Why Registered Voters are a Good Estimate of Likely Voters (in 2008)

by: tremayne

Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 10:14


As election day nears most of the polling numbers being reported are of "likely voters" rather than "registered voters." For example, yesterday you probably read somewhere the Obama-McCain race was a dead heat. That type of headline resulted from an AP-Gf**k poll that showed the race at 44-43. If you dig into that poll you'll find that those are "likely" voter numbers. Among registered voters they show a more reasonable 5-point race.

LV polls tend to reduce Democratic votes compared to RV polls because groups that lean D have had lower turnout rates in the past. Therefore, these LV polls have been better predictors of the final margins than the RV polls. But this may not be true this year given the historic nature of the Democratic nominee.

Nate Silver has an excellent piece describing two very different types of LV estimates. Basically, the Gallup LV "traditional" method is used by some pollsters and the Gallup LV 2 "expanded" estimate is used by others. The old-school method trims about 5 points off the RV estimate while the new-school method differs by only a point (making RV a decent estimate of LV, this year). The difference is that the old method relies more upon voters' previous behavior while the new method relies more upon what voters say they will do.

But we don't merely have to choose which method is better. As I said last week, all pollsters need to be asking their respondents this question: have you voted already?  Nate explains the usefulness of this question:

Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.

This is very straightforward. Either "actual" already-been-to-the-polls voters will look like the LV screens say they should look or they will not. If they don't, the pollster needs to rethink their LV estimates. If the goal is making the most accurate representation of the state of the race, they have the data they need to adjust their models now rather than sometime after the election.

tremayne :: Why Registered Voters are a Good Estimate of Likely Voters (in 2008)

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is there a concern with Hispanic turnout? (0.00 / 0)
Per the real Jerome Armstrong, and his analysis of the AP-Gf**k poll

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...

First, they are showing that Latino voters, who are RV's, are not as likely LV's as are Black or White voters. The drop-off, from 14% to 8% LV among Latino voters is pretty sharp. But its not totally without ground, as Obama didn't have much to any appeal among Latinos in the primary, even though he does have very strong numbers now. Where this might hurt Obama is Florida (PPP says support there is soft), VA & NC have a growing demographic of Latinos who haven't traditionally voted, and the states of NV, CO, and NM.

Almost all of the dropoff in that poll between RV and LV is based on the crosstab for Latinos.


maybe (4.00 / 1)
but I apply grains of salt when Armstrong makes predictions about Obama.

[ Parent ]
Do the other national polls show that? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Good question. I don't have a clue on that (0.00 / 0)
I'm hoping that Jerome's concern is overblown, but I've added this question to the daily R2K DK diary.

Presumably it might be in the crosstabs for some polls, available to those who've ponied up the cash.


[ Parent ]
Have had a scan and can't find anything (0.00 / 0)
But I won't be worrying much about a single poll which is quite obviously a massive outlier - even their RV number is low compared to everbody else.  

[ Parent ]
Incidentally Hispanic turnout in 2004 was exactly 8% (0.00 / 0)
So it isn't something particular with Obama. And poll after poll has show him doing far better with them than Kerry.

[ Parent ]
of course not (0.00 / 0)
McCain gains a few points in most polls in likely voters. There aren't any that make it a one point race, except that one Gallup one in September or so that somehow managed to move McCain to winning. Any polls like that instantly become famous because they're so rare.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
That's just Jerome (4.00 / 1)
He sees 20 national polls, and finds one with the narrowest lead and assumes it's not the outlier, in spite of its unusual methodology and lack of track record. He decides that the four closest polls in 2004 will also be the best this year ignoring that most of the polls were very close in 2004 and whichever was closest was mostly a matter of luck due to random statistical noise. He also cherry-picked one of the worst recent days for his two favorites (Battleground and IBD/TIPP), which had generally been in line with other polls except for yesterday.

The state-by-state polling just isn't consistent with a one or two point race. If that were the case, McCain would still be competitive in places like Michigan; Colorado and New Mexico would be very close. He'd have a lead in Ohio and Florida. Indiana wouldn't be producing close polls at all.

He thinks its unreasonable that the big cluster of polls that fall in the middle of the spread could be right, and the ones on either end are the outliers. Nope, it's either gotta be a 1 point race or a 14 point race. The 6-7 point race that the consensus of polls show is just not possible.

Actually, to be fair, he did say a blowout is more likely than a close race. And we do need to avoid complacency. And he's playing devil's advocate. But every time he's opened his mouth lately, it's to make a bunch of bullshit points about polling. I mean, he's even using the idiotic debunked argument that Obama is unlikely to do well with X because X preferred Clinton in the primary (where X is Hispanics, women, a particular state, etc.)

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Must be the same reason why the polls have McCain way up in MA, NY, CA, NJ...

[ Parent ]
Gallup RV graph is amazingly stable over past weeks (0.00 / 0)
The fluctuations have to do with the LV voter screen, as with the other tracking polls, in large part, imo.  

Armstrong- Latinos just can't quit Hillary (0.00 / 0)
He just can't leave his antipathy for Obama out of his "analysis." If Hillary were the candidate, of course, it would be a different story altogether, Latinos wouldn't be "soft" at all.  

OTOH, there's Nate Silver's bit on LV filters (0.00 / 0)
As suggested by the Nate Silver diary referenced in the OP,
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

in the "traditional" model, a voter can tell you that he's registered, tell you that he's certain to vote, tell you that he's very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded from the model if he hasn't voted in the past.

snip

Most likely voter models are unlikely to distinguish newly registered voters from what I would call lapsed registered voters.


sceptical about this (4.00 / 1)
Because there's little reason to believe early voters are a random sample of the total voting population.  They probably skew in numerous ways.

I think you would need to compare 2008 early voters to early voting demographics found in similar times in 2000 and 2004.

I agree the demographics of the early voters should be considered in the LV screen, but it should be a little more nuanced.  After all, if the early voters turn out to skew republican, that could make the LV screens even worse for us.


Early voting this year is good for us (0.00 / 0)
Democrats are overwhelmingly in charge of early voting this year in the battleground states, except for Colorado for some reason. Historically, Republicans have the advantage in early voting.

However, early voting doesn't predict election day voting, which is usually at least two-thirds of the turnout.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Exactly! (0.00 / 0)
I went to post this same thing, but you beat me to it!  If the early voters match the LV voter screen, that doesn't mean the LV screen is right and vice versa.  early voters just aren't a representative sample, unless we also want to assume that the  party ID breakdowns are representative as well.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the history of Gallup's LV screen.

Re the AP poll, Marc Ambrister notes that it had a sample of 44% evangelicals - over twice the number noted in the 2004 exit poll.

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...


Ahhhh thank you (0.00 / 0)
So that's the fatal flaw in the AP poll.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








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

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search