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 has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Veepwatch
August 22, 2008 4:11 PM
Saturday morning update:
As with the previous vice presidential picks I've outlined below, Joe Biden looks likely to have little if any direct effect on vote preferences. In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll completed last night, 13 percent of registered voters said having Biden on the ticket would make them more likely to support Obama, while about as many, 10 percent, said it would make them less likely to do so. But most by far – 75 percent – said it would make no difference in their choice.
This kind of finding supports the axiom that the top of the ticket drives the vote. For a v.p. pick to be determinative, voters would have say, in effect, that Obama and McCain are so similar they can’t decide between them. Few get there.
Presumably the Democrats’ hope is that Biden will shore up Obama’s weakness in experience and foreign affairs. In our previous polling registered voters have divided evenly on whether or not Obama has enough experience to serve effectively as president – a lot of people to lose on a basic qualification for office.
At the same time, despite his long tenure in office, Biden’s not particularly well known. His favorability rating, the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity, last was tested in a Gallup poll in April 2007. Twenty percent had a favorable opinion of him overall, 25 percent unfavorable, and 55 percent couldn’t say one way or the other.
If he isn’t well-known nationally, one other polling tidbit does shows the extent of Biden’s tenure: Gallup first polled on him 21 years ago, in April 1987. Seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in that poll said they knew something about him.
Obama, at the time, was a 25-year-old community organizer for a Chicago housing project.
We'll be reporting in detail on our new poll tomorrow morning.
Original post follows:
Recent history can offer bit of a diversion from the Obama veepwatch: In the past few campaigns, how has support for presidential candidates been impacted by their vice presidential picks?
The answer: essentially, not at all.
John Kerry had 48 percent support among registered voters in an ABC/Post poll completed June 20, 2004. He named John Edwards as his running mate July 6. In our next poll, completed July 25, Kerry had 46 percent support. Net change: -2.
In 2000, Al Gore had 37 percent support in a poll we finished the day before he picked Joe Lieberman and 40 percent support a few days later. Net change: +3.
The same year, George W. Bush had 44 percent support just before he named Dick Cheney as his running mate and 49 percent just after. Net change: +5.
And in 1996, Bob Dole’s support was 34 percent just before he picked Jack Kemp, and 32 percent just after. Net change: -2.
Polling, as I’m fond of saying, isn’t laser surgery. Small, generally insignificant changes tend not to amount to much, and it’s dicey at best to attribute them to specific events. It’s dicier still when they’re inconsistent. Average -2, +3, +5 and -2 and you get a grand 1. (These polls also had some slight changes in the opposing candidates' numbers, but unlike convention bounces, it's hard to make a plausible argument for evaluating v.p. picks on the margins.)
Data from 1988 and 1992 are conflated with the conventions, making it a tougher read. But we do have a clean look from Gallup polls in 1984, at the time of Walter Mondale's attempt at a transformational selection in Geraldine Ferraro. His support went from 37 percent a few weeks before naming Ferraro to 39 percent a few days after. Net change: +2.
All this fits in with a few other things we know about the impact of vice presidential nominees, including this, which I’ve reported previously, from our last poll: When we tested 17 individual issues for their importance to vote choices, the candidates’ vice presidential selections came in dead last.
These picks can tell us something about the presidential candidates, and as such can be revealing. But as far as directly influencing vote preferences... we don't see it.
August 22, 2008 in 2008 General Election | Permalink | User Comments (11)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I like Joe Biden but I don't like or trust Obama. And since Joe isn't going to be president, short of a disaster that I do NOT, repeat NOT, want to happen, I'll still vote McCain this fall. And I'm not sore that Hillary lost but I am---and will continue to be---extremely angry about the way the Democratic primary was run. Until the Democratic Party runs a truly democratic primary, I'll vote Republican or Third Party.
Posted by: charlie35 | Aug 23, 2008 9:16:29 AM
I'm satisfied with the pick!
Obama-Biden 08'!
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 23, 2008 10:59:49 AM
"Until the Democratic Party runs a truly democratic primary, I'll vote Republican or Third Party."
Until the Democratic Party runs a truly democratic primary, I'll let thousands or people die over seas; hundreds of soldiers; and, let another conservative retard laws that I really care about by appointing more Samuel Alitos. And all while the country sinks into the toilet economically.
