Balkinization: Looking at the fundamentals of the election

Looking at the fundamentals of the election

If I do enough posts about why I haven't written much about the election, it will no longer be true. And probably soon, it won't be. I'll be writing about it like everyone else. In any case, let me add one additional reason to think that most of what is convulsing the blogosphere about the race is noise.

This graph from Alan Abramowitz (hat tip: Seth Colter) suggests that the 10 day rolling average of the Gallup poll is pretty stable, with Obama having a modest 3 to 4 point lead over a fairly long span of time.

Fundamental features of the political situation-- a weak economy, an unpopular war, and the fact that the Republicans have held office for eight years-- suggest that if nothing catastrophic happens, Barack Obama will win the election in November. He may win it in a landslide, but the more likely result is that he will win by a margin of 3 to 4 points-- pretty much where he is now. That would translate into something like a 51-47-1 split (one percent for various third party candidates), which is not unusual for presidential elections. At that margin of difference, (and assuming he carries all of the states carried by the Democrats in 2004) he will probably pick up somewhere between 290 and 310 electoral votes.

It's entirely possible that the margin will grow larger as people get to know Obama and feel that he is less of a risk. McCain's most important strategy this summer has been to sow doubt in people's minds about Obama: to demonstrate that he is risky, untested, that we don't know enough about him, that he is suspicious, that he does not connect with ordinary citizens, and that he is "other" in various ways. That is why you see the McCain camp engaged in a panoply of tactics to spread these messages about Obama, some of which are quite blatant, some of which are quite subtle.

Obama could shoot himself in the foot; or there could be an Edwards-style scandal that destroys his candidacy, or there could be another terrorist attack. All of these things could change the race significantly. But nothing like this has happened yet. Even the brouhaha over the Rev. Wright did not rise to this level. The fundamentals of this race so far have stayed pretty much fundamental.

Posted 12:32 PM by JB [link]

Comments:

Obama will win 40+ states. For the GOP it will be like Reagan-Mondale only in a downbeat way.

My data set? myself, this will be the first time I've ever voted democrat, and my mother in law, a very pro life woman who is voting for Obama anyway because she is against the war.

# posted by

abu hamza : 1:36 PM

Right now Obama has a "safe" lead (5%+) in 19 states with 244 electoral votes. McSame has a "safe" lead in 20 states with 192 electoral votes.

In the 11 close states, Obama leads in 6 states with a total of 64 votes. McSame leads in 5 states with 35 votes.

Obama should definitely win, but I don't see him winning 40 states.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:07 PM

this is a big fact that is being ignored by the msm in order to gin up a closer race.

I agree.

The track record is clear: most coverage of Hillary over the last three months of her campaign pretended it was still a close race. Informed folks knew it was not close, that Hillary's chances were very slight, that numbers that suggested otherwise were assuming an extremely unlikely set of events would happen, which (surprise) ended up not happening. Why then was the media suggesting otherwise? Well, a legitimate reason would be not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of outcome; that much is valid. But there's no excited talk on the 24 hour news networks if a simple fact is reported: the race is not close; a less legitimate reason, albeit a powerful one.

I suggest the Presidential election coverage is much the same, and for much the same reasons.

# posted by

jpk : 5:54 PM

Well... Looking back at 2000 and 2004, it appears that we're entering the part of the calendar in which the polls suddenly start to get much more volatile, as major campaign events happen and people start to tune in. I agree that most of the motion people are worrying about is not worth mentioning, but it's partly because whatever tiny trends we can see now may be overwhelmed by big movements later.

In 2004, Kerry held a lead through July and most of August, a fact that Republicans never tire of mentioning now. When the lead collapsed, around the time of the Republican convention after weeks of Swift Boat Vets ads, it was catastrophic--Kerry started to make it up with the debates but never quite got there.

However, there are differences that make me think this won't be 2004 all over again. In terms of national polls, Obama's lead has been both longer-lived and rather larger than Kerry's was. Also, there's the money angle--since Kerry had accepted public financing for the general, he was operating under strict funding caps from late July on, whereas the Bush campaign could spend "primary" money right up to the September convention. Obama has vastly superior funding, more favorable fundamentals and a superior ground organization working in his favor.

Still, I know I'm going to be nervously watching the polls around convention time.

# posted by

Unknown : 12:49 AM

There are two different kinds of polling.

The first tracks adults and registered, a substantial minority of which will never vote, and is thus inaccurate and misleading. On average over time, polling of adults and registered voters ALWAYS overstates support for Dems and that effect is greater the farther out from the election you are.

The Gallup tracking poll cited by Prof. Balkin falls into this latter category. This poll has had a narrow lead for Obama which is at or below historical norms for the Dem candidate in the summer preceding an election. Sorry to wreck your fantasies, but no post Vietnam Dem candidate has ever won the presidency by the margins of the lead in summer polling of registered voters.

The second type polls likely voters. Rasmussen, Gallup and a couple others have decent formulas for predicting likely voters. These polls are more accurate, but still bounce around this far out from the election because voters are not yet engaged with the election.

Gallup lillustrated the difference between the results of polling between likely and registered voters about three weeks ago when their likely voter poll had a McCain lead and their registered voter poll had an Obama lead.

Rasmussen's more accurate tracking poll of likely voters have had this race as a statistical tie since Obama's failed rock star tour
of the Middle East and EU.

Far from being confident in this polling, the Dem professionals are actually becoming increasingly uneasy because Mr. Obama has not come close to earlier large Dem leads by candidates who have lost.

The most interesting polling change we have seen in this election concerns the extraordinarily high number of undecided voters. Rasmussen's internals of these undecided indicate that they are leaning toward McCain or a third party candidate.

