Could A Narrowing In National Numbers Be Significant?
Posted Oct 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM by Maurice Berger
A reader asks: why is a narrowing in the national polls significant, especially with Obama more than 100 electoral votes ahead of McCain on Today's Map? With nearly twice as many persuadable and undecided voters than at this point in the 2004 election--and 45% of respondents saying that Obama is not qualified to be president (only Michael Dukakis in 1988 had a higher rating in this regard)--any tightening of the race could be meaningful. And if history is any guide, the survey that now shows the race the closest--IBD/TIPP--was also the most accurate in predicting the outcome of the last presidential election. (Given PollTrack's reliance on polling averages, you might want to take this observation with a grain of salt.) National numbers, however, are not the whole story: we elect presidents not through natiowide totals but 51 winner-take-all statewide contests (save for NE and ME, where EVs are split by congressional districts). Ultimately, national advantages often trickle down to the states. As national numbers change, so eventually can the numbers in battleground states. The average lag between national and statewide trends is a week or two. Indeed, today, we're seeing a slight tightening--and improvement in McCain's polling averages--of several states, including North Carolina, West Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado. Still, a number of national polls report a wide lead for Obama, so statewide trending could also increase the Democrat's advantage in the battlegrounds.
