OK - can the Massachusetts Republican Party begin to make some sort of comeback in the 2010 election? The short answer (uncharacteristic for me to have a short answer) is maybe.
Yes, I know that is waffling, but we are still too far out from the 2010 election to go with anything more definitive than a 'maybe'. However, I will make some predictions that I reserve the right to amend at any point as conditions warrant.
Governor - I am sticking (so far) with my earlier posting's prediction that Governor Patrick has about a 70% chance for reelection assuming that he indeed runs. Late word is that he is signing the sales tax and other tax increases that he opposed a few short weeks ago. He has publicly changed his position given that the legislature has passed ethics and other reform legislation. Whether the voting public is convinced of this remains to be seen. This can break either way for him, but the Governor needs to be mindful that he is treading a knife's edge by signing a tax increase that his opponents are sure to use against him.
This leaves an opening for the Republican nominee - whomever he or she may be. Bottom line: if 2010 is a "change" election the Republican nominee has a shot at this. Gubernatorial reelections are usually referendums on the incumbent - this election will mostly be about Governor Patrick and whether or not the voters will hire him for another term.
The Republicans are likely going to have a primary fight. How contentious that fight is and whether the Mihos, Baker, and Brown supporters can unify after the primary remains to be seen. The danger is that a core of supporters of one candidate (yes I am thinking Mihos) may well sit out the election if their candidate is not the nominee. Mihos' independent run in 2006 certainly took votes away from Kerry Healy. I believe that state Republicans are holding their breath and are concerned that Mihos may do the same thing in 2010 if he does not win the nomination.
The wildcard as always are the independent voters. The Republican nominee needs to pick up over half of them and also some of the more conservative blue-collar Democrats to win. Patrick will likely receive the support of suburban liberals, minorities, human services advocates, and labor unions - all major political heavyweights in Massachusetts. The Republican nominee will need to be able to craft a coalition of support that will counter that powerful base that Patrick can count on.
If I were to advise the Republicans, I would say that Charlie Baker is probably the best candidate they can put forth. I would still bet against him winning given the nature of the Commonwealth, but he may be able to assemble a winning coalition if the conditions are just right. Senator Brown may have a chance as well. I simply cannot see Christy Mihos winning a general election, but if the wheels fall off of Patrick who knows?
Governor Patrick needs to play the anti-establishment outsider as much as he can, stay on message, and use the bully pulpit of his office. He has immense political skills and remains a very formidable force with very committed supporters.
State Legislature - there will probably be small gains for the Republicans, but I don't see a repeat of 1990 when there was substantial turnover unless state fiscal conditions deteriorate or more legislative scandals erupt. As I mentioned in my earlier posting it is just very difficult to unseat an incumbent legislator even under the best of circumstances so small gains would be the best Republicans can do this year. They need to be able to recruit candidates and also focus on winning local offices (Board of Selectman, Mayors, City Councilors, Dogcatcher, etc.) to build up a rooster of candidates with some political seasoning instead of putting up inexperienced candidates against entrenched incumbents as they too often do.
One last factor - will the state legislature approve additional tax increases in the next year? Usually legislative bodies are loathe to raise additional revenues in an election year, but the left wing of the Democratic Party continues to float an income tax increase to restore state funding deficiencies. There is still muted talk of a gas tax increase as well. If the Democrats overreach, it could blow up for them politically.
I plan to revisit these predictions on the 2010 elections in a few months. It is highly likely that I will look back on this post and think "Brad - I can't believe you missed this factor, it was so obvious!"
The next 16 months and five days promise to be a fun political ride! Onwards...
The Prof
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Massachusetts Republicans - irrelevant or ready for a comeback - Part II
The above is an image of the original "Gerrymander" from 1812. I like this one especially as my hometown of Lynnfield is on it!
As discussed in the last posting, Massachusetts Republicans do not have a large presence in the Massachusetts political environment. There are a number of factors that continue to hinder the resurgence of the Massachusetts Republican Party.
Historical Democratic Party Identification
Ever since newly arriving Irish immigrants gravitated to the Democrats in the early 1900s, there has been a very strong affinity with many immigrant groups withe Democratic party. The election of Jack Kennedy served to solidify this loyalty. Today, new immigrant groups are quickly politically organized and for the most part are loyal Democratic voters. Traditional immigrant communities (Irish, Italian) continue a strong cultural affinity for Democrats especially in urban areas and blue collar suburbs.
Educational Attainment
Massachusetts has a very high proportion of residents over age 25 with at Bachelors Degree or higher (33% in MA versus the US average of 24% - 2000 US Census data). There have been a number of research studies that suggest that as one's educational attainment increases (especially with post-graduate work) that one tends to become more tolerant and socially liberal. The plethora of institutions of higher education attract many academics who (again demonstrated through numerous polls and surveys) lean to the left and toward the Democratic Party.
Conservatism of the National Republican Party
As discussed in the last post, Massachusetts voters lean decidedly toward the liberal side of the spectrum. This is especially true on social issues. Although many Republicans and Republican officeholders in the state are fiscal conservatives, yet socially moderate the perception (which is relatively accurate) that Republicans are socially beholdent to the Christian Right, makes many voters in Massachusetts have second thoughts about voting Republican. Having the Republican label can be a drag one a candidacy due to generally poor perceptions of the party as a whole.
Advantage of Incumbency
Incumbent officeholders enjoy many advantages over their challengers (when there are challengers which is all too rare!). Superior fundraising, name recognition, media exposure, organization, and experience in winning elections all contribute to the nearly 100% reelection rate of incumbents in Massachusetts.
Lack of a strong "Farm Team"
With all of the hurdles that Republicans face winning election in Massachusetts, talented individuals who aspire to higher office may well run as Democrats (there is a sizable conservative branch of the Massachusetts Democratic Party). Winning candidates need to have appeal, political skills, and a background consummate with filling a legislative or executive seat. All too often the Massachusetts Republicans have run candidates who simply are lacking some of these key elements. One upside for Republican candidates is that it is not difficult to secure a spot on the November ballot since there simply are not many others coveting the same office.
Gerrymandering of Legislative and Congressional Districts
In most states, legislative and congressional districts are drawn by the state legislature every ten years to reflect populations shifts with each US Census. In non-competitive states, it is relatively easy to draw the physical boundaries of these districts to advantage the political party that holds sway in the legislature. This is accomplished by splitting up areas where the opposition party is strong into two or more districts - classic divide and conquer strategy. Areas of strength of the party in power are kept together and consolidated to ensure a majority in as many districts as possible.
Both major parties will do this (Republicans gerrymandered the Democrats out of a number of seats in Texas after the 2000 census) and Massachusetts is no exception. Gerrymandering was born in Massachusetts in 1812 - the term's namesake is Governor Eldridge Gerry who drew a congressional district that looked like a salamander. (The Prof rarely makes editorial comments, but for the record supports the drawing of distictcs via an independent commission and removing partisan legislators from the process)
Conclusion
All of these factors are considerable hurdles for any party to overcome. However 2010 may be one of those rare years where the conditions are ripe for a political comeback of the long down-trodden Massachusetts Republicans. More on this in my next and last posting on this topic.
The Prof
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Massachusetts Republicans - irrelevant or ready for a comeback - Part I
Part I of this planned three-part post will examine the current state of the Massachusetts Republican Party which may soon have a DNR order if it does not show some signs of life.
Massachusetts is currently one of the bluest states in the nation (note - Jon Keller's excellent book, The Bluest State is a must read for Massachusetts political enthusiasts). The remnants of of the once-competitive state Republican Party is at a low ebb. Democrats have dominated state politics since the 1960s and increasingly so in more recent years.
Common polling questions measures political party affiliation and ideology. Below are results from the 2008 presidential election exit poll in Massachusetts and Minnesota for comparison purposes. Massachusetts is the least politically competitive state in the nation (as measured by incumbent officeholders facing challenges) whilst Minnesota is the most competitive. (Exit poll results courtesy of CNN)
Minnesota
By Party Identification
Democrats 40%
Independents 25%
Republicans 36%
By Ideology
Liberal 26%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 30%
Minnesota has a relatively balanced political environment and social/cultural factors that foster a sense of duty in citizens running for political office. Although one of the more educated and liberal-leaning states in the nation, Minnesota remains remarkably independent and competitive.
Massachusetts is currently one of the bluest states in the nation (note - Jon Keller's excellent book, The Bluest State is a must read for Massachusetts political enthusiasts). The remnants of of the once-competitive state Republican Party is at a low ebb. Democrats have dominated state politics since the 1960s and increasingly so in more recent years.
