500 Filth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10110 tel: 212-257-4860 fax: 212-202-6417 sa Shapiro Arato LLP www.shaplroarato.com Alexandra A.E. Shapiro [email protected] Direct; 212-257-4881 i October 20, 2015 1 I VIA FEDEX I
Federal Election Commission J Office of Complaints Examination p,' ^ " and Legal Administration ...... • : Attn: Frankie Hampton • -=• 999 E Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 [email protected]
Re: MUR 6942, In the Matter of the Commission on Presidential Debates, et al.. if Dear Ms. Hampton: We represent the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee, Inc., the complainants in the above-referenced matter. We write to provide the Federal Election Commission with additional evidence based on events occurring after the Complaint was filed, which supports the Complaint.
I On September 11,2014, Level the Playing Field and Dr. Peter Ackerman filed an administrative complaint with the Commission against the Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") and its leadership. The Commission designated the matter MUR 6869. On June 16, 2015 and June 18, 2015, respectively, the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee submitted requests seeking to join the complaint in MUR 6869, or, in the alternative, seeking to file a new administrative complaint. The Commission designated that matter MUR 6942. The Commission subsequently dismissed the administrative complaint in MUR 6869, although it did not indicate whether that dismissal covered MUR 6942.
The complaints in MURs 6869 and 6942 both allege that the CPD and its leadership, who are responsible for hosting the general election presidential debates, have violated FECA and the FEC's regulations governing debate sponsorship. The CPD bars candidates from participating in the debates if they do not poll at 15% in an average of five national polls taken approximately two months before the election. As detailed in the Complaint, the CPD's 15% rule is biased against third-party and independent candidates, see Complaint at 33-47, and therefore violates the requirement that debate selection criteria "must be free of 'content bias," and not geared to the selection of certain pre-chosen participants." First General Counsel's Report at 7, MUR 5395 (Dow Jones) (Jan. 13,2005) (quotation marks omitted).
One of the reasons that the CPD's 15% rule discriminates against independent and third- party candidates in violation of the FEC's regulation is that pre-election polls are frequently inaccurate, as confirmed by results in recent elections, both in the United States and abroad. See Ltr. of Alexandra A.E. Shapiro to Kim Collins, MUR 6869 (Nov. 24,2014) at 2-4, submitted herewith as Exhibit 1. The recent experience of the Gallup Organization, which assists the CPD in applying its 15% rule, is emblematic of polling's inherent unreliability. The CPD adopted its 15% rule in 2000, and has used it in every presidential election since. See Ltr. of Lewis K. Loss to the Office of the General Counsel of the FEC, MUR 6869 (Dec. 15, 2014) at 7, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2. In each such election. Dr. Frank Newport, the Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, has been primarily responsible for selecting the five national polls used by the CPD in connection with the 15% rule, and, in every election, he has chosen polls conducted by Gallup as one of the national polls. See Decl. of Fra^ Newport, MUR 6869, at 2-3, submitted herewith as Exhibits.
The CPD has also relied on Dr. Newport to defend it from administrative complaints filed with the Commission. The CPD purports to be "extraordinarily careful in how it selects and uses polling data," primarily because it "has relied on the expertise of Dr. Frank Newport." Exhibit 2 at 10. Likewise, Dr. Newport has submitted declarations to the Commission on the CPD's behalf, including in MUR 6869 and in MURs 4987, 5004, and 5021, earlier matters involving the CPD on which the Commission relied in dismissing the complaint in MUR 6869. In these declarations. Dr. Newport has touted public opinion polling as a "science" or a "scientific process." Exhibit 3 at 4; see also Decl. of Frank Newport, MUR 4987, at 2, submitted herewith as Exhibit 4 (describing polling as a "highly developed and tested scientific process"). He has also claimed that polls are "reliable," and that "the methodology [of polling] continues to improve" and "evolve[]." Exhibit 3 at 4-5; Exhibit 4 at 2 (asserting that public opinion polling "has a high degree of reliability").
However, the results fi-om recent Gallup polls belie Dr. Newport's and the CPD's unfounded faith in polling. Gallup's polls throughout the 2012 presidential election exhibited substantial inaccuracies, "consistently show[ing] Mr. Roraney aJiead by about six percentage points" in an election that President Obama won by 3.87%, and possessing an average margin of error of 7.2%. See Nate Silver, Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race, N.Y. Times (Nov. 10, 2012), lul»://|jvelhirtveitilit.blogs;nvtimes.com/201.2/11/1 QAvhich- poll.s-fared-best-and-worst-m-the-2012-T>residential-ra.ce/? .r=l. submitted herewith as Exhibit 5. The errors were "among the worst results" of all polling firms, and consistent with Gallup's recent "poor" performance in pre-election polling. Id. (criticizing Gallup as having "three poor elections in a row," including the 2008 presidential election); see also Nate Silver, Gallup vs. the World, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18, 2012), h.ltp://Fi.vethirtvciEht.blou.s.nvtimes.coin/2Q12/10/18/ualliip- v.s-lhc-worJd/. submitted herewith as Exhibit 6.
Gallup's recent failures have led to soul-searching within the organization. Dr. Newport has publicly conceded that Gallup has no "definitive answer" for its errors, and that Gallup's polls were toward the "inaccurate end of the spectrum." See Scott Clement, Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012, Wash. Post (June 4,2013), http.s://www.w:i.shingtonoo.st.conT/new.s/lhe-fi.\'Avp/20l3/Q6/04/t>alliio-exnlaiii.s-what-werit- wi ong-in-20l2/l submitted herewith as Exhibit 7; Steven Shepard, Gallup Blew Its Presidential polls, but Why?, Nat'l J. (Nov. 18, 2012), hUp:/Av\Vw.nationaliouiiuil.com/s/88751/galliip-blcw- il.s-pre.sitlerititil-poll.s-wliv?Q='galliio%20steven%2()shcixird&a=&t=&c=&s=Nonc
Gallup's abdication from the field of polling for the presidential primary race is a tacit acknowledgement that it no longer has confidence in the accuracy of its public opinion polling. It shows that, contrary to Dr. Newport's assertions in his submissions to the FEC that polling is "rcliable"-and-'^scientifiCi"-his-own-polling'Organization-recognizes-thathorse-race.polling-has— become inherently unreliable. Moreover, as explained in the Complaint, the flaws and errors of pre-election polling disproportionately affect independent and third-party candidates, who, in comparison to Democratic and Republican Party candidates, are more likely to have support close to the 15% threshold and are therefore far more likely to be wrongly excluded under the CPD's 1.5% rule. See Complaint at 40-44. The demonstrable arbitrariness of pre-election polling systematically discriminates against independent and third-party candidates, and fatally undermines the CPD's argument that polling is an objective criterion under the.Commission's debate staging regulations.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Complaint, the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee respectfully request that the FEC find the CPD and its leaders have violated FECA and the regulations governing debate sponsorship, and grant the relief sought in the Complaint.
Sincerely, o Alexandra A.E. Shapiro
cc: Robert William Bonham, III (via email) Ends. 500 Firth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10110 tel: 212-257-4660 fax: 212-202-6417 Shapiro Arato & Isserles LLP www.shapirooraio.com
Alexandra A.E. Shapiro. [email protected] Direct; 212-257-4881 November 24,2014
V-IA EMAIL .AND. FEDEX
1 Federal Election Commission i? Office of Complaints Examination y and Legal Administration i Attn: Kim Collins, Paralegal •i 999 E Street. N.W. g Washington, D.C. 20463 [email protected] 3 Re: MUR 6869, In the Matter of the Commission on Presidential Debates et al.
Dear Ms. Collins:
We represent Level the Playing Field and Dr. Peter Ackerman, the complainants in the above-referenced matter. We write to provide the Federal Election Commission with additional evidence based on events occurring after the Complaint was filed, which supports the Complairit. The Complaint alleges that the Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") and its < leadership, who are responsible for hosting the general election presidential debates, have i violated ^e FEC's regulations governing debate sponsorship. The CPD bars candidates from participating in the debates if they do not poll at 15% in. an average of five national polls taken approximately two months before the election. As detailed in the Complaint, this 15% rule systematically discriminates against third-party and independent candidates, see Complaint at 33-47, and therefore violates the requirement that debate selection criteria "must be free of 'content bias,' and not geared to the selection of certain pre-chosen participants." First General Counsel's Report at 7, MUR 5395 (Dow Jones) (Jan. 13, 2005) (quotation marks omitted). One of the reasons that the CPD's 15% rule discriminates against independent and third- party candidates in violation of the FEC's regulation is that although major party candidates will always poll above 15%, pre-election polling is extremely inaccurate. Moreover, the CPD relies on polls taken approximately two months prior to Election Day - polls that are necessarily less reliable because polls further from the election are more prone to error. In addition, as the Complaint demonstrates, races vvith a serious third-party or independent contender are even more inaccurate than traditional races involving only major party candidates. On average, polling in three-way races is 8% off two months before the election. At that level of inaccuracy, polls can Federal Election Commission November 24, 2014 Page 2
falsely exclude a candidate just above the 15% threshold more than one third of the time. See Complaint at 40-44.
