Jennifer DePinto says most independents once identified with a political party.

Nate Silver tabulates house effects for five prolific pollsters this cycle.

Jon Chait and Andrew Sullivan respond to the Schoen-Cadell op-ed.

John Judis challenges the Zogby-Casscells op-ed on health reform.

Jonathan Cohn posts the full text of Joel Benenson's health reform polling memo.

The American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) awards Precision Polling a "Pollie."

Florida

2010 Governor
44% McCollum (R), 31% Sink (D) (chart)
47% Crist (R), 27% Sink (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Alex Sink: 23 / 27
Bill McCollum: 25 / 26

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
51% Specter, 32% Sestak (chart)

2010 Senate: General Election
47% Specter (D), 41% Toomey (R) (chart)
42% Toomey (R), 39% Sestak (D) (chart)

2010 Governor: Democratic Primary
19% Onorato, 12% Hoeffel, 10% Wagner, 3% Williams (chart)

2010 Governor: General Election
40% Corbett (R), 34% Onorato (D) (chart)
41% Corbett (D), 31% Hoeffel (R)
41% Corbett (R), 32% Wagner (D)
47% Corbett (R), 19% Williams (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Arlen Specter: 48 / 42 (chart)
Joe Sestak: 35 / 23
Pat Toomey: 41 / 36
Dan Onorato: 32 / 15
Jack Wagner: 30 / 14
Joe Hoeffel: 29 / 15
Anthony Williams: 9 / 3
Tom Corbett: 39 / 12
Ed Rendell: 45 / 47 (chart)
Bob Casey: 54 / 27 (chart)
Barack Obama: 51 / 44 (chart)

Minnesota

2010 Governor (trends)
38% Dayton (D), 35% Emmer (R), 7% Horner (i)
37% Emmer, 34% Kelliher (D), 10% Horner (i)
38% Rybak (D), 35% Emmer (R), 9% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 38% Dayton (D), 7% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 35% Kelliher (D). 8% Horner (i)
38% Seifert (R), 38% Rybak (D), 8% Horner (i)
36% Emmer (R), 29% Bakk (D), 8% Horner (i)
38% Emmer (R) 29% Rukavina (D), 7% Horner (i)
37% Emmer (R), 28% Entenza (D), 8% Horner (i)
37% Seifert (R), 30% Bakk (D), 9% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 30% Rukavina (D), 9% Horner (i)
38% Seifert (R), 30% Entenza (D), 9% Horner (i)

Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
38% yes, 50% No

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 49 / 49 (chart)
Gov. Pawlenty: 50 / 49 (chart)
Sen. Klobuchar: 67 / 30 (chart)
Sen. Franken: 50 / 46 (chart)

Colorado

2010 Senate
43% Bennet (D), 43% Norton (R) (chart)
46% Bennet (D), 40% Buck (R) (chart)
45% Bennet (D), 37% Wiens (R) (chart)
44% Romanoff (D), 39% Norton (R) (chart)
44% Romanoff (D), 36% Buck (R) (chart)
45% Romanoff (D), 34% Wiens (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jane Norton: 25 / 35
Ken Buck: 14 / 18
Tom Wiens: 11 / 17
Andrew Romanoff: 28 / 26

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 50 (chart)
Sen. Udall: 39 / 42 (chart)
Sen. Bennet: 32 / 46 (chart)

National

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 54 / 42 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 35 / 56
Harry Reid: 26 / 67
Mitch McConnell: 20 / 63
John Boehner: 19 / 63
Democratic Party: 40 / 56
Republican Party: 29 / 67

State of the Country
39% Right Direction, 60% Wrong Track (chart)

The full "results" of the Colbert Repoll are posted here (via Alex Lundry).]]> http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rasmussen_and_the_colbert_repo.php http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rasmussen_and_the_colbert_repo.php Pollsters Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:32:46 -0500 pollster.emily@gmail.com (Emily Swanson) by Emily SwansonRasmussen
3/10/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Louisiana

2010 Senate
Vitter 57%, Melancon 34% (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
David Vitter: 63 / 32 (chart)
Charlie Melancon: 43 / 44

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 37 / 62 (chart)
Gov. Jindal: 68 / 32 (chart)

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen say the battle for public opinion on health reform has been lost (via Cillizza).

Joel Benenson says support for health reform is growing.

Stan Greenberg projects that Democrats are better off if a health care bill passes.

MoveOn.org members overwhelmingly support the Obama health care bill.

Politifact finds satisfaction with health insurance is not quite as high as George Will claimed.

Alan Abramowitz sees short-term success but long-term danger in the Republican Party's future.

Frank Newport explains the Gallup Approval Center.

Resurgent Republic and Steve Singiser look at voter enthusiasm from different perspectives.

Democracy Corps says Democrats must bridge the gap on the economy.

Andrew Sullivan questions a Democracy Corps poll, Jeremy Rosner responds, Glen Greenwald counters Rosner.

Alexi Giannoulias trashes a Rasmussen poll, then cites another.

John Sides and colleagues find that blog readers self segregate.

The State Department introduces a new interactive opinion-grouping tool (via techPresident).

The Pew Research Center launches an Ask the Expert feature.

Scott Rasmussen will appear on the Colbert Report tonight.

Earlier this week, Investor's Business Daily ran a fascinating biographical profile of Dr. George Gallup, the founder of the Gallup poll and, for all practical purposes, the founder of political polling as we know it. The article includes some details that I had not heard before, such as the fact that Gallup's first application of market research to political campaigns was on  behalf of his mother-in-law's successful campaign for secretary of state in Iowa. It is well worth a click.

That said, I want pass along some interesting commentary about the story posted earlier today on the members-only listserv of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (and quoted with permission).  The article opens by revisiting Gallup's bold prediction that Franklin Roosevelt would win reelection in 1936 in the face of well known polling by the Literary Digest magazine showing a big lead for Republican Alf Landon. The IBD story is correct that Roosevelt's ultimate victory "led to the death of the Literary Digest" and helped make Gallup "a household name." According to statistical consultant Dominic Lusinchi, however, the story "perpetuates two myths" about the infamous Literary Digest polls:

1) That Gallup "predicted" that the Digest poll would forecast a Landon victory and

2) That the Digest failed because its sampling frame was "skewed ... to the wealthy".

Myth 1: In a July 12, 1936 syndicated column "America Speak", Gallup wrote:"If the Literary Digest were conducting its poll at the present time [my emphasis], following its usual procedure, Landon would be shown in the lead." (Wash. Post, Section III, p.2, col. 7, Sunday, July 12, 1936) It's one thing to say "at the present time" and another to say "when the Digest presents its final results".... It is only after the Digest poll debacle that this story morphed into a "prediction". What Gallup really predicted, at that time (7/12/1936), was that the election was going to be a close one: the title of his column "1936 Election Seen As Closest in Years".

Myth 2: The Digest poll failed because its original sample, composed mainly of telephone and/or car owners, was irretrievably skewed against Roosevelt. A close analysis of a May 1937 Gallup (yes, Gallup!) poll, which asked its respondents if they had received and returned a Digest ballot card, shows that the principal cause of the Digest poll's failure was non-response bias. As Peverill Squire wrote in POQ (vol. 52, 1988, p.125), "if all those who were polled had responded, the magazine would have, at least, correctly predicted Roosevelt the winner." In fact, its prediction (my analysis) would have been as good if not better than Gallup's - he was off by nearly 7 points of the two-party vote.

Why Gallup never referred to this May 1937 poll done by his organization when he commented (many many times) on the failure of the Digest poll...?

Well that would take too long... got to get back to work.

Thanks Dominic!

California

2010 Governor: Republican Primary
52% Whitman, 19% Poizner (chart)

2010 Governor: General Election
45% Brown (D), 41% Whitman (R) (chart)
48% Brown (D), 33% Poizner (R) (chart)

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
33% Campbell, 24% Fiorina, 7% DeVore (chart)

2010 Senate: General Election (trends)
47% Boxer (D), 43% Campbell (R)
49% Boxer (D), 40% Fiorina (R) (chart)
49% Boxer (D), 39% DeVore (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jerry Brown: 52 / 40
Meg Whitman: 51 / 35
Steve Poizner: 37 / 40
Barbara Boxer: 50 / 45 (chart)
Tom Campbell: 46 / 37
Carly Fiorina: 35 / 43
Chuck DeVore: 34 / 42

Missouri

2010 Senate
47% Blunt, 41% Carnahan (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt: 56 / 37
Robin Carnahan: 47 / 48

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 42 / 56 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 53 / 42 (chart)

Colorado

2012 President: Republican Primary
44% Romney, 25% Palin, 17% Huckabee

Florida

2012 President: Republican Primary
52% Romney, 21% Huckabee, 18% Palin

National

Most Closely Followed Story
30% Debate over health care reform
22% A major earthquake in Chile
13% Reports about the condition of the U.S. economy
7% The current situation and events in Iraq
7% News about state and local budget problems
4% News about this year's congressional elections

Are you hearing mostly good news about the economy these days, mostly bad news about the economy or a mix of both good and bad news?
4% Mostly good, 30% Mostly bad, 66% Mixed

New Hampshire

2010 Governor (trends)
51% Lynch, 32% Kimball
54% Lynch, 28% Testerman
50% Lynch, 35% Stephen

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Lynch: 59 / 37 (chart)
Karen Testerman: 22 / 30
Jack Kimball: 27 / 25
John Stephen: 32 / 30

Illinois

2010 Senate
44% Giannoulias, 41% Kirk

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mark Kirk: 49 / 33
Alexi Giannoulias: 44 / 43

Florida

2010 Senate: Republican Primary
60% Rubio, 26% Crist (chart)

Jon Cohen analyzes ABC/Post data on presidential versus congressional approval.

Chris Good assesses Obama's approval in states with competitive Senate races.

Mark Mellman says some are too quick to write off Obama.

David Hill says state and local government reforms are not getting through to the public.

Jon Chait illustrates the Democrats turnout emergency; Ed Kilgore adds more.

Glen Bolger interprets Democracy Corps data on national security as positive for Republicans.

Jim Geraghty reports on Republican sponsored health care polling in key house districts.

Ben Smith highlights a new study showing the Obama-as-Muslim myth was more chronic than viral.

Andrew Romano explains why Ed Tufte's appointment matters (via Lundry)

Andrew Gelman finds a really bad pie chart; Junk Charts tops him.

Frank Luntz gets the Colbert treatment (via Lundry).

All of this commentary gets at two important questions: Is support for health reform growing (and opposition fading)? And do the large "house effects" among pollsters obscure our ability to see trends amidst the noise?

The version reproduced above is a snapshot of our chart as of this writing (click here to see the regularly updated, interactive version). Remember, our chart is something of a mash-up that combines different questions and surveys produced by more than 20 different pollsters. In it, we do something that many pollsters and statisticians advise against, which is to compare apples and oranges in terms of the question text and populations sampled. When we look at horse-race results for election campaigns, most pollsters use very similar questions and ultimately at least try to measure the same population (the likely electorate). In this case, the wording and format of the questions vary widely. Some sample all adults, others sample "likely voters." Look closely at the chart and you will see far more variation in the results than is typical for our horse-race charts -- between 10 and 20 points worth of variation in the favor and oppose percentages at any given time.

That variation also reflects the vague sense that many Americans have of the health care reform legislation now being debated in Congress. When the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asks about health reform, they prompt respondents to say if they "do not have an opinion either way." As a result, roughly one-in-five adults (23% on their last survey) do not express an opinion. Other pollsters (such as ABC/Washington Post and Rasmussen) report an "unsure" percentage in the low single digits, while another (YouGov/Polimetrix) reports none at all. Thus, the degree to which pollsters push their respondents for an opinion explains some of the "house effect" variation.

All of this makes it prudent to take an apples-to-apples approach in pondering the recent trend. That's what I tried to do in the two charts that follow. I separated the lines the favor and oppose percentages into two charts to make them more legible. I also limited the plotted pollsters to the seven organizations that have updated health reform tracking over the last month. However, I also included the Pollster.com trend line from our interactive chart, which is based on all available polls, not just the seven whose dots are connected below.

Some observations:

1) The trend evident in the grey Pollster.com trend line -- a 4.4 percentage point drop in opposition and a 1.6 percent increase in support -- is more or less consistent with the trends shown by YouGov/Polimetrix and Rasmussen Reports, the two organizations that have polled most often on this topic during 2010. The results from PPP and IPSOS are also consistent with the same trend.   

2) The results from Gallup's two polls appear to show a contradictory trend, although we should note that the Gallup changed their question wording slightly between January and March. Their most recent survey asks, "would you advise your representative in Congress to vote for or against a healthcare reform bill similar to the one proposed by President Obama?" In previous surveys, they asked about voting for "a health care bill this year" without reference to the President or either party. Note that Gallup's own analysis does not treat the January and March results as comparable.

3) Rasmussen shows a house effect on the oppose percentage (typically 5-6 point higher than our trend line; early January was an exception), but tends to be in the middle of the pack on the favor percentage. YouGov/Polimetrix shows a similar house effect on the favor percentage (typically 5-6 points higher than average), but not the oppose percentage. Whatever doubts you might have about their methods -- Rasmussen uses automated, recorded voice interviewing and YouGov/Polimetrix conducts online interviews sampled from an opt-in panel -- both are consistent in their respective questions and methods and both shown trends that generally track with those measured by other pollsters.

[Correction: The wording of the question asked on the most recent Economist/YouGov/Polimetrix survey, conducted February 28 to March 2, was slightly different from what they had asked before. Their previous surveys asked, "Overall, given what you know about them, do you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by Congress and the Obama Administration?" On their 2/28-3/2 survey, they dropped the reference to Congress and simply referred to the proposal as "being proposed by the Obama administration." That change could account for the spike in support to 53%].

4) We would still see a closing margin (increased support, falling opposition) if we use our charts filter tool to remove both Rasmussen and Polimetrix (as per the snapshot below). One reason may be the absence in recent weeks of surveys like Quinnipiac and NBC/Wall Street Journal (which typically report lower than average support percentages) and CNN (which typically reports higher than average oppose percentages). Notice how the range of dots is narrower over the last few weeks than in previous months. To be absolutely sure the trend is real, we will need to wait for updates from these organizations.

So yes, there are certainly large "house effects" in the health care favor-or-oppose results, but even though different pollsters gauge different levels of support, most pick up more or less the same trends, especially when they ask exactly the same questions on multiple surveys exactly the same way. Any way you slice it, there does appear to be a real tightening of opinion on health reform although as always, these results are snapshots and subject to change.

Update: Given the correction above regarding the small wording change on the most recent YouGov/Polimetrix survey, I thought it best to create two new charts that connect-the-dots for only those polls with consistent wording. So the two charts that follow drop the two Gallup surveys and the most recent YouGov/Polimetrix survey. The grey Pollster.com trend line, however, is still consistent with the line on our standard chart that is based on all surveys on this questions, regardless of wording. My bottom line remains the same: There does appear to be a small but real tightening of opinion.

Rasmussen

2010 Senate
47% Ayotte (R), 37% Hodes (D) (chart)
42% Hodes (D), 38% Lamontagne (R) (chart)
46% Binnie (R), 36% Hodes (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Kelly Ayotte: 60 / 22
Paul Hodes: 46 / 42
Ovide Lamontagne: 33 / 33
Bill Binnie: 47 / 26

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 52 (chart)
Gov. Lynch: 63 / 36 (chart)