tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post4457826736025401239..comments2023-11-28T05:28:18.563-05:00Comments on All Things Ken: Polls and Media BiasKenneth R. Morefieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-84784515584288664562008-10-09T19:14:00.000-05:002008-10-09T19:14:00.000-05:00Welcome, Laura.David Gergen suggested on CNN that ...Welcome, Laura.<BR/><BR/>David Gergen suggested on CNN that some researchers fear that race can skew polling data--that is that some people will say they will vote for a Black person but then not do it or say they are "undecided" when they have no intention of ever voting for a Black person. Others on that network suggested that there was little evidence of that phenomenon during the Democratic primary (where the results mirrored the polls pretty well). Of course, one might worry that the sorts of people that Gergen worries about wouldn't be voting in the primaries. <BR/><BR/>Another reason the election might "feel closer" is that the leads are usually less than the percentage number of voters who are "undecided" in some swing states. I have my own feelings about this--I'm not sure how many "undecided" voters are really undecided and how many just like to wait until the last moment to declare. <BR/><BR/>Also, it's worth looking at polling that is just between McCain and Obama versus polling that includes McKinney, Nader, Barr, or other candidates. For instance, if one looks at Florida (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/), one sees Obama up between 2-4% points; when other candidates are mentioned, both Obama and McCain lose about five points, with a few mentioning other candidates and a larger percentage being "undecided" (8% in the Suffolk poll). This suggests to me that the higher % of undecided could be attributed to indifferent or ambivalent voters (don't like either one) as opposed to one side or the other having "soft" numbers. I've heard a lot of people say that Obama only has to "split" undecided voters with McCain, but it looks to me like McCain might actually be hurt a bit more by third party candidates because he NEEDS those votes, and because Obama's negatives aren't high enough to make people vote for McCain as "the lesser of two evils."<BR/><BR/>Finally, as we all know, there is math, and there is electoral math. The election can feel or be close nationally but break electorally. McCain's got double digit leads in Arkansas (not sure why CNN has that only "leaning" McCain), Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. He gets 32 electoral votes for that, roughly the same amount Obama would get for sealing the deal in Michigan, flipping New Mexico (where he has a 5 to 6 point lead in a state Bush carried) and grinding out a win in Wisconsin (by no means assured but looking good. Stated more succinctly, McCain's margin of victory is liable to be bigger in the states he does carry, but Obama is likely to carry more states by a smaller margin. That suggests that things could still change with a major gaffe or some huge social change (I would look for Bush to announce some sort of victory or progress in the war in the week before the election), and I think the last thing the Obama camp wants is the perception of things looking good because a victory depends on high voter turnout.Kenneth R. Morefieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02492954693818444648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15191330.post-53082272478950390282008-10-09T12:13:00.000-05:002008-10-09T12:13:00.000-05:00Interesting, Ken. Thanks for doing that research ...Interesting, Ken. Thanks for doing that research and sharing it.<BR/><BR/>I find myself having a bit of cognitive dissonance over this. The race still feels "close" to me, but the polls do say otherwise. I think your post helps explain the disconnect.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11197569013662515029noreply@blogger.com