could be talking about an overall difference of three or four points. The effect would be closer to four-to-five points in Texas, where this recent poll has Obama's lead among African Americans at 65-16. Those are pretty significant differences.

Why do polls seem to consistently understate Obama's African American support? I can think of a number of plausible explanations--for example, maybe certain black voters are undecided until the sheer energy of Election Day (or the actual prospect of voting for a viable black candidate) hits them in the face. But there's also compelling evidence for a reverse Bradley effect--i.e., that a significant number of black voters are, for whatever reason, just misleading pollsters.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:38 PM with 18 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!

Eos said:

It's political correctness and socially desireable responding (not racisim)  to pollsters, just as with the original Bradley Effect.

February 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

yes, exactly.

February 15, 2008 5:10 PM

mmathog said:

Today, F(Obama) = F(Clinton).

For the last 2 months:

F ' (Obama) > 0, F ' (Clinton) = 0

Is F '' (Obama) > 0? I think so.

That is all I have to say on the matter.

February 15, 2008 5:25 PM

scottlooper said:

The Bradley effect says nothing for Survey USA's computer-driven pollsters, however, which show a 55-35 split for Clinton in these states.  Survey USA is currently running a 2 point margin of error for its polls (as opposed to Quinnipac's 6).

February 15, 2008 5:31 PM

bcbaird said:

mmathog:  I would agree that Obama is accelerating.  But assuming the number of "undecideds" is finite and shrinking, shouldn't F'(C) be less than zero as Obama continues to gain position?

February 15, 2008 5:46 PM

nathanirwin said:

Noam writes:

"Why do polls seem to consistently understate Obama's African American support? "

Aren't most opinion polls based on phone surveys? If a large enough number of lower-income African-Americans don't have land lines and are being left out of the survey sample, that could skew the survey results.

February 15, 2008 5:49 PM

mschol17 said:

Not to mention most students and young people only have cell phones...

February 15, 2008 6:13 PM

mmathog said:

Not quite bcbaird, if you'd like to argue that the rate of Obama's increase is decreasing (and this is a perfectly valid argument) you'd be saying...

F '' (Obama) < 0.

Either way, if you agree that F(Obama) = F(Clinton) and F ' (Obama) > 0 and F ' (Clinton) = 0, then Obama's 2nd derivative doesn't really matter, he should win.

February 15, 2008 6:19 PM

mmathog said:

Oh bcbaird, I misread your question, my apologies.

You'd think that F ' (C) < 0.... but it doesn't really seem to be, or maybe only slightly.

In somes states she goes from mid 50s to high 40s, but lots of places she just seems to hang around the mid to high 40s while Obama climbs from somewhere in the 30s to either tie her or pass her.

February 15, 2008 6:24 PM

ratnerstar said:

It's been a while since I took calculus, but I have noticed a significant increase in F' Clinton sentiment.

February 15, 2008 7:01 PM

jon shaw said:

Noam: Something just occurred to me: With respect to Texas, is it possible that the percentage of African American participation in this election could be higher than the 21% from 2004 not only because of Obama's presence but also because of the in-migration of former residents of New Orleans?

February 15, 2008 7:28 PM

scottlooper said:

Jon: There are approximately 2M black voters in Texas.  There are approximately 50-75k displaced blacks of voting age in Texas after Katrina.  Because the jump in black voters in Texas is between 2-5%, I wouldn't expect a statistically significant increase.

February 15, 2008 7:53 PM

adamvaught said:

ratnerstar,

Hilarious!

February 15, 2008 8:41 PM

JackR said:

ratnerstar - I laughed out loud.

February 15, 2008 9:38 PM

virginiacentrist said:

keep in mind that in states with high percentages of hispanics, there is some crossover between people who consider themselves hispanic, and people who consider themselves black.

Not sure what that means at the end of the day though...

February 16, 2008 9:40 AM

AaronBBrown said:

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences -- American Research Group

www.americanresearchgroup.com

Obama 48%

Clinton 42%

February 16, 2008 9:54 AM

harriscrl3 said:

Hillary has been steadily losing the African American vote the latest in the Potomack Primay was 90%. African Americans are one of the most loyal groups in the Democratic Party. If this goes to the convention and its close but they look and see that she has lost 90% of AA vote how is she going to justify that. This could hit almost 100%. by the time she gets to the convention. Thats what she should be working on getting back and its like she doesnt even care and they continue to vote for Obama. I'd be shocked if she becomes the nominee after losing the AA vote by such large percentage.

Carol

February 16, 2008 1:38 PM

bartkempf said:

Ohio is not near Missouri.

February 16, 2008 8:02 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.