August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
As this already slow Friday afternoon before Labor Day winds
down, I seem to be on the receiving end of a glut of eerily similar emails
about Ron Paul. Here is a sampling (and other than salutations, I'm leaving
Is Ron Paul on another page?
How come you do not track the
popularity of Ron Paul?
Where's Ron Paul's Name ????????????? We appreciate you!
Well, thank you! We received similar spate of messages in June
Where's Ron Paul on your
charts? I guess someone made an error. Please do something about this
problem. Ron Paul has more support
and cash on hand than John McCain already.
I am curious...where is Dr. Ron Paul on this poll? You do know he is running for president, correct? Also that he has a decent sized internet following, which has translated into real ground support more than a few times. If you could be so kind as to add Dr. Paul to this
poll, or contact someone who can. Thank you.
I recently found your polls of
those running for President in 2008 and to my suprise I've found that Ron Paul
is not anywhere to be found on this polls. This is interesting since he has won
almost everyone online poll and is dominating the internet. I think its sad
your site is picking only those "serious" candidates. Every candidate
is a serious candidate, thats the point of having democratic elections. I urge
you to change your site to include everyone running for president not just the
few and the rich.
Why is Ron Paul not an option on your polls? He has more web traffic than any other GOP canidate and has won EVERY debate to date by popular vote? I am offended by his disclusion. . . Please do the right thing and include Ron Paul in your polls. It IS your responsibility.
How can there be any kind of fairness or objectivity to your
polls when they leave out the leading Republican Presidential
candidate - Ron Paul? Check it out!
The public wants a free America
and only one person leads that direction - Ron Paul. It is hard to take your polling seriuosly as the degree
of bias seems to exceed any honesty.
And thank you again! As I suspect we will receive more queries
in this vein, here are some answers to try to clear up the confusion:
1) We do not conduct
polls. We aggregate the results from surveys released into the public
domain by media organizations, polling companies, campaigns and interest
groups. As such, we have no role in deciding what goes into, or gets left out
of, any poll.
2) Where is Ron
Paul's name on Pollster.com? Well, for starters, try here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Our goal is to collect and aggregate every result for every
candidate choice on every trial heat question of every poll, good, bad or indifferent. On both the large charts and HTML
tables that appear on Pollster for any race, we display the results for the five or
six candidates leading candidates. We do so because of limits on space (for the tables)
and legibility (for the charts). However, for each race and state we also include a PDF
table with results for all active candidates and a second set of charts that plots a
line for each candidate, including Paul (and those are the links listed above).
For brevity's sake, our "poll update" blog entries also
typically highlight the percentages for just those candidates that garner 5% or
better, although those updates always feature links to the source documents
that include full results.
3) Why aren't the media
pollsters asking about Paul? Actually, virtually all of the national pollsters
have been including Paul and the list
of choices in Republican trial heats during 2007. Check out our PDF for the national polls. If a
candidate's name was not included among the answer choices a dash "-" will
appear under their name. Ifthe result for Paul is "0%," that means that his support was less than 1%.
4) Why don't you
include online reader polls or straw polls like those that sometimes appear on
network web pages and blogs? Our goal is to include any survey that
purports to provide a representative sampling of all adults, registered voters
or likely voters nationwide or in a given state. We exclude explicitly
"non-scientific" ballots done for "entertainment value." For more information
on the shortcomings of these online ballots, see this recent column
by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer (whose organization does include Ron
Paul on national trial heat poll questions).
Hopefully, that will answer the many questions. We
There have been three new polls since my last update of approval of President Bush. The USA Today/Gallup poll done 8/13-16/07 found approval at 32%, disapproval at 63%. A Pew Research poll taken 8/1-18/07 got approval at 31%, disapproval at 59%, and the Fox News poll done 8/21-22/07 put approval at 33%, disapproval at 56%.
With these three polls, the trend estimate is 32.6%, a small continued gain over the previous batch of polling.
The plot below shows the six most recent polls in relation to the trend estimate.
None of the recent polls qualify as outliers, with all comfortably within the 95% confidence interval.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
American Research Group (ARG) does a large amount of state primary polling and is therefore potentially influential in estimating candidate support because they contribute more polls than most other organizations. This week we saw conflicting results from ARG and Time/SRBI polls of Iowa. (See Mark Blumenthal's analysis here.) The discrepancy of ARG polls from others in Iowa has been an issue here before, as has been the question of how much any single poll influences our trend estimates. Today we take another step towards systematically answering that question.
In the Democratic race, ARG has consistently found support for Clinton well above that of other polling organizations. In the chart above, ARG polls are in purple, the blue line is the trend estimated with all polls, including ARG, while the red line is the trend estimate without ARG. The light blue points are all non-ARG polls, while the purple points are the ARG polls.
This lets us compare three things: ARG polls to other polls, ARG polls to the trend, and the trend with ARG to the trend without ARG.
In the case of Clinton, ARG polls are consistently far above the results of other polls. This has been widely remarked upon already. And in the Clinton case, the ARG polls have shown some decline in support in Iowa, while other polls have shown an increase in her support. This is also the case in which ARG exerts a significant influence on the trend estimator. The blue trend line (with ARG included) is well above the red trend estimate which excludes ARG. This was especially true early in 2007 when there were few polls and several from ARG, giving them an extra influence due to lack of non-ARG data. As polling frequency has increased the two trend estimates have converged, but the non-ARG estimate remains a couple of points below the overall trend.
Blumenthal has talked about possible reasons for this, and I encourage you to see his post here.
I'm more concerned with the magnitude of difference and their effects here, so will leave it to Mark to explain the "why".
It is clear that ARG's estimates for Clinton have consistently been out of line with others, and that this has had an effect on my trend estimates, making Clinton appear more competitive in the first half of 2007.
But let's also look at the other candidates. ARG is less consistent in over- or under-estimating Edwards' support. Some ARG polls have put Edwards below trend, but others have him above trend. While ARG has disagreed with other pollsters in individual polls, the effect of ARG on the trend estimate for Edwards is negligible.
On the other hand, ARG has consistently had Obama below the support found in other polls, and well below the trend estimate. Despite this, the effect of ARG on the trend estimates has been small for Obama, with the blue and red trend estimates consistently quite close to one another.
Finally, Richardson has been a bit underestimated by ARG, but again with little influence on the trend estimates.
Bottom line: ARG has had a substantial effect on the Clinton trend estimate until recently. Still, the substantive effect is not trivial. Estimates including ARG put the trend at 26.2% for Clinton, 24.2% for Edwards, a Clinton lead of 2.0 points. But excluding ARG from the trends we get Clinton at 24.6% and Edwards at 25.9%, a 1.3 point Edwards lead. Of course both estimates say the race is close in Iowa, and perhaps we should stop there. But the consistent ARG overestimate of Clinton has influenced perceptions and estimates for this race.
If we switch to the Republican side, there is a consistent ARG overestimate of McCain support until very recently. ARG is also a bit high on Giuliani and a bit low on Romney. The Thompson numbers are relatively few and jump around.
Unlike the case of Clinton, the trend estimates are not much affected by the ARG data. The blue and red trend estimates lie very close to one another for all four Republican candidates, despite the high ARG readings for McCain.
There are two bottom lines here. Any pollster can experience consistent house effects that lead to over- or under-estimating support for some candidate. These may be due to sampling methods, filtering for likely voters, question wording or order, weighting methods, or perhaps to mysterious gremlins. ARG is an example of house effects, at least for Clinton and McCain and probably Obama. House effects are important because they give us a way of estimating what a poll would be if we adjust for those house effects. That gives better perspective than the raw numbers might. But house effects also allow us to say which polls are more in line and which more out of line with others. A house effect is not in and of itself evidence for bad polling methodology. There may be good reasons for choices that lead to significant house effects-- for example deciding to interview likely voters rather than adults or a decision not to push undecided voters or to push them for a preference. So we should be careful here in how we interpret the results. That said, it is crucial to know which organizations are consistently high or low for candidates (or any other variable.) The ARG lines in the figures above give a clear reading of that for the Iowa polling.
In the next few days we'll be rolling out a series of posts that look at house effects for all polling organizations across state and national polling. We'll have a systematic look at this, with estimates of the effects for each organization. I hope that will help clarify things.
The second bottom line point is that the trend estimates are pretty resistant to the effect of a single polling organization when there are plenty of other polls taken around the sample period, but that, as in the case of Clinton and ARG, this effect can be quite a bit larger when polling is sparse and a single organization contributes a substantial share of the polls while at the same time exhibiting a significant house effect. In one sense this problem goes away as we approach elections because the density of polling increases as does the heterogeneity of polling organizations. But as Iowa illustrates (and we'll see again in other primary states with limited polling) it is not always possible to be sure which polls are misleading us when the evidence is limited.
Stay tuned next week for the next step in examining the house effects in primary polling.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
A new Diageo/Hotline national survey (release, results) of 604 self-identified Republican registered voters (conducted 8/22 through 8/26) finds:
- Among 547 who say they "typically vote" in the Republican primary, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (27% to 17%) in a national primary; former Gov. Mitt Romney trails at 15%, Sen. John McCain at 12%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- 54% are "generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Republican nomination for President;" 38% "wish there were more choices."
View all National Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
Following up on yesterday's
post, in which I speculated - wrongly, as it turns out -- about the incidence
of eligible adults selected by the American Research Group (ARG) as likely
caucus goers for their most recent surveys of Democrats
in Iowa. I
emailed Dick Bennett, and can now report on how their surveys compare to the
others that have provided us with similar details.
First, according to Bennett, I was incorrect in speculating
that they use only one question to screen for "likely caucus goers." They start
with a random digit dial (RDD) sample of adults in Iowa
in households with a working telephone and then ask four different questions (although
they provide only the last question on the page
ask whether respondents are registered to vote, and whether they are
registered as Democrats or Republicans. Non-registrants are terminated and
ask registrants how likely they are to participate in the Caucus "a
1-to-10 scale with 1 meaning definitely not participating and 10 meaning
definitely participating." Those who answer 1 through 6 are terminated and
ask unaffiliated registrants ("independents" registered as neither
Democrats nor Republicans) whether they plan to participate in the
Democratic or Republican caucus. Registered Democrats and independents who
plan to caucus with the Democrats get the Democratic vote question;
Registered Republicans and independents who plan to caucus with the
Republicans answer the Republican question.
- After asking
vote question, they asks the question that appears on the web site: "Would
you say that you definitely plan to participate in the 2008 Democratic
presidential caucus, that you might participate in the 2008 Democratic
presidential caucus, or that you will probably not participate in the 2008
Democratic presidential caucus?" Only the definite are included in the final
sample of likely caucus voters.
So the process involves calling a random sample of adults
until they reach a quota of 600 interviews for voters of one of the parties. In
their most recent Iowa
survey, they were able to fill the quota for Democrats first, so they continued
dialing the random sample until they had interviewed 600 Republicans,
terminating 155 Democrats in the process. Bennett reports that they also terminated
another 4,842 adults on their various screen questions (740 who say they were
not registered to vote, 3,598 who rated their likelihood of participating as 6
or lower and 504 who were less than "definite" about participating on the final
So, the "back of the envelope" calculation for ARG is that
their most recent sample of Democrats represents 12% of Iowa adults (755 Democrats divided by 755+600+4,842).
Their most recent sample of Republicans represents roughly 10% of Iowa adults (600 Republicans
divided by 755+600+4,842). We can compare the Democratic statistic to those provided
by other Iowa
And again, for those just joining this discussion, the 2004
Democratic caucus turnout was reported as 122,200, which represented 5.4% of
the voting age population and 5.6 of eligible adults.
So, if we take all of these pollsters at their word, my "blogger
speculation" yesterday was off-base: ARG's incidence of Democratic likely
voters as a percentage of eligible adults is very close to the surveys done by Time and ABC/Washington Post. Apologies to Bennett.
But we still have a mystery. Why the consistent difference
between the result from ARG and other surveys that appears to favor Clinton? Professor
Franklin is working on a post as I speak that will chart the difference, but
when we exclude the ARG's surveys from our estimate for Iowa, Clinton's current
2 point margin over Edwards (26.2% to 24.2%) becomes a 1.3 point deficit (24.6%
to 25.9%). [See Franklin's in-depth discussion, now posted here].
I asked Bennett whether he had any theories that might
explain the difference. Here is his response:
Our sample size is larger and our likely voter screen
is more difficult to pass. As you have pointed out, many surveys (although
they are not designed to project participation) project unrealistic levels of
participation. A likely voter/participant does not need to vote/participate to
represent the pool of likely voters/participants, but the likely
voter/participant pool is not much larger than the actual turnout.
Our results in Iowa
show that John Edwards has a slight lead over Hillary Clinton among those
voters saying they have attended a caucus in the past. Hillary Clinton has a
greater lead among those saying this will be their first caucus. Hillary
Clinton also has very strong support among women who say they usually do not
vote/participate in primary/caucus races - this is true in Iowa and the other early states
Sample size is largely irrelevant to the pattern in our
chart. Smaller samples would explain greater variability, but not a consistent
difference across a large number of samples. The observation in his second
paragraph is much more important. Since ARG's previous releases did not mention
these results, I asked for the question about past caucus participation and the
associated results. His response:
The question is: Will this be the first Democratic caucus
you have attended, or have you attended a Democratic caucus in the past?
We first asked this in Feb:
Feb - 41% first, 59% past
Mar - 44% first, 55% past
Apr - 39% first, 60% past
May - 45% first, 55% past
Jun - 42% first, 57% past
Jul - 40% first, 60% past
Aug - 43% first, 57% past
We can compare this result to similar questions or reports
from other recent surveys and they show a clear pattern. The differences among
the four pollsters are huge and show a clear pattern, consistent with the
differences Bennett reports in his own surveys: John Edwards does better against Clinton
as the percentage of past caucus goers increases.
So what is the right number of past caucus goers? Bennett
can certainly argue that the entrance polls from the 2000 and 2004 Caucuses are
on his side. Bennett used exactly the same question as the network entrance
poll, which reported the percentage of first-time Democratic caucus goers as 53%
and 47% in 2000. Of course, as we learned three years ago, exit polls have their
own problems, and I am guessing that other pollsters will debate what past-caucus goer number is correct. We will
pursue this point further.
Finally, it is worth saying that this exchange and my
arguably unfair "blogger speculation" yesterday makes one thing clear: If we
are going to dig deeper into these issues, we have an obligation to ask these
questions (about incidence and sample characteristics) about all polls, not
just those from ARG, Time and a
handful of others.
A new statewide survey of 500 past Republican caucus attendees or new registrants who say they are likely to attend a Republican presidential caucus in Iowa (conducted 8/20 through 8/21) sponsored by One Vote 08 and conducted by McLaughlin & Associates (R) / Hart Research (D) finds former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (35% to 12%) in a statewide caucus; former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Fred Thompson both trails at 11%, Rep. Tom Tancredo at 9%, Sen. John McCain at 7%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
View all Iowa Caucus poll data at Pollster.com:
New analysis from a Pew Research Center national survey of 469 Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (conducted 7/25 through 7/29) finds:
- Among a sub-sample of 109 African-Americans, 52% of rate Sen. Hillary Clinton very favorably and 50% rate Sen. Barack Obama very favorably; 18% rate former Sen. John Edwards very favorably. Among whites, 29% rate Clinton very favorably, 23% for Obama, and 21% for Edwards.
- "Despite Edwards' focus on poverty and the concerns of lower-income Americans in his campaign, he is viewed no more favorably by low-income Americans than by those with higher incomes. Not only does he trail the other candidates among African Americans, but just 17% of lower-income whites give Edwards a very favorable rating, compared with 35% for Clinton."
So today we have another installment in that pollster's nightmare
known as the Iowa
caucuses: Two new polls of "likely Democratic caucus goers" conducted over the
last ten days that show very different results. The American Research Group
(conducted 8/26-29, n=600) shows Hillary Clinton (with 28%) leading Barack
Obama (23%) and John Edwards (20%). And a new survey from Time/SRBI (conducted 8/22-26, n=519, Time story,
SRBI results) shows
essentially the opposite, Edwards (with 29%) leading Clinton (24%) and Obama (22%).
