December 2, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
ABC News reports the lowest level of consumer confidence since they started tracking in 1985.
Michael McDonald updates his estimates of 2008 turnout
David Moore asks pollsters to comment on the 2008 pre-election poll "convergence mystery."
PPP recaps their summer tests of matchups of Democrats against Mel Martinez.
ABC's Peyton Craighill examines exit poll data on the 2008 "flip states" that went for Bush in 2004 but Obama in 2008.
Jennifer Agiesta looks at poll and focus group data on how voters view the Obama transition.
Sheri and Allan Rivlin offer advice to Democrats on how to hold their majority.
Brookings posts a 91-page PDF transcript of their political scientist panel discussion of the 2008 election (via Nyhan).
Andrew Gellman shares Ben Lauderdale's maps and charts of estimated Obama-McCain vote among non-blacks by county.
Ruy Teixeira digs into the 2008 exit polls.
Nate Silver says Obama's popular vote margin is the largest ever for a non-incumbent.
John Sides warns aganst using the exit polls to examine turnout.
Brenden Nyhan flags Kathleen Parker for confusing correlation with causation.
Patrick Ruffini makes a good point about what the Georgia runoff result may tell us about turnout on 11/4.
Barry Ritholtz warns of misreading of survey-based reports on Black Friday sales (via Sullivan).
Carl Bialik notes the failure of the "big state primary theory."
Nielsen adds up the ad buy for Obama and McCain during 2008.
By Mark Blumenthal on December 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
By Mark Blumenthal
One important question to ask whenever looking at poll results is, "compared to what?" In other words, since individual pollsters sometimes have "house effects" and since it can be hard interpret results based on vague answer categories, the best approach is to look at how any given result compares to a similar question asked by the same pollster previously.
Consider the result from the USA Today/Gallup poll showing 78% of Americans expressing approval for "the way Barack Obama is handling his presidential transition." That's obviously a big number, but Obama is certainly not the first newly elected president to experience a "honeymoon" of public support. How does it compare to past transitions? Fortunately, the Gallup summary includes this especially helpful paragraph:
That overall 78% approval rating compares favorably to the reaction Americans had to George W. Bush's transition, for which an average of 63% approved in January 2001, and Bill Clinton's transition, when an average of 66% approved from November 1992 through January 1993.
So the Obama transition approval number isn't just big, it's bigger than the last two transitions during which Gallup asked the question.
By Mark Blumenthal on December 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
December 1, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
With today's release of the latest PPP poll in Georgia, we now have three surveys conducted in the last week showing incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss with leads ranging from 3 to 7 percentage points over Democratic challenger Jim Martin in the Georgia Senate Runoff election that will be held tomorrow (all of the surveys are included in our Georgia Runoff chart). As PPP's Tom Jensen explains, the result in these surveys is highly sensitive to the African American composition either measured or assumed by each pollster, although the three public pollsters active in the last week are in rough agreement on the African American composition of tomorrow's electorate: PPP puts it at 28%, DailyKos/Research2000 at 27%, Insider Advantage at 23%. According to the network exit poll, Georgia's African American composition was 28% in the November 4 election.
What are the campaign's internal polls telling them? A fouth survey conducted a week ago by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comittee also had Chambliss ahead, but by only two percentage points (48% to 46%), although the DSCC release included no information about that survey's racial composition.
For what it's worth, NBC's Chuck Todd had this to say this morning on MSNBC in a discussion about why President-elect Obama has not campaigned in Georgia for Martin (my transcript, no link):
Had Obama thought he could win this thing for Martin, had Obama thought he could drag Martin over the finish line, he would have gone down, he would have done an event [in Georgia]. But I talked to some Obama folks who said, "that's when you'll know whether we really believe we can win this thing is if we go." And the fact that they didn't go, tells you they think they're going to come four, five points short.
And speaking of inferring what internal polls are saying based on the actions of campaigns, consider the decision by the Chambliss campaign to bring Sarah Palin to Georgia to speak at four rallies today. For all the popular derision of Sarah Palin's future in Republican politics (see Doonesbury). the move by Chambliss to bring her to Georgia implies their internal surveys say Palin has continuing appeal to the conservative base in Georgia.
A handful of national surveys show that while Palin's popularity fell considerably among Democrats and independents since her debut at the Republican convention, Palin remains very popular among conservative Republicans. Specifically,
86% of Republicans interviewed in the 11/6-9 CNN/ORC survey rate Palin favorably.
67% of Republicans, and 73% of conservative Republicans, told Gallup (11/5-16) they would like to see Palin run for President in 2012.
77% of Republicans told CNN/ORC just before the election (10/30-11/1) that the would support Palin for president in 2012 if McCain was not elected this year; 46% said they would "strongly" support Palin in four years.
Those numbers tell us that Palin will likely remain a force to be reckoned with in Republican party over the next four years. It is worth remembering that Barack Obama's campaign demonstrated a new model of how to run for president. His biggest asset, especially during 2007, was his ability to draw large crowds to campaign rallies. The Obama campaign effectively harnessed that energy, using rallies to collect small contributors, email addresses and incoming text messages and ultimately to build the grassroots campaign that enabled him win the Democratic nomination. Obviously, Obama brought far more to the race than celebrity, but his campaign's ability to use that appeal to raise funds and recruit volunteers made the rest of his campaign possible.
By Mark Blumenthal on December 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)
November 21, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
The story of the nefarious Zogby/John Ziegler "knowledge test" poll has generated some useful follow-up:
On Tuesday, Nate Silver posted the verbatim text of a contentious, occasionally profane interview with Ziegler, the sponsor of the survey.
Yesterday, Politico's Mike Allen reported that Zogby had "rejected [Ziegler's] offer to sponsor a poll to test the knowledge of people who voted for John McCain," and included an unhappy reaction from Ziegler:
"I am happy to do a poll of both Obama voters and McCain voters, with questions that I formulated and sponsored either by an objective third party or by someone on the left, in tandem with a John Ziegler on the right -- but poll questions that have my signature," Zogby said.
"I believe there was value in the poll we did," Zogby added. "I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters."
Ziegler responded: "I am shocked by John's statement that he would do another poll but not an exact duplication. What is the point of that? Not their finest hour? This a was great poll. This didn't fall through any 'cracks,' they just got scared. ... The point of the poll was for my documentary on the media's impact on voter knowledge."
This morning, The Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialik blogged a thorough review of the whole story that, as Silver points out, is "the fairest and most comprehensive summary of the issue to date" and is worth reading in full.
Over the course of the week, our own commenters took up the challenge from reader DTM, who argued that "it might be helpful if we had an alternative phrase for polls like this, ones designed not to gather information but rather to conjure up support for a preconceived claim...('agenda poll'? 'propaganda poll'? something like that)." These included "agenda poll," "prank poll," "punk poll," "faux poll," "self serving survey" and "advocacy poll" (via email). Put me down as favoring "propaganda poll."
Finally, on the issue of testing "knowledge," ABC's Gary Langer critiques the annual survey on "American Civic Literacy" from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute that claims "the majority of Americans - including elected officials - failed a test of basic knowledge about American history and economics." See Langer's post for the specifics, but he makes a point that could also apply to the Zogby/Ziegler controversy:
The reality is that the ISI itself has failed a test of basic knowledge about the definition and measurement of just what knowledge is. I've blogged about this before - see it here - but the key point is that these folks are confusing knowledge (the ability to draw on information to make considered judgments) with recall (the ability to recite disassociated facts); and then doubling down by using an inappropriate method of measurement.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 21, 2008 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
November 18, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
Nate Silver has taken Zogby International to task for a telephone survey of 512 Obama voters that claims to "gauge their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign." Silver is right....but not right...
The summary and statement posted on the Zogby web site claims that "only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly," and more specifically that "statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden."
The survey was paid for by John Ziegler, a former talk radio host and publisher of a conservative web site. The Zogby summary quotes Ziegler claiming that "the poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace."
The problem, as Silver points out, is that the survey does no such thing. It proves only that Obama voters surveyed were less likely to attribute to Obama or Biden a half dozen statements that were "at best debatable, yet apparently represented as factual to the respondent," such as the following:
"Which of the four [candidates] said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"
"Which of the four [candidates] started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?"
"Which of the four [candidates] quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism?"
"Which of the four [candidates] won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot?"
Silver concludes -- appropriately -- that Zogby's survey appears to be less an unbiased measurement than part of "a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters."
Zogby's defense is to deny that he conducted a "push poll" (more on that below), claiming instead that his survey represents "a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama" He claims that "respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another." That's a little like describing the question, "when did you stop beating you wife," as fair (and as a fair test of "knowledge") by saying the husband has an opportunity to offer any date on the calendar as a response.
Zogby also claims to be a passive agent that just conducted research on behalf of a client. "The client," Zogby writes,"is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society." Really? Then why does the analysis posted on Zogby's website repeatedly support "the client's" conclusions?
Unfortunately, Silver's case would have been stronger had he not reached reflexively, as so many do, for the "push poll" label to describe the Zogby poll. That's a bit like confusing assault with murder. A push poll isn't a survey at all, but negative telemarketing calls made under the guise of the survey. And the Random House Dictionary definition that Silver linked to is at odds with those of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research, and the American Association of Political Consultants, (see also the work of Stu Rothenberg of Roll Call, Kathy Frankovic of CBS News and yours truly).
Zogby's survey does not amount to a "push poll" in that sense, but using the term allows him to respond -- predictably -- with a denial that "this was not a push poll." It wasn't, but that's beside the point. Describing his biased, leading questions as a legitimate test of knowledge is hugely misleading, at best.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0)
November 13, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
11/10-12/2008; 600 likely voters, MoE +/- 4%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Georgia
Sen: Chambliss (R-i) 49, Martin (D) 46
Chambliss: 54 favorable, 44 unfavorable
Martin: 55 favorable, 42 unfavorable
By Mark Blumenthal on November 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
Pew Research Center
11/6-9/08; 1,500 respondents who said they voted in the 2008 election for president respondents (including 375 interviewed by cell phone); conducted among 2,599 registered voters previously interviewed 10/16-19/2008; margin of error +/- 3%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
(Report, Topline Questionnaire, Full PDF)
National
75% of voters give Obama a letter grade of A or B for the way he conducted himself during the campaign (45% give Obama an A), "by far the highest grades for any winning candidate" in 20 years.
39% were very satisfied with the choice if candidates, also the highest level "after any election in the past 20 years."
67% believe Obama will have a successful first term.
36% say they got most of their news about the campaign from the Internet, up from 21% in 2004.
58% give "the pollsters" a grade of A or B for the way they conducted themselves during the campaign, "their highest marks since the question was first asked in 1988."
By Mark Blumenthal on November 13, 2008 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
November 12, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
It started not long after the sunrise last Wednesday morning. One reporter after another wanted to know: Which poll or pollster was most accurate? Which was worst? Votes were still being counted (they still are in some places), results still unofficial, and yet the rush to crown a pollster champion (and goat) was already in full swing.
I am going to write several posts on pollster accuracy -- this is just the first -- but I want to try to emphasize some common themes: First, leaping to conclusions about "accuracy" without considering random sampling is almost always misleading. Second, most of the pollsters came reasonably close to the final result in most places, so they tend to be bunched up in accuracy ratings and, as such, small differences in the way we choose to measure accuracy can produce different rankings. Third, I want to raise some questions about the polling industry's focus on the "last poll" as the ultimate measure of accuracy.
For today, let's start with something simple: It is foolish to focus on a single poll that "nailed" the result is given the random variation that is an inherent part of polling. Because most surveys involve random sampling (even internet panel surveys randomly sample from their pool of volunteers), they come with a degree of random variability built in, something we know of as the "margin of error." If we make the assumption that the final poll's "snapshot" of voter preferences comes close enough to the election to predict the outcome, then the best we should expect a poll to do is capture the actual result within its margin of error (although even then with caveat that the margin of error is usually based on a 95% level of statistical confidence, so 1 poll in 20 will likely produce a result outside that error margin by chance alone). So, if all polls are as accurate as they can be, the difference between "nailing" the result and being a few points off is a matter of random chance -- or luck.
If we are going to try to compare pollsters, the wisest thing to do is to measure accuracy across as many polls as possible, because the role of random chance will gradually diminish as the number of polls examined increases.
Unfortunately, that observation is not stopping a lot of reporters and observers from scanning the final national polls and trying to identify winners and losers. So before moving on to more elaborate aggregations, let's look at the list the final national poll conducted by 19 different organizations over the final week of the campaign. Looking first at the final survey results (as opposed to "projections" that allocated the undecided), we see that all of the polls had Obama leading by margins of 5 to 11 percentage points. A straight average of these surveys shows Obama leading by 7.6% (51.4% to 43.8% ).
How did these polls compare to the actual results? First, let's keep in mind that provisional and late arriving mail-in ballots are still being counted in some places (and may not be reflected in the "99% of precincts counted" statistics typically provided by the Associated Press). The most current and complete national count I can find now shows Obama with a 6.6% lead in the national popular vote (52.7% to 46.1%). Obama's margin has increased by about a half a percentage point over the last week and (if the pattern in 2004 is a guide) may increase slightly more as secretaries of state release their final certified results.
Given that margin, however, just about every national poll can claim to have gotten the result "right" in some respect. Most captured either the individual candidate results or the margin within their reported margin of error (keeping in mind that the margin of error on the margin between two candidates is a little less than double the reported margin of error for each poll). Many that reported more in the undecided category, thus coming in low on individual candidate percentages, offered "projections" that allocated undecided. And remember, the 95% confidence level tells us that one of these polls should have fallen outside of the margin of error by chance alone.
Of course, if we are hell bent on crowning a champion, we still need to decide which accuracy measurement is best (do we compare the margins, how close the poll came to predicting the percentage for one or both of the candidates?) and in some cases, we would need to decide whether to focus on the survey results or the pollster's projection. For Battleground/GWU, for example, we have three sets of numbers: A final poll showing Obama with a 5-point lead and two projections (one from the Democratic and Republican pollsters involved) showing Obama with leads of 5 and 2 points respectively.
I am not devoting much effort here to calculating or charting the accuracy of the individual polls here because, again, random chance is such a big player in determining where each pollster ranks. I am working on another to follow soon, hopefully tomorrow, that will look at how pollsters did in statewide contests where we can aggregate accuracy calculations across multiple polls.
But before moving on from the national polls, let's look at this issue another way. What if we back up and look at the "snapshot" of polls as of Friday, October 31. After all, we have considerable evidence that virtually all minds were made up by the final week of the campaign. According to the national exit poll, only 7% of voters say they made their decision in the final three days (10% over the course of the final week). Although McCain did slightly better -- running roughly even with Obama -- among the late deciders, my colleague David Moore points out that those final decisions would have had little or no impact on the margins separating the candidate over the final week.
The overall performance is about the same. The average the results of the polls in this table, all of which concluded between October 26 and October 31, shows an average Obama lead of 7.1 points (51.4% to 43.0%) -- just slightly narrower than the 7.6% margin on the final round of national polling. What is different, however, is the spread of results. Where the final poll Obama margins varied from 5 to 11 points, just three days earlier the spread was from 3 to 15. The standard deviation (a measurement of the spread of results) was 1.8 on the Obama margin on the final polls, but 3.2 on the polls just a few days earlier.
I do not want to use this table to beat up on any individual pollster, especially since my October 31 cut-off is arbitrary and the field dates vary considerably (the Pew survey, for example started and ended earlier than most of the others). A slightly different cut-off date would have produced a different picture. Obama's 5 point margin on the IBD/TIPP 10/27-31 survey, for example, shrank to just 2 points the next day and then expanded back to 8 points on their final release.
We should remember that pollsters hold the details of their "likely voter models" close, habit that allows many to tinker with their selection and weighting procedures on their last poll. Gallup -- among the most transparent of pollsters in terms of describing their likely voter model -- disclosed a small adjustment in their model made just days before the election (although Gallup's Jeff Jones explained via email that the change did not explain Obama's growing margin over the last few days of their survey).
All of this brings me to the question we ought to keep front and center as we think about the accuracy of state level polls, where we are in a better position to quantify final poll accuracy. How many pollsters were tinkering or adjusting their models on that "last poll" with an eye toward the "final exam" coming on Election Day? And if the final poll results tended to converge around the average on the last round of polls, how much of that convergence was real and how much the result of last minute tinkering with LV models and weighting? And what does all of this say about focusing solely on "the last poll" to as a way to rate pollster accuracy? After all, just 19 of the 543 poll displayed on our national poll table were the "last poll." Which surveys had the biggest impact on campaign coverage?
By Mark Blumenthal on November 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
My NationalJournal.com
column for the week, looking back on how the pollsters did, is now posted online. We will have much more on pollster performance here over the next few days.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 12, 2008 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)
November 7, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
ABC News, Associated Press, Ron Brownstein, Andrew Gellman, The New York Times. Politico, Bill Schneider, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post all review the exit poll results (h/t: The Page, Sullivan).
Jennifer Agiesta reports exit poll results showing 20% of voters were cell-phone only and finds that weighting by age "mostly accounts for the lack of cellphones in many polls."
[Update: AP's Mike Mokryzycki has more detail on the exit poll results on cell-phone-only voters].
Gallup reports on reactions to Obama's election, looks back at his winning coalition and relaunches the Gallup Daily.
Obama pollster Joel Benenson shares observations with Time (via Smith).
Gary Langer says lists of the most accurate polls are "an exercise in vacuity of the highest order."
SurveyUSA is posting state-by-state pollster report cards.
The New York Times reviews the Bradley Effect that wasn't.
AP sees no Bradley Effect either.
Fox News reviews how the pollsters did.
The Las Vegas Sun examines the Obama Effect" in Nevada.
The Anchorage Daily News asks why polls missed the mark in Alaska (via OpenLeft).
PPP defends itself from charges of bias.
Carl Bialik reviews turnout estimates.
Karl Rove still doesn't trust exit polls.
Kidzui's kids voted like the adults.
And yours truly comments on how pollsters did on NPR's All Things Considered and WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)
November 6, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
The Wall Street Journal's Numbers Guy Carl Bialik has a must-read post-election review on how the polls did and on the future of polling. Here is his bottom line:
[A]s Americans watched the news networks call states one by one for Mr. Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, Tuesday night, pollsters could breathe a sigh of relief. There wasn't a single big miss in the presidential race. Most polls showed virtual ties in Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina, and none of those states was decided by more than a point. "Pollsters generally did very well," says Mark Blumenthal, a former Democratic pollster and co-founder of Pollster.com.
Zogby International polled in eight states in the last week, including six of the closest races, and missed the final margin by an average of less than two points -- as accurate as the poll aggregators such as Pollster.com.
The lopsided nature of the race helped pollsters. Just seven states were decided by fewer than five percentage points, and just 15 by fewer than 10. That contrasts with 10 and 21, respectively, in 2004, and 12 and 22 in 2000. With that many close races in the past, it was more than likely you'd have at least one polling gaffe simply because of the error introduced by random sampling. Pollsters generally underestimated Mr. Obama's support in Nevada this year, and overestimated it in Iowa. But those misfires won't be judged harshly because he won both states by comfortable margins.
Bialik also considered the performance of polling aggregation sites like ours:
The biggest winners may have been poll aggregators, who were combining disparate polls as far back as 2002, but gained new members and reached a new level of national prominence this time around. Their advantage is twofold: Their composite results may dilute the effect of any error in one poll, and their results are more expansive, including regions that no one pollster can typically afford to cover. A dozen or so Web sites combined polls to forecast the election, and just about all of them put Mr. Obama's electoral-vote total at between 338 and 393; he likely will finish with 364 or 375. (Those that also forecast congressional races generally foresaw Democratic gains.)
At least two sites -- Pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com -- also estimated the winning margin for each state, using poll data and their own formulas. They typically missed the margin by just 2.4 and 2.3 percentage points, respectively. Each site beat each of the 10 pollsters active in at least eight states, head to head, except for Zogby.
Thanks, Carl.
Bialik's companion blog item also has some useful links to ongoing discussions of voter turnout:
Perhaps the most interesting variable in the contest was among the hardest to predict: Voter turnout. While the popular-vote total so far has barely cleared the 2004 turnout of 122 million, several forecasters estimate that, once all ballots are counted, turnout will be between 125 million and 136.6 million. [Franklin & Marshall College statistician Brian] Adams and Sam Wang, a Princeton University neuroscientist and poll watcher, forecast turnout of 133 million and 135 million, respectively. Allan Keiter, of the forecasting site 270 to Win, may also have come close.
And he saves me the trouble of an "outliers" post for these "preliminary analyses of pollsters’ performance... Pollster.com, Huffington Post, the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder and a Fordham University political scientist."
By Mark Blumenthal on November 6, 2008 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)
November 5, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
The day after an election for a site like ours is a little like the last day of summer camp. We know many of you are checking in one last time to see how those polls did before you turn your attention elsewhere until the next big election comes around. And while all of us would love a chance to kick back, sleep in and mull the results over for a few days before pontificating about how the polls did and what lessons were learned, the reality is that some of you will have moved on by then. So I'd like to share a few quick reactions and also try to give you a sense of what we are planning for Pollster.com once the dust of the elections settles.
First, a quick reaction to how the polls did yesterday. Earlier today, Charles Franklin reviewed the performance of our trend estimates with his usual graphic flair, but I thought some would appreciate seeing my final morning status table updated with the current vote returns. Although there are a few examples of the estimates missing the mark -- mostly in states where polling was relatively sparse -- most produced margins that came very close to the final result.
In fact, by a fluke of luck, the bottom line count in the column labeled "Cum. EV" may end up being a perfect prediction of the final electoral vote count. In all but two states, the nominal leader on our final trend estimate also led in the actual vote (and that includes the 569 lead that John McCain currently holds in Nebraska's Second Congressional District). The fluke of luck is that the two exceptions, Missouri and Indiana, each have 11 electoral votes each (Charles Franklin also posted a chart today that makes a similar point about how the trend estimates predicted the electoral college vote).
Again, votes are still being counted in some states, so the numbers in the table may still change, but one thing seems unambiguous: There was no "Bradley effect" yesterday -- no hidden McCain vote lurking among the undecided. In the states that were polled most heavily, the trend estimates came remarkably close to the actual result. The undecided vote did not appear to "break" decisively toward either candidate. If anything, the undecided may have gone in Obama's direction in Pennsylvania, a state that the McCain campaign suggested was "functionally tied" on the supposition that Obama would get "what he gets" in the polls with the rest going to McCain. Our final Pennsylvania trend estimate showed Obama leading by 7.1 point (with 50.8% of the vote). Obama won Pennsylvania by a 10.3% margin, getting 54.6% of the vote.
The bottom line is that cumulatively, despite all the challenges from cell-phone only households, declining response rates and worries about likely voter models, the polls of late October provided a remarkably accurate picture of voter preferences and the outcome of the election. So our continuing obsession with public opinion polling was not misplaced.
For the next few days, we will continue to look at how the polls, pollsters and our own estimates performed yesterday. And Pollster.com is not going away after that. We have plans to use our Flash charts to display a wider variety of poll data, including Barack Obama's favorable rating and, of course, his job rating as President once he takes office. We are also looking forward to tracking what both the "basic trends" that Charles Franklin charted earlier this week and the reactions that Pollsters will gather to the initiatives of the new Obama administration. Look for new charts and new data coming soon.
Meanwhile: Let me offer a blanket "thank you" to everyone who has emailed with kind words, suggestions for improvements to the site, and especially for those who have made contributions to our "tip jar." I do intend to answer your emails personally, but it may take me a few weeks.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)
November 4, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
Picking up from the previous entry. We'll try to keep the updates in reverse chronological order. All times are Eastern.
2:16 am - 11/5 [Mark] We are going to take a break for a few hours and get some sleep, so the map will not reflect any further network calls until we are awake later this morning.
11:73 [Mark] NBC Projects Obama the winner of Nevada. And with that, both Brian and I are ready to wrap up the live-blogging -- at least for this thread. Eric, Justin, Mark Lindeman and I will continue to update the map into the wee hours, and of course, we hope you will continue to leave comments.
11:33 [Brian] Young voters did not appear to make up a significantly larger share of the national electorate this year, but Obama did significantly better among 18-29 year olds compared to Kerry in 2004. Kerry won just 54% of the 18-29 year old vote while Obama won 66%.
11:17 [Mark] NBC projects Obama the winner of Florida.
11:11 [Mark] As I'm sure you all know by now, with the 11:00 projections in, all of the networks have projected Barack Obama as the president elect.
10:55 [Mark] PPP's Tom Jansen has the historic numbers for the six counties still out in North Carolina.
10:51 [Mark] Our commenters see it first: Fox calls Virginia for Obama.
