Why I'm Thinking 4% As The Final Polling Margin

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 20:46


A few days ago, I proclaimed that I expected the national polling margin to drop to 4-5%, and then stabilize. So far, my prediction is a little off, as the now eight tracking polls show a slightly larger, and growing, margin for Obama:

Complete Tracking poll average
Org Obama McCain
ABC 53% 44%
Gallup* 51% 44%
GWU 49% 45%
Hotline 47% 42%
Rasmussen 50% 46%
R2000 50% 42%
TIPP 46.7% 41.4%
Zogby 49.8% 44.5%
Mean 49.6% 43.6%
* = Gallup is an average of their expanded and traditional likely voter models

So, right now Obama's margin appears to be about 6.0%, a number with which every polling aggregation site comes with a couple tenths of a percent. So, at least for now, it turns out I was wrong about how much Obama's lead would drop. That's cool.

However, I still think that there is a good reason to expect the final polling margin to be 4%. The theory goes like this: in presidential elections, the average poll margin during the campaign equals the final poll margin at the end of the campaign. So far in this campaign, the all-time average has been Obama by 4%. As such, I predict it as the final margin.

In the extended entry, I explain my theory.

Chris Bowers :: Why I'm Thinking 4% As The Final Polling Margin
The reason is that, since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3rd, the average polling margin appears incredibly stable to me, with only occasional major events temporarily changing the margin. And, according to an email I received to from Charles Franklin of Pollster.com, check out the average polling margins in from the start of June through Election Day in 2000, 2004 and 2008:

2000: Bush +2.4%
2004: Bush +1.4%
2008 (so far): Obama +3.8%

Now, click here to compare the final polling margin in 2000 and 2004 to the average polling margin in both elections. As you can see, the final polling margin in both elections was identical to the average polling margin from June through Election Day. The differences are, at most, one or two tenths of a percent.

My theory is that virtually everyone knows who they are going to vote for in a presidential election as far back as June, and that elections in our contemporary political environment are only altered by major events like conventions or, in our case, a financial crisis. Undecideds make up a very small percentage of hte electorate, and so much money is spent wooing them on both sides, that neither group can gain much advantage.

This year, I see 4% as the likely final polling margin, given that has been the average margin along the way. Now, that doesn't mean the final voting margin will equal that number, as both 2000 and 2004 deviated more than 1% from their final margins (about 1.1% in 2004, and about 3.0% in 2000). However, 4% should be enough for Obama to win in really any scenario you can dig up from that point.

Now, this isn't exactly a well-tested theory, but I thought I would throw it out there. I won't be surprised if the final polling margin tightens to around 4%, but hat Obama will still win. In case the polls do tighten toward the end, at least I can use this theory as a security blanket. The average poll margin equals the final poll margin.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Idea for Open Left (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, not about your post (which is an interesting idea I'm inclined to disagree with on first glance-- 2000 and 2004 feel like exceptions to the rule to me. I think there have been some seismic/external events like Palin and the economic crisis that have fundamentally altered this race for the worse for McCain.)

Idea: Why not move the more popular Quick Hits over into the main section so they can be rec'ed. That'd add a little spice.

I understand wanting to keep these two functions separate -- it might be interesting to try on occasion. Just an idea -- you may already do this or there may be 45 great reasons not to I'm not privy to.


Is ABC a tracking poll? (0.00 / 0)
I just looked at the results, and it says that they last did a poll 9 days ago. Did they announce they'll be doing it every day from now on?  

Demockracy.com


N/M (0.00 / 0)
I just saw that this was the first day of this new tracking poll. This is good news.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Demockracy.com


[ Parent ]
So campaigning is a big waste of time, money and ethics? (0.00 / 0)
Some public figures and newspapers have switched from McCain: Peggy Noonan, Colin Powell, etc, as a response to McCain versus the financial crisis and the unreadiness of Sarah Palin. I don't remember such movement in 2000 or 2004. I think enough thoughtful people will switch from their Republican loyalty to widen Obama's lead by at least a couple of points.

I didn't say that (0.00 / 0)
You know I didn't.

