The Myth Of Obama's "Suburban Women" Problem

by Josh Orton, Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST

Last night's NBC/WSJ poll includes a sub-group that has talking-heads worked up in a tizzy: among "white suburban women," the poll shows McCain defeating Obama 44 percent to 38 percent, even though Obama beats McCain among women generally by a 52-33% margin.

But the numbers are flimsy.

Singer called foul this early this morning, and now the Huffington Post confirms it (emphasis mine):

MSNBC has now provided The Huffington Post with more information on its "suburban women" finding showing a 44-38 McCain lead over Obama. "This is within the margin of error of 9.34 percent based on a sample size of 110 within the larger poll," an MSNBC source wrote over email. (That's three times the margin of error for the entire poll.) This means McCain's 44 percent figure of support among suburban women could actually be as low as 35 percent, while Obama's 38 percent figure could rise as high as 47 percent. Alternatively, McCain could be leading Obama 53-29. Bottom line: that much variance renders the finding of little statistical use.

So this new conventional wisdom is based on a poll of 110 people with a margin of error approaching a whopping 10%. These numbers can't be trusted.




Tags: Election 08, Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment


thank you for debunking this annoying meme (none / 0)


by slinkerwink on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST

"Suburban Women" (none / 0)

Although this may be a big nothing, I think anything that is problematic at this point needs to be taken seriously and investigated.

I was wondering if a reverse economic factor fed into this; tax policy, where I think Obama's is excellent, but upper and upper middle income "soccer moms," might disagree.  That, or possibly the national security thing where McCain still comes out ahead in some recent polling.  

I hope this is an aberration, but am not prepared to look at any negative information complacently.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/06/12/poll-obama-has-the-edge-on-the-e conomy/


by mady on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:32:31 PM EST

Tax policy's mostly a wash for them (none / 0)

Unless by "upper income soccer moms" you mean households making significantly over $200,000 a year.  That might be a message issue, though.  They might have heard rumors that Obama is going to increase taxes on the middle class and are worried about their own tax bill, so we'll need to combat it.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tax policy's mostly a wash for them (none / 0)

That's what I was thinking.


by mady on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Suburban Women" (none / 0)

the point here is we dont even know if there IS a problem, a MOE of nearly 10% is terrrible and MSNBC shouldn't even be talking about the numbers with that bad of a MOE, or at least they SHOULD have mentioned that MOE.

but ofcourse they didn't they just wanna create contraversy.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha... (none / 0)

Maybe Obama's having trouble with suburban woman like Maria "We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich." Bartiromo. But luckily she's not a major voting block.


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST

Maria Bartiromo... Righty (none / 0)

She appeared on the short-lived Dennis Miller Show a couple of yrs back, and said she supported privatizing Social Security - when Bush was hawking that one.

Since then, I have little respect for her expertise.


by susie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Myth (none / 0)

I'm putting this in the stupid polls of sub-sub-demographics are meaningless category.


by AIegra on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST

MOE (none / 0)

Not sure why everyone's suddenly concerned to debunk this finding. Most of the sub-samples e.g. AAs, Latinos, age 18-35 etc have a similar MOE but the results (e.g. from exit polls) have been taken previously as gospel.

The fact that we have 44-38 vs 52-33 is indeed significant. I'm not sure the Huff Po poster understands how MOE works when they say Obama's 38 percent figure "could rise as high as 47 percent". It could be as high at 77%. The MOE they usually quote is based on a probability of 95%. It doesn't mean the error can't be more than 9.34%. But it also doesn't mean it's anywhere nearly as likely to be as much as 9.34% wrong as, say, 1% wrong. So from what we know Mccain is very likely to be leading  Obama with white suburban women and almost certain to be significantly ahead of him with women overall.


by zebedee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:49:12 PM EST

Re: MOE (none / 0)

Last sentence should read ...significantly behind him with women overall.


by zebedee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you are mistaken, or mistyped (none / 0)

you wrote "So from what we know Mccain is very likely to be leading  Obama with white suburban women and almost certain to be significantly ahead of him with women overall."

But Obama is leading 52-33 among all women in the poll, which is presumably approximately half the entire sample, so we can certainly say the opposite.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

also:

However, Obama has a seven-point advantage (46-39) among all white women.

In any case, I think you are getting a little overconfident in the numbers.  If one looks for a very small subsample where McCain has a surprisingly large lead, which plainly is how the MSNBC article is written, then one is very likely to pick a subsample which is by the MOE.


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you are mistaken, or mistyped (none / 0)

Sorry, I had just corrected it as you typed your reply.

My point really is that we shouldn't ignore this evidence because of the MOE although the smaller the subsample (and the higher the resultion 95% MOE) the less reliable the result. But my (corrected) conclusions still stand and should be a cause of some concern until other evidence indicates otherwise.


by zebedee on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 44%-38% (none / 0)

suburban women don't necessarily vote en masse with democrats.


by ab03 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST

Where's Obama's Bounce? (none / 0)

Just out moments ago:

Hotline/FD 06/05 - 06/08 806 RV 44 42 Obama +2.0

2pts!  What happened?


by mikeofminnesota on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

It will be interesting should McCain invite HRC to join his ticket.


by usedmeat on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:28:55 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.

Login
Username:

Password: