It's a little too early to tell the full effect of Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. In particular, Palin's biography has created numerous side dialogues--chiefly among women--about working mothers, teen pregnancy, abstinence-only education and raising children with special needs. Surveys on these topics will take a little time, and some care and nuance.
But until then, we do have good preliminary data about the Palin Effect across gender and party. But bare in mind that the timing of both conventions and the Palin pick announcement (not to mention Labor Day and Hurricane Gustav) make it difficult to identify exactly which bounces are working where.
The Palin Effect has rallied white Republican women; Obama gains with other groups
A Gallup release today demonstrated that compared to an August average, McCain's support post-Palin has increased with white Republican women (+5 change in McCain). There has been no movement with Republican men (+1).
By contrast, Democrats and independents across gender lines move toward Obama post-Palin. This movement has mostly been larger than McCain's movement among Republican women (independent men: +7 Obama; independent women: +5; Democratic men and women: +8 each). In fact, Obama now leads with white independent women (46% Obama, 39% McCain).
Among women, Obama-Biden now have the advantage in "experience"
According to a new EMILY's List Women's Monitor survey of women (conducted 8/31 to 9/1), the Obama-Biden ticket now has the advantage on "experience." In their last Women's Monitor from early August, half (51%) of women said "having the experience, background, and knowledge to be President" described McCain better, compared to 16% saying it described Obama better.
In this current survey, the numbers are now almost reversed. Over half (52%) say the Obama-Biden ticket has more experience, while only 37% say McCain-Palin is more experienced. Not only did the Palin pick negate McCain's experience "argument," as many commented, but it actually completely erased McCain's advantage, among women, in just a few short weeks.
(Disclosure: EMILY's List is an organization helping pro-choice Democratic women. It is also a Momentum Analysis client, but we do not work on Women's Monitor.)
Women do not just use candidate gender to decide who represents them
During the Democratic primaries I noted that Hillary Clinton voters were even more likely to weigh the issues when making their choice. The Women's Monitor results confirm this pattern--gender alone won't move women voters to McCain-Palin. (At least among non-Republicans.)
Majorities of women said Palin's positions on issues such as abortion, education, and stem-cell research made them more unfavorable toward her (56%, 55%, and 52%, respectively). In fact, a majority of women (53%) say Obama-Biden is more in touch with the issues that affect women than is McCain-Palin (35%).
The McCain campaign recently proffered "this campaign is not about issues." Indeed, Palin's speech last Friday attempted to attract Hillary Clinton supporters, offering an identical gender as opposed to a similar platform. These results, however, show that issues do matter to women voters.
Today's guest pollster contribution comes from Michael P. McDonald, an Associate Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
A media storyline surrounding the Democratic convention is how a sizable number of Hillary Clinton supporters are backing John McCain over Barack Obama. A recent CNN/ORC poll provides grist for the mill. Twenty-seven percent of self-identified Clinton supporters are reported backing John McCain, an increase from 16% in a similar June survey.
Yet, there are indications that something is amiss in this survey. CNN reports they interviewed 1,023 adults. The organization does not report the sub-sample size of Democrats who support Clinton, but they do provide a margin of error of this sub-sample from which we can infer the number of Clinton supporters. The reported margin of error for Democrats who support Clinton is 7.5 percentage points, which is equivalent to 171 persons assuming a simple random sample. That is 16.7% of all adults in the survey, which when applied to my 2006 voting-age population estimate of 227 million persons means that there are 38 million self-identified Clinton supporters among Democrats in the CNN/ORC poll (with a 95% confidence interval between 20.9 and 54.9 million persons).
As one might recall, Clinton received 18 million votes in the primaries. If she had received 38 million votes, she would be accepting the Democratic Party's nomination on Thursday.
The question arises, who are these 20 million or so self-identified Democrats who support Clinton who did not participate in the primaries? It is difficult to tell without analyzing the survey in depth. While there are many reasonable explanations for the discrepancy between the election and survey results, a plausible explanation consistent with the large percentage of self-identified Clinton supporters who report supporting McCain in a two-way contest against Obama is that the CNN/ORC questionnaire is worded in such a manner that elicits persons who self-report supporting McCain to report that they are a Democrat who supports Clinton for the party's nomination.
The implication is obvious: if these surveys that purport to measure Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain actually measure McCain supporters who would like to see Clinton as the Democratic nominee, the media storyline of Democratic dissention quickly unravels.
A little interesting movement in views of the candidates has taken place since the end of the primaries in June. All three candidates, McCain, Obama and Clinton, have seen rises in their favorable ratings and an initial decline in unfavorable views though with a slight upturn recently. McCain and Obama are enjoying essentially identical ratings, with 60% favorable and only 35% unfavorable. Even after a significant amount of negative portrayals of him in RNC and McCain ads, Obama's rating has risen over the summer, and so has McCain's. (According to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which monitored and coded all 100,000 ad airings in June and July, one third of McCain's ads contained negative information about Obama and 100% of RNC ads were negative. In the same two months, 10% of Obama's ads mentioned McCain.)
Whatever happens after the conventions, both candidates enjoy an enviable standing with voters as attractive figures instead of a pair of lesser evils. The fall capaign may alter this, but even after a hard fought primary season the nominees remain attractive figures.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has also enjoyed an upturn in favorable ratings and a decline in unfavorable ratings since the end of the primary season. While improved, Clinton remains a more polarizing figure than either McCain or Obama, with slightly lower favorable but noticeably higher negative ratings.
Senator Clinton is far more popular among Democrats than among either Independents or (especially) Republicans. In that sense, her speech to the Democratic Convention last night was an example of speaking primarily to the party and her supporters, rather than to the broader public. The contast between former Virginia governor and now Senate candidate Mark Warner's speech and Clinton's is a good example of this difference. Warner stressed unifying themes and appeals across political groups, which was greated warmly but which fell short of electrifying the Democratic delegates. In contrast, Clinton played to the party and produced a predictably enthusiastic response within the DNC convention hall. Conventions contain both elements. Monday, the party celebrated Sen. Kennedy's life and family legacy, primarily an inside the family affair, perhaps touching some independents but not likely to attract Republicans. In contrast Michelle Obama's speech could have easily been given at the Republican convention, with its themes of family, hard work, pulling oneself up from working class circumstances. Hers was a speech designed to reach out beyond the party.
The one remaining question from the Clinton speech is whether her supporters also resepect her enough to follow her lead. For Clinton to be a power in the party includes the requirement that she be able to deliver her supporters for Obama. If any significant number of her supporters refuse to be delivered, they reduce her status as a result. This is hard to judge from the cable news coverage, who can easily find individual delegates willing to say they are unpersuaded. But what effect the Clinton speech has with her supporters outside the convention hall will be critical.
On Monday, CBS News and the New York Times released a survey of delegates attending the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week. The major finding from this survey came from a question asking delegates who they would like to see as the vice presidential candidate. 28% of the delegates interviewed preferred Hillary Clinton, compared to just 6% who selected Joe Biden (the second most popular choice). The support for Hillary Clinton attracted a lot of attention from news outlets, as well as Pollster.com readers. Of particular interest is whether the 28% figure for Clinton is particularly high or low. To answer this question, we could use a little historical context.
I was able to dig up two earlier Democratic delegate surveys which asked similar questions about VP preferences--one from 1988 and the other from 1992. The results from these surveys are presented in the table below. I've shown the top five finishers in each survey, as well as the percentage naming another candidate ("Other") and the percentage declining to name anyone ("no preference").
The first important point that stands out from this table is that support for Clinton is almost twice as high as it was for any other single candidate in 1988 or 1992. Bill Bradley had the support of 15% of Democratic delegates in 1992, while Jesse Jackson was the preferred candidate for 14% in 1988.
The second notable pattern from 1988 and 1992 is that the eventual VP pick was not one that delegates named in large numbers before the convention. In 1988, only 2% of convention delegates mentioned Lloyd Bentsen as a running mate for Dukakis while just 5% recommended Al Gore in 1992. Thus, Clinton's standing in first place does not necessarily bode well for her chances of ending up on the ticket.
Third, notice that VP ambivalence is not a new phenomenon in 2008, nor is the phenomenon of having a wide swath of politicians named. In 1988, one-third of convention delegates declined to state a preference for Dukakis's running mate, while one-quarter of delegates did not name anyone in 1992. In both years (along with 2008) support was scattered across dozens of names, with only one or two candidates even breaking double-digits in any given year.
Finally, I was able to get the raw data for the 1992 convention delegate survey to look at one additional question: to what extent do a losing candidate's delegates promote their candidate for VP? In 1992, Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas lost out on the nomination; but each candidate sent plenty of committed delegates to the Democratic convention. The figure below shows who those delegates preferred for Clinton's VP choice.
