Here are his polling numbers for Ohio, from SuperTuesday forward:
39, 34, 37, 43, 43, 40, 40 39, 46, 39, 44, 43, 38, 42, 45, 45, 40, 43, 45, 46, 44, 45, 42, 47, 42, 44, 42, 40, 44, 44
Excluding the earliest three rounds of polling, he basically traded in a range from 39 to 46 (with single outliers of 38 and 47). During this time period, polls ranged from anywhere from Clinton +16 to Obama +2. He ended up with 44% of the vote, which is his mode for this series (his median and mean are 43).
In Texas, he came up with 48, 41, 38, 48, 45, 47, 44, 50, 48, 50, 45, 49, 43, 47, 45, 46, 43, 48, 45, 48, 48, 51, 46, 45, 46, 47, 47, 45, 47, 47, 49, 44, 44, 48, 44. Again, tossing out high/low outliers, he traded from 41 to 49. We swung from Clinton leads of 16 to Obama leads of 8. He ended up with 47% of the vote, again, about his median for the series. The mean is a point lower, and the mode is a point higher.
Looking at this a different way, in Ohio, Obama’s numbers had a mean and median of 43, and a mode of 44. The standard deviation was 2. The actual value was 44. Clinton’s numbers had a mean, median, and mode of 50, but an actual value of 54. Her standard deviation was a point higher, at 3.
Look at Rhode Island. There were three polls, and Clinton came in at 42, 49, and 53. Obama came in at 37, 40, and 38. The polls showed an orderly decline in her margin from 15 to 9 to 5. He got 38 percent of the vote — his median. She got 58 percent, and won by 18.
Call it the Bradley effect, call it the undecided rule, call it whatever you want. Heck, you can call it the California effect, remember that RCP average showing him leading HRC 44-43% on election day (he got 42%, she got 52%).
Assuming this basic voting model holds, looking at all post-Ohio polling, Obama’s mean and median are 39, and his mode is 41. His SD is 2.6. Clinton’s mean, median, and mode are 50, 51, and 49, respectively, but her standard deviation is again a point higher — 3.6.
In other words, for all the talk of the closing gap, the Pennsylvania numbers are looking a lot like the Ohio numbers, except a smidge worse for Obama. This isn’t to say the Ohio/Texas model will hold for Pennsylvania. It didn’t in Wisconsin, and it typically doesn’t in high AA states (which PA is not, but NC is). It is just to say that, given what we know, the unknowns are not particularly great for Obama.
Keep an eye on his numbers. Not hers. And not the spread.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Are you “our” Sean?
April 6th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Ms. Ette,
Heh. Yes, Sean Oxendine is the poster formerly known at CHT (and MEA, and DalyThoughts) as “Sean.”
April 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sean, another great post. Although, there’s still 2 weeks to go and lots of things can happen. I’d really start paying attention to the polls starting on 4/17, after the debate and they should give a better idea. Or, judging on the past, just look at Survey USA the day before the primary and that should be a good indication.
Also, in regards to your posts on Appalachia, and Hillary and the white vote in the remaining states, have you read the book “The Neglected Voter” by David Kuhn? It’s basically about how the democrats have gotten blown away on the white vote and particularly the white male vote ever since 1968 and how it’s very tough to win elections that way.
It raises a lot of good points and at least for Republicans it should be good news that in a year that is looking as bad for Republicans as any, the democrats are going to go with most likely a black guy who thus far hasn’t even shown great success in winning over white Democrats in key states, let alone white Republicans and independents. And could very well close out the nomination by getting beat by 20+ among whites in OH, PA, IN, KY, WV
The dems certainly know how to roll the dice.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Hey Sean, good post – again.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Great work. Your analysis is spot on.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
[...] In other words, the fresh-faced candidate of change can never be comfortable when he is polling in the high forties six months before the election. Those undecideds (and a chunk of his support) historically have not supported the fresh-faced candidate. Have we ever seen this before with Obama? Hmmm, I wonder. [...]
September 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
[...] saw the same effect for Obama again and again in the primary, in states like NH, TX, MA, RI, CA, OH, PA, WV, KY, the list goes on. There were exceptions [...]