These are hardly the findings of electoral victory, nevertheless a sure thing realignment election.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:05 AM

Rasmussen's more accurate tracking poll of likely voters have had this race as a statistical tie since Obama's failed rock star tour
of the Middle East and EU.

Not quite, sparky.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 273, McCain 227. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 60.5 % chance of winning the White House.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:26 AM

By definition, a "realignment election" is one where past trends are overturned. Pollsters with proven track records in predicting just which people will vote are going to find their proven extrapolations coming up short in such an election.

How do you tell when an event like this is going to occur? You look for things like huge numbers of new voter registrations (does anybody really believe many of those new registrants are eager to vote for John McCain?) You look for volatility in polls. You look for polls that differ from each other by more than the confidence intervals allow.

As we see, all these conditions are met in the current circumstance. Polls, which by their nature allow self-selection on the part of respondents, cannot accurately foretell the result when a large segment of the populace becomes angry.

# posted by

C2H50H : 10:35 AM

c2h50h said...

By definition, a "realignment election" is one where past trends are overturned. Pollsters with proven track records in predicting just which people will vote are going to find their proven extrapolations coming up short in such an election.

Even the Dem leaning polling could see the 1994 election results coming.

The media polling in 1980 was relatively primitive and was not particularly good at determining likely voters. However, Reagan's internal polling showed voters shifting his way long before the media did.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:59 AM

Bart,

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time. What about 2006? As I recall, the pollsters (including Karl Rove) you respect didn't see that coming.

I'll wait until November to see just how well the electorate has learned from the last 7+ years. Speaking from long experience, I'll predict it will be less than an educator might hope, but probably enough to make a difference.

# posted by

C2H50H : 11:31 AM

c2h50h said...

Bart, Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time. What about 2006? As I recall, the pollsters (including Karl Rove) you respect didn't see that coming.

The spokesmen and women for the parties have to spin favorably their party's prospects to get their voters out. Do not confuse that spin with their actual opinions. Everyone knew the Dems would pick up a substantial number of seats months out. The question was whether the Rove GOTV machine could minimize the damage and allow the GOP to hold onto one or both Houses. It did not and several Blue Dog Dems won razor thin victories in Red districts that were toss ups going in.

I see this trend toward the center-right Blue Dogs continuing this year unless the GOP can keep getting traction on the oil drilling issue. Frankly, the GOP (as opposed to conservatism) has been running out of ideas and voters are getting tired of them. The Blue Dogs have been selling practical conservatism better than the GOP recently and have reaped the benefits at the polls. The call for getting the government out of the way of energy production is the first semi-conservative domestic initiative the GOP has offered in years. The question is whether this move is too late because the recruiting period for candidates has long passed and there may not be enough GOP contenders to carry this message.

What is worrying Dem politicos is that Obama is far underperforming his congressional party and even underperforming prior Dem candidates for the White House who have ended up losing. I will not regurgitate my argument from the previous Balkin election thread, but the primary votes (as opposed to caucuses) showed that Obama polls far better than he draws actual votes at the ballot box. The combination of his ballot box votes underperforming his already underperforming polling should sober those expecting an easy victory, nevertheless a political realignment.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:30 PM

Everyone knew the Dems would pick up a substantial number of seats months out.

Everyone except you. You were predicting that the Repubs would hold both the House and the Senate.

Which leads one to wonder why you would think that anyone should listen to your predictions now.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:40 PM

Today's Pew polling of registered voters (which leans Dem) shows the usual tightening of the presidential race one sees as Summer starts moving toward Fall.

Pew spends a great deal of time breaking down the internals and has a nice chart comparing this result with the nearly identical results of this poll with past polling at this time of year in 2000 and 2004.

Of note, the Reagan coalition is once again coalescing around the GOP candidate and there is absolutely no signs of a realignment. McCain has far more GOP support than Obama has Dem support.

As with every wartime (Cold War or WOT) post Vietnam election starting with Reagan, the Dem candidate is having difficulty assembling a viable coalition because a majority view the GOP candidate as a superior leader better able to handle crises. The substance-less Obama rock star tour of the Middle East and EU appears to have reinforced doubts about Obama serving as Commander in Chief, rather than allaying them.

In short, there do not appear to be any new dynamics at work in the 2008 presidential race which have not been present since 1980.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:42 PM

The spokesmen and women for the parties have to spin favorably their party's prospects to get their voters out.

Baghdad, is the GOP paying you well for the time you spend in here?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:02 PM

Someone likes to lower the bar ... after the race has been run:

"The question was whether the Rove GOTV machine could minimize the damage and allow the GOP to hold onto one or both Houses."

What a pile of poppycock, I must say.

Even optimistic Democrats weren't willing to go on line with predictions that the Dems would pick off both houses. "Bart" here likes to move the goal posts (or, more accurately, lower the bar) so that the results, even though a decisive loss, seem not as extraordinary as they were. But, when all you have is a hammer....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:49 AM

"Red districts that were toss ups going in"

"Jumbo shrimp" and all that.

ROFLMAO. Someone here thinks that words have power. That may be true, but he hasn't the skill to produce such, at least not such as would sucker anyone with a junior high education. The saddest part is that he's probably unaware that his words (and even more so, the underlying 'arguments') are so silly.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:54 AM

"Frankly, the GOP (as opposed to conservatism) has been running out of ideas ..."

You mean like sound bites that emulate college football games cheering: "Drill! Drill! Drill!"?

They should have checked their bank account before they started.

But trying to pretend that conservatism is anything other than the Republican party in the U.S. right now is silly. Glenn Greenwald handles this nonsense ably here (and in other posts).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:06 AM