The cellphone Effect

Technology is having an increasingly important effect on the way we conduct and consider politics. Even your grandma has perhaps come to be accustomed to recognise the effect of blogs as purveyors of radical opinions and occasionally doing the work that used to be left for journalists.

But theres something more influential that i've been interested in: As more and more of us come to use mobile phones as our main way of communication (Honestly I dont even know my home phone-line number), are pollsters making accommodations for this change? Nate Silver of the excellent fivethirtyeight.com has some details:

The difference is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Perhaps not coincidentally, Gallup, Pew and ABC/WaPo have each found a cellphone effect of between 1-3 points[For Obama] when they have conducted experiments involving polling with and without a cellphone supplement.

A difference of 2-3 points may not be a big deal in certain survey applications such as market research, but in polling a tight presidential race it makes a big difference. If I re-run today's numbers but add 2.2 points to Obama's margin in each non-cellphone poll, his win percentage shoots up from 71.5 percent to 78.5 percent, and he goes from 303.1 electoral votes to 318.5

I'm yet to find information of Australian pollsters recognising this effect, but as the technology becomes more ubiquitous in both this country and the USA, are our pollsters still correctly recognising the opinion of the general public, or only those select few who still hold to, and take the time for, a general poll by an anonymous voice on the other end of the line.

Pollsters, what say you ?

Update: Pew Research reports has been doing a bit of work on this very question and has some interesting, though predictable findings:

a virtually identical pattern is seen across all three surveys: In each case, including cell phone interviews resulted in slightly more support for Obama and slightly less for McCain, a consistent difference of two-to-three points in the margin.

In a further update: Re McCain's suspending the campaign because of the financial crisis while this is the information we all want:

A majority of Americans say the debate should be held. Just 10% say the debate should be postponed. A sizable percentage of Americans, 36%, think the focus of the debate should be modified to focus more on the economy. 3 of 4 Americans say the presidential campaign should continue. Just 14% say the presidential campaign should be suspended. If Friday’s debate does not take place 46% of Americans say that would be bad for America.

Yet, as Mark Blumenthal points out:

we ought to stop and ask ourselves: Does it make any sense to try to interview 1,000 Americans over a two-hour span in the middle of a work day?

Sadly no. Expect views to slide back towards partisan lines, as Republicans come to identify with McCain's suspension 'in the national interest' claims, and democrats harden against such a change.

My guess is Independents will view it in the same light they do the McCain campaign. If the myth of the Maverick is still strong they will see it as a bold action in a time of crisis and reward it (though not necessarily confer economic credibility to his campaign). If they have already been turned off, it will just look a stunt, and weak esp with the demand to postpone the debates.

McCain has already thrown one hail mary pass this election: Choosing Palin, and whilst it helped level the game, it hasnt put them in front, and cost a few injuries to the side (like the experience attack). Trying again is pushing his luck, but this is McCain at his rawest. The gambler.

Expect a few more such risks before the campaign ends. And god help us if he wins.