Sound Transit Expansion Plan Polling Well

The Sound Transit District, serving the Seattle metropolitan area, has a proposition on the ballot to increase taxes to fund expansions of mass transit.

SurveyUSA has polled the measure, and things look promising:

65% lean toward yes while only 20% lean toward no.

It receives nearly unanimous support from young people who will be around to experience the benefits: 77 lean yes, 9 lean no, and Democrats, who believe in investing in our country for the future (81 lean yes, 9 lean no): however, even among Republicans, 45% lean yes, 42% lean no, and conservatives just barely oppose it, with 42% leaning yes and 44% leaning no.

Us young people realize that we may never get a full solution for liquid fuels, and we believe in livability.

Should it pass, it will help Seattle (which has always had a very good bus system back from when my dad lived there as a grad student at the University of Washington in the 1970's) catch up with fellow Western cities like Salt Lake City, Denver and the gold standard of light rail, Portland.

Los Angeles County has a ballot measure to expand its own transit system, still waitin on Schwarzenegger's signature (because for some reason the whole state has to approve the county measure (the state, of course, also has its high-speed rail bonding measure on the ballot).

And of course, Honolulu has a smart measure to put grade-separated commuter rail along the unbelievably congested Highway 1; perfect place for a rail line if there ever was one.

Why is Democracy Corps oversampling Republicans?

I suppose I can vaguely expect that from non-partisan or Republican pollsters, but shouldn't a Democratic polling organization be taking more care to obtain a quality sample?

Their sample

Among the 92% of people in their poll (90% in the battleground states: given by Democracy Corps as Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) who claimed to have voted in 2004, they have 52% having gone for Bush, 44% having gone for Kerry (53% for Bush, 42% for Kerry in the battleground states) despite the fact that Bush won 50.73%-48.27% (+2.5) nationwide and 51.44%-47.73% (+3.7%) in 2004.

Given that exit polls showed those over 65 (who are the most likely to have died and thus no longer be likely voters) voting no differently than the nation did, it's pretty unlikely that those voters in 2004 who are likely to show up again this year were 5 points (8 in the battleground states) more likely to go for Bush than those voting as a whole.

Again, let's measure based on facts.

Major issues with SurveyUSA's North Carolina Polling Sample

SurveyUSA released a rather shocking poll today showing John McCain leading Barack Obama 58-38 in North Carolina, up from 4 points in the August poll.

They also recorded an 11 point gain for Republican Pat McCrory in the Governor's race, and a 3-point gain for Elizabeth Dole in the Senate race.

A lot of people might have thought, "Hey, maybe we messed something up here." Not SurveyUSA, though.

Republican John McCain suddenly and breathtakingly surges to a 20-point win over Democrat Barack Obama, 58% to 38%, according to this latest exclusive SurveyUSA election poll conducted for WTVD-TV. In 3 previous SurveyUSA NC tracking polls, McCain had led by 8, 5, and 4 points. Today: 20. McCain has gained ground in every demographic group.

Now, first of all, their claim is false. Obama led 71-25 among Democrats in August's poll; today, he leads 74-23.

That fact led me to look at the crosstabs for party affiliation; 41% Republican, 40% Democratic. I wondered if they were going by stated party affiliation or registered party affiliation; those numbers may be accurate for stated affiliation but they are way off for registered party affiliation.

So I took a look at the other 3 months polls that they've done, and it's clear: they've been polling by registered party affiliation.

In August: 46% Democratic, 33% Republican

In July: 45% Democratic, 37% Republican

In May: 49 % Democratic, 33% Republican

The Democratic registration edge in all 3 of the previous polls is within 4 points of the Democratic registration edge among registered voters in North Carolina.

Currently, 45.3% of North Carolina's registered voters are Democrats, 32.7% are Republicans (12.6% edge). This is a gain of 2 points for Democrats since January, when 44.8% were Democrats and 34.2% were Republicans (10.6 point edge)

My point is that this a really, really awful sample of voters. If you take the crosstab numbers by party registration for this poll and adjust them to reflect last month's poll, you get the following:

McCain 51, Obama 42 (still a 5 point gain; not insubstantial but not crazy either)

Hagan 44, Dole 42 (a 7 point gain for Hagan, in line with other polls we've seen from the state)

Perdue 45, McCrory 44 (a 2 point gain for McCrory, within the margin of error)

The point being: McCain may well be safe in North Carolina (and the Obama campaign may realize it as they've cut back resources there), but Dole isn't and Perdue's got a fighting choice.

Or rather, that's what this poll says.

Are Poor Age Samplings Skewing the Polls?

Now, obviously, things aren't looking as good for Barack Obama as they were a month or so ago. The United States is, in fact, seriously at risk of four more years of decline in economic and political strength, unconstitutional power grabs, and environmental degradation under a McCain/Palin presidency. The polls range from a tie between McCain and Obama to a poll (probably an outlier, but still worrisome) showing McCain ten points out.

However, in looking at the sample used by The Diageo/Hotline poll (the only recent poll to have released data from its sample), I can't help feeling hopeful that the sample is skewed to make McCain look more favorable.

The reason I think this is that their polling sample skews far older than the likely electorate. The U.S. Census Bureau reported the following breakdown of those voting in 2004 by age (See Table 1):


18-29: 16.00%
30-44: 27.33%
45-54: 21.32%
55-64: 16.32%
65+: 19.03%

For the Diageo/Hotline poll, the samples are as follows:

18-29: 6%
30-44: 20%
45-54: 20%
55-64: 22%
65+: 28%
Unknown/Refused: 4%

That's a pretty significant skewing. Their sample has 50% of registered voters (like some other firms, they haven't bothered trying to construct a likely voter sample; USA Today/Gallup did, and they had a 6 point gap between their results registered voters (McCain +4) and likely voters (McCain +10)); I have not been able to locate crosstabs) over the age of 55, though this age group made up only 35% of those voting in 2004, and has voters under 45 making up only 26% of voters, though they made up 43% of those voting in 2004.

While the electorate has continued to age, given the massive registration drives by the Obama campaign and the significant enthusiasm among younger voters this election, it's highly, highly unlikely that those over 55 will increase their share of the electorate by even more than 5 points. More than 10 points is pretty much out of the question, much less 15. It's far likelier that their share will remain constant or even stagnate than increase by more than 5 points.

For instance, between the 2000 and 2004 elections:

The percentage of citizens over 18 who were over 55 grew from 29.27% to 31.40% due nearly entirely to the oldest baby boomers (defined here as those born between 1946 and 1964) starting to reach old agehood during that time period; those between 55 and 64 went from 12.2% to 14.3% of those over 18, while citizens over 65 just barely increased from 17.07% to 17.1% (well within the margin of error, though a small increase is likely).

Meanwhile, the percentage of citizens over 18 who were under the age of 45 shrunk from 51.83% to 48.80%, largely due to all but the very youngest boomers having left the 30-44 age group (down from 30.72% to 27.94%); the share of 18-29 year olds remained fairly constant to within the MOE, 21.1%-20.86% as more Generation Yers reached voting age;

Given that even more baby boomers will have moved into this category by November 2008 (including my parents), I'd expect another spike, placing voting-age citizens over 55 at between 32% and 35% of the population, and a decrease in voting-age citizens under 45, placing those citizens at between 45 and 48% of the population.

However, that will likely be lessened by voting trends. For instance, the percentage of those casting ballots who were under 45 decreased only a little, from 44.55% to 43.33%, due to a major increase in registration (and turnout) among those under 30; from 54.87% of citiens in 2000 to 60.03% of citizens in 2004, and a smaller increase (but still larger than for those 45 and over) among those between 30-44.

Similarly, those voting increased from only 55.45% to 56.67%.

Given registration trends in those few states with numbers by age and enthusiasm factors, I expect the percentages of those voting in these age groups to change by less than 1%.

I'm not sure whether polling firms had similarly poor sampling in 2004. However, if it had shown up, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. Looking at CNN's 2004 Exit Poll (which, while not without its own problems, is far, far more likely to have its margin at within < 5 points of the actual numbers than a telephone opinion poll)

While Kerry did do significantly (15 points) better among those under 30 (won 54-45) than he did among those 30 and up (lost 47-53), among those over 30, there was very little if any differences based on age, where every group listed (30-44, 45-59, 60+, and 65+) was between 51-48 and 54-46, a 5 point margin difference.

This is not going to be the case. Barack Obama has excited the youth of this country, who are more progressive (in particular on social and environmental issues [which we have to live with longer] as well as foreign policy) than older Americans; Obama is expected to do particularly well among those under 30, who came of political age during the era of disgustingly hyper-partisanship in either the good years of Bill Clinton or the awful, awful years of George W. Bush, tired of the way things are in DC but wanting to change them.

On the flip side, several factors are combining to hurt Senator Obama among those over 65. First of all, his being African-American. Those whites who were 65 or older formed their political views either during the civil rights era [those who will be 65 by this November were old enough to vote for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 unless they were born a day or so too late in November] or before, may well have participated in white flight, and for various reasons are more likely to have negative view of African-Americans.

Second of all, older people tend to want "experience," at least aside from the ones who remember and resented the same charge being thrown at JFK (though he and Nixon actually both had 14 years in federal office [though Nixon moved up to the Senate 2 years earlier and then spent 8 years as VP]); at any rate, those generally considered to be our 3 greatest presidents didn't have all that much government experience.

• George Washington had been appointed a surveyor at one point; other than that, he'd just been a soldier (albeit reaching the office of General).


• Abraham Lincoln had a grand total of 2 years in office, in the House of Representatives over 10 years before running.


• FDR had 2 years as Governor of New York before beginning his run for the presidency (he'd also been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 8 years and a state Senator for 2).

I guess in these scenarios, here's who each person would be.

1860:
McCain = Stephen Douglas ("little", long-time Senator, faux maverick who caused somewhat of a breakaway [with Ron Paul/Bob Barr = combination of Breckinridge and Bell; though with less support], died soon after the 1860-election)

1932:

George Bush and John McCain combine as Herbert Hoover.



Back to older people and Senator Obama. The third problem is that they're less used to having to be skeptical of the media, because for most of their life, it functioned very well and only recently descended into its current form. Moreover, they are more likely to believe (and be scared by) the "He's an anti-patriotic Muslim" e-mail due to this trust in media and general less understanding of technology.


The point of this long piece being that poor age sampling may be overestimating John McCain's percentage of the vote.

Are These Gender Gaps for Real?

The anti-Democratic party/Barack Obama Pissy Unsatisfied Morons Association (PUMA) claims that the Obama campaign and the Democratic was extremely sexist and anti-woman towards Hillary Clinton. Also, that they didn't defend her and orchestrated a conspiracy to get Barack Obama elected so deep and convoluted (I believe it begins in the 1930's in Hawaii) that it makes the 9/11 truth movement look plausible in comparison.

However, the vast majority of women don't seem to be taking this view.

Poll after poll is showing an astronomical gender gap in general election polls between Barack Obama and John McCain this cycle.

Of course, Democratic presidential candidates

State	Gender	2000		2004
		Gore	Bush	Kerry	Bush
AL	Men	37%	63%	30%	69%
	Women	50%	50%	43%	57%
	Gap	26		26

Obama's "Drop" in Oregon and SUSA sampling.

The latest SurveyUSA poll (conducted June 17th to June 19th of 547 likely voters) of Oregon has Barack Obama narrowly leading John McCain 48-45.

This seems like a significant drop from the poll a month ago (May 16 to May 18th of 600 likely voters) which had Senator Obama leading John McCain 49-39

However, a look at the crosstabs makes it seem like differences in the poll results are due mostly to changes in the samples.

By Party:

Party May June
Dem 48% 42%
Rep 32% 41%
Ind 20% 15%

Such a shift in the Republicans favor is highly unlikely (a shift in the Democrats favor would still be unlikely, if a bit less so).

Which one is right?

Well, currently in Oregon, Democrats have a 43% to 33% registration advantage, so one expects the correct party divisions are somewhere in between the May and June numbers.

Encouraging Independent Numbers on Gas Tax

CBS/NY Times has done a poll regarding the Clinton/McCain insane gas tax "holiday" proposal.

The results are highly encouraging.

First of all, 49% say the holiday is a bad idea, while 45% say it is a good idea.

Those who say it's a good idea include 58% of Republicans polled and 47% of Democrats polled, but only 32% of independents polled.

Michigan Dem Exit Polls: African-Americans 70% Uncommitted

The exit polls are pretty interesting in Michigan.

If everyone had been on the ballot, the exit polls say it would have been Clinton 45, Obama 37, Edwards 12, but 41% of Edwards supporters and 17% of Obama supporters chose either Clinton or Kucinich.

Most things were pretty unsurprising. Uncommitted did better among the young, the urban, those with more education, and those making at least $50,000 a year.

But the African-American vote going 70% for uncommitted compared to 26% for Clinton was very surprising.

I'm not sure what the shift away from Clinton (and it is away from Clinton in this case since Obama wasn't on the ballot) was due to.

I have two theories:

1. African-Americans have solid, hardcore support for Obama to such a large extent that they'd prefer a proxy vote for him to a vote for Clinton
2. The Clinton campaign's tactics and remarks have been disastrous for her among African-Americans.


What are your thoughts?

Americans Overwhelmingly Support the Writers

A new poll from SurveyUSA tells us how the public feels about the writer's strike.
Their key finding:

Americans Seven Times More Likely to Back WGA as Studios


About 70% of those polled claimed familiarity with the strike.

Of those familiar, 49% side with the writers, 7% side with the studios, and 42% side with neither.


SurveyUSA releases cross-tabs for their polls. The results here are just as striking.

Side	Party			Ideology
	Republican	Democratic	Independent	Conservative	Moderate	Liberal
Writers	36%	59%	52%	36%	54%	66%
Studios	10%	5%	6%	11%	5%	6%
Neither	52%	33%	40%	52%	39%	28%

Even among Republicans and conservatives, no more than 10% side with the studios and over 35% side with the writers.

Why is support so overwhelming?

One reason might be that people consider intellectual property rights and royalties more important than they consider, say, health care; this would explain the differences in public support.

However, I think the most pertinent reason is the way the question was framed.

Which side are you on? The writers? The studios? Or neither?

Setting the question up as worker versus faceless corporation probably makes a big difference in public perception.

That difference may be necessary. After all, the mainstream media is owned by the same conglomerates that aren't paying WGA members the royalties they deserve.

See, for instance, how CNN (owned by Time Warner) covers CBS (owned by CBS corporation, but with basically the same ownership as the new Viacom)'s canceling of the Democratic debate due to the network's failure to agree to pay the writers what they deserve:

Democrats abandoned their plans for a December 10 debate at CBS studios in Los Angeles, blaming the continuing writers strike for the cancellation. Most of the candidates, including the three frontrunners, had said they would not cross picket lines set up outside the event site in Los Angeles.
.
.
.
CBS had asked the WGA to suspend picketing on that day, but the union did not respond to that request.

One expects that the media owned by News Corp, Disney, GE/NBC Universal and perhaps under the Bush administration, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is doing the same sort of thing.

This is, again, one of those cases where Web 2.0 media is crucial.



wgaamerica is the #4 most subscribed Youtuber this week, 20th most subscribed this month, 79th most viewed this month.

Of course, the Writer's Guild of America has a huge advantage in this area. Their members know how to write scripts that'll make people want to watch.

Still, there have to be some lessons that the rest of the labor movement can take from this.