July 30, 2008
By Guest Pollster
Nick Panagakis is president of Market Shares Corporation, a marketing and public opinion research firm headquartered in Mt. Prospect, Ill.
This is in response to David Moore's July 25th column about use of a broader measure of voter indecision. For the first time, I also asked a similar question before the February 5th Illinois primary but am now having doubts about it's usefulness.
In the final CNN/University of New Hampshire primary poll, over 90% of voters stated their preference for a candidate in the commonly used "if the election were held today" forced choice question. That poll had Obama up by 9%. But Clinton won by 2.6 points. The candidate estimate error was 5.8 points, that means 5.8% high on Obama and 5.8% low on Clinton, near the average of all NH polls. When voters in that poll were asked if they were definite, leaning, or "still trying to decide", some 21% said still trying to decide which was the subject of Moore's blog.
Among the 21% who were "still trying to decide", that could mean 6% of all voters switched from Obama to Clinton or, a net 6% more voters switched from Obama to Clinton than from Clinton to Obama. The 21% more than covers such movement.
Other New Hampshire polls showed comparable numbers: Gallup's "could change mind" and in late December the LA Times' "might end up voting for someone else" both yielded 27%. I checked polls in other states that asked similar questions of decided voters and show comparable high percentages with no evidence that such mind-changing ever took palace.
My first issue is that the forced choice "if the election were held today" question historically comes close to the actual outcome, even though some voters may not have reached final closure when asked. I wouldn't call this "indecision" after so many could decide in response to the standard question. I believe it means some voters who are wiling to decide on a candidate in a poll won't rule out the possibility that some incident or disclosure, between now and election day, could lead them to vote otherwise. Isn't that what campaigns including negative elements are all about? This response is more conditional, perhaps remote, depending on unknown future events, not indecision. If it were indecision, a lot more polls than New Hampshire would have been be off the mark this Spring. In the post New Hampshire period, I cringed when I saw such numbers being reported. I think they de-values polls. There must be some better way of reporting these findings rather than "candidate A is up by 9 points - but 30% could change their minds".
During the week preceding the February 5th Illinois primary, our Chicago Tribune poll showed Obama ahead by 31 points in that primary, very close to the actual outcome. Our poll also got a similar number just days before election day - 24% of decided and leaners said they could "still change their minds". Could it be that a few days before any election, somewhere around 20%-25% of voters in all polls always say they could still change but most never do? Based on the Illinois outcome, not many minds were changed as is the case in most polls. To me, it seems that how voters would decide today has served us pretty well with some exceptions such as New Hampshire. (The question read: "Between now and next Tuesday, is there some chance that you could still change your mind about voting for this candidate...or have you definitely made up your mind?")
Re-calculating our Illinois Democratic poll numbers to combine possible mind-changers with undecideds as Moore did with the New Hampshire poll resulted in: Obama 44%, Clinton 16%, Others 1%, and 39% undecided. (The apparent reason for 39% here was an increase in conventional undecideds due to Edwards dropping out the day before interviewing began. Edwards did have 15% support in Illinois in a poll conducted a few days earlier by St. Louis Post-Dispatch,/KMOV-TV poll.) According to MSNBC, the NEP Illinois exit poll found 19% of voters who said they decided in the last 3 days, the period after we completed interviewing, close to our conventional undecideds. But the recalculated 39% undecided above that included voters who could "still change their mind" is twice as high as the 19% of voters NEP found deciding on a candidate during the 3 days before that election.
In the Illinois Republican primary, 36% of voters and leaners said they could change their minds. McCain was ahead in the poll by 23 points and went on to win by 19 points, a 2-point error on candidate estimates. Moore did not include a comparable number for the New Hampshire Republican primary but all polls matched the outcome.
In conclusion, perhaps in the New Hampshire Democratic primary this year such mind-changing took place. The state has always been a minefield for pollsters. The challenge for pollsters was mostly situational. This was a fluid situation, akin to trying to catch a falling knife. The campaign period was compressed, shortest-ever in New Hampshire, only 5 days after Obama's Iowa upset. Obama was described as over-confidant. Clinton perceived as a victim by some.
There were methodological challenges. Turnout that this year turned out to be historically high (a forewarning for us pollsters in later states). Only 52% of voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary were registered Democrats according to the exit poll and 19% were first-time primary voters, a challenge for likely voter screening. According to one pollster, their best estimate of the New Hampshire outcome was based on all registered voters; i.e., no sample reduction at all for likely voters. The final chapter on this election has not yet been written. Neither has the value of routinely reporting that 25% or more of voters are undecided.
By Guest Pollster on July 30, 2008 5:51 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 29, 2008
By Steve Lombardo
Over a month ago we said that the 2008 presidential race was becoming a referendum on Barack Obama. Now the polling data has confirmed our hypothesis, and national pundits have said much the same thing. Pause for a moment and consider how truly incredible and unlikely this is. We are six years into an unpopular war and smack in the middle of a modest recession. Every environmental voting factor suggests that this election should be about George Bush and his policies, NOT the Democrat. But to this point, this race is almost totally about Obama. The upside is that he is the talk of the nation and McCain is virtually invisible. The downside, though, is that the Democrats appear to have lost--or at least temporarily ceded--their most important weapon: anti-Bush sentiment. If this election is about Bush/McCain, Obama should win; if it's about Obama, McCain has a chance.
From a strategy perspective it is pretty simple. A large segment of the electorate is not comfortable with Obama yet. There are two things team Obama can do: 1) ease those concerns by demonstrating that Obama is a "safe" choice and 2) link McCain to Bush and make that choice unacceptable irrespective of the Democratic candidate. In my mind, they have chosen to focus almost entirely on the first option, and that may be a fatal strategic error. Perhaps they have decided to do both (they are, of course, not mutually exclusive) but the time horizon for blatant political attacks on McCain may fade the closer we get to Labor Day.
Last Week's News Cycle or, the "No-Bounce" Win for Obama
Is it possible for Obama to get little or no "bounce" out of last week yet still have the week be considered a "win" for his campaign? The answer is "yes." Well, it's a "yes" given his weaknesses, at any rate.
Obama has a problem with many likely voters, some of whom are worried that he is not up to the job. So last week needed to tell swing voters that he is a fundamentally sound candidate.
It was a predictable (and scripted) photo opportunity for candidate Obama. But from a campaign perspective, that's not a bad thing at all; in fact, it's exactly what the campaign needed. Pictures of Obama talking to troops (and thereby appearing supportive of said troops)? Check. Images of Obama talking to military commanders (thus appearing "tough" and "knowledgeable" on foreign policy)? Check. Pictures of Obama meeting with foreign leaders (showing that he's "presidential" and can appear confident on the world stage)? Check. This was a trip designed to reassure voters who questioned all of the above, and to make voters more "comfortable" with the idea of Obama as president.
In and of itself the trip should not be expected to give Obama a bounce. Instead, the trip was meant to solidify core support and begin the process of attracting swing voters. It probably started that process, but people should stop looking for the bounce. At this stage--given how little people know about Obama--there will be volatility in the polls.
100 Days Out - What Does History Tell Us?
With little in the way of new polling data--and the milestone of 100 days until Election Day passing--we decided to take a look at where the race stood at this time over the past five election cycles. While this was an unscientific review, we did try and choose the most representative polls (from reputable pollsters) that we could find. The trend from 1988 - 2004 shows that the GOP candidate tends to under-poll in the summer--with the exception, as you can see below, of the 2000 campaign. In each of the other four years, the Republican candidate had been polling significantly behind the Democrat at this point in the race. Each of those times, however, the Republican improved his position, gaining an average of 15 points relative to the Democrat.
That is a staggering number: equivalent to over 18 million votes based on 2004 turnout numbers. So Republicans have come back before--and McCain's campaign narrative does fit with the "comeback kid" storyline--but what this means for 2008 is difficult to say. It could tell us that Republican candidates tend to do better once the electorate is more focused on the issues and the candidates (similar to what we see in registered voter/likely voter screens, where likely voters--those paying more attention--tend to be slightly more inclined to vote for the Republican candidate), or it could simply be a coincidence based on a variety of external factors related to those particular races and polls. Either way, it's interesting to look at:
What is fascinating in the last few cycles is that--with the exception of Clinton in 1996--the Democratic candidate's vote moves very little from July to Election Day. In fact, if history is some guide here (and we know every election is different), Obama's current vote might be about where it will end up...plus or minus two points.
By Steve Lombardo on July 29, 2008 11:23 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 23, 2008
By Steve Lombardo
Note: We are pleased to add Republican pollster Steve Lombardo, the president and CEO of Lombardo Consulting, as a regular contributor. His weekly email update, the LCG Election Monitor, is well known to political journalists and insiders as a source of straight-shooting analysis of political poll trends. Starting today, the LCG monitor will also be published every week right here on Pollster.com.
It is often difficult to accurately assess the electoral impact of events during a campaign - especially those that occur more than 3 months prior to Election Day. But in the case of Obama's overseas trip, I think we can mark this down as a substantial tactical and strategic victory.
First, as I have said before - in the words of my friend and colleague, the late Mike Deaver - elections are about impressions. And this trip (and the accompanying coverage and photos) has created an impression of Barack Obama as that of an engaged, serious and strong person. Second, the trip serves to negate the preexisting notion that Obama is not up for the job of President. While it likely has not completely reversed the "inexperienced" impression, the trip has begun the process. Time will tell if other moments can serve Obama in the same way. The campaign will be looking for them to be sure.
From a micro perspective Obama has swamped McCain in terms of positive media coverage, driven largely by this overseas trip. Media reports have, to this point, been almost uniformly glowing. This has been helped along, of course, by comments from Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, which seemed to support Obama's plans for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Yes, there has been some criticism that this is a media stunt, but the vast majority of the coverage has been positive, suggesting that this was a sound strategy. Our sense is that when most Americans turn on their televisions, visit their favorite websites or open up their newspapers and see Obama sitting down with foreign leaders and chatting with American soldiers, most of them will say: "Sure, he looks presidential." In the end, that's all that matters.
John McCain has been hammering away at Obama on the stump and in this ad. This, too, is a pretty good strategy: trying to move the conversation away from whether Obama supported the war to whether he supported the surge. Obviously, Obama is vulnerable here. He stated that the surge would be counterproductive, and this line of attack serves to underscore the idea that he is not ready for the job. But this somewhat narrow approach may be obscured by events abroad (Afghanistan, Iran) and at home (gas prices, the economy). Remember that the economy is by far the number one issue in the country right now. Obama only needs to be in the ballpark with McCain on handling Iraq; if he dominates on the issue of the economy, he wins.
As we said in our last Election Monitor, this campaign will be a referendum on Barack Obama. If the American public comes to the conclusion that he can be an effective commander-in-chief - basically, if they become comfortable with the idea of him as President - then he should win the race. But the American public isn't there yet; the one area where Obama still trails McCain is on this key question of leadership and whether he has the "experience" to be president. This is obviously something that the Obama Iraq trip is designed to address. Our sense is that it is working; the question is whether the leadership "bounce" that Obama gets from the trip can be sustained.
Electoral Vote Projection Map
Our electoral vote map has not changed in the last two weeks. To this point, nothing has fundamentally altered the race, either nationally or in any key states. We will have to wait for next week's batch of polling data to see if Obama's overseas trip has any quantifiable impact on the race.
However, there is some new polling data that does confirm a couple of our earlier predictions, as well as hint at one of the LCG Big Ten moving into the Obama column:
- Michigan (Toss-up). The upper-Midwest is clearly the Obama campaign's center of gravity. With his campaign headquarters and personal and political roots in Chicago, he has taken the sensible strategy of making strong plays for Iowa (which was won by less than 1% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004) and Michigan, a state that went Gore +5.2, Kerry +3.4. Horserace polling in Michigan has consistently shown Obama and McCain within the margin of error. However, the three most recent polls in Michigan (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP and PPP) show an average of Obama +8. If this recent bounce continues, we may have to move Michigan into the Obama column.
- Iowa (Obama). We debated putting Iowa--a state that Bush won in 2004--in the Obama column so early, but every publically-released poll conducted in Iowa since the end of 2006 has shown Obama leading McCain, and now a new poll confirms a significant Obama advantage. A Rasmussen survey of 500 likely voters has Obama at a comfortable +10.
- North Carolina (Toss-up). As we mentioned in our initial comments on this electoral map, the fact that a state Bush won by at least 12 points in both 2000 and 2004 is a toss-up underlines the enormous structural advantage the Democratic Party has this year. We still think that McCain is likely to win this state, nevertheless, three new surveys (Rasmussen, SurveyUSA and PPP) show an average of just a 3-4 point lead for McCain and we will continue to treat this as a toss-up until something changes.
The Independent Vote
Just one more note before we go. So much has been made of the Independent vote that we decided to take a look at it, both in terms of how Independents are trending in 2008 and how that compares with previous elections. The chart below makes it clear that structural changes and disaffection with the current administration hasn't translated into increased support for Obama--yet. For all the talk of Bush's base-pandering and Obama's popularity among swing voters, the middle is being split between the two candidates, and it's been that way for the last eight years. For historical perspective, the small edge Obama currently enjoys is nothing compared to the huge Independent support garnered by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
However, our sense is that McCain is doing better with likely voters and therefore, to win, Obama will need to open up a 4-7 point lead with Independents (think Clinton in '92 and '96).
We will be back again next week. Thanks to Pete Ventimiglia and John Zirinsky for their insights.
By Steve Lombardo on July 23, 2008 4:50 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 9, 2008
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.
In a recent post, Gallup's Jeff Jones reports that for the first time this election cycle, Gallup has measured the number of "swing voters" in the electorate. That's certainly a step in the right direction, but one might well wonder why it took so long for pollsters to admit that there is a substantial proportion of the public not committed to a candidate.
According to the post, Gallup finds that only 6 percent of "likely voters" are undecided as to which presidential candidate they will support. That number defies credulity. With five months to go in the campaign, neither major candidate the incumbent, no vice presidential candidates chosen, and no debates between the presumptive nominees, Gallup wants want us to believe that 94 percent of voters have already made up their minds? Yes, indeed! Not only that, CNN says 99 percent are decided. Time says 92 percent. Newsweek claims 87 percent. USA Today with Gallup says 97 percent. ABC/Washington Post - 96 percent. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll says 90 percent. (For sources, see The Polling Report.)
With all these major media polls (not to mention numerous other polls not affiliated with the major news media organizations) in rough agreement that about nine in ten voters or more have made up their minds, any challenge to this conventional wisdom may seem futile. But here's something to consider. In a Sept. 3-5, 1996 Gallup poll, 40 percent of voters said they were undecided about whom they would support in the November presidential election between Robert Dole and Bill Clinton. How could such a large number be undecided in that poll - taken after the major party conventions and with just two months to go before the election, in which there was a popular incumbent candidate - and yet so few voters admit they are undecided in the current polls?
The answer, of course, lies in the way the voting question is asked. The standard vote choice question, which dates to 1935 when George Gallup first asked about presidential preferences, is deliberately designed to obfuscate the number of undecided voters. Gallup knew that the press wouldn't be interested in results that showed perhaps a majority of voters undecided months before an election, so he asked respondents which candidates they would vote for "today."1 And for the past seven plus decades pollsters have blindly followed that same format. In the September 1996 poll, however, Gallup abandoned the standard vote choice question, and instead first asked voters if they had even made their decision as to which candidate they would support. In that context, 39 percent said they hadn't, and an additional one percent were unsure.
In the current Gallup report, mentioned at the beginning of the article, Gallup retains the forced-choice standard format, but follows up by asking respondents if they could change their minds before election day. Those who said they could - 9 percent who initially said they would vote for McCain if the election were held "today," and 8 percent who initially favored Obama - were added to the six percent who initially said they were undecided, producing a 23 percent group Gallup characterizes as "swing voters."
Thus, according to Gallup, about a quarter of the electorate is up for grabs. I'm skeptical about that number - I suspect the percentage is much higher, perhaps even greater than the 40 percent measured by Gallup late in the 1996 campaign. But at least it's a recognition that there is a substantial number of voters who are not yet committed to a candidate.
Still, I would argue that most of the swing voters are not people who "could" change their minds before election day, as Gallup asserts, but rather people who have not yet even decided whom to support. Gallup (and any other national poll), of course, could test that proposition. All they need to do is replicate the question that Gallup asked in its September 3-5, 1996 poll: Ask voters up front if they have made up their minds whom they will support in November.2 My prediction - much more than a quarter of the electorate is up for grabs in 2008.
1 Three times in 1935, Gallup asked if respondents would vote for Roosevelt "today." The first time he pitted Roosevelt against anyone was in January 1936, when he asked: "For which candidate would you vote today - Franklin Roosevelt or the Republican candidate?" See George H. Gallup, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971, Volume One (New York: Random House, 1972), pp. 1-10.
2 The exact wording is, "Have you made up your mind yet about who you will vote for in the presidential election this fall, or are you still deciding?"
By David Moore on July 9, 2008 1:43 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
June 18, 2008
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.
The new Hunter College poll of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) Americans provides important insights into the lives of this difficult-to-reach population. The poll is an excellent example of what polls can do best - reveal how people view their own experiences, thus providing history with important information on how people lived and thought at any given point of time. The forthcoming presentation1 by the authors should provide additional information about the study.
One of the intriguing findings of the study is the percentage of people who identify as LGBs. The prevalence rate, 2.9 percent, is in line with other studies over the past couple of decades, which suggest that somewhere under five percent of Americans report they are homosexual. A decade ago, NORC's Tom Smith reported that "a series of recent national studies indicate that only about 2-3 percent of sexually active men and 1-2 percent of sexually active women are currently homosexual."2 The Hunter College poll differs somewhat from these numbers, suggesting that the percentage of men and women identifying as LGBs is about equal - though half the women, and only a third of the men say they are bisexual.
It's important to recognize that these figures are lower-bounded estimates, and that the actual percentage of Americans who are LGBs is probably higher than what the polls can measure. While public acceptance of LGBs is higher now than it was, say, a couple of decades ago, there is still considerable public disapprobation of homosexual behavior. Such an environment cannot help but deter many LGBs from admitting their true sexual orientation.
In this context, it is noteworthy that the percentage of people willing to admit they are LGBs correlates with the political environment in which they live. The Hunter College poll shows that among people living in "strong Democratic states" (where John Kerry beat George W. Bush by five percentage points or more), the number of LGBs is about 3.6 percent; in swing states, it's about 3.2 percent; and in strong Republican states (where Bush won by five percentage points or more), it's about 2.0 percent.3 These differences appear to be statistically significant, though the authors could provide statistical tests to verify the observation.
If it is true that the percentages vary by political environment, there are at least two explanations. One is that LGBs move to states that are generally more accepting of homosexuals. The other is that LGBs are simply more willing to admit their sexual orientation when they live in a more favorable environment. One test would be to compare the figures by age by political environment - with the hypothesis that older LGBs might be more likely to move to friendly environments, while younger LGBs would not yet have had the time to do so. Thus, the correlation between political environment and willingness to admit that one is an LGB would be higher among older than younger people. If the rates are similar, it rules out the notion that the correlation is due to LGBs moving to a more friendly environment, and suggests instead that it is the environment itself that influences whether LGBs are willing to admit their sexual preferences.
Whatever the results, the poll itself deserves careful consideration of all of its findings. The methodology appears to be rigorous, while the findings provide innovative insights into the personal experiences and political orientation of LGBs.
1 Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center, 208, West 13th Street, New York City.
2 Tom W. Smith, "American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior," GSS Topical Report No. 25, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, updated December, 1998, p. 7.
3 These percentages are my recalculation of figures provided in the report in Table 2. The authors should be able to provide more precise calculations.
By David Moore on June 18, 2008 11:47 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
April 10, 2008
By Charles Franklin
The Iraq war and the economy have consistently been the top two "most important problems" facing the nation during President Bush's second term. But the dynamics have changed dramatically over the past seven months.
After near parity in 2005, the war dominated throughout 2006 as far more important that the economy, and with rising numbers of people citing the war as most important. That peaked in early 2007 with concern over the war gradually diminishing through most of the rest of the year.
And then the economy struck. As recently as August 2007 only 8% said the economy was the most important problem. By early September that jumped to 13%, then to 23% in January and now 37% in early April. By contrast the war fell from 34% to 15% over that same time.
It will be ironic if the fall campaigns largely ignore the war to focus on an economy that 12 months earlier had looked fairly good.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on April 10, 2008 10:32 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
March 21, 2008
By Margie Omero
A common pattern in polling is to see greater tolerance for issues in one's personal sphere than outside it. Voters like their own Member of Congress more than they like "Congress." Voters are more open to public spending helping their own community than to help others'. Call it, perhaps, a reverse NIMBY phenomenon. Interestingly, we see the same pattern when it comes to infidelity and sex scandals; Americans seem more tolerant personally than they are of elected officials.
At some level I'm hesitant to discuss this topic. Does it feed into our baser instincts? Are sex scandals even relevant? However you answer those questions, though, the fact remains that sex scandals are very relevant in the campaigns in which they occur, and show no sign of abating. We might as well try to understand voters' views.
Initially, Americans attitudes toward infidelity are quite dramatic. According to Gallup, nearly all Americans (91%) feel "married men and women having an affair" is morally wrong. This makes it less acceptable than cloning humans (86% morally wrong), and as unacceptable as polygamy (90%).
But ultimately, Americans turn out to be more forgiving. For one, according to ABC News, more report their own infidelity (16%) than I'm assuming would admit to human cloning or polygamy. Further, according to USA Today/Gallup reports of "knowing anyone" who has been unfaithful are much higher (54%).
Perceived pervasiveness could lead to potential forgiveness. Over a third (33%) say they would "probably" or "definitely" forgive their spouse's infidelity. A similar number (36%) suspect that if they were married to a philandering political spouse, they would "stand beside" the spouse during a press conference announcing the infidelity. In fact, far from a consistent pattern, only 55% of married adults say they would leave their spouse if they found out about an affair.
Politicians implicated in recent sex scandals, however, are generally not let off the hook so easily:
- A Marist Poll pre-resignation (so, admittedly, an overnight poll) showed 70% of New York voters wanted to see Eliot Spitzer resign.
- In September 2007, a CNN/Opinion Research poll also showed majority of Americans (52%) felt Dennis Hastert should have resigned because of his handling of the Mark Foley incident.
- In a NBC News/Zogby poll, More than eight in ten (84%) were dissatisfied with Gary Condit's explanations about his relationship with Chandra Levy, and 81% said they wouldn't re-elect him if he was their Congressman.
Only former Governor Jim McGreevey fared a bit better than his ignominious peers. Just half (48%) of New Jersey voters said it was necessary for him to resign, compared to 42% who wanted him to stay.
Admittedly, most of these scandals, to varying degrees, involved a bit more than adultery. And the hypocrisy of private behavior differing from public stances also affects voters' attitudes. But we still seem to see reverse NIMBY writ large; people tend to be more judgmental of others than of themselves. Politicians should beware what might be one of the oldest political biases.
By Margie Omero on March 21, 2008 5:10 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBacks (0)
March 14, 2008
By Guest Pollster
(Today's Guest Pollster's contribution comes from Professors Robert S. Erikson and Karl Sigman of Columbia University.)
In late February, SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in every state for a total of 30,000 interviews, ascertaining preferences in a McCain-Obama and a McCain-Clinton race. The focus was a new set of electoral maps of red and blue states based on who led each state in the survey. Based on who won each state in the SurveyUSA survey, Obama defeats McCain 280 to 258 while Clinton defeats McCain 276 to 262 in the Electoral College.
Of course SurveyUSA's mammoth undertaking at best presents a snapshot of the states at one point in time. And even if all the niceties of polling were perfectly met, the allocation of states as "red" or "blue" is problematic due to sampling error. Here, we take the analysis of the SurveyUSA 50 state polls one step further. Rather than assign states based on who leads in the state surveys, we assign states probabilistically to the Democratic or Republican candidate based on the SurveyUSA state polls. Then, based on these probabilistic estimates, we ask the question, given the SurveyUSA results, what are odds of an Obama or Clinton victory in the Electoral College?
To do this, we conducted one million simulations (in MATLAB) of the Obama-McCain contest and then one million more simulations of the Clinton-McCain matchup. In each case we assume that the state estimates were correct except for sampling error. Using sampling theory and the assumption of simple random sampling, we draw one million estimates of the vote for each state. In each case we draw from a normal distribution with the observed mean (percent Democratic vs. percent Republican) and the standard deviation determined by the number of respondents in the state reporting a preference (always slightly under 600).
What do our results show? First, we pooled the state polls to ascertain the national vote, weighing each state's percent in proportion to the size of its House delegation. We also assign the District of Columbia as a 436th district and assign each Democratic candidate 85 percent of the vote to McCain's 15 percent. With these assumptions, the national popular "vote" is tight as of late February. Obama wins 51.5 percent versus McCain's 48.5 percent. Clinton also wins by an even razor thin margin, 50.7 to 49.3. With 30,000 cases, both estimates are statistically significant. McCain would be in the actual popular vote lead less than one time in 20.
That being said, our simulations yield a 88% chance of Obama beating McCain (with 306 Electoral College votes on average versus 233 for McCain), and a 74% chance of Hillary beating McCain (with 285 Electoral College votes on average versus 253 for McCain). About one percent of our simulated outcomes were Electoral College ties. (We ignored within-state variation in Maine and Nebraska, which divide their electoral votes by district.)
On the one hand, we find the expected numbers of electoral votes (the average from the simulations) for Obama or Clinton to be slightly higher than SurveyUSA reports. On the other hand, there is sufficient variance in the outcomes, so that McCain wins a nontrivial portion of the simulations, even with Obama as the opponent. Our two million simulations remind us that the popular vote winner is not always the Electoral College winner, although probably due mainly to chance -- the lottery aspect of the Electoral College -- and not any identifiable partisan bias in the 2008 Electoral College.
________________________________________
We thank Linda Liu for her technical assistance.
By Guest Pollster on March 14, 2008 2:18 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (40)
| TrackBacks (0)
October 18, 2007
By Guest Pollster
[This Guest Pollster's Corner contribution comes from Lydia Saad, Senior Editor of The Gallup Poll, responding to criticism posted earlier today by Alan I. Abramowitz.]
Alan, I see your point about how Gallup's question explaining the difference between Bush's income threshold and the Democrats' threshold could have confused respondents. You overlook the fact that we set up the question with this introduction to the series: "As you may know, Congress is considering a bill that would increase the number of children eligible for government subsidized health insurance, but the Democrats in Congress and President Bush disagree on how much to increase the program." But your point is well-taken.
However, our question measuring concern about the Democrats' bill being a step toward socialized medicine isn't "biased" -- it was intentionally written to convey Bush's counterargument. That was the intent -- to test the strength of socialized medicine as a counterargument. And indeed we found a slim majority willing to say they are concerned. We didn't conclude from this that Americans think the bill WILL lead to socialized medicine. As you note, we merely said that Americans are sympathetic to the argument: "Americans are also generally sympathetic to Bush's concern about the program leading to socialized medicine."
It is always a challenge to write clear and balanced questions about complex policy issues. Along those lines, I would go further than your critique of Gallup, and submit that all of the public polling on SCHIP I've seen thus far can be criticized in one regard or another. Yesterday I saw this question by CNN which seems to suggest that SCHIP is a new $35 billion program for children in middle income families, and that Bush opposes the program. I see what CNN was trying to do (isolate the question to the program expansion) but their wording just doesn't succeed at accurately describing what the veto/override conflict is all about.
26A. As you may know, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would create a program to spend 35 billion dollars to provide health insurance to some children in middle-income families. Do you think Congress should vote to create that program by overriding Bush's veto, or do you think Congress should vote to block that program by sustaining Bush's veto?
The ABC question you applaud is another reasonable attempt, but still conveys the sense that the policy choice is between supporting the Democrats' plan and not providing any insurance coverage for "millions of low-income children." And since they ask if Congress should vote to override Bush's veto, they should have a follow-up asking what should happen if that override fails: i.e. Now that Bush has vetoed the bill, should the Democrats and Republicans in Congress work together to pass a new compromise bill, or should they let the program expire?
Otherwise we are just falling into the same political traps the Democrats and Republicans are setting for each other, and not really finding out what kind of government sponsored children's health care coverage Americans want for the country.
Americans probably don't have a great command of the details of the SCHIP debate, but half say they are paying very or somewhat close attention to it. That's about the midpoint for public attention to policy-debates in Washington. Americans clearly have some opinions worth tapping, and the challenge is to probe further for a more thorough and accurate understanding of whether Americans would rather have the existing program that covers families earning up to twice the poverty level, or whether the program should be expanded to include families earning more than that. Separately, we can find out who Americans would blame if the program expires: Bush for vetoing the congressional bill, or the Democrats for not being willing to pass a compromise bill.
None of the polling I've seen thus far -- neither on a question by question basis, nor in its totality -- answers those questions for me.
Lydia Saad
Senior Editor, The Gallup Poll
By Guest Pollster on October 18, 2007 7:46 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (10)
| TrackBacks (0)
By Guest Pollster
[Today's Guest Pollster's entry comes from Alan I. Abramowitz, the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He has also been a frequent contributer to the blog Donkey Rising.]
The Gallup Poll has just released a report on public attitudes regarding President Bush's recent veto of a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Gallup reports that a majority of Americans trust the Democrats in Congress more than President Bush on this issue. That's consistent with what other polling organizations have found. However, Gallup reports that a majority of Americans support the President's position on where to set the income threshold for SCHIP eligibility and that "Americans are also generally sympathetic to Bush's concern about the program leading to socialized medicine." A close examination indicates however, that the questions on which these conclusions are based are clearly biased.
Here's the question concerning the income threshold:
As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?"
The problem, of course, is that the question implies that the Democrats, in contrast to President Bush, do not want most SCHIP funds to go to families earning less than $41,000. But this is not true. In fact, under the legislation passed by Congress, the large majority of SCHIP funds would go to families earning less than $41,000.
The second question is even worse:
How concerned are you that expanding this program would create an incentive for middle class Americans to drop private health insurance for a public program, which some consider to be a step toward socialized medicine? Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not concerned at all?"
Here the respondents are presented with a totally one-sided argument using the loaded term "socialized medicine." It is actually surprising, given this wording, that a substantial proportion of the respondents indicated that they were not concerned.
Given the biased wording of this question, it is not surprising that the results are out of line with those of other recent polls on this topic based on a more balanced wording. For example, an ABC-Washington Post Poll conducted from September 27-30 of this year asked the following question:
There's a proposal to increase federal spending on children's health insurance by 35 billion dollars over the next five years. It would be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes. Supporters say this would provide insurance for millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured. Opponents say this goes too far in covering children in families that can afford health insurance on their own. Do you support or oppose this increased funding for this program?"
Seventy-two percent of the respondents in this survey favored the proposed expansion of the SCHIP program.
Update: Gallup's Lydia Saad responds
By Guest Pollster on October 18, 2007 3:07 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
August 29, 2007
By Mark Blumenthal
Apologies for the light posting the last few days. My absence results from a combination of time spent focusing on the the pipes here at Pollster, two quick hits on MSNBC yesterday (I'll try to update in advance on those next time) and, frankly, the dog days of August that always seem to slow the pace here in DC. And to top if off today, jury duty!
So, with the help of my Treo and lunchtime Wi-Fi connection, here are a few click-worthy links:
- Marc Ambinder posts a memo from John Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman arguing that Edwards "outperforms" other Democratic candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton in head-to-head general election match-ups both nationally and in "key battleground states."
- Chris Bowers crunched some of the same numbers earlier this week and had a harder time finding "any clear evidence pointing to Hillary Clinton as less electable than Barack Obama and John Edwards."
- Gary Langer weighs in on the "online ballots" conducted by ABCnews.com "for entertainment only." Bottom line: "these things can be, and often are, intentionally manipulated by groups or individuals with an interest in the outcome."
- Kathy Frankovic sees some improvement in public "confidence in the government's ability to respond to natural disasters" two years after Hurricane Katrina, but "little change . . . in the public's view of the recovery effort in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
- "Behind the Numbers" (The Washington Post's new polling blog) has the latest weekly update of the Post-ABC Consumer Comfort Index: "Stable, but far below average."
- Frank Newport teases soon-to-be released Gallup numbers showing that football fans want Falcons quarterback Michael Vick banned from the NFL for life.
By Mark Blumenthal on August 29, 2007 6:27 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 17, 2007
By Charles Franklin
Congress appears to be less than the sum of its parts. Current approval of the job Democrats are doing in Congress has a current trend estimate of 34.5%, while the estimated approval of Republicans in Congress is 28.8%. But overall approval of Congress has sunk to a miserable 22.6%, less than that of either party.
Disapproval of Congressional Republicans remains a good deal higher than for Democrats due to a higher "don't know" rate in evaluating the Democrats. Disapproval of Republicans is at 64.8% while disapproval of Democrats is at 51.5%. Approval of both parties has been trending clearly down since January, while disapproval has trended up over the same time for both parties.
Amid the stories noting that approval of Congress is now below that of President Bush, it would be good to recognize that such simplistic comparisons are dangerous. Voters carry a generally negative view of the institution on Capitol Hill. Divided by parties, support is a bit higher.
Still, neither party can be comfortable with their current approval ratings. Republicans should note that they continue down despite enjoying a new Democratic majority to target for criticism. And Democrats should take little comfort in the small advantage they hold in approval. Democratic approval is trending down a bit faster than is Republican approval. Neither seems to have sold the public on their legislative agendas.
(Technical Note: The amount of polling on Congressional parties is more limited than one might wish. These trend estimates are based on all available polling, pooling the data to get better estimates than from any single poll. Individual polls, such as the new Harris Poll taken 7/6-9/07, produce somewhat different results, as seen by the spread of points around the lines in the figures. Harris, for example, found Democrats in Congress at 31% positive, 64% negative, while Republicans were at 21% positive and 76% negative. They found overall approval of Congress at 24% positive and 72% negative.)
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on July 17, 2007 2:35 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 6, 2007
By Charles Franklin
American Research Group (ARG) has completed a poll taken 7/3-5/07 on President Bush's decision to commute the jail sentence of Scooter Libby. The results are similar to those of the "instant" poll by SurveyUSA taken the night the decision was announced.
ARG asked
Do you approve or disapprove of President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case?
The results are strongly structured by party identification, which is certainly no surprise. Only 13% of Democrats and 19% of Independents approved of the commutation, while 50% of Republicans approved. However, as with the SurveyUSA poll, a substantial fraction of Republicans disapproved-- 47% in the ARG poll. Unfortunately, we can't tell for sure how many of these disapproved because the wanted a full pardon compared to how many disapproved because they wanted Libby to serve out his sentence. The survey did ask if respondents favored a pardon, but the news release (so far at least) has not given the cross tab between these two questions which would let us know how these two different reasons for disapproval break out. Perhaps that will be released later.
The high levels of disapproval among Democrats and Independents is not surprising, but the high disapproval among Republicans is surprisingly high.
When asked if they favored a full pardon for Libby, 23% of Republicans said they did. If we make the extreme assumption that ALL of these said they disapproved of Bush's commutation, then 47%-23%=24% of Republicans disapproved the commutation AND did not want a pardon, implying they thought Libby should serve his jail sentence. This is certainly an underestimate since it is doubtful that the pro-pardon group were entirely in the disapprove of commutation category, but it at least sets a lower limit on support for jail among Republicans. As with the SurveyUSA poll, this suggests a significant fraction of Republicans thought Libby should serve time in jail.
The distribution of opinion on the pardon question (text: "Do you favor or oppose a complete presidential pardon for Mr. Libby?") is shown below:
Only 7% of Democrats and 2% of independents favored a pardon, compared to 23% of Republicans. A still large 70% of Republicans opposed a pardon, while 7% said they don't know. The independents in this sample are surprising for how overwhelmingly hey opposed a pardon, even more so than Democrats (82% Dem, 97% Ind.) That is puzzling enough that I'm not sure I believe the 97% number. It is NOT due to small sample size, because independents make up 33% of the ARG sample. The SurveyUSA poll didn't find Independents so much more extreme than Democrats on a pardon. Almost always we find independents between Dems and Reps on partisan questions like this, so I can't explain why independent opinion on this question would be so unanimous, when even Democrats are at least a bit more willing to see Libby pardoned. I'll hold out a possibility of a typo in the web page on this one. If correct, it is awfully huge opposition to a pardon among independents.
Compare these plots with those for the SurveyUSA poll here.
There will surely be some new polling data taken or reported over the weekend on this, so we should learn more on how opinion is shaping up on this issue by Tuesday.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on July 6, 2007 7:30 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (0)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 3, 2007
By Charles Franklin
SurveyUSA has a poll of immediate reaction to President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence of Scooter Libby. SurveyUSA uses Interactive Voice Response (IVR) "automated" polling rather than human interviewers. But for a quick reaction poll of a breaking news story, this poll shows the advantages of speed that are possible with IVR technology.
SurveyUSA interviewed 1500 adults nationally within three hours or so of the news that President Bush had commuted the sentence. Of the full sample 55% (825) said yes to the question: "Are you familiar with the legal case involving former White House employee Scooter Libby?"
Those 825 were then asked
President Bush has commuted the portion of Scooter Libby's sentence that would have required Libby to serve 30 months in prison. Libby remains a convicted felon - he still must pay a 250 thousand dollar fine and serve 2 years of probation - but he will not go to prison. Based on what you now know, should the President have pardoned Scooter Libby completely? Should the president have taken no action, and left the prison sentence in place? ... Or, do you agree with the president's decision to commute the prison portion of the Libby sentence?
As SurveyUSA points out, an advantage of the instant poll is that it can measure opinion before the inevitable political spin begins to affect opinion.
One problematic issue is that SurveyUSA filtered respondents for awareness of the Libby case. I suspect a number of polls to be taken over the next few days will vary in whether the filter for awareness or not, making direct comparison among all the polls to come somewhat difficult. By applying this filter, SurveyUSA should be expected to include people with greater awareness of the issues in the Libby case and presumably more settled opinions on this case than if they had included all 1500 respondents, including the 45% who said they were not familiar with the case. Given the discussion the Libby case has received on talk radio, blogs and MSM it is interesting that 45% didn't feel they were familiar with the case. This opens considerable opportunity for opinion to be swayed either direction in the next couple of days.
But what of those who were familiar?
Not surprisingly, 79% of liberals wanted to see Libby serve his sentence, with only 9% approving Bush's decision and 11% wanting a full pardon. Moderates were only a little less bent on punishment: 69% wanted prison time, while 19% approved the commutation and 11% wanted a full pardon. But what surprises me is the Conservatives. They broke into rough thirds: 31% wanted a complete pardon and 31% approved the decision, but a surprising 35% thought Libby should have served his prison sentence. For all the talk of the President needing to respond to a conservative base fired up for a full pardon, this evidence suggests the President has failed to satisfy two-thirds of that base. (And one should always remember that what we hear on conservative talk radio is a substantial exaggeration of the homogeneity of opinion within that base. Grass roots conservatives (as with grass roots liberals) are considerably more variable in their opinions than radio shows would suggest.)
If we shift to partisanship we see a similar but not identical distribution. Democrats favored prison by 77%, approved the commutation by 14% and 8% thought a full pardon was called for. Fifty-six percent of Independents wanted jail, with 20% approving the President and 21% wanting a pardon. But again when we come to the Republican base, we find a really surprising 40% saying the Libby should have served time in prison. Thirty-two percent supported Bush's decision while 26% wanted a pardon.
Now we might expect to see lowering of support for prison among conservatives and Republicans over the next few days as Republican opinion leaders send the message that they support the commutation (assuming they send that message). And it will be interesting to see if subsequent polling agrees with this instant snapshot from SurveyUSA. But the commentary going into this action by Bush stressed the dilemma he faced between satisfying the base and further offending independents and moderates. So far, the evidence is that the action he took has failed even to please a majority of the Republican and conservative base.
This should be interesting to watch.
Revision: This version of the graphics scale the column widths in proportion to the size of each group (Lib,Mod,Con) or (Dem,Ind,Rep). The first plots failed to do that. My bad. Thanks to Peter Flom for bringing the mistake to my attention.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on July 3, 2007 2:24 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (0)
June 25, 2007
By Charles Franklin
Newsweek has a new "what you need to know" survey out this week. (Article, Results). The headline, "Dunce Cap Nation", pretty well captures their summary of the data. Of the 29 items, only a quarter found more than 55% of the public giving the correct answer. Half the items had between 29% and 55% correct, and a quarter fell below 29% correct. (Though defenders of American culture might note that the fourth lowest percentage correct was being able to name the winner of American Idol (A: Jordin Sparks). ) And while the lowest single item was the ability to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, both Speaker Pelosi and President Putin made it into the top quarter of awareness.
A few of the items were downright tricky. (But don't let me spoil it for you... try the questions yourself.)
And as my colleague Mark Blumenthal points out, some would argue that the answer to
From what you know about the situation, do you think the United States is losing the fight against al-Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorism?
just might be considered a tad political opinion and not so much objective fact.
But while Newsweek is primly aghast at such public ignorance, I doubt any college teacher would be. Knowledge is remarkably compartmentalized. In areas of interest, students are able to develop stunning depth of knowledge, while outside those interests the acquisition of new knowledge, and the retention of what is acquired (say, for the midterm), is quite meager.
And what is the impact of this? Most of us, most of the time, lack the foundation for and the motivation to do independent analysis of political problems outside our narrow areas of expertise. Instead we rely on political leaders with whom we think we agree to lead us. We accept and repeat the arguments that come from our side, and we reject out of hand the arguments that come from the other side. Seldom is independent knowledge and judgment involved, even as we repeat what we've heard and think we are expressing an informed opinion. And that is as true of the Jane Austen scholar who offers political views as it is of the polling expert who opines about budget policy. Outside our narrow expertise, we seldom form original opinions.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on June 25, 2007 3:23 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
June 18, 2007
By Mark Blumenthal
Last Friday, Mickey Kaus noticed a "stark
conflict" between the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and CBS/New
York Times polls on immigration that "demands a Mystery Pollster
explanation." Lets see what we can do.
The questions concern what Kaus calls the "legalization
plank" of the immigration legislation before Congress. The challenge in
interpreting any of these results is to remember that most Americans have, at
best, only a vague sense of what the immigration bill does, much less which
provisions they favor. As I wrote previously (especially here
and here),
survey questions about specific proposals largely measure reactions, not
preexisting opinions about the proposals. Respondents tend to listen to the text
of the question and form opinions on the spot. As such, the results can vary
greatly depending on the way the pollster asks the question.
One particular contrast illustrates how minor differences in
wording can produce dramatic differences in the results: Consider these two
questions
NBC/WSJ
(June 8-11, n=1,008 adults) - Allowing illegal workers who arrived in the U.S.
before January first of this year to receive an automatic work visa if they pay
a fine of around five thousand dollars.
- 30% Strongly/somewhat favor
- 64% Strongly/somewhat oppose
- 6% Not sure
CBS/NYT
(May 18-23, n=1,125 adults) - Would you favor or oppose allowing illegal
immigrants who came into the country before January to apply for a four-year
visa that could be renewed, as long as they pay a $5,000 fine, a fee, show a
clean work record and pass a criminal background check.
- 67% Favor
- 28% Oppose
- 5% DK/NA
Both ask about essentially the same provision in the bill,
and include many of the same elements of that proposal, yet show diametrically
opposite results. Look more closely, however, and the questions differ in
potentially crucial ways:
- The
NBC/WSJ question describes the "work visa" as "automatic," while the
CBS/NYT question says it is "a four year visa that could be renewed." I
have no idea whether the every-four-year renewal procedure is "automatic"
or not, but I would wager that few CBS/NYT respondents heard it that way.
- The
CBS/NYT question describes requirements for a "clean work record" and
"criminal background check," elements not mentioned in the NBC/WSJ
question.
- Do
respondents assume an "illegal worker" is the same thing as an "illegal
immigrant?" Presumably, "illegal" is the key word in both, but perhaps the
two phrases conjure different images.
Unfortunately, media and campaign pollsters know little
about how respondents hear these sorts of questions or what pieces of
information they weigh most heavily in their answers. We often refer to
these sorts of differences as "dog
whistle effects" -- the respondents seem to hear things we miss. There is a
way to "debug" this sort of question (hint: Google "cognitive pretesting"),
but it requires far too much lead time and costs far, far too much to be practical for media and campaign pollsters. So we are left to speculate about how to
interpret the results.
However, let me suggest this rule of thumb for interpreting results
of different survey questions that ask about essentially the same proposal: The
more consistent the results, the more likely that we are measuring true,
pre-existing opinions about the proposal itself. The more results tend to
diverge, the greater the odds that respondents are confronting the proposal for
the first time and are simply reacting, drawing upon real (and sometimes
conflicting) attitudes triggered by the information provided in each question.
What's the difference? I suspect that in this case, we will
hear from partisans on both sides of the immigration debate as to which
language is best and which "flawed." But in that case, we are no longer
debating public opinion, but rather the most accurate way to characterize the
bill. So in this case, the debate about the polls is mostly a debate about the
bill itself.
By Mark Blumenthal on June 18, 2007 10:10 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
June 14, 2007
By Charles Franklin
The latest round of polls has produced a batch of collectively bad numbers for President Bush, the Congress, the direction of the country and the Iraq war. They also show troubles for front runners. And opportunities for others.
President Bush returns from his European trip to find yet more new lows in individual polls but more importantly a new low and a continued sharp downturn in my estimated approval trend, which now stands at 31.0%, well below his previous sustained low of 34% in December-March. The current downturn started April 24 and continues unabated.
In the figure above I add the more sensitive estimator ("Ready Red") to the standard more conservative ("Old Blue") estimated trend. Since April the two estimates overlap almost perfectly (making Red seem to disappear under Blue in the graph.) This means the current change in approval is not a fluke-- regardless of how I estimate it, the trend is the same. That suggests that the current downturn continues at a steady rate, otherwise Red and Blue would disagree near the end.
Bush reversed a previous downward trend in February-May 2006 with a speech in support of immigration reform. Is it possible that his trip to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican Senators will do any good? Or has the time for him to rally a consensus on immigration now passed? I think it has, despite what was once a clear opportunity for him to gain support.
But gloom and doom doesn't stop with the President. Congress has taken some hard knocks in the last month as well. The two latest polls, from NBC/Wall Street Journal and Quinnipiac University both peg approval of Congress at 23%. That comes on the heels of the LA Times/Bloomberg finding of 27% approval. The trend started down for Congress on April 15, but shows no sign of slowing. The trend estimate now stands at 27.5% approval. And Red thinks it might be lower still. I think Red is overreacting to the two polls at 23% and Blue is probably a better estimate. But gee-whiz either way.
Democratic supporters have been quick to point out that opinion of Congress is not the same as approval of Democrats in Congress. I made that same point here and provide regular updates of the party evaluations here as well. But I think that argument is beginning to take on a bit of desperation and denial. There is good evidence that Republicans in Congress remain less approved of than Democrats, but there is no evidence that Democrats are gaining in approval from their recent actions. The polling here is thin, with approval of the parties only asked occasionally, so it is hard to track short term change. But the evidence we have is that Democrats are suffering declines in support relative to their January numbers. There is some evidence that this loss of support comes significantly from their base among liberals, who are unlikely to shift to support of Republicans. But an unpopular Congress has been the undoing of majority parties before and it seems Democrats should pay attention to the decline in approval of Congress, not whistle past the graveyard by pointing out that Republicans are worse off still.
Profound pessimism about the direction of the country continues at amazing levels. The trend estimate has sunk to only 20.8% saying right direction and 73.5% saying wrong track. Even if we discount for the artificially high levels of positive feeling following 9/11, the decline has been profound and sustained.
With all this gloom, where is the politician with the skill to take advantage by offering some attractive alternative? Ronald Reagan with a happy vision of a shining city on a hill (with low taxes) or Bill Clinton saying the economy can be better. Who can capture the public's confidence that they can move the country in a new and better direction?
At the moment, the front-runners seem to be failing to seize that opportunity. Instead, the momentum in both parties has stalled for front-runners and turned to non-candidates.
The Republicans provide the strongest example of a party unhappy with its choices. Both Giuliani and McCain have suffered significant losses over the past 3 months. Now the excitement is behind the not-yet candidate Fred Thompson, who has gained sharply in the last month to near parity with McCain.
The evidence is pretty good that Thompson's surge is not a fluke of a single poll or two, but is widespread across polls (though we could use some more to be sure!). This kind of surge for a new candidate is typical of what we see when there remain a significant number of partisans not happy with their choices and looking for any more attractive alternative to the front-runners. We saw this most famously in 1984 when Democrats unhappy with Mondale jumped on the Hart bandwagon once they saw the possibility of a credible alternative. At the moment, I think that is Thompson's greatest strength-- the hope of a better alternative. As Hart shows, it is not enough ultimately to be "not-Mondale", but at least for a while Fred Thompson may benefit significantly from being "the" alternative. Once in the race, can he take advantage of a discontented public? Does he have a story to tell about how to make America better?
I have to add that Mitt Romney is looking like the steady tortoise to the other hares. His trend has remained steadily up despite a number of mistakes earlier. He hasn't enjoyed even a moment of Thompson's "surge", but he's also escaped downturns. His current Iowa and New Hampshire polling also looks good. He has a very far ways to go to emerge in first place, but this far out you might like that long term positive trend.
The Democratic frontrunners haven't suffered the sharp declines that Giuliani and McCain have, but none are showing strong positive gains either. Clinton has fallen off just a few points recently, Obama seems stalled and Edwards has a very slight decline in support. So who do Democrats like more and more? Al Gore, the non-candidate.
The Gore increase is no where close to that of Fred Thompson, but of the four possible nominees pictured above, he is the only one with steady gains throughout 2007. Given the low level of encouragement Gore has given to a possible candidacy (FAR less than Thompson) it is remarkable that he's moved up at all. And while the Thompson candidacy looks increasingly likely, a Gore campaign seems a remote possibility to me at least. Nonetheless, a non-trivial number of Democrats are looking longingly at him while passing up the easy opportunity to support Clinton or Obama or Edwards. Clearly they are looking for someone else who can take this opportunity to exploit the moment. Other evidence (here and here) makes Gore seem an unlikely white knight. In terms of partisan feelings, polarization and support in a general election, Gore looks a lot like Clinton-- well known and well liked among Democrats but not very popular among independents and actively despised among Republicans. But that isn't the point here. He is "someone else" at the moment within the Democratic party.
The front-runners have won substantial support within their parties and one may yet go on to win. But the current flatness or decline in their support trends argues strongly that none have sealed the deal with their primary voters. The widespread public disaffection with current leaders and conditions can be seen as a difficult environment to run in. But it is also the great opportunity to be seized by an able politician, one who can convince supporters that they have a vision of how to lead the country out of these bad times and into a new "morning in America". Based on the evidence here, I don't think any of the top six candidates has managed that yet. And that leaves them all vulnerable to someone who can. Fred Thompson is evidence that it is not yet too late for such candidates to emerge.
Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.
By Charles Franklin on June 14, 2007 6:40 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
June 12, 2007
By Charles Franklin
The LATimes/Bloomberg poll, taken 6/7-10/07 finds approval of Congress at 27%, disapproval at 65%. That's a bit below my current trend estimate of 31.1%, but not a statistical outlier.
The headline and lede of the LA Times story are eye catching and have been quickly picked up:
Approval of Congress lowest in a decade
Only about a quarter of Americans approve of how it's doing its job, a poll shows; most see 'business as usual.'
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
June 12, 2007
WASHINGTON — Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.
Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in Jan