« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama take Huge Lead in Michigan
From the AP.
Selzer & Co. was considered one of the most accurate pollster during the primary season. Barack takes a 51% -38% lead in Michigan.
This is the second poll released in the past two days that gives Obama
a double-digit lead in Michigan, a critical Midwestern battleground
state. More voters say Obama's the best candidate to fix the country's
economic problems, and the Illinois senator now appears to have an
advantage in nearly every demographic group.
Advertisement
Comments (32)
woot
September 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know that McLame was a POW?
Just thought I'd break that news . . .
September 26, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tonight, the POW will by MIA...or maybe just AWOL?
September 26, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
People don't really understand, Selzer is the GOLD STANDARD of polling. That is the ONE POLL that when it shows it's results, you should pay attention.
September 25, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go do your homework.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/am-i-the-the-only-one-that-is.php
September 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fellow Michiganders may take awhile to get into election mode, but do not "misunderestimate" their ability to smell a rat. They've lost more jobs than almost any other state, so don't even try to piss down their backs and tell them it's raining. Ohio, on the other hand............................................
September 25, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great news
Smile and work like we're down 20.
September 25, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
September 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuf sed! Onward to Victory!
September 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I posted elsewhere,
More interesting is that in its General Election polling, Selzer has NOT been accounting for cellphones. Gallup and such may, but Selzer has not, and Obama still gets a 13-point lead in Michigan. (read more here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/selzer-co-correction-on-cellphones.html )
Furthermore, the Pew research center released an interesting article recently about the significance of cellphones in such circumstances. They found that Obama gained 2-3 points when factoring cellphones into the equation. Hm. (see here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/964/ )
So, it can be assumed that Obama's lead in MI is even larger.
September 25, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate @ 538 just blogged about his interview with Selzer herself. It seems that Selzer is trying to account for the youth vote and the "decline to state race" vote (which looks like overwhelmingly non-white) in ways that the other pollsters are NOT doing.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/ann-selzer-on-youth-minority-turnout.html
Selzer is taking a big gamble on this election, as her results have tended to stand out from those of other pollsters. But she is meticulous in how she does her polling, and Selzer's polls have not had any particular partisan lean in previous election cycles. Don't be surprised if her gamble pays off again.
What this means is: for the rest of this election cycle, Selzer's polls will be outliers, and probably reflect good Obama numbers that the other pollsters don't see and aren't looking for. If her methodology is closer to reality than the other pollsters, Obama wins in a landslide. If she's wrong, her numbers have to be thrown out.
September 25, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I just read it. The good thing? Selzer has been a brilliant pollster thus far. Even before this election she's been very good. And this election she's stood out for her accuracy. So for the moment, I have no reason to throw out her results. But her "gamble" as Nate puts it, might not pay off. And if it doesn't, then yes, as you say, we'll have to discount her results.
September 25, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd like to know the name of the pollster that Selzer says is not doing age-based weighting. That's probably the one to throw out right now.
September 26, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd like to know the name of the pollster that Selzer says is not doing age-based weighting. That's probably the one to throw out right now.
September 26, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Selzer worked on the Des Moines Register poll in the Iowa caucuses which was considered an outlier then (only one with huge Obama lead), but proven to be dead on.
September 26, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got to figure in the 4-6% Bradley effect. It's real. I was there at the time.
September 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
So was I. I worked on Tom Bradley's ill-fated gubernatorial campaign.
There probably is a Bradley effect (masked in the primaries due to the presence of a female candidate), but the truth is, neither you nor I know how large it really is. I think it's closer to 1 or 2%. And not in all states.
And there's a reverse Bradley effect in some states (mostly Southern) that Nate @ 538 has written about. Selzer may be accounting for this with her current methodology. It would have been interesting for Nate to ask Selzer about the Bradley effect and what she could do to account for it.
September 26, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm... Nate at FiveThirtyEight has spoken as lengths about how there is absolutely no evidence of a Bradley Effect in this election, and hasn't been evidence of one for years. But, as you say, there seems to be a Reverse Bradley Effect in many southern states, such as VA. So... No thanks with that. I'll stick to the empirical evidence on this one. The only people who are actually trying to push such nonsense are scared and pissed off Republicans.
September 26, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read Nate's articles on the Bradley effect. I admit the effect might not be in play this year, but I also think looking for it in the Dem primaries this year wasn't the right place to look (since it's P.C. to tell the pollster you're voting for the black male OR the white female). And I know about, but am not 100% convinced by, the other studies.
I also felt that there were other, pro-Obama effects in play (that might wash out the Bradley effect) that weren't being properly accounted for by the pollsters (cell phones/youth vote, undercounting minorities, etc.). Since it looks like Selzer is probably the only one properly accounting for the pro-Obama effects, I'd like to know if she thinks there is a Bradley effect and what (if anything) could be done by a pollster to account for it (if she thinks there is one).
That 1982 election sent me into the political wilderness for decades. I would really like to believe the Bradley effect won't hurt Obama's chances. But in my heart of hearts, I won't buy it until Obama's safely in the White House.
I'd rather work like hell to elect Obama, assuming that there's a Bradley effect working against him, than complacently assume that the B.E. is gone forever and relax. But that's just me (and my history) talking.
September 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes. I'd woot, but I'm a little old for that, I guess.
September 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be a downer here, but Michigan has never been in play.
Don't get me wrong. It's great to see polls confirming what we Michigan natives already knew. But there are other states to focus on.
September 26, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont's right: MI is nearly a guaranteed Blue state. God Bless the City of Detroit ... though if you drive downtown, it looks like he's forgotten about it. Yikes. Hey Ohio and Indiana ... pull your heads out of your asses lest you be labeled North Kentucky.
September 26, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but that's not what was being said for a long ass time in the polls, and Kerry beat Bush by a very small margin in 2004. It's nice to be able to say, "Oh, they're completely blue! No worries." -- that leads to complacency. The polls wouldn't have that huge lead if Obama hadn't actually invested heavily in the state.
September 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. There are scary-red places in Michigan. Where booze is not to be sold Sundays and Sarah Palin is still considered presidential material.
September 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
True enough, but Obama doesn't need to win Kalkaska.
September 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I've been saying for an equally long-assed time that the polls were wrong. That Michigan might go red made for a nice media story after the Hillary rift died down, but it was just a brain fart. Michigan was never in danger of going red.
As for complacency, I wouldn't be working the phones if that were the case.
September 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would rather go into the last month sure that Michigan is no longer really in play, and clamp down that whole Rust Belt area (except, alas alas, Ohio) so we can focus on shoring up Colorado, pounding Ohio, and making sure New Hampshire doesn't flake on us. And, what the hell, make a pitch for Virginia and North Cakalackey, which will, at the very least, make McCain divert funds.
So this is helpful.
Want to know when McCain is really desperate? When he does a head fake and campaigns in California or New Mexico or some gadget play like that. Then he has all but admitted defeat.
September 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've had some Chicago people come out to our southwest Michigan town to help register voters. I think they should now drive the extra hours to focus on Ohio. Maybe Indiana. But I'd bet on Ohio more than Indiana.
September 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those looking for a traditionally blue state to wring your hands over should turn to Minnesota, easily the weirdest and least rational of the Great Lakes states.
September 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And as for above -- I never really had any doubts about MI, either. But there was HUGE talk about it by a number of different people in a number of different places. You even saw McCain ratchet up his operation there, and people like Nate Silver and Al Giordano were saying it was the #1 state Obama had to defend.
But, I think you're right, and I've thought so for a while. Minnesota is definitely a weird one.
September 26, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, unfortunately, what you said about Obama having to invest heavily in the state, something he probably wouldn't have felt the need to do had it not been for the primary fiasco. But I could never see the state embracing McCain.
MN, though, is a puzzler.
September 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beware of Polls! Ground game = President Obama!
September 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment