This has been a full team effort.  Mark collected data from 56 different national surveys.  (A spreadsheet with all the datapoints can be found here: White Women.xls.)  And as part of pollster.com's continued upgrade, and Charles Franklin's mighty-fine chart-making, we can look at the presidential vote among white voters, across gender.  There are two charts below; the second is more sensitive to outliers.  But both tell the same story. 

First, it's worth pointing out that much more attention has focused on the Palin Effect on white women than on white men, or really any other group.  Naturally, that's largely due to Palin's gender.  But it's also because white women are a swing group.  Some polls show Obama leading with this group, but our chart shows, on average, McCain leads.  White men have given McCain an advantage in every poll we were able to obtain that broke out results by race and gender.  Gary Langer at ABC discussed the greater variability in white women's vote here, and our spreadsheet shows a larger standard deviation for white women, across all the surveys examined.

But despite lopsided attention to and increased variability among white women, there are more similarities than differences in the post-Palin pattern among white men and women.  Among both groups, support for Obama fell.  And with both groups, support for Obama has rebounded.  The difference is in the depth of the fall, and the extent of the rebound.

Our charts show white voters across gender moved from Obama, and substantially, in the early days of the Palin bounce (around September 7).  But white women did have a steeper drop.  Our sensitive chart shows white women giving McCain a double-digit lead for a few days (approximately September 8-14), before rebounding to pre-Palin levels.  By contrast, white men had been gradually moving away from Obama for months, and the post-Palin drop was much less steep.  Now Obama's support among white men has rebounded above pre-Palin levels.

The race, particularly among white women, will likely continue to be volatile.  But the Palin bounce, and bounce-back, seems to have been replaced by other campaign events.

Disclosure & the backstory

But, before I wade any further in this topic, let me clearly note my own conflicts.  I am the pollster of record in two of the eight districts in which RC/SUSA polled (PA-10 and MO-9), which also happen to be two of the four districts where the RC/SUSA poll came in significantly more Republican than (our own) internal campaign polls.  So I have an obvious interest in challenging the RC/SUSA results.  But hear me out before you dismiss this post.  (Also, in further disclosure, many years ago I was a Roll Call intern.)

SurveyUSA uses an automated methodology rather than live callers for their interviews.  This methodology has stirred some controversy in the past.  Some DC media outlets do not report on SUSA polls.  Others, like Chris Cilizza at the Washington Post, express some skepticism. Here at pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal cautions against a reflexive opposition to SUSA's methodology, and their polls are reported on.  Carl Bialik at the WSJ wrote of a warming toward SUSA and their methodology here and here.  Nate Silver's accuracy ratings build on several cycles of polling, and put SUSA near the top, and Joel Bloom's 2002 paper also explores SUSA's accuracy in statewide surveys.  But the topic of survey accuracy and pollster report cards is itself is a large discussion, and Mark discusses SUSA's own report card here.

RC/SUSA discrepancies with public polling

But whatever one makes of SUSA's methodology, or national accuracy reports or ratings, there have been very clear discrepancies between the RC/SUSA surveys in Congressional races and other public polling.  Below is a table showing the RC/USA results compared to other public results.  In five of the eight races, the RC/SUSA results differ greatly from other public results. 

When I look closely at some of the races with differences, I see a lack of attention to detail in the RC/SUSA surveys.  The PA-10 survey misspells the Republican candidate's name wrong throughout.  The MO-9 survey butchers the spelling of the Republican Gubernatorial candidate (and current MO-9 Congressman).  The MN-3 methodology and report makes no mention of how same-day registrants are accounted for, even though they can be as much as 20% of turnout in a presidential year.  And then there is the drastic underrepresentation of black voters in the AL-2 survey, leading Roll Call to ask SUSA to reweight their data.

Lack of campaign context & common-sense

Further, the Roll Call coverage accepted their poll findings as decisive fact, with bold headlines that ignored any campaign context.  "[Democratic candidate Bobby] Bright Anything But" (AL-2) and "Missouri 9^th May Be Waste of Democrats' Efforts" are two such examples.  These stories, and other RC stories, reported on the poll findings, but ignored campaign context. 

For example, although it wasn't mentioned in the story, the MO-9 survey was conducted during the Republican convention, quite possibly boosting Republican participation.  (I'd also like to know what percent of the RC/SUSA sample is from Boone County, the largest county in the district, which Democratic candidate Judy Baker currently represents in the legislature.)  The PA-10 survey was conducted at a time when Democratic Congressman Carney had been on the air with positive television for the previous four weeks, and Republican challenger Chris Hackett had been largely off the air for months.  Does it make sense that the two have nearly identical name ID?  After the MN-3 survey, Roll Call marveled at the finding that younger voters give the McCain and the Republican Congressional candidate the advantage, while older voters prefer Obama and the Democratic Congressional candidate in his early 30s.  Does that seem right, given everything we know about young voters?

