Obama Up 10% With 30% Reporting

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 18:00


Obama has inched up in the tracking polls for the third straight day, and he now leads by 6% according to Pollster.com with less than 77 hours before the polls close in all swing states. (Iowa is the last "swing state" to close, if you can call Iowa a swing state, anyway. Part of Montana closes at 11:00 p.m. eastern). So, McCain has to gain a full 1% on Obama every thirteen hours between now and then in order to win. That means that McCain has to flip about 100,000 voters every hour, or three every second, in order to tie Obama. Best of all, he can only target 70% of the electorate for these votes, because 30% is already spoken for.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Obama Up 10% With 30% Reporting
According to Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, Obama is up by about 10% with nearly 30% of the vote already cast. Here is the relevant quote from today's Gallup poll, which Obama currently leads by 10%:

The trend in early voting has trended consistently upward on a day to day basis, moving from 7% of registered voters, who had already voted during the period of Oct. 17-19, to the current estimate of 27%. Another 8% of registered voters still indicate that they plan on voting before Election Day itself. The vote choices of these early voters -- all of whom are included in the likely voter pool since they are definite voters -- skew more toward Barack Obama than the sample average.

So, Gallup has Obama up by 11% or more with 27% or the vote already in. Rasmussen shows nearly identical numbers:

Nearly a third of voters say they have already cast their ballot and Obama leads by nine among this group. Obama also has a similar lead among the small group who have not voted but still plan to vote early. The candidates are essentially even among those who plan to vote on Tuesday.

Gallup and Rasmussen have by far the largest sample sizes, allowing for more useful crosstabs of early voters. The Gallup and Rasmussen crosstabs on early voters are larger than the entire GWU . Battleground and IBD / TIPP tracking polls, for example. Combined, Gallup and Rasmussen show that Obama is leading by 10% with 30% of the vote already cast.

This is fantastic, and extremely reassuring news. It means that McCain has to win the remaining 70% of the vote by more than 4% just to tie Obama. It means that lines at many strong Democratic precincts won't be as long on Election Day. It means that it is more difficult for these votes to be suppressed. It means that these voters can't forget to vote, or suddenly face an emergency that prevents them from voting. As I discussed yesterday, it means that Obama has already won the Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico victory firewall, and now only needs to hang onto Pennsylvania in order to win.

It also means, unfortunately, that exit polls might give us a scare on November 4th. It appears that exit polls do take early voting into account, but only in 18 states and do not include cell-phone only early voters.  For both of these reasons, the exit polls might skew toward McCain a bit, and give a bunch of us some heart palpitations. That is a negative, but overall a very small negative compared to the overwhelming benefits of this early voting advantage.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Well... (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there will be much to worry about when it comes to exit polling. Given that there's a substantial portion of first-time/lapsed voters who are voting this year, I don't think exit polls will be that far off.

Exit polling is supposed to take into account the early voting (0.00 / 0)
At least, I'm pretty sure I've heard this claim.

Don't they factor in the early voting (0.00 / 0)
in the released exit polls? Especially this election. Otherwise the exit polls won't have much value at all.

Does this mean Obama's lead is lower than predicted? (0.00 / 0)
"According to Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, Obama is up by about 10% with nearly 30% of the vote already cast. [...]The candidates are essentially even among those who plan to vote on Tuesday. [...] It means that McCain has to win the remaining 70% of the vote by more than 4% just to tie Obama."

Forgive me, I'm terrible at math, but doesn't this mean that Obama's national lead (amongst all voters, already voted or likely to vote) is actually only 4% overall?  That's not bad news, per se, but doesn't it suggest that its lower than the nat'l trackers suggest?


Bradley effect?? (0.00 / 0)
In fact, in the case of Gallup, the daily trackers say Obama is up 10% overall, but these numbers show that in fact he's NOT up 10% overall, but only up 10% of 30% (or 4%).  What accounts for that -6% discrepancy?

[ Parent ]
what accounts for it (0.00 / 0)
is that they are not tied among election day voters  -- Gallup does not say that, and Rasmussen uses the word "essentially" which means "not actually"


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
yes, some vagueness here that is confusing (0.00 / 0)
Rasmussen has Obama up by 5 overall, and 9 among early voters.

Gallup has Obama up by 10 overall, so he must be up by more than among early voters since they say so.

When Rasmussen says "essentially" tied, that must be a McCain-esque statement, since as you say, Obama must have a lead for their numbers to work out.  Gallup must have Obama ahead with that group.

But I think Chris is right that McCain needs a fairly big win to balance out the votes already in, and that the pollsters say he won't get it.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
Uh, no (0.00 / 0)
You aren't good at math, but you should know that 30% is not half.

Because 70% is more than 30%, a 10% lead among 30% can be erased by less than 10% among the remaining 70%.


[ Parent ]
Ok (0.00 / 0)
Look, I'll be honest, I'm still confused but if you're not worried, I'm not worried.

