Four Way

It's more bad news for Barack Obama as an MSNBC poll shows him maintaining a six point lead over John McCain in a political climate when he should be leading by sixty points. Another couple of months of this consistently beating his opponent, and Obama's really going to be in panic mode!

Interestingly, "Obama’s lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix -- with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent." I'm not sure what the implications are of including third party candidates in the poll this early in the process but since Nader and Barr are in fact in the race that does seem relevant. More broadly, the poll probably explains why Obama's campaign isn't assailing McCain as furiously as some folks I know would like -- the public is already pretty persuaded of the case against McCain and Obama's greater political need is to further burnish his own image.

Comments

Good point - I admit to being one of those people who wants more offense moved against McCain, but you make a convincing post.

What those poll numbers also suggest that the 47-48 range is a very solid number for Obama and isn't likely to go anywhere.

McCain's numbers, on the other hand, are much softer.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 24, 2008 10:09 AM

The implication here is that Nader is actually attracting votes away from McCain. If true, this requires some explanation.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 10:10 AM

People who hate Bush but also black people? Who the hell knows?

Posted by TH | July 24, 2008 10:15 AM

As I have noted before, I think the real take-away in all these polls is that McCain's numbers have gone down since he clinched and appear to be stuck in the low 40s. That is a huge problem for him, and indeed a good sign that the Obama Campaign doesn't need to depart from its strategic plan.

SLC,

First, by way of background, in 2000 Nader got around 1/3 of his support from Republicans.

Anyway, here is your explanation from this specific poll. They asked:

"When it comes to your vote for (CANDIDATE CHOSEN IN Q.12), would you say that you are excited to be voting for him, you are satisfied to be voting for him, or you are voting for him as the lesser of two evils?"

For Obama, it was 44% excited, 33% satisfied, 22% lesser of two evils. But for McCain, it was 14% excited, 42% satisfied, and 43% lesser of two evils.

So of course when you introduce more choices, McCain suffers more ... his supporters in a two-way contest on average like him a lot less than Obama's supporters, so they are more likely to defect.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 10:23 AM

I do know a strong left liberal married to a strong conservative. Their family compromise is to vote for their respective third party candidates, Nader and Barr. They're both the kind of hardcore ideologue that hates the major parties anyway.

Posted by John Emerson | July 24, 2008 10:25 AM

Would there be Hillary supporters who don't like McCain but still "won't vote for Obama"?

Because those Nader votes are indeed coming from McCain:
Obama 47 48
McCain 41 35
Nader 5
Barr 2

Maybe it's just a weird poll.

Posted by Luke | July 24, 2008 10:27 AM

A quick look at Pollster.com's chart indicates that the average gap between Obama and McCain, which had been as high as *five whole points* as recently as a month ago, has faded to two points now. I doubt this *one poll* will affect that result materially. And Obama's lead has only been "consistent" since April. Now is not the time to be counseling complacency; you seem to think the Dems have this election on a silver platter, but McCain is in fact running surprisingly strongly for someone with as much baggage as he has, and who has run a campaign as awful as he has. There are reasons why no Democratic candidate for president has won a majority since Carter in 1976 [50.1 percent], and only two [Carter and LBJ in 1964] have won a majority since FDR [I'm sixty, and those were the only two in my entire life!]. If Obama wins by a significant margin it will be a historic win for a post-New Deal Democrat, and will represent a historic shift in American voting patterns, quite apart from the racial angle. I'm hoping for it, but, as David Dodd used to say of Wall Street, the four most dangerous words are "It's different this time."

Posted by David in Nashville | July 24, 2008 10:32 AM

As I have noted before, I think the real take-away in all these polls is that McCain's numbers have gone down since he clinched and appear to be stuck in the low 40s. That is a huge problem for him, and indeed a good sign that the Obama Campaign doesn't need to depart from its strategic plan.

SLC,

First, by way of background, in 2000 Nader got around 1/3 of his support from Republicans.

Anyway, here is your explanation from this specific poll. They asked:

"When it comes to your vote for (CANDIDATE CHOSEN IN Q.12), would you say that you are excited to be voting for him, you are satisfied to be voting for him, or you are voting for him as the lesser of two evils?"

For Obama, it was 44% excited, 33% satisfied, 22% lesser of two evils. But for McCain, it was 14% excited, 42% satisfied, and 43% lesser of two evils.

So of course when you introduce more choices, McCain suffers more ... his supporters in a two-way contest on average like him a lot less than Obama's supporters, so they are more likely to defect.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 10:39 AM

The pollster.com's chart is BOGUS. They use past dates of the tracking polls, rather than just use whatever the daily figure is.

If you use RealClear Politics you see that he's 4.9 points ahead.

Posted by Jenna L | July 24, 2008 10:39 AM

National polling isn't terribly meaningful unless it's filtered through the EC (not that it's meaningful in July anyway). And that raises the question of which state ballots Nader and Barr will appear on at all, and of those where the vote will be close enough to swing the state.

Posted by Jonathan Lundell | July 24, 2008 10:47 AM

The MSNBC poll is very weird. Generally, when a poll is released all components are from the same sample. If that is that case, how can Obama get a higher percentage of the vote (more votes) when 3rd party candidates are included? Did people actually switch to Obama when they were asked about 3rd party candidates? l can understand losing votes (McCain) but gaining votes strains credulity.

Makes little sense.

Posted by cube | July 24, 2008 10:49 AM

This is just another wierd post by Matthew. Where does the story say that Obama's 6 point lead is "bad news"? It doesn't.

Matthew's off in fantasy land again.

Posted by Al | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

I generally like pollster's work, but I agree they need a different way to deal with the tracking polls.

cube,

It isn't all that surprising. Pollsters already know that you can get different results if you, say, ask questions in a different order. Generally, any sort of information provided to the respondent by the pollsters, including in the premise of the question, can modify the results. That is in part because a lot of people don't have hard answers to the relevant questions already in mind, and so they are formulating their answers on the spot, which is why any information provided by the pollster can take on disproportionate weight at that moment. So in this case, just reminding people of Nader and Barr is a piece of information, and it isn't particularly surprising it would slightly change Obama's numbers.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 11:09 AM

DTM,

The addition of Barr and Nader more than "slightly changed" the poll. It added a whole different cast. From a 6% difference to a 13% difference.

Its very difficult for me to imagine someone polled switching preferences mid-poll. If polls were that sensitive then they would have no validity. Overall, polls have been pretty predictive of election outcome.

Also, I can't remember an example of a poll when adding 3rd party candidates INCREASED the percentage of either of the two major party candidates.

Still makes no sense to me. I think there is something screwy in the way this poll was conducted.

Posted by cube | July 24, 2008 11:43 AM

more polling noise:

Gallup online headline from yesterday:
"Obama gains over McCain in Swing States Since June"

Washington Post today:
"McCain Closes Gap in Key Battleground States"

Posted by cube | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM

cube,

First, you say: "The addition of Barr and Nader more than 'slightly changed' the poll. It added a whole different cast. From a 6% difference to a 13% difference."

To clarify, adding Barr and Nader only slightly changed Obama's number (from 47 to 48). Obviously it seriously depresssed McCain's number, but as I noted above that isn't surprising, given that McCain's supporters in a two-way contest tend to be much less enthusiastic about him than Obama's supporters.

You also say: "Its very difficult for me to imagine someone polled switching preferences mid-poll. If polls were that sensitive then they would have no validity."

Well, as I noted pollsters are already well aware of this fact (that the respondents' stated preferences are in fact subject to influence by the polling process itself). I don't think that means polls have no use whatsoever, but it is indeed one of the many reasons to be cautious about overreliance on polls.

Finally, you say: "Overall, polls have been pretty predictive of election outcome."

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. First, polls more than a couple days away from an election start becoming less and less predictive. That is only natural, of course: the longer in advance a poll is taken, the more new events will occur before the election, the more new information voters will get, and so on. Polls in that sense are a snapshot of what is happening at the time the poll is taken, but they are not crystal balls with the power to look into the future.

Second, "overall" is a very important word here. If you take the average of polls right before an election, they will usually do all right (although not always--sometimes there is some systematic problem with the polls, often as a result of the standard likely voter models not working properly for that particular election). But individual polls can and do get elections wrong by several points.

Again, all this is good reason to be cautious about overreliance on polls, particularly this far from the actual election.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM

If you add Nader and Barr to the poll, aren't you adding a third and fourth party, not two "third" parties?

Posted by dan | July 24, 2008 12:25 PM

i could not disgree with matt more.
yes, the public has a set view of mccain, but it is not a necessarily fatally negative view.
it's sort of like the view that a student has of a mediocre, but tolerable, instructor he or she will have to deal with for a semester. the student may not relish sitting in class listening to that dull, barely competent, instructor drone on day after day, but the possibility of doing so is at least tolerable. especially because the pain will be for limited time.
mccain, as a potential president, is viewed the same way, imho.
obama, however, has a much higher ceiling, and a much greater risk of being seen as the hapless substitute who gets rejected by the class and run out of the classroom by virtue of his sheer incompetence.
obama must make mccain an unacceptable alternative. which should not be difficult to do, considering that mccain is giving him all of the evidence he needs to make that argument. but he cannot simply allow mccain to be viewed as a tolerable, though not preferable, choice.
i understand what obama is attempting to do.
he does not only want to win; he wants to win the kind of electoral mandate that will allow him to make the kind of policy changes he would like to make.
he probably imagines that he can best achieve that level of victory - say, 55 percent of the vote - by NOT trashing the republican nominee and inviting wavering republicans over to his side. being nice and non-offensive will make that task much easier. again, this is obama's view.
i think this grossly misreads the history of presidential elections over the last 40 years. the only time this approach has been successful was with carter in '76.
and it should be recalled that carter almost lost a race that should have been a laugher, and that republicans have used that election as a lesson on how NOT to do certain things.
i've posted this before and i firmly believe it: obama is blowing the election right now, by refusing to put his foot on mccain's neck and administer the coup de grace to a nearly comatose opponent. i think he will regret his passivity come october, when he is in the middle of a viscous and scurrilous attack from republicans and doesn't have the kind of cushion he should be building right now.

Posted by frankie d | July 24, 2008 12:25 PM

And yet at the same time, the Rasmussen and American Research polls show McCain gaining on Obama, or even pulling ahead in states like Ohio and Colorado.

Most worrying for Obama has got to be the fact that independent voters seem to be breaking for McCain ... except in Florida.

What the heck is going on? Obama has been KILLING McCain for the last couple of weeks ... and McCain has made one unforced error after another. And McCain still gains?

Posted by Bokonon | July 24, 2008 12:26 PM

Dr Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight-dot-com is an amazing analyst of polling and an O'Bama backer. He looks at each of the 50 elections that our Pres elections really are. His O'Bama margins have been slipping and he's worried. I don't exactly get it but I don't take anything for granted.

This coming Sat is 100days til the election. O'Bama's folks are having meetings all over the country to enlist folks for GOTV--knocking on doors and manning phone banks. Hint. Hint. Hint.

Contrary to all the polls, Intrade has been amazingly stable with McCain at 30-33 and Barack at 60-65.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 24, 2008 1:03 PM

I suspect there are a significant number of people who simple will not vote for a black man for president under any circumstances. In a 2-person race, these people have to support McCain whatever they think of him. Add third party candidate, and these people have a choice, so the ones who do not like McCain and are (otherwise) more liberal can go to Nader and the other to Barr. That thesis explains the data.

Posted by David Margolies | July 24, 2008 1:05 PM

Matthew writes,

It's more bad news for Barack Obama as an MSNBC poll shows him maintaining a six point lead over John McCain in a political climate when he should be leading by sixty points. Another couple of months of this consistently beating his opponent, and Obama's really going to be in panic mode!

Er, Gallup's latest daily tracking poll of registered voters shows Obama's lead shrinking to two points.

Obama's much anticipated overseas trip enters its sixth day, but so far it has not meaningfully affected the choice for president voters would make if the election were held today. Obama has held a modest advantage over McCain for all but a few days (in which the candidates were precisely tied) since he clinched the Democratic nomination in early June.

Gee, that's funny, isn't it? You'd think Obama would have shot ahead by now, given "McCain's Waterloo" in the form of Maliki's "devastating game-changer" that "exploded" in the media over the weekend.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 1:17 PM

"And yet at the same time, the Rasmussen and American Research polls show McCain gaining on Obama, or even pulling ahead in states like Ohio and Colorado."

Don't both of these polls tend to oversample Republicans (I know Rasmussen definitely has been known to do this)? Considering how the polls are all over the place and some show Obama increasing his lead, freaking out about one or two polls contradicted by others in the same time frame is unnecessary.

McCain is in a weird position. He has long appealed to independents, yet the base hates him and he just won by being the last guy standing and not being as much of a joke as Huckabee or Romney. His appeal among independents keeps him in the game a bit. However, the biggest reason he's the nominee is that George Allen and Santorum lost their Senate seats in 2006. Either of them would have been the wingnut choice: crazy on foreign policy, crazy on social issues, crazy on economics. Meanwhile, McCain is crazy on foreign policy, muddled on social issues and absent on economics.

Like a GOP favorite, however, he is running on his craziness, for him particularly foreign policy. After all, since WWII, a sane GOP nominee has only won three times (Eisenhower twice, Bush senior once), has lost once or twice (Bush I in 1992 and Dole if you count him as sane), while the crazy GOPers have won five times (Nixon, Reagan, Bush II in 2004) and only definitively lost once (Goldwater). This is probably because post-McCarthy, the GOP base has been rather nuts (and also rejected Eisenhower), so you have to be nuts to ensure their support. McCain's foreign policy craziness ensures at least one third of registered voters will vote for him by ensuring most of the base won't defect. However, his craziness isn't enough to a larger portion of the doesn't defect. His social positions on things like gay marriage are so convoluted he can't really keep culture war wedge issues in the news. Ironically, Allen or Santorum would probably have a better chance of being blown out, but also have a better chance of winning as well.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2008 1:34 PM

Tracking polls are an ongoing object lesson in random walks. Here for example is Gallup's latest chart:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109060/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Slim-Advantage-Over-McCain.aspx

Looking at that chart, I highly doubt any of those wiggles back and forth mean anything--they are most likely just the product of a random walk caused by sampling variation.

