Did the VP debate start a trend?

Byline: | Category: 2012 | Posted at: Thursday, 18 October 2012

I don’t put a lot of stock into poll numbers.  Instead I look at trends.  Let me explain what I mean.

The hardest part of polling is finding a sample that is representative of the population.  Thirty years ago when every family had only one phone and no answering machine, randomly dialing a household was quite different from today.  In 2012 most everyone over 13 has their own cellphone, and only 9% of polling phone calls result in a response.  The huge changes in how we use our phones induces significant sample error. 

One way of accounting for error is to do what many of the poll aggregators like Real Clear Politics and Nate Silver do.  They lump many polls together to come up with an average response.  But since most pollers have the same problems reaching those who screen their calls, averaging a bunch of polls all containing the same source of error doesn’t make the error go away.  One way of avoiding this error is to look at the same poll over a long period of time.  The numbers themselves might be off, but as long as the same flawed methodology doesn’t change, you should still be able to pick up trends.

A second source of sample error depends on the day of the week when polls are conducted.  I learned when I settled in the South, for example, that many religously active Protestants aren’t home Wednesday evenings because they’re at church instead.  Each day of the week results in a different kind of sample that pollsters try to compensate for by weighting responses.  But weighting induces yet another source of error.

That’s why I like the Gallup rolling average poll.  Because it is a seven-day average, days of the week are not a factor in the poll.  Several other polling groups use three-day moving averages which, while more responsive to changes, are biased depending on the day they are released.  A poll released Friday morning for example, was conducted on the previous three weekdays, while a three-day poll released on Monday samples the population over the weekend.  Even with the same methodology in place, those are two very different samples likely yielding different results.  With a seven-day average poll every day of the week is represented once and only once and that cancels out the bias based on the day of the week

I say all this as prelude to a discussion of the last few days of the Gallup seven-day rolling average poll of the 2012 Presidential race.  After four straight days of a Romney 49 to Obama 47 race, the last three days of polling have seen consecutive one-point gains for Mitt Romney.  On Tuesday Gallup released results indicating that Romney’s lead among likely voters had broadened to 50-46.  Yeterday the new poll release shows an even wider lead of 51-45.  Today the gap widened again to 52-45.

That means that Tuesday’s poll which concluded Monday night, added those polled Monday the 15th of October while it dropped off those polled the previous Monday the 8th.  Since that was the only calculation difference between that poll and the Gallup poll released the previous day, that means that because the poll is an average across seven days, that Mitt Romney polled about seven points higher on the 15th than he did on the 8th while Barack Obama lost seven points when you compare just those two Monday nights.

Now, take that with a grain of salt.  This is a poll that queries a little over 300 people a day.  With such a small sample you have a wide margin of error and are bound to get a few bogus days of results.  However, keep in mind one of the things I always told those I briefed when I presented the results of my own polling that I’ve done for the Army, “Once is an aberration, twice is a coincidence, but three times is a trend.” 

We’re up to a trend on that scale as both yesterday and today Gallup showed the same seven-point jump for Mitt Romney over the previous week’s polls. As for the President, his numbers have fallen by one point in two of the three previous days.  That translates to about a 4 or 5 point drop in Obama’s support over the past week.

I don’t know where the race really stands:  whether it’s Obama up by a couple or Romney up by a few.  But what I do know is that no matter where we started, an 11 or 12 point swing is a rout.

Finally, if the change holds, what could have caused it?  Given the timing I would guess that it was the Vice Presidential debate last Thursday night.  But if that were the case, you would think that we would have seen a change in poll numbers beginning about the 13th of October since that would have been the first release of the poll that included results from after the debate.  However, I don’t think that opinions always change instantly.  It often takes time for things to sink in.  If it was the debate that was the trigger, it probably also took Jon Stewart’s mocking and SNL’s skit, as well as discussions with family and friends, to drive home the point that Joe Biden behaved like an ass.  If that was the case, then don’t expect Barack Obama’s performance at the latest debate to make much of an impact.

Bottom line: it’s possible that the Gallup poll had three consecutive days of outliers and that the poll numbers will shift back to where they were.  However, if this is the beginning of a trend, then for Barack Obama, this is the beginning of the end.

MORE:

Thanks to Glenn for the link.  While you’re here you might want to read about Why the pollsters have been wrong.

Mary Katherine Ham links to a Marquette poll of Wisconsin that indicates a ten-point shift in Mitt Romney’s favor since October 3.  I am especially skeptical of state polling numbers, as most state polls are junk.  However, if there is any truth to the theory that heavily contested swing states are less susceptible to swings because of months of advertising saturation, then further large changes in marginally competitive states like this poll indicates, would be corroborating evidence of a major opinion shift.

Jen Rubin agrees:  “In the Gallup 7-day tracking poll Romney went ahead by 7 points, suggesting that the vice presidential debate (Oct. 11) was, if anything, a positive for the GOP ticket.”

*Some caveats:  I am assuming that each night Gallup polls roughly the same number of people and that their methodology hasn’t changed.  I would also add that, because of rounding, the actual swing may be as few as 8 points or as many as 15.  Even at the low end, that’s a disaster for Team Obama.

Full disclosure: I have a background in polling via work I have done in Iraq where I was a client of Gallup.  Someday when the full program is declassified, I’ll be happy to tell you more. 

Share this post:

9 Responses to “Did the VP debate start a trend?”

  1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » BOB KRUMM: Did The VP Debate Start A Trend? “I don’t know where the race really stands: whether… Says:

    [...] KRUMM: Did The VP Debate Start A Trend? “I don’t know where the race really stands: whether it’s Obama up by a couple or Romney [...]

  2. Koblog Says:

    Riiiiight. It’s Biden’s fault.

    But Biden’s always been a blowhard gaffomatic buffoon. He lied, what, 18 times during the Sarah Palin debate and was hailed for his adeptness. But he’s still Ol’ Slo Joe Biden. I figured Obama picked him as VP to make Obama look smart.

    Obama is failing because, for the first time in four years, we the people are seeing him for what he is because for the first time in his life, his record is visible. All the other records are either sealed (birth and education) or covered up/ignored (radical associates and socialist history) by the media.

    Clint Eastwood was the most accurate pundit of ‘em all: Obama is a naked emperor, in an empty suit, whose chair at the White House is also usually empty.

    Obama has failed to keep all of his lofty promises and most importantly, we are broke for trying.

  3. Dobby Says:

    It started with Clint Eastwood. He exposed the President as an empty suit. If the press had done it’s job, he never would have been elected.

    Of course:
    Gas prices higher
    Food prices higher
    Energy prices higher
    Health insurance prices higher
    Value of dollar falling
    No interests on savings
    Incredibly high unemployment rate
    It’s the economy stupid.

  4. grey eagle Says:

    Until the debates and the jailing of the guy who slandered Mohammed, most people did not know what kind of guys lords Biden and Obama were.

    Now we know what we elected and we can ask “are they good enough to keep at the job we hired them to do?

    I mean, who wants to be bossed around by his own employees?”

  5. brian Says:

    Honest question, Didn’t Gallup change recently from registered voters to likely voters? If they did, I would be interested if the change corresponds to the shifting trend.

    Ed: Gallup breaks down the polls both ways: registered and likely. The comparison I made uses the likely voter model. Among registered voters the 7-day tracking poll shows Romney gaining two points in the last three days while Obama has lost one.

  6. Tom Holsinger Says:

    I noticed that odd timing too, but also observed that it was due to a major swing of female voters. I couldn’t figure out why it started immediately after the Vice-Presidential debate, as opposed to the first Presidential debate the week before.

    Then I read online somewhere yesterday that Biden’s debate performance reminded lots of women of the nutso male boss from hell – one who was weird, offensive and bullying, as opposed to sexist. I can see that, and the timing of the shift in female opinion supports this hypothesis.

    FWIW. We’ll have to wait for professionals to post-mortem the campaign in December to learn more about this.

  7. bflat879 Says:

    I think it was the 1st Presidential Debate, which showed the Obama has no plan, coupled with the Vice-Presidential debate we saw why the Democrats can’t get anything done, and then the last debate when Obama needed a little help from Candy Crowley, that sealed the deal.

  8. Sean D Sorrentino Says:

    There is no “Romney Surge(tm)!” It’s a lie. Romney was always ahead. The pollsters haven’t been “accounting for error” they’ve been deliberately inducing it. Their samples were wildly uneven, with Dems outnumbering Republicans by impossible margins.

    Rather than assume that the polls were ever accurate, let’s postulate something different. Romney was well ahead all the time. The media wants to report a horse race, so they pretended that there was a horse race. They manipulated the polls to make it look close. That keeps us glued to their “up to the minute” coverage. The problem is that if they don’t start reporting the truth, they’ll look insane when they report “it’s close!” the day before, and on the day after they have to report “Blowout!”

    The media has to start reporting a “Romney Surge” so that when the election is over they can say “our reportage was good. It was all tied up, but that debate performance put Romney over the top with undecided voters.” It’s all a crock. Romney was well ahead the whole time. The media had their narrative and they reported that narrative in the face of reality. And they will get away with it.

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/10/08/there-is-no-romney-surge/

    They did it before. How else can we explain Reagan vs. Carter, or worse, Reagan vs. Mondale. The media reported it was close all the way up until it was a blowout. They even did it last election. Obama was always ahead. They just waited until McCain spazzed out and went back to DC for the credit crunch to start reporting an Obama surge.

    The media may well be in the tank for Obama, but they are absolutely in the tank for ratings and ad revenues. Reporting the truth, that Obama didn’t have a prayer, would have meant losing their election viewers for months.

  9. JorgXMckie Says:

    I love the reference to Wednesday night polling. Many years ago when I was first starting in the survey methods [studying in preparation to teach survey methods] field, I worked in a university survey phone bank.

    Once we were doing a survey for the IL Dept of Public Health [or whatever its name is]. My school was in the Chicago metro area as were most of the people in the phone room.

    We were trying to get 400 responses in each of IL’s 102 counties.

    One night we were getting *ZERO* completions in one County. It wasn’t a county I was calling, but somebody complained I asked “what county”. It was a rural county next to where I grew up in what might as well have been Kentucky as IL.

    I said, “Oh, geez. It’s *Wednesday* AND it’s coon hunting season. Everybody who isn’t in church is coon hunting. Try calling tomorrow.” And it was totally right.

    Lots of people don’t know the culture of the area they’re calling.