Gallup Final Estimate: O 55 - M 44

Gallup ^ | 11/02/08 | Gallup

[ubaldus]

Obama +11 with undecideds allocated. Without allocation: RV O 53 - M 40, LV O 53 - M 42 (in both models).

[kesg]

In LV, they have D 39, R 29, I 31 split. So, it’s D +10, and McCain running behind the Party ID gap.

We're both wrong. It's D39, I31, R29.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111703/Final-Presidential-Estimate-Obama-55-McCain-44.aspx

"In the final poll, 38% of U.S. adults identified as Democrats, 34% as independents and 26% as Republicans. Among likely voters, the figures are 39%, 31% and 29%, respectively."

So, assume McCain is +14 in white vote (twice the Gallup margin, and btw R2000 poll by Kos shows him +14 there) and -60 in non-white vote (not -70). Then he loses by 5% or so.

Closer to three points. But even under this scenario, you need to keep in mind that much of this non-white vote is concentrated in big blue non-competitive states such as New York and California. Additional big chunks of blacks and Hispanics are in Texas (which McCain will win), Illinois (where Obama will win), New Jersey (where Obama will win), and various Southern states where McCain will win or should win even if not by as big a margin as Bush four years ago. And the Hispanics in Florida are Cuban and far more GOP-friendly than Hispanics in other states.

And even more importantly, with a more realistic party distribution, McCain's share of the white vote will be closer to 16 or 17 percent, with each additional point of white voter support added to his total or subtracted from Obama's total adding approximately 0.77% to the top line numbers.

[goldstategop]

With a more realistic party distribution, we would see a 52 to 53 McCain lead with Obama where he really is - at 46 or 47 in the polls conducted so far. Gallup wants us to believe though this election will see a turnout unlike any seen before in American history that will power Obama to a landslide win. One of the problems with the picture is Obama is underperforming compared to Kerry in Blue States. While blacks may be a strong Democratic group, that 97-1 voting ratio is found only in dictatorships. A 90-10 distribution would be a better fit. I guess they've doubled their bets because they think Obama excites blacks and Democrats in general to an extent no other Democratic candidate has ever done. But even in their model, the majority of whites still reject him. When you engage in politically correct polling based on untested assumptions, the actual results are likely to confound the assumptions because the assumptions have no basis in reality. In short, if Gallup is doing the polling differently than what is accepted practice because Obama is a black candidate, they're both doing him and the voters a major disservice.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[kesg]

Let me put the point even more bluntly: in actual Presidential elections, Democratic candidates rarely get even to 50%, much less 55%. The last one to do it — at 50.1% — was Jimmy Carter back in 1976. No Democratic candidate in US history ever got more votes than John Kerry, but that was good enough only for barely more than 48% of the national vote.

Gallup is esssentially saying that Barack Obama will get 8.5 million more votes for President than John Kerry did. Where are those new votes going to come from? I doubt that many of them are going to come from people who voted for Bush four years ago. Even if you increase voter turnout 5% from 2004 levels, that’s only about 6.1 million votes.

Even if you jack up turnout all the way to Gallup’s 64% — which would be the highest turnout since at least before 1960, that’s an additional 11 million votes, of which Obama would have to win at least 88.6% to net 8.5 million votes.

Does this seem plausible to anyone?

[floridagopvoter]

“some polls in 1948 had Truman down 15 points final poll

wonder how the polling technology has changed?”

In 1948 there were far fewer polling companies than there are today, and polling stopped weeks before the election. The only poll that had a “final” poll relatively close to election day was Gallup, which showed Dewey beating Truman by 5%. That poll was wrapped up one full week before election day. During that last week of campaigning Truman embarked on a widely publicized populist barnstorming whistle-stop tour around the country during which he blasted the “do nothing” Congress. It resonated, resulting in a late surge towards Truman, which could not be captured by any polls, as the “final” poll had already been handed out a week prior.

The other caveat is that in those days polls were conducted strictly by telephone (as is the case today,) and in those days the only people who actually owned telephones were relatively wealthy, and therefore more likely to back Dewey. In fact, reportedly one of the “errant” polling firms, the Litery Digest, used DMV records to gather phone numbers, making automobile ownership as well as owning a telephone a prerequisite to even be included in their poll, which, again, in those days led to a severe bias towards Dewey, as his supporters were much more likely to own both.

[kesg]

I fully agree with everything you said. To which I add that I think that Gallup is allowing early voting numbers to skew their model. They are assuming that because blacks are voting in disproportionately large numbers in early voting, they will continue to vote in those same disproportionately large numbers on Election Day. This is simply wrong. What really happens is that blacks who vote early don’t vote on election day. They still make up only 11-12 of national voters, regardless of the day on which they vote. Well, except perhaps in Chicago....but I digress.

There is no basis for Gallup to assume that because more blacks are voting early, the total population of black voters will increase as well. Yet that is what its latest LV model does.

[goldstategop]

Its just not plausible. No candidate will ever win 88% of all the new votes. No Democrat does that even in non competitive states like California, Illinois and New York. No GOP candidate has done it either in Florida and Texas. Obama is not going to be able to net 8.5 million new votes, if you go with the Gallup figures. Even the most popular President in American history, Ronald Reagan won just 51% on his first try in 1980. Obama is not going to do better than Reagan on his first try for the White House. As you mentioned, John Kerry got more votes than Al Gore and he still got only 48%. Obama appears to be getting a lower percentage of the overall popular vote than Kerry did in 2004. We'll see what the voter increase is over the 2004 figure but we can definitely say its not going to be 64% under the Gallup model.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[floridagopvoter]

Seriously, you don’t think Obama will outperform Kerry in this election? KERRY?

No offense, but that does not seem plausible. Obama is not a sure candidate, he has many flaws, but poll after poll (including those from Republican polling firms) are showing a higher level of base support and also more support from Independents than Kerry got. If you add the inherent difficulties we are having in this particular year, and, going back to 2004, the general reluctance amongst many to send an incumbent president home, especially in the midst of a major war, I just can’t see how Obama does not outperform Kerry and how McCain outperforms a president Bush who at the time enjoyed higher popularity with the American people than Kerry.

[wardaddy]

nice

the lucidity of your posting will get you some scorn here

[kesg]

Obama might outperform Kerry, especially in big blue noncompetitive states like New York and California with large minority populations. Then again, he might not. He may not perform as well as Kerry did in many states.

Obama is certainly more charismatic than Kerry, but Kerry was far more qualified and experienced. Kerry would have been a stronger candidate than Obama, even if he would have generated less excitement. Hillary would have been an even stronger candidate than either Obama or Kerry.

[goldstategop]

Good point. If blacks have already early voted in states where early voting is allowed, they don't vote again. The assumption is because of Obama's race, we'll get an an exception to the normal pattern with regard to Democratic candidates. But even if that is true, that does not change the ratio of black voters relative to the population. Thus, even their numbers increase, you also have an increase in white voters, which cancels out the effect of the increase in black turnout for Obama. And even if 9 out of 10 black votes do go to Obama, piling on more votes does nothing to move the overall popular vote numbers to where Gallup thinks it be will be. John Kerry increased his voting by the millions but he didn't increase the percentage to a winning margin. Its highly unlikely that Obama can do what Kerry failed to do four years ago even if he does get millions of new voters to vote for him on Tuesday.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Agreed. Obama has charismatic appeal, which is why he gets as many votes as he does. What keeps him from getting to a majority at the present time is his lack of real accomplishments or experience at governing. A rejection is not necessarily a bad thing. With his ego never having met with adversity, tempering him with a defeat may make him a better candidate someday. Again, it may not. It all depends on how Obama chooses to respond to the electorate's penultimate verdict, if he does lose the election this week.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[word_warrior_bob]

Gallup’s final estimate to be off by by a good 15%. That will bring the clients in.

Wasn’t it Gallup who got Obama/Clinton in California wrong by 26%?

[floridagopvoter]

I don’t disagree with your assessment on Kerry vs. Obama on a strictly issues oriented point of view (i.e. experience,) but Kerry in many ways was a severely damaged candidate, especially after the swift boating issue came to light. Lacking charisma he was seen by many in his party as an utterly boring candidate. And, again, you always have strong reluctance during wartime to unseat an incumbent president, who also happened to enjoy stronger popularity amongst the American people than his challenger.

Of course, my biggest fear for this election is not about the candidates themselves but the daunting issues we are facing inherently during this particular cycle as a party. The economy is and has been the albatross that has been hung around our collective necks, which is the big one, but other carryovers from 2006 are also still around.

I would love to find myself in a nailbiter until 3 AM, hearing “Pennsylvania too close to call” and “Colorado too close to call” all night long. We’ll know by tomorrow night.

[Chet 99]

Does this seem plausible to anyone?

No... but then again, I never thought it plausible that a radical Chicago politician with a tissue thin resume would be this close to winning the presidency either...

[alconservative]

There have been bigger landslides since ‘60: Johnson 61.1% in ‘64 and Reagan 58.8% in ‘84. There were others before ‘60.
The greatest margin was Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1% in ‘20.

I don’t think it will be that big, but I’m not feeling very hopeful for an upset.

[Chet 99]

No offense, but that does not seem plausible. Obama is not a sure candidate, he has many flaws, but poll after poll (including those from Republican polling firms) are showing a higher level of base support and also more support from Independents than Kerry got.

Really? Poll after poll I've seen shows independents fairly evenly split. 0bama gains his edge due to the poll being weighted with Democrats. That's certainly the case with Rasmussen. I know, because I am a member and get to see the crosstabs.

[Chet 99]

How much has changed since 1996? The polls failed in a big way that year, but no one really remembers because they picked the correct the winner... but the margins were off by a mile.

[Chet 99]

and tell me, since you obviously believe “the polls are right”, which poll? They’re literally all over the map, ranging from Obama +2 to +5 to +13. These kind of differences cannot be chalked up to “statistical noise.”

If the Obama +2 poll is correct, McCain can win the electoral college. He may even win the popular vote, depending on how the undecideds go.

[floridagopvoter]

Obama seems to have gained an edge amongst Independents.

Gallup shows a 4% Obama edge:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108049/Candidate-Support-Political-Party-Ideology.aspx

Zogby:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3134134020081102

“He said the polling data over the weekend showed that both candidates appeared to be consolidating support among their core supporters — women and independents for Obama, older voters and conservatives for McCain.”

Pew:

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/468.pdf

WSJ poll:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122567494708692025.html

ABC/WaPo:

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/PollTracker/fullpage?id=5611512

I am not sure about Rasmussen, as I am not a member of their premium service.

I think it is pretty clear that Obama wins with Independents at this point, as shown by poll after poll.

[floridagopvoter]

I generally believe in averaging all polls. That is how RCP does it, and it is rather interesting that the averaging of ALL polls (good or bad, Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning) usually comes up with a better result than taking one or the other poll by itself. Polls are not foolproof, they regularly suffer from bad one-day samples. If you average out all polls you basically remove the margin of error.

If you look at 2004 the generic RCP average was closer to the end result than any one one polling firm was. The same is true for almost every single Senate race in 2006 and many House races.

I don’t believe “the polls are right.” I just don’t believe ALL polls are as wrong as is claimed here. Even the one poll that shows a close race still has McCain losing this thing. Let’s see first whether IBD/TIPP stays tight through today instead of moving away again (as happened until yesterday) before making that one poll the be-all. If that one moves to, say, 4% for Obama, there would not be a single poll even close to a McCain victory, unless GWU/Battleground gives us something good today.