Good news for Democrats in early voting?

Despite all the polls favorable to Obama recently, I’m determined to prepare myself for the worst: I don’t really trust the polls this year, and there are still three weeks until election day, and you never know what kind of voter suppression or voting machine manipulation Republicans might accomplish. With those credentials as a determined pessimist established, I have to say that this post at fiverthirtyeight.com heartens me more than any poll numbers I’ve seen:

SurveyUSA has a lot of good habits as a pollster, and one of them is breaking out the results of early and absentee voting in states where such things are allowed. So far, SurveyUSA has conducted polling in five states where some form of early voting was underway. In each one, Barack Obama is doing profoundly better among early voters than among the state’s electorate as a whole:

...    Poll    % Voted                  Non-Early
State  Date      Early   Early Voters   Likely Voters
====================================================
NM     10/13     10%     Obama +23%     Obama +6%
OH     10/13     12%     Obama +18%     Obama +4%
GA     10/12     18%     Obama +6%      McCain +11%
IA     10/9      14%     Obama +34%     Obama +10%
NC     10/6       5%     Obama +34%     McCain +5%

We should caveat that these are not hard-and-fast numbers. Estimates of early voting results are subject to the same statistical vagaries as any other sort of subgroup analysis, such as response bias and small sample sizes.

Nevertheless, Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004.

Is this a typical pattern for a Democrat? Actually, it’s not. According to a study by Kate Kenski at the University of Arizona, early voters leaned Republican in both 2000 and 2004; with Bush earning 62.2 percent of their votes against Al Gore, and 60.4 percent against John Kerry. In the past, early voters have also tended to be older than the voting population as a whole and more male than the population as a whole, factors which would seem to cut against Obama or most other Democrats.

There’s a bit more analysis at the post. In addition to the sheer size of those numbers, I’m also heartened because I suspect that people are more likely to mislead pollsters about things they plan to do in the future (it doesn’t feel like a lie if you’re speaking hypothetically about a future action) than about things they have done in the past, so fears of the so-called “Bradley effect” (the supposed overestimation of support for black candidates in pre-election polls) might be unwarranted.

I’m still not going to count any chickens until the election is behind us, but there seems to be a very real possibility that the turnout models the pollsters have been using will be demolished by this election, and that enthusiasm for Obama among liberals, young people, blacks, and so on, combined with what has the potential to be a huge get-out-the-vote effort on Obama’s behalf, will create an Obama landslide.

I know that early voters aren’t representative of voters as a whole, and I know that we’re dealing with very small sample sizes here, but still, it’s getting harder and harder to find bad news for Obama these days. A 700-point drop in the Dow, while bad for my net worth, is presumably also good for Obama’s chances on the day of the final debate — at the very least, it gives him an easy comeback if McCain tries any character-based attacks. (“This is the kind of politics that the American people are tired of, John — on a day when they saw the value of their 401ks drop by over 5%, you keep trying to change the subject to a guy who did some despicable things when I was 8 years old…”)

Will someone please throw some cold water on these numbers, so that I can return to my moderately pessimistic equilibrium?

Advertisements

5 responses to “Good news for Democrats in early voting?

  1. Here’s some cold water: it isn’t likely that McCain will win, but it would be truly horrible if he did.

  2. Is that the Democrat’s version of the “one percent doctrine”?

  3. What’s the one percent doctrine? That one percent of the people get all but one percent of the tax cuts?….Here’s some more cold water: a four year old we know, in the bluest of families in the bluest of states, told us that canvassing in NH was useless, because “McCain is going to win anyway.”

  4. Here’s a nightmare scenario: start with Kerry’s states, pick up Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, lose New Hampshire. 269 to 269. Who wins in the House?

  5. The 4 year old didn’t want to go canvassing, and her explanation for why McCain was going to win was that she was a princess and as such had magic powers and she was going to use those powers to make McCain win. “In Princess World,” of course. On the other hand, we can all make up mightmare scarios (those are typos but I’ll let them stand) in which O. loses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s