Pollster.com

November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007

 

Anti-Romney Poll: So Who Did It?

The story of the anti-Romney poll calls into Iowa and New Hampshire that I wrote about yesterday gets stranger and stranger. Here is the lead of the story reported last night by the Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman:

The GOP presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCain-rocked in different ways by a highly negative "push poll" targeting Romney's Mormon faith-demanded Friday that the New Hampshire attorney general investigate who is behind the tactic. The attorney general's office said it was investigating the phone calls.

Again with feeling: This particular set of calls sounds more like an ethically questionable "message testing" survey than a classic "push poll." See my post from yesterday for more details on that issue or the clarification released last night by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR - full disclosure: I serve on AAPOR's executive council).

An interesting twist to the story, according to Zuckman's story, is that a "New Hampshire law requires all political ads-including phone calls-to identify the candidate behind the effort, or at least the candidate who is being supported."

I went looking for more details about the questions asked on the calls, and the most detailed report comes from State Representative Ralph Watts, a Republican from Adel, Iowa. He taped a radio interview with Radio Iowa that you can listen to online. Here is the way he describes the interview (my transcription):

It started out like a lot of telephone polls do these days. They wanted to know if I was a caucus goer, and whether I was a regular voter and all that usual stuff. And then it progressed into questions about Mitt Romney, and specifically about the Mormon Church.

The first one, I guess, was innocent enough. It asked a question whether I would be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney because he's Mormon. Well, I guess that's a fair question, but not necessarily a pertinent question. And then it went on to talk about the philosophy of the Mormon Church. Would I be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney based on some of the tenants of the Mormon Church?

[snip]

This telephone interview went on for about 20 minutes. The last half of it were questions directed, they were in a more positive light and they were directed toward John McCain. They asked a question, what if I knew that McCain had some 330-some carrier landings and was a Navy pilot would that make me more or less likely to vote for him. If I knew that John McCain were a prisoner of war in Vietnam would it make me more or less likely to vote for him. Then there was a whole series of questions about John McCain that were very favorable questions about John McCain. It would have led one to believe that John McCain were behind the poll, but that would have been too obvious.

And I've done some checking myself and [with] some people, and I'm convinced that John McCain had nothing to do with it. Who actually did it, there you don't know.

What Watts describes starts out with typical political survey questions, then shifts to a long series of negative arguments about Mitt Romney followed by a long series of positive arguments about John McCain. The length of the interview and type of questions is indicative of a "message testing" survey. Ordinarily, that pattern would suggest a survey conducted by someone supportive of McCain looking for the best ways to promote their candidate and to most effectively tear down Romney. However, between the red-hot spotlight of presidential politics and the incendiary nature of questions about Romney's religion, there is nothing ordinary about this survey.

It is tempting to try to use the facts reported by Watts and other respondents to logically deduce the identity of the sponsor of the calls. But readers need to remember two things about contemporary "push poll" stories:

First, respondent memories are often imperfect. They will often exaggerate some details and omit others. Consider that in a 20-minute interview, a pollster can typically ask 60 to 80 questions. In the description above, however, Representative Watts specifically recalls just a half dozen or so questions. My point here is not to challenge his story, only to suggest that the reports we have are so far cover only the most memorable details. We may be missing some useful context.

Second, and probably most important, keep in mind that accusations of "push polling" have become a fact of life for campaign pollsters. Since virtually all campaigns in both parties now conduct "message testing" surveys, and since most reporters reflexively (and erroneously) describe any report of a negative question on a survey as evidence of "push polling," pollsters have grown accustomed to being so accused. Unlike the calls involving the Democrats I wrote about earlier in the week, these calls have all the hallmarks of a professional survey, including the length of the questionnaire and the use of a well-regarded call center. So given the intense media spotlight on Iowa and New Hampshire and the explosive nature of questions about Romney's Mormonism, my guess is that the pollster that designed this survey assumed the calls would lead to a "push poll" story. Perhaps that assumption is a part of their strategy.

And that's what makes it impossible to try to deduce from the available facts the campaign or interest that was behind the calls. As Representative Watts says, the positive questions about McCain are almost "too obvious" as a ploy intended to implicate McCain is the sponsor.

So who is behind these calls? I haven't a clue, but the story gets stranger and stranger.

Update: Jonathan Martin has the latest on this story here and here.

By Mark Blumenthal on November 17, 2007 1:49 PM | | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

"Outliers:" Push-Poll Free Edition

Frank Newport challenges Barack Obama's comments about "poll driven positions" and thinks a Time Magazine polling box "gets it backwards" regarding recent slippage. [Note: our chart based on trial heats without Gore included as a candidate now shows a small recent decline in Clinton's support nationally].

Kathy Frankovic reviews the data on the greater attentiveness and knowledge of likely primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (and if you are a political junkie, the full CBS News report on the recent CBS/New York Times surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire surveys is a must read).

Ross Douthat spots the most important numbers about the Republican caucuses in Iowa in that same CBS/NYT poll (via Sullivan).

Gary Langer crunches the numbers for "latest [sub]group du jour," single women and concludes that married women are "much more likely to be true swing voters."

Jennifer Agiesta looks at the gender gap in presidential preference among African American Democrats.

Bill Schneider looks at the record of polls taken a year before the election.

Garance Franke-Ruta links to some incredibly thematic maps displaying results of the 2004 Iowa Caucuses (via The Stump).

An NYU journalism class surveys NYU students and finds Obama ahead (via Ben Smith).

By Mark Blumenthal on November 16, 2007 10:19 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Gallup National Primary

A new USA Today/Gallup national survey of adults (conducted 11/11 through 11/14) finds:

  • Among 485 Democrats and those who lean Democratic, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (48% to 21%) in a national primary; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 12%. When former V.P. Al Gore is included, Clinton runs at 42%, Gore at 17%, Obama at 16%, Edwards at 9%.
  • Among 398 Republicans and those who lean Republican, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leads former Sen. Fred Thompson (28% to 19%) in a national primary; Sen. John McCain trails at 13%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 12%, former Gov. Mike Huckabee at 10%, Rep. Ron Paul at 5%.
  • All other candidates receive less than five percent each.

By Eric Dienstfrey on November 16, 2007 9:26 PM | | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: SurveyUSA GEs in OH, IA

Two new SurveyUSA statewide surveys of registered voters in Ohio and Iowa (conducted 11/9 through 11/11) finds:

Ohio (n=533):

    McCain 47, Clinton 46
    Clinton 49, Giuliani 44
    Clinton 51, Romney 42
    Clinton 54, Huckabee 37

    McCain 52, Obama 37
    Giuliani 49, Obama 41
    Obama 45, Romney 41
    Obama 48, Huckabee 38

Iowa (n=546):

    McCain 48, Clinton 44
    Clinton 47, Giuliani 43
    Clinton 49, Romney 43
    Clinton 49, Huckabee 43

    Obama 50, McCain 42
    Obama 52, Giuliani 39
    Obama 53, Romney 39
    Obama 56, Huckabee 35

By Eric Dienstfrey on November 16, 2007 8:26 PM | | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

"Pushing" the Ethics of Message Testing?

Another day, another "push poll" story. This time, Politico's Jonathan Martin reports on an "apparent push poll" in Iowa involving a "research firm" that "called Iowa Republicans this week praising John McCain and criticizing Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith." AP's Phillip Elliot traced the calls to:

Western Wats, a Utah-based company, placed the calls that initially sound like a poll but then pose questions that cast Romney in a harsh light, according to those who received the calls.

Elliot then leaps to the same quick shortcut that tempts all to many reporters:

In politics, this type of phone surveying is called "push polling" - contacting potential voters and asking questions intended to plant a message in voters' minds, usually negative, rather than gauging peoples' attitudes.

No it's not. The information described in the reports by Martin and Elliot sounds more like a form of message testing done by a real pollster - not the classic "push poll" dirty trick, although that distinction does not absolve the pollster from ethical responsibility for the content of their questions.

In writing about this issue I have tried to distinguish between the classic so-called "push poll," which is not a poll at all. It has no "sample" (in any statistical sense), no data collected, no analysis. It just amounts to someone making phone calls to spread a nasty rumor under the guise of a survey.

What confuses everyone is that campaign pollsters routinely conduct surveys that test campaign messages and try to simulate the dialogue of a real campaign. That message testing can often involve negative information. As Guiliani pollster Ed Goeas told John Martin:

"When you're doing a research call you ask positive and negative questions on [your own candidate] and positive and negative questions on [your opponents]," he said. "You're trying to war-game."

In this case, the calls apparently came from a survey call center known as Western Wats that acts as a vendor for many legitimate pollsters and survey researchers. The calls reported were part of a longer interview. Elliot included this account from one respondent:

The first 15 or 20 questions were general questions about the leading candidates," she said. "Then he started asking me very, very negatively phrased questions about Romney. The first one was would you have a more favorable, less favorable, blah, blah, blah, impression of Mitt Romney if you knew that his five sons had never served in the military and that he considered working on a presidential campaign as public service or some such question.

Based on those descriptions, these calls sounds like some sort of "message testing." But tossing aside the "push poll" label does not absolve the pollster of ethical responsibility. At a minimum, as the statement by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) puts it:

[Message testing] surveys should be judged by the same ethical standards as any other poll of the public: Do they include any false or misleading statements? Do they treat the respondent with fairness and respect?

The respondents quoted in the two news stories were certainly disturbed and angered by the questions they heard. Consider also the details these respondents remembered. Martin passes on the report of one respondent:

"Statements were on baptizing the dead, the Book of Mormon being on the level of the Bible, and one about equating it to a cult," said the Iowan, deeming them "common criticisms of Mormonism."

AP's Elliot added:

Among the questions was whether a resident knew that Romney was a Mormon, that he received military deferments when he served as a Mormon missionary in France, that his five sons did not serve in the military, that Romney's faith did not accept blacks as bishops into the 1970s and that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.

One thing we can say without jumping to any conclusions about who may be responsible: No campaign has made these sorts of statements or attacks openly, and the organization that paid Western Watts to make the calls has so far been unwilling to take responsibility for the survey. So even if these calls were part of real survey, even if the information was narrowly factual in some sense, the refusal of the sponsors to accept responsibility for testing it speaks volumes about the ethics of the test itself.

Yes, campaigns (and independent groups) have the right to privately consider strategies they ultimately decide not to pursue. But when the market research for those potential strategies touches hundreds (or thousands) of volunteer respondents with a message that deeply offends, and when the organizations that sponsor the research hide behind a cloak of secrecy, something is very wrong regardless of the label we use to describe it.

By Mark Blumenthal on November 16, 2007 4:07 PM | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)