Common polling questions measures political party affiliation and ideology. Below are results from the 2008 presidential election exit poll in Massachusetts and Minnesota for comparison purposes. Massachusetts is the least politically competitive state in the nation (as measured by incumbent officeholders facing challenges) whilst Minnesota is the most competitive. (Exit poll results courtesy of CNN)
Minnesota
By Party Identification
Democrats 40%
Independents 25%
Republicans 36%
By Ideology
Liberal 26%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 30%
Minnesota has a relatively balanced political environment and social/cultural factors that foster a sense of duty in citizens running for political office. Although one of the more educated and liberal-leaning states in the nation, Minnesota remains remarkably independent and competitive.
Massachusetts
By Party Identification
Democrats 43%
Independents 40%
Republicans 17%
By Ideology
Liberal 32%
Moderate 46%
Conservative 21%
By Registered Voters
(Voter data is from The Secretary of the Commonwealth - October 2008)
Democrats 37%
Independents 50%
Republicans 13%
Massachusetts Officeholders
Federal Elected Offices
US Senators: Both Democrats
US House Members: 10 Democrats, no Republicans
Statewide Elected Offices
Governor: Democrat
Attorney General: Democrat
Treasurer: Democrat
Auditor: Democrat
Secretary of State: Democrat
State Legislature (just 17% of these seats were contested in 2008 - Minnesota had 100% of its legislative seats contested in 2008)
State Senate: 35 Democrats; 5 Republicans
State House of Reps: 144 Democrats; 16 Republicans
Yes, Massachusetts is indeed as one-sided as it appears!
As is clearly shown by party affiliation, ideology, and elected officeholders the Massachusetts Republican Party has a LOT of ground to make up if it is going to be even moderately competitive. 2010 may well be a year where voter frustration amid the economic crisis produce one of those rare moments where a minority party can get a second look from voters. A very similar thing happened in 1990, but the state has changed demographically and is arguably more politically liberal today than it was in 1990.
There have been a number of factors that have contributed the decline of Massachusetts Republicans and the current Democratic lock on power. More on this in the next post...
The Prof
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Massachusetts Gubenatorial race - 2010
As promised, the Prof. is going to take a very early stab at the 2010 Massachusetts race for governor, a mere 17 months and 8 days away...
The Players (can't tell the players without a scorecard!)
Deval Patrick - incumbent Governor (Democrat)
Patrick who easily won election in 2006 is publicly running for reelection after a decidedly mixed first term. After some early mishaps regarding cars and draperies, Patrick has seen a number of his initiatives stalled by a recalcitrant legislature which in reality is more powerful than the governor in Massachusetts.
There continues to be speculation that Patrick is not going to stand for reelection in the face of a fiscal crisis, poor relations with the state legislature, mediocre public approval, and the possibility of a Potomac River view working for the Obama Administration. I place the odds at about 60/40 that he does run, but the Prof. would place little money on that bet.
If he does not run, this opens up a wide-open Democratic Primary with Lt. Governor Timothy Murray being the early favorite.
Strengths
The Players (can't tell the players without a scorecard!)
Deval Patrick - incumbent Governor (Democrat)
Patrick who easily won election in 2006 is publicly running for reelection after a decidedly mixed first term. After some early mishaps regarding cars and draperies, Patrick has seen a number of his initiatives stalled by a recalcitrant legislature which in reality is more powerful than the governor in Massachusetts.
There continues to be speculation that Patrick is not going to stand for reelection in the face of a fiscal crisis, poor relations with the state legislature, mediocre public approval, and the possibility of a Potomac River view working for the Obama Administration. I place the odds at about 60/40 that he does run, but the Prof. would place little money on that bet.
If he does not run, this opens up a wide-open Democratic Primary with Lt. Governor Timothy Murray being the early favorite.
Strengths
- Strong support from liberals would make him difficult to beat in a primary election.
- Great campaigner, many (including the Prof.) did not see him becoming the phenom that he did in 2006.
- The Power of incumbency - incumbent governors rarely lose reelection unless they have really fouled things up.
- Being a Democrat in Massachusetts! This gives him about a 40 to 45% base vote to start with. The weakness of the Republican brand here would make it very difficult to take out even given his current problems.
- Patrick is attempting to position himself as an outsider doing battle with an out of touch legislature (note his public pronouncement to veto the sales tax increase) - we shall see if this works.
Weaknesses
- The current economic malaise. Although he is not responsible, he may get blamed by voters wanting some change at the top. The Massachusetts fiscal crisis may produce an anti-incumbent voter surge in 2010.
- Possible perception that he really does not want to be governor anymore and is using it for a stepping stone to higher office.
Tim Cahill - Treasurer of the Commonwealth (Democrat)
The current State Treasurer (you may remember the Tim for Treasurer ads from a few years back) seems to be weighing a primary challenge. I think he will hold off for a bit as unseating an incumbent governor is never easy (although Dukakis did this in 1982 to Ed King) until he is sure that Patrick is politically wounded enough to be vulnerable in a primary challenge. He has the Treasurer's position as long as he wants to keep it and a failed run for governor may jeopardize that.
Strengths
- Ability to raise money and generally viewed positively.
- May be seen as the anti-Patrick and able to pick up independent voters in the Democratic primary.
Weaknesses
- Relatively low name recognition.
- Moderate-conservative Democrat, but Democratic primary voters skew quite liberal.
Charlie Baker - CEO of Harvard-Pilgrim Health Care (Republican)
Probably the best bet that the moribund Massachusetts Republicans have. Baker served in both the Weld and Celluci administrations and generally receive high marks as a cabinety secretary. Lately, he has been credited with helping Harvard-Pilgrim come out of state receivership and maintaining its current rating as the nation's #1 HMO (US News Health Insurer rankings, 2008) If he runs, he will announce shortly.
Strengths
- Ability to raise money .
- Telegenic and well spoken. His moderate stances and business background may appeal to independents.
Weaknesses
- Relatively low name recognition.
- Heads up an HMO - his opponents will paint him as the a leader of an industry that ranks less favorably than lawyers (sorry cousin Jim) in terms of public perception.
- Republican in Massachusetts.
Scott Brown - Sitting State Senator (Republican)
Strengths
- Well spoken and an active member in the Senate. Liked by the Republican establishment and has a track record of beating Democratic challengers for his Senate seat.
Weaknesses:
- Relatively low name recognition.
- Republican in Massachusetts.
Christy Mihos (Republican - for now anyway)
Mihos ran as an independent in 2006 and won 7% of the vote. Always unpredictable and outspoken, he is the only declared Republican in the race. He is quite a character (that is meant as a compliment :)
Strengths
- Personal fortune allows him to self-finance.
- Outspokenness is admired by many in this day of packaged politicians.
- High name recognition.
Weaknesses
- Reputation for not sticking to script and speaking a little too off the cuff.
- Not liked by Republican establishment - he needs to build an organization on his own.
- Caters to the "angry voter", but that may not be enough to win.
- Republican in Massachusetts.
Right now I would give Governor Patrick despite low approval ratings (see polling info below) a decent chance of winning re-election at this early stage of the game. He is a Democratic incumbent in the most Democratic and liberal state in the nation (except for possibly RI). Patrick is an excellent campaigner with a very loyal following among Democratic party activists who propelled him to the governorship in 2006.
His biggest risk is being blamed for the state's fiscal crisis. He is clearly positioning himself as an outsider populist (especially viv-a-vis the state legislature). We shall see if this works in the long run.
The continuing weakness of the Republican Party in Massachusetts is Patrick's other asset. The Political Pulse's next posting will deal with this very topic.
It is very difficult to beat a sitting governor with the the Republican Party's brand is as toxic as it is. This will be a obstacle for Baker, Brown, Mihos, or any other Republican candidate to overcome. The eventual Republican nominee is likely to run as an independently-minded candidate. No visits from Rush please!
The Prof gives Patrick a 70% shot at reelection at this early stage. But of course I reserve the right to reverse myself as new info becomes available!
Early Polling
There have been a couple of early polls. Bear in mind that it is very early and voters have yet to focus on this race.
Rasmussen Poll - April 21, 2009 (500 Likely Voters, Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence)
Not good news for Patrick...his overall approval is only 34% which is poor for an incumbent seeking re-election.
Gov. Patrick's Approval rating
- 8% Strongly approve
26% Somewhat approve
26% Somewhat disapprove
39% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure
How likely is it that you will vote for Deval Patrick for Governor in next year’s gubernatorial election?
