State Polls Indicate Obama's Tidal-Wave Potential, But National Polls Are Tight; Both Are Right
Two radically different story lines are emerging in the presidential race, depending on what kind of poll you look at.
If you look at the national-level data, Barack Obama seems to be underachieving. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the presumptive Democratic nominee holds a scant two-point edge over John McCain. The margin is also two points in Rasmussen's daily poll—which also shows a dead-even race when "leaners" are factored in. Some other recent polls have been a little more favorable to Obama, but the combined weight of the available national data strongly suggests that Obama, despite his personal popularity and the enormous built-in advantages his party enjoys this year, is locked in a much closer race than he should be.
But if you ignore the national numbers and instead consider individual state polls, a realigning landslide suddenly seems to be within Obama's reach. In state after state, he's performing far better than John Kerry did in 2004, and numerous Republican bastions are seemingly in play. Consider Indiana, which George W. Bush won by 21 points in 2004 and which lasted voted for a Democrat 44 years ago—and which Obama leads by one point in the most recent survey. Or North Carolina, which Bush carried by 12 points in '04 but where the latest poll has Obama within three. And so on. In North Dakota, the race is tied. In South Dakota, Obama trails by just four. Ditto for Alaska, perhaps the most Republican state in the union. He also leads in Montana and Colorado and in all but one recent survey in Virginia.
And the trend isn't just evident in red states. In states where Kerry eked out victories last time around, polls now give Obama sizable leads. Kerry nearly fumbled away Minnesota (a three-point nail-biter), but Obama has a 17-point advantage in the most recent poll. Wisconsin and New Hampshire were photo-finishes in '04, but Obama has opened a double-digit lead there. Plus, Obama is running ahead in states that Kerry barely lost, like Iowa (by an average of seven points), New Mexico and Nevada.
On top of all this, Obama is performing as well as any Democratic nominee is supposed to in the biggest blue states—California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts—and leads (in some cases substantially) in every recent swing state except Florida, where the average of recent polls gives McCain a three-point edge.
There are some traditionally Republican states where Obama is performing at a more typical (for a Democrat) level, like Utah, Alabama and Tennessee, but overall at the state-by-state level he seems positioned to win the November election going away. So how is it—with Obama so close to McCain in so many red states and so far ahead in all of the big blue states—that the national polls show such a close race? With all of the dramatic strides Obama is making in individual states, shouldn't his national margin be much wider?
One tempting thought is that the national polls might seem so different because many of the red states where Obama is overachieving are so small. So while there might be palpable movement in his direction in, for instance, North Dakota (which accounts for 0.2 percent of the U.S. population), it's possible that in a national survey of 500 voters, only one North Dakotan—or maybe even none—is actually interviewed.
But if we take the average result from recent polls in each state and weight each state according to its share of the national population, we get an overall national result that's entirely consistent with current national polling: Obama 46.2 percent, McCain 42.7—a 3½-point race. So there really is no inconsistency between the close national horse race and Obama's clearly superior position in individual state polls.
The most obvious explanation for this is the large number of undecided voters included in most polls, which makes it tough for either candidate to break 50 percent in most states right now. In South Carolina, for example, Obama is clearly running better than Kerry did (or Al Gore, for that matter) and trails McCain by just six points in an average of that state's most recent polling. But as surprisingly close as the race is, Obama's raw number—39 percent support, on average—is nothing new for a Democrat in the state (Kerry finished with 41 percent in '04).
The same is true in many other states, red and blue. Obama leads by an average of 17 points in dark-blue New York, but he's only averaging 53 percent of the vote there (while Kerry took 58 in '04). He's slaughtering McCain in California, but only averaging 53 percent support there. And he's opened leads in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also isn't securing the level of support that Kerry had in those states on Election Day four years ago.
This doesn't mean that Obama is in trouble in any of these blue states or that the number of undecided voters is unusually high. It's simply a partial explanation for how seemingly solid polling data in individual states can translate into lukewarm national numbers.
