Morning Jay: The Media Doesn’t Understand Races in the States
6:00 AM, Jun 8, 2012 • By JAY COST
This write-up from the Hill on a recent Pennsylvania poll is pretty similar to many others these days:
And polls like these are producing frames like these, from Charles Babington of the AP:
This is the wrong frame of reference to look at the 2012 election. Obama is not enjoying a “commanding lead” in Pennsylvania – not in any meaningful sense of the term. Nor is he necessarily favored to win it.
These articles illustrate how the media is making major mistakes in its analysis of the campaign in the 50 states. Here are four huge problems with its approach.
1. The president is under 50 percent in most swing state polling averages. It’s not an ironclad rule that Obama cannot rise in the polls, but common sense suggests that it will be tough. He’s been the president for three years – if you’re not inclined to vote for him now, what will five months of a campaign do?
It’s worth noting as well that most of these polls show the president getting roughly his job approval, which is all we should expect him to receive in the general election (maybe a little less). And his job approval rating has consistently been under 50 percent for two-and-a-half years.
2. Most polls are of registered voters. This matters because the actual electorate will only be a subset of registered voters, and will probably be more inclined to vote for the GOP. So, these polls probably overstate Obama's “lead,” such as it is.
The two major exceptions to this are Rasmussen, which is already using a likely voter screen, and PPP, which uses an idiosyncratic screen of “voters” (basically surveying people who voted in previous elections). Nobody else uses this screen; PPP switches to “likely voters” later in the cycle and until then its polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
To appreciate just how important the use of registered voters is, consider that the aforementioned Franklin & Marshall College poll in Pennsylvania found 50 percent of its sample identifying as Democratic. In 2008 – the best year for Democrats in over a decade – only 44 percent of the Pennsylvania electorate called itself Democratic.
And combine this point with the last point to consider that, in a poll that is 50 percent Democratic, Obama is only pulling in 48 percent! Is it really fair to say that he’s “leading” in the Keystone state?
3. There is no “blue wall.” This is a common point pundits will make – the list of states that have not voted Republican since 1988 amounts to a “blue wall” for the president. Nonsense. It’s better to say that these states have Democratic tilts, some of them pretty minimal.
Take Pennsylvania, for instance. The Keystone State usually votes about 3 points more Democratic than the rest of the country. So, if Romney wins the nationwide vote by 3 points, then he will stand a very good chance of winning Pennsylvania. This is why the frame from the Babington article is wrong. Yes, the GOP has lost Pennsylvania every time since 1988, but it has not won a national presidential election by 3 points since then. That is a distinct possibility this year, meaning that Pennsylvania is up for grabs.
In fact, when we look at the electoral map from the perspective of each state’s partisan tilt, we see that the “blue wall” is simply insufficient. The states with a Republican tilt of at least 1 point total up to 253 electoral votes, based on the 2008 results. The states with a Democratic tilt of at least 1 percent total up to 257 electoral votes.
In other words, it’s a wash.