- 13% Very likely
20% Somewhat likely
19% Not very likely
38% Not at all likely
9% Not sure
Suffolk University Poll March 26, 2009 (400 registered voters)
http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/edited.FINAL.Suffolk.Marginals.March.20.2009.pdf
Patrick has a 44% favorable and 43% unfavorable rating
34% said Patrick deserves reelection, 47% time to elect someone else
Patrick vs. Cahill
Deval Patrick 30%, Tim Cahill 35%
(Editor's note: text identified Cahill as State Treasurer but did not identify Patrick as a Democrat or Cahill as a Republican)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Updates
Hi all,
I am planning to post several pieces over the next few weeks. My next one (hopefully it will be done by Memorial Day weekend) will be a very early handicapping of the 2010 Massachusetts Governor's race. Gentlemen (and ladies) place your bets...
As the season progresses and as the news warrants, expect also to see a piece on the state's fiscal problems and the appetite for the (almost certain) tax increases that Massachusetts will be facing in the coming months.
The Prof
I am planning to post several pieces over the next few weeks. My next one (hopefully it will be done by Memorial Day weekend) will be a very early handicapping of the 2010 Massachusetts Governor's race. Gentlemen (and ladies) place your bets...
As the season progresses and as the news warrants, expect also to see a piece on the state's fiscal problems and the appetite for the (almost certain) tax increases that Massachusetts will be facing in the coming months.
The Prof
Monday, May 11, 2009
Public opinion - good vs bad polls
Opinion Polling - lauded by pundits and politicians (especially if they are leading in a given survey) alike, is nonetheless an inexact science. Some polls are certainly better than others though in terms of accuracy and thus predictability.
The key of understanding a good versus a "not so good" poll is to read the small print explaining the methodology at the bottom of the results. The most important things to consider are the sample size and who (in terms of respondents) is actually surveyed.
Initially any sample needs to be weighted to ensure that it is demographically representative of the overall population. If it ain't representative, its no good - sort of like polling Cambridge or Amherst on the presidential race and concluding that we are are indeed a two-party country: Democrats and Greens! (the same hold true for polling in places like the Texas panhandle, rural Pennsylvania, and Lynnfield MA). All demographics groups need an equal chance to be selected, otherwise the results will be biased.
For any nationwide poll, the sample size should be at least 1,100 respondents. Anything much smaller and the margin of error (the statistical wiggle room that is a measure of how far off the sample response is from what the response would be if all the millions of potential voters were polled) begins increasing to the point where there is so much potential variation of the sample results from the entire population's results that the value of the poll is lessened. 1,100 respondents comes out to a 3% margin of error which is close enough to have decent predictive value.
Larger samples do cost more money, but will yield much more value. Personally, my eyes really open when I see sample sizes of 2,000 or greater (gets the margin of error within 2%)
A quick example of how the margin of error (we'll use 3%) is used based upon the following results:
Moe: poll result is 45% (range w/ error factored in is 42% to 48%)
Larry: poll result is 40% (range is 37% to 43%)
Curly: poll result is 15% (range is 12% to 18%)
The range consists of adding and subtracting the error (3% in this case) from the actual poll result. Statistically, there is a 95% chance that the actual election results if we polled everyone would be within those percentage ranges.
Bonus question - who is ahead in this example? If you answered Moe, better luck next time. Statistically speaking, Moe and Larry are tied as Moe's low end of 42% overlaps Larry's upper end of 43%. Curly is still bonked in the head as usual... Yes, the Prof. is a huge Stooges fan and I use this example in class.
The most important factor however, is WHO exactly is being polled. Usually this falls into the following four categories.
Adults - this is the simplest poll - as long as the respondent is an adult over the age of 18 they qualify as a respondent. The bad news is that it is the least accurate way to poll. Remember that about 40% of American Adults did not vote in the 2008 elections (which was a high turnout election) and that number is higher for state and local elections. Beware of polls of just Adults as a large proportion will end up not voting and therefore really don't matter unless and until they become voters.
Some media outfits publish (cheaply run) polls that have nationwide samples of 800 or 900 adults as respondents and tout these surveys as breaking news (usually in papers distributed nationally with a large blue logo and lots of color photos and a great weather page on the back of the first section). This is a nice way to fill column inches, but is not terribly meaningful in terms predictability.
