Perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of general election polling right now is how different polls show such widely varying results. Here are the seven most recent Obama vs. McCain national polls:
CBS / NYT: Obama 50%--38% McCain (2/20-2/24)
AP-Ipsos: Obama 51%--41% McCain (2/22-2/24)
Research 2000: Obama 50%--44% McCain (2/18-2/21)
Fox News: Obama 47%--43% McCain (2/19-2/20)
USA Today / Gallup: McCain 48%--47% Obama (2/21-2/24)
LA Times / Bloomberg: McCain 44%--42% Obama (2/21-2/25)
Rasmussen: McCain 46%--43% Obama (2/23-2/26)
While these polls contradict each other, none of them can be considered outliers since every poll is supported by at least one other poll: two polls show Obama up by double digits, two show him ahead by about half that amount, and three show McCain narrowly ahead. Part of this difference is probably due to methodology, but I don't think that can explain variances of this size. Instead, I think we are facing a far more unstable electorate than we did in 2004.
Obama appears to be headed to the nomination with the support of many of the same voters who backed Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004. McCain was also elected with a different base of support than the one that made Bush the Republican nominee in 2000. According to exit polls, Romney always outperformed McCain among Republicans who were either "enthusiastic" or "satisfied" with the Bush administration, while Huckabee cleaned up on the white evangelical / born again vote. In other words, different coalitions were used to determine the nominee of both parties in 2008 as were used in 2004 and 2000. This year, both likely nominees relied more heavily on independents, cross-over voters, and a sort of "anti-establishment" coalition within their own parties to earn the nomination.
Almost inevitably, these new primary coalitions are thus far resulting in a more fluid, less stable general election than we saw in either 2000 or 2004. Both candidates have relied on significant cross-over appeal, and represent different wings of their respective parties, than we saw in the last two elections. In short, there is little precedent to know how the electorate will react to these candidates individually, and even less when they are matched up against one another. The widely varying national polls are a sign of this instability. Another sign of this instability is that Obama is polling equally well in Virginia and Oregon, polling better in Colorado than he is in Massachusetts, and even polling better in Kansas than he is in Florida (see more state polls here).
We could see some new swing states, and very different red vs. blue divides in 2008 than we have seen in recent elections. If primary voters were willing to choose different sorts of candidates than the ones both parties have recently nominated, this sort of fluidity and uncertainty comes with the territory. It also means that we should take nothing for granted, either or positive or negative, in this election. Assuming he is the nominee, maybe Obama can win Kansas and Virginia, and maybe he can lose Oregon and Massachusetts. This election could significantly realign the longstanding political divisions in this country, and while that creates uncertainty, it is also a reason to be excited. Instability always provides moments of tremendous political opportunity. |