Smart. Only not really. Charlie, buddy, if you're voting Republican, see ya,
Posted by: Anthony | Aug 23, 2008 11:05:43 AM
No Clinton no vote.
Posted by: Marla | Aug 23, 2008 11:21:11 AM
He picks a guy who, when he ran in 88, stole a speech from a british politician and tried passing it as his own. He has a big mouth, which shows he speaks before he thinks and has no ability to carry the DNC beyond the Obama years. He does nothing to shore up swing states and Delaware has no influence in the electoral makeup of a race, its a blue state.
I see to many things wrong with this choice and it shows me, Obama really is all flash and no substance. We have a lot to contend with this election and the Democrats have dropped the ball again.
I'll be staying home this election cycle and watching the rest of America choose between crap and more crap.
Posted by: Scott NH | Aug 23, 2008 11:35:14 AM
More importantly, i thought it was the economy stupid!!! Biden has a horrible record on economics. He is another would be law professor from a stuffy east coast environment, he attend private school as a youth, he has supported and been supported by big bank lobbies. He has nothing to add to the fundamental questions. All he can do is show his bad judgement when the phone calls at the white house are being forwarded to the VPs house at 3 a.m. Sen Obama shows the only change he wants is to ride his celebrity to a new address. I don't think that works -- Biden would have been a better choice for Paris Hilton -- at least she comes from a family with experience in building up business and the economy.
Posted by: Maybe_its_just_me | Aug 23, 2008 1:15:25 PM
you guys need a life...go obama and biden..mccain go count your many houses while we count which bill is the most important to pay to keep our ONE house..
Posted by: [get a life people | Aug 23, 2008 6:14:53 PM
There's so much talk about John McCain's 7 homes. As far as I see it, someone who has that many homes has more at stake in the housing crisis. 7 homes at a total value of $13MM is not that luxurious for a wealthy family. In addition, penalizing people who have done well in their lives is a criticism that is so irresponsible. Why isn't that admired any more? Have we lost our minds that this country is not a country of opportunity. To say that John McCain is out of touch and does not know the plight of the common person has not formed an original thought for themselves. Try being a POW in Hanoi for nearly 6 years. Now that's suffering. Let's just say it, McCain married upward and criticizing him for marrying a beautiful, smart and affluent woman is baseless. We are battling the same issues in 1988 that are issues today. Life, the market, the economy is cyclical. If you do not do your share in looking back to plan for the future...that is a mistake. The Hanley's (Cindy's family), the Romney's (although not a fan), and the Clinton's all had a vision for their families...to be responsible for their lives and not moan about how the government or anyone has not helped them. I can guarantee in 10 years, the citizens of this country will be complaining about the same thing: the economy, the housing market and how jobs are lost internationally. Wake up people! Take control of your lives and stop blaming the government, your family, and the international community!
Posted by: Immigrant Who Made a Life | Aug 24, 2008 11:06:25 AM
John McCain has 7 houses but does not have to worry about paying for them. That is the housing crisis for people, they can't afford to pay their mortgage. Its doubtful that McCain needs a mortgage on any of these houses -- unless that works as a tax break for him. In any case you are confusing Cindy's dad who worked for his money and by the way did some bootlegging and was convicted of some illegal activities- with John McCain who simply married an heiress. (And Romney owes his fortune largely to his father.)
Obama and Joe Biden are the real self-made men in this contest.
And if the REpublicans have done such a brilliant job, why are we in the mess we are in and why has every republican president in the last 25 years run us into a deficit??
People falsely believe that its the liberals who are tax and spend. Its just that the republicans spend on war and give tax cuts to rich people largely. And somehow people still believe that the Republican party stands for small government, just because they once actually did - even though everything indicates the complete opposite now.
Posted by: Just Joe | Aug 24, 2008 11:59:49 AM
Just Joe,
Your statements regarding Romney are off-base. Romney made his fortune all by himself at Bain. I'm sure having a CEO and Governor for a father taught him many things, but you don't graduate with honors from Harvard's Law & B.School and help to grow several companies including Dominos and Staples without being an astute business mind.
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 25, 2008 12:07:46 PM
I have always voted for the Democratic Party this is the first time I will cast my vote in a different direction. I am Hillary supporter but I was going to vote for Obama regardless until he pick Joe Bidden. Do the Democratic Party know how to win a election?
Posted by: Just an American | Aug 25, 2008 12:26:29 PM
Post a comment