Registered Voters - ahh, getting better! The respondent is asked if they are a registered voter. That tells the pollster if they are on the voter rolls (we will assume people are not lying to the pollster, although this can and does happen). This gets rid of the 25% of adults who are not registered to vote. Better than polling just adults, but not as good as screening for...
Likely Voters - this is the best method, since potential respondents are asked follow-up questions on how likely they are to trudge to the polls and vote on election day. If an individual indicates they are registered to vote, but has not voted since 1968, they would probably not be considered a likely voter. If they get someone like me who counts down the days to the next election (and will trudge thru four feet of snow to participate on election day), it is a pretty good bet that person will show up and cast a vote. Distinguishing a likely voter can be hit or miss, but for pre-election polls they are the most meaningful and therefore deserve the most attention.
Exit Polls - the ultimate poll! This does not ask just likely voters - it asks real voters as they are leaving a polling place on election day. They can' t change their mind as a voter can do in a pre-election survey and assuming they are honest in how they voted, this is the best measure of how a race will turn out. On election night, races are often called by the media based on exit polls, even before many actual results have trickled in. In 2006, Governor Patrick was declared the winner at about 8:02 PM based on his 20 pont lead in the exit polling.
Remember - no poll is perfect! There are many examples of how pollsters blew it and were dead wrong. The national exit polls were off in 2000 and 2004. In fact the 2004 exit polls overstated Kerry's vote to the point where he was competitive in several states (South Carolina and Virginia come to mind)he ended up losing by 10 points. The polls were pretty close in 2008 as better sampling techniques were implemented.
One more thing - the timing of a survey. In my previous posting regarding the Boston mayoral race, the poll was run six months prior to the election when most people (Lovoi excepted of course!) are not paying close attention. As the big day draws near, polls become more predictive.
Now that we know all about polls and how to read them...what? you want me to go over this again?? Ok, polling is...
The key of understanding a good versus a "not so good" poll is to read the small print explaining the methodology at the bottom of the results. The most important things to consider are the sample size and who (in terms of respondents) is actually surveyed.
Initially any sample needs to be weighted to ensure that it is demographically representative of the overall population. If it ain't representative, its no good - sort of like polling Cambridge or Amherst on the presidential race and concluding that we are are indeed a two-party country: Democrats and Greens! (the same hold true for polling in places like the Texas panhandle, rural Pennsylvania, and Lynnfield MA). All demographics groups need an equal chance to be selected, otherwise the results will be biased.
For any nationwide poll, the sample size should be at least 1,100 respondents. Anything much smaller and the margin of error (the statistical wiggle room that is a measure of how far off the sample response is from what the response would be if all the millions of potential voters were polled) begins increasing to the point where there is so much potential variation of the sample results from the entire population's results that the value of the poll is lessened. 1,100 respondents comes out to a 3% margin of error which is close enough to have decent predictive value.
Larger samples do cost more money, but will yield much more value. Personally, my eyes really open when I see sample sizes of 2,000 or greater (gets the margin of error within 2%)
A quick example of how the margin of error (we'll use 3%) is used based upon the following results:
Moe: poll result is 45% (range w/ error factored in is 42% to 48%)
Larry: poll result is 40% (range is 37% to 43%)
Curly: poll result is 15% (range is 12% to 18%)
The range consists of adding and subtracting the error (3% in this case) from the actual poll result. Statistically, there is a 95% chance that the actual election results if we polled everyone would be within those percentage ranges.
Bonus question - who is ahead in this example? If you answered Moe, better luck next time. Statistically speaking, Moe and Larry are tied as Moe's low end of 42% overlaps Larry's upper end of 43%. Curly is still bonked in the head as usual... Yes, the Prof. is a huge Stooges fan and I use this example in class.
The most important factor however, is WHO exactly is being polled. Usually this falls into the following four categories.
Adults - this is the simplest poll - as long as the respondent is an adult over the age of 18 they qualify as a respondent. The bad news is that it is the least accurate way to poll. Remember that about 40% of American Adults did not vote in the 2008 elections (which was a high turnout election) and that number is higher for state and local elections. Beware of polls of just Adults as a large proportion will end up not voting and therefore really don't matter unless and until they become voters.
Some media outfits publish (cheaply run) polls that have nationwide samples of 800 or 900 adults as respondents and tout these surveys as breaking news (usually in papers distributed nationally with a large blue logo and lots of color photos and a great weather page on the back of the first section). This is a nice way to fill column inches, but is not terribly meaningful in terms predictability.
Registered Voters - ahh, getting better! The respondent is asked if they are a registered voter. That tells the pollster if they are on the voter rolls (we will assume people are not lying to the pollster, although this can and does happen). This gets rid of the 25% of adults who are not registered to vote. Better than polling just adults, but not as good as screening for...
Likely Voters - this is the best method, since potential respondents are asked follow-up questions on how likely they are to trudge to the polls and vote on election day. If an individual indicates they are registered to vote, but has not voted since 1968, they would probably not be considered a likely voter. If they get someone like me who counts down the days to the next election (and will trudge thru four feet of snow to participate on election day), it is a pretty good bet that person will show up and cast a vote. Distinguishing a likely voter can be hit or miss, but for pre-election polls they are the most meaningful and therefore deserve the most attention.
Exit Polls - the ultimate poll! This does not ask just likely voters - it asks real voters as they are leaving a polling place on election day. They can' t change their mind as a voter can do in a pre-election survey and assuming they are honest in how they voted, this is the best measure of how a race will turn out. On election night, races are often called by the media based on exit polls, even before many actual results have trickled in. In 2006, Governor Patrick was declared the winner at about 8:02 PM based on his 20 pont lead in the exit polling.
Remember - no poll is perfect! There are many examples of how pollsters blew it and were dead wrong. The national exit polls were off in 2000 and 2004. In fact the 2004 exit polls overstated Kerry's vote to the point where he was competitive in several states (South Carolina and Virginia come to mind)he ended up losing by 10 points. The polls were pretty close in 2008 as better sampling techniques were implemented.
One more thing - the timing of a survey. In my previous posting regarding the Boston mayoral race, the poll was run six months prior to the election when most people (Lovoi excepted of course!) are not paying close attention. As the big day draws near, polls become more predictive.
Now that we know all about polls and how to read them...what? you want me to go over this again?? Ok, polling is...
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mayor Menino set to cruise in Boston
The Boston Globe has a poll out this morning showing Mayor Menino in an extremely strong position to win a fifth term. I am not an expert on Boston politics by any stretch, but the Mayor's strength in these poll numbers (he is up 63-23 over Councilor Flaherty and 63-21 over Councilor Yoon)are the type that indicate an easy cruise to reelection for him this November. His support is widespread though all demographic groups.
Globe story and results from the NH Survey Center are below:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/10/city_still_smitten_with_its_mayor/
Usually there has to be some prevailing reason for voters to toss an incumbent out of office. According to this poll, Mayor Menino is not being blamed for the poor economic conditions and is seen as a generally effective mayor. The challengers also have the unenviable position of running against a Mayor with an extremely powerful organization and a large and loyal support base.
A couple of other things - with this being a local race and six months out to the election, most voters are not paying any attention to this race yet and won't until the fall. Additionally, this poll was conducted of 504 adults in Boston. They were not screened as voters (remember turnout in these elections is typically under 40 percent) so the numbers are somewhat "squishy" at this point, but my instincts tell me they are probably pretty accurate. I will blog more about polling and how to seperate the good (thuis accurate) ones in the near future.
The last time an incumbent mayor of Boston lost a race for reelection was James Michael Curley in 1949...unless some unknown scandal rocks this race, I see the 60 year record for Boston reelecting its mayors continuing.
Globe story and results from the NH Survey Center are below:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/10/city_still_smitten_with_its_mayor/
Usually there has to be some prevailing reason for voters to toss an incumbent out of office. According to this poll, Mayor Menino is not being blamed for the poor economic conditions and is seen as a generally effective mayor. The challengers also have the unenviable position of running against a Mayor with an extremely powerful organization and a large and loyal support base.
A couple of other things - with this being a local race and six months out to the election, most voters are not paying any attention to this race yet and won't until the fall. Additionally, this poll was conducted of 504 adults in Boston. They were not screened as voters (remember turnout in these elections is typically under 40 percent) so the numbers are somewhat "squishy" at this point, but my instincts tell me they are probably pretty accurate. I will blog more about polling and how to seperate the good (thuis accurate) ones in the near future.
The last time an incumbent mayor of Boston lost a race for reelection was James Michael Curley in 1949...unless some unknown scandal rocks this race, I see the 60 year record for Boston reelecting its mayors continuing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)