I think this is the mix-up: is Gallup saying (A) that Obama is up by 10% OVERALL, with 30% or so having already voted; OR (B) that Obama is up 10% only amongst those who have already voted, and tied with those who have not voted.  

Those are very different. If it's (A), then Obama would have to be up more than 10% amongst those who have already voted, if it's true that he's tied amongst all those who have not voted.

Does that make sense?


[ Parent ]
Or (0.00 / 0)
to put it another way, these three things cannot all be true:

1. Obama is up by 10% amongst those who have already voted (already voted)

2. Obama is tied McCain amongst those likely to vote and have not already voted (likely to vote)

3. Obama is up by 10% overall (already voted + likely to vote)

So which is wrong?


[ Parent ]
Among those that have already voted (4.00 / 1)
Obama leads by 10% with 30% of the votes in.  Difference in the TOTAL vote is 3%.

For McCain to overcome a 3% hole, he needs to win by a 4% margin with the 70% of voters that are estimated to vote on Tuesday.  70% of 4% is 2.8% or roughly equal to Obama's BANKED vote lead.

Think about this as the way they reported results from Missouri or New Hampshire or Indiana during the primary.  If the number of votes reported goes up, but the gap between the two candidates does not change, then the candidate that is trailing (McCain) has to win the remaining voters by ever greater margins!


[ Parent ]
Not to go all concern troll, but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't quite get the numbers here either. I was expecting that the early vote numbers would be much more favorable to Obama.

OK, talk me off the ledge.  


Pass (4.00 / 1)
If a 10% lead with 30% reporting puts you on the ledge, I don't know what to so.

Bush won early voters in 2000 and 2004. Obama is up 10%, and the total number of early votes is much larger.


[ Parent ]
Helpful context (0.00 / 0)
I guess my assumption was that more of the early voters were going to vote for Obama because of many of the issues you mention above - potential for long lines on Tuesday, bad weather, voter suppression, etc. And also because the Obama  campaign has worked so hard to get people out to vote early.

My concern with your post was more about the 4 percent figure seeming within reach for McCain. But again, your thoughts on Texas provide helpful context. And I completely agree with your point about the firewall. That looks good. It's all down to PA.

I try not to wade into the concern troll pool too often. And your analysis has been great this cycle. I've slept much better after reading Open Left. Thanks.      


[ Parent ]
Depends on the state... (0.00 / 0)
...and early voters also include absentees, which traditionally heavily favor Republicans...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
maybe this matters (4.00 / 3)
Texas is a very large early voting state that will go for McCain. It's been an early voting state for a long time too so my guess is McCain already leads. You have to assume these polls reflect those votes and are offsetting smaller states where Obama leads substantially in early voting. That help?

[ Parent ]
Feeling better n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Though you should see how congested the early voting is in Austin! (0.00 / 0)
There's an early voting place across the street from my apartment, and there wasn't sufficient parking over there most of the week.  

Democrats probably aren't going to win here for a while, but they're at least building up infrastructure in the post-Ann Richards era.


[ Parent ]
in addition (0.00 / 0)
California has a lot of absentee voting too.  Obama and McCain are tied in California absentee voting because absentees lean so heavily Republican.

So, if you cancel out the meaningless early voting results from Texas and California, you're looking at significant leads in smaller states that really matter.


[ Parent ]
I think, in this case... (4.00 / 1)
...that "early voting" actually includes both absentees (almost always favorable to Republicans) and in-person early voting (expected to be favorable to Democrats).  If Obama's winning a vote that includes absentees by 10%, that's a huge boost.


[ Parent ]
Exit polls are evil (0.00 / 0)

 There's root canal, there's castor oil, there's Dick Cheney, there's anthrax, and there are exit polls.

 If there was an internet filter that would white out all references to exit polls before they hit my screen, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

 Canvassed in PA today -- in York, not in Gettysburg as I thought I would. The York office was bustling with volunteers --  I've never been happier to have a heap of trouble finding a parking spot. Very well-organized, down to construction-paper colored arrows on the hallways directing volunteers to the proper stations for checking in, checking out, phonebanking, etc.

 I canvassed an inner-city neighborhood, walking distance from the HQ. Mostly African-American and Hispanic, with a few whites mixed in. I speak Spanish, so that helped a lot with a few voters. Most weren't home, but I still scored 26 contacts, and 22 of them were Obama supporters. Three leaners, one undecided. And the enthusiasm among the supporters was enormous. I'm worried a LITTLE less about Pennsylvania today, though I still won't exhale until it's lit up blue Tuesday night.

 And exit polls are still evil.
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Exit polls are dead to me now. (0.00 / 0)
What good are they? If Obama is ahead in the exit polls, they provide no comfort because Kerry was also ahead in exit polls in 2004.  If Obama is behind, well, obviously that's even worse.

[ Parent ]
minor correction... (0.00 / 0)
100,000 per hour is nearly 30 per second (not 3 per second).

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search