And here is Rasmussen in table form:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

Again, I doubt that is anything but a random walk. Indeed, it happens that today at 48-45(with leaners), 45-41 (without leaners), we are right back to where we were eight days ago, and two weeks ago, and about five weeks ago.

But that won't stop people from breathlessly reporting the latest tracking polls--although of course only when the poll in question happens to be moving in a direction they prefer.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 1:47 PM

By the way, Obama will likely crush McCain if he can just keep it roughly even among independents. That is because given party ID trends over the last few years, the Democrats now enjoy a large party ID advantage.

Of course the GOP was smart to nominate someone who could compete for independents. It just won't be enough for McCain to win.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 1:54 PM

DTM,

Tracking polls are an ongoing object lesson in random walks.

No, tracking polls are an ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion.

Looking at that chart, I highly doubt any of those wiggles back and forth mean anything

Ah, right. DTM's faith-based wishful-thinking strikes again.

Given the complete lack of any meaningful public reaction to what Matthew insists was a "devastating game-changer" in the 2008 presidential race, it is clear that Matthew's ability to distinguish meaningful political developments from trivial ones is seriously impaired.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 2:02 PM

By the way, Obama will likely crush McCain if he can just keep it roughly even among independents.

Not only that, but DTM will likely get a pony for his next birthday.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 2:06 PM

"Given the complete lack of any meaningful public reaction to what Matthew insists was a "devastating game-changer" in the 2008 presidential race, it is clear that Matthew's ability to distinguish meaningful political developments from trivial ones is seriously impaired.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 2:02 PM"

Well, the Obama campaign, if you haven't noticed, has been abroad lately and thus not in a position to fully coordinate that attack, so we really won't know the effect of al-Maliki's statement for at least another week (it's also nice to see how Iraqi opinions mean nothing to you and your bubble). Considering how no one is really paying attention yet, the real effect of this is how it will play in the debate.

"Not only that, but DTM will likely get a pony for his next birthday.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 2:06 PM"

Both of them stand a very good chance of doing well among independents, so this is a mis-application of the "and a pony!" meme. However, considering how you have supported a utopian war, you don't get to use it.

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2008 2:14 PM

Well, the Obama campaign, if you haven't noticed, has been abroad lately and thus not in a position to fully coordinate that attack

The spin just gets more and more ridiculous.

Obama has been all over the American media this week. It's probably been the most intense coverage of his campaign since he entered the race. Images and stories of his foreign adventures, including his meetings with Maliki and other Iraqi government officials, have been reported extensively. And yet the effect on his standing in the polls has been......ZERO.

Americans in general just don't care much what Maliki says. Unlike certain lefty pundits who live and work in an incestuous echo-chamber of Washington bloggers and who imagine the great unwashed in Flyoverland share their peculiar obsessions.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 2:31 PM

"Obama has been all over the American media this week. It's probably been the most intense coverage of his campaign since he entered the race. Images and stories of his foreign adventures, including his meetings with Maliki and other Iraqi government officials, have been reported extensively."

American media =/= in the US meeting with his campaign, coordinating with local campaign, etc. Once again, you show a lack of basic reading comprehension.

"Americans in general just don't care much what Maliki says."

Maliki's comment was barely reported, in part because Obama wasn't exactly pushing it. The press has basically admitted they cover issues only if the candidates bring up the issues first.

Also, shouldn't we care about what Maliki says? If we occupy Iraq while the Prime Minister is against this, aren't we saying that Iraqi sovereignty and democracy is meaningless?

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2008 2:55 PM

"Unlike certain lefty pundits who live and work in an incestuous echo-chamber of Washington bloggers and who imagine the great unwashed in Flyoverland share their peculiar obsessions.

Posted by Mixner"

Also, Flyoverland is DC speak for the Midwest and Rocky Mountain region. In all of the time I've spent there (after all, I was born there), I've never heard anyone actually refer to their own home states as flyover states. What weird world are you living in?

Posted by Reality Man | July 24, 2008 3:01 PM

DTM will get a pony before Mixner gets to leave his basement and climb into a Jetson car.

Posted by Muxmer | July 24, 2008 3:26 PM

For the record, I don't want a pony.

Anyway, the likes of Mixner are only fooling themselves. Which is fine with me ... this is the same attitude that caused the GOP to cruise straight into their 2006 electoral bloodbath, and they are free to do it again in 2008.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 3:58 PM

If Obama doesn't distance himself from his Iran bullshit, he's going to lose to McCain when McCain gets a ten point bounce from the upcoming Iran war.

Instead, he's digging himself a deeper hole every time he talks to a bunch of Likudniks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 6:43 PM