The Cell Phone Polling Gap: An Artificially "Close" Race?

Despite Barack Obama's recent surge in the polls, the media maintain -- as they have throughout the summer -- that the race is close, and will be so on Nov. 4. And that may be true.

But imagine if Obama's upward climb in opinion polls right now were not just a few points. Imagine if it were seven or eight or more.

The media narrative might be clear: unfolding landslide. With that would come the momentum, the fundraising potential, the kind of late-election heat on the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket that can induce panic.

And given recent insights into polling data and cell phone users, it's entirely possible that the only thing between a decisive Obama lead coming into October and more election-as-nail-biter boilerplate is the vast leftwing wireless network.

The Pew Research Center's recent report on the issue asserted that polling by landline telephone may undercount Barack Obama voters by perhaps 3 percent. It's one of the first pieces of conclusive evidence on the issue. But this is a young science, in a rapidly changing communications landscape where mobile-only households are multiplying. So who knows if that's undercounting the undercounting?

Statistically, Obama voters are more likely to be part of the younger, cell-only set. Cell users under 30 go left in a big way: 62 percent Democrat to 28 Republican. And cell-only voters of all ages go for Obama over McCain by 19 percent, 55 to 36 percent, according to Pew's most recent survey.

However, the Pew report points out that previous weighting techniques by pollsters assume that cell and landline users are the same politically. So many landline polls this year may have relied on faulty math.

A few poll organizations, such as Gallup and Pew itself, have been including cell phones in their surveys all year. Others, like NBC/Wall Street Journal and ABC/Washington Post, just started recently, according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Since the issue of a cell phone/landline gap first surfaced in the 2004 campaign, the problem of properly measuring opinion in a mobile age has been debated among pollsters and media wonks. The John Kerry campaign claimed its voters were being undercounted because some of them were cell-only, and exit polls confirmed that. But cell-only voters then represented a meager 7 percent.

Some states now have at least 16 percent of households reporting cell-only usage, more than twice the rates reported in the 2004 election. And that estimate is based on 2007 data. Many of the swing states in which the '08 race will be decided have high numbers of cell-only households: Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, among others. (See Brian Schaffner's discussion of cell phone-use and states at Pollster.com.) So, that could boost the case that the mobile phone gap could be playing a big role this year.

Of course, conventional wisdom holds that younger voters are less predictable as to whether they will actually show up to the polls, and the Pew report flags that issue. Young voters also won't represent the same force in a general election as they did in the Obama-mania primary, as their power is diluted by sheer numbers.

Yet the implications of the cell phone gap could stretch even deeper, perhaps into psychological territory. Everyone knows that '08 should favor Democrats and Obama, if history and issue-oriented surveys are any guide. And yet, as the mantra goes, the McCain-Obama race remains "close."

This is at a more speculative level, and this is where empirical data fails, but it's worth saying: a "close" campaign also feeds the notion that voters are just unsure or "undecided" about Obama -- whether on legitimate issues like his years in office, or other dubious ones.

And those undecided voters are now squarely in the spotlight. Their opinions on Obama's character may indeed decide this election.

Polling guru Mark Blumenthal recently dissected a group of 973 undecided voters and their views on whether McCain or Obama was "more prepared to lead the country." The result: McCain favored 52 to 18. For sure, "prepared" may mean just that -- ready to go, or seasoned by experience. But as has been endlessly discussed in this campaign, such vague language may also serve as a proxy for any number of other issues in voters' minds with regard to Obama. It's where a kind of subterranean logic can operate: a lot of other people are unsure about Obama, so I should be, too.

As David Moore demonstrates in his new book The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth Behind the Polls, surveys have a way of "manufacturing" a climate of opinion and shaping a public mood. The echo chamber of popular opinion has a way of reinforcing itself. (For a chilling anatomy of a polling nightmare, see Moore's first chapter on polls and the lead-up to the Iraq War.)

That is not to say that the cell phone polling gap is the only factor restraining Obama from coasting to a win. But with momentum at a premium in elections, and this one in the home stretch, it's worth considering that Obama's lead may be artificially dialed back by the demographics of his biggest fans.

Comments

[bigmikebrooklyn]

I'm 32, voting, and still unsure for who. I'm a cell only household, why would I pay for another phone line? Bsharonb mentioned the "republican machine... ...disenfranchising the youth". While the republicans may have spent a lot of time and effort blocking minority votes in florida and other locales via voter roll and registration tampering, and even direct police action, while also forcing electronic voting machines into the picture, manufactured by their campaign contributers that have been shown to be flawed (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/21/ohio_voting_machines_contained.html) (http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/), I think the disenfranchisement of many, regardless of age, stems from the 2 party system and the electoral college. Why can't there be more than 2 feasable parties? Why does an unaffiliated cadidate have zeor chance of winning an election due to their unwillingness to be associated with one of 2 corrupt "good old boys" societies? Why isn't the popular election the only deciding factor? At least we'd be sleeping in the bed we made, not the bed we were forced in, and handcuffed to. I'm going to stop there, editing for the 250 word limit, but the disenfranchisement of the youth stems from the problems with our political system as it stands, and it has been slowly simmering to a boil over at least the last 60 years.
I also haven't been polled ever in my adult life. probably because I have only ever had a cell phone.

[preselect2008]

Why would we back a president who is a lawyer married to a lawyer, who choses a lawyer as a running mate? Are we saying that a lawyer can fix our country? Look what are judicial system looks like-we have child molesters and rapists running rapant because everything is pled down. We want a lawyer to run our country? I think we need to use some logic here! What love does Obama have for his country? Has he ever worn the uniform of our country? Has he bled for our country? So, he doesn't want the military in Iraq. What is his motivation? Then, why did he not vote to fund them, so they can have the best equipment to remain safe? Which candidate is more like you and me? Is it the lawyers? Or, is it the party that choses a woman has worked to change politics and not let politics change her? She is not like the rest of the politicians. Keep in mind that just because a person is elected, it doesn't mean that they have to have all of the experience in the world. They need to surround themselves with smart people, know how to talk, and know how to make good decisions based on input on others with more knowledge and experience. We need to vote for someone who remembers what it is to be like us middle class. Just some food for thought.

[happywash]

Just like 'Ol W., right? And look how well he did. Leaving out the fact, of course, that W. is ultra-rich and went to elite schools (where he coasted to the lower end of the pack, but still, part of the elite). So go have a beer with Palin. The grown-ups are going to take back the country, thank you very much.

[QuietNetworker]

If this red herring you present of rapists and molester running rampant
were a geniune concern then your fear would be having a religous leader
at the helm. When you talk about pleeding down, it's hard to get much
more less a reaction than say -- the Catholic church...

As far as the rest of your post, you come off as insincere to me.

When he votes for something with an expense in it and he's a tax raiser
and a big spender. When he votes against something in favour of
something else nearly identical... He's "against" the thing he's voting
for in just a different format.

Common, how about authentic dialogue.

Paulie

[BetterDays]

What I really want is a person of intelligence, dignity and decency. Besides, a lawyer may be able to help restore our constitution!

Remembers what it is like to be middle class - John McCain! Laughable.

[Teeninchee]

This is a joke, right? What does the lawyer wife have to do with it? Who loves this country without wearing a military uniform or bled for it, don't want the military in Iraq? McCain wore the uniform, was wounded, so why didn't MCCAIN vote to fund troops so they could have the best equipment to remain safe? (You know that's true, don't you?) Why does a veteran care so little about the well being of other vets? (His record is awful.) Which candidate is more like 'you and me'-- Lawyer or scraping the bottom of the class? The candidate who worked to change politics and not let politics change her? Lies and deceit, cover ups are what she IS? Hmmm. She is like the worst of politicians, those who lie -- bridge to nowhere, ethics violations­...Someone like me? Your most valid point "Keep in mind that just because a person is elected, it doesn't mean that they have to have all of the experience in the world. They need to surround themselves with smart people, know how to talk, and know how to make good decisions based on input on others with more knowledge and experience. We need to vote for someone who remembers what it is to be like us middle class." That would be Obama/Biden, from the middle class to where they are today--prepared to lead this country. Now, THAT is food for thought.

[militarymomforobama]

To know and understand the Constitution is a liability?

Your generalizations are flawed. Everyone with a J.D. is not out representing criminals--just because someone has not worn a military uniform does not mean they don't love their country--just because Sarah says she is different, doesn't mean she is.

You seem to think it's okay to be ignorant as long as you surround yourself with smart people with knowledge and experience. My question to you is this:

How will they know who the smart people are?

We just went through almost eight years of this twisted logic--enough.

[LightningJoe]

We need poll-watchers, to watch the Republican poll-watchers. Or should I say, vote-challengers?

They will be in polling stations in force, armed with lists of recently foreclosed addresses. Their aim is to make sure that those recently kicked out of their homes are subjected to the further indignity of having their votes invalidated. Lower-income home owners are both more likely to vote Democratic, and more likely to have been recently evicted, than upper-income voters. Thus, by targeting lower-income districts, Republicans can be pretty sure the votes they challenge are Obama votes.

The challenge rules were intended to defend against voter busing, not to rook unfortunate citizens out of their one real say in governance.

The current batch of lobbyist-directed Republicans, led by Karl Rove, have nothing that I would refer to as morals. They are in it for sheer power and advantage, and don't give a hoot for a functioning democratic republic.

They don't care who they step on to get into power, either. Today it's people who can't make their house payments. Tomorrow it's YOU.

Anyone can poll-watch and take notes. Consider taking Tuesday, Nov 4 off of work, to ensure at least that Republican poll-watcher's activities are monitored. If you do this, keep a list of the addresses that are challenged, if only so that those lists will be available to non-fascists.

[greensmile]

The communication smorgasbord US consumers enjoy does present a bias issue to pollsters. But don't forget: If it is generally believed that Obama, or any candidtate, is going to win walking away, then there is NO STORY, NO INTEREST, NO RATINGS. It is clearly in the best interest of the media for there to be some semblance of contention...just watch what FOX news does.

