website statistics

Archive for the 'Polling' Category

Hate is a Strong Word

Published by William Beutler on December 11, 2007 in George W. Bush, Instapundit, Iraq, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Los Angeles Times, Netroots, Polling and Rhetoric. 0 Comments

Via Digg this morning, I came across a provocatively-titled story:

The Troops Hate Bush And Want Out of Iraq.

The article, number two in all categories for the moment, turns out to be a brief jeremiad by Firedoglake contributor Blue Texan. The full title there is

The Troops Hate Bush And Want Out of Iraq. Will Glenn Reynolds And Michelle Malkin Still “Support” Them?

and it quotes from a poll-driven Los Angeles Times story, as summarized by Blue Texan:

*Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush’s job performance and the way he has run the war.

*Among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost.

*Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or “right away.”

There are a few things wrong with this. Most importantly — and misleadingly — the LAT poll did not exclusively query members of the U.S. military. The fine print says:

Included are 631 military family members and 152 respondents who are serving or have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who have family members who have done so. … The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for military families, it is 4 percentage points; for military families who served in Iraq, it is 8 percentage points. For certain sub-groups, the error margin may be somewhat higher.

My emphasis, of course.

Now, I’m not trying to spin this poll around the other way and say these are good numbers for Bush; they’re not. Even if just half of military families disapprove of the president, that speaks poorly of his leadership. I am not even saying that family members think that Iraq was a good idea or would support a war that continues indefinitely. Nobody wants to keep large numbers of troops there longer than necessary.

What I am saying, however, is that the poll is far from definitive, with an MoE north of 8 percent in the critical group, and it certainly shouldn’t be mistaken for a poll of “the troops.” Even taken at face value, the results are more nuanced than Blue Texan — or even the LAT — make it sound. If you combine “bring home within the next year” and “Stay as long as it takes,” you likewise get around 70 percent. Considering the reduced violence in Iraq since the so-called surge, withdrawal upon an acceptable situation and withdrawal in a year are not mutually exclusive. That may or not be not be realistic, but it’s not unreasonable to think that may be what some meant. Not that Blue Texan was keeping an open mind about it.

Nor do I think Blue Texan read it all that closely; the FDL post actually seems more of a screed against conservative bloggers activists than Bush or even the war:

One of the most disgraceful tactics of the pro-Bush right is the way they’ve exploited the troops politically. … And they’re still doing it. Loyal Troop Bush Supporter Glenn Reynolds, who’s practically made a career linking to garbage like this, just called the TV ad promoting Freedom’s Watch — a right-wing partisan neocon slush fund — a “pro-troops” ad.

Watch the Freedom’s Watch ad for yourself; it is unequivocally a pro-troops advertisement, free of any political content. It does not mention Iraq or Afghanistan, only that some members are away from their families right now — but this is true of those merely stationed abroad in Europe or East Asia. Heck, the organization might even be a “right-wing partisan neocon slush fund” — the wording is all subjectively negative — but it doesn’t change the ad’s content.

And that subjectivity betrays the fact that in fact Blue Texan is the one politicizing the troops, and from the boggled mindset that considers a yellow ribbon on the back of a city vehicle a partisan political statement. One wonders if they believe that personally thanking a member of the armed forces for their service while the Iraq war continues is also a de facto expression of support for the Republican party. Even if not, one wonders why they would willingly cede so much ground.

But even without any poll analysis, Blue Texan loses all credibility — and the anti-war netroots reveal their arrogance — with the extreme rhetoric. Hate is a strong word. The LAT poll most certainly shows disappointment and disapproval of President Bush and the war, but at no point did this poll — or any other one that I’ve seen — ask whether they “hate” Bush or the war.

Since the Iraq war turned unpopular, anti-war bloggers have been claiming that the American public agrees whole-heartedly with them. This opinion surely led to their surprise at John Kerry’s loss in 2004. This probably also explains much of their frustration now that Democrats control Congress but can’t end the war. They might be less distressed if they didn’t think the American public was in lockstep with their thinking.

I’d really like a respectable pollster to ask the question: “Do you hate President Bush?” Pollsters usually stick to cautious wording like “right track/wrong direction” and “approve/disapprove” — which makes it possible to compare questions over time — but just once, I wish they would measure the extent of this disapproval.

Heck, the netroots themselves have paid for their own polls before. Why not ask? Probably because they know the answer would be disappoint them. They might even hate it. But it would also save them some trouble.