The fallout

Now Roll Call seems to have backed away some from their earlier reporting.  In this week's story, they write: "It appears it's also possible to get a poll to say just about anything." And also this: "some of the conclusions were universal and inescapable"--such as low Bush ratings, low Congressional approval ratings, and a concern about the economy.  These new observations are a far cry from calling a specific campaign a "waste of efforts."  But local coverage reacting to the initial Roll Call stories is unlikely to be taken back.

And a few words in defense of our own in-house accuracy.  Our polling correctly predicted a Baker win in the MO-9 primary. And our polling correctly predicted Carney's upset of former PA-10 Congressman Don Sherwood in 2006.  In fact, every single one of our seven Congressional candidates won their primaries (or ran unopposed).  Here at pollster.com Mark has pointed out that everyone can have an off poll.  But not all internal polls are off.

I think there are a few lessons from this incident.  First, there's more to judging survey quality than whether it was conducted internally or by an independent third party.  But second, and perhaps more important, Congressional handicappers should rely on more than a single poll's results to judge a race's viability. 

Across nearly every dimension, Republicans have rallied behind McCain's VP pick, with Democrats and independents more ambivalent.  A full 80% of Republicans say the pick makes them more confident in McCain, compared to 59% of Democrats feeling less confident (independents are more divided, 44% more confident, 37% less confident).

And charges that the press have treated Palin unfairly resonate with Republicans more than they resonate with women.  More than half (57%) of Republicans say she has been treated unfairly, with less than half as many Democrats (27%) agreeing.  The difference between men (55% treated fairly) and women (46%) is smaller, with women more likely to be undecided than men.

When we ask the ultimate question--how does each candidate's VP pick affect one's vote--we see Palin moving the Republican base, but not others.  Two-thirds (67%) say Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden has no difference on their vote, while fewer (55%) say the same about Palin.  But Palin elicits more saying they are "less likely" to vote for McCain (19%) than say the Biden pick makes them less likely to vote for Obama (10%). 

Further, as the report notes, Palin runs up the score among Republicans and evangelicals (+37, +32 more minus less likely to vote for McCain, respectively).  But moderates say Obama's pick of Biden makes them more to vote for Obama (+12 more minus less), with Palin having neither a positive or negative net affect for McCain.

These findings build upon earlier results I wrote about this week.  It seems increasingly unlikely that former Hillary Clinton supporters will move to McCain because of Sarah Palin.  But during the heat of the Republican convention, the Republican base is indeed energized. 

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. 

Overall, women across age groupings agree on many topics.  But the survey finds younger, Gen X or Gen Y women consistently more optimistic than their older counterparts, especially when it comes to changing women's roles.  Boomers and senior women are more likely to strongly agree that "sexism is still a serious problem for women in our society today" and "there is still a need for a woman's movement that has a strong political voice in America."  They are also more likely to strongly disagree with:  "women today have equal opportunities and equal treatment in the workplace."

While hardly anyone uses words such as "satisfied" or "proud" to describe how the country is headed, younger voters are the least pessimistic about the future.  And while majorities across age groups disagree with the statement "this is a good time in America's history to be a young person just starting out in life," youngest women disagree with it least often.

However, despite being generally more optimistic, younger women are at the same time the most uncertain about the future.  They are not as likely as Boomer women to agree that "because they have so many more options and choices available to them, young women today are better off than their mothers' generation."  And when asked to identify what word describes the direction of the country, they are more than twice as likely as older women to say "uncertain," and are far less likely to say "dissatisfied."

Uncertainty could have many causes.  First, the study shows younger women less engaged in politics, and less likely to follow the news.  Second, the survey also suggests younger women are more concerned than older women about issues affecting them personally, such as pocketbook issues, rising gas prices, issues affecting children, and college affordability.  Third, age itself could be a factor, where women with more life experience are less likely to be unsure of the future.

Given younger women's optimism, with uncertainty, it is not surprising that they prefer a candidate who is also optimistic, but provides clarity.  Younger women are more interested in a presidential candidate who can provide "hope and optimism," while older women are more likely to crave "safety and security" or both equally. Younger women are also more likely to prefer a candidate with a "vision for the future," and older women are disproportionately more likely to seek a candidate who can "get things done."

Below are some of the responses across age groupings.  I calculated net agree/disagree, and a 4-point mean score, where 4 means "strongly agree," and not sure is omitted.  Other results, methodology, and some question wording are available here and here.