The figure reveals mixed patterns. Interestingly, Jerry Brown's supporters picked plenty of different possibilities for a Clinton running mate, but almost none of them supported Brown himself. Tsongas's supporters, on the other hand, were more likely to name Tsongas as a potential running mate, but they were also about as likely to name Bill Bradley. For their part, (Bill) Clinton delegates were the most ambivalent, with one-third of them failing to state a preference.
Overall, the historical comparison reveals that Clinton's support is high compared to delegate preferences in 1988 and 1992. However, pre-convention support among delegates didn't do much for Jesse Jackson in 1988 or Bill Bradley in 1992.
Today's Guest Pollster's column comes from Robert M. Eisinger, a political science professor at Lewis & Clark College and the author of The Evolution of Presidential Polling (Cambridge U. Press).
The Obama "phenomenon" is a product of many things, most notably a superbly smart candidate and a sharp, disciplined campaign team, both of whom clearly articulated a resonating message that mobilized voters. What we don't know if how many of those supporters galvanized around Senator Obama simply because he is not Senator Clinton. This is not to say that Senator Clinton is without fans. To the contrary - she has many. They are devoted and dedicated, imparting the kind of loyalty that any political candidate would desire.
But as evidenced by the reaction to her recent mentioning of Robert Kennedy's assassination, Senator Clinton appears to be a lightning rod - people are either repelled or attracted to her.
Arguments for an Obama-Clinton dream ticket suggest that Senator Clinton's keen intelligence, legislative acumen and support among Democrats outweigh her negatives. However reasoned this claim is, it is potentially flawed in a critical way currently understudied by the public opinion and political cognoscenti. The problem is that we do not know enough about her positives and negatives, especially among voting Democrats and swing voters.
By itself, the "favorability question" is crude and insufficient indicator of likeability. It does not claim to measure the intensity underlying that favorability or lack of favorability. For example, a May 23, 2008 Newsweek poll asks, "Who would you MOST like to be nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year...Hillary Clinton (or) Barack Obama (choices rotated)?" "Do you support (INSERT CHOICE) strongly or only moderately?" The poll then asks, "We'd like your overall opinion of the presidential candidates. As I read each name, please tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of this person - or if you have never heard of them before this interview. What about (INSERT - READ AND RANDOMIZE). Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him (or her)?"
Favorability questions specifically asked about Hillary Clinton in the past have been worded in numerous, thoughtful ways, including the following: 1
CBS News/New York Times: Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Hillary Clinton yet to have an opinion?
Gallup/USA Today/CNN: I'd like some overall opinion of some people in the news. In general, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?
Yankelovich/Time/CNN: Please tell me whether you have generally favorable or generally unfavorable impressions of [Hillary Clinton], or whether or not you are familiar enough with [Hillary Clinton] to say one way or another.
Each of these questions is carefully written, but they do not capture the intensity that may lie beneath the answer. In fact the Yankelovich/Time/CNN question employs the phrases "generally favorable" and "generally unfavorable", allowing the respondent to articulate her overall impression, but in doing so, diffuses the potential passion or force embedded within that answer.
If respondents were asked to place their favorability/un-favorability on a seven point scale, then one might get a better sense of the potential polarizing nature of the answer, or put another way, the strength of that favorability and its opposite. Such an option is costly in that it requires an additional question to be asked, and more nuanced data analysis.
Anecdotal conversations in the blogosphere, in the taxi cab and the around the water cooler - reveal that many citizens - men and women, Democrats, Republicans and Independents - have a palpable and deep disdain for Senator Clinton. Different blog, cab and water cooler discourses tell us that Senator Clinton is revered. Scholars of public opinion and savvy journalists are appropriately suspicious of these unrepresentative remarks. Sure, the plural of anecdote is data, but we wonder if selection bias (i.e., we surround myself with like-minded folk; we listen more carefully only to extreme answers) taints our perspective and analysis.
The Obama campaign should be privately measuring the favorability intensity for all prospective Vice Presidential nominees. If not, then they are avoiding a datum that may be critical to their electoral success. Media polls should explore this question as well; given the dearth of the intensity question, the answers will undoubtedly surprise us. //END
1 From Barry C. Burden and Anthony Mughan, "Public Opinion and Hillary Rodham Clinton," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Summer 1999), 237-250.
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
The big news this week is that women, who voted for Obama in Iowa, put Hillary Clinton over the edge in New Hampshire. But rather than treat women as a monolithic group, it's worth examining the exit polls closely to look at the role of work status, parental status, and marital status in the New Hampshire vote. Despite the increasing focus on women's marital status, in addition to the usual focus on parental status (such as the "security moms" and "soccer moms" of yore), it is actually women not working full-time who are most likely to vote for Clinton.
