A friend recently wrote an email asking four important questions about why the polls are so close in some swing states. My answers follow:
Questions:
- How could they be tied in PA and Iowa? Obama going to win those two going away. Write it down.
- When and how did McCain pull so far ahead in VA? Need Jim Webb and Tim Kaine to get out on the stump!
- And, if these surveys are only conducted via land lines doesn't that skew the findings given the many people who only use cell phones? And, aren't those cell phoners generally much younger - those most likely to vote Obama?
- Don't all polls that survey an election with an AA candidate fail to reflect the Tom Bradley/Harold Ford effect? How scary is that?
Let me try and answer as a political scientist not a partisan (not always easy to seperate, but I can give it a shot.)
1) PA is a state that I know well. I was born there and my brothers both live there. Kerry and Gore won it by small margins. Of course, they are white. Race is clearly mattering the solid red state South and could matter a lot in rural parts of VA, WV, PA, OH, and IN. Obama got beat badly in PA by Rendell and HRC in the primaries. There will be huge black turnout in Philadelphia for Obama this time around and this is a state with two large urban areas. Generally the Philadelphia suburbs - like Montgomery County - have proven to be critical swing areas in PA. Obama will get beat badly in the areas where they "cling to their religion and their guns." Generally, Obama has been up a few points in PA and I think the poll showing the race tied is an outlier. I think Rendell and Casey can deliver PA by 2-4 points, but I'd use Bill Clinton to rev up turnout.
- The situation is similar in VA (where I lived for a dozen years). Northern VA has grown quickly with lots of yankees moving in. It is clearly trending Democratic in state races where you have very moderate Democrats winning (Kaine, Warner, Webb). These guys are very much to the center of the Democratic party. You have a strong military vote both around the Pentagon and Newport News that should help McCain. I think VA is winable. It is probaby the most winable of the Confederate states - although there is some Obama shot at NC, perhaps in swing state FL, and GA - if Bob Barr takes 3 to 5 points and with huge black turnout in Atlanta. But speaking as someone who lives in Texas now, Democrats have to be prepared to win this race without the South.
The black vote is not as substantial in VA although Doug Wilder did win there, but the Bradley effect was much in evidence - but that was also 1989. I'd love to see Obama take VA, but it may end up as a mirage. Still probably worth fighting for although my own instinct has been that they are more likely to win this election by taking Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada from the 2004 Bush column and maybe either Florida or Ohio or Indiana. VA strikes me as possible, but a long shot. WV which has a strong conservative Democratic tradition and is also an interesting possibility, but it's a pretty rural state. Obama is generally seen as too liberal on social issues to play well in rural parts of VA and WV. Clinton won WV twice and lost VA twice. But Bill Clinton was a white southerner who sounded like a good ol' boy, not like an Ivy leaguer. The last four Presidential elections in WV were won by the candidate who sounded more like a Southerner. (Clinton '92, '96, Bush '00, '04)
- Cell phones. Most casual observers don't understand that polls adjust for such things. All of these polls are not just calling a 1000 people and adding up the results. It is some where between an art and a science. They use models. They know that they under poll cell phone users, young people, poor people without phones, minorities, etc. They also adjust for turnout, which is how you get polls that reflect "likely voters." Each poll also uses different adjustments, likely voter screens, and the turnout model is always a guestimate. They are undoubtedly using higer adjustments for youth and minorities turnout in every credible polling model. Whether they are too high or too low is something that we will learn on election day. Even with Palin, I think the enthusiasm gap favors Obama in terms of turning out his voters. Palin has revved up the social conservatives, but probably scares more moderate economic conservatives. The Democrats also have more money for GOTV and swing state TV advertising than the Republicans. The higher the turnout is, the better for Democrats. Obviously, high minority and youth turnout is crucial and will matter a lot. I'd assume that the polls are generally making these adjustments pretty well and not expect a big bounce from non-polled cell phone users. This is probably a phantom as it has been in past elections.
- The Bradley/Wilder effect. This definitely showed up in cross-racial voting in the 1980s. It was much less present in Ford race (where Ford lost because of a racist attacks against him, but pretty much in line with polls) and Deval Patrick (but that's in very liberal MA) in 2006, but we've never had a black man running for President in a general election, so there really are no US models. If there are two things that people lie about in life, they are race and sex! While pollsters can try to adjust, it is hard when people lie to you. Unlike the proportion of cell phone users which can be adjusted statistically, it is difficult to adjust for people who might or might not be lying.
The Bradeley Effect may also reflect a percentage of white voters who perhaps feel some shame about not being able to bring themselves vote for a black candidate so they instead refuse to talk to pollsters in higher numbers. I was in VA for the Wilder race in 1989 and I saw how the pre-election and even the exit polls had Wilder winning by roughly 10 points and he won about 1 point. Such a large gap in exit polls is extremely rare and generally only seen in cross-racial elections.
There is also no telling how the rumors of Obama being a Muslim will play in this regard. A lot of rural folks still seem to believe that he either is or was a Muslim. Again, we have no real models for such a race. One can also add the negative baggage of Rev. Wright's words that have been unfairly associated with Obama (although you'd think they'd at least prove he's not a Muslim). The reality is that Obama has consistently trailed the generic Democratic Congressional vote. I believe this race is all about race. Sadly, I think a white Democrat would be running several points better at than Obama at this stage and closer to the generic Congressional vote.
This election is a test for Americans of how far we've come in the 2 generations since the Civil Rights movement. If Obama is ahead by in pre-election polls by 1-2 points on election day, I'd be very very worried. I think if he's up by 4-5 points generally and in the key swing states that he needs, I think he'll probably win by a closer margin. But, of course, that's an only an educated guess. America has made progress on race and generational change is also in evidence here. We can see that people born, raised and educated after the Civil Rights movement are far less concerned about Obama's race - and even at time mystified that it is even relavent to their elders.
I think the debates will help Obama, because he will stand on the same stage with McCain. He's taller than McCain (yes, that actually matters in terms of how candidates are perceived in debates), he's more charismatic and much younger. The youth contrast will be very clear. Unfortunately, Obama is not a great debater. Hillary Clinton generally did much better than he did and MCCain is very good in these situations after many years in the Senate and doing town hall meetings.
It will be crucial for Obama to look absolutely confident and knowledgable in the first deabate on foreign policy. If he convinces the public that he can protect them that is crucial. It is a big mental leap for many Americans to see a black man as their protector (both in terms of terrrorism and now in this economic crisis) when there is a deep, often subconscious, psychological image in which they are used to seeing a black man as a threat and a danger. This is deeply embedded in the American psyche. McCain's image as a heroic veteran already gives him a leg up as someone who has sacrificed to protect them and the country.
I think there is a large group of white middle-aged middle income Americans - mostly high school educated - that want to make that leap, but aren't quite sure if they can yet. They want to believe that they are not prejudiced, but they also need to be able to connect to Obama and see him as someone they can trust to protect them and their children. They need to see him as someone who cares about people like them (and not as an Ivy league educated law professor). They need to connect with his biography of growing up with a white single mother and white grandparents and rising through the society through his own intelligence and skills to live the American Dream. (I wish I could get them all to read Dreams from my Father). Racism is a process of dehumanizing a person. Overcoming racism is a process of accepting the humanity of a person of another race. This is less about issues (where this group is likely closer to Obama than McCain) and more about being able to connect with Obama as a human being. For the sake of our country, let us hope that this group is able to do so.