But things get more revealing if we take the numbers a step further and try to adjust the current state averages to account for the voters who are now undecided or threatening to vote for third-party candidates. For the sake of this exercise, let's award the undecided/third party vote in each state proportionally, based on the current average levels of support for both candidates. For instance, the Massachusetts average now has Obama leading, 52 to 36.2 percent. If we adjust that proportionally, Obama ends up with 58.96 percent to McCain's 41.04 percent. Do this for all 50 states, and Obama ends up with 51.98 percent of the national popular vote, with McCain at 48.02 percent.
This doesn't exactly look like a landslide, and yet in all but four states, Obama's final number would be an improvement—substantial in many cases—over Kerry's '04 performance. In some cases, this means trimming 30-point Kerry deficits in dark red states to 20 or 15 points, a nice accomplishment that won't change the bottom line in those states. But in other cases, it means cutting 15-point Kerry losses in half (or more) and moving within theoretical striking distance in a state. What's striking about this data is that just about all of the improvement in individual states from '04 is on the Democratic side. McCain may end up holding on to the traditional red states that now seem in doubt, but he's not threatening in any of the traditional blue states.
This all shows us two things. For one, even if Obama's surprising standing in red states endures through November, it won't mean he's a shoe-in on Election Day. If he comes close without flipping any of them over, McCain would still have a chance in the Electoral College and Obama would not automatically score a runaway victory in the national popular vote. In that sense, the current national polls that show a tight race are spot on.
But the individual state polls that seem so rosy for Obama aren't misleading, either, in the sense that they reflect the potential for an Obama landslide. Obama is only flirting with the possibility now—his prospects may fade by Election Day—but he has the potential to win over a handful of states the other party has long counted on winning. McCain doesn't.
In other words, the race really is close, and McCain has the potential to win. But only Obama has the potential to win big.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.8
- 44.0
- Obama +2.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
We need a break from all these polls. The pollsters should take what's left of the summer off.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
People shouldn't take anything for granted. Historically, Republican candidates do better closer to the election. It probably depends on the economy between now and then, bad=good for Obama. Also, anyone can gaff over the next few monthes. Iraq could decide either way; if it gets better, maybe McCain was right (at least partly), but if it gets better, maybe we can get out finally; good for Obama. Iraq bad might be good for McCain, though I personally don't see what other "surges" he has up his sleave. Both candidates are saying we need to surge in Afghanistan and pledge to build up our forces by about 100,000 troops. Hard to see why defense stocks are down...
The polls reflect a portion who do not want to be called racist and say Obama.
BS. McCain can win big by getting Michigan and PA. Kerry states.
I'd say the tidal wave favors McCain. After all, what more could work in Obama's favor right now? The President and his party's popularity is in the toilet, we're in an unpopular war, the economy is struggling and gas prices are at record highs? The reality is, the American people are very... very... skeptical about Barack Obama. He simply doesn't have any experience whatsoever. He started running for president after only 144 days on the senate floor. It takes longer to get promoted at McDonald's. The guy is a total media creation and I predict that his "wave" is about to break on the shore and then be carried out by the tide. Obama was a risky choice for the Democrats. In a year the Democrats couldn't lose, Obama may be a candidate who can't win.
McCain will be lucky to win Missouri at this point. By the time we get to September, this is going to look like 1996. Obama is going to win PA and MI easily, you are dreaming if you think otherwise. Detroit = huge black turnout. PA has gone solidly Democrat for years now, it's just like the GOP keeps thinking NJ is going to go for a Republican other than Reagan. Ain't gonna happen. McCain better hope he can hold on to Virginia and NH or it's over, because CO and NM are gone, as is IA.
His only hope is if he can play enough dirty tricks in FL to hang on there, and somehow convince working-class people in OH to vote against their own interests. Democratic super-majority, here we come, probably for the next 20 years. Probably will take that long to un-do Bush's mess.
The fundamentals of this race have not changed (Obama up 5-7%), but the polling criteria has in an effort by the mainstream media to show the race as much closer than it really is to support a horse race narrative and keep the public interested (and buying papers and watching the tv coverage, etc.).
By way of example, the Newsweek poll about a month ago that showed Obama up 15 points interviewed about 12% more self-identified Democrats than self-identified Republicans, which is roughly what the recent party identification polls have shown across the U.S. electorate.
The more recent poll by Newsweek showing a 3% Obama lead interviewed the SAME percentage of Republicans and Democrats, something any political analysis worth their salt will tell you is not going to happen in Nov on election day.
