TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

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

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.06.2008
Are the Polls Understating Obama's Bounce?

I've noticed that, unlike state-level polls, most of the national polls report "registered voters" rather than "likely voters." That's true of both today's ABC/Washington Post poll, for example, and last week's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Intuitively, this seems like it would understate the support of the candidate with the enthusiasm on his side--Obama in this case--since it wouldn't reflect the fact that more of their supporters are likely to turn out.

The Post, in its write up, seems to hint at this. Though Obama only leads McCain by a 49-45 margin among registered voters, the Post notes that:

But [McCain] starts that campaign with several deficits, including an enthusiasm gap. A majority of voters, 55 percent, said they are enthusiastic about Obama's candidacy, while 42 percent said the same for McCain. Three times as many said they are "very enthusiastic" about Obama as said so about McCain.

Even among McCain and Obama supporters, there is a clear difference in interest.

Ninety-one percent of Obama's supporters are enthusiastic about his candidacy, including 54 percent who are very enthusiastic. Fewer of McCain's backers are as ardent: 73 percent are enthusiastic about his run, but just 17 percent are very much so. There appears to be some leftover animosity toward him on the right. Overall, 13 percent of conservatives are very enthusiastic about McCain, compared with nearly half of liberals who feel as strongly about Obama.

In fact, I'm tempted to go further with this idea. A lot of people have interpreted the Post and Journal polls as evidence that Obama hasn't gotten much of a bounce since wrapping up the nomination. There's obviously something to this--he clearly isn't getting a massive bounce. But using registered voters instead of likely voters may also understate the change in Obama's support (i.e., the bounce), not just his overall level of support. That is, you would expect Obama's supporters--and Democrats in general--to become more enthusiastic about him after he became the nominee, even if they were pretty enthusiastic about him beforehand.

It's not exactly dispositive, but there's some support for this in the polling. Obama has increased his lead over McCain in the Journal poll by 3 points since late April, the last time it came out. Over the same period, he increased his lead by somewhere between 5 and 10 points in Rasmussen (depending on which edition of the poll you use--they come out pretty frequently). Rasmussen is one of the very few national polling outfits that reports likely voters. Similarly, Obama's lead over McCain in the WaPo is basically unchanged (down 1) since early April, the last time they reported a comparable number, but up 9-10 points in Rasmussen.

Obviously, you'd need to look at more polls before drawing a conclusion on this question. (I'll leave it to someone else to look back over previous presidential cycles.) But it wouldn't shock me if the polls that only report registered voters systematically understate bounces. It seems like that would almost be true by definition.  

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:44 AM with 6 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!

cbustard said:

If the primaries taught us nothing else, it's that polls are highly suspect in this election season. Given the difficulties in polling Obama's core youth and minority constituencies, the Bradley-Wilder effect in polling on minority candidates and the increase in first-time voters making the historical model of "likely voter" samples questionable, I wouldn't count on any but the most generalized (e.g., right track/wrong track) polls.

June 17, 2008 12:19 PM

porterm said:

From the ABCNews.com piece on today's ABC/Washington Post poll:

"Among all Americans, Obama leads by a fairly narrow 6 points; among those most likely to vote -- an estimate that it's admittedly early to make -- the two are locked in a dead heat."

www.abcnews.go.com/.../Story

There goes your theory, Noam.

June 17, 2008 2:07 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

i don't think they report "likely voters." I think they're just talking about registered voters in that piece - which the post said was 49-45. there's no "likely voter" number in their results.

obviously, i could be wrong. but there's no evidence in the ABC/WaPo poll.

June 17, 2008 3:35 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

Actually, now that I read it over again, you may be right. They do seem to have some sort of likely voter model, they just don't report the numbers anywhere. It sounds like they discount his young voters pretty heavily. (The methodology for picking likely voters obviously matters quite a bit...)

Even so, in order to tell whether the registered voter number understates the bounce, you'd need to see likely voters in the previous poll versus now. Obama could have been down six or eight among likely voters, and up one or two now. There's just now way to tell without actually looking at the numbers...

June 17, 2008 3:55 PM

porterm said:

I think that's right. One of the poll questions asked respondents to self-report the likelihood that they will vote in November. I suspect the "likely voter" reference in the ABC piece represents the weighted preferences of self-reported likely voters in the survey. Of course, as you suggest, the weighting methodology employed is key to understanding the results. And the more important point is that "likely voter" measures this far out from the election are suspect in any case.

June 17, 2008 4:37 PM

The Stump said:

The indispensable Mark Blumenthal responds to my query about whether polls of registered voters might

June 17, 2008 5:14 PM