Exit polls from the Democratic primary helpfully include breakouts by marital status by gender, by parental status by gender, as well as breakouts among married women with children, and women who work full-time. I extrapolated the rest (identified with an asterisk), and include it all in the table below.
(Note: The exit polls defines "parents" as the presence of children under 18 in one's home, and unmarried is not broken out further. And probably because of different versions of the exit poll questionnaire, Obama receives 32% of the vote from both married and unmarried women, but receives 34% from women overall.)
A few patterns emerge:
- There is no real difference in Obama's edge between men with kids at home and men without kids at home.
- But among men, there is a sizable difference by marital status. Obama has a much larger lead with unmarried men than with married men.**
- Among women, kids at home makes more of a difference than marital status. Those without kids at home are more likely to support Clinton than those with kids at home, across marital status groups. Unmarried women without kids at home are most likely to support Clinton, while married women with kids at home are least so.
- All groups of women we can examine with the exit polls give Clinton an edge.
But the most salient difference by gender is among women not working full-time. Clinton receives a strong 25-point lead with this group, compared to her 3-point lead among those who do work full-time. And while this could be partly due to older retired women being in the non-working group, it's likely socioeconomic status plays a large role, too.
In fact, aside from voters without a high school diploma, no other demographic group gave Clinton such a large margin. (I'm not counting "favorable toward Clinton" or prioritizing "right experience" as demographic groups.) Clinton also had a stronger lead with voters earning under $50,000 a year, with those who feel the country's economy is poor, and with those who say the economy is the most important issue. The table below shows her standing with voters at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Because without a dataset-or even crosstabs-we can't discern causation from the exit polls, it's worth considering the different options. Much has been made about the role of gender in the New Hampshire primary. Everything from the "diner sob" to aggrieved women fed up with sexism to Gloria Steinem's NYT op-ed piece has been credited. But perhaps causality went the other direction. Maybe a long-standing Clinton infrastructure in New Hampshire grounded her base with lower socioeconomic folks, who happen to be more likely to be women. She has done well with this group for some time, and did best (+17 over Obama) with voters who decided earlier than a month ago.
Why is it because women gave Clinton the edge, we assume it's because they had an emotional reaction to Clinton (and her gender) personally? Clinton did better with those who said the "candidate's position on issues" was most important (39% Clinton, 34% Obama) than with those who said the "candidate's leadership/personal qualities" were most important (37% Clinton, 45% Obama). It might be that Clinton's female support may have been actually considering issues like the economy, rather than listening to their emotions.
** typo corrected.
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
A Washington Post story on Thursday declared men unwilling to support Hillary Clinton. But much like stories in Slate's compendium of easily-debunked trend pieces across topics, this story uses thin analysis and anecdotal quotes to support its claim. Selected quotes from male voters and opponents' pollsters and a quick wave over some polling data not only leave the question "Will Enough Men Stand By This Woman?" unanswered, I'm left asking, "Why was this question asked?" (Disclosure: I do not currently work for any of the Presidential candidates. Call me!)
Yes, in the Democratic primaries, Clinton does better with women than with men. But does this mean that men don't like her because of her gender? Or could it be that women like her more because of her gender or are moved by her potential First Woman President status? A recent ABC-News/Washington Post poll of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters shows women are twice as likely as men to say Clinton's historic run makes them more likely to vote for her.
Alternatively, Clinton could fare worse among men for an entirely different reason, related more to partisanship than gender. The article alludes to Clinton's popularity among men in the general election, and quotes an independent man going to hear Mitt Romney speak. Given the gender gap in partisan identification (Clinton aside), it is important to compare genders within each party. Naturally Republican-leaning men are going to like Clinton less than do Democratic-leaning women, meaning sexism or a "pushy" personality aren't automatically to blame, as the article implies.
The story also claims that men dislike Clinton because "half of men say she's not willing to say what she really thinks. Large majorities say that Obama and John Edwards are." It's true that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, clear majorities of Democratic Primary voters feel Obama and Edwards are "willing enough to say what they really think about the issues" (78% and 76% for Obama in New Hampshire and Iowa, 71% and 73% for Edwards). Clinton's numbers on this measure are indeed weaker (55% and 50% in New Hampshire and Iowa). Now, we haven't been able to track down the results to this question by gender. But given how much lower her overall numbers are on this question relative to her opponents, it seems to me that Clinton doesn't have a "male problem" as much as a "not seen as saying what she thinks" problem. Whether this is a problem that will translate into votes will be revealed in the next few weeks.
Since the October 30 Democratic debate, political conversation has focused on how much Sen. Clinton may have been damaged by her first "rough" debate performance. After uniformly positive evaluations of her handling of previous debates, especially in August and September, Clinton stumbled with answers that her rivals portrayed as waffling and inconsistent.
This weekend two new New Hampshire polls appeared that lend credence to the notion that Clinton's standing has taken a dip, though whether due to the debate or not remains "debatable."
The Boston Globe and University of New Hampshire found Clinton falling to 35% 11/2-7/07 from 41% in the CNN/WMUR/UNH poll of 9/17-24/07. Obama had a small rise, to 21% in the latest from 19% in the earlier poll.
Meanwhile, the Marist College poll taken 11/2-6/07 put Clinton at 38%, compared to 43% in Marist's previous reading 10/4-9/07. Obama gained five points over those two polls, to 26% from 21%.
Finally, a Rasmussen "robopoll" taken on 11/5/07 has Clinton at 34%, down from 40% in their 9/16/07 poll. Rasmussen also has Obama rising to 24% from 17%.
So on the basis of these three polls, and "apples-to-apples" comparisons of polls done by the same polling organization, there is pretty good reason to think Clinton has dropped a few points in New Hampshire, and that Obama has gained a few. The Clinton average change in the three polls is -5.7 points, and Obama's gain is 4.7 points.
If we turn to the trend estimates, based on all the polling rather than just the last three, we see a different but still interesting picture. The vertical black line in the charts marks the date of the debate.
With just three new polls, the standard trend estimator will respond to the new polls, but won't "bend". The blue trend is deliberately conservative, and wants more evidence that the trend has actually turned down before it will change direction. However, the level of the estimated trend does respond to new data. For example, on Friday with Rasmussen included but not the Globe/UNH or Marist results, Clinton's trend estimate was 40.2%. With the new polls it is down to 39.3%. Likewise Obama was at 21.0% on Friday and is now at 21.7%.
But the standard estimator may be too conservative. So we have a second estimator that picks up changes more quickly, though it can fall victim to noisy data and "see" a change when there isn't really one. So with some risk, it is fun to compare the more sensitive "red" estimator with the standard "blue" one.
Red reveals two interesting details not visible in the blue trends. Clinton appears to have flattened out, at least, starting in late September. Obama had a noticeable dip in August-September, and since that time has been trending up for over a month.
If we put a VERY sensitive estimate on the Clinton polls, we would even see a parabola shaped trend, one that rose sharply in September and early October, then fell equally sharply in November. This amounts to just connecting the polls, and ignoring all the noise and house effects present, something I am loath to do.
But even being a bit cautious there is evidence that Clinton's good rise (about 5 points) in the third quarter has stopped and perhaps dipped a tiny bit in the fourth quarter so far. If more polls come in where the last three have, then even the blue standard estimator will flatten and turn down. Meanwhile the sensitive red estimator may be prone to chase the latest polls a bit too much. But it's suggested path for the dynamics of the race is neither as foolish as chasing each poll, nor as slow to notice change in trends as the standard estimator. "Red" may have something here.
The story for Obama is also more hopeful in the red estimator. The few low polls in late August through late September suggested a slump down to the mid-to-upper-teens. The sensitive estimator catches this dip, but sees a steady rise since, to nearly 24% now.
From the point of view of even the sensitive estimator, the changes affecting both Clinton and Obama pre-date the October 30 debate, though the estimate is influenced by the three post debate polls. The story "red" tells is that Clinton had a very good third quarter-- good news about her campaign, it's strength, and her good debate performances-- helped raise her New Hampshire standing by five points. Perhaps the same news, or reviews of his failure to make progress, helped sink Obama's support about 4 points during the same third quarter. But since October 1, these patters have changed, with Clinton seeing no further gains and Obama returning to the mid-20s.
Before reaching too strong a conclusion, let's check some other data, and see if we can find any evidence for similar changes in trend in other data.
In Iowa, where they watch the candidates at least as closely as in New Hampshire, there is no evidence of a flattening of the Clinton trend. If anything, the red trend estimate is slightly higher than is the standard blue estimate (30.5% vs 29.9%). Clinton has climbed steadily since the start of the third quarter and both red and blue estimates put that trend at almost the same rate.
Obama has also seen gains since the start of the third quarter in Iowa, though the red estimate thinks the gains started from a bit lower level. At present the two trends agee quite closely, 24.8% for blue and 24.5% for red.
(The Edwards and Richardson campaigns have both suffered losses since the start of the third quarter in Iowa, though slight or no losses in New Hampshire over the same period.)
If we look at the national picture, we see a substantial Clinton rise in the third quarter (with a plateau midway, followed by a surge) and a mild decline for Obama, reversed only at the start of the fourth quarter. The sensitive estimator matches the standard trend pretty well, certainly leading to the same conclusions.
As my partner at Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal, pointed out in an important post last week, New Hampshire and Iowa are not typical of the nation as a whole and are being exposed to vastly greater advertising and campaign appeals. Citizens there are also paying more attention to the race, given both advertising and their prized "first in the nation" status. So if we are going to detect changes in the fortunes of candidates, these two states are the best places to look. And when we do, we see some evidence of change but only in New Hampshire.
As always, more data can lead to a reconsideration, but at this point I think the evidence favors a view that Clinton's problems in New Hampshire may be more specific to that state rather than reflecting a more widespread change in her campaign's fortunes. New polling for Iowa could change that. At the moment we only have one post-debate poll from Iowa so the trends there are almost entirely driven by earlier data. But the 5 post-debate national polls are included in the national estimate with no effect, so that is some evidence that any impact is still to develop.
Sen. Clinton may have given her opponents an opening in the last debate. It remains up to them to exploit that opening to their advantage, and up to the Clinton campaign to deflect such critiques. At the moment the New Hampshire polls suggest some changes in that state. But not yet elsewhere.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
We talked a lot last week (especially here
and here) about
whether the most recent USA Today / Gallup
poll, showing a surprisingly close result on the national Democratic primary
trial-heat question, was measuring some real change or just the sort of random
noise that comes with the territory of random sampling variation.
Whatever the reason, Gallup's Frank Newport dropped
this big hint this afternoon on his Gallup Guru blog that last weeks' result will
turn out to be something of an aberration:
We have a Gallup poll now in the field, with results to
be reported early next week. Preliminary indications are that this poll will
find Clinton
back in her typical leadership position as she has been for the most part this
year.
If they report on their usual schedule, look for data to
appear in the Tuesday edition of USA Today.
Three different analyses in the last two days have looked at
the demographic differences in recent presidential polls. While each has a
different angle and emphasis, they collectively make intriguing and somewhat
contradictory conclusions about Senator Hillary Clinton and her potential appeal
to women.
A front page story
by the Washington Post's Anne
Kornblut and Matthew Mosk digs into the implications of this finding:
In the most recent Washington
Post-ABC News poll,
Clinton led
Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll
is entirely attributable to that margin.
Yesterday, USA Today's
Susan Page looked
at a mash-up of Gallup
polls on the nomination races taken since January and observes:
Clinton, in contrast, is a classic Democrat.
She does best among women, Democratic partisans, older voters, and
less-educated and lower-income workers. She trumps Illinois Sen. Barack Obama,
her top rival and an African-American, among blacks.
That mix of support could help
her win Democratic primaries, but she faces hurdles in the general election.
She draws only 1 in 4 independents who "lean" Democratic, for
example, and 1 in 4 white men in the Democratic sample.
ISO white men
Without stronger support among
white men, who made up 36% of the electorate in 2004, "it becomes very
difficult for a Democrat to win the White House," says political scientist
Merle Black of Emory University.
Finally, an analysis posted earler today by Gallup's Lydia Saad examines three tests of
a Clinton-Giuliani trial-heat since February and concludes:
Most notably, it appears Clinton would run no stronger among women
than Kerry did in 2004 -- or, for that matter, than Al Gore did when running
against Bush in 2000. On average in 2007, women prefer Clinton over Giuliani by a six-point margin
-- 53% to 47%, respectively. That is not much different from women's four-point
preference for Kerry over Bush in 2004, or the eight-point preference for Gore
over Bush in 2000.
A Clinton-Giuliani race may be more striking for
its impact on the male vote. Men favor Giuliani over Clinton by a 16-point margin in 2007. That
compares with a 12-point lead among men for Bush over Kerry among 2004, and a
7-point lead among men for Bush over Gore in 2000.
All of this analysis -- intriguing as it is -- suggests a different question: Should
we be doing this sort of micro-analysis of national trial-heat questions asked
eight months before the primary season begins and almost a year and a half
before the general election? While the horse race numbers often change as the
campaign progresses, there is some logic in looking at the demographic patterns
in the support of frontrunners like Clinton and Giuliani. These candidates are
very well known, and voters have real opinions about them that will likely
persist. Thus, these initial measurements of vote preference provide a good
sense of the political landscape that all of the campaigns will confront.
Also, the trial heat match-ups in early primaries often show
the same demographic patterns as the national surveys, as seems to be the case
in the latest CNN/WMUR poll of New
Hampshire. The crosstabs
provided in the University of New Hampshire show Clinton leading Obama by nearly two-to-one
(43% to 22%) among women, but by only two points (24% to 22%) among men.
Harris Interactive released a new survey yesterday, based on over 2,000 interviews conducted online that focuses on the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and suggests she faces a big challenge should she win the Democratic nomination:
[H]alf of U.S. adults say they would not vote for Senator Clinton if she was the Democratic candidate, while only 36 percent say they would, with 11 percent unsure.
Some will question the Harris survey results, as they are based on a non-probability sample drawn from its online panel of volunteer survey respondents. I must admit that my first thought was to wonder whether their online panel might include a disproportionate number of "net roots" Democrats who - as we know from some research I helped conduct last year - tend to be more hostile to the Clinton candidacy. However, on closer examination, the Harris result appears to be at least not wildly inconsistent with similar measures on other recent national polls.
Here are the text and complete results of the question that produced the lead of the Harris release:
If Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee for President, which is closest to the way you think?
15% - I definitely would vote for, her
22% - I probably would vote for her
11% - I probably would not vote for her
39% - I definitely would not vote for her
11% - I wouldn't vote at all
Now consider the results of similar questions asked on two
recent national polls:
Pew Research Center
(1,509 adults, February 7-11, 2007) - Have you heard of Hillary Clinton, or
not? (IF HAVE HEARD, ASK:) How
much of a chance is there that you would vote for Hillary Clinton if she is a
candidate for president in 2008 - is there a good chance, some chance, or no
chance?
98% (1,408 adults) had heard of Hillary Clinton
Among those respondents:
32% good chance
24% some chance
40% no chance
4% (volunteered: don't know/refused)
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics (900 registered voters, February 13-14, 2007) - Now I am going to read a list of possible candidates for the next presidential race. For each one, please tell me whether you would definitely vote for that candidate for president, if you might vote for that candidate, or if under no conditions would you vote for that candidate.
18% definitely vote for
34% might vote for
44% under no conditions vote for
3% (volunteered: don't know)
While each of these questions asks about the degree to which
respondents are considering supporting Clinton,
they are very different, both in terms of the wording and the categories. Probably
the most important difference is that the Pew and Fox questions present three
categories, while the Harris survey presented four (plus "would not vote"). The
Pew and Fox items also used a soft positive choice ("might vote for" or "some
chance") as their middle category. Neither presented the soft negative choice
("probably would not vote for") included on the Harris survey.
Also, the Fox survey sampled registered voters, while the
Pew and Harris survey aimed to project the attitudes of all U.S. adults.
But for all their incomparable elements, these questions produce some consistent findings: 39% to 44% say they have ruled out
supporting Clinton.
Also, the 15% of adults who say they
would "definitely" vote for Clinton in the
Harris survey is reasonably close to the 18% of registered voters who say they
will "definitely" support Clinton
on the Fox survey.
Putting aside the various sampling issues, the idea that
some voters could say they "might vote for someone" on one question but
"probably not" on another is not surprising, particularly when only "might vote
for" or "some chance" is the only middle option. After all, the Republican
nominee is unknown, most expect to scrutinize the candidates more closely before
voting and the election is still 18 months away.
Also, before making too much of this result, we really need
to see the Harris results in a larger context. Specifically, how do the other
Democrats (and Republicans) compare on the same measure. For example, on the
Fox News poll, Clinton's
18% "definitely vote for" score was greater than those of the other candidates.
Her "under no conditions" score (44%) was about the same as that received by of
John Edwards (45%) and within range of John McCain (40%).
What would help resolve the sampling question - at least with regard to this result - would be
a side-by-side comparison that asks the Harris question on both an online and
traditional telephone poll conducted at the same time. It is possible Harris
Interactive has already done so, as they frequently conduct parallel surveys
(online and on the phone) as part of their "propensity weighting" technique. I
sent an email to Harris to check, and will report back if and when I hear more.
With the news today that John Kerry would not seek the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, CNN was first to release results
of a presidential primary poll without Kerry in the race.
On their recently completed national survey, CNN asked the
"467 registered voters who describe themselves as Democrats or as Independents
who lean to the Democratic Party" who they would be most likely to support for
the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
They also asked Democrats for their second choice, which allows the
calculation of the vote without Kerry (and without any of the other candidates
tested).
With Kerry included, 5% of the Democrats prefer the
Massachusetts senator, while Hillary Clinton receives 34%, Barack Obama 18%,
John Edwards 15% and Al Gore 10%. With
Kerry out, Clinton
and Gore each gain two percentage points (receiving 36% and 12% respectively),
while John Edwards gains one point (16%).
Some have speculated that while Clinton leads on these national horserace
polls, her percentage of the vote (typically in the 30's to low 40s) suggests a
larger number of Democrats who prefer anybody-but-Clinton. These results argue otherwise. Notice that Clinton is the second choice of roughly a
third of those who initially support Kerry, Gore, Obama and Edwards. So, for the moment, should other candidates
drop out, her share of the vote will increase.
The CNN survey also includes some questions that test the
"anybody but" theories directly. When
asked about Clinton,
75% would like to see her run, 23% would not.
The "anybody but" sentiment looks to be more pronounced for Kerry (51%
would not like him to run) and Gore (40% would not).
Separately, an analysis posted earlier
today by Gallup's Lydia Saad, as well as Frank
Newport's daily video
commentary, provide results from a similar question asked about Clinton. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 35%
say they would definitely support her, 52% say they might consider supporting
her, while only 14% say they will definitely not support her.
Gallup also asked a set of
follow-up questions of those who are either just considering Clinton or who say
they cannot support her, to evaluate theories about "why Clinton may not succeed." Their conclusions:
The paramount [doubts] are her
perceived chances of winning in the general election, and her issue positions.
Contrary to conventional wisdom about the liability of her support for the Iraq war among liberals, Clinton's issue positions are more often
raised as a concern by conservative and moderate Democrats than by liberal
Democrats.
My quick and bloggy summary does this analysis little
justice. Read it all.
Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate for only six years but she has one of the longest polling records in American politics, going back over 13 years to the beginning of her time as First Lady in 1993. No other Presidential contender has this long a track record of public opinion readings. As a result we have an unparalleled record of the ups and downs of public response to Sen. Clinton.
There was considerably more variation in favorable/unfavorable ratings during her time in the West Wing than there has been since Sen. Clinton became an elected official in 2001. The White House years describe the downturn in favorability during first two years, which included the failure of her leadership of the health reform initiative. Sen. Clinton's favorability rebounded during and following the 1996 presidential election. The effect of the Lewinsky scandal was largely favorable to Senator Clinton, if not to President Clinton.
The decision to run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 produced a new downturn in favorable opinion (and upturn in unfavorable views). However, since she took office in 2001, Senator Clinton has enjoyed relatively stable favorable ratings of around 50%, while unfavorable ratings have averaged in the mid-40s. This sharp split is, of course, one of the more widely remarked aspects of Sen. Clinton's public image.
Most recently, there has been a modest upturn in favorable ratings, especially since the fall elections.
The figure above plots and estimates the trend in favorable/unfavorable ratings after removing the poll to poll variation, also known as "house effects". These are effects due to the standard practices of different polling organizations that introduce systematic differences in results. For example, some polls make it easier for respondents to say they "don't know" their feelings towards a political figure, while others produce lower rates of "don't know" response, pushing more survey respondents to pick a positive or negative response. In the plot above, I've used an iterative estimation procedure to remove the "house effects" and norm the results to those of the Gallup organization. This provides better comparability because it adjusts all polls to a common standard. However, it changes the observed poll results to fit the model. Some may wish to see the raw data. They are presented below.
The figure below plots the raw, unadjusted, data. The greater spread in the gray data points is due to the house effects. In particular, you can see the "don't know" response has considerably greater variation in the unadjusted data. The broad outlines of Senator Clinton's favorable and unfavorable ratings are similar to the adjusted ones. The late upturn in approval, however, is largely only visible when house effects have been removed. The raw data suggest less recent movement.
The bottom line of these data is that Senator Clinton remains a public figure who has both a large following of supporters and one who suffers from a substantial antipathy. At the moment, the Senator enjoys more supporters than opponents. Whether than margin is enough to win a national contest or now is, of course, what Democrats (and perhaps the rest of the electorate) will have to decide in the coming months.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