You also forgot to mention Bob Barr, who almost certainly will have an impact on election day. Barr is currently polling in the 5-10% range in the a number of critical states, with the vast majority of his support from conservatives unhappy with McCain. I can already see the mainstream media expressing shock the day after the election that Barr took so many votes away from McCain. It's not shocking if you actually do your homework.
It seems that Obama should win, but who knows? I never thought Bush would win in 2000 and again in 2004, so one can't underestimate the strangeness of the American electorate.
An Obama landslide is just a Democratic Party wet dream.
Anonymous says: "BS. McCain can win big by getting Michigan and PA. Kerry states."
At the moment, McCain has made little inroads in those states. So at the moment at least, the writer is correct. And to Mr. Rino, if the American people are so skeptical about Mr. Obama, why does he continue to lead in the polls? McCain is not identified as a traditional Republican so party affiliation only partly explains it. Truth is, if the nominee had been Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, etc, this wouldn't even be close. They would already be planning Obama's victory speech. And something tells me Mr. Rino voted for Bush. It's just a gut feeling. A man with little real experience and running on name recognition. But experience is completely overrated anyway. If they were running for "supreme leader" or something it would be one thing, but Obama is going to have a cabinet full of people like Joe Biden or Sam Nunn, and possibly Colin Powell. He gets economic advice from none other than Warren Buffett. So let's stop with this experience canard. Afterall, no president in U.S. history had less experience than Abraham Lincoln. And he was a fairly decent president, wouldn't you say.
Wow--funny thing, I live in Illinois and Obama is only up 10 and is losing in the Chicago suburbs and downstate. Not exactly a landslide.
FYI--McCain raised $2.5 mil in downtown Chicago three weeks ago.
Kornacki, like most of the reporters on RCP minus the biased dweebs on both sides of the aisle, has a keen grasp of the obvious ...
carry on
Best explanation, by far, of how the national poll numbers are concealing a potential landslide for Obama, much the way Reagan ultimately won in 1980.
Wait for the October surprise. You will be schocked by the enorminty of it and Obama will lose.
Obama supporters are dreaming. I reside in Colorado and do public opinion surveys for a living. Colorado will end up being a McCain state, probably with 8-10% margin. Most state polls I have seen oversample Democrats and undersample Republicans by significant margins. Likewise, young voters (predomintantly Obama supporters) are oversampled. The problem is these youbng people will not vote in similar numbers as older voters (where McCain has a clear edge). And don't underestimate the Bradley effect, its very real.
I think you can safely estimate a 10% swing in McCain's favor in most polls at this point. I think the author has it exactly wrong. McCain could win in a landslide, Obama will need a miracle to eek out a win. Mark my words.
Barack has this thing all wrapped up, unless there is a HUGE screw up between now and November.
Its not that John McCain is a bad candidate. Its because Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Ashcroft, etc have done such a horrible job with the war on terror, national finances, politicizing the government and justice, squeezing religion in everywhere they can.
American's want to be proud of the country. Barack offers that in spades over John.
Its simple.
Finally, someone with the brains enough to truly do his research and clearly explain the polls that matter. Funny, you don't see more of this. Is the national media too lazy to summarize the national race state by state, or do they realize that the state-by-state polls show Obama running away with this thing doesn't help viewership and circulation? One must wonder....
John W McBush really is an awful candiate, & he is a rather unlikeable politican - personally I hate him, as I think he is nothing but a vapid, empty suit, disengenious, mean spirited phony....
Obama will win the traditional blue states, he should also turn Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, blue...
For a long time I assumed that Obama would garner about 300 electoral college votes and secure a 52-48% popular vote victory. I had assumed at the same time however that he would have Jim Webb at his side who would help balance out his weaknesses. McCain seems to be winning in the Veep stakes with Romney he will do exactly that, shore up his economic weakness & his vulnerability with the christian right. For the first time I am starting to doubt an Obama victory.
"Illinois Resident (not verified) says:
Wow--funny thing, I live in Illinois and Obama is only up 10 and is losing in the Chicago suburbs and downstate. Not exactly a landslide.
FYI--McCain raised $2.5 mil in downtown Chicago three weeks ago.
"
Well, I don't live in Ariz., but McCain is only up 9 points there in the latest Rasmussen poll. In any event, the author's point is an electoral landslide; not a popular vote landslide. Obama only needs to win Illinois by 1 vote, and McCain is not going to overcome 10 points there, given that most voters in that state have decided how they feel about Obama ages ago.
I love these people who Hate McCain. Guy served his country, imprisoned has one son in IRAQ and another about to join. Hate people like this and what has this country come to.
If he really is so "unlikeable", how did he manage to win the Presidency...twice?
I lived in Texas for over 20 years, and they loved him.
By the way, he may be an "empty suit' according to you, but I'll bet he can spell "...disengenious..." correctly.
If he really is so "unlikeable", how did he manage to win the Presidency...twice?
I lived in Texas for over 20 years, and they loved him.
By the way, he may be an "empty suit' according to you, but I'll bet he can spell "...disengenious..." correctly.
The proof that Obama will not win is found in the Democratic primary election results in Ohio & Pennsylvania. Take Ohio; look at the county-by-county analysis done at realclearpolitics.com. Look at the Ohio counties which Kerry carried in 2004. Then look at Obama's result in these same counties against HRC in the primary. The results are stunning. In many counties where a Democrat must win to succeed in the general, Obama was beaten senseless by Clinton. Sometimes by 50+%. Same story in PA.
Obama was spectacular in his inability to close the deal with working-class whites.
State polls are meaningless at this point in the race. I remember Kerry leading many states at this point 2004, states where he went to loose by double-digits in the general.
Hey Anon 4:22
You sir or ma'am, are a moron.
The "unlikeable" comment was directed at John McCain, not George W. Bush.
After you learn how to read a post, perhaps we'll take your comments seriously.
A lot can change in this race, but you have more reason to be happy than sad if you're an Obama supporter. There is an air of desperation from the McCain backers and an increasing disconnect with reality I generally associate with "liberals".
Oh the irony...
Erica
How does one "loose" a state. Is that the same as losing a state? ;)
Funny that you sure put a lot of stock in state primary results, but dismiss state polls.
Correlation: The first hurts Obama, the second helps him.
Take off your biased blinders and get back to us. The primary results are MORE meaningless than the polls right now.
"Likewise, young voters (predomintantly Obama supporters) are oversampled."
Simply untrue. Most of these polls are taken by phone, and most of them leave out people who are only reachable on a cell phone. The percentage of young people who rely solely on a cell phone is definitely higher than that of the general populous; therefore, young voters are probably *under* sampled, not over.
Ha,
All the people who think Obama has a chance don't know their history.If all the polls taken in July were right,this country would've never had a Republican president.Consider Mondale had a huge lead over Reagan in July 84 and Dukacas about the same in July 88,McCain running even with Obama tells me Obama has a tough road ahead.First,most polls overstate the support of an African-American canidate,second,most people don't know Barack.He is becoming a huge flip-flopper,inexperenced,and the most liberal(when he actually voted)major canadate ever.Plus if you thought the swift-boat ads were bad,just wait until Aug when the Rev.Wright and Obama's "clinging to religion and guns,typical white person,his words from his Father book"start playing on TV in Penn,Ohio,Mi,and other states with large white blue-collar voters.The Dems and the media are so wanting the next JFK,they elect anybody who is a charmer.And they lost their best chance of winning when they chose Obama over Hillary.
There you have it: a foreshadowing of a momentus shift in American political life, due in large measure to a complete rejection of the politics and leaders who represent the past and a zestful embrace of new, fresh leadership that is transformational at home and around the world. It cannot come soon enough.
There is a large discrepancy between the generic Congressional poll - favoring Dems by 12% - and the head-to-head Obama/McCain poll which is basically tied at this point. That 12-point difference indicates that while the general population is strongly leaning Democratic, these same voters are equally divided in regards to their presidential choice.
In the end the Electoral Votes is what matters as you point out in your column. However, Obama's position has nowhere to go but down - he is not going to increase his lead with what he already has, namely the youth, the AA and the latte liberals.
There is no question that the tidal wave will increase Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. However, at election time, the electorate's serious doubts about Obama's lack of qualifications will bear on their decision and there will be extensive split-ballot voting - giving McCain the presidency.