I’m sure many have heard about today’s full-page ad, “Gallup-ing to the Right“, in The New York Times (page 5!) by MoveOn.org questioning Gallup’s methodology and numbers. But if you haven’t actually seen the ad, by all means click on the link and take a look. I think it’s a striking and effective ad.
The numbers in the ad, which are quite eye-opening, are rock-solid. The ad says Gallup’s average LV lead for Bush this month has been 10 points, while the average of all other LV polls has been 4 (they’re clearly referring to 3-way LV results–which are by far the most numerous LV results–based on other data in the ad). That’s correct. Even taking into account data released since 9/26 (the end-date for the ad’s analysis), Gallup this month has averaged a 10 point lead for Bush among LVs in 3-way trial heats, while the other 27 3-way LV trial heats taken this month have averaged a 4 point Bush lead.
Similarly, the ad says polls released since 9/12 (that is, two weeks before the end-date of the ad’s analysis), excluding Gallup, have averaged a 3 point lead for Bush in 3-way LV trial heats. Correct again, even adding in polls released since 9/26. In the 17 3-way trial heats released since 9/12 by polling organizations whose names are not “Gallup”, Bush is averaging just a 3 point lead.
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 26: The Obama Coalition Revisited
It’s pretty obvious Kamala Harris’s candidacy changes the 2024 presidential race more than a little, and I wrote at New York about one avenue she has for victory that might have eluded Joe Biden:
During her brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019, Kamala Harris was widely believed to be emulating Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy. She treated South Carolina, the first primary state with a substantial Black electorate, as the site of her potential breakthrough. But she front-loaded resources into Iowa to prepare for that breakthrough by reassuring Black voters that she could win in the largely white jurisdiction. She had the added advantage of being from the large state of California, where the primary had just been moved up to Super Tuesday (March 3). For a thrilling moment, after her commanding performance in a June 2019 debate, Harris seemed on track to pull off this feat, threatening Joe Biden’s hold on South Carolina in the polls and surging in Iowa. But neither she nor Cory Booker, who also relied on the Obama precedent, could displace Biden as the favorite of Black voters or strike gold in the crowded Iowa field. Out of money and luck, Harris dropped out before voters voted.
Now Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for 2024 without having to navigate any primaries. But she still faces some key strategic decisions. Joe Biden was consistently trailing Donald Trump in the polls in no small part because he was underperforming among young and non-white voters, the very heart of the much-discussed Obama coalition. Can Harris recoup some of these potential losses without sacrificing support elsewhere in the electorate? That is a question she must address at the very beginning of her general-election campaign.
There’s a chance that Harris can inject a bit of the Obama “hope and change” magic into a Democratic ticket that had previously felt like a desperate effort to defend an unpopular administration led by a low-energy incumbent, as Ron Brownstein suggests in The Atlantic:
“Polls have shown that a significant share of Americans doubt the mental capacity of Trump, who has stumbled through his own procession of verbal flubs, memory lapses, and incomprehensible tangents during stump speeches and interviews to relatively little attention in the shadow of Biden’s difficulties. Particularly if Harris picks a younger running mate, she could top a ticket that embodies the generational change that many voters indicated they were yearning for when facing a Trump-Biden rematch …
“In the best-case scenario for this line of thinking, Harris could regain ground among the younger voters and Black and Hispanic voters who have drifted away from Biden since 2020. At the same time, she could further expand Democrats’ already solid margins among college-educated women who support abortion rights.”
Team Trump seems to believe it can offset these potential gains by depicting Harris as a “California radical” and a symbol of diversity who might alienate the older white voters with whom Biden had some residual strength. Obama overcame similar race-saturated appeals in 2008, but he had a lot of help from a financial collapse and an unpopular war presided over by the party of his opponent.
Following Obama’s path has major strategic implications in terms of the battleground map. Any significant improvement over Biden’s performance among Black, Latino, and under-30 voters might put Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina — very nearly conceded to Trump in recent weeks — back into play. But erosion of Biden’s support among older and/or non-college-educated white voters could create potholes in his narrow Rust Belt path to victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
These strategic choices could definitely affect Harris’s choice of a running-mate, not just in terms of potentially picking a veep from a battleground state, but as a way of amplifying the shift produced by Biden’s withdrawal. Brownstein even thinks Harris might consider following Bill Clinton’s 1992 example of doubling down on her own strengths:
“The other option that energizes many Democrats would be for Harris to take the bold, historic option of selecting another woman: Whitmer. That would be a greater gamble, but a possible model would be 1992, when Bill Clinton chose Al Gore as his running mate; Gore was, like him, a centrist Baby Boomer southerner—rather than an older D.C. hand. ‘I love Josh Shapiro and I think he would be a great VP candidate, but I would double down’ with Whitmer, [Democratci consultant Mike] Mikus told me. ‘I don’t think you have to go with a moderate white guy. I think you can be bold [with a pick] that electrifies your base.’ I heard similar views from several consultants.”
Whitmer’s expressed disinterest in the veepstakes may take that particular option off the table, but the broader point remains: Harris does not have to — and may not be able to — simply adopt Biden’s strategy and tweak it slightly. She may be able to contemplate gains in the electorate that were unimaginable for an 81-year-old white male incumbent. But the strategic opportunity to follow Obama’s path to the White House will first depend on Harris’s ability to refocus persuadable voters on Trump’s shaky record, bad character, and extremist agenda. Biden could not do that after the debate debacle of June 27. His successor must begin taking the battle to the former president right now.
Ruy has to highlight those polls which are flawed or else people will simply hang onto them as truth and become deflated… he is doing the right thiing…
A Democratic Pollsters’s Response
It’s tough to cut through the spin at this stage of the election cycle. But, in the spirit of at least trying, check out Mark Blumenthal’s — a respected democratic pollster — analysis of Gallup and MoveOn.org on his very new (and excellent, by the way) blog.
Check it out:
http://mysterypollster.typepad.com/main/2004/09/moveon_vs_gallu.html
Rory
“The ad is terrific – it looks good, it reads well, and the numbers are damning. But while I’m no friend or sympathizer to the Christian Right, it’s possible that part of the story about that ad (and the news flurry about MoveOn and other 527s will continue) will be the mocking tone of the final paragraphs’ description of George Gallup, Jr’s Christian bent. It’ll be too easy for many to dismiss it as more “godless liberals” – and speaking as one, I’m tired of being dismissed.”
That’s exactly what happened on O’Reilly’s show last night. No talk of the actual ad, just the attack in the last two paragraphs. Moveon should have been a little more careful.
what are the implications of the fact that Gallup gets to choose the questioners at the 2nd (town hall) debate, according to the debate agreement posted on c-span?
MoveON made the right decision bringing this to the attention of major newspapers and mass circulation to reach the most readers — even if the NYT audience might be more educated and liberal than most swing voters.
But I can’t help but notice the emphasis of Ruy’s analysis has changed dramatically. IN the summer, Ruy would point to the internals and show the framework of issues and voter perceptions that could lead to pro-Kerry matchups by November. This was important for encouragement when Bush was radically arrogant, incompetent, or intolerant in his actions as POTUS — done in our name with our money– or worse, when he seemed to be getting away with his frauds and on the verge of four more hellish years. This was also important background for strategizing — not just at national and statewide levels, but also among key demographics, and also at the precinct level (organizing) and individual level (debates among aquanitances, letters to the editor, talking points).
I think DonkeyRising should return to elucidating what the internals of good polls say, rather than focus our energy on polls that are so clearly flawed.
There’s only six weeks left! The race may swing on the undecideds. We need to know who they are, what their issues are, and how they can be convinced that Bush is Wrong and Kerry can help to stop the bleeding and turn America on the right path again.
Folks: volunteer — your local campaigns and party HQs need you.
Pundits: what are the internals saying — the story being the sea of numbers? These armies of volunteers need to know what buttons to push!
The ad is terrific – it looks good, it reads well, and the numbers are damning. But while I’m no friend or sympathizer to the Christian Right, it’s possible that part of the story about that ad (and the news flurry about MoveOn and other 527s will continue) will be the mocking tone of the final paragraphs’ description of George Gallup, Jr’s Christian bent. It’ll be too easy for many to dismiss it as more “godless liberals” – and speaking as one, I’m tired of being dismissed.
Surely there’s a way for MoveOn to get the point across without sticking its foot in its mouth this way; they have the upper hand logically and ethically, but when “God, gays and guns” are wedge issues, they’re just widening the wedge.
The latest IDB poll shows a dead heat for both LV’s and RV’s. But Gallup is now reporting a 8 PT lead for LV’s and a whopping 11 point lead for RV’s! All in a three way race with Nader.
Look, it cannot just be the LV model in this case!!! The RV’s are even more out of whack than the LV’s in Gallup.
Have they thrown all caution to the wind? After all, who knows what commandments Gallup Jr. has received from On High with regard to the closing months of this race?
This is where I am afraid we democrats go wrong.
Harris, Fox News (RVs), and the latest IBD/CSM polls all have Kerry up. If the shoe was on the other foot and only 2 or 3 polls showed Bush up the republicans would be out in force, with a straight face, loudly crying that not only were these few polls right, but that they under represented Bush’s actual lead, and that all the rest of the polls were biased.
The democrats need to take a page from that book. Forget saying Kerry is only about 3 points down as Moveon has done. He is UP for crying out loud! Where is our swagger?
Ruy,
Karen Tumulty on Lou Dobbs Tonight called you, and people like you, a liar. She said your analysis doesn’t matter because you are only looking into the polling process because you don’t like the results.
I think you should write her and let her know what you think.
Just a thought….
Thanks for the link to Moveon.org for that story.
On target, and no doubt influenced by Ruy’s good work.
Has this website made any predictions about the electoral outcome? Percentage vote for each candidate, etc?? Thank you.
Good for MoveOn! More needs to be done. Kerry campaign spokespersons need to trumpet the mesage of Gallup’s sell-out on the cable and network outlets every chance they get.
People need to write in to USA Today and to CNN, both of whom, I understand commission polls from Gallup and then attach their logos to them, and let them know that Americans are on to their game of shilling for Bush.
Of course they will play up their polls. Its all about the competition of the media market place. If this is allowed to go on unchecked, this convergence of partisan interest with giant media companies using polling companies to tilt elections, then our democracy is truly in mortal danger.
Wow, that ad is incredible! I’ve heard Gallup’s numbers regurgitated too many times on the nightly news. Perhaps if you expose the “juggernaut” as being full of hot air, the people will believe the “juggernaut” is full of hot air, and then vote accordingly.
All this time while EDM was debunking the numbers I was wondering how to anyone could get the truth out. Thank you Move On!