Pollster.com

April 4, 2010 - April 10, 2010

 

GA: 2010 Gov, Sen (Kos 4/5-7)

Topics: poll

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
4/5-7/10; 600 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)

Georgia

2010 Governor
45% Barnes (D), 42% Oxendine (R)
44% Barnes (D), 43% Handel (R)
44% Barnes (D), 42% Handel (R)
48% Oxendine (R), 36% Baker (D)
49% Handel (R), 35% Baker (D)
48% Deal (R), 35% Baker (D)

2010 Senate
50% Isakson (R), 34% Baker (D)
53% Isakson (R), 26% Thurmond (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Oxendine: 49 / 36
Karen handel: 43 / 35
Nathan Deal: 40 / 33
Roy Barnes: 48 / 38
Thurbert Baker: 41 / 25
Johnny Isakson: 54 / 38
Michael Thurmond: 23 / 11
Sonny Predue: 36 / 47
Saxby Chambliss: 35 / 41
Barack Obama: 45 / 51


Supreme Court 'Outliers'

Topics: Outliers Feature

Frank Newport considers the role of religion on choosing a Supreme Court nominee.

John Sides plots the ideology of John Paul Stevens.

Tom Jensen finds evidence of an enthusiasm gap in PPP's recent polls.

Bill Schneider sees Americans still singing the recession blues.

Alex Bratty sees much Democratic ado about nothing in the passage of health reform.

Timothy Noah examines what Americans don't know about the uninsured.

Josh Nelson examines the demographics of supporters of offshore drilling.

Democracy in America speculates about public opinion on specific foreign aid projects.

Swing State Project reports on polling of congressional primaries in Arkansas.

An American Jewish Committee poll finds most American Jews approve of Obama's handling of American-Israeli relations (via Smith).


NH: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 4/7)

Topics: poll


Rasmussen
4/7/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

New Hampshire

2010 Senate
Ayotte (R) 50%, Hodes (D) 35% (chart)
Lamontagne (R) 44%, Hodes (D) 39% (chart)
Binnie (R) 49%, Hodes (D) 37% (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Kelly Ayotte: 61 / 19
Paul Hodes: 45 / 46
Ovide Lamontagne: 38 / 31
Bill Binnie: 51 / 28

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 49 / 50 (chart)
Gov. Lynch: 59 / 39 (chart)


PA, IL: 2012 Pres Primary (PPP)

Topics: poll

(PPP release)

Pennsylvania

Public Policy Polling
3/29-4/1/10; 405 likely Republican Primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone

2012 President: Republican Primary
31% Romney, 27% Huckabee, 27% Palin

Illinois

Public Policy Polling
4/1-5/10; 400 likely Republican Primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone

2012 President: Republican Primary
34% Romney, 28% Huckabee, 24% Palin


OH: 2010 Sen, Gov (Kos 4/5-7)

Topics: poll

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
4/5-7/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
400 likely Democratic primary voters, 5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)

Ohio

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
35% Fisher, 26% Brunner (chart)

2010 Senate
43% Fisher (D), 39% Portman (R) (chart)
41% Brunner (D), 40% Portman (R) (chart)

2010 Governor
45% Strickland (D), 40% Kasich (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Lee Fisher: 41 / 24
Jennifer Brunner: 38 / 26
Rob Portman: 39 / 30
Ted Strickland: 47 / 41 (chart)
John Kasich: 42 / 28
George Voinovich: 44 / 37 (chart)
Sherrod Brown: 46 / 31
Barack Obama: 46 / 45 (chart)


US: Supreme Court (Fox 4/6-7)

Topics: poll

Fox News / Opinion Dynamics
4/6-7/10; 900 registered voters, 35 margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Fox release)

National

When President Obama nominates the next justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, do you want him to nominate someone who is more of a liberal or someone who is more of a conservative
52% Conservative, 29% Liberal

If Senate Republicans strongly oppose the person President Obama nominates to be the next Supreme Court justice, do you think they should allow an up or down vote on the nominee, even if they might lose, or draw out the debate to prevent a vote and keep the nominee from being confirmed?
52% Allow up or down vote
26% Draw out debate to prevent vote

Who would you rather see as a Supreme Court Justice -- Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?
33% Hillary, 30% Bill

Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court are given lifetime appointments, which means it is completely up to the individual justice when he or she retires. Do you think justices should continue to be allowed to serve as long as they want, or should there be a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices?
30% Should serve as long as they want
65% Should be mandatory retirement age


WA: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 4/6)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/6/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Washington

2010 Senate
48% Murray (D), 46% Rossi (R)
48% Murray (D), 40% Bention (R)
47% Murray (D), 37% Didier (R)
46% Murray (D), 37% Widener (R)
45% Murray (D), 37% Akers (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Dino Rossi: 52 / 44
Don Benton: 34 / 25
Patty Murray: 53 / 43
Clint Didier: 26 / 29
Chris Widener: 28 / 24
Paul Akers: 29 / 27

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 54 / 43
Gov. Gregoire: 44 / 54


US: National Survey (Kos 4/5-8)

Topics: poll

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
4/5-8/10; 1,200 registered voters, 2.8% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 54 / 41 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 41 / 51
Harry Reid: 29 / 63
Mitch McConnell: 22 / 62
John Boehner: 19 / 63
Democratic Party: 40 / 52
Republican Party: 28 / 67

State of the Country
28% Right Direction, 58% Wrong Track (chart)


IL: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 4/5)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/5/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Illinois

2010 Senate
41% Kirk (R), 37% Giannoulias (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mark Kirk: 51 / 36
Alexi Giannoulias: 42 / 44


McDonald: Does Enthusiasm Portend High Turnout in 2010?

