April 24, 2007
The Inflated Clinton Poll Theory: Are Clinton And Obama Tied?
Democratic uber-blogger Chris Bowers's Inflated Clinton Poll Theory has crossed our wingspan several times, and it is worth considering. In the end, Bowers's provocative interpretation of some recent polling data may wind up explaining an Obama surge we don't yet see.
In essence, he's noticed that the Rasmussen robopolls tend to show a might tighter national race than polls conducted by live humans at a call center. Generally, Rasmussen claims to screen a much tighter selection of Democrats. Clinton and Obama are tied for the lead in those samples. In most national polls, Clinton has a high-single-digit-to-low-double-digit lead over Obama. Because Rasmussen reportedly draws from a more clued-in sample -- a sample paying close attention to the race -- Bowers notes that Clinton's lead over Obama evaporates.
Any national sample of Democratic primary voters will draw a large portion of responses from New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois. There are two ways to interpret the effect of geography on the theory. One is that Clinton does better in these states because voters in these states aren't paying attention to the race as closely as voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
There is some evidence suggesting that voters everywhere are paying attention earlier. It is hard to argue empirically that Democratic primary voters in general do not have enough information about Barack Obama, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton to form their initial, often sticky impressions of the field.
Significantly, primary voters in these large states might actually get to act on their preferences this cycle. In previous cycles, the preferences of voters in these states hasn't mattered. The geographic, demographic, social and economic composition of the early primary vote was probably distinct from the aggregate preferences of Democratic voters nationwide. Who knows which candidate a differently sliced subset -- had this subset been given the power to choose the nominee -- would have chosen. (This is an argument employed by Democrats to add Nevada and South Carolina to the pre-February primary calendar.)
The thinking of some in Clinton's world is that pollsters are including huge numbers of independents in their national samples. Some of the polls suggest that up to 56% of Americans are accurately labeled as Dem primary voters. That can't be right.
The distinction between likely primary voters and self-identified Democrats is important and validly drawn in a state like Iowa, where pollsters have a reliable record of limning those two fields. But in the February 5 states, it means nothing. Where is the evidence showing that self-identified Democrats in those states are predisposed to vote for Hillary Clinton? And how does one figure out the identity of likely primary voters in states whose delegates last mattered in 1992?
Methodologically, it's next to impossible to test this theory with evidence in the public domain. We're not precisely certain how Rasmussen screens its likely voters, we're not certain whether robot pollsters are more reliable or whether they enhance or reduce certain forms of response bias.
One national poll conducted by our colleague Charlie Cook included a subsample of hard core primary voters – the answer to a question about a Hillary Clinton were not significantly different among those two universes.
An unrelated objection to Bowers's theory may be he fails to provide a convincing account as to why Barack Obama would be tied with Hillary Clinton nationally in the first place. Why not John Edwards, whose positions on the issues are more closely aligned with the clued-in activists in the party?
Bowers responds:
" I can't derive an ought from an is, in this case. I don't know why Obama is doing better than Edwards in national polls--I just know that he is. I also know, from data in Pew and elsewhere, that he significantly rises among voters paying close attention, while Edwards does not. That is why I think Obama would benefit from a tighter voter screen more than Edwards."
There is conflicting evidence from the states in which we know voters are paying attention. John Edwards leads in Iowa, but Hillary Clinton still tops most New Hampshire polls. We've seen four South Carolina polls in two weeks, and Hillary Clinton has solid leads in two of them. We don't know enough about the methodology of these polls to say for certain whether a universe of likely primary/caucus goers has been accurately sampled. In Iowa, in fact, it is surprisingly tough to find a reliable sample. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 01:21 PM
Comments
I've been checking the crosstabs on these polls and Hillary consistently does well among 55+ voters. Obama does well among younger voters. In primary and even more so in caucus states, 55 and older voters will be about half the electorate. Old folks may not be paying as much attention as cyber-savvy younger people, but they are more likely to vote. That's why it's likely the national polls showing Hillary about 10 points up right now are probably accurate.
William | 04.24.07 01:35 PM
 |
As a Washington insider I can tell you that many folks inside the Beltway are starting to head for the exits in regard to Hillary. People just are not comfortable with her for any number of reasons. This race despite the amount of money raised is wide open. Hillary and Obama are like two front runners who are going to grind each other into the ground and sadly, because neither possesses a great deal of foreign policy or military experience, they cannot win. If Gore announces this summer he will win. Gore will become the Eisenhower of our age, a tad boring a bit wooden, but stoic and trusted. America is in the midst of a crisis and he understands how to govern. Remember the lockbox for Social Security and his revamping of arcane government rules and regulations? Seems that Al was onto something then.
Before it's too late: Gore 2008
Beltway Greg | 04.24.07 02:32 PM
|
William, older voters may not be paying attention now, but Obama - who is likely to out raise Hillary the rest of the campaign - will have a LOT of money to educate and inform them.
Hillary is losing the primary election of the Democratic elites and fund raisers right now. In fact, she is getting slaughtered in the inner circles by the folks who will tell the other Democrats to vote for next year: activists and fundraisers. You are going to see a lot of independents vote in the Demo primary in the states that allow that just to vote against Hillary. A few percent of these voters will go a LONG way.
Obama is doing extremely well among young voters (who do not vote as much), the left wing blogs, the MoveOn.org crowd. Hillary is doing well among blacks for NOW, but she will have a hard time holding onto these voters the more Obama looks like a WINNER. You will see them break hard to Obama in the last month. (it's already starting).
The bottom line is will Obama be able to connect with blue collar voters; he already has the college hotties and the University crowd on his side. Hillary is polling well among the extremely important angry dyke demographic (joke).
Hillary does not have the grassroots support. She will have plenty of money to compete; but Obama will have MORE by the end. The Clintons' power was based on fear. Obama's strength is based on love.
Obama will win CA, FLA, GA, MI, IL and TX. Hillary will win NY and NJ.
Finally, if Edwards win a primary or two, he could go all the way. Also, the chance of a brokered convention is a very real possibilty.
Robert Morrow | 04.24.07 02:38 PM
|
Okay guys, pile on hillary. She outraised Obama last quarter, but he's going to beat her from now on? The Clintons power was based on fearmongering? And independents who never vote in a primary or associate with a party are going to register just so they can vote against Hillary? Sounds like one campaign is doing fearmongering, and it aint Hillary by a longshot. Let's see some facts before we just throw random anti-Hillary spew out there.
james | 04.24.07 04:52 PM
|
Maybe the next Hotline Diageo poll can include some screening questions to determine which respondents have voted in past primaries, and how much they pay attention to politics, etc. This would be a very interesting theory to test out, as it could render a whole bunch of polls out there useless.
Francisco | 04.24.07 06:53 PM
|
Rasmussen is not the only pollster showing a tightening of the race:
Gallup's latest poll shows a 5pt lead for Hillary
CNN LATEST POLL SHOWS A 4PT LEAD
Time magazine's latest poll shows a 7pt lead for Hillary
BDM | 04.24.07 11:04 PM
|
The Long Island Party recently completed a poll that showed some interesting data with regards to how Hillary Clinton is showing inthe polls:
Giuliani Wins!
Over the last week the Long Island Party ran a poll to see who Long Islanders liked for President in 2008 - but with a twist...
We asked 1,400 people the usual questions - demographics, voting preferences, candidates of choice. And of course we couched it with "If the election were held today..."
Then we asked a simple question - "Is there any candidate that you tell people you are voting for but really intend on voting for someone else?"
Democrats
Out of all of the voters who tell people they will vote for Hillary Clinton, 37% will not:
- 73% of those people say they will vote for her but will actually vote for John Edwards
- 15% of those people say they will vote for her but will actually vote for Barak Obama
- 12% of those people say they will vote for her but will actually vote for Rudolph Giuliani
Out of all of the voters who tell people they will vote for Barak Obama, 12% will not:
- 59% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for John Edwards
- 24% of those people say they will vote for hm but will actually vote for Rudolph Giuliani
- 17% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for "other"
Republicans
Out of all of those voters who tell people they will vote for Rudolph Giuliani, 8% will not:
- 21% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for John McCain
- 11% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for Mitt Romney
- 68% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for "other"
Out of all of those voters who tell people they will vote for John McCain, 12% will not:
- 72% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for Rudolph Giuliani
- 18% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for Hillary Clinton
- 10% of those people say they will vote for him but will actually vote for "other"
We asked those who confessed to claiming to support one candidate but voting for another why they would do this we uncovered some interesting insight to the minds of third district voters:
The number one answer to why the deceit was 'family pressure'.
78% agreed as to why Hillary Clinton is unelectable.
94% agreed as to why Barak Obama is unelectable.
45% agreed as to why John McCain is unelectable.
15% agreed as to why Rudolph Giuliani is unelectable.
(If you would like to purchase the data please contact us at info@billcorrigan.com)
We also asked, "Is there any candidate you have or will donate money to but won't vote for?"
The percentages were similar but we feel we did not get a large enough sample size to that particular question to publish.
We will continue to run this survey monthly to track the trend.
If you have any questions please contact us at info@billcorrigan.com.
The Long Island Party | 04.25.07 03:01 PM
|
Rasmussen Reports is an unreliable pollster. They have President Bush's approval rating at 40%. In 2006 they predicted the Republicans will control the senate. It proves that they are not the best pollster. Fox news, Quinnipiac, and Angus News are better. So are Newsweek, CBS news, and SUSA.
Flannery Cleveland | 04.30.07 10:17 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
