nimh wrote:Hillary's victory in California seems to be wholly based on Latinos and Asians, among whom she leads massively. Among whites she just leads by 3. ANyway, Butrflynet already reported along those lines.
On that note, in the context of this thread: kudos to Survey USA!
Earlier today, Pollster.com looked at the Survey USA and Zogby polls that were published on the very day of the primaries, and headlined the item,
Somebody's Gonna Be Wrong.
Now, the top line numbers of those polls were as follows:
Survey USA: Clinton 52%, Obama 42%
Zogby: Obama 46%, Clinton 40%
That alone tells you who was wrong: with the exit polls at the moment pointing to a result of Clinton 53, Obama 39, SUSA definitely wins credibility points, and Zogby loses face.
But its not just the totals they got to, its how they got there too. On TNR, Josh Patashnik
commented sceptically on the SUSA poll:
Quote:SurveyUSA will probably end up looking worse.
I took a look at the crosstabs of the SurveyUSA poll (I can't seem to find them for Zogby--if any commenters can, please link!). Unfortunately, one of the most relevant things to look at is the relative proportion of African-American and Latino votes in the electorate (since, by all accounts, Obama will win the black vote overwhelmingly and Clinton will win the Latino vote easily, though by a smaller margin). In the 2004 Democratic primary, 16 percent of voters were Latino and 8 percent were black. SurveyUSA estimates the 2008 Democratic electorate as being 26 percent Latino and 9 percent black. To be frank, I would be shocked if those numbers end up being correct--particularly given the disproportionate surge in black turnout we saw in South Carolina. If I had to guess, I'd say the proportions will be about 19 and 11--which is more in line with what other pollsters predict. This alone would swing the result several points toward Obama from what SurveyUSA has.
In addition, SurveyUSA has Hillary beating Obama by one point in the Bay Area, which defies all conventional wisdom. The Field Poll, which has more expertise polling California than anyone, had Obama winning in the Bay Area 41-31--and this was just at the beginning of what looks like a late Obama surge in the state. Hillary will win the state if turnout in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are large enough, but, again, I'd be very surprised if she won the Bay Area (full of latté liberals and African-Americans) outright.
Well...
According to the exit polls,
- Latinos made up 29% of the electorate - even more than SUSA had predicted;
- Blacks made up just 6% of the electorate - even less than SUSA had predicted;
- Clinton led Obama in the Bay area, not just by 1 point, but by 7
So on every of the counts Patashnik mentioned, SUSA's numbers were apparently born out.
Of course, we're talking preliminary exit polls, which will still be updated, but it looks like SUSA wasnt just right - it was right because it got a number of underlying determinants correct even when it went right against the common wisdom of the moment.
But apart from the meta-review of polling, these numbers raise interesting/disturbing questions.
Considering that Obama succeeded in enthusing a massive turnout among AFrican-Americans throughout the South, back in the SC primary and today again, why not, apparently, here?
And considering that overall turnout in California is very high, does the increased weight exerted by the Latinos mean that their turnout was *extremely* high, and why exactly? It's Obama who defended the right of even illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses, Hillary was against - but she obviously inspires a fierce and deep-seated loyalty - at least in this state.