Topics: Gallup , Likely Voters , Nate Silver , Turnout

This guest contribution comes from Michael McDonald, an Associate Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

As Nate Silver notes, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds that that 62% of registered voters say they are "more enthusiastic than usual about voting" in the upcoming midterm elections.

Nate focuses his attention on differential enthusiasm between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans appear more enthusiastic than Democrats, but enthusiasm among partisans of both stripes are at record levels in Gallup polling for a midterm election. I'd like to focus on a different question. What does this level of enthusiasm potentially tell us about voter participation in the 2010 November elections?

This level of enthusiasm at 62% is indeed the highest level of enthusiasm among registered voters in a midterm election since Gallup began asking this question in October, 1994. The next highest level was recorded at 49% in a June, 2006 poll, a difference of 13 percentage points.

2010-04-08-McDonald_image001.png

USA Today notes that this is "a level of engagement found during some presidential election years but never before in a midterm. " Indeed, this is the case. Looking back at the same question asked in presidential elections since 1996, enthusiasm peaked at 69% in June, 2004 and again at 69% in October, 2008. At a similar point in February, 2008, 63% of registered voters said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in that election.

2010-04-08-McDonald_image002.png

The enthusiasm question appears to tap into underlying voting propensities. Voter turnout rates among those eligible to vote has been relatively stable in the 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006 midterm elections, as has the self-reported enthusiasm measure. In presidential elections, enthusiasm appears to be related to voter participation. Turnout rates have increased from a low point in 1996 to progressively higher levels in 2000, 2004, and 2008, along with the enthusiasm measure.

2010-04-08-McDonald-Turnout-Rates.png

If this high enthusiasm for congressional elections translates into similar voter turnout rates as recent presidential elections, this would be exceedingly rare. In the course of U.S. history, midterm turnout rates only exceeded presidential turnout rates at the time of the country's Founding, when Congress was the preeminent branch of government and when presidential elections were occasionally not contested or presidential electors were still occasionally selected by state governments. Over the past century, midterm turnout rates have been on average about 15 percentage points lower than contemporaneous presidential elections. History tells us that it is unlikely that the 2010 midterm turnout rate will equal recent presidential turnout rates of 60%+ of those eligible to vote.

Still, absent any knowledge about enthusiasm, we might expect that turnout rates would increase in 2010. The long term pattern has been for midterm election turnout rates to generally move with presidential elections. An increase in presidential turnout rates has occurred recently without a breakout to the upside for the midterm rates. Looking back to the 1960's, just by looking at the aggregate election data alone we might expect midterm turnout rates to rise near 50% in 2010.

Further tamping expectations down is that level of enthusiasm of 39% in the October 2000 survey is on par with the 41% in October, 1998 and the 41% in October, 2002, yet the turnout rate in that presidential election was still approximately 15 percentage points higher than either of these midterm elections. Indeed, the lowest level of enthusiasm of 17% was registered on the October, 1996 survey. The 1996 presidential turnout rate of 51.7% is a modern low, but it still easily exceeds any recent midterm election.

This disconnect may have something to do with the question wording. The question asked is, "Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual about voting, or less enthusiastic?" Note that the question elicits a respondent to refer back to previous elections as a comparison point. It may be that respondents are thinking about comparable midterm or presidential elections when answering the question, rather than a baseline enthusiasm that may be compared across different types of elections.

There is one further caveat to consider. The presidential data shows that it is possible that this enthusiasm may swiftly wane. In 2008, voters' enthusiasm in the primaries faded by summer, dropping from 63% in February to 48% in June, before peaking again at 69% in October as the election neared. The enthusiasm observed at this point in time may be a product of circumstances that may not be sustainable until November. Then again, even if enthusiasm wilts in the summer this does not mean it may not perk up again as November draws near.

At this point, the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the totality of the evidence is that turnout in 2010 will most likely exceed the 41.4% of 2006, and if these current conditions hold the turnout rate may come in just shy of 50%.


Swingometer 'Outliers'

Topics: Outliers Feature

CBS News finds negative ratings of Sarah Palin.

Jon Cohen revisits polling on praising Confederate leaders.

A University of Washington polls finds race-based resentment among tea party supporters.

Resurgent Republic notes that independents care more about the deficit than Republicans or Democrats.

John Sides puts recent polling on budget priorities in context.

Tom Jensen sees no clear pattern for Senate races before-and-after the health reform vote.

Chris Bowers finds Charlie Crist would fare better as an independent.

Wilson Research announces its schedule for release of SRLC straw poll results.

Nathan Yau explores UK Swingometer graphics.


US: National Survey (Fox 4/6-7)

Topics: poll

Fox News / Opinion Dynamics
4/6-7/10; 900 registered voters, 3% margin of error
359 Democrats, 5% margin of error
326 Republicans, 5% margin of error
160 independents, 8% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Fox News: story, toplines)

National

Obama Job Approval
43% Approve, 48% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 80 / 12 (chart)
Reps: 7 / 87 (chart)
Inds: 38 / 49 (chart)
Economy: 43 / 53 (chart)
Health Care: 40 / 53 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
21% Approve, 72% Disapprove (chart)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
43% Republican, 39% Democrat (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 50 / 45 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 29 / 53
Democratic Party: 42 / 49
Republican Party: 40 / 50
Tea Party movement: 36 / 34
John Boehner: 12 / 18
Harry Reid: 16 / 37
The IRS: 49 / 38

Based on what you know, do you favor or oppose the new health care law?
39% Favor, 54% Oppose (chart)

Party ID
40% Democrat, 36% Republican, 18% independent (chart)


How Tight is the Screen? (2010 Edition)

Topics: Disclosure , Likely Voters , Nate Silver , Party Identification , Screen Questions

Nate Silver has an interesting catch this morning: On the most recent USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted roughly a week after health care reform passed the House (and 2-4 days after the presidential signing ceremony), both Democrats and Republicans expressed record levels of enthusiasm about voting in the mid-term elections. As Silver point out, the “big problem” for Democrats is that Republican enthusiasm — 69% say they are “more enthusiastic than usual” about voting — is still greater than for Democrats (57%).

