Does it seem like Obama has performed better in the actual votes than in pre-primary polls thus far? Sure it does. But I wanted to see it for myself, in one image.
(Click for a much larger and clearer version, which can be made clearer still by clicking the image that opens in the new window.)
Obama’s results are on the horizontal dimension and Clinton’s are on the vertical. A point in the positive area means that the actual primary vote for the candidate exceeded the final poll average, as reported at Pollster.com.
Most state results appear in the upper right, as we would expect, because polls include an undecided (or third-candidate support, in earlier contests) that splits between the two main candidates in the final vote.
The most striking results are those in the lower right. There are six states in which Clinton’s final vote was less than her polling average, while Obama’s was greater. These include three of the states where Obama exceeded his poll average by more than ten points: Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia.
On the other hand, there are only two states in which Obama came in under his poll average, and in neither case by even two points: New Hampshire and Illinois. You already know the New Hampshire story–also the state where Clinton most exceeded her final poll average1 –and Obama’s mere 64.6% in his home state as opposed to his 66% polling average presumably does not mean much.
Interestingly, even in much-touted Clinton victories like Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama did better relative to the final polling trend than Clinton did. In fact, the same can be said about New York!
For whatever it might be worth, as of today, the polling trends in the two big(ish) states2 that vote on 4 March show the following (which I will update on the 29th and maybe on 2 March and voting day before results are known):
-
Texas
Obama
Clinton
Ohio
Clinton —- 49.8 49.5 49.4
Obama —- 42.4 43.4 43.6
(My 28 Feb. error for Ohio has now been deleted.
Updated again on 3 March. New batch of polls may suggest Obama’s momentum in Texas has peaked.
Clinton’s lead in Texas vanished days ago, as the trend line in recent days shows her now dropping even more steeply than Obama had been gaining since the start of the year. In Ohio, the gap has been narrowing significantly recently. Clinton is going to need at least one of these states to turn out more like New Hampshire or California than like so many other states, or she is in real trouble.3
_____
I included only primaries, not caucuses, and if a primary is not included in the graph, it is because there were not enough polls available to have a meaningful average trend.
I should also note that the Pollster.com crew, to their credit, have posted some caveats about the aggregated-average methodology. (I did not find that post on a quick search.)
______
(Where have all the regular Shugarti comboxers gone off to?)
Came across this interesting poll/ survey at the WaPo (http://tinyurl.com/24sg7e):
“Awarding Delegates: A recent poll found that liberals prefer awarding presidential delegates in proportion to a candidate’s performance in a state, while conservatives prefer awarding all of the state’s delegates to the one with the most votes.”
Perhaps this reflects psychology: Rawlsian risk-averse types are drawn to systems (PR/ welfare state) that dampen extreme fluctuations of fortune, whereas “who dares, wins” types prefer to gamble double or nothing (on WTA/ laissez-faire capitalism).
C/f Mickey Kaus’ “Are Pregnant Chad Liberal?,” Slate (19 November 2000),
http://tinyurl.com/24nupj:
‘… Here are three ways in which the “pregnant chad” cause is an apt synecdoche for the most easily-caricatured features of traditional liberal thinking: 1. Short-term “compassion” versus the long-term virtues of firmness: Advocates of permissive vote-counting give priority to an immediate, unmet human need – the need of the voter to have his or her voice effectively heard – over the benefits of establishing a tough, clear rule and sticking to it, benefits (efficiency, fewer disputes) that will only be realized over the long run. Similarly, liberal antipoverty advocates tend to believe it’s more important to meet the material needs of poor Americans now, rather than, say, deny unwed mothers aid in the belief that fewer women will, in the long run, decide to become unwed mothers. The two arguments aren’t really closely comparable; they’re precisely comparable. 2. Victimhood versus personal responsibility: The poor voter, confused by the voting apparatus, too weak to forcefully thrust a stylus, needs help from the government to express himself, say the Gore forces – a view that is compassionate and also a bit condescending. “Voters are responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions,†say the Republicans. Ditto drug users, welfare mothers, public schools, etc. 3. Judicial power versus political power: A hard-and-fast “two-corner†chad-counting rule tends to leave the decision with local canvassing boards…’
Seed planted by Tom Round — 03 March 2008 @ 09:05
I very much suspect this is the ‘Young Voter’ effect. This election, the ‘Youth Vote’ which has long stayed out of voting in the US is going to the ballots in huge numbers. And these are youth who’ve grown up with cell phones and the internet. Many of them don’t have landline phones at all, and if they do they decline ‘spam’ calls from telemarketers and pollsters. The polling groups don’t appear to have caught up with this change in technology…
If so, I predict a big political upset, and a complete change of the political map this election cycle.
Seed planted by Jay Blanc — 03 March 2008 @ 18:11
On the changing demographics of the Democratic party–a point related to that raised by Jay–see Ron Brownstein’s article in National Journal.
Seed planted by MSS — 03 March 2008 @ 23:25
The Buckeyes of Texas are Upon You
My inclination at this point is that Obama will emerge from tonight sufficiently victorious that the process will essentially be over, even if it takes Clinton a few days to figure it out.
Scion grafted by PoliBlog — 04 March 2008 @ 13:46
In Ohio, Clinton beat her poll average by 4.7, Obama his only by 0.4. In Texas, the gaps were 3.1 and 1.5, respectively.
Seed planted by MSS — 05 March 2008 @ 16:48
In Mississippi, Obama exceeded his final poll average by 6.8 percentage points, while Clinton came in 1 point below hers.
On these measures, the state was most similar to Virginia and Wisconsin.
(This is based on fairly minimal polling in Mississippi.)
Seed planted by MSS — 12 March 2008 @ 18:29
The final aggregate for Pennsylvania is:
Clinton 49.3
Obama 42.7
That is almost the same as was the case as voting began in Ohio (49.6 to 43.6). In Ohio, Clinton won 4.7 more than the final polling aggregate, whereas Obama managed only 0.4 better.
Given the similar demographics in Pennsylvania, I would have to think that if Clinton fails to win at least 54%, it is a disappointing outcome for her.
We’ll know soon enough how much the actual varies form the final polling.
Seed planted by MSS — 22 April 2008 @ 15:08
NC and IN final aggregates vs. actual results…
IN final polls aggregate:
C 48.6
O 44.4
IN result:
C 50.7
O 49.3
IN difference (vote-poll agg.):
C 2.1
O 4.9
(Very close on the graph to MO.)
NC final polls aggregate:
C 42.3
O 49.6
NC result:
C 41.5
O 56.2
NC difference:
C -0.8
O 6.6
(The most similar states on the graph would be VA and WI, although the NC outcome was a bit closer to the polls for both candidates in NC than in VA or WI.)
Seed planted by MSS — 07 May 2008 @ 12:54
Updates for the three most recent states:
WV final polls average:
C 61.3
O 34.3
WV result:
C 67.0
O 25.7
WV difference:
C 5.7
O –8.6
(WV is in a location all its own in the graph; in fact, the graph would have to be extended in order to show how poorly Obama did, relative to the polls.)
KY final poll aggregate:
C 63.2
O 28.0
KY result:
C 65.5
O 29.9
KY difference:
C 2.3
O 1.9
(KY looks a lot more distinct from WV than might have been imagined, inasmuch as both exceeded their final polls aggregate by about the same amount. This state is also sort of in its own location in the graph, but not in an “off the chart” sense, but rather as being the state where the polls were most reliable for both! No other state would be as close to the 0,0 point.)
OR final poll aggregate:
C 41.6
O 54.1
OR result:
C 41.7
O 58.3
OR difference:
C 0.1
O 4.2
(Most like MO in terms of each candidate’s difference from polling, albeit not in the result itself, MO being the closest result so far.)
Seed planted by MSS — 21 May 2008 @ 13:52
I just realized I had not done PA!!
PA final poll aggregate:
C 49.8
O 42.4
PA result:
C 54.6
O 45.4
PA difference:
C +4.8
O +3.0
(Closest on the graph to MO, even if the actual race was not nearly as close as in the latter state.)
Seed planted by MSS — 21 May 2008 @ 14:04