Pollster.com

October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007

 

October 26, 2007

No Joy in Mudville Leftovers

By Mark Blumenthal

Jay Cost ponders the history of national presidential primary polls and concludes they "are too volatile" to reach the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is inevitable.

Ezra Klein and Brenden Nyhan debate whether Hillary Clinton is "the most polarizing candidate."

Ed Kilgore has a nicer review of Mark Penn's Microtrends.

Jennifer Agiesta uses Quinnipiac University survey data on general presidential election match-ups in New York State to check the potential "home-court edge" for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

Kathy Frankovic shares worthy thoughts about survey disclosure and "what we need to know about a poll" (which reminds me, I'll have a Disclosure Project update on Monday).

The L.A. Times' Deborah Netburn gets reactions to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey showing Stephen Colbert reaching double digits as an independent.

Marc Ambinder ponders how Rasmussen's polls are perceived (and used) by the press, campaigns and their pollsters.

David Hill thinks Mike Huckabee needs to "rethink his bid" given his showing in national polls.

Katherine Seelye considers why John McCain appears to run stronger against Hillary Clinton than Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.

Watch this space (or use your National Journal subscription) to read Charlie Cook's forthcoming analysis of Hillary Clinton's showing in national general election match-ups.

And oh, yes, my off-topic obsession of the last few weeks: Alas, no joy in Mudville means my home town retains its title as "most tortured of the tortured." But wait 'till next year.

By Mark Blumenthal on October 26, 2007 10:44 PM | | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Dante Scala: New NH Television Buy Stats

By Mark Blumenthal

Slightly off topic, but nonetheless important to those of us watching the poll trends: University of New Hampshire Professor Dante Scala has some useful information posted on his Graniteprof blog on the size of various candidate advertising buys on New Hampshire's WMUR.

The most helpful fact: John McCain's buy for next week is $72,700 for 99 spots. Mitt Romney's buy over the same period is $158,825 for 140 spots (his "highest to date for 2007"). McCain's buy, he adds, "includes McCain's ‘Woodstock' ad, although I am not sure how many times that particular spot will run in the next week."

If we assume that the McCain campaign has shifted their entire buy to the Woodstock ad, it tends to confirm the report from The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

A McCain adviser insists that this ad buy is real -- in other words, it's not a video press release (from a campaign with... not much money) designed to convince us naive press folks into running it for free. The buy, the adviser said, is "substantial" and statewide.

It is worth noting that Manchester's WMUR (an ABC affiliate) is New Hampshire's only commercial network affiliate. As such, it is the most efficient and affordable part of a candidate's New Hampshire media buy. A complete New Hampshire buy also includes much more expensive time on the Boston stations that reach most New Hampshire households.

Scala also provided similar data on the Democrats two weeks ago showing weekly buys of $203,825 and $117,970 for Obama and Clinton respectively, with nothing on WMUR in October from Richardson, Dodd or Biden (as of two weeks ago, all three aired spots earlier in the year).

Correction: the original version of this post had the wrong affiliation for Prof. Scala.

By Mark Blumenthal on October 26, 2007 8:35 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

They Know Less Than You Think

By Mark Blumenthal

Two new survey findings -- from Gallup and Fox News -- remind us of a lesson that always bears repeating. Those of us that write and obsess about politics typically over-estimate the degree to which ordinary Americans follow the day-to-day workings of government and politics. It is what Gallup's Frank Newport calls "insider parochialism" in his latest installment of Gallup Guru: "The tendency for those of us who are following the presidential election closely to assume that everyone else is too."

Newport provides an example of how one such controversy -- Rudy Giuliani's stands on "key social and value issues" like gay marriage -- is not yet on the radar screens of most Americans even though political junkies like us examine "every word the former New York City mayor utters" for evidence that "he is ignoring, sticking to, or modifying his historical positions on abortion and same-sex marriage." Newport's central point:

[O]ur polling data show that much of this is sailing right over the heads of the average Republican voter out there across the land. Most startlingly - at least to me - the latest USA Today/Gallup poll indicates that 74% of Republicans say they are unsure where Rudy Giuliani stands on the issue of legal same sex unions. That's little changed from January when we first asked this question.

Republicans are a little more knowledgeable about the fact that Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion. Still, more than half of the Republicans we recently interviewed said that they were unsure about where he stands on this issue -- which has received a great deal of intense pundit and commentator scrutiny [link added].

I agree with Newport's main point. Most Americans are not political junkies and do not follow politics obsessively.  Still, it is probably worth considering in this instance that headlines like the one Newport cites ("Giuliani Does a 180 on Marriage Issue?") probably leave some well informed Americans feeling genuinely "unsure" of his position.

Nonetheless one need not stop here for evidence that Americans do not make the same connections between issues as what Newport calls "the political class." Consider the widely held assumption that Congressional job approval numbers are down because Congressional Democrats have not been willing or able to cut off funding for war in Iraq. A few days ago, Chris Matthews made this point on MSNBC's Hardball during an interview with Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emmanuel:

[The reason] you have single or double-digit support right now is because Republicans don't like Democrats and Democrats want this war over with. That's why the combination of those negative votes hurt you in job approval.

Yet today's new survey from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics included some intriguing results that show it may not be that simple. They used open-ended questions to ask voters to explain in their own words why they approve or disapprove of both President Bush and Congress. When asked to explain why they disapprove of Bush, nearly half of Democrats (47%) named the war in Iraq. However, when they asked the same question of those who disapprove of the job Congress is doing, only 12% of Democrats mentioned the war in Iraq. Another 9% complained that Congress does not oppose or "stand up to" to President Bush enough. Far more could not volunteer anything to explain their disapproval (30%), answered in general terms (17% are coded as "not doing anything/bad job") or mentioned other issues.

Matthews is certainly right to say that "Democrats want this war over." A September poll by CBS News showed 91% of Democrats wanting to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq within two years (70% want most troops out within a year). But the fine points of the debate in Washington, the nitty-gritty details of what Congress does (and does not do) that get debated every day on shows like Hardball, remain remote and unclear for most Americans. The continuing Congressional stalemate over Iraq policy certainly contributes to the low ratings of "Congress" among Democrats, but it would be far too simple to say that Iraq explains it all.

For further reading: Back in April, the Pew Research Center updated their classic study of "What Americans Know" about politics and government. These studies track not only "how much Americans know about national and international affairs" in surveys conducted since 1989, but also look at how knowledge corresponds to the news sources that Americans say they turn to.

By Mark Blumenthal on October 26, 2007 7:41 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Field CA Dem Primary

By Eric Dienstfrey

Additional results from the recent Field Poll statewide survey of 434 likely Democratic primary voters in California (conducted 10/11 through 10/21) finds:

Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (45% to 20%) in a statewide primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 11%. With former V.P. Al Gore included, Clinton runs at 35%, Gore at 22%, Obama at 16%, and Edwards at 8%. All other candidates receive less than five percent each.

By Eric Dienstfrey on October 26, 2007 6:20 PM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Rasmussen GOP New Hampshire Primary

By Eric Dienstfrey

A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey of likely primary voters in New Hampshire (conducted 10/23) finds:

Among 733 Republicans, former Gov. Mitt Romney leads former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (28% to 19%) in a statewide primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 16%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 10%, former Sen. Fred Thompson at 6%.

By Eric Dienstfrey on October 26, 2007 6:16 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: CBS Democratic Primary

By Eric Dienstfrey

Additional results from the most recent CBS News national survey (story, results) of 456 likely Democratic primary voters (conducted 10/12 through 10/16) finds:

  • When asked to choose between three candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (51% to 23%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 13%.
  • 54% say Clinton has "more honesty and integrity than most people in public life;" 6% say less. 56% say Obama has more; 4% say less. 50% say Edwards has more; 8% say less.

By Eric Dienstfrey on October 26, 2007 2:56 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Research 2000 Kentucky Governor

By Eric Dienstfrey

A new Research 2000 statewide survey of 600 likely voters in Kentucky (conducted 10/22 through 10/24) finds Democratic challenger Steve Beshear leading Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher (55% to 40%) in a statewide general election match-up for Governor.