As he points out, some of this jump is “very probably…a temporary bounce and will fade as memories of the health care legislation become more distant,” but he concludes with a point worth discussing further:

What I wish the pollsters would do, actually, is to publish the percentage of people in each party who are screened out by their likely voter model. You don’t have to tell us how you’re doing it — but at least let us know in broad strokes how much impact it’s having. How much of Rasmussen Reports’ apparent house effect, for instance, is because they’re applying a likely voter screen when most other pollsters aren’t, and how much of it is because there are some differences — or bugs — in other parts of their data collection and massaging routine? We shouldn’t have to guess; this should be an easy thing for the pollsters to disclose.

That’s half right. What pollsters can do easily, and do not do nearly often enough, is publish the percent of adults (or of registered voters) who they screen out with their likely voter questions or models. This has been a hobby horse of mine since I started asking pollsters about their likely voter models in 2004. I wrote a two-part series about it the context of primary polling in the summer of 2007 pushed harder for the percentage of adults that qualified in 2007 during the run-up to the Iowa caucuses and many times during the 2008 primaries.

That said, we need to take care with the percentage passing the screen statistic. Any pre-election survey probably includes at least some response bias toward genuinely likely voters — truly unlikely voters are presumably more likely to hang up at some point regardless of how they answer a screen question — so a sample of “adults” may begin with a slight skew to actual voters (though the actual evidence of this phenomenon is surprisingly thin). This is a complicated point, but if such response bias exists, we probably want the percentage of adults that pass the screen to be bigger than the actual turnout percentage among adults.

Silver is wrong, however, to say that it’s an “easy thing” for all pollsters to publish the percentage screened out in each party. Yes, it would be relatively easy for pollsters using the sometimes controversial Gallup likely voter model, which typically begins with a sample of all adults, retains the answers to the party identification question for all adults, and then applies a filter and weighting to select and model a likely electorate (though Gallup’s practice of weighting down a middle category of voters on-the-bubble between likely and not likely would complicate things a bit).

But it would be impossible for pollsters who screen for registered and/or likely voters at the beginning of the survey and terminate the interview with those who do not qualify to report the percentage of each party that pass the screen. They usually hang up before asking a party ID question. The same is true for pollsters who begin with samples drawn from official lists of registered voters. They might be able to tell you something about party registration of those who get screened out (in party registration states), but only to the extent that they were able to identify in the individual they talked to in each household before they ended the call. And they can tell you nothing at all about the party preferences of non-registrants and whatever statistics they produce would only be comparable with other similarly designed polls in the same state. Those two practices, the use of screening and list samples, apply to virtually all internal campaign polls and most media polls conducted at the state level.

What would make far more practical sense would be for all pollsters to publish the party composition of their likely voter sample. In other words, what percentage of likely voters identify as Democrats, Republicans or independents? Among the most prolific statewide pollsters, SurveyUSA, PPP and Research2000/DailyKos now routinely publish those results. Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac do not.


Bump Watch

Topics: Gallup , Generic House Vote , Health Care Reform , Obama , Washington Post

A watched pot never boils, so the saying goes. But in Washington, it can seem like every watched pot boils. Casual remarks and minor poll movements are overanalyzed and overinterpreted. It can be easy to forget that voters are typically not as sensitive as DC pundits might have us believe. But the data typically show broader political attitudes unlikely to swerve with every debate.

And so it's been in the wake of Health Care Reform's passage (HCR). Many have jumped into the debate. Does it help or hurt Democrats? Has it given Democrats back their "mojo"? Has it done nothing whatsoever?

But if we look at pollster.com's tracking of key political measures, we don't see a whole lot of movement beyond those specific to health care (and even then, the movement is gradual).

Let's start with Obama's approval from March 1st till now (HCR passed on March 21st). This chart, to me, could not say "no movement" more clearly. (We see a bit more movement on Obama's ratings on health care, as his approval ratings have increased just slightly.)

Much has been made about Republicans overtaking Democrats in the generic Congressional ballot in this recent Gallup survey. But even in Gallup's own writeup, the change is within the margin of error. It's too soon to tell whether this represents a new pattern, or simply usual variance. The current pollster.com average shows Republicans leading by less than two points, as illustrated in this chart.

This is not to say that voters' views can't be volatile. The average of favor/oppose HCR does in fact move quite a bit, although not very dramatically in the weeks before and after passage. And, of course, views toward Obama and Democrats have softened considerably since the 2008 election. But these movements are generally slower, rather than the quick, dramatic lurches suggested by poll-watchers.

Finally, it's worth putting recent numbers in the context of long-time tracking. While attitudes indeed fluctuate, some things hold true over the long haul. The Washington Post tracks favorable and unfavorable impressions of the two parties (using not only their own polling but some older data from Gallup and CBS News/NYT). The chart below illustrates net favorable (favorable minus unfavorable) for each party. Two things jump out. First, the Democratic Party is always net favorable, while Republicans are sometimes not. Second, the gap in favorability is much larger now, in Democrats' favor, than in 1994. The oft-floated premise that HCR has damaged the Democratic party is just not borne out by the data.

demgopnetfav.PNG


MO: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 4/6)

Topics: Missouri , poll

Rasmussen
4/6/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Missouri

2010 Senate
48% Blunt (R), 42% Carnahan (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt: 49 / 43
Robin Carnahan: 47 / 46

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 40 / 59 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 59 / 37 (chart)


US: 2010 Issues (Gallup 3/26-28)

Topics: poll

USA Today / Gallup
3/26-28/10; 968 registered voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

How important will each of the following issues be to your vote for Congress this year?

Economy:
57% Extremely important
36% Very important
5% Moderately important
2% Not that important

Health Care:
48% Extremely important
34% Very important
13% Moderately important
5% Not that important

Unemployment:
46% Extremely important
40% Very important
10% Moderately important
3% Not that important

The federal budget deficit
46% Extremely important
33% Very important
18% Moderately important
3% Not that important

Terrorism:
40% Extremely important
36% Very important
19% Moderately important
5% Not that important

Afghanistan:
32% Extremely important
37% Very important
23% Moderately important
6% Not that important

Environment:
22% Extremely important
24% Very important
29% Moderately important
23% Not that important


CO: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 4/5)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/5/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Colorado

2010 Senate
49% Norton (R), 38% Romanoff (D) (chart)
46% Norton (R), 41% Bennet (D) (chart)
45% Wiens (R), 38% Romanoff (D) (chart)
45% Wiens (R), 39% Bennet (D) (chart)
45% Buck (R), 37% Romanoff (D) (chart)
44% Buck (R), 40% Bennet (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Ken Buck: 42 / 22
Michael Bennet: 45 / 41 (chart)
Andrew Romanoff: 39 / 39
Tom Wiens: 40 / 26
Jane Norton: 43 / 39

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 57 (chart)
Gov Ritter: 40 / 57 (chart)


IL: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 4/5)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/5/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Illinois

2010 Governor
45% Brady (R), 38% Quinn (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Bill Brady: 48 / 35
Pat Quinn: 37 / 59

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 58 / 41
Gov. Quinn: 43 / 56


PA: 2010 Sen, Gov (Quinnipiac 3/30-4/5)

Topics: poll

Quinnipiac
3/30-4/5/10; 1,412 registered voters, 2.6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
46% Toomey (R), 41% Specter (D) (chart)
42% Toomey (R), 34% Sestak (D) (chart)

2010 Governor
45% Corbett (R), 33% Onorato (D) (chart)
48% Corbett (R), 29% Wagner (D) (chart)
50% Corbett (R), 28% Hoeffel (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Arlen Specter: 40 / 46 (chart)
Pat Toomey: 29 / 9
Joe Sestak: 20 / 11
Dan Onorato: 21 / 11
Jack Wagner: 18 / 8
Joe Hoeffel: 14 / 10
Tony Williams: 3 / 3
Tom Corbett: 47 / 13
Sam Rohrer: 7 / 4

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Rendell: 45 / 45 (chart)
Sen. Specter: 44 / 47 (chart)
Sen. Casey: 48 / 30 (chart)
Pres. Obama: 45 / 49 (chart)


OMB Doesn't Tweet 'Outliers'

Topics: Outliers Feature

Scott Keeter is elected VP/incoming President of AAPOR.

Amy Walter reviews the Hart/Annenberg focus groups of Obama voters.

Lou Harris says Republicans are experiencing a leadership vacuum.

David Hill examines the challenge of polling endorsements.

Tom Jensen finds low approval numbers for Democratic senators.

Chris Bowers aggregates the UK polls.

Huffington Post details steps colleges are taking to encourage census participation.

The Office of Management and Budget frowns on use of social networking stats for policy and planning (via Feinberg).


US: National Survey (Economist 4/3-6)

Topics: poll

Economist / YouGov
4/3-6/10; 1,000 adults, 3.55 margin of error
714 registered voters (generic ballot question only)
Mode: Internet
(Economist release)

National

Overall, given what you know about them, do you support or oppose the changes to the health care system recently passed by Congress and signed by President Obama?
49% Support, 51% Oppose (chart)

Obama Job Approval
46% Approve, 47% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 84 / 14 (chart)
Reps: 6 / 92 (chart)
Inds: 43 / 52 (chart)
Economy: 40 / 52 (chart)
Health care: 45 / 49 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
15% Approve, 64% Disapprove (chart)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot (chart)
Registered voters: 47% Democrat, 44% Republican
All adults: 44% Democrat, 39% Republican

State of the Country
36% Right Direction, 52% Wrong Track (chart)


Disclosing the 'Field House'

Topics: Disclosure , Evans Witt , Field House , NCPP

My post on methodological disclosure by pollsters earlier this week reproduced list of "minimal (Level 1)" information that members of the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP) are required to include in all public reports, including "fieldwork provider (if applicable)." That means that if a pollster subcontracts telephone interviewing to a call center, they are supposed to disclose the name of the company in their reports.

Yesterday, I received an email from a media pollster who asks a reasonable question:

I've never understood why a firm would be required to disclose the fieldwork provider. I cannot see how it reveals anything about the quality of the poll, unless it is done by some firm everyone knows to be unreliable. To me, it is sort of a trade secret. Why would I want to reveal my subcontractor?

I emailed NCPP President Evans Witt (who is also the CEO of Princeton Survey Research Associates International - PSRAI) for comment. This is his response:

One of the issues that we deal with at NCPP is that the question of "Who did the poll?" or "Who was the pollster?" can be answered in a surprising number of ways. It arises more clearly for NCPP since NCPP is an organization whose members are organizations.

For example, The New York Times poll is simple: they designed and conducted the poll and did the interviewing in-house.

ABC News, for example, used ICR for a recent poll, providing this disclosure: "Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Social Science Research Solutions at ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa."** Very good disclosure, even if it is not necessarily simple.

PSRAI does for polls for Newsweek, and (usually) the telephone interviewing is done at Braun Research in Princeton, N.J., (a company independent of PSRAI) under PSRAI supervision.

Or take a survey that is done for an interest group via a public relations firm. The public relations firm may or may not have internal survey expertise. So the PR firm may have contracted out just the telephone interviewing or the PR firm may have contracted out the design, execution and interviewing. All are possible and legitimate arrangements.

To try to cover all this complexity, the field house requirement was included in the standard. Therefore, the standard covers the circumstance where the real knowledge about how the poll was done resides with the field house. It also helps to deal with a situation where there is a basic question of whether any poll was actually done, by providing at least one more avenue for asking for confirmation of the interviewing.

The discussion also raises some practical issues for us in trying to assess this aspect of disclosure. How do we know if an organization has fully disclosed field house, "where applicable?"

It is relatively easy for us to take note of field house when disclosed, as in the examples above. But how do we know when the need to disclose the field house "applies?" Consider that even very detailed New York Times "How the Poll Was Conducted" sidebar neglects to say explicitly that Times/CBS poll conducts interviews "in-house." If we flunk organizations for failing to make clear that they did not use a field house, my guess is that we'd strike a fair number of NCPP members.

But practical issues aside, I want to come back to the question that provoked this post from the news consumers' perspective. Does knowing the name of the field work provider, or knowing that pollster did interviewing in-house, help you assess the quality of the poll? Should this information be something we insist that pollsters disclose more explicitly?

*Correction*: We modified the response from Evans Witt at his request. Although ABC News used ICR for a recent survey, they more typically work with TNS of Horsham, Pa.


US: News Interest (Pew 4/1-5)

Topics: poll

Pew Research Center
4/1-5/10; 1,016 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Pew release)

National

Most Closely Followed Story
48% News about the new health care reform law
11% The NCAA basketball tournament
8% Reports about the condition of the U.S. economy
5% President Obama's proposal to allow offshore oil and gas drilling
4% The arrest of members of a militia group allegedly planning to kill a police officer
3% Suicide bombings in Russia


PA: 2010 Gov (PPP 3/29-4/1)

Topics: poll


Public Policy Polling (D)
3/29-4/1/10; 934 likely voters, 3.2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Governor (trends)
46% Corbett, 31% Hoeffel (chart)
45% Corbett, 32% Onorato (chart)
43% Corbett, 30% Wagner (chart)
45% Corbett, 27% Williams

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Rendell: 35 / 51 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Tom Corbett: 27 / 20
Joe Hoeffel: 10 / 11
Dan Onorato: 15 / 13
Jack Wagner: 15 / 10
Anthony Williams: 6 / 7


CT: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 4/1)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/1/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
ModE: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Connecticut

2010 Governor (trends)
44% Foley (R), 37% Lamont (D)
44% Foley (R), 35% Malloy (D)
41% Lamont (D), 38% Fedele (R)
40% Malloy (D), 37% Fedele (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Michael Fedele: 38 / 26
Thomas Foles: 45 / 25
Ned Lamont: 43 / 40
Dan Malloy: 47 / 29

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 54 / 46 (chart)
Gov. Rell: 63 / 34 (chart)


IL: 2010 Gov (PPP 4/1-5)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
4/1-5/10; 591 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Illinois

2010 Governor
43% Brady, 33% Quinn

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Quinn: 25 / 53

Favorable / Unfavorable
Bill Brady: 25 / 20


MI: 2010 Gov (EPIC-MRA 3/28-310

Topics: poll

EPIC-MRA / Detroit Free Press, WXYZ-TV, WOOD-TV, WILX-TV, WJRT-TV
3/28-31/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
400 likely Democratic primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
400 likely Republican primary voters, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(EPIC-MRA rleease)

Michigan

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
22% Dillon, 15% Bernero, 11% Wheeler Smith

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
27% Hoekstra, 21% Cox, 15% Snyder, 13% Bouchard, 3% George

2010 Governor: General Election
40% Hoekstra, 33% Dillon
42% Snyder, 26% Bernero
43% Cox, 34% Dillon
42% Hoekstra, 29% Bernero
42% Snyder, 30% Dillon
44% Cox, 30% Bernero

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 50 / 44
Jennifer Granholm: 38 / 67
Alma Wheeler Smith: 5 / 4
Mike Cox: 38 / 26
Andy Dillon: 16 / 11
Virg Bernero: 8 / 6
Pete Hoekstra: 30 / 15
Mike Bouchard: 31 / 10
Rick Snyder: 18 / 6
Tom George: 4 / 2

Job Rating
Pres. Obama: 44% Excellent/Good, 55% Just fair/Poor
Gov. Granholm: 27% Excellent/Good, 72% Just fair/Poor


GA: 2010 Gov Primary (InsiderAdvantage 4/5)

Topics: poll

InsiderAdvantage / WSB-TV
4/5/10; 396 likely Republican primary voters, 5% margin of error
4/6/10; 301 likely Democratic primary voters, 6% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(InsiderAdvantage release)
Update: Democratic primary

Georgia

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
26% Oxendine, 18% Deal, 9% Deal, 5% Johnson

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
47% Barnes, 18% Baker, 6% Poythress, 5% Porter


MA: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 4/5)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
4/5/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Massachusetts

2010 Governor
38% Patrick (D), 33% Cahill (i), 15% Mihos (R)
35% Patrick (D), 27% Baker (R), 23% Cahill (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Deval Patrick: 49 / 48
Christy Mihos: 31 / 51
Tim Cahill: 49 / 29
Charlie Baker: 43 / 32

job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 56 / 44
Gov. Patrick: 46 / 53


PA: 2010 Sen, Gov Primary (Quinnipiac 3/31-4/5)

Topics: [poll

Quinnipiac
3/31-4/5/10; 921 likely Democratic primary voters, 3.2% margin of error
491 likely Republican primary voters, 4.4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
53% Specter, 32% Sestak (chart)

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
20% Onorato, 15% Hoeffel, 13% Wagner, 5% Williams (chart)

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
58% Corbett, 7% Rohrer


What's that Smell? 'Outliers'

Topics: Outliers Feature

Chris Good adds more to the discussion of tea party demographics.

Chris Van Hollen says Democrats are better prepared to prevent losses than in 1994.

Edward Tufte talks to Forbes about data visualization (via Lundry).

Aaron Shaw crowdsources Benford's Law (via Lundry).

FlowingData charts the perils of the Easter egg hunt (via Sullivan).

eastereggs.png


US: National Survey (Zogby 4/1-3)


Zogby
4/1-3/10; 3,351 likely voters, 1.7% margin of error
Mode: Internet
(Zogby release)

National

Obama Job Approval
48% Approve, 52% Disapprove (chart)

Obama Job Rating (excellent-good/fair-poor scale)
Foreign Policy: 43 / 55 (chart)
Health care: 42 / 58 (chart)
Economy: 37 / 62 (chart)

State of the Country
39% Right Direction, 54% Wrong Track (chart)


A Teacup 80% (or More) Full

Topics: CNN/ORC , Frank Newport , Nate Silver , Party Identification , Party leaners , Tea Party movement , USAToday Gallup , Winston Group

The analysis of Tea Party Movement released last week by the Republican polling firm the Winston Group and a USA Today/Gallup poll on the same subject released yesterday have by now been commented upon by just about every political blog I follow. But yesterday, Nate Silver flagged a conflict I want to comment on involving the way some characterize the partisan attachments of Tea Party activists:

There are two ways that one can read the Winston Group poll on the political orientation of those who consider themselves a part of the tea-party movement. One way -- the headline that The Hill very reasonably chose -- is that about 40 percent of tea-partiers are independents or Democrats. The other -- obviously every bit as mathematically valid -- is that 60 percent are Republicans.

While either interpretation may be mathematically valid, The Hill headline is misleading if we consider the way pollsters typically measure and interpret party identification.

The Winston Group only asked the first part of the traditional party ID question: "Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else?" They did not ask the traditional follow-up: "Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?"

Back in February, a CNN survey found that on the first party question, 44% of Tea Party activists identified as Republicans, 4% as Democrats and 52% as independents. However, as I reported in a column last month, when CNN asked the traditional follow-up, nearly all the independents leaned Republican. Thus, with leaners included, 88% of CNN's Tea Party activists were Republican, 6% were Democrats and only 5% fell into the pure independent category.

As GWU Political Scientists John Sides often reminds us, independent leaners typically "act like partisans." Leaners vote for their party's candidate about as often as those who initially identify with the party (see my column and Sides' post for more).

Today, Frank Newport blogs more about the partisan affiliation of Tea Party supporters as measured by Gallup. Although they defined Tea Party support more broadly than CNN or the Winston Group (see Newport's post for more details), they found a very similar partisan leanings: On the initial party ID question, 49% identify as Republicans, 8% as Democrats and 43% as independent. But, Newport writes,

It appears that a healthy majority of those independents who are supporters of the Tea Party movement lean toward the Republican Party. When we do the math, we end up with 83% of supporters who are Republican or lean Republican, 4% who are pure independent (don't lean to either party) and 13% who are Democratic or lean Democratic.

The conclusion is simply a reinforcement of what Lydia wrote in the story: "Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings."

The table below summarizes the party identification of Tea Party activists or supporters as measured by all three pollsters. For what it's worth, I don't see anything particularly about the Winston Group's omission of the party-lean follow-up question. As I wrote in February, many pollsters omit that question to save time or because their samples are too small to allow analysis of the "pure independent" subgroup.

2010-04-06-Tea-Party-ID.png

CNN defined Tea Party activists as the 11% of adults that reported giving money, attending rallies or taking other "active steps" to support the Tea Party movement. The Winston Group reported on the 16% of registered voters who consider themselves "part of the Tea Party movement." Gallup profiled 28% of adults who say the consider themselves "supporters of the Tea Party movement."

Do not read these findings as belittling the significance of the Tea Party movement. In fact, the large number of Republican leaners among self-described Tea Party activists or supporters speaks to a growing political enthusiasm among voters who typically choose Republican candidates in national elections but are less likely to vote in party primaries or off-year general elections. That's an important story, but should not be confused with the battle for the kind of true swing-voters we think of when we hear the word "independent."

Interests disclosed: Winston Group Director of Policy Research Kristen Soltis, who has written about their Tea Party survey here and here, is also a frequent Pollster.com contributor.


IL: 2010 Sen (PPP 4/1-5)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
4/1-5/10; 591 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Illinois

2010 Senate
37% Kirk (R), 33% Giannoilias (D)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 50 / 42
Sen. Burris: 18 / 54
Sen. Durbin: 45 / 34

Favorable / Unfavorable
Alexi Giannoulias: 21 / 28
Mark Kirk: 24 / 23


PA: 2010 Sen (PPP 3/29-4/1)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
3/29-4/1/10; 934 likely voters, 3.2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
46% Toomey, 42% Specter (chart)
42% Toomey, 36% Sestak (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 50 (chart)
Sen. Casey: 31 / 38 (chart)
Sen. Specter: 34 / 52 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Joe Sestak: 16 / 18
Pat Toomey: 20 / 22


NV: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 3/31)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
3/31/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Nevada

2010 Governor (trends)
45% Gibbons (R), 43% Reid (D) (chart)
55% Sandoval (R), 34% Reid (D) (chart)
45% Montandon (R), 38% Reid (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jim Gibbons: 35 / 62 (chart)
Michael Montandon: 35 / 32
Brian Sandoval: 49 / 29
Rory Reid: 36 / 53


KY: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 3/31)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
3/31/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Kentucky

2010 Senate
53% Grayson (R), 33% Mongiardo (D)
52% Paul (R), 37% Mongiardo (D)
52% Grayson (R), 32% Conway (D)
50% Paul (R), 36% Conway (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Trey Grayson: 55 / 28
Dan Mongiardo: 42 / 46
Rand Paul: 53 / 33
Jack Conway: 44 / 39

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 38 / 62
Gov. Beshear: 46 / 50


WI: 2010 Sen, Gov (WPR 3/23-31)

Topics: poll

Wisconsin Public Radio / St. Norbert College
3/23-31/10; 400 adults, 5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(WPR release)

Wisconsin

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
24% Walker, 23% Neumann (trend)

2010 Governor: General Election
43% Neumann (R), 29% Barrett (D) (chart)
44% Walker (R), 28% Barrett (D) (chart)

2010 Senate: General Election
40% Feingold (D), 37% Generic Republican
45% Thompson (R), 33% Feingold (D) (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Doyle: 34 / 50 (chart)


Ode to Data 'Outliers'

Topics: Outliers Feature

Mark Ambinder, Greg Sargent, Nate Silver and Stephanie Condon discuss the implications of new Winston Group and Gallup polling on the tea party movement.

Karl Rove plugs the Census; TechPresident has more.

Erick Erickson says he'll "get out my wife's shotgun" to scare off long-form Census interviewers.

Gary Sargent finds high census participation in conservative counties.

Three bloggers continue a discussion of race and the census originated at CNN.

Terry Madonna and Michael Young see a presidential future for Rick Santorum.

The Sunday Times releases a poll showing the Tories ahead in British parliamentary elections (via Sullivan).

FlowingData posts an ode to data from IBM (via Sullivan).


Re: Automated or Not?

Topics: Automated polls , Disclosure , Insider Advantage , IVR Polls , Matt Towery , PPP

I received the following email from InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery in response to today's column:

Mark, I take criticism now constructively and we will do more to make clear we use IVR. Out of a sense of equal fairness would you share with your readers that PPP, I assume using a phone room, had virtually the same numbers in Crist-Rubio one day before we released ours? Transparency should flow both ways, don't you agree? All my best Matt

Consider that point shared, along with links to the releases by PPP and InsiderAdvantage that have been posted all along on our Florida Governor Republican primary chart.

And for the record, PPP also uses an automated methodology, not a "phone room," though Towery's observation raises a fair point about PPP: Their blog posts and releases rarely disclose that their surveys use an automated methodology, although their embrace of that technology is no mystery. If nothing else, their web site's mission page makes it crystal clear.


US: Obama on the Issues (Gallup 3/26-28)

Topics: poll

USA Today / Gallup
3/26-28/10; 1,033 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

Obama Job Approval / Disapproval
Foreign Affairs: 48 / 46 (chart)
Health care: 42 / 54 (chart)
Economy: 37 / 61 (chart)
Israel & Palestine: 31 / 52
Federal budget deficit: 31 / 64


NV: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 3/31)

Topics: poll

Rasmussen
3/31/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)


Nevada

2010 Senate
54% Lowden, 39% Reid (chart)
49% Tarkanian, 42% Reid (chart)
51% Angle, 40% Reid (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Harry Reid: 37 / 42 (chart)
Sue Lowden: 54 / 33
Danny Tarkanian: 55 / 34
Sharron Angle: 48 / 33

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 58 (chart)
Gov. Gibbons: 42 / 57 (chart)


Minimal Disclosure and Pollster.com

Topics: AAPOR , Disclosure , NCPP

My column today concludes with the argument that news media outlets, including Pollster.com, need to do a better job holding pollsters to the minimal disclosure standards set by organizations like the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP). What follows are some thoughts about how we plan to do better on that score here at Pollster.com.

One challenge we have been confronted with in recent months is what to do about polls released by organizations that are either newly formed or that have not previously released surveys on the campaigns we track. We saw that happen in the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, and given the emergence of vendors offering to conduct automated surveys for less than a thousand dollars, we will likely see much more over the next six months.

So as a first step, starting today, when we encounter polls from an new organization (or an organization that is new to us), we are going to require that their publicly accessible reports meet all of NCPP's minimal (Level 1) disclosure requirements before including their results in our charts and tables:

Level 1 Disclosure: All reports of survey findings issued for public release by a member organization will include the following information:

  • Sponsorship of the survey
  • Fieldwork provider (if applicable)
  • Dates of interviewing
  • Sampling method employed (for example, random-digit dialed telephone sample, list-based telephone sample, area probability sample, probability mail sample, other probability sample, opt-in internet panel, non-probability convenience sample, use of any oversampling)
  • Population that was sampled (for example, general population; registered voters; likely voters; or any specific population group defined by gender, race, age, occupation or any other characteristic)
  • Size of the sample that serves as the primary basis of the survey report
  • Size and description of the subsample, if the survey report relies primarily on less than the total sample
  • Margin of sampling error (if a probability sample)
  • Survey mode (for example, telephone/interviewer, telephone/automated, mail, internet, fax, e-mail)
  • Complete wording and ordering of questions mentioned in or upon which the release is based
  • Percentage results of all questions reported

Member organizations reporting results will endeavor to have print and broadcast media include the above items in their news stories.

Note that the last sentence provides something a loophole: Disclosure of the specified information is required in "all reports of survey findings issued for public release," but not necessarily in newspaper and television stories based on those reports. Since virtually every pollster or sponsoring news organization now maintains some sort of web site, we will interpret the rule to mean that while news stories may not disclose all of this detail, the pollster needs to make a more complete report available somewhere on the web.

Discerning readers will immediately see some big shortcomings in this first step. Let's consider the most obvious:

1) It's not fair. Many polls that Pollster.com currently publishes fall short of meeting NCPP's minimal disclosure guidelines.

True. Exhibit A, as reported in today's column, is Insider Advantage, a pollster that almost never discloses their survey mode in their public reports. But we don't have to stop there. Other items on the NCPP list that many pollsters frequently neglect to disclose include the sampling method (or "frame"), the fieldwork provider and -- all too often -- the complete wording and ordering of survey questions.

However, given how little the NCPP code requires, these are shortcomings that pollsters can easily correct, going forward. The sample mode, sample frame and fieldwork provider can be specified in just a sentence or two. And how hard is it to complete text and order of survey questions in the form of a PDF on web site?

To address the inconsistency of applying this rule to some pollsters but not others, I pledge a second step: Over the next month or so, we will examine all of the polls published in Pollster.com charts over the last year to determine more precisely how many pollsters are falling short on the NCPP standards. We will report those findings here and, at that point, consider whether any pollsters merit a "delisting."

2) That's a weak standard. Shouldn't pollsters disclose more about their work?

Absolutely. I am certainly on record asking pollsters to disclose much more, especially with respect to party identification, and the demographics and mechanics of "likely voter" samples. Back in August, I called for a system of scoring the quality of disclosure based on much more than the NCPP Level 1 information.

Also, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), is currently in the process of revising their own disclosure guidelines. Their proposed minimal disclosure standards mandate a few things that NCPP's standards do not, including "a description of the variables used in any weighting or estimating procedures" and the name of the supplier that provided the survey sample.

So I'll pledge two additional steps: First, in examining the polls we have published over the last year, we will also look at whether pollsters are meeting AAPOR's minimal standards and consider whether to require that polls meet both the AAPOR and NCPP minimal standards.

Second, we will gather whatever methodological details pollsters have published, including those listed in NCPP's Level 2 and Level 3 disclosure and the items that AAPOR's proposed code asks pollsters to make available after 30 days.

Again, my ultimate goal is to move toward all of this information to score the quality of disclosure of public polls. The steps described above will move us in that direction.

3) But disclosure isn't quality. A pollster could tell you everything you want to know about a crappy poll, and it would still be a crappy poll.

Unfortunately, that's mostly true. There is probably some correlation between a pollster's ability to answer basic questions about their methodology and the quality of their work. It is hard to have much confidence in a pollster that will not describe their sampling frame or weighting variables or that cannot release a disposition report on the numbers dialed.

But I won't quarrel with the basic point: Disclosure is not quality. The unfortunate problem is that pollsters have a very hard time agreeing among themselves about what defines a quality poll. If we want to make judgments about survey quality, full disclosure is a necessary prerequisite. When a survey's methodology is a mystery, it is much harder to conclude much of anything about its quality.

So we'll start by asking newcomer pollsters to meet the NCPP minimal standards, but that's just a start.


US: Tea Party Movement (USAToday/Gallup 3/26-28)

Topics: poll

USA Today / Gallup
3/26-28/10 1,033 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Tea Party movement: 37 / 40

Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement, an opponent of the Tea Party movement, or neither?
28% Supporter, 26% Opponent, 38% Neither

Gallup:

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.


IA: 2010 Gov (Magellan 3/30)

Topics: poll

Magellan (R)
3/30/10; 1,353 likely voters, 2.7% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Magellan release)

Iowa

2010 Governor
50% Branstad (R), 34% Culver (D)
40% Vander Plaats (R), 39% Culver (D)
38% Culver (D), 32% Roberts (R)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Chet Culver: 33 / 58

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Culver: 30 / 56
Pres. obama: 42 / 50


CA: 2010 Sen, Gov (LATimes/USC 3/23-30)

Topics: poll

LA Times / USC / Greenberg Quinlin Rosner (D), American Viewpoint (R)
3/23-30/10; 1,515 registered voters, 2.6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(LATimes: story, Graphic)

California

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
60% Whitman (R), 20% Poizner (D) (chart)

2010 Governor: General Election
44% Whitman, 41% Brown (chart)

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
29% Campbell, 25% Fiorina, 9% DeVore (chart)

2010 Senate: General Election
48% Boxer, 34% Republican


Automated or Not?

Topics: Automated polls , Disclosure , Insider Advantage , IVR , National Journal column

My National Journal column for this week looks at the failure of one pollster, Insider Advantage, to disclose whether it uses live interviewers or an automated method in its reports and the resulting consequences.

I have more to add on this topic -- please check back later today.

Update: I posted thoughts on how we how we plan to do better at holding Pollsters to minimal standards for disclosure here at Pollster.com.

Update II: A response from InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery.


 

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR