« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Winning the Election vs. Winning the Polls: Possible vs. Impossible

Turnout assumptions make a McCain lead in the polls impossible

Many of us have been carefully watching for McCain to move ahead in this year’s national polling. However, we must realize that based on the turnout assumptions underlying all of these polls, it is nearly impossible for McCain to move ahead. That does not mean that the election is out of reach.

This year’s polling assumes a turnout model that, if it were to hold true, would require McCain to win upwards of 25% of Democrats in order to just pull even. Note that if such a thing were to happen, the actual voter turnout could not possibly look like what is assumed by the model. The model assumes that McCain is doomed to lose, and only seeks to explain why.

If the Joe the Plumber campaign and the Sarah Palin selection have indeed won McCain some votes, then we would expect to see a small effect in the numbers reported in the major polls. However, the greater actual effect to expect is that the actual turnout will ultimately look very different from the current assumptions.

If GOP turnout is within a few points of Democratic turnout in the swing states, then McCain wins. If Democratic turnout is ten to fifteen points greater, then McCain loses. If the assumptions hold true and young and single voters turn out in record numbers while older and married voters stay home, then Obama wins. If turnout is more conventional, then McCain wins.

It is very hard to develop a turnout model based on polling. It is even harder this year, in which Obama supports will naturally tend to want the talk about their support, while McCain supporters are naturally more reserved.

McCain may very well win on Tuesday. If he does, we will eventually learn that all of the polls were indeed right, but that the data was incorrectly interpreted because the pollsters based their assumptions on an erroneous reading of the dispositions of the American electorate.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • mikeleader

    well written,,,well explained and highly recommended

  • IJB

    McCain may very well win on Tuesday. If he does, we will eventually learn that all of the polls were indeed right, but that the data was incorrectly interpreted because the pollsters based their assumptions on an erroneous reading of the dispositions of the American electorate.

    If this happens (and I think it’s a significant possibility), I think the polling industry will have mortally wounded itself.

    If McCain ends up winning next Tuesday, after virtually every poll had him 5-15% down for weeks and weeks, the polling industry’s credibility will match that of the legacy media: totally destroyed.

    Frankly, I’m pulling for that outcome – if it goes down that way, I will be trashing every poll that comes out from this moment forward to anyone who will listen.

  • pwest

    The MSM and the Polling services need to be taken down a peg. Maybe, they will wake up if McCain pulls this out.

    • wet_rat

      I think that Zogby’s very prominent publication of the Friday numbers is part of a hedge, just in case the above-described scenario comes to pass. He then can talk about how his polling “saw the movement.” If there is indeed an Obama landslide in the popular vote, then Zogby can talk about the multi-day track.

      Today’s polling is more art than science. There are so many correlations and unknown correlation coefficients that you need to make some assumptions somewhere. That is why “internal pollsters” rely on changes in known demographic blocks. For example, McCain’s pollster might see an increased level of support in Toledo, as compared to the Bush-Kerry baseline. That can be interpreted as a sign that he is doing something right. Likewise, a decreased level of support among Hispanics in Florida as compared to the Bush-Kerry baseline would be an indicator of trouble.

      Internal pollsters don’t poll to get top numbers. They poll to get useful comparative numbers that can be used in evaluating the mood of the electorate and the efficacy of particular campaign decisions.