Is one result more trustworthy than the other? That is
always a tough question to answer, but one of these polls is considerably more
transparent about its methods. And that should tell us something.
While I have been opining lately about both the
difficulty in polling the Iowa Caucuses and the remarkable lack of disclosure
of methodology in the early states (especially here
and here and all the posts here),
the new Time survey stands out as a model of transparency:
The sample source was a list of
registered Democratic and Independent voters in Iowa provided by Voter Contact Services.
These registered voters were screened to determine their likelihood of
attending the 2008 Iowa
Likely voters included in the
sample included those who said they were
100% certain that they would attend the Iowa caucuses, OR
probably going to attend and reported
that they had attended a previous Iowa
The margin of error for the
entire sample is approximately +/- 5 percentage points. The margin of error is
higher for subgroups. Surveys are subject to other error sources as well,
including sampling coverage error, recording error, and respondent error.
Data were weighted to approximate
the 2004 Iowa
Democratic Caucus "Entrance Polls," conducted January 19, 2004.
Turnout in primary elections and
caucuses tends to be low, with polls at this early stage generally
The sample included cell phone
numbers, which, to the extent SRBI was able to identify them, were dialed
I emailed Schulman to ask about the incidence and he quickly
replied with a "back of the envelope" calculation: Their sample of 519 likely
caucus goers represents roughly 12% of eligible adults in Iowa (details on the
jump), exactly the same percentage as obtained by the recent ABC
News/Washington Post poll, but
higher than the reported 2004 Democratic caucus turnout (5.5% of eligible
adults). Keep in mind, however, that the ABC/Post poll used a random digit dial
methodology and screened from the population of all Iowa adults.
The Time/SRBI survey started with a list of registered
Democrats and independents - so theoretically did a better job screening out
non-registrants and Republicans. On the Time survey, 92% of respondents report having
"ever attended" Iowa
precinct caucuses (see Q2)."
On the Post/ABC survey, 68% report having "attended any previous Iowa caucuses" (see
Q12). Readers will notice that on the 2004 entrance
poll, 55% of the caucus-goers said they had participated before.
What is the American
Research Group Methodology? All they tell us on the website is that they
completed 600 interviews and that respondents were asked:
Would you say that you definitely
plan to participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, that you might
participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, or that you will
probably not participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus?
Blogger speculation alert: If this was the only question used to
screen, it is likely that ARG's incidence of eligible adults was much higher. Such a difference likely explains why they show Clinton
doing consistently better
in Iowa than other pollsters, but that is just an educated guess. [Update: A guess that turns out to be wrong....]. We owe
Dick Bennett the opportunity to respond with more details. I have emailed him
with questions and will post a response when I get it. [Update: Details of Bennett's response here. They ask four questions to screen for likely voters and their Democratic sample in this case represented roughly 12% of adults in Iowa. Apologies to ARG].
I suspect that if we could know all about every pollsters'
methods in Iowa, we would see evidence of a disagreement about how tightly to
screen and about what percentage of the completed sample should report having
participated in a prior caucus.
The resolution of that argument is neither simple nor obvious,
but seems to have a profound impact on the results. Surveys that appear to
include more past caucus goers (Time,
Des Moines Register and One
Campaign survey -- see our Iowa compilation) tend to favor John Edwards, while Hillary Clinton
does better on surveys that define the likely caucus-goer universe more
broadly. [Update: The disagreement may have more to do with the appropriate number of self-reported past caucus goers].
Details on Time's "back of the envelope" incidence
calculation after the jump...
Continue reading "Iowa: A Tale of Two New Polls"
Additional results from the recent Kaiser Family Foundation national survey (key findings; full results) of 1,500 adults (conducted 8/2 through 8/8 by Princeton Survey Research Associates) finds:
- Of all the candidates for president in 2008 regardless of party, 19% of Americans say Sen. Hillary Clinton "best represents" their own views on health care; 6% say Sen. Barack Obama.
- 27% say Clinton is "placing the biggest emphasis on health care issues;" 6% say Obama, 5% say Edwards.
A new Time
national statewide survey (TIME story, SRBI release, results) of 519 registered voters in Iowa who are likely to attend the 2008 Democratic caucuses (conducted 8/22 through 8/26) finds:
- Former Sen. John Edwards (at 29%) leads Sen. Hillary Clinton (24%) in a statewide caucus; Sen. Barack Obama runs at 22%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 11%, Sen. Joe Biden at 5%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- When asked to choose among "the top four candidates;" former Edwards (at 32%) leads Clinton (24%) and Obama (22%); Gov. Bill Richardson trails at 13%.
- "About half of likely caucus goers currently supporting a candidate (46%) say that they still might change their minds."
"The sample source was a list of registered Democratic and Independent voters in Iowa provided by Voter Contact Services. These registered voters were screened to determine their likelihood of attending the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. Likely voters included in the sample included those who said they were 100% certain that they would attend the Iowa caucuses, or probably going to attend and reported that they had attended a previous Iowa caucus."
View all Iowa Caucus poll data at Pollster.com:
Three new American Research Group statewide surveys of likely caucus/primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (conducted 8/26 through 8/29) finds:
- Among 600 Democrats in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (28% to 23%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 20%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 13%. Among 600 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (27% to 17%); former Gov. Mike Huckabee trails at 14%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 13%, former Speaker Newt Gingrich at 7%, Sen. John McCain at 5%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- Among 600 Democrats in New Hampshire, Clinton leads Obama (37% to 17%) in a statewide primary; Edwards trails at 14%, Richardson at 7%. Among Republicans, Romney edges out Giuliani (27% to 23%); McCain trails at 12%, Huckabee at 9%, Thompson at 8%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
- Among 600 Democrats in South Carolina, Clinton leads Edwards (32% to 24%) in a statewide primary; Obama trails at 21%. Among Republicans, Giuliani leads Thompson (26% to 21%); McCain trails at 12%, Huckabee and Romney both at 9%, Gingrich at 6%. All other candidates receive less than 5% each.
View all Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, and South Carolina Primary poll data at Pollster.com:
A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion statewide survey of 502 registered Democratic voters in Florida (conducted 8/27) finds:
- 56% are aware of "the Democratic national committees current position that no delegates to the national convention will be awarded to the winner of the January 29th Florida Democratic presidential primary;" 36% are not.
- 53% disapprove of "the Democratic national committees position of not awarding delegates to presidential candidates based on the results of the January 29th Florida Democratic presidential primary;" 34% approve.
Apologies for the light posting the last few days. My absence results from a combination of time spent focusing on the the pipes here at Pollster, two quick hits on MSNBC yesterday (I'll try to update in advance on those next time) and, frankly, the dog days of August that always seem to slow the pace here in DC. And to top if off today, jury duty!
So, with the help of my Treo and lunchtime Wi-Fi connection, here are a few click-worthy links:
- Marc Ambinder posts a memo from John Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman arguing that Edwards "outperforms" other Democratic candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton in head-to-head general election match-ups both nationally and in "key battleground states."
- Chris Bowers crunched some of the same numbers earlier this week and had a harder time finding "any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards."
- Gary Langer weighs in on the "online ballots" conducted by ABCnews.com "for entertainment only." Bottom line: "these things can be, and often are, intentionally manipulated by groups or individuals with an interest in the outcome."
- Kathy Frankovic sees some improvement in public "confidence in the government's ability to respond to natural disasters" two years after Hurricane Katrina, but "little change . . . in the public's view of the recovery effort in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
- "Behind the Numbers" (The Washington Post's new polling blog) has the latest weekly update of the Post-ABC Consumer Comfort Index: "Stable, but far below average."
- Frank Newport teases soon-to-be released Gallup numbers showing that football fans want Falcons quarterback Michael Vick banned from the NFL for life.
A new SurveyUSA automated survey of 600 adults in Idaho (conducted 8/28) finds:
- 34% approve of the job Sen. Larry Craig is doing; 58% disapprove. "Over 19 consecutive months of tracking Craig, his SurveyUSA Job Approval among Idaho Republicans ranged from 71% to 82%. Today, among Idaho Republicans Craig's approval is 46%."
- 89% are "familiar with recent news stories about united
states senator Larry Craig?" *
- Among those who are familiar, 55% think Craig should resign; 34% think he should remain in office.
*Editor's Note: Although the SurveyUSA release mentioned "Larry Craig's arrest in an airport bathroom," the actual question asked was "Are you familiar with recent news stories about United States Senator Larry Craig?"
Three new SurveyUSA automated surveys (conducted 8/10 through 8/12) find:
Among 502 registered voters in Kansas:
Clinton 40%, Giuliani 54%
Clinton 44%, Thompson 49%
Clinton 45%, Romney 46%
Among 511 registered voters in Massachusetts:
Clinton 57%, Giuliani 37%
Clinton 62%, Thompson 30%
Clinton 62%, Romney 33%
Among 507 registered voters in New York:
Clinton 59%, Giuliani 37%
Clinton 64%, Thompson 31%
Clinton 64%, Romney 27%
Four new Rasmussen Reports automated surveys among 500 likely voters each in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York State, and Missouri (conducted 8/23) finds:
Clinton 45%, Giuliani 44%
Clinton 47%, Thompson 40%
Clinton 44%, McCain 40%
Clinton 49%, Romney 36%
Clinton 49%, Giuliani 39%
Clinton 49%, Thompson 40%
Obama 56%, Giuliani 33%
Obama 55%, Thompson 34%
Clinton 46%, Giuliani 43%
Clinton 48%, Thompson 42%
Clinton 46%, McCain 40%
Clinton 48%, Romney 39%
Gov: Nixon 46%, Blunt* 43%
Clinton 58%, Giuliani 33%
Via DailyKos, new SurveyUSA automated surveys testing Sen. Hillary Clinton against former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, and former Gov. Mitt Romney in statewide general election match-ups (conducted 8/10 through 8/12) find:
Clinton 44%, Giuliani 50%
Clinton 47%, Thompson 49%
Clinton 48%, Romney 46%
Clinton 56%, Giuliani 39%
Clinton 59%, Thompson 34%
Clinton 60%, Romney 32%
Clinton 52%, Giuliani 40%
Clinton 53%, Thompson 40%
Clinton 51%, Romney 42%
Clinton 49%, Giuliani 44%
Clingon 51%, Thompson 44%
Clinton 53%, Romney 41%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 44%
Clinton 50%, Thompson 41%
Clinton 52%, Romney 36%
Clinton 46%, Giuliani 47%
Clinton 48%, Thompson 46%
Clinton 49%, Romney 43%
Clinton 49%, Giuliani 43%
Clinton 52%, Thompson 40%
Clinton 53%, Romney 38%
Clinton 48%, Giuliani 45%
Clinton 50%, Thompson 43%
Clinton 51%, Romney 40%
Clinton 52%, Giuliani 42%
Clinton 53%, Thompson 41%
Clinton 57%, Romney 37%
Clinton 49%, Giuliani 46%
Clinton 51%, Thompson 42%
Clinton 53%, Romney 39%
Clinton 55%, Giuliani 40%
Clinton 57%, Thompson 38%
Clinton 57%, Romney 36%
Clinton 46%, Giuliani 46%
Clinton 48%, Thompson 45%
Clinton 49%, Romney 42%
A new Kaiser Family Foundation national survey (story, results) of 1,500 adults (conducted 8/2 through 8/8 by Princeton Survey Research Associates) finds:
- 4% saw the movie Sicko; 42% heard or read about the movie but did not see it; 54% neither saw, heard, no read about it.
- Among the 748 adults who either saw, heard, or read about Sicko, 33% think the film "overstates the problem with the U.S. health care system," 9% say it understates the problems, 36% say it accurately represents the problems.
- As a result of seeing, hearing about, or reading about the movie, 43% say they are more likely to think there is "a need to reform the U.S. health care system," 2% say they are less likely, 49% say is has not changed their opinion.
Two new Rasmussen Reports automated surveys find:
- Among 800 likely voters nationwide (conducted 8/20 through 8/21), Sen. Barack Obama edges out both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (45% to 43%) and former Sen. Fred Thompson (45% to 41%) in national general election match-ups.
- Among 800 likely voters nationwide (conducted 8/22 through 8/23), former Sen. John Edwards leads both Giuliani (49% to 41%) and Thompson (49% to 35%) in national general election match-ups.