[MsMeryMac]

Yes, but would the Bradley Effect offset the Cellphone effect? Perhaps the race really is close due to that.

[AxelDC]

The Bradley effect is a myth. Obama did better in many states in the primaries than in the polls. The only exceptions were in Appalachia and New Hampshire, but NH was a surprise result for Clinton. He did extremely well across the South, as Black turnout in Virginia, DC, Maryland, the Carolinas, Georgia and Mississippi stunned the pollsters.

Pollsters weight based on previous years' turnout. If Blacks across the country don't come out in larger numbers to elect the first Black US President, I would be stunned. That makes Virginia, North Carolina and possibly Georgia even more likely pick ups for Obama, and can't hurt him in Florida.

[iluvsam]

Hopefully the Obama ground game will be better organized than Kerry's and can get the younger voters to the polls.

[BuckeyeGal]

Kerry had a good ground game. He just bonked when he didn't follow through with the recount like he said he would. It was infuriating.

[BushSunkOurShip]

What good is any of these polls if the republicans have already put in place actions and policiess to stop Obama voters from voting....
What in the hell is the matter with our?? democrats....Looks as if they have no concern over the republican corrupted policies to stop democrats from voting and deleting them at the voting polls , when their is no one to stop them.
Again the republicans will steal the election and after months have gone by , their corruption will leak out one drop at a time....

[iluvsam]

The GOP is trying to corrupt the process again, but they won't be able to this time. For instance, Ohio and Virginia are now controlled by the Dems, so the Republicans will have trouble there.

[FACINGREALIT]

I've spoken about the misrepresentation by the media and pollsters for months as I too had become a cell only household and never polled. The media continued to discount this possible phenomenum even in the face of continued victories by Obama during the primaries.

This disregard for counting cell users begin to pick up momentum as the conversation increased on the blogs. Now in the final days of the general, when they've made their monies on ratings/advertisers the media (in anticipation of a possible landslide by Obama) is now trying to cover their a$$es by reveling that cell phone users have been overlooked and in the polls that have included such Obama's numbers could be skewered by a minimum of 3% and possibly as high as 8.

The bloggers/youth voters/cell users were NEVER fooled - we knew the media was in it for the monies and to keep their ratings high. Shame Shame Shame but then what you do in the dark will come to light.

[BetterDays]

We moved to a different house in May and didn't install a landline. There are so many families that we know who have done the same thing. Funny thing is that they all support Obama.

[LMT]

I've truly become convinced that the media is manipulating the polls to grow their audience for ratings and ad revenue. This week, I watch a pundit discount the growing gap in support between the candidates by actually saying "you cannot really believe these numbers" even though the numbers were from multiple polls by multiple organizations and all showing virtually the same growing gap!

[seo]

This issue has a famous historical connection to the Truman upset of Dewey in 1948. Some of the polls that were wrong that year did their polling by telephone, while quite a few Democrats still didn't have them.
Another aspect of this is the different way that people use phones. Long gone are the days when I'll just answer the phone 5-8pm in the evening. If the caller id doesn't show me a familiar number, or if the number is blockedr, I'll just let the answering machine deal with it. This is a rule with me on my cellphone all the time. If the number is blocked I NEVER answer the call. If they've got something to say, they'll leave a message.
In my experience the people more likely to use this approach are younger, more comfortable with technology. (I'm 56, so can remember the first cell phone I ever saw, as well as the first answering machine.) More likely to be Obama voters? I think so.
The point is that polling organizations don't leave call-back messages.
In

[jaglon]

I still have a land line (I use my cell a lot and my close friends & family know that is the number to call or text to) that goes through my cable. The number ID pops up on my television when I get a call and I do not answer it if it is a number I do not recognize it. I do not think the polls factor that either. I am a Obama supporter.

[Progress08]

It's true. I figure I've got 10 really close friends and 8 or 9 close family members and of them 4 only use their cell phones not including me. I have cable internet and only need my cell phone since I get unlimited nights and weekends and texts. And of course of the cell only people I know they all are voting Obama.

[AtlantaNative]

I am cell only and have never been called for a poll. OBAMA BIDEN 08!!!!

[FirstShirt]

If this is anything like the vast right wing conspiracy theory of Hillary fame I would not count on it. You are assuming cell only users are democratic. Not sure why.

[albanaeon]

Read the article, please. Here's the pertinent part that you missed.

Cell users under 30 go left in a big way: 62 percent Democrat to 28 Republican. And cell-only voters of all ages go for Obama over McCain by 19 percent, 55 to 36 percent

There's no assumption on the articles part, only an assumption on yours.

[PNK]

I am a cell-only user, have been for about 7 years. And never been polled. I'm an O-supporter! AND over-50, haha! Breakin' all the rules.

So I would bet there is quite a gap in polling, at least in the last 10 yrs with cell-phone onset.

[Courgette]

I'm 50, and dumped my landline a year ago... and have been a hardass liberal my entire voting life. I've always WANTED to be polled, too... and it seems there's no chance of it now. Needless to say, I'm an Obama supporter, and wish the pollsters knew it!