Undecideds In National Polls

One phenomenon in national polls I am starting to notice is that the harder undecideds are pushed, the better Hillary Clinton does. Breaking the last six national polls into two groups, something of a pattern emerges:

Group One
Poll Undecideds Clinton Lead Clinton Raw
Gallup, 3/4 4% 14% 36%
Time, 2/26 7% 12% 36%
ABC-WaPo, 2/25 3% 12% 36%
Mean 4.7% 12.7% 36.0%


Group Two
Poll Undecideds Clinton Lead Clinton Raw
Rasmussen, 3/1 18% 8% 34%
Fox, 2/28 12% 11% 34%
Zogby, 2/24 20% 8% 33%
Mean 16.7% 9.0% 33.7%

There are two reasons why Clinton does better in polls that push undecideds than she does otherwise. First, she is leading overall, she it follows that the she would also lead among undecideds. The more undecideds who are pushed, the larger her lead will become. Secondly, her lead among undecideds is particularly pronounced, because she does better relative to Obama and Edwards among those not paying close attention than she does among those paying closer attention. Consider, for example, the following crosstab from the latest Pew poll on the Democratic nomination, where they looked at who voters were considering relative to how close they were paying attention to the campaign:

"Good Chance" of voting for... (among those paying "a lot" / "some" attention)
Clinton: 56%
Obama: 48%
Edwards: 24%

"Good Chance" of voting for (among those paying "not much" / "none at all")
Clinton: 42%
Obama: 23%
Edwards: 22%

People who are not currently engaged in the campaign are both relatively more pro-Clinton than those who are paying attention, and relatively more prone toward being undecided. Edwards also gains virtually nothing from those who are paying attention, while Obama gains the most. Thus, the more polls push undecideds, who tend to be relatively pro-Clinton, the better off Clinton will appear. This also means that some of Clinton's lead, but not quite all of it, appears to be maintained by low-information voters. Further, it also means that the next wave of voters to become engaged in the campaign are more inclined toward Clinton than the current group, which means Obama and Edwards will have their work cut out for them when those voters become engaged.

Anyway, check out the latest Gallup poll for the national primary, that was released this morning. It shows Obama closing the gap, but not as much as other polls. Gallup included second-choices in this poll, so I am waiting to see if they will show results without Al Gore.



Display:


Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

Is it really a big deal?  It is obvious Clinton would lead among undecideds because she has name appeal.  Everyone knows her.  If these numbers are the same in December, then it is a bigger deal, but it is still too far out in my opinion, for it to be that big of a deal.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:59:10 AM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

My thought too...how much is this a function of name ID?  Obviously that is more of an issue for Obama than Edwards and is changing with each week.


by juls on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

There's a third probable reason that overshadows the first two!

The "undecideds" simply don't have a real opinion, having not focused at all on the campaign. But, they've heard about Hillary. So, when pushed they gravitate to the candidate they know something about.

Thus, this pressure to choose provides a meaningless statistic!

It's really answering the question: Who Have You Heard About Enough To Say Their Name When Pushed To Choose!

That says NOTHING about how people will actually vote or even how they are leaning!

The entire process of forcing people to choose when they aren't thinking about it is faulty.

They're not really leaning Clinton. They're answering a hypothetical question by giving a hypothetical answer.

If they were really about to vote soon and they know it, they'd have formed an opinion!


by Cugel on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:07:38 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

The only thing that matters is how Iowa caucs-goers can influence thier local county delegates into supporting thier candidate of choice.

Edwards is placing all the chips in Iowa and he's picking up a vast majority of Vilsack supporters.

It's sickening that people in polls believe Hillary is the re-incarnation of Bill. The Clinton's are slimy and the democratic party can't afford 4 more years of a Billary presidency.

Edwards for president in 2008.


by Djneedle83 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:13:32 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

Given the lack of Polls out of Iowa since Vilsack dropped, I would like to see proof to your assertion Edwards is shoring up VIlsack's support.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (3.00 / 1)

From today's Q poll

Is Hillary electable?

                       FL      OH      PA
- Hillary Clinton
Favorable               48%     49%     44%
Unfavorable             39      41      45
Hvn't hrd enough         9       9       9
REFUSED                  3       2       2

- Barack Obama
Favorable               40%     40%     42%
Unfavorable             19      17      16
Hvn't hrd enough        39      41      41
REFUSED                  2       2       1

John Edwards                            
Favorable               46%     47%     42%
Unfavorable             23      24      26
Hvn't hrd enough        29      26      30
REFUSED                  1       2       2


by Djneedle83 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:19:16 PM EST

Thats tells it all.... (none / 0)

doesnt it?

Ohio Net Favorability:

Hillary Clinton +8
Barack Obama +23
John Edwards +23

Pennsylvania Net Favorability:

Hillary Clinton -1
Barack Obama +26
John Edwards +14


by MarcTGFG on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thats tells it all.... (none / 0)

Actually it doesn't tell us that much.  Part of both BO and JE's net is a higher rating among Rep's. But if you look at the horse race numbers, neither one is doing much better with the Reps against McCain or Giuliani. So they may feel somewhat favorable towards them but not necessarily enough to pull the lever for them.


by MassEyesandEars on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

It's kind of hard to read like that-- mind if I fix your formating real quick?:

From today's Q poll

Is Hillary electable?

                      FL      OH      PA
- Hillary Clinton
Favorable               48%     49%     44%
Unfavorable             39      41      45
Hvn't hrd enough         9       9       9
REFUSED                  3       2       2

- Barack Obama
Favorable               40%     40%     42%
Unfavorable             19      17      16
Hvn't hrd enough        39      41      41
REFUSED                  2       2       1

John Edwards                            
Favorable               46%     47%     42%
Unfavorable             23      24      26
Hvn't hrd enough        29      26      30
REFUSED                  1       2       2

Now, here's what I wonder-- in the Q poll you're referring to, how closely do the "electable/unelectable/dunno" poll numbers mirror the percentage of people who view those candidates favorable/unfavorable/dunno personally? That is to say, are the people responding in this poll giving real assessments of electability, or are they just responding for each candidate depending on whether they personally like that candidate or not?


by Silent sound on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is cool (none / 0)

I think it is so cool how she is handling herself and although she is a bit rough edged this is her coming victory - I believe McCain will be fighting against Clinton.

I actually really like Bill Richardson as far as credentials and experience go.


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:20:49 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

These national polls mean nothing this early. Besides, these national polls are showing Democratic candidates getting less than 80% of democrats - absurd. Such a low percentage is not to be expected in a general election especially in an anti-Bush/anti-Republican election environment.


by meliou2 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:31:35 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (3.00 / 1)

To me, what this poll means is that the more people know about the candidates, the less likely they are to support Clinton.  There is a difference between "name recognition" and true knowledge of who the candidates are and what they support.  While Chris believes HRC will get a "bump" from the next group of voters to make up there mind, I think that HRC do worse as more voters become engaged in the race.


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:09:41 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

I noticed this morning looking at the NH poll.  However, it really only tells us to be careful when comparing polls.  I think the ones with higher undecideds more accurately capure the current environment.

But, those lower-engagement (pc low information) voters, may or may not continue to break the same way they lean now once they start to pay attention. We don't know yet, and we don't know what the dominant media story lines will be once they do.


by MassEyesandEars on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:32:16 PM EST

Gore's numbers improved in the Gallup poll (none / 0)



9. Please tell me which of those candidates you would be
most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for
President in the year 2008, or if you would support
someone else.

               Mar 2-4 Feb 9-11
Clinton         36      40
Barack Obama    22      21
Al Gore         18      14
John Edwards    9       13
Joe Biden       3       1
Richardson      1       4
Wesley Clark    2       1
Al Sharpton     -       1
Mike Gravel     1       -
Dodd            -       1
Kucinich        --      -
Other           3       3
None            3       3
All/any         1       --
No opinion      7       4

10. (Asked of Democrats  and independents who lean to the
Democratic Party who named a candidate they support for
the Democratic  nomination in 2008) Who would be your
second choice?

               Mar 2-4 Feb 9-11
Clinton         59      67
Barack Obama    43      42
Al Gore         34      26
John Edwards    21      26
Joe Biden       4       5
Richardson      4       7
Wesley Clark    3       3
Al Sharpton     2       1
Mike Gravel     1       1
Dodd            1       2
Kucinich        1       1
Other           3       3
None            3       3
All/any         1       --
No opinion      7       4

E.  Al Gore
                Fav     Unfav   No opinion
2007 Mar 2-4     55      39      6
2007 Feb 9-11     52      45      3
2006 Jun 23-25  48      45      8
2003 Jun 27-29  49      45      6


http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/table s/live/2007-03-06-poll.htm

ps: Chris, since you meticulously present Gore's numbers when he polls poorly, perhaps you should also mention when he polls well. It just ain't Kosher otherwise. You know very well that I admire  and laud you when you make good efforts for progressive/Democratic causes, but by the same token, I must also point out the flaws in your coverage of 2008 and Gore. Please try to be neutral and evenhanded.


by NuevoLiberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:12:28 PM EST

Re: Undecideds In National Polls (none / 0)

If that many people don't know enough about John Edwards and Barack Obama at this point in time, I'd say John Edwards and Barack Obama haven't made much of an impact, despite Edwards' solid two years of campaigning and being on every talk show, not to mention he RAN for VP in 2004.  

And Obama - who hasn't heard about Obama?  He's the current sensation of the nation.


by marasaud on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:19:19 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.