Just a quick note that the "Mystery Family" and I will be taking a week off for some much needed R&R. In my absence, the incomparable Eric will be posting updates, and Professor Franklin should be posting more often then usual. So don't touch that dial! See you on Feb 26.
By Mark Blumenthal on February 17, 2007 8:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Gary Langer, the Director of Polling at ABC News, has posted a review of four recent examples of "flat footed" misreporting of "scientific" survey data. It should be required reading for reporters, bloggers, students and anyone else that writes about survey data.
Langer's examples involve recent studies on napping, adoption and spouseless women that all had a "common point:"
[T]hey appear to have been well-constructed and based on good-quality data. That elevates them above all the manufactured junk data that clamors at our doors and all too often insinuates itself into our news reports. But still the reporting on these studies is not what it could have been.
One take-away is that news organizations -- including this one -- need to sharpen their efforts to report scientific studies accurately. Another is that, as a news consumer, when you see a report on a study that's of particular interest, you might take advantage of the beauty of the Internet -- and click through to the study itself.
Amen. And go read it all.
Fort those who looking to follow Gary Langer's advice, here are links to the relevant surveys from the American Sociological Review (adoption), the 2005 American Community Study (spouseless women) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (napping).
By Mark Blumenthal on February 17, 2007 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
The Pew Research Center's Nilanthi Samaranayake and Scott Keeter have posted another useful review examining the reliability of early trial heat polls in past presidential elections. Their verdict: Not so good. While Republican front-runners have typically won their party's nomination, "the picture is more mixed" historically for Democrats and early general election trial-heats "have a poor track record." The Pew analysts also point out that the past success of Republican front-runners is of little value now since the 2008 field features "not one but two GOP frontrunners" (John McCain and Rudy Giuliani).
Observers of the early Democratic field have been arguing about whether Sen. Hilary Clinton's early lead in many primary trial heats makes her nomination "inevitable." The Pew analysis provides little resolution. On the one hand, they tell us, "early Democratic poll leaders won four out of eight open contests between 1960 and 2004." On the other, two of the four that did not win (Cuomo in 1991 and Hart in 1987) "withdrew from the race for reasons other than lagging support in the polls." So make of that history what you will.
And if that were not enough, Samaranayake and Keeter offer another source of uncertainty for those handicapping the 2008 contests:
[T]he past polling history may be less relevant today. The process is starting earlier than ever this year and while there are some well known contenders, the public's level of familiarity with the overall field of candidates is still very low. And the increased front-loading of the primaries and the growing importance of early fundraising means that the dynamics of the nominating process are apt to be somewhat different this election cycle, making comparisons with past elections less useful.
The Pew report includes a compilation of twelve early general election trial heats ("conducted in the first quarter of the year preceding the election" over a span of 35 years) that were "mostly wrong," either about the winner or margin of victory. They advise that early general election trial heats have little predictive value: "History suggests the political climate is almost certain to change between now and November 2008."
So hold on to your hats, frontrunners, it's going to be bumpy ride.
By Mark Blumenthal on February 17, 2007 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
Fox/Opinion Dynamics has a nice new poll out this week. One striking result is that NONE of the six leading candidates enjoys having more strong supporters than strong opponents. Fox asked:
Now I am going to read a list of possible candidates for the next presidential race. For each one, please tell me whether you would definitely vote for that candidate for president, if you might vote for that candidate, or if under no conditions would you vote for that candidate.
The "don't know" rate for all these candidates is pretty low, 10% or less.
The result, plotted above, shows that all six have considerably more voters saying they would never vote for the candidate than saying they definitely would vote for them. In this figure being towards the upper left is bad news, lower right is good news. As in previous polls, former Speaker Newt Gingrich fares worst among these candidates, with very substantial numbers saying they would not vote for him under any circumstances. The rest of the candidates are somewhat bunched together.
The further a candidate is from the diagonal line (or closer to the lower left corner) the more people said they "might" vote for them. (Recall the DK rate is both low and pretty even across candidates, so this is mostly a true statement.) Senator Clinton is the candidate with the fewest "might" vote for responses, but even in her case 34% said they would consider her. Obama shows the most room for growth with 45% saying "might" vote for him. The others range from 39-44% saying might.
So these front runners have a long way to go, and must all face stiff strong opposition from significant chunks of the electorate. Or put differently, those persuadable voters will matter a lot.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on February 16, 2007 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Additional analysis from a recent Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 800 likely voters nationwide (conducted 2/12 through 2/13) finds:
By Eric Dienstfrey on February 16, 2007 1:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Additional analysis from a recent USA Today/Gallup national survey of 1006 adults (conducted 2/9 through 2/11) finds:
By Eric Dienstfrey on February 16, 2007 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics national survey (story, results) of 900 registered voters (conducted 2/13 through 2/14) finds:
By Eric Dienstfrey on February 15, 2007 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Additional analysis from a recent Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 800 likely voters (conducted 2/7 through 2/8) finds Sen. John McCain within the margin of sampling error when pitted against former Sen. John Edwards (44% to 45% respectively) and Sen. Barack Obama (44% to 44%).
By Eric Dienstfrey on February 15, 2007 4:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Additional analysis from a recent University of New Hampshire WMUR Granite State Poll of 538 adults in New Hampshire (conducted 2/1 through 2/5) finds:
By Eric Dienstfrey on February 15, 2007 4: