TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

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

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 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
17.09.2008
The State Poll/National Poll Conundrum

Nate kicked off last night's poll round-up by observing that, "Although the national tracking polls are trending upward for Obama, this set of state polling is a strong one for John McCain."

Relatedly, last week, while Obama's national numbers seemed to be cratering, a colleague talked to a Democratic operative with access to state-level internal polls, who said the state numbers were still looking solid for Obama.

We've seen this a couple times this summer, which leads me to wonder: Why do state polls (particularly swing-state polls) seem to lag behind national numbers? After all, you'd think swing-state voters would be paying closer attention to the campaign, and therefore processing information more quickly.  

I can think of a couple of theories:

1.) Because there's much more political advertising directed at swing states, actual news events and the changing media CW take a little longer to break through there. Put simply, swing state voters are surrounded by a denser fog of war than the rest of us.

2.) Undecided voters tend to live in swing states, and they follow the news less closely than partisans, who live and die by every twist and turn of the campaign. Problem is--do we know swing states have more undecided voters? It sounds logical, but a state could be a swing state because 49 percent of voters are dug in on one side and 49 percent on the other, leaving 2 percent up for grabs. On the other hand, a safe state could be 70 percent pro-McCain or Obama, 15 percent for the other guy, and have 15 percent undecided. It's really tough to say (and the polls themselves aren't always helpful, because some pollsters push undecided voters harder than others).

3.) The methodologies for state and national polls frequently differ. The national polling we consume on a daily basis are generally tracking polls, while the state polls tend to be more traditional polls, which take a little longer to turn around. So maybe the national polls are just fresher. (The downside, I guess, is that they may be overly sensitive to short-term developments.)

Anyone have any other ideas? I'd be curious to hear what Nate and Mark Blumenthal think. Apologies if they've written on this recently and I somehow missed it...

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:21 AM with 9 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!

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

The lag between state and nat'l polls are illusory...After all, you are measuring the same universe of voters, just different segments of it...For isntance if there is  movement for one candidates you would see it in (both) nat'l and state polls... The reason state polls seem to lage nat'l polls is because they are generally (older)...

I hope that makes sense...

Go Dems...

September 17, 2008 8:41 AM

nikkiwhite said:

If there's a 10+ point spread in national polls for the entire month before the election, maybe that would mean something. But as long as we have the electoral college, the only polls that matter are from the states, and only a third of them at that. I dream of a direct election amendment.

September 17, 2008 9:07 AM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"If there's a 10+ point spread in national polls for the entire month before the election, maybe that would mean something. But as long as we have the electoral college, the only polls that matter are from the states, and only a third of them at that. I dream of a direct election amendment."

-nikkiwhite

Respectfully, you can keep dreaming...The small states that benefit from their (extra) Electoral Vote are never going to vote to give it up ...

Also, nat'l polls are important because the Electoral College follows the popular vote, albeit imperfectly, as we have learned to our chagrin...

September 17, 2008 9:12 AM

miceelf said:

Can we finally give up this fiction that Obama's problems are his inability to connect with low income folks (especially white people), because of his putative elitism?

www.rasmussenreports.com/.../daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Overall, Obama leads among those who earn less than $40,000 a year while McCain leads among those with higher earnings. Among white voters, Obama has the edge only among those who earn less than $20,000 a year

September 17, 2008 9:44 AM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

You are missing an intervening variable...African Americans earn approximately sixty percent of what their white counterparts earn... This is skewing the results since Obama is doing so well in that community...

In other words,if Obama was doing as well among less affluent whites as he is doing among less affluent blacks he would be doing a lot better and this race wouldn't be close...A lot of white working class voters are arguably voting against this class interest...This is a feature of almost every American election; sometimes this  phenomenon is more muted than at other times...

September 17, 2008 10:15 AM

michael said:

Ideas? Only the tired old ideas I've been posting for months. As in my reply to tep in the Nate post...

[Tired, old with a couple of updates. If I was more talented I'd include more but this is already to windy]

teplukhin2you, I'm surprised you're reacting to Nate's (qualified) snapshots. Yes, the west was the 2nd path for Obama and 3-4 red states could counter a loss in Ohio. But the above snap seems flawed because I don't think either campaign accepts VA and PA are tied. I've heard each campaign scoff at recent numbers and the GOP doesn't think $'s in NJ or PA are a sound investment (contrary to the above poll's persuasion).

Consider the following because CO may be moot...Yes, I think we'll know if Obama won before the polls close in the Mountain zone. No, we won't know if he lost (then we wait for Mountain Time) but I don't think they've conceded a few '00-'04 red states east of the Mississippi and the GOP is racing.

But first I need to appeal to your skepticism (I'm no zealot either) because I think I found where the reputable polls and Nate may get taken:

This election will turn on how the candidates perform at the micro or local level. The example of fogasseu and the weather blip not only provide a political reason for doubt & the lack of power in 600,000 homes would glitch polling. We lost power for a day and of the 50 homes in the dark only a few did not have a cordless phone. I was a link to the outside but 80% would also be a no answer from a pollster. Fine, that is one poll cycle...

No, imagine that electricity is not an issue. They do have phones is the hollers. 1.) The Obama effort is targeting counties and zipcodes. Consider that the swath of states from WI through PA north of Mason Dixon only leaners because lightly populated areas go GOP by 75%-25%. Highly focused, tactical efforts only need to move pockets and I doubt even state polls provide a reliable measure of the less densely populated but historically red voting plots. 2.) Scoff if you wish (I am a doubter) but the Republican AG admits IN has at least 500,000 new voters on the rolls and may have 750,000 by the close on 10-1. He's knows who's doing the signing-up and in a state that turned out a total of around 2 million in '04 it's easy to see why he's not sold on the traditional polls.

So sheer volume (an increase of over 50%) in new registrations and an effort to work ignored areas of red domination mean Obama may succeed or fail and we aren't seeing it in polls which can't account for his team's work. But a Hoosier AG knows 750,000 on top of 2 million is more than consequential and he's a Republican with a Republican Gov with a handy lead.

So even where he has yet to show a lead in Nate's sausage machine, Obama has probably reduced Bush's margins in '04 to 'winnable' numbers. No one denies IN went for 20+ four years ago to single digits in old line polls. Once a state's numbers are within the twilight zone (margin of error) and unsure dwarf current margins? Anyone who dares to use numbers from six weeks out ignores those and other variables which the race will pivot upon. Yes, unsure fall in line with history. But that assumes a 50% increase in registration hasn't changed historical models and the micro-targeting by Obama is being measured in state samples.

I still think that Obama is pushing a rock up a hill and 22 or even fewer states won't cave. But he doesn't need to get the rock to the top of the hill. As his boulder goes up, McCain's slides back. It isn't even zero sum since Obama juiced the historical sum and will begin with more numbers in his column. Obama's & his boulder is not where Gore and Kerry were...we just don't know where he is. And no, these snaps can't get a decent pic of the ground.

[All typos, nonsense and careless errors are due to haste and incautious cut-past]

September 17, 2008 10:23 AM

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

Obama should win if economic issues continue to assert themselves and not because he reinvented politics...

September 17, 2008 10:40 AM

miceelf said:

TheOneIsHere2008. Well, you're right that Obama is stronger among low income Blacks than low income whites. However, he IS winning whites under 20k. ANd I am pretty sure the bulk of whites under 20K are, you know, white....

September 17, 2008 7:50 PM

The Stump said:

At our election discussion last week at the Sixth and I Synagogue, Frank asked if anyone thought Obama

October 21, 2008 10:46 PM