As demonstrated below, the most recent election results highli^t the inaccuracy of pre election polls, thereby underscoring the bias of the CPD's 15%.rule.
I. Pre-election Polls Were Grossly Inaccurate Because Polling Firms Failed To Accurately Predict Which Voters Would Turn Out
The CPD believes that a candidate should not appear in the debates unless he or she can demonstrate 1'5% public support. It measures this support based on pre-election polling. But polls are only accurate if those conducting the poll select the right sample, i.e. correctly anticipate who will turn out to vote. See Complaint at 42. Polls are frequently very inaccurate because they are conducted using unreliable samples, and this most recent election demonstrates the point.
Polling firms failed to predict low Election Day turnout by typical Democratic voters. See Sam Wang, The Polls Failed To Predict A Republican Landslide. Here's Why., The New •5 Republic (Nov. 5, 2014), http://www.newrepublic.eom/article/120147/2014-midterm- predictions-poll-aggregators-hit-midterm-curse, submitted herewith as Exhibit A; Barnini Chakraborty, Election results looked nothing like the polls - what gives?, FoxNews.com (Nov. 7, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/i;i/07/pollsters-miss-predictions-in-key-races/, submitted herewith as Exhibit B. As a result,, in stme after state, polls were abysmal predictors of the final results. In Kansas, for instance, pre-election polls on average showed Greg Orman with a 7.2% lead two months before the election, and a 0.8% lead going into Election Day; he lost by 10.8%. In Virginia, pre-election polls showed Mark Warner with a lead of 15% two months out, and a lead of 10.2% in the final polls. Yet Warner won by a mere 0.8% margin. The following table summarizes how many pre-election polls missed the mark. Federal Election Commission November 24, 2014 Page 3
Polling Errors In The 201:4 Midterm Electiohs'
Winner's Winner's Winner's Margin Lead/Deficit, Lead/Deficit, Polling Error, Polling Error, of Victory. 2 Months Oiit^ Final Polls^ 2 Months Out Final Polls Kansas Senate Roberts +10.8 Roberts -7.2 Roberts -0.8 18 11.6
Arkansas Cotton +17.0 Cotton +2.4 Cotton +7 14.6 10 Senate Maryland Hogan H-4.7 No data 9.9 Governor Hogan -5.2 N/A Kentucky McConnell McConnell +15,5 McConnell +5.2 10,3 9.7 Senate +5.8 3 Warner Virginia Senate Warner+0.8 Warner+15 14.2 9.4 + 1.0.2
Iowa Senate Ernst +8.5 Ernst-1.2 Ernst +2.4 9.7 6.1
Illinois Rauner+4.8 Rauner+1.4 Rautier -0.8 3.4 5.6 Governor Kansas Brownback - Brownback+3.9 Brownback -4.6 8.5 5.1 Governor 1.2
Georgia Senate Perdue +7.9 Perdue +2.6 Perdue +3 5.3 4.9
North Carolina Tillis+1.7 tillis -3.6 Tillis -0.6 5.3 2.3 Senate
This kind of inaccuracy is a recurring problem. Polls have been similarly flawed in one direction or the other in 1994'^ 1998, 2002,2006, and 2012 elections. See Nate Silver, The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats, FiveThirtyEight.com (Nov. 5,2014, 9:08 a.m.), http:// fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/, submitted herewith as Exhibit D.
' The final election results and polling data used to create this table came from RealClearPolitics.com. Copies of that data are submitted herewith as Exhibit C. ^ The Winner's Lead/DeFicit, 2 Months Out is, in most cases, the average of the eventual winner's lead or deficit in the five latest polls from the period August 1, 2014 to September 4, 2014. Some races, however, did not have five polls taken in that period. For those races, tlie Winner's Lead/Deficit, 2 Months Out is the average of the eventual winner's lead or deficit in the five latest polls taken from the period August 1,2014 to September 3.0,2014. ' The Winner's Lead/Deficit, Final Polls is the average of the eventual winner's lead or deficit in the last five pulls taken before the election. Federal Election Commission November 24, 2014 Page 4
Moreover, this widespread inaccuracy occurred without complicating factor of a viable third-party or independent candidate. The 2014 Senate and gubernatorial races cited above were typical two-person, head-to-head contests,'' and thus were not subject to the increased volatility of races with three viable candidates. See Complaint at 42-43. The fact that this serious inaccuracy occurred in conditions that are easier to poll underscores the problems in the CPD's reliance on polling to detennine debate access.
II. Averaging Did Not Reduce The Inaccuracy Of The Polls
The CPD purports to make its debate access determination on an average of multiple polls, and may argue that this averaging reduces the risk of polling inaccuracy. Yet averaging multiple polls did not prevent severe inaccuracy in this most recent election. The errors reflected in the table above compare the final results not to one poll, but to an average of five polls, i.e. an average comparable to the CPD's average. Tliose averages were still way off; there were errors in polls taken two months before Election Day of between 8% and 18% in six races.
Commentators who have aggregated polling data have found similar results. One report found that pre-election polling underestimated the Republican share of the vote in Senate, races by an average of 5.3%. Exhibit A. Another found that, on average, pollsters overestimated Democratic vote share by 4% in Senate races and 3.4% in gubernatorial races. See Exhibit D.
The proliferation of web sites that average poll results may in fact be contributing to polling inaccuracy and reducing any potential benefits of poll averaging. As Nate Silver explains, there is evidence that "pollster 'herding' — the tendency of polls to mirror one another's results rather tlran being independent— has become a more pronounced problem." Id. Thus, averaging polls docs not necessarily reduce inaccuracy. It may cause inaccuracy to proliferate, as pollsters copy inacciuate results in order to find comfort in the "herd."
» • *
The CPD may argue that these polling errors affect the poll numbers of all candidates, not Just third-parly and independent candidates. That is no answer to the charge of bias against third-party and independent candidates inherent in the CPD's 15% rule. When it comes to meeting the CPD's 15% threshold, polling inaccuracy systematically disfavors third-party and independent candidates. As explained in the Complaint, a candidate with support at or just above the 15% threshold can be up to 1000 times more likely to face exclusion from the debates as a result of polling inaccuracy than a candidate polling at or above 40%. See Complaint at 43-
' In none of the races cited above did a third candidate receive more Uian five percent of the vote. See 2014 Senate Glection Results, Poiitico.com, http://www.politico.eom/2014-election/results/map/senate/#.VGTta_nF_kV, last visited Nov. 13,2014, submitted herewith as Exhibit E; 2014 Governor Election Results, Politico.com, http://www.poiitico.eom/20l4-election/results/map/govcmor/#.VGTtAPnF_kLI, last visited Nov. 13,2014, submitted herewith as Exhibit F. Federal Election Commission November 24, 2014 Page 5
44. Because a third-party or independent candidate is much more likely to be near the 15% threshold, the risks of polling inaccuracy fall overwhelmingly on them, and not on major party candidates.
For these reasons and those set forth.in.the Complaint, Level the Playing Field and Dr. Ackerman respectfully request that the FEC find the CPD and its leaders have violated the regulations governing debate sponsorship and grant the relief sought in the Complaint.
11 Sincerely, r Onr ^ Alexandra A.E. Shapiro
Ends. I
I t
i
11/1(V2014 2014 Midterm Predictions: Poli Aggregators Hit With Midterm Curse | New Repul>iic 100 YEARS NEW REPUBLIC
I
2014 MIDTERMS NOVEMBER 5.2014 The Polls Failed to Predict a Republican Landslide. Here's Why.
By Sam Wang Photo: AP/Nam Y. Huh
As 1 noted - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119844/2014-midterm-predictions-rep ublicans-not-guaranteed-win-senate - last month, we election forecasters depend on polls more than anything else. If the polls are wrong, then we're wrong. On Tuesday, the Midterm Polling Curse struck us all - http://www.nytimes.eom/newsgraphics/2014/s enate-model/#comparisons -.
http:/AAiww.newrepul)iic.com/articie/120147/2014-mldterm-predictions-poii-aggregators-hit-mldterm-curse 1/4 11/1(V2014 2014 Midterm Predictions; Poll Aggregators Hit VVitli Midterm Curse | New Repubiic
s 75 (m R (0)1 MT CM H.M^ p(r. KM) S»«4 fifi KU «
Senate Conlrd HXBm TtMtn. n\ik9.- aax-Mn
S ^ (0) « R' top
«OAi CampMitive States f«-9 •Mri •r -w Cfirolira TmiJe
Mew bnup
Kansas IMUP UWftU i
iM*fe Ooiyg-o tartu • i^ftA I n i
Cola'aaP ^M4«0 UMiia
i iijTb\anii 1MI«
TMJUB iMMg 1
The New York Times
Every one of the analysts listed above was on the losing side of 50 percent probability in the North Carolina Senate race. Kansas was more of a mixed bag, with some analysts slightly favoring each candidate. As it turns out, such errors are par for the course in midterm elections.
In pre-election polling, six Senate races came into the home stretch with margins of less than three percentage points. On Tuesday, I pointed out - http://www.newyorker.eom/n ews/news-desk/2014-midterm-e]ections-who-will-win-senate?int-cid=mod-Iatest - that given the track record of polling, it would be typical for at least two of these six races to be won by the lagging candidate. In 2010, the underdogs were two Democrats, Harry Reid in Nevada and Michael Bennet in Colorado. This year it was two Republicans, Pat Roberts in Kansas and Thom Tillis in North Carolina.
Roberts and Tillis are part of a broader pattern in which Republicans outperformed polls across the board. Such a phenomenon is not at all unheard of. I wrote last week - http://election.princeton.edu/2014/10/17/is-ebola-diverting-voter-attention/ - that midterm polling biases in Senate elections are far worse than in presidential elections. One party or the other outperforms polls by 3 percentage points on average. This bias can go in either direction: in the banner Republican year of 2010, it was Democrats who, somewhat counterintuitively, outperformed polls. Overall, Senate midterm http7/www.newrepubllc.com/artlcle/120147/2014-midlerm-predictions-poll-aggregators-hlt-midt8rm-curse 2/4 11/10/2014 2014 Midterm Predictions: Poll Aggregators Hit Witti Midterm Curse | New Reputilic polling errors are five times larger than in presidential years. For this reason, both narrow Democratic retention and a GOP blowout appeared to be in the range of possibilities last night. We got the blowout. Here, based on provisional race results from Reuters and the Princeton Election Consortium - http://election.princeton.edu -'s polling medians, is how candidates outperformed the polls:
Senate races, 2014 State Lead€f ~ Actua 1 margm' — "Bonus 1 West Virginia Capito -i-22.0% R +27.5% R +5.5% South Dakota Rounds +13.5% R+23.3% R+9.S% Mississippi Cochran +15.0% R +21.3% R +6.3% Arkansas Cotton +7.0% R +19.0% R +12.0% Montana Daines +17.0% R +16.3% D +1.0% Kentucky McConnell+7.5% R+15.5% R +8.0% Kansas 0:-!-,:!or, +1.0% R+11.2% R+12.2% Georgia Perdue +3.0% R+7..8% R +4.8% Iowa Ernst +1.0% R +7.5% R +6.5% Colorado Gardner+2.0% R+4.2% R+2.2% Alaska Sullivan +1.0% R+2.6% R+1.6% North Carolina Hagan +1.0% R+1.3% R +2.3% Virginia Warner +11.0% D +0.6% R +10.4% New Hampshire Shaheen +2.0% D+2.3%- D +0.3% Minnesota Franken +10.0% D +11.0% D +1.0% Average R +5.3%
Sources: Princeton Election Consortium polling medians, Reuters race results
On average, this outperformance bonus of 5.3 percentage points for Republicans is larger than in any midterm election since 1990.
It was the same story in gubernatorial races: Republican candidates outperformed polls, but by a smaller amount, an average of 2 percentage points. This was enough to carry the day for two incumbent Republican governors, Paul LePage in Maine and Rick Scott in Florida, who looked tied with their Democratic challengers; and for Illinois'
http://Www.n8wrepubllc.eom/article/120147/2014-mldterm-predlctions-poll-aggregators-:hlt-mldterm-curse 3/4 11/10/2014 2014 Midterm Predictions: Pdl Aggregators Hit WittiMidterm Curse | New Repuljlic Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bruce Rauner, who lagged slightly in polls but ended up with a convincing five-point victory over Governor Pat Quinn.
Recently it's been suggested that the polling industry has struggled lately to reach a representative swath of voters. Low response rate, increasing use of mobile phones, and hard-to-reach demographics have all been cited as possible biases. However, those- difficulties would tend to undersample Democratic voters, which was not the problem this year. Instead, inaccuracy may have come from what David Wasserman at The Cook Political Report called "epic turnout collapse - http://cookpolitiGal.com/story/8067 -" in 2014. And estimating the precise effects of turnout is an older, unsolved problem that looms large for pollsters in every midterm election.
http:/Awww.newrepublic.com/articre/120147/2014-midterm-predictions-poll-aggregat(vs-hit-midterm-curse 4/4
11/24/2014 Election results looked rtothing like the polls -- what gives? | Fox News
Print Close
Election results looked nothing like the polls - what gives? By Barnini Chakraborty Published November 07,20V4 | FoxNevir8.com
WASHINGTON - Tuesday's midterm elections were supposed to t>e a night of nail-biters, from Sen. Mitch McConnell's re-election race In Kentucky to veteran Sen. Pat l^oberts' battle In Kansas. The too-close-to-call refrain was expected to be heard throughout the night.
Instead, .when the dust settled. Republicans rumbled to one of their biggest victories In decades.
Hovr could so many polls get so many races so wrong?
"I want an investigation of the polls In Virginia," University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato told Fox News. "They were completely wrong, just as they were in Georgia. They were also way off in Illinois. And I could go on and on."
Virginia played host to one of the biggest surprises of the night, for anyone who had been basing their election predictions on the polls. In the same state where pollsters failed to predict then^House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's loss to economics professor Dave Brat in the primaries, they also misjudged the race between Incumbent Democratic iSen. Mark Warner and Republican Ed Gillespie.
Many polls had Warner with a double-digit lead over Gillespie. Warner Is currently clinging to a 1-point lead, with the ballot count 1; ongoing.
It's not just that candidates thought to be dark horses ended up winning, or coming close. A flood of polls also showed several races to be tight In the closing vreeks -- but on election night. Republicans soundly defeated Democrats. In those contests. Exhibit A is the race between Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky. Polls showed Grimes within single digits - one even showed her within a point ~ of McConnell. The powerful senator ended up winning by IS points.
The results have led to some self-reflection, as well as recriminations, over the state and accuracy of political polling.
Sabato, who said the polling Industry "needs some housecleaning," clarified to FoxNews.com on Thursday that he wants the polling business -- not the government ~ to conduct an Internal review of Its practices and. procedures.
"The government is the last group you'd want conducting any'lnquiry. Not only would It become partisan, inevitably, but the best polling professionals are well capable of organizing this themselves," he tokf FoxNews.com In an email.
In Kansas, number-crunchers at FIveThlrtyEight had forecast a big loss for Gov. Sam Brownback, but he won by a 4-polnt margin. Data from FIveThlrtyEight also predicted Roberts would be defeated In Kansas -- and many polls showed him virtually tied ~ but he won by more than 10 percentage points against Independent candidate Greg Orman. Likewise, In Georgia. Republican David Perdue beat Michelle Nunn for an open Senate seat by 8 points, despite polls showing a much closer race.
Sabato, who heads up the Center for Politics' Crystal Ball website, had his own share of misses Tuesday night. Sabato had nine races leaning Democrat. Of those, seven were won by Republicans Including the gubernatorial races In Maryland, Maine and Illinois. Maryland was a huge upset, as most polls showed Democrat Anthony Brown well ahead, yet Republican Larry Hogan won comfortably.
Real Clear Politics, an online site that compiles polls from various resources, posted polling averages that largely did not square with the results. In almost every contested Senate race. Republican candidates beat the Real Clear Politics polling data.
http7/iNww.fbxnews.com/politlcs/2014/11/07/poll5lers-mlss-predlctlons-in-key-races/print 1/2 11/24/2014 Election results looked nothing like the'polls - what gives? | Fox News
Sabato believes that in many cases, pollsters failed to factor in how heavily Republican and conservative the electorate in a low- turnput midterm was going to be.
"After the experience of 2012, when they undercounted HIspanics and young people, they were concerned about the same phenomenon happening again," he said. "Perhaps they over-compensated. I want them to tell us."
Rasmussen Reports defended its polling data on its website, saylng in a wrjtten'statement thaMhey got it right "most of the time."
"It's Interesting to note that In the races In which the spread was really off for us (and the Real Ciear Politics average of ail pollsters), most of the time we were spot-pn for the Democratic number but wrong on the Republican number," the message stated.
Rasmussen pointed to a number of unknowns, "if you add the percentage of voters 'not sure' to the GOP side, you will come ^yery-!cio;se'-tp:4he;flhal-Pepublican;'.r Rasmussen believes that the data "suggests the lastrminu'te swing vote went to the Republicans, and .while it.did not necessarily change the gams In terms of the winner, it very much changed the spread between the candidates." This is not the first time some off-base polling has prompted a review of the methods used by polling firms. After Gallup showed Mitt Romney ahead In the 2012 presidential race ~ he lost ~ the Gallup Poll reviewed its own. methodology of selecting voters. "it's becoming a much more difTicult, nerve-wracking business," Geoff Garln,'the president of Hart Research Associates and a leading Democratic pollster, told Bloomberg News at the time. j^Pitnl igjCloso URL http://www.foxnsws.coin/p6lltlc6/2014/11/07rpansters-inlBS-pr.adletl6ns-in-kcy-races/ Moms I Video I PoUlcs j U.S. i Opinion | ^teitsinment j Tech | Science | Hoetlh I Travel I LIfSstyle I world I Sports I tAaelhor Privacy | Terms This mslstbl nay nor be pubtsheil. broadcast, lewittlen, or ledlsbibulad. 02014 FOX Nsws lielworlC LLC. A1 riglits issstved. Afl msikoi data dabyod 20 minulas. http:/Aivww.fbxnews.com/polltlcs/2014/11/07/poilsters-miss-:predictions-in-key-race5/prlnt 2/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolities - Election 2014 - Kansas Senate - Roljerts vs. Orman Search by RaceilChoosoARace T| Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. Orman RobcrLs x'S.Tuylor 1 Robftris vi».Tnylor va. Orman Caiuliilstu-.s Kansas KGl* Averasc: Orman +u.K RCP Ranking: Tu.ss Up 2014 Key Races: Covcrnc*r| K.S-2 | K.S-3 PAST KKY RACES 2012: PrcsUlunt 2010: (iinx'i-nor (Senate| Ki<(-3 200R: I'rcsidunt | iC5-2 Greg Orman (1) Pat Roberts (R)" 2006: Governor Kui I CninpnignSilit Uio I Cninivtien Site 2004: President | Senate | KS-.'t I K.S-4 Pojl _Sample^ MoR Orma n (!) Roberts (R) Spread Final Kesiilts - - - 42.5 53.3 Roborfs-flO.S RCP Average 10/18-11/3 - - 43.4 41.6 Orman •t-0.8 11/1-11/3 963 LV 3.2 47 46 Onmon+I rox News- 10/28-10/30 907 LV 3.0 44 43 Orman-H 10/25- lOOI H37LV 4.8 37 38 Kiithns -11 »Sur\vyllSA*' 10/22-10/26 623 LV 4.0 44 42 Orman +2 NRC Nrw.s/M.iriM" 10/18- 10/22 757 i.V 3.6 45 44 Orman+1 .•\)1 Kansas'Sciialc Krdierb« v.<(. Ormun Polling Dala BATTLE FOR THE SENATE RCP AVERAGES: GOP +7 PICK-UPS I 47 Deni GOP 52 R:ice AnalysiK 11/3/14 - Have you ever seen trendlines like this at the end of n race? Orman has a lead, but Mth a huge number of undeddeds, it is aiiyone's hallgomo. 10/28/14 - Roberts' momenlum seems lo ha**stalled out. and we seem to be headed for a geniilne photo finish here. LO/17/14 - Orman is something of a skkr trying to outrun an avalanche. It is nipping at his hods, but the turnoff is just in sight. For noiv, this appears to be going down to the wire. 10/7/14 - The Marist poll was a jarring departure from a steady tightening of this race. One possible explanation? The poll's sample Is 82 percent while, while the »oio and S012 electorates were around 90 percent white.. 9/29/14 - Orman's lead seems to have narrowed u louch, and one suspects chat the undecided voters are probably primed to vote RepuUicnn. So the quesliun becomes: IVill voters decide that Orman is close enough to a Republican to pull the lever for him? At the bcglmdng of this ^le, virtually no one would have predicted that control of the Senate might turn on tlie outcome of a race in Kaitsas. But it increasingly looks like Harry Rvid's ability to hold on to his position as majority leader might depend on breaking an 80-ycar Republican winning streak in the Sunflower State. 