The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer is a two-time Emmy award winner, both for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq.
ARCHIVES
FAVORITES
RECENT POSTS
- Groves Nomination: On the Move?
- Sarah Palin: Up Among Republicans?
- In Iraq, Progress - and Problems
- Mark Sanford and the Affairs of State
- Iran's Election: The Odds of Fraud
- Affirmative Action: Words Matter
- Hold on Groves: Mystery Hour at the Senate
- "Medical Bankruptcies:" a Data Update
- Obama and the Muslim World
- What We Don't Know About China
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Battling Data: What Gives?
May 05, 2008 12:37 PM
There were at least a few crossed eyes today over conflicting data and analysis in the latest New York Times/CBS and USA Today/Gallup polls. We share your pain.
Briefly: Times/CBS has Barack Obama +12 vs. Hillary Clinton, with a headline saying Obama “survives furor” over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. USAT/Gallup has Clinton +7, saying the flap over Wright “pulls Obama down.” Adding to the mix is Gallup’s daily poll, which has Obama +4.
These polls also differ in their general election match-ups: Times/CBS has Obama +11 and Clinton +12 vs. John McCain, while USAT/Gallup has them basically tied. Gallup daily has Clinton-McCain tied, McCain +5 vs. Obama.
Before we get into what gives, we’ll use this as an opportunity to repeat our long-standing advice to de-emphasize the horse race in pre-election polls. It is lowest-common-denominator reporting. And in poll-to-poll comparisons it’s the single most unstable measure we see. (Just a few weeks ago Newsweek had Obama +19 and Gallup daily had him +3 on the same day. Aagh.)
As to possible causes: Times/CBS ask Democrats (and Dem-leaning independents) whom they’d like to see the party nominate; USAT/Gallup asks whom “you would be most likely to support.” Since most Democrats who wanted to vote already have done so, these can be understood differently (potentially confusing past vote with vs. current support), possibly contributing to different results. (In any case it’s maybe not the best question to emphasize, since all those who already have voted don’t actually get a do-over.)
Also, Times/CBS asks the Democratic race first, then asks favorability ratings, then asks general election matchups. USAT/Gallup does it opposite: First the general election, then the favorables, then the Democratic preference. That can create differences (and asking favorability directly before vote preference is something we try to avoid).
USAT/Gallup gave its Obama-Clinton result among all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents; Times/CBS, among “Democratic primary voters.” (It also reported this race among registered leaned Dems, Obama +8.) On the general election trial heats, USAT/Gallup reported results among likely voters, Times/CBS, among registereds. But it’s hard to blame the differences on this; we haven’t seen a lot of variation in gen pop vs. reg. vs. LV results. (Sample size can be a factor as well; USAT/Gallup interviewed 1,019 adults, including 516 leaned Democrats; Times/CBS, a smaller sample of 671 adults, including 283 “Democratic primary voters.” Both called Thursday through Saturday.)
In reporting such polls it's perhaps a natural reflex to take the horse-race result and search for explanations. USAT/Gallup had Obama doing less well, so it seems to have reached out to the Wright issue for support. Times/CBS did not have this change, so it went the other way, though the Times story is laden with caveats.
USAT notes that a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Obama because of Wright. That’s like the 30 percent in our own April poll, on the first go-around of the Wright story, who said Obama hadn’t done enough to distance himself from Wright. At least in our data, though, it didn’t appear to hurt Obama either vs. Clinton or McCain; critics on Wright fit the non-Obama profile.
None of this resolves the matter. At best it’s a reminder that all polls – even good-quality ones – are done differently, and don’t always get the same results or engender the same analysis. And that horse-race results, in the midst of a close and unsettled campaign, may be particularly vulnerable to these kinds of influences. Said it before, saying it again: Easing back on the horse race, and looking instead at the underlying dynamics, is always a better way to go.
May 5, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where is John Edwards when you need him???
OBAMA 08
Posted by: Lawrence | May 5, 2008 12:52:49 PM
Oprah got it in a heart beat.
... ..According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.) ... ..
Something Wasn’t Wright
Why Oprah Winfrey left Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church.
Posted by: Lookup | May 5, 2008 12:57:16 PM
THE DEMOCRATIC RACE IS OVER
The super delegates are being courted by Obama (aka Soetoro) supporters who promise big rewards in their next race.
This election has been bought and paid for. Thank you Howard. Than you Nancy.
Posted by: A | May 5, 2008 1:19:36 PM
I will only vote McCain if Obama wins the nominee. If Hillary wins the nominee then McCain dosent stand a chance. If Rev. Wright came out in public just a few months ago Obama would be so far out of the running it wouldn't be funny. It will be a huge mistake to elect Obama.