Hillary’s Got Base

Published by Not Paul Begala on April 30, 2007 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Netroots, Polling, Primary fights and White House '08. 6 Comments

Chris Bowers of MyDD jump-started some of my thinking on whether or not Hillary vs. Obama poll numbers have any inherent biases built into them, but Mark Blumenthal ends that discussion here with some smart analysis that suggests there is no difference between national surveys of so-called Dem primary voters.

Bowers postulated that the screens were not tight enough and Hillary had a name ID advantage that was explaining her lead. I believed some version of that for a while as well, but those numbers suggest to me that something very different is happening in the Democratic primary race.

Look at the chart Blumenthal produces:

Hillary-Obama match-up from Mystery Pollster

That Mark Mellman poll piqued my interest.

One of the reason we hacks so trust our pollsters is they use better methods than the (cheap) traditional media outlets use. Mellman’s poll uses a registration-based screen with voter history as a leading indicator of primary participation. Translated into English: He bought a voter file and called people who vote in primaries. That’s significantly more expensive to do, but provides much more valuable information.

So, here’s your resident Dem hack’s analysis of those numbers.

Hillary Clinton has a big-time base of support. She has 38% of the electorate — an electorate that is closely watching this race so far and has not decided to leave her. Edwards and Obama both have 77% name ID in this poll to Clinton’s 96%. That’s low, but couldn’t possibly account for her entire lead, and let me quibble with one point of analysis from their own page:

…Obama and Edwards are more popular among Democratic primary voters who know them.

Yeah, no shit. Your supporters tend to know who you are. It’s a common misconception in polling analysis that the uniformed portion of a poll acts like the informed portion.

Either way, I would think the Obama and Edwards teams need to face a hard fact: primary Dems know Hillary and they’re sticking with her right now. They will need to start identifying ways to peel off those voters if they want to win.

38% of the vote in a six-way primary is a massive amount of support and I won’t even get into an analysis of HRC’s favorables in this poll (they’re good) because it would take me another three paragraphs I don’t feel like writing that much.

But… HRC hasn’t locked this up by any means. It’s significant that 62% of Dems choose someone else and when there are fewer candidates to choose from, they’ll undoubtedly consolidate.

But the media don’t report like that; they only crown winners. In a front-loaded primary, people who look like they’re going to win generally get votes. It won’t be hard for HRC to start rolling through if she can emerge from IA, NH, NV, SC with a couple wins.

That makes those states do or die for Edwards and Obama. They need to shake up Hillary’s base.

So Much for 100% Name ID

Published by William Beutler on April 17, 2007 in George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Polling and Sports. 1 Comment

In politics we like to speak of “name ID,” meaning what percentage of voters are familiar with a particular candidate. Often this comes up in reference to incumbents and unusually strong candidates who are said to have “100% name ID.” But the latest survey out of Pew Research should give us pause before we bandy about the phrase again:

Who has 100% name ID? Hillary and Arnold hae just 93% each

If the unimonikered Arnold and Hillary can’t muster any more than 93% name identification upon the prompting

Now I would like to ask you about some people who have been in the news recently. Not everyone will have heard of them. If you don’t know who someone is, just tell me and I’ll move on. Can you tell me who [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE] is?

then who possibly can? Maybe the president?

Maybe not: An Angus Reid survey from last September suggests that 1% of Americans haven’t the foggiest idea who George W. Bush might be. Of course, that poll also showed just 1% of respondents didn’t know who Hillary Clinton was either.

Of course, the numbers don’t mean that much. If they did, dispirited Republican strategists would be reading this survey and wishing it was already 2011, when Peyton Manning will be thirty-five years old.

Introducing The Benchmark Poll

Published by William Beutler on March 20, 2007 in Brick-and-mortar consultants, Democrats, Metapost, Polling and The Benchmark Poll. 4 Comments

I am happy to announce the debut of a new recurring feature here at Blog P.I. — The Benchmark Poll — short, offbeat Q&A-style interviews with political strategists in their 20’s and 30’s. Each week we’ll profile a different consultant, alternating between the Donkeys and the Elephants, asking them the same ten questions about their background and various points of view. It’s supposed to be fun — if anything here makes news, we’ve done something very, very wrong.

Benchmark Poll Original Logo (Large)Not entirely unlike a benchmark poll in a political campaign, The Benchmark Poll seeks to learn a little about these people before they become “Meet the Press” famous. But don’t make too much of the name; it only beat out “Operative Questions” by a last-minute shrug.

If you’re familiar with the Hotline’s Friday Feature — or the Blogometer Spotlights I started and Conn Carroll continues today — then the concept should be familiar. If this is all news to you, well, I think you’ll manage.

Thanks are indeed due to the Hotline for making me familiar with this beautifully simple and beautifully un-trademarkable concept. And props to Mayor of Guytown for proposing that Blog P.I. take up this series.

·      ·      ·

Margie Omero is president of Democratic public opinion research firm Momentum Analysis. Her clients have included the DNC, DCCC, Emily’s List and numerous campaigns for federal office. She appears regularly on cable news and in 2000 led focus groups for ABC News. Prior to founding Momentum Analysis she was a VP at The Mellman Group where she conducted research for the DSCC and for Democratic officials, including Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. Originally from New Jersey, she graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Texas at Austin. She’s the subject of our first Benchmark Poll:

How do your parents’ politics compare to your own?

They are both pretty liberal-leaning. I remember my mom explaining early on why it was important to be pro-choice. And my dad once explained the difference between the political parties this way: “Democrats want to help people, while Republicans believe people should help themselves.” My response was, “then why would anyone be a Republican?”

Did you run for class office in high school or college? Did you win?

I haven’t talked about this in decades! I ran in junior high and lost. An exploratory poll would’ve been helpful.

When you first moved to the District, what food did you miss most from home?

I used to miss great bagels and smoked fish. And unlike New York and New Jersey, it’s hard to just stumble upon great Italian food. But you can find anything in DC if you know where to go.

Once you were here, did you work any non-political jobs did you work to get by?

Nope. My first paying job was as a pollster, and I had two great internships, one on the Hill, and one at Roll Call. I’ve been lucky.

What’s your favorite bar in DC? Favorite outside the Beltway?

My list is always changing. I just moved around the corner from Rumberos on 14th Street, so that’s a new favorite. Sonoma. Wonderland. Outside of DC, either of the Standards in LA, or at any Ian Schrager hotel.

Whether in a campaign or in government, you’ve surely had to work with someone who drove you crazy. What were they like?

There was once a campaign manager who wouldn’t call anyone back for days… neither consultants nor the candidate. When somebody got him on the phone they’d patch in the rest of the team since we never knew when we could talk to him again.

If you had your own blog, what would you call it and what would you write about?

ScooterGirl.com. I’d write about the fun food, shopping, and adventures I can have on my red Stella scooter. It would be like Daily Candy meets travelogue, with recipes, and more snark.

So, who do you know? That is — who is most responsible for you being where you are in politics now?

I would say the late Ann Richards really motivated me to go into politics. I grew up in New Jersey, but in high school I wrote a paper about her campaign against Clayton Williams, and ended up going to the University of Texas when she was Governor. I loved seeing a woman with such a unique, vibrant personality live a public life. So she was a big influence. As far as the trajectory of my career, there have been so many influential people. Eve Lubalin, who was Senator Lautenberg’s Chief of Staff, was one of the first people in Washington to be helpful to me. Mark Mellman, my former boss, was a good teacher. There are lots of others; I consider many people both friends and mentors. Folks in this industry have been very helpful to me, and I try to pass that help along to others.

If you could be or any politician, past or present, for one day and one event, who and what event?

I don’t want to be a politician. An election night when your candidate wins is pretty fantastic, no matter what the race.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

I see myself doing the same thing I’m doing now, just more of it.

Republicans For McCain?

Published by William Beutler on January 21, 2007 in George W. Bush, Hotline, Independents, Iraq, John McCain, Polling, Republicans and White House '08. 3 Comments

Last Thursday at MyDD, Jonathan Singer compared registered voters’ attitudes toward President Bush, John McCain and the planned Iraq “surge” in the latest poll from Diageo/Hotline/Financial Dynamics [PDF]. His conclusion:

Independents are actually less likely to support escalation if it is framed as McCain doctrine than they are if it is framed as President Bush’s. They are the only partisan group to do so. Even Democrats are slightly more likely to support the increase in troops if it is listed as McCain’s plan than they are if it is listed as Bush’s. … In case you needed confirmation that the number of Independents supporting John McCain is decreasing rapidly, this may be it.

Well, maybe. I am sympathetic to the view that McCain will not command the kind of support from Indies that he enjoyed in 2000, but the margins are not wide enough to warrant such a conclusion, and the commenters seem to agree. But as we’ll see below, there is another story to be interpreted from this question, one which confounds my own expectations.

Below I have reproduced the charts Singer relied upon, with the sole difference being that I have Turnerized the table frames we’ll be discussing:

Do you favor or oppose President Bush’s proposed strategy of increasing the number of American troops in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops over then next few months?

Total Republicans Independents Democrats
Strongly favor 17 31 23 3
Somewhat favor 15 26 12 7
Somewhat oppose 9 10 12 7
Strongly oppose 53 25 49 79
Neither favor nor oppose (not read) 4 6 3 2
Don’t know/refused (not read) 2 2 1 1
Do you favor or oppose Senator John McCain’s proposed strategy of increasing the number of American troops in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops over then next few months?

Total Republicans Independents Democrats
Strongly favor 21 34 24 9
Somewhat favor 16 32 6 9
Somewhat oppose 10 9 15 7
Strongly oppose 44 16 34 70
Neither favor nor oppose (not read) 4 4 10 1
Don’t know/refused (not read) 6 6 10 4

If we combine the strongly/somewhats across the board and account for the opinion-deficient, we find Republicans supporting Bush on the issue 57-35-8, whereas Independents oppose his plan 35-61-4. For McCain, the same question yields 66-27-10 Republican support and 30-49-20 opposition from Independents. The numbers themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, but the patterns are notable.

First of all, the poll confirms others showing that the surge is unpopular, and even among Republicans support is lukewarm. Another conclusion from the above tables is relatively unsurprising: Republicans support Bush more than Independents do.

Putting aside Singer’s point for the moment, there is one more conclusion left unaddressed: Republicans support the surge when associated with McCain over Bush — and by a 9-point margin.

That’s good news for McCain, for whom the big question has been whether he can actually win the nomination; Independents are supposed to be his natural constituency, while he is weak with registered Republicans. But Republican angst about Iraq is on the rise, and the rank-and-file will be looking for the candidate most able to reassert leadership on the war — and on this issue, he actually bests the Republican commander-in-chief. That sure can’t be bad news. However, it would be nice to see how McCain stacks up against the other Republicans. Alas, Romney is the only one tested (fav/unfav only) and across the board, 49% of everyone has never heard of him.

Singer’s conclusion is correct on the face of it: Independents support Bush more than McCain, or more appropriately, oppose him less. But his readers correctly note that while Indies know they don’t like Bush on Iraq, a statistically significant 20% have no particular opinion on the issue vs-à-vis McCain. That could mean they’re on the fence now, but are open to being persuaded by McCain.

Or maybe that McCain Googlebomb just needs a little more time?

Quit Speculating And Poll It, Already

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 5, 2006 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, MSM, National Politics, Polling and White House '08. 2 Comments

[We’re not sure if this will become a recurring feature at Blog P.I., but our mystery correspondent/Dem strategist Not Paul Begala returns this morning with another new post. His posts will appear under his own byline from here on out, assuming there is a “here on out.”]

The Washington D.C. crowd loves absolutely nothing more than speculation. It’s like heroin to political reporters, staffers, big party donors and anyone who has a stake in presidential politics. You just don’t feel right in the head until you’ve had your next fix, or in this case, heard the political buzz. And we should lump the political blogosphere into this group, as they display many of the same qualities of the DC crowd in following the big dance. They rumormonger, traffic in gossip and meticulously navel gaze about every politician’s move that has even a whiff of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Michigan/Nevada — depending if you’re a Republican or Democrat — coming off it.

And there is always, always someone who “should get in” or “has a chance now” that hasn’t entered the fray. There’s always somebody who isn’t in that the media wants in because frankly, new people in the contest is the very definition of news. Anyone running already is old news.

Enter the 2008 fascination with Sen. Barack Obama. Jon Alter is the latest to emerge with the inside news about a potential Obama run. He’s been on Oprah, he has a book, he helps Democrats, he raises money for his Senate account instead of the PAC (check out Claire McCaskill’s statement last week), blah, blah, blah.

You want to make some real news instead of just wild speculation and this weak “oh, I heard this” crap you guys are doing now? Put your money where your mouth is. Poll it! Because let’s face it, the only reason you process-obsessed hacks really do polls is to make news).

ARG, Quinnipiac, Zogby, Hotline-Diageo, Claremont-McKenna you listening? Add the damn question to the mix. Find out how many people in NH and Iowa know his name, find out if he beats any of the big dogs in the Dem primaries like Clinton, Edwards, Gore or Kerry.

You are notorious for polling ridiculousness like Bloomberg for President, so poll Obama and kick this feeding frenzy up a notch. It certainly can’t hurt his book sales any.