Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[Sam Spade]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

[Brittain33]

It is interesting that the traditional and expanded LV models are now merging. Is that by accident or design, as Gallup struggles to make a prediction on the actual turnout model as we get close to the wire?

For some reason, the "traditional" turnout model was coming up with more likely voters than the "expanded" turnout model for a long time. That has now reversed and may help to explain the convergence.

How does an expanded model contract the number of voters?  That concept is just a bit too abstract for me. 

Perhaps the young make up a larger share of the electorate, but vote at lower rates than the older people whose share of the electorate gets squeezed.

[Verily]

It is interesting that the traditional and expanded LV models are now merging. Is that by accident or design, as Gallup struggles to make a prediction on the actual turnout model as we get close to the wire?

For some reason, the "traditional" turnout model was coming up with more likely voters than the "expanded" turnout model for a long time. That has now reversed and may help to explain the convergence.

How does an expanded model contract the number of voters?  That concept is just a bit too abstract for me. 

The traditional model weights based on both past voting behavior and current voting intentions (as well as knowledge of such things as who your Representative is). The expanded model weights only based on current voting intentions.

So, someone who has voted a lot in the past and knows what's going on in politics but maybe isn't sure if they're going to vote this year might be included in the traditional model but discluded from the expanded model. I agree that the fact that the traditional model was turning up more voters was very strange, though, and it had been remarked upon a few times  here.

[elcorazon]

as registration gets easier and more and more people register, it becomes more likely that the % of those registered would go down...  plus the traditional model is based on past voting behavior and a lot of those who are now registered have never voted before.

[Alcon]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

[Torie]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

That suggests demoralization. So is it downmarket blue collars who voted for Kerry who won't be voting, or cross conflicted Torie voters who voted Bush who won't be voting, or base GOP Bush voters who won't be voting, or Hispanics who voted more for Kerry than Bush who won't be voting?

We know the blacks and the punks will be voting in disproportionate numbers, as well as those liberal on both social and economic issues.

[Sam Spade]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

True, but as I noted before, this number was *higher* than the expanded number only one week ago.

The expanded model now has it at 87%.  In the 2004 elections, it was 73%.

[Sbane]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

That suggests demoralization. So is it downmarket blue collars who voted for Kerry who won't be voting, or cross conflicted Torie voters who voted Bush who won't be voting, or base GOP Bush voters who won't be voting, or Hispanics who voted more for Kerry than Bush who won't be voting?

We know the blacks and the punks will be voting in disproportionate numbers, as well as those liberal on both social and economic issues.

Considering the kinds of places that are losing the most voters in Oregon as compared to 2004, I would guess it is the GOP base that is not showing up in high numbers. I really think Bush did an excellent job of turning out his votes, something Obama seems to be doing better this year. Now since Oregon isn't a swing state we can't read too much into it, but if this pattern is repeated in all the other states, you guys are in for a long night.

[Alcon]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

That suggests demoralization. So is it downmarket blue collars who voted for Kerry who won't be voting, or cross conflicted Torie voters who voted Bush who won't be voting, or base GOP Bush voters who won't be voting, or Hispanics who voted more for Kerry than Bush who won't be voting?

I'm not sure, honestly.  Outside factors can affect this as well, but I've looked at the Oregon ballot carefully, and I see no explanations.  Maybe stamp costs?  Who knows.

Getting into the more experimental zone:  FiveThirtyEight did an analysis of the Oregon ballot returns and found that, extrapolating ballot returns in a 100% Kerry county and a 100% Bush county, the theoretical Kerry county would see turnout essentially unchanged from 2004.  The theoretical pure Bush-voter county would be off by about 40%.  That type of analysis is prone to noise and outside effects, but that's a significant difference, period.

When it comes to early voting numbers, I'm always skeptical.  Oftentimes they show enthusiasm while ignoring reliable, traditional voters.  But when you have an entire state that's vote-by-mail, and ballots come directly to houses, the amount of enthusiasm in the equation has got to be significantly lower.  Even if these are just voters who are dragging their feet, feet-dragging is going to lose some voters at the margins, and there's just no way that's good news for McCain--or a healthy participative democracy.

(Wish I had more to add about your sub-demographics, other than saying that the Oregon numbers likely show reduced participation among downscale conservatives, but not so much downscale traditional Democrats.  I'm basing that almost entirely on a small handful of counties, though.)

[Verily]

as registration gets easier and more and more people register, it becomes more likely that the % of those registered would go down...  plus the traditional model is based on past voting behavior and a lot of those who are now registered have never voted before.

Registration as a percentage of the voting age population has not changed substantially since the early 1990s, when it reached about 80%.

[Sam Spade]

Why is the Gallup LV Traditional now only showing 65.2% of RV showing up.  That's below 1996 levels.

Despite this early voting hubbub, traditional indicators seem laggy to me.  Oregon ballot returns (a limited indicator but the best I know of) are down nearly 20% vs. the same day 2004.  Unless something odd is happening, I would be surprised if RVT isn't down a tick from '04.

That suggests demoralization. So is it downmarket blue collars who voted for Kerry who won't be voting, or cross conflicted Torie voters who voted Bush who won't be voting, or base GOP Bush voters who won't be voting, or Hispanics who voted more for Kerry than Bush who won't be voting?

I'm not sure, honestly.  Outside factors can affect this as well, but I've looked at the Oregon ballot carefully, and I see no explanations.  Maybe stamp costs?  Who knows.

Getting into the more experimental zone:  FiveThirtyEight did an analysis of the Oregon ballot returns and found that, extrapolating ballot returns in a 100% Kerry county and a 100% Bush county, the theoretical Kerry county would see turnout essentially unchanged from 2004.  The theoretical pure Bush-voter county would be off by about 40%.  That type of analysis is prone to noise and outside effects, but that's a significant difference, period.

When it comes to early voting numbers, I'm always skeptical.  Oftentimes they show enthusiasm while ignoring reliable, traditional voters.  But when you have an entire state that's vote-by-mail, and ballots come directly to houses, the amount of enthusiasm in the equation has got to be significantly lower.  Even if these are just voters who are dragging their feet, feet-dragging is going to lose some voters at the margins, and there's just no way that's good news for McCain--or a healthy participative democracy.

(Wish I had more to add about your sub-demographics, other than saying that the Oregon numbers likely show reduced participation among downscale conservatives, but not so much downscale traditional Democrats.  I'm basing that almost entirely on a small handful of counties, though.)

I understand your point, Alcon (for Oregon), but it doesn't explain the massive shift within the poll itself over the last week.

[Sam Spade]

Let me see if I can help with this note:

October 30 Graph



October 29 Graph



October 28 Graph


See my point.

I might e-mail Gallup and see if the graph's just a misprint.

[Alcon]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to explain the polls, just give the ground-level stuff I can see concretely.

The poll confuses me just as much as it confuses you.

[J. J.]

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

RV
Obama: 50% (-1)
McCain: 42% (nc)

LV (Expanded)
Obama: 51% (nc)
McCain: 44% (nc)

LV (Traditional)
Obama: 50% (+1)
McCain: 45% (-1)

This should be troubling to McCain supporters.

Uhh, it should?

Are you completely divorced from reality or this just an act?

No, I told you long ago, McCain trends better over weekdays in Gallup, and I'm not overjoyed when he goes up a point on a Thursday.  I am worried when he drops late in the week.  That is much more troubling that Obama jumping a point on a Monday release.

[Verily]

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

RV
Obama: 50% (-1)
McCain: 42% (nc)

LV (Expanded)
Obama: 51% (nc)
McCain: 44% (nc)

LV (Traditional)
Obama: 50% (+1)
McCain: 45% (-1)

This should be troubling to McCain supporters.

Uhh, it should?

Are you completely divorced from reality or this just an act?

No, I told you long ago, McCain trends better over weekdays in Gallup, and I'm not overjoyed when he goes up a point on a Thursday.  I am worried when he drops late in the week.  That is much more troubling that Obama jumping a point on a Monday release.

I think he was responding to RowanBrandon, not you.

[TheGlobalizer]

No, I told you long ago, McCain trends better over weekdays in Gallup, and I'm not overjoyed when he goes up a point on a Thursday.  I am worried when he drops late in the week.  That is much more troubling that Obama jumping a point on a Monday release.

Breathe.  I think you're starting to watch the pools a bit too closely. 

[MR maverick]

The window is closing on McCain another day Obama has moved up after being at 49%.

So much for  "tightening".

[J. J.]

No, I told you long ago, McCain trends better over weekdays in Gallup, and I'm not overjoyed when he goes up a point on a Thursday.  I am worried when he drops late in the week.  That is much more troubling that Obama jumping a point on a Monday release.

Breathe.  I think you're starting to watch the pools a bit too closely. 

I've been doing this since the summer.  This is not good news for McCain.

[Person Man]

The race is not tightening. Any upset by McCain will be because of illegitimate reasons.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The race is not tightening. Any upset by McCain will be because of illegitimate reasons.

of course, anytime the Republican wins it is illegitimate

[MR maverick]

The race is not tightening. Any upset by McCain will be because of illegitimate reasons.

Try telling that to the MSM they seem to think its tied.

Then again they wouldn't want a blowout because saying its close gets ratings.

[MODU]

The race is not tightening. Any upset by McCain will be because of illegitimate reasons.

Huh?

[Verily]

Friday, October 31st, 2008

RV
Obama: 52% (+2)
McCain: 42% (-1)

LV (Expanded)
Obama: 52% (+1)
McCain: 43% (-1)

LV (Traditional)
Obama: 51% (+1)
McCain: 43% (-2)




Happy Halloween!

[Reds4]

Looks like Game set and match.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh my. That just made my day.