9/20/14 ~ The Supreme Court of Kansas has ruled that Taylor must be removed from the ballot, so this will be a Hght between Kobcris and Orman going forward. While this dearly hurts Roberts in the short run, Its long term effects are a lot more difficult to determine. On the one hand, Roberts would benefit from a dhided opposition, and Ta>1or would draw off some disgruntled Democratic voles from Orman. On the other hand, if Ruliarts is going to win, he needs to deTinc Orman as a du facto Democrat, and l'a)tor complicates this messoge. Race Preview In the 98 years Kansans have directly elected senators, a majori^ or jdurality of \t>ters have pulled the lewr for a Democrat just three times. The last time this happened was in 1932, when George McGill won a three-way race with 46 percent of the vote. Six years later. McCiiU's 44 percent was not enough to win re-election, and the statehas elected only Republicans since then. http:/Avww.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ks/kansas_senate_rober(5_ys_ormai> 5216.html 1/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Qection 2014 - Kansas Senate - Roberts vs. Orman I'his cjdc. Kansiis has been liomc to HII unuKually topsy-lurxy raca While it is uitlikely to dect n Democrat, it may elect a non-Kcpublican. TTIK all started w)«in ph>«u:i!in Milton Wolf decided to challenge inenmixnt Rcptiblicon Put Roberts in the primary. That challenge ultimately fixzlcd, but Kobcils mis held to timler 50 pei-ccnt of ihc xolc. Mony of Wolfs supporters suggested that tlwy would stay home, aiul palling showed an iinusiially tight three-tvay race bctwOT Roberts. Democrat Chad Taylor, nod Indcpcmdcnt Greg Orman. Tojter subsequently announced that he wo\M drop out of the ruea, setting up an Ormsn-Roberts battle. Orman had actually led Roberts in hcad-to-hrad pcllii^, although there was a huge number of undecided. Compounding thcback-and-forth, Kansas Secretary of State Krb Kobiieh announced that Taylor would hara to remain on the ballot. 'Ilic race is obviously very much in flui right now. and the smart bet seems to be tlial Wolfs supporters mil come home for Rohcrts. Bui il really is difficult to sny in this environment. 1> Symantec. Small a Medium Business Can Obaira Vvzk L.-uiiO-Duck Synsroirier Stove Cull, The Ncv; Yorker l^or Oboma, No Midietm Lesson isndpoint Protection Joseph Curl, tVashington Tunes Small Buoineco Edition DoiVl GovC'i'i uii rciilcisies E;..). Dlonne, WAshington Post Antivirus and Malware Scott Wajkifr Wi.'^s Aijoin Protection Soiution John McCurmork, Weekly Svandard Vifluiiv iiiit Cti.ini 10.8 RCP Avcrnee 10/18.11/3 " " 43.4 42.6 (Irnian +0.8 iTI*(lJj* 1 I/I • 11/3 963 LV 3.2 47 46 Onnaii+l I'llX 10/28-10/30 907 LV 3.0 44 43 Orman +1 YuiiGu*" 10/25- laoi ll37i.V 4.8 37 38 KlibLTis •t-i Siin-cyi'SA" 10/32-10/26 623 LV 4,0 44 42 Orman +2 NIU": News.'M:ii -5i' 10/18-10/22 757 I,V 3.6 45 44 Orman+1 CHS ^Vws.'^JYTA'ulil",o^- 10/16-1003 1973 LV 4.0 38 42 Rubcrts -14 l^.lSlnu» Uvnimtiiun Ui-NuirLh firtutp iK)' 10/9-10/12 1091 LV 3.0 46 48 RiihaU (T iri'in) \m- 10/12 1081 LV 3.0 46 43 Orman +3 ITIX Ncw-t* 10/4 • 100 702 LV 3.5 39 44 Kohciis 1.^ CNMAlpiiiiun Rtf SiiriLyl.LSA * 100 - 10« 549 LV 4.3 47 42 Urman +5 NHCNews.-Ma.r.l'' 9.07 -10/1 6361.V 3.9 48 38 Ormnn +10 CHS ,\\-w.<;NV i/V(iii(j.w' 900 - Itt'l 2013 LV 3.0 40 40 Tie USA T..,l;iy;SiiiVDtk^ 907 - 900 500 LV 4.4 46 4! Orman +5 Kntiuib^cii KciS'ii.*:"* 9/16-9/17 750 LV 4.0 45 40 Orman +5 I't JX News 9/14-9/16 604 LV 4.0 48 42 Onnan +6 i'n'(Oj 9/11-9/14 1328 LV 2.7 46 36 Ornitin'lO I'lM'iDt 8/14-8/17 903 I.V 3.3 43 33 Orman rlO About u.*; I Cci.-it.ict l/.dvtiiCse | rriV!.cy Policy EXPERT-SERVICE. SAVE UP TO »1000 ON SELECT LG IK UNBEAMABLE PRICE. ULTRAHDANDOLEDTVs Hr' v' U. ...I-:--. •. .Itt. /, ..-,1 h«p:/Awww.reaiclearpolitlcs.com/epolis/2014/senate/ks/kansas_senate_roberls_vsj3rman-5216.htmi 2/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Arkansas Senate - Cotton vs. Pryor Seaich by Rare: rChooMARaee 'I Arkansas Senate - Cotton vs, Pryor Arli;ins;is •?naj>sh»l- KCP Average: Cotton +7.0 RCr Kunkiiig!\.vai\s GOl* :i0i4 Key Koees: Go^x*rln>r| AK-2 | Mi-A PASr KI5Y KACliS- 20i2:Pre.siiIcjit aoio: Gifx-crnoi' | Senulu | /VJl-t |AK-a | AK-4 aoo6:1'rcftiilviit Tom Cotton (R) Mark Pr>OT (D)* 2006: Governor| AK-i |rVK-2 {AK-3 | AR-4 UiolCaHnpiiigDaSile nio I OimpnignSUc 2004: PruKidenl ] Senate | AR-a rnllin;: Pull Dale Sample MoE Cotton (R) Pryor (D) Spