I’ve always wondered a bit about undecided voters. I know that some of them are exactly that– and I really wonder how someone has maintained such a pristine condition this far into the election. It’s as if one encountered a virgin who was a long time resident in a brothel. But lay that aside for a moment (as it were): I know there are a lot of people who just plain think it is none of anyone’s business who they support. And I wondered how often those folks give a response that leads to a survey conclude they’re undecided.
Nat Silver at FiveThirdyEight.com looks inside those undecided stats in a post today and finds some interesting things. The first thing i want to note, though, is that the polls here involved pretty tiny numbers of respondents, making it somewhat suspect to draw reliable (or “significant”) conclusions. But these are the numbers we have to work with.
The reason Silver wanted to look is to check one piece of the conventional wisdom– that the undecideds at this point were predominantly white, and would therefore largely break McCain’s way. Silver comes out of a field of baseball research called sabermetrics, which among other things used statistical tools to examine conventional wisdom about issues like whether base stealing is a good thing. So using numbers to poke around at conventional wisdom would be something he knows.
And the point of his post today is to show that black voters are not in fact underrepresented among the undecided. He then runs through some scenarios that show that McCain is really not likely to get much of a boost from the undecided voters, particularly if you eliminate the third-party voters (who will be very much largely white).
But this really underscored my question: Are undecided voters really “undecided,” or are some of them taking the position “none of your business?” If so, I would assume that Silver’s conclusion– that it would be more reliable to assume that black undecideds (or any demographic) would break about like the decided voters, which means bad news for McCain (and also raises another question: How has this gone in the past? I think the rule of thumb is they break away from incumbents. How about when there isn’t an incumbent? And is that rule of thumb another piece of unreliable conventional wisdom?).
Interesting questions all, at least to me.
Meanwhile, in the poll I’ve been posting here, Gallup daily (which I’m using not because I think it any more or less reliable but because I am using one poll to show the trend, and not jump around), Obama ticks up one and McCain down one to 51%-42% in the “everybody” poll. On traditional likely voters (that is, they say they will vote and they have a history of voting), McCain ticked down one and it’s 49%-46%. On their other likely voter model (using just self report), it’s the same, 51%-44%.
David Sedaris on the undecideds:
Undecided voters are a self-selecting population, or maybe two if your speculation that some may really be “none of your business” voters is correct, Lotus. Thus, they can’t be counted on to be like the part of the population that has decided.
That’s about the only conclusion I’ve come to.
The questions on my mind are: Are these people who haven’t been paying attention? Are they more uninformed than the other voters? Do they belong predominantly to one economic class?
or are some of them taking the position "none of your business?"
That interpretation may be supported by the polls in FL and OH of people who *already voted*, 6% and 3% of whom respectively said that they “didn’t know” whom they voted for.
At least, I *hope* that’s why they said that.
Meta-poll question: “Are you comfortable telling a pollster your voting preference?”
I am
oh, and Cujo–> this is an NMC post not a Lotus post.
I do know several true undecideds of two different types. One type are big time Hillary supporters who really don’t like Obama at all – but they can’t bear to support McCain either. The other type are Republicans who are so turned off by what the Republicans have done recently and by the choice of Palin – but the idea of voting for a Democrat is unthinkable. I talk to these undecideds regularly (trying to convince them, but gently), and they really are having a hard time deciding. They may not decide until they go to vote – and I’m hoping I’m the last one to talk to them.
BTW, the first type is voting for Musgrove and the second type for Wicker. This was apparently easy for them.
Casey Ann, I find it impossible to wrap my mind around the notion that someone who would have been a Clinton supporter would even think about not voting for the Democrat here. What is the thought process, seriously? I almost put the word thought in scare quotes….
Casey Ann, are these HRC supporters just completely “identity politics” based — that is, their only criterion was that HRC was the woman in the race, and the one who beat her must be punished? Lord. As NMC says, that sounds like something other than “thought” going on.
You’re not a woman, are you? A lot of sexist things were done to Hillary during the primary, and as you know. her supporters were extremely angry. Their hearts were set on a woman President, and they were heart broken that she didn’t get it – and they don’t think the process was fair. This is especially true of women who are not politically active. And it only makes it worse when people like you cannot understand their feelings.
Try a little role reversal. How do you think blacks would have felt if Obama had lost to Hillary? You know perfectly well that they would also be heartbroken, many would be angry, and some would have had a great deal of trouble supporting Hillary.
I was a Hillary supporter and had many of the same feelings. But I’m a long time Democratic activist, and I just switched to Obama, like I’ve always done when my candidate didn’t win the primary. But I have to admit my heart isn’t in it, although my brain is.
Are you talking to me, Casey Ann, or Lotus? We’re one of each (that is, I’m a man and she’s a woman).
I’m going to hold back a moment, except to note that your post is full of assumptions that seem completely unwarranted, either on the facts (about the campaign) or about me.
Casey Ann, I am indeed a woman, as well as a lifelong feminist. (I also knew the Clintons slightly when Bill and I lived and Hillary frequently visited in Fayetteville, Arkansas, back in the day.)
But I don’t approach politics glandularly and can’t understand why anyone else would.
While we wait to hear back from Casey Ann, NMC, I’ll ask you if you recall anything qualifying as “sexist” being “done to” HRC during the primary. I sure can’t place anything like that, and certainly nothing from Camp Obama.
I knew I shouldn’t have tried to explain this, as I never seem to do it adequately – and I don’t think it’s productive to continue the discussion here. But if you are really interested, we can try it by email.
There is no doubt that the mainstream media said sexist things with regard to Hillary Clinton during the primaries. There is also an atmosphere of accepting sexist remarks (not specific to Clinton) among the punditry. As the campaign ended, I saw a video that basically excerpted one after the other and can dig it out if need be.
On the other hand, I do not know of any that could ascribed to Obama or people who spoke for him. And I do feel that things Hillary Clinton’s spokespeople (including the former pres…) skirted right around the edges of racism in ways that were pretty close analogues to the sexist MSM remarks.
I totally understand the feeling of having had your heart in a candidate and then having your hopes dashed. It’s happened to me, more than once. But then if its a primary candidate, the deal is to get yourself up and brush yourself off and ask: Is the candidate that got the nomination someone I can support? I’m really hearing the comment above to suggest resentment at Obama that has nothing behind it “He beat our female candidate and that’s not fair.” Not fair how? Is there something about Obama that makes you withhold support from him?
There’s every reason to think we are about to see the most historic election of my lifetime (knock wood). More so than 1980, which was a big one for game-changing reasons. More so than 1968, which was a big one for historical context reasons. Probably up there with 1932 and 1860 and 1828. If you’re anywhere on the left side of the center, you’re denying yourself the opportunity to join in history if you sit this one out. And with a pretty amazing candidate. You should give him a chance to reach you, Casey Ann.
Well, Casey Ann, I’ll just observe that your explanation of these women’s motivation is that it’s entirely emotion-based, not rational. Looks as if, unlike you, they somehow can’t get over themselves. That’s too bad and their loss, so I congratulate your better sense.
Katie Couric on “Iron my shirt” and Hillary nutcrackers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjEGZSM83Y
Let me add a bit: I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the Clintons or what was said about them during the primary, since I was more interested in Obama, Edwards, and Dodd. As a non-TV watcher, I miss practically all the gasbags known as pundits; it’s quite possible that I never heard about some of what you saw, Casey Ann. But to reiterate, no sexism directed HRC’s way came from the Obama camp, so how your friends could blame him for it makes no sense to me.
NY Times recap
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a "she-devil" and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had "messed around."
Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was "looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court." Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, "When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs."
The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s "cackle" and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.
Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." "She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her,” Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized.
Casey Ann: I am a woman who grew up in the days of sexism and in the segregated south. You might say I had two “dogs in this hunt”, both, in my opinion, qualified to ask for my vote. Either way, I couldn’t lose, right?
I struggled with my decision. However, this struggle did not involve race or gender because, imo, the decision regarding who can best lead us at this time in our history has never been more critical, at least not in my lifetime.
When I decided to put my support behind Obama it was very simply because I believe he is the one person to best lead and inspire us toward a better future. The fact that his election will be historic is a huge bonus.
I agree there would have been many disappointed and perhaps even angry blacks if Obama had lost the primary, and I venture to say with even greater justification than Hillary supporters, even though so many African Americans never believed he even had a chance because of the color of his skin.
The fact is, Obama simply out ran Hillary on a number of fronts. He did not steal this out from under her. It was a well fought race and he won.
Now, for those who simply wanted a woman in the White House they can vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. For those who voted for her because of the issues and because she is a woman, move on, as Hillary has, and support Obama with good cheer.
Researcher at 19: She did experience sexism and it amazes me that, after all of these years, it (as well as racism) still exists. Sexism, like racism, is born out of fear; it’s just more “acceptable” to display a certain level of sexism than it is to openly express racism.
I commend both Obama and Clinton for moving past this narrow minded behavior, as they both did during their campaign.
Yep, Researcher, that’s all inexcusable (EXCEPT as ratification of my decision to ignore those assholes and their medium entirely).
Uhhh … Tom … could we go back to that virgin in the brothel? Where might that be, Mate?
I think it’s self-explanatory, Ben. Read the post again. I don’t understand how some one could be undecided at this late date, and find that as unlikely as, etc.
Oops, sorry, NMC.
While I also have trouble understanding how any thinking person could be truly “undecided” at this late stage of the election campaign, consider the following.
I also have trouble understanding people who: wait in line for 5-10 minutes to order at a fast food restaurant, and then when they get up to the counter are still not ready to order (these folks always seem to get in line in front of me); pull up to an ATM (again, always in front of me) and linger for a long time, while appearing to be playing some type of slot machine casino game with their ATM card, just hoping the machine might mistakenly spit out money they don’t have in the bank; at the grocery store, just cannot seem to check out like normal folks, using 50 coupons, double checking each item, requiring the manager to be called over for questions, and then can’t seem to find their money to pay or checkbook; can tell you the entire history of American Idol, who won, what years, etc, but can’t tell you the name of the sitting president, vice-president, thinks Obama is a singer and American Idol finalist, and has never heard of McCain or the state of Alaska; can’t follow simple instructions on how to vote using a voting machine; etc. etc.
So, I suppose that such folks being ” truly undecided “really isn’t that much of a stretch. The odds of such folks actually timely registering to vote and actually going to the polls to vote is likely remote. That might be a good thing.
AFOTL: those would be the same ones who make it to the head of the line at the polling station, be told they’re at the wrong station, and want to argue the point with the sweet ladies handling the voters’ rolls.
Ben,…exactly. LOL.
Tom: my post @ 22 was a joke ….
Stand up, Mate … the good ones are going over your head.
I thought my joke had gone past you somehow!
Mutual mistake.