I just said that I had a theory that, in a 21 month campaign, people have pretty much made up their minds after 16 months. That is hardly unreasonable, and a far cry from the words you are putting in my mouth.


[ Parent ]
And the bit about the difference between the voting margin and polling margin (4.00 / 1)
is important.  That is where GOTV and organization and all of that comes into play, which, IMO, is the most useful thing that a campaign does.  

[ Parent ]
Here's something to reinforce your 4% theory. (0.00 / 0)
Today an R2K poll came out in NH showing Obama up by 7.

Statewide pundit Dante Scala has projected, based on demographics and voter id, a 2008 PVI in NH of D+2 or +3.

If +3, then subtracting that from the +7 margin and you have a national lead for Obama averageing around +4%.

Blue Hampshire - Defeating Republicans since 2006.


I just think races tend to tighten (0.00 / 0)
Even Dukakis and Dole made up ground in the final week or two.

It seems likely to me that Obama will win by around four or five points. I would be shocked if he wins by seven or eight.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


I'm not sure that more than six is even demographically possible (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Big Differences From W (4.00 / 1)
Obama will win the popular vote by at least six points.  Far more than either 2000 or 2004, the model for this election is the Reagan landslide of 1980.

Gore's ineptitude as a candidate, whether it be his hubristic failure to use a wildly popular president or wretched debate performances, cost us the 2000 election.  Given the focus on national security, 2004 proved a favorable environment for an incumbent Republican president, and Bush helped his case by turning out his evangelical base in record numbers. In comparison with Gore's efforts, Kerry performed brilliantly, garnering 20% more votes in a far less favorable environment for a Democratic presidential candidate.  

Far more than a maverick, McCain is seen as an extension of Bush and the neocons by a majority of the electorate.  Given the ideologically charged, partisan nature of Rovain electioneering and governance, McCain's style of campaigning has helped Obama's case to paint him as Bush III by mirroring W's overall style.  Taken with the (now discredited by the selection of Palin) argument from experience, McCain effectively has run as an incumbent.

Like Reagan's campaign against the "malaise" of the Carter era, Obama represents hope taken against an incumbent president perceived as being defined by a narrow understanding of the capacities of the American people.  Never mind that the contexts or the perceived problems and solutions differ wildly (although as far as the latter is concerned, not as much as people on the right would have us believe) from then to now and party to party, the basic picture is eerily similar: the hopeful promise of something new versus a pinched vision produced by an unpleasant recent past.  


1980 (0.00 / 0)
The 1980 references are interesting. Dave O'Gorman wrote a good article about the parallels with 1980 here.

Demockracy.com


[ Parent ]
Agree with the Analogy (0.00 / 0)
I think Reagan, 1980, is the best model here. There was a substantial late break toward Reagan in that election.

Don't look now, but this morning's Zogby tracker is now about +8 Obama. We'll see what the other trackers say.


[ Parent ]
probably too based on recent history (0.00 / 0)
1988 average lead might have had Dukakis winning. I know he was ahead in May, June, July, August before the lead disappeared sometime in the fall. The final result wasn't close.

1980 might be another example.


The theory, however (0.00 / 0)
Is that campaigns are much longer now, but it doesn't take people any longer to make up their minds. At this point, campaigns are so long that preferences are stable several months out, and only big events can change anything all that much.

[ Parent ]
well that's true (0.00 / 0)
and it does appear that most of the voters who will actually vote have decided and ain't much gonna change that. The other factor, though, is that the lead may be wide enough in all the states that matter that many McCain supporters don't actually bother. Lack of enthusiasm seems unlikely to keep Obama voters away if early voting is an indicator.

[ Parent ]
anyway (0.00 / 0)
if I had to predict the margin right now I'd go with 5.5 (a slight reduction from now based on likely voter stuff).

[ Parent ]
good stuff (0.00 / 0)
I think commenters who wonder if campaigns mean anything are missing your point a little bit.  It seems that big event and some of the larger twists along the way move the numbers, that in turn make up the final average.  In 2004, Kerry was up in July and early August; it's not that the numbers remained static (too bad) because the swiftboaters and the GOP convention killed him.  He regained some points in the debates, but all in all he was still down over the averaged time, and the final number was pretty close to that average, as you say.  Makes sense ... and I'll take it!  

