THE PLANK AUGUST 20, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
By any and all polling-based metrics, the race for the White House is
extremely tight. However, we present three slightly different
projections of the November outcome, and they each tell a slightly
different story:
Our
popular vote projection shows a literal tie, with each of Barack Obama
and John McCain projected to earn 48.5 percent of the vote, and
third-party candidates receiving a collective 3 percent.Things
get confusing, however, when looking at the electoral college. We
project Obama to earn slightly more electoral votes on average.
However, we also project John McCain to win the election slightly more
often. What accounts for the discrepancy? Obama's wins tend to be
larger, and McCain's tend to be smaller. If Obama wins this election by
between 7 or 10 points, there are very few high-EV states that he won't
be able to put into play; even something like Texas is probably
winnable. If McCain were to win by that margin, on the other hand, he
would still almost certainly lose New York, he would almost certainly
lose Illinois, and he would almost certainly lose California. Those
states represent 107 electoral votes that are essentially off-limits to
McCain, even on his very best days.But when the election is
close -- and this is the case that we really care about -- McCain has
appeared to develop a slight advantage in the electoral math. There are
several states on our map that are colored light pink, meaning that
they tip very slightly to the Republicans; these include Colorado,
Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Montana and Nevada, in each of which Obama has
better than a 25 percent chance of winning, but less than a 50 percent
chance. There are a fairly large number of scenarios, then, where Obama
comes tantalizingly close to a victory, but loses several different
battleground states by mere points or fractions thereof. This dynamic
is fairly fluid, however, and if Obama were able to get a toehold
somewhere like Colorado or Virginia, it could quickly reverse itself.Does all of this mean that you should short Obama in the futures markets, which still show him as roughly a 60:40 favorite?Not
necessarily. Our model accounts for the topline results of the polls in
as comprehensive a way as is possible, but it does not account for
nonpolling factors such as turnout and ground game, macroeconomic
conditions, or the probability of certain future events (like the
conventions) tending to favor one or another candidate. The Obama
campaign, I think, has good reasons not to panic; the facts and figures
that we hear about their ground game in off-record conversations never
fail to impress, and the campaign has a keen sense of how to play out
the rest of the political calendar, in contrast to recent weeks where
they had let McCain dictate the narrative. But the McCain campaign,
just as surely, has reason to be pleased. Their candidate was never
going to win a blowout election, but they are setting themselves up
well to win a close one.Finally, here are the state polling results, which we'll simply present today as a data dump.
--Nate Silver
21 comments
I think it's time for some of the "when will Obama unleash the dogs of war?" crowd to get a grip.
The difference between Obama and McCain in today's NYTimes/CBS poll is 3 points.
The difference between Obama and McCain in today's WSJ/NBC polls is 3 points.
If you average the Gallup dailies back to July 13--38 DAYS AGO, before and after Obama's Iraq-Europe trip, before and after Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, before and after the supposed "victory" at Saddleback, the difference between Obama and McCain is . . . guess what?
That's right. 3 points.
The state-by-state polling, which is never as secure as national polling since the sample sizes are necessarily smaller, shows that the race is reverting back to patterns we are familiar with from 2000 and 2004. Why this surprises anyone I do not know. The Republicans nominated their best possible candidate, someone still not sufficiently tied to the current administration (watch for a lot of that tie-in over the course of the Democratic convention).
Barack Obama will win this election by about, oh, I dunno, maybe . . . three points? Any takers?
- timteeter
August 20, 2008 at 10:35pm
BTW, and for the record, I predict that the respective "convention bounce" for EACH candidate will be below the average 5 to 6 points, and that by mid-September the Obama lead will be about, um, 3 points. Watch for much pointless handwringing by the left-commentariat in the days after Denver.
- timteeter
August 20, 2008 at 10:52pm
Good.
I mean it. This is good, because now Obama can run as the underdog, and paint McCain as the frontrunner. Why can't McCain put the rookie away? Why can't McCain, the serious foreign policy guru, get some separation from the naive young fool? The media must beat McCain like a gong on a daily basis for not living up to expectations.
Hmm, what's that? That won't happen? Oh, but it should. Right? Obama certainly faced such inane commentary and questioning. Shouldn't McCain, now that he is surging into the lead? Heck, you could spin this that McCain has all of the momentum now, therefore he should be able to build at least at 10 to 15 point lead by the end of the Republican convention. Unrealistic? Nah, such an old pro at the politics game should easily trounce such a neophyte.
- kgrant1054
August 20, 2008 at 10:56pm
"But the McCain campaign, just as surely, has reason to be pleased. Their candidate was never going to win a blowout election, but they are setting themselves up well to win a close one."
Nate, what are you going to do for a living if Mac wins big? And what about that Bradley effect?
Prediction: Mac in a landslide, even CA.
- deanpear
August 20, 2008 at 11:40pm
Agree with timteeter entirely. The hysteria coming from the left about how Obama has no choice but to go nuclear on McCain is not only premature, but extremely misguided. Ramping up the ugliness at this stage of the game damages his brand, makes him look reactive and less presidential, and cedes some moral high ground to McCain. And while it may fire up the partisans, it badly risks alienating large numbers of cross-over voters who believed in his message of changing the tone in Washington.
While I'm not naive enough to believe that Obama can conduct his entire campaign on the upbeat messages of "change" and "hope," I also know that the media focus is going to change soon after the conventions. McCain hasn't had his opportunity yet under the hot lamps the way that Obama has these last few months. When he does, he's going to melt, and so will his poll numbers.
Hold off on pressing the panic button, ok, folks? We're still nearly two and a half months from the finish line.
- BHLnyc
August 21, 2008 at 1:08am
This is getting comical. Obama's supporters assured us that his inability to break out earlier this year was due to low awareness, and that his numbers would soar once the voters got to know him. Over the last couple of months, we've seen saturation coverage of Obama, nearly all of it highly favorable, paired with highly unfavorable coverage of his opponent. And Obama's numbers not only aren't rising, they've moved steadily downward.
So what could possibly be the explanation? Now the fun starts. Would you believe....
...RACISM? When in doubt, blame it all on race. The problem of course is that Obama's race is LESS of a novelty now than it was two months ago, and the racial issues, eg l'affaire Wright, have receded, not advanced.
....PUMAs? As with race,m this is backwards. The Hillaristas are more compliant, not less, today than they were a couple months ago. Support from them for Obama is rising, not falling, and will likely continue to rise as the campaign foes forward.
... MCCAIN's / THE GOP's DIRTY TRICKS? Those nasty, brutish, hideously unfair Britney/Paris ads? Corsi's dopey book? Not likely. Compared to the slime hurled by GOP tricksters in campaigns past-- including against one John McCain in SC in 2000-- the Britney stuff doesn't even rate.
When will you guys admit that Obama's deepening problem with the voters isn't his race,or the PUMAs, or the GOP's slimesters, but the candidate's own failure to close the deal with lib-to-moderate DEMOCRATS who should by all rights support Obama but who are becoming less and less convinced that he's ready for the WH?
Obama needs, in short order, to learn how to speak crisply and coherently without a teleprompter, to demonstrate a sure and deft understanding of E European and Russian power politics, and to show real, spontaneous, off the cuff mastery of not one or two but several big, complex policy matters of national consequence. Unless he can do all of the above, convincingly, there will continue to be defections-- private, covert, under the radar-- among educated Democrats who believe, with reason, that the man is running before he's ready.
- teplukhin2you
August 21, 2008 at 2:33am
But, tep, Nate hasn't said anything (or not much) about Obama's constituencies' support declining so much as potential votes for Obama and McCain respectively have gradually converged to numbers similar to Bush Kerry '04, and Bush Gore '00. Ditto Electoral College with differences a jot here and a skosh there. It's a firming up, not an omen.
Some of us have not been convinced that Obama should be a runaway winner. I, for one, have always believed that it would be another squeaker, and I way discount the popular theories that Obama will bring in "millions of new voters." Hogwash, the red blue divide remains since, in essence, because the platforms haven't changed. In other words, same old same old. But what about that indicates Obama's chances are fading because more and more liberal centrists like you and me aren't as sure as we once were in the salad days? Seems about right to me, anyway.
- tomeg
August 21, 2008 at 5:16am
tep, I for one do not discount latent racism, and being a bit crisper on the stump would not hurt at all. It would be great if Obama could neutralize the security issue and change the subject from "drill now." However, I think it is worth pointing out that, if Obama does indeed win this election by, say, three points, he will have significantly outperformed Kerry, Gore, Clinton in 92, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter in 80 and even in 76 (Carter 76 won by an eyelash).
- timteeter
August 21, 2008 at 7:33am
Tep, you say: "Over the last couple of months, we've seen saturation coverage of Obama, nearly all of it highly favorable"
What campaign have you been watching? That sure doesn't mesh with anything I've seen.
"Nearly all of it highly favorable"? Let's see. Most of June's media focus was taken up with the question of what would Hillary and her Bitter Enders do. July was mired in discussion of whether Obama snubbed wounded troops in Iraq and was an elitist for addressing cheering Germans. That later lead to TWO FULL WEEKS of debate about whether Obama was a celebrity on par with Britney and Paris, with endless replaying of McCain's lame web spot. And then Bill had another one of his eruptions, refusing to explicitly say whether Obama was qualified to serve as president. August has scarcely been better, with endless public hand-wringing about why his poll numbers aren't through the roof.
If that's what qualifies as "highly favorable" press, I'd hate to see what negative coverage looks like.
- BHLnyc
August 21, 2008 at 8:07am
tomeg wrote, But, tep, Nate hasn't said anything (or not much) about Obama's constituencies' support declining so much as potential votes for Obama and McCain respectively have gradually converged to numbers similar to Bush Kerry '04, and Bush Gore '00.
Yes and no. There are still voters missing in the polling data. I don't mean the new voter. But no, we don't know how they are being accounted for since most states haven't released those numbers. The reason current polls can't predict? The percentage of unsure is still double digits.
Most surveys indicate they overwhelmingly Dems, they have an Obama 'problem' and-but they did support Hillary.
Why are the unsure the key? There are three outcomes which I believe are (so far) not predictable. 1.) The unsure vote for McCain. They would be the Hillary protest, problem w/Barack or a combo. That would be the worst case for the currently unsure & Barack loses. 2.) The unsure don't vote. The same group, same issues but they couldn't bear to vote for McCain. Barack is still the likely loser unless new voters wipe out the 'stay at home' effect from the current unsure. (New voters won't likely make up for the unsure if the roll over for McCain as in #1.). 3.) Obama converts the unsure. Depending on how many unsure fold and vote for Barack, it could be a wipe-out.
Clearly, #3 will require what I'll call The Clinton Intervention. The VP may help, could hurt but the pro Hillary (yet still unsure) will either show movement to committed soon after the convention or not at all.
But I don't believe Nate's simulations or historical models have predictive value because the large percentage of voters who will decide the outcome and we do not know if they will stay home, object to Obama or move to him.
If the confidence of the Obama team is genuine? They probably realize they'll lose some of the unsure but have impressive numbers from the field on new voters that the states haven't reported. However, I they can't afford for the current percentage of unsure to flip or stay at home and if that number shrinks and his margin doesn't grow, they know they're in trouble. The Clintons will be necessary to move this group, they may not be a sufficient force to push enough of them.
- michael
August 21, 2008 at 10:13am
tep, your anti-Obama/anti-Obama supporter screeds are predictable and condescending. You could cut and paste the lectures on Russia, the economy, Obama's lack of credentials and all the rest without bothering to change the details.
W lost the popular vote but became president. He beat Kerry by 1.7 percent four years ago. This is a narrowly divided country. Nonetheless, after a terrible month, Obama is still tied or perhaps a little ahead. This isn't necessarily good news for McCain. You can bet the counterpunches will begin in earnest.
- mpatrickhendri
August 21, 2008 at 10:14am
Oh, and today's tracking Rasmussen margin is . . .
Surprise! 3 points.
- timteeter
August 21, 2008 at 10:56am
BHL - maybe you and I follow different media. I watch next to no TV, don't get a TV signal at home.
I read the (online)print media, basically NYT WaPo Politico Slate TNR, non-K-Lo "The Corner", and the UK press with an occasional glance at Der Spiegel and Le Monde. In the US online press, reviews of his Euro trip were favorable; not so much in the Euro press. Otherwise, I saw very favorable, pro-Obama coverage during this period, esp in TNR and NYT-WaPo.
- teplukhin2you
August 21, 2008 at 11:05am
tep writes:
"Obama needs, in short order, to learn how to speak crisply and coherently without a teleprompter, to demonstrate a sure and deft understanding of E European and Russian power politics, and to show real, spontaneous, off the cuff mastery of not one or two but several big, complex policy matters of national consequence."
To which anyone who's paying attention is forced to ask, why does Obama "need" to do any of these things when John McCain has also failed to do even a single one of them? I get that tep is obsessed with Russia this week, just as tep was obsessed with health care a few weeks back, and, well, honestly tep is just pretty much obsessed at any given moment about whatever point tep feels Obama doesn't perfectly express tep's innermost policy wishes. But when has John McCain ever demonstrated a sure and deft understanding of E European and Russian power politics? You mean the bit where he called the Georgian president to give him a pep talk, twice, and then the Georgian president went on American TV and said, "Thanks but no thanks, we need deeds not words?"
Candidate McCain is a disaster speaking without a teleprompter, he has had precisely one good foreign policy idea in his entire adult life, and he has never demonstrated a comfortable mastery of any complex matter of national consequence. So why is tep hitting Obama, but not McCain, for failing these tests?
Clearly, tep's belief that Obama is not ready for the White House is not based on any comparison of actual performance, judgment, or experience between the two candidates. It is, at best, based on irrational assumptions that because one guy has been around Washington for 26 years, he must therefor know what he's doing. Now, I will grant that a large portion of the public probably does share tep's irrational prejudice in this regard. I just thank God that these irrational voters formed a minority of the electorate in 1860 and 1932, when men with less "experience" than Obama faced off against men with more "experience" than McCain.
- rhubarbs
August 21, 2008 at 11:09am
mpat - talk to George Lakoff. He's got the same take on Young Barack's speaking abilities, or inability, as Zbiggy says, to "crystallize the issue":
www.sfgate.com/.../article.cgi
Frankly, Rhube, I think Team Obama could do with a bit of "obsessing" right about now. Their guy's got his work cut out for him.
- teplukhin2you
August 21, 2008 at 12:27pm
Tep,
I think you answered your own question. If at least a chunk of your understanding of the campaign this summer didn't come from TV coverage you probably have a very different perspective than 95% of America. I'm not suggesting that there wasn't some favorable coverage of Obama's European trip or his campaign in general, but by no stretch of the imagination would it be characterized as "overwhelmingly favorable."
Really, how many undecided voters do you think are drawing getting their news from Der Spiegel?
- BHLnyc
August 21, 2008 at 12:29pm
Otherwise, I saw very favorable, pro-Obama coverage during this period, *esp in TNR and NYT-WaPo.*
Well, sure, tep, but that's a little like saying the Pope is catholic. What would expect from a liberal journal and two liberal newspapers? Somehow I suspect that the coverage in, say, NRO and the WSJ was a bit less effusive.
- timteeter
August 21, 2008 at 12:30pm
NYT sets the news agenda for the nation's print media and to some degree the networks as well.
Re TV, are you saying that the coverage of BHO in Europe was not favorable? You know better than I, but that doesn't sound right. BHO's team assumed that the images esp would make him look presidential, the best choice to restore the world's faith in America etc
- teplukhin2you
August 21, 2008 at 2:04pm
MICHAEL WRITES, "...tomeg wrote, But, tep, Nate hasn't said anything (or not much) about Obama's constituencies' support declining so much as potential votes for Obama and McCain respectively have gradually converged to numbers similar to Bush Kerry '04, and Bush Gore '00...."
The wild card in all this is The Bradley Effect, if there is such a thing these days. I'm sure the pollsters have some techniques to adjust for that, but how efficacious might those be?
My gut tells me that polls this time around may be less accurate than in the past.
- ChanRobt
August 21, 2008 at 3:00pm
Tep writes:
"Re TV, are you saying that the coverage of BHO in Europe was not favorable?" No, as I pointed out in my last post, there certainly was some favorable coverage of his trip. But it ended with a phony, right wing inspired "controversy" about Obama's having cancelled a visit to a veteran's hospital. And after that the media was fixated on McCain's stupid "celebrity" smear, which attempted to taint Obama's positive reception abroad.
I was merely challenging your contention that the coverage this summer has been almost universally positive, for it hasn't been. The media has spent an inordinate amount of air time regurgitating right wing talking points about Obama and that, I believe, is why you've seen Obama struggle to get beyond the 50% threshold. Once the harsh glare turns back on McCain -- and this "too many houses to count" debacle is a great start -- I believe you'll find the race settles back into its earlier state, with Obama more like five to seven points ahead.
- BHLnyc
August 21, 2008 at 3:59pm
Far more positive for BHO than for McCain, whose campaign was a mess. Obama's been on the cover of TIME seven times this year. Seven times!
Look, the harsh truth here is that the more the voters see of Obama, the lower his numbers go. This is the opposite of what we were told by his backers would happen. It's happening for the simple, obvious reason that there's a problem with the candidate. He and his team need to figure out how to fix it instead of crying racism or dirty tricks.
- teplukhin2you
August 21, 2008 at 8:11pm