10:49 [Brian] More on the changing western electorate. In Nevada, 10% of the electorate was Hispanic in 2004. This year's exit poll is showing a 50% increase with Hispanics now making up 15% of Nevada's electorate. And Nevada Hispanics are even more supportive of Obama than those in most other states as he is getting 75% of the Hispanic vote there. Are Democrats reaping the benefits of having moved Nevada up in the primary calendar, thereby leading Obama and Clinton to spend significant resources mobilizing voters there?
10:45 [Mark] I'm not sure I got this verbatim, but Republican consultant and NBC analyst Mike Murphy had the line of the night. He expressed an opinion that Florida, Virginia and possibly even North Carolina will got to Obama in the next hour based on "back of the envelope calculations done with the help of my colleague, Dr. Smirnoff."
10:27 [Mark] And speaking of our friend Chuck Todd. My Atlantic colleague Marc Ambinder also heard Todd say that "the key group was college educated whites...shifting from Bush in 2004 to ... a tie.. in 2008." Brian notices that if you use the massive exit poll compilation that Ron Brownstein put together for National Journal, you can see that the Democratic percentage of the vote "hasn't budged above 44% in any of the past 5 presidential elections and Obama has it up at 49%."
10:25 [Mark] I got distracted, but PHGrl blogged it for me: "Chuckie T. on msnbc just said they probably will not call indiana, NC & virgina without having all the votes in... no projections."
10:19 [Brian] In 2004, the electorate was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% independent. This year, national exit polls showing 40% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 28% independent.
10:14 [Mark] Same grain of salt as below about early exit poll estimates, but note that the current estimate weighting the Montana estimates show a dead heat, with Obama +1.
10:07 [Mark] With the continuing warning that the initial estimates have been a bit optimistic for Obama in some states, note that the vote estimate used to weight the Arizona exit poll tabulations currently shows a 49-49% tie.
9:54 [Brian] In addition to the New Mexico figures I mentioned earlier, another good case in point in how the changing demographics of the West are affecting the political balance is evident in Colorado. Hispanics made up 8% of the electorate there in 2004, but the early Colorado exit polls are showing that Hispanics are 13% of the state's electorate this year.
9:47 [Mark] Listening to Chuck Todd on MSNBC who just made this point about the challenge that early voting in Florida poses for the decision desk analysts: "All of this early vote that came in early makes it difficult to model the precinct data."
9:43 [Brian] One group that Obama did not make major inroads with was white born-again Christians. In 2004, Kerry won 21% of this demographic. According to the national exit polls, Obama did just a little better, winning 25% of that vote this year.
9:37 [Mark] Our old friend Mark Lindeman, who is hard at work right now gathering the result that we are using to update the map, advises that the most recent update of the Indiana exit poll tabulation changes the underlying vote estimate from a six point Obama lead to dead even.
9:33 [Brian] How did Obama win in Ohio? First, he won 98% of the African American vote? Second, he lost whites by narrower margins than Kerry. McCain won white men by just 6%. In 2004, Bush won them by 13%. McCain won white women by just 3% while Bush won them by 10%.
9:26 [Mark] And now NBC calls Ohio for Obama. Let's say the obvious: With losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania there is no realistic path to victory for McCain.
9:21 [Mark] As PHGirl's points out, Fox just called Ohio for Obama.
9:15 [Brian] According to the early New Mexico exit polls, Hispanics make up 40% of the electorate in that state. The figure was just 32% in 2004
9:06 [Mark] Ok, I'm back now from the Washington Post chat. Need to take a minute or two to catch up.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 4, 2008 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (99) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
I will be updating this post sporadically over the next hour or so, and then hopefully more often as the polls start to close. All times here are eastern.
8:31 [Mark] Ok, now I'm off to the live discussion on WashingtonPost.com. See you at 9:00. Brian will pick this up in a new entry.
8:29 [Mark] s.b. comments:
ok riddle me this again. CNN has Pennsylvania as a 15% spread and CBS has less than a 2 point spread 49-50. The CBS poll was for 1929 people. Can't find the CNN numbers but that's a big difference.
CNN's tabulation appears to be more recent than CBS-- based on 2,567 respondents (that number appears just below the "Pennsylvania" heading near the top
8:25 [Brian] It looks like late deciders broke evenly. According to the national exit poll data, 10% made up their mind at some point during the last week. Obama won this group by a margin of 51-46%.
8:22 [Mark] Major points (and thanks) to Thatcher:
To everyone - save bandwidth - if you want to see the updates on the Election Map ... don't refresh the whole page .... just go to the drop down menu and selection "Election Night 2008" again ... that way the only thing that gets refreshed is the flash application - save the bandwidth of Pollster - we don't want a crash tonight.
8:19 [Brian] The early Pennsylvania exit polls are showing that Obama is matching Kerry's support in Pittsburgh and exceeding his support in every other region of the state. No wonder the networks felt safe calling the state right away.
8:18 [Mark] The exit poll tabulations for Pennsylvania are weighted to a 15 point Obama lead and at two networks (NBC and ABC) called Obama the winner as the polls closed. That is the sort of margin the decision desk analysts require before they will make a projection on an exit poll alone, though on the other hand, the other networks have not called it yet.
8:07 [Brian] Early exit polls indicate that Hispanic voters in Florida are going for Obama 55-45%. In 2004, they went for Bush 56-44%.
8:03 [Mark] I really, really need a nap or a long vacation or both. Post live chat starts (for me) at 8:30. We'll do the switcheroo in 30 minutes. Meanwhile, networks call PA based on the exit polls. That requires a very, very large margin and overall confidence by the NEP analysts in their exit polls tonight.
7:57 [Mark] I'm going to be participating in a live online discussion at WashingtonPost.com for the next 30 minutes. Meanwhile, Brian is going to start up another entry and continue our live blog here. I'll be back at 8:30.
7:50 [Mark] Thatcher asks: "Will the Election Map auto update or will we need to refresh to see updates." You do need to hit refresh.
7:48 [Brian] The initial exit polls out of North Carolina are showing African Americans making up 22% of the electorate. That would actually be down from 26% in 2004. A decline in African American turnout would certainly run counter to the trend we've seen in some other states like Georgia. I wonder if the early vote may be causing some issues here?
7:35 [Brian] In Georgia, the exit polls are showing that African Americans make up 30% of the electorate, up from 25% in 2004. Obama is only pulling 25% of the white vote though. If that holds up, he would probably come up just short of winning the state.
7:31 [Mark] The map is now coloring correctly. Thanks for your patience and sorry about the confusing.
7:27 [Mark] Reader s.b. writes:
Ok riddle me this. CBS and CNN have very different exit poll results for Indiana. CNN shows obama winning and CBS shows McCAin winning??? Please explain.
As I write this, the CBS tabulation shows 1937 interviews in Indiana, while the CNN tabulation shows 2,336. The CNN numbers represent a more recent update. Keep in mind that these numbers constantly update and refresh, particularly in the 30 minutes or so after the polls closes, as exit poll interviewers call in their final batch of results.
7:23 [Brian] Here are some striking party id figures from Virginia. 41% are Democrats, 32% Republicans, and 21% independents. In 2004, 35% were Democrats, 39% Republicans, and 26% independents. If those numbers hold up, that is an amazing party id shift in just four years.
7:20 [Brian] Youth vote also looks significant in Virginia, at least in the initial exit polls. 18-29 years olds are 21% of the electorate and they are breaking 62-37% for Obama. In 2004, 17% were 18-29 year olds and they went 54-46% for Kerry.
7:15 [Mark] - Yes, we know Kentucky is not lighting up red as it should. Minor bug -- we're working on it.
7:13 [Brian] Youth vote in Indiana. In 2004, 14% of Indiana voters were 18-29 years old and they broke 52-47% for Bush. In the initial Indiana exit polls, 19% of the electorate are 18-29 years old and they are breaking 65-33% for Obama.
7:08 [Mark] Numbers Guy Carl Bialik has a blog item out (quoting me among others) on what pollsters do on Election Day. It includes news that SurveyUSA is conducting telephone polls tonight in 30 states for a voter-fraud watchdog group
7:04 - [Brian] The initial national exit poll Mark just posted shows Obama winning women by 16%. This would match the size of Clinton's advantage among women in 1996--the largest gender gap a Democrat has enjoyed in a recent presidential contest.
6:52 - [Mark] MSNBC (and presumably the other networks) has posted initial tabulations from the national exit poll sample. This one deserves extra cautions: It is based on very preliminary results in the western half of the U.S. and may not include any early vote telephone interviews. And keep in mind that the national exit poll tabulations at about this time four years ago showed President Kerry with a three point lead. Having said that, the estimate that weighted those results indicates a roughly ten point Obama lead (54-44).
6:43 - [Brian] Based on early results, the electorate appears be more favorably disposed towards an activist government this year than in 2004. In 2004, respondents were 3% more likely to think the government was doing too much. So far this year, exit poll respondents are 8% more likely to think that the government should do more.
6:42 - [Mark] Starting now, Brian Schaffner will be live blogging as well.
6:38 - A couple of notes on the map. Unfortunately, it appears on the front page only - we didn't have time or budget to get it to work on the little map (and the tool tip is way too big). Also, the map does not automatically refresh. You may need to occasionally reload the front page. Just keep an eye on the update time in the lower right corner. And thanks to those who emailed or commented about that odd glitch that mde the analysis column disappear. We're working on it.
6:31 - Time's Sean Gregory has a helpful piece up on how the networks use exit polls and vote returns to make their projections. Here are two especially relevant paragraphs:
At that time, the network decision makers start running the Edison/Mitofsky data through their models. Besides exit polls, these numbers also include telephone surveys of absentee and early voters from 18 key states. As the polls start closing at 7 p.m., Edison/Mitofsky also start providing the networks actual results from precincts in every state. The stations also toss the Associated Press's proprietary counts of the actual vote into the mix. Each network employs a team of statisticians and experts to analyze the numbers. Of the 14 staffers on the CBS desk, five have political science Ph.D.'s. NBC has a Google employee and physics Ph.D. on staff.
The math geeks crunch the numbers and present their recommendations to a senior staffer, who makes the final call. That decision, of course, is based on some key guidelines. NBC, for example, won't declare a winner until its models show less than 1 in 200 chance of error. And the networks won't declare a state's winner until polls in that state close. Since 2000, the networks have revamped their projection process, beefing up the qualifications of its decision-day staffers, adding more sophisticated statistical tools and instituting more dry runs. Gawiser, who was NBC's projection chief in 2000 (and still lives with the shame of that night), says the network had just three or four models in place for Bush-Gore. Now, NBC has "several hundred."
6:15 - By the way, if you are just tuning in, make sure to see my post on exit polls earlier today and why you would do best to ignore whatever leaks in the next hour. Here's another reason: Right now Drudge says "EXIT POLLS SHOW OBAMA BIG" while Gawker is showing results that say, not so much. Moral: We have no idea what we are looking at, where it comes from or what it means.
6:02 - Republican pollster Chris Wilson is blogging a post election telephone survey they are conducting and reporting as interviews come in. I do not vouch for the methodology nor claim I have even read it closely, but Wilson's writes that his initial data "looks grim for McCain/Palin."
5:49 - And while I am pointing to web sites worth checking out, Swing State Project has a terrific, color coded map up that displays the closing times. A great guide to what we'll see when.
5:47 - 538's Sean Quinn reminds me to point out that Michael McDonald's invaluable early voting site has the most current and most thorough reporting on early voting.
5:40 - The Page has posted some initial preliminary exit poll results broadcast by the networks that do not include any estimates of candidates. Surprisingly enough, the economy is the issues voters care about most. Marc Ambinder also has a nice summary of same.
5:20 p.m. -- Welcome to live blogging here at Pollster.com. If you haven't noticed yet, be sure to open up our front page in a separate browser tab or window. And if you have noticed, no the map isn't broken. We have added a revised Flash map to track the results and network calls. All the details are in this post. The old maps are still there (and the small version in the right column will remain in its standard format for the rest of the night).
By Mark Blumenthal on November 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (66) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
As you may have noticed, we have inserted a new map at the top of our main page. The classic maps for President, Senate, Governor and House races are still there, just use the "map chooser" pull-down menu to see them. We will be live blogging tonight, starting a little after 5:00 Eastern Time.
Here is a quick description of the numbers in the map and where we get them.
First, we will be monitoring the five major television networks and the Associated Press and tracking the calls that each makes in the race for President. Once one network projects a state for a candidate, we will color the state light red or light blue for McCain or Obama. When all six organizations have made their projections, we will change the map to a darker shade of red or blue. States where the polls have closed, but where it is still too early or too close to call, will be colored yellow (also the color we will use in the extraordinarily unlikely event that any of the networks make a conflicting call).
To see which networks have made their projections, just point your cursor at the state to see an expanded "tool-tip" displaying that information. The tool-tip for each state will also display two important columns of data:
Pollster Trend -- The far right column will display our most recent trend estimate based on the pre-election polls. And just like our standard map, you can click on the state to display our chart for that state. See our map FAQ for more information on how we compute our trend estimates.
Est Result -- Shortly after the polls close, we hope to display the "estimated result" of the vote shares in each state culled from the network exit poll tabulations posted online (by CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC). These tabulations show the exit poll results by demographic and other subgroups (age, race, party, etc.). We will extrapolate the underlying vote estimates used to weight each table and display these in the Estimated Result column on the tool-tip.
During the course of election day and evening, the people who run the exit poll and projection operation have various estimates of the outcome in each state, estimates that gradually improve as they obtain first exit poll interviews, later the actual vote cast in random samples of precincts, and ultimately the actual vote count. When the polls close, and at two or more additional times during the night, the analysts will re-weight the tabulations based on more current and accurate estimates.
Important disclaimer: These estimates are most likely not undiluted "exit poll" results. At poll closing, the exit poll tabulations that appear online are most likely weighted to a "composite estimate" that averages the results of exit poll interviews with the averages of pre-election polls (not at all unlike the trend estimates we post here at Pollster.com). Also, as we learned during the primaries, the weighting of the cross-tabulations frequently falls far behind the up-to-the-minute estimates that network "decision desk" analysts use to call the race.
Note that we have added separate labels for the individual congressional districts of Nebraska and Maine, since these states allocate Electoral Votes partially by district and may split their electoral votes. Unfortunately, we were only able to obtain public polls for Nebraska-02, so that label is the only one of the districts that will click-thru to a chart.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 4, 2008 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
Looking for leaked exit poll results from the Obama-McCain presidential race? Sorry to break the news, but until at least 5:00 p.m. today you are out of luck.
Following the 2004 election, when partial and misleading results leaked out at mid day, the network consortium that conducts the exit polls decided to restrict access to a small number of analysts in a "quarantine room" for most of the day. During the primaries this year, and presumably tonight as well, they release their results and vote estimates to producers and reporters at the television networks and other subscriber organizations about about 5:00 p.m. eastern time. While some of that information will no doubt leak after 5:00 p.m, anything you see before that time claiming to be an "exit poll" is probably bogus and certainly not part of the official network exit poll apparatus (Tom Webster, an employee of Edison Research, blogged some details about life inside the quarantine room just before the Super Tuesday primaries).
And while I have your attention, let me offer some advice: Ignore leaked exit polls tonight. I know, I know. How can you ignore them? Everyone wants to know as much as possible about the outcome of this election as soon as possible. But you will do youself a favor if you ignore what leaks out before the polls close, or at least try not to jump to any conclusions about the likely outcome based on what you see. Why? First, the McCain campaign is right: Historically, the leaked exit poll results have "tended to overstate the Democratic vote," and as I reported in March, and the early leaked results during the primaries tended to overstate the Obama vote as well.
Does that information help? Can we apply our own informal adjustment (Obama minus some percentage) and get an precise result? Maybe, but I would not advise it. First, you would still need to consider sampling error, which as always, will be a factor. A margin of a few percentages points means nothing on early leaked results, even if the estimate is unbiased. There is also decent possibility that no such overstatement will occur this time, that it will be smaller than in 2004 or earlier this year (or that what leaks is an already adjusted estimate -- see point #3 below). As Politico reports this morning, new "precautions have been taken to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the exit poll data," including a concerted effort to hire older exit poll interviewers." T
Also, many readers have asked about how exit polls will handle early voting. The short answer is that they have done telephone surveys in 18 states with heavy early voting that will be combined tonight with results from interviews conducted outside polling places. The longer answer is here and here.
And finally, here are a few tips for making sense of the exit poll data you will see tonight (a slightly edited version of tips I posted on the morning of the New Hampshire primary, with a few edits):
1) An exit poll is just a survey. Like other surveys, it is subject to random sampling error and, as those who follow exit polls now understand, occasional problems with non-response bias. In New Hampshire (in 1992) and Arizona (in 1996)* primary election exit polls overstated support for Patrick Buchanan, probably because his more enthusiastic supporters were more willing to be interviewed (and for those tempted to hit he comment button, yes, I know that some believe those past errors suggest massive vote fraud -- I have written about that subject at great length).
2) The networks rarely "call" an election on exit poll results alone. The decision desk analysts require a very high degree of statistical confidence (at least 99.5%) before they will consider calling a winner (the ordinary "margin of error" on pre-election polls typically uses a 95% confidence level). They will also wait for actual results if the exit poll is very different from pre-election poll trends. So a single-digit margin on an exit poll is almost never sufficient to say that a particular candidate will win.
3) Watch out for "The Composite." As they have for the earlier primaries, we expect the web sites of CNN, MSNBC and CBS to post exit poll tabulations shortly after the polls close that will update as the election night wears on (we will post links and commentary here, so we hope you'll plan to check back in later tonight). Those data are weighted to whatever estimate of the outcome the analysts have greatest confidence in at any moment. By the end of the night, the tabulations will be weighted to the official count. Typically, the first waves of exit poll tabulations (including most that leak before the polls close) are weighted to something called the "Composite Estimate," a combination of the exit poll data alone and a "Prior Estimate" that is based largely on pre-election poll results. So if you look to extrapolate from the initial tabulations posted on MSNBC or CNN (as we have done here at Pollster each primary night this year), just keep in mind that in the estimate of each candidate's standing in the initial reports will likely mix exit poll and the pre-election poll estimates (not unlike the kind we report here).
Finally, if you would like more information on how exit polls are conducted, you may want to revisit a Mystery Pollster classic: Exit Polls - What You Should Know.
Now, if you want to know what to make of the exit poll results that the networks will post live on their own sites tonight, you are in the right place. We will be live blogging tonight, and as we did in the primaries, will be reporting on the candidate estimates we can derived from the public tabulations. We also have a special Election Night map that will allow you to do side-by-side comparisons the results with our pre-election poll estimates. So please tune in again later tonight.
Update: Nate Silver has similar advice, based largely on our own Exit Poll FAQ.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)
By Mark Blumenthal
This update is going to be a little bit abbreviated, as I'm off to C-SPAN for an interview that will air between 8:45 and 9:30 eastern time. While a few more final polls will probably straggle in later this morning, we have seen what should be 99% of the final round of polls and our statewide estimates are not likely to change appreciably.
In the last 24 hours 23 logged a record 90 new statewide surveys, including the 50 statewide internet panel surveys released last night from (interests disclosed) our sponsor and parent company, YouGovPolimetrix. For the sake of a reasonably sized table, if nothing else, I have omitted the YouGov/Polimetrix state surveys from the table below, but they are now included in all of our charts and statewide estimates.
Thirty-one (31) of the new statewide surveys were tracking polls that updated results released previously by the same pollster since October 15. These recent trackers demonstrated no consistent trend: 11 showed nominal improvement for Obama, 14 showed nominal improvement for McCain and 6 showed no change in the margin separating the candidates.
Not suprisingly, the last round of new surveys were heavily concentrated in battleground states, including six new polls each in Florida and Ohio, four each in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Missouri and North Carolina and three new surveys in Virginia.
As is usually the case, the new polls had relatively little impact on individual trend estimates, although the nominal changes favored McCain in 15 states compared to Obama in 7.
The new surveys helped change our map classifications in two states. The six new surveys in Ohio had quite a spread -- from 7 point Obama lead on the Quinnipiac survey to 2 point McCain lead by Republican affiliated Strategic Vision -- but the four of the six showed margins of less than 2 points. Thus, the new surveys narrowed Obama's lead on our Ohio trend estimate to just over three points (49.4% to 46.3%), enough to shift the state from "lean" Obama to our toss-up classification.
The "narrowing" in Ohio looks a lot like the pattern discussed yesterday in Pennsylvania. Virtually all of the change on our trend estimate has been an increase in McCain's percentage, but Obama's numbers have remained flat and just shy of 50%.
Regular readers know that dividing line between "lean" and "toss-up" on are map is relatively arbitrary and based on a statistical formula that takes into account both the the margin and the average sample size in each state. It is worth considering that of the 13 final Ohio polls by each organization released in the last week, 10 showed Obama leading (by 2 to 9 points), 2 showed McCain leading (by 2 points on each) and 1 had a tied margin. So "toss-up" is probably too weak a characterization. Were I making a subjective assessment, I would consider Ohio leaning Obama.
Colorado also changed colors on our map this morning, from light blue "lean" to dark blue "strong" Obama. Even though the new Rasmussen poll shows Obama leading by just four points (51% to 47%), the new poll extends a trend that had been favoring Obama, and nudges Obama's Colorado margin up to to 7.6 points (51.9% to 44.3%) -- enough to shift to the strong category.
As for the national polls, most showed no evidence of a "narrowing" in McCain's favor. As compared to their most recent sample with non-overlapping field dates, 7 showed slight, nominal movement to Obama, three to McCain and two had unchanged margins. Our trend estimate ticks up to a 7.7 point advantage for Obama (51.9% to 44.2% as of this writing).
That's all for now. I'm hoping to have a more in-depth look at the state trend estimates later this morning. For now I'm off to C-SPAN -- look for me between 8:45 and 9:30. And please stay tuned to Pollster all day. We will be live blogging the results and have prepared a special election night map to display network projections and results.
By Mark Blumenthal on November 4, 2008 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)
November 3, 2008
By Mark Blumenthal
First, a very personal thank you. I was surprised and deeply gratified by the response to my post a week ago about the death of my father-in-law, both in the comments and by email. I apologize for not responding to every note personally -- I am hoping to do so after the election. My wife's family has, for most of the last week, been practicing the Jewish ritual of Shiv'ah, and I have frankly struggled to balance my obligations to family and those to this site during the final, incredibly busy week for which we have prepared for the better part of two years. So your kind words have been a great comfort.
More important, those who left comments should know that without realizing it, paid your own virtual visit to the home of the Burstin family and thus did what Jews consider a great "mitzvah" (a good deed commanded by God). On Tuesday night, following the funeral, I shared my post with my wife and my brother-in-law who had been, up until then, understandably preoccupied with other matters. The immediately scrolled down to read the comments and were visibly moved by the outpouring of kindness shown by so many strangers who never knew their father. So please accept my thanks on their behalf as well (the most appropriate place to make contributions in Frank Burstin's would be the United States Holocaust Museum).
Second and more generally. We quietly achieved the milestone of a million page views about a week ago and have served over 1.2 million pages for five of the last six days. During October, we had over 23 million pages views and 1.9 million absolute unique visitors. I find that level of traffic truly mind boggling, and it is a big reason why I have been so committed to working and posting over the last week. Thank you for your confidence.
We realize that most of you are experiencing a unique, one-every-four-year obsession with polls and polling data, so we have no illusions about where the traffic will head after Wednesday, but we will still be around and have plans for aggregating, charting and analyzing public opinion more broadly as we move into a new presidential administration next year. We hope you come back and check in on us from time to time.
Meanwhile, a few "housekeeping notes." We apologize for the slow down many of you experienced this morning that seemed to peak about noon eastern time. In reaction to an unusually heavy load of traffic on our servers, our IT support staff made some changes to the way our computers are configured which appears to have eliminated most of the slow down.
Some of you also emailed to report a minor glitch affecting the charts that made the trend line appear to turn back on itself slightly in a few instances that was visible only when you focused on just the last month or two on the trend line. Our Flash developer quickly smashed the bug and we uploaded a new version of the chart program that should solve the problem (though you may need to clear your browser cache and reload the page). If you are still seeing the problem or any other glitch, please drop us an email.
Also, we quietly added a feature last week that some of you will find helpful over these last 24 hours. The main "Poll" pages for Polls on the races for President, Senate, Governor and U.S. House now feature tables showing the current trend estimates and classifications for all races, including all 107 House races for which we have data (some of which have been added too late to be included on our House map). An undocumented tip: You can easily copy and paste those tables into a spreadsheet for sorting or further manipulation.
Stay tuned for more tomorrow: We will be live blogging about the results tomorrow night and will have a special, expanded election night map with results and n
