Is Obama's Lead In Gallup Polls Stable Or Volatile?

If your heart stops with every dip and bump registered by Gallup's daily tracking poll, here's some welcome news: the race is more stable than you might think.

Emory University Political Science Professor Alan Abramowitz sends along a couple of interesting graphs that each plot Barack Obama's consistent lead over John McCain in the presidential race. In the first graph, each daily tracking poll since the end of the Democratic primary season is charted as a distinct data point, making for what looks like a wild ride:

Having some fun with those who would over-interpret this graph, Abramowitz said: "Look--Obama is surging! OMG, Obama's support is collapsing. No wait, he's surging again! Oh no, he's collapsing again! What happened to that 9 point lead? McCain's strategy must be working. All is lost--the end is near! I knew we should have nominated Hillary!"

Then Abramowitz steps back a bit, averaging the Obama lead from each daily tracking poll into 10-day data points, stretching from June 5 to August 4. Which gives him a rather stable-looking 3-to-4 point lead for Obama:

Explaining the optical illusion, Abramowitz says: "When you group the tracking poll data into ten-day periods it becomes clear that support for the presidential candidates since the end of the primaries has been extremely stable, with Obama maintaining a modest but consistent lead, and that almost all of the day-to-day movement in the data is simply random noise."

Or, in a somewhat shorter version of his attitude toward the ups and downs of the daily graph that gets turned over each day on cable news shows, Abramowitz says: "Never mind."

Comments

[bdl0715]

National daily tracking polls are worthless. The national vote does not elect the president, the electoral vote, state by state does. I don't know why anyone pays so much attention to these polls.

Here is a poll that will give you more accurate information. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[jcwtts1]

I was just about to write the same thing. Why don't the talking heads on tv ever mention the electoral map. Real clear politics has Obama up 322 to 216 with no toss ups. McCain isn't even close to getting 270. If you go by a 5-7 point sustained lead flipping a state from neutral to blue or red Obama is up 236 - 163. Again, McCain isn't even close. Those are the polls that matter, go to the largest friggin college in each state, fund a friggin poll for that state and interpret that data. Gallup is a flawed poll, and a flawed system.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5

[PoliSci2008]

BDL0715, thank's for the link. Although the electoral vote elects the president, the national vote and polls are a good indicator on how the delegates will vote b/c they are representing their consituents interests. I personally (and others) sent several emails to my congressman to change her support from Hillary to Obama or risk the chance of loosing her congressional seat come her next election. I also told her how can she ignore the overwhelming neighborhood support of Obama. By mid-May 08, she changed her support and said, "she must honor her consituents wishes."

AMAZING what the PEOPLE can ACCOMPLISH!

Show your Obama colors, esp on August 30th, a national support of Obama. Wear an Obama T-shirt and cap; place an Obama sign in your yard and a sticker on your car.

[realistxxx]

fivethirtyeight.com is much better.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[leftyandproudofit]

bdlo715:

Thanks for providing this information. It shows that Gallup and Rasmussen are worthless garbage. We don't have a national election, but one of an electoral college. Obama rules in all of these (much more accurage) polls.

[jacqmac]

We're in a downward news cycle. Yes, the candidates keep campaigning and yes polls keep coming out all over the place. During the primaries, CNN polled EVERYBODY and breathlessly reported that "Obama was losing with-----------Fill in the blanks (latinos, blacks, blacks over the age of 40, latinos under the age of 50, asian resturant owners, latino gays/lesbians, black power advocates, little green men from Mars) And Obama's numbers proved several of those alleged polls absolutely silly!
MOST people who care aren't tuned in the nightly news for poll results-they're busy working or on vacation, or out for the evening or just don't see too much point in getting all that excited about polls until AFTER the conventions. It is traditional in this country for the 'OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN SEASON' to open (much like hunting season) AFTER Labor Day! I'm looking for a HUGE Obama surge after the convention-so are most pollsters. Obama got one after his overseas trip and that's what had the McCain crowd digging in the slime pits for ways to deflate the surge (WAIT! I thought the surge worked!) He's still out there in front of McCain-even with plus or minus 3 points for error. And he can STILL get a crowd fired up quicker than most of those "Night of the Living Dead reunions" that the Repubs hold.

[ThunderclapNewman]

It doesn't matter how you look at tracking polls.

They are meaningless by any standard you care to name.

We don't have national elections for president in this country.
The presidency is won state-by-s­tate---whe­re the electors for the Electoral College are chosen.

Looking at the potential for Electoral votes, O'bama has held a comfortable lead of around 100 for several weeks.

The rest of the national polls are only there to give the talking heads something to drool over.

[BJBirdie]

The problem is, Barack Obama isn't the ideal candidate. The Dems need to nominate Generic Democrat, who has a sizable lead against the Republicans.

Failing that, I suggest that Obama nominate Generic Democrat as his VP pick.

[Mayoyo]

You are right my heart does skip a beat everytime the polls come out...alth­ough I tell myself not to worry it's early in the game.
But thanks Seth....I really feel better now...unti­l.....

[neesy08]

these polls are all over the place. the only poll that is important is the one on nov 4th.

[GuyFawkes]

and the state by state polls.

But yes, polls in early August are nearly meaningless.

And "daily tracking polls" are weird. Who answers these questions every day?

[ThunderclapNewman]

People with way too much free time on their hands, mostly.

[joselopez]

FOR ALL MEDIA IDIOTS AND OTHERS WHO PUT STOCK IN NATIONAL POLLS TAKE STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

In the 2004 Presidential election George Bush won the election by 3% points (just over 3 million voters). If same thing happens this year, except this time Ohio goes to the Democrats, you will have Obama will be our next President.

Can someone tell me what Blue State is McCain primed to take (please do not say PA) compared to the red states Obama looks primed to take.

There is no doubt, barring a catastrophe, Obama will be our next President.

[MariaHopeful]

Fuzzy math! Fuzzy polls!

[MissKaren]

It's not so much fuzzy math as it is premature polling. It's too early in the race to say anything consistent. Right now, things are in flux as they should be. Let some time go by and start polling after the conventions, when the messages have become more stable.

[BikerJim]

but even these polls can provide some insight, but you have to ignore the actual results and focus only on the Trends. BTW I have a PhD in statistics, so I do know a little about the subject.

[gladys46]

This is an election cycle like none other, why pundits keep comparing, is beyond me! MSM has not (IMO) been credible in honest reporting in many areas, why should any good thinking person believe their homegrown polls!! Seemingly, what is going on on the ground is not what 24/7 media wants nationally publicized ... why is anybody's guess!

If I'm to believe any poll or graph, at this time, it would be one coming from more independent sources, such as the professor above!

[FeelinGroovy]

I think the corporate media wants us to think it's close so that when the rethugs fix the election in McFart's favor we'll buy it.

[eden4barack08]

You're on to something there.

[BikerJim]

I agree that the MSM wants us to think it is close, but not for the reason that you suggest. I think it is because if the truth were known, then the interest in the race would be over, and no one would want their shows.

[PoliJunkie]

I agree, just like during the primaries when we knew HRC did not have a chance of ever catching O's lead they kept saying....­well if she does this, or if she does that, blah, blah, blah... It was only to keep us watching day after day.

[DoTheMath]

That's exactly what I was thinking, except for that particular creative name spelling. Isn't it great how you can add anything you want after Mc? Back to the point, what can we do about the security and integrity of the election process? Seriously!

[Mitchell4A]

Good Post.

On the whole the MSM has been doing a poor job at explaining the polls, preferring to leave the impression that if Obama isn't way ahead at this point, he is somehow in trouble. No so.

"Media Hype and Election Polls (or the sky is falling)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

[lovethesinner]

Something Chuck Todd has offered (but never with an explanation) is the fact that Obama's Gallop daily tracking numbers always contract at the end of the week, but expand at the beginning. (Sunday through Wednesday his percentage is always greater than Thursday thru Sunday.)

My explanation: since Gallop is a three day rolling average, voters in Obama's age demographic (18-55) are more likely to show up on the weekends. The rest of the time, it's probably favoring McCain's demographic (55 and up).

But, even on the weekends, Obama's younger voters are probably screening calls on their land lines, so it's even possible that the polls are under reporting Obama's voters, anyway.

Also, Obama's demographic are naturally more likely to be cell phone users. National polling hasn't really come up with a consistent method for screening for the always rising rate of NON-LANDLINE VOTERS.

[jrosenb1]

Think of it this way: the line that gets crossed more than any other is the invisible one that runs out of the "4"--or, arguably, the "3". That's pretty encouraging. But this doesn't mean Obama has it sewed up. He's got to campaign very hard, and be very tough on his opponent. If, say, there's a margin of error here that puts O. and McC. neck-and-neck enough times, the party presently in power can hold its lead by means of electoral fraud. And you better believe they'll work that avenue to the hilt. Has anyone a plan for dealing with hacked voting machines, systematic disenfranchisement, and inexplicable "loss" of voter registration records? (And didn't we talk about such things already two, four, six, and eight years ago?) Obama's campaign can't just be marginally effective. It has to be overwhelmingly effective to compensate for such tampering. And, of course, there's always the possibility that one of those downward swoops shown in the upper graph could happen on Nov. 3. When you think about the desperate things a corrupt government will do to stay in power, think Zimbabwe. And don't think "It can't happen here." It already has.

[cdub1991]

Hey Seth, ask Abramowitz to work out the moving averages for the states identified by RCP as "toss-ups.­" That's what really matters. These national polls aren't the ones that matter. As everybody knows, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

[lvdragonlady]

We, the people, need to let MSM know that we only want to see polls on fridays and we do not want to hear anything before then......­.......lol
I think once a week is plenty.

[jkpcguru]

good idea! i cover my eyes before I open up my gallup tracking poll and Rasmussen e-mail every couple of days!

[Nofuzzydreams]

Yet but it is too close and can change any time. This inspite of the generic democrat leading the generic republican by double digits.

[rinpochet]

Obama is going to win by a LANDSLIDE!! Can't wait for the partying to begin!!!