[ Parent ]
the meaning of campaigns (0.00 / 0)
I tend to think that campaigns might matter some, but not nearly as much as they're given credit for. For instance, in 2004, it's true that Kerry did poorly in the summer, and then improved after the first debate. But I don't think it's so much the case that the former was because of the swift boating, and the latter was because of the debates. Rather, I think the swiftboating was used as a  proximate justification for people who were disinclined to support Kerry; and the debate was a proximate justification for those who were disinclined to support Bush. But if it hadn't been for the swiftboaters and the debate, the election very likely would have ended up at the exact same outcome, regardless.

Stuff like the swiftboaters (or Gore's sighing, etc.) figure in to the massivley overdetermined narratives we tell about electoral campaigns. And maybe they effect the outcome marginally - by 1 or 2%? But I think the overwhelmingly most important factors in any presidential election are matters than transcend the campaign: the economy, the popularity of the parties, the intangible feel of things in the country.

To relate this to Chris' argument: all those macrotrends are in place by, at least, the summer before the election. Events can temporarily goose the numbers in one direction or another, but will not significantly affect the final outcome. I know that's not exactly Chris' argument; but it's also not incompatible with his argument, and I think it's a good explanation for the data he cites.


[ Parent ]
It makes intuitive sense to me. (0.00 / 0)
I particularly agree with the statement that "Undecideds make up a very small percentage of hte electorate, and so much money is spent wooing them on both sides, that neither group can gain much advantage."  I've followed the discussion on this site about a "re-alignment" for some time, and just haven't bought into it, because it has always seemed to me that the nation is simply too divided.  There are a lot of people on the left who seem to believe that "the dead-enders" constitute only 30-35% of the Republican Party, and I've felt that there just wasn't any empirical evidence of that, and that it did not make sense to me on an intuitive basis.  McCain's numbers have pretty consistently been in the mid-40's, and that appears to have been largely stable.  I believe that represents the true number of committed Republicans, and that number is simply not subject to much change.  In my view, it will take much more than an election, or even a few elections, to change that point of stability.  Inertia is a bitch, so to speak.  

IMO, it will take at least a decade of good governance by Democrats to sway any significant percentage of the dead-enders, mostly those DE's that are rational enough to claim to be mad at their own party, and willing to vote D, primarily because they are so embarassed by Bush.  I know a quite a few R's who are embarassed to the point of humiliation, who just a few years ago were crowing about W kicking Kerry's ass, but who, today, are very vocal about their discontent with the current state of the Republican Party.  I tend to think of these as the "Rational Republicans," because they can at least be reasoned with, as opposed to those who think that the GOP stands for God's Own Party.  Many of these RR's are still not willing to vote Democratic (witness Ron Paul's success), and it will take a convincing period of good economic growth and stability to persuade even a small percentage of those folks to become, essentially, undecided or swing voters.  

Currently, I am skeptical that we will actually see that happen, because we have so many center-to-right Dems that there will be little real progress made on core issues, and that will actually re-inforce the beliefs of many of these Rational Republicans that Democrats don't have any real solutions, so they may as well continue to support Republicans, because at least the Republcans purport to embrace capitalism and low taxes.  Why pay taxes if you arent' seeing the benefits of those taxes? is the reasoning that I often hear (forgetting, of course, the value of good roads, infrastructure, etc).  There are some who can be reached, but not easily, and many will still retain R leanings.  


[ Parent ]
The theory (0.00 / 0)
doesn't seem to offer much room for qualitative differences like historical context, types of campaigns, etc., focusing instead on quantitative data exclusively.  

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't a final margin of 4% mean some races will be very tight? (0.00 / 0)
If the national margin drops, will it drop equally across the spectrum, or will it drop more in swing states? This would mean this could become a close finish - not an especially comforting outlook.
:-/

No uniform swing but if there was (0.00 / 0)
Obama, with a four point popular vote win would carry everything Bush won by less than seven - IA, NM, OH, NV, CO, FL, with MO on the cusp. Changing demographics in VA and NC mean they could still slip inside the band.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox