Pollster.com

July 6, 2008 - July 12, 2008

 

July 12, 2008

Dog Days "Outliers"

By Mark Blumenthal

Justin Wolfers (subs. only) trusts political markets more than polls, Bob Erikson bets he's wrong, John Sides has all the links.

Jon Cohen sees a gap between high interest in the election and low information about the candidates.

Frank Newport finds that more "important" religion is to the voter, the more likely they are to favor McCain

Kathy Frankovic warns against putting too much faith in "early and incomplete" exit poll results.

Nate Silver sees a very strong correlation between the national popular vote and his electoral college projections.

Julie Rehmeyer of ScienceNews profiles Nate Silver.

Ronald Hansen, of the Arizona Republic, reviews the challenges facing pollsters.

A pollster friendly anti-"push poll" bill passes the Louisiana House and Senate.

Inside Higher Ed looks at the perils of private polls conducted by academic survey centers.

Jon Chait notices that 1% of Americans in the Pew poll think Barack Obama is Jewish (via Smith, Sullivan).

And finally, a little off-topic, kiwitobes posts an amazing video map depicting the growth of Walmart since 1962 (via FlowingData).

By Mark Blumenthal on July 12, 2008 4:23 PM | | Comments (1)

POLL: Newsweek National

By Eric Dienstfrey

Newsweek/PSRA
7/9-11/08 - 1,037 RV, 3%
(story, results)

National
Obama 44, McCain 41

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 12, 2008 10:37 AM | | Comments (52) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Post-Dispatch Missouri

By Eric Dienstfrey

St Louis Post-Dispatch/KMOV-TV/
Research 2000
7/7-10/08 - 800 LV, 3.5%
(story, results)

Missouri
Obama 48, McCain 43

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 12, 2008 10:36 AM | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

July 11, 2008

Moore: USA Today's Cluster Analysis of Voters - How Useful?

By David Moore

Today's Guest Pollster article comes from David W. Moore, a senior fellow with the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. He is a former vice president and senior editor with the Gallup Poll, where he worked for 13 years, and is the founder and former director of the UNH Survey Center. He manages the blogsite, Skeptical Pollster.com.

On Thursday, July 10, USA Today published an analysis of voter intentions that produced "six types of voters" who the paper claims "will decide the presidential election." The types included: true believers (30 percent of the electorate), up for grabs (18 percent), decided but dissatisfied (16 percent), fired up and favorable (14 percent), firmly decided (12 percent), and skeptical and downbeat (12 percent).* As Mark Blumenthal indicated, this is a fascinating analysis, but how useful is it for understanding the election?

The six types of voters were produced using cluster analysis. This statistical technique is similar to factor analysis, except that it classifies respondents into distinctive groups, while factor analysis classifies various opinions into distinctive groups. Without going into the details of how the technique works, I think it's sufficient to note that the analyst has a great deal of control over the types of groups produced by cluster analysis. The analyst chooses the variables that are used to classify respondents, and also determines how many groups the cluster analysis produces. The fact that the analyst chose six clusters, instead of any other number between two and ten, was purely a subjective decision.

What is most surprising about the analysis is that it is issue free. The stereotypical complaint by political observers about the news media is that reporters focus on the horserace almost to the exclusion of any real substantive issues. This USA Today analysis fits that criticism to a T. I believe there is a widespread consensus among political observers these days that the war in Iraq (and national security more generally), the economy, and healthcare are among the most salient issues dividing the two major presidential candidates. Yet, there is nothing in the newspaper's analysis that groups voters according to their views on any of these major issues. Nor is there any mention of party identification, which often acts as a catch-all variable for a host of issues.

The variables chosen to classify respondents were 1) respondents' enthusiasm about the election, 2) whether respondents think the election would make a difference to them, 3) respondents' opinions (favorable or unfavorable) of each of the two major candidates, and 4) how certain respondents were to vote for the candidate of their choice. As these variable make clear, the classification scheme focuses almost exclusively on election turnout factors, with no mention of issues. Even the favorability ratings can be considered turnout variables in this context, because voters who are negative about both candidates are least likely to vote, while those who are positive about both candidates are mostly likely to vote. This is not to say that a mostly horserace-driven analysis, as this one is, doesn't provide some insights into the electorate. There are many different angles from which to analyze the electorate, and this is certainly a valid one. To me, it's just not as interesting as one that is more political in context.

Like most political junkies, I find intriguing almost any statistical analysis of polling data that goes beyond the simple marginals, and USA Today should be congratulated for making the effort. Still, I'd like to see a little more politics thrown into the mix - even if only to take these six types and describe their party identification, as well as their responses to other public policy questions. But mostly I would like to see a completely new cluster analysis that included policy attitudes as the defining variables for the groups. This is not to say that issues alone will determine the election. But I don't think we can get a good read on the electorate, and which types of voters will ultimately "decide the election," if we ignore issues altogether.

* The percentages exceed 100 percent because of rounding error.

By David Moore on July 11, 2008 5:14 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Rasmussen Washington

By Eric Dienstfrey

Rasmussen Reports
7/9/08 - 500 LV, 4.5%

Washington
Obama 48, McCain 39
w/ leaners: Obama 51, McCain 43
Gov: Gregoire (D-i) 52, Rossi (R) 44

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 11, 2008 3:06 PM | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Omero: The Right Words for Your Numbers

By Margie Omero

[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]

Wednesday, Politico told the story of a single poll number getting mistakenly pushed around through blogs and talking points. Republican talkers from Rep. Putnam to Matt Drudge to Freedom Watch announced a "single-digit" congressional approval rating. Their proof was a Rasmussen poll that asked respondents to rate Congress using 4-point job scale: excellent, good, fair, or poor. Typically, one would call this a "job rating" and combine excellent/good to be "positive" and the fair/poor to be "negative." In this particular poll, Congress did receive a nine (9%) positive rating.

What Congress did not receive in that poll was a single-digit "approval rating." That is a different type of standard question altogether. An approval question usually reads "do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress [or whomever else] is doing?" While some use a 4-way approval rating, collapsed into two categories, most have only two categories (besides an "unsure" option). And all use the word "approval" as opposed to an entirely different set of words. Even the most cursory scan of public results demonstrates that a collapsed 4-point job rating scale will typically yield a smaller positive rating than will an either a 4-way collapsed or 2-way approval question.

It's not that one type of question is better than the other. But the shorthands that have emerged for particular questions mean something to pollsters and poll-watchers. To avoid confusion, it's best to just make sure you're comparing apples to apples, and using the clearest terms available.

Just as some reminders, here are some common other wording specifics to be on the lookout for when comparing across polls. (If you haven't already, also check out the pollster.com FAQ.)

Party ID vs. party registration: Definitely not the same thing. Identification is self-reported, and subject to national trends, local press, and respondent whims. Party registration requires some interaction with the state, and varies massively from state-to-state. In many states, voter declares party affiliation when registering to vote. In some states, like Ohio, "registration" refers to which party's primary ballot was recently pulled, rather than requiring a voter to declare their party in advance. Other states, like Missouri, have no party registration at all. In national polls, "party" means identification. But in state or Congressional district polls, the pollster should specify.

The "Re-elect:" Many pollsters ask a "re-elect" question about an incumbent, which includes only the incumbent and no challenger names. An example, "Would you vote to re-elect Mystery Pollster, would you consider someone else, or would you vote to replace Mystery Pollster?" The question wording varies (such as the SC public poll here), and some pollsters use a 2-way question (re-elect or not). Many just look at the response for re-elect and ignore the rest. But the "replace" can also be a useful figure, as we note in our own poll for Congressional candidate Victoria Wulsin (OH-2), which shows the Republican incumbent's "replace" as high as her re-elect.

Leaners: Typically respondents initially undecided in a vote are asked a follow-up, something like, "Well, if the election were held today and you had to decide, toward which candidate do you lean?" Net support for each candidate would then include leaners. But it doesn't have to. Leaners can be included in the undecided. A good polling memo or story should simply specify.

Public disclosure of calling methodology and weighting schemes are of course important, particularly with the closely followed national media polls. But that information is not always available, or easy for the average poll reader to decipher. In many cases, paying attention to wording differences, and asking pollsters for their question language can minimize reporting gaffes.

By Margie Omero on July 11, 2008 12:26 PM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Rasmussen Wisconsin

By Eric Dienstfrey

Rasmussen Reports
7/8/08 - 500 LV, 4.5%

Wisconsin
Obama 50, McCain 39

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 11, 2008 9:57 AM | | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

July 10, 2008

POLL: Pew National

By Eric Dienstfrey

Pew Research Center/PSRA
6/18-29/08; 1,574 RV

National
Obama 48, McCain 40

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 10, 2008 2:04 PM | | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

POLL: Rasmussen Illinois, North Dakota

By Eric Dienstfrey

Rasmussen Reports
7/8/08 - 500 LV each, 4.5%

Illinois
Obama 50, McCain 37
Sen: Durbin (D-i) 63, Sauerberg (R) 28

North Dakota
Obama 43, McCain 43
Gov: Hoeven (R-i) 67, Mathern (D) 27

By Eric Dienstfrey on July 10, 2008 1:23 PM | | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0)

Measuring Nader and Barr

By Mark Blumenthal

My Nationaljournal.com column, on the challenge posed to pollsters by third party candidates like Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, is now online.

The topic is timely since yesterday we also put up a new chart showing the results of national poll questions that include Nader and Barr as choices. One issue posed in the column was which form of the vote choice question is a better measure of support for the third party candidates: Those that include Nader and Barr as choices along with McCain and Obama or those that offer only the two major candidates (but typically record the preferences of those who volunteer a choice for another candidate).

I explore the reasons for skepticism toward the four-way vote question in the column. We have historical evidence that summer polls are poor predictors