GO AL GORE!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: kito11 | May 5, 2008 1:35:51 PM
I wonder why the drive-media keep the Global Povert Act ( S.2433) sponsored by the highness Obama in the dark. Do you need to wait for Rush or Sean to bring it up first. Roughly 84 million dollars proposed to be tax on the Americans to benefit certain group of people. What is the motive behind that proposal? Who and what country will benefit the most? At least before we get ripp-off, we need to learn more about the Almighty.
Posted by: mtr2311 | May 5, 2008 1:35:57 PM
A lot of fancy talk and big words can be summed up easily. NYT/CBS counted a larger percentage of black voters than there really are. and they used a very small sample.
Posted by: geevill | May 5, 2008 1:38:00 PM
28 YEARS of a Clinton or bush in the 1 or 2 spot is just way too looooooog. Let's go for the fresh start. Hopefully, after tomorrow the Hillary campaign will be peacefully put to sleep just like "eight belles" in the Derby. Obama 2008!
Posted by: pt | May 5, 2008 2:30:29 PM
The latest New York Times/CBS Poll tried to justify how Obama pastor controversy has not negative effect on Barack Obama candidacy.
How the pollsters explain when NYT/CBS polls asked to name the candidate "who would unite the country":
52% of the voters selected Barack Obama as "uniter" down from 67% in February, while 48% picked Hillary Clinton as "uniter" up from 34% in February.
This a swing of 29 points in favor of Hillary Clinton since the NYT/CBS poll in February, closing the gap in Barack Obama' strogest messages "uniter" and "bring people together".
How the pollsters explain that 44% of voters as per NYT/CBS poll who had heard about Obama pastor said his controversy will have A LOT or SOME impact in November if Barack Obama is DEM Nominee.
How the pollster explain that 47% of the voters indicated Barack Obama decided to renounce the ties to his pastor mainly because Obama thought it would help him politically.
How the pollsters explain when the voters asked the question: "How much do you think Obama pastor has shaped Obama's"
43% of the voters said A LOT or SOME of Obama's political views.
58% of the voters said A LOT or SOME of Obama's spiritual views.
After reading the 16 pages NYT/CBS poll, I believe the Obama pastor controversy has alienated many voters who are now questioning Barack Obama messages.
Posted by: Angel | May 6, 2008 11:43:05 AM
I have been a democrat all my life. I will not help elect someone who I feel will divide this country with a civil war. If Obama is the democrat choice I will vote for MaCain. I also know a lot of people feel the same as I do.
Posted by: sue | May 7, 2008 7:48:13 AM
The North Carolina and Indiana exit polls have reaffirmed the perception that Obama pastor controversy may allienate many voters including Democrats.
Almost half of all voters in NC and IN considered the situation of Obama pastor controversy as "very/somewhat important" issue.
My surprise is that Obama supporters accounted for more than 30% of those voters- combining NC and IN- who considered Obama pastor controversy an "very/somewhat important" issue.
Posted by: Angel | May 7, 2008 1:40:23 PM
After seven years of Bush I am amazed that any Democrat or anyone would vote Republican. Apparently there still are very ugly racial issues lurking in our society if Democrats will vote for John McCain rather than Barack Obama.
As to the polls, everyone should know that they depend on who is doing the polling and the demographic of those being polled.
Posted by: Sarah Riedmaier | May 7, 2008 2:02:27 PM
I wish Obama supporters wouldn't always go racial in their minds about Hillary supporters going for McCain. It is about CHARACTER, JUDGEMENT, PATRIOTISM, EXPERIENCE......NOT BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!
God, I wish some people would get that iit wouldn't matter if he was purple....he is unelectable in the GE. He has to work more than the 143 days in the Senate (quoted by MSNBC this AM) to come close to the resumes of Clinton or McCain...we are not just going to give it to him. THIS highest seat in our country has to be earned! NEVER Obama. Majority of Hillary supporters voting McCain...nothing like women scorned. (alot of men I know switching to McCain if not Hillary).
Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 1:47:27 AM
Sue, Angel...I am with you and there are millions more like us and when McCain debates Obama in the fall, many more will she his inadequacies. Obama has worked 143 days in the Senate....does that really qualify him to run this country. The media was with him from the start, the billionaire liberals too. Racially, it was imbarassing that 92% black vote went to him. Doesn't matter. Obama has NO JUDGEMENT, CHARACTER, EXPERIENCE OR PATRIOTISM to lead this country and his little pocket of college kids/blacks/radicals ARE NOT THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNTRY AND THAT HELPS ME SLEEP AT NIGHT.
Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 11:30:58 AM
People look at comments made by SUE, Debra, and A....this is what the repos wants...the Republicans are voting for OBAMA to fluff his numbers so that HILLARY is out of the race because they know McCAIN can't win against her. Once the November elections come, which would obviously be too late, McCain will win by a landslide because the republicans were voting for him in the primary. That's why these numbers and mysterious leaning votes are. People wake up. Tell the delegates to vote Hillary or lose it all over again.
Posted by: Deborah | May 12, 2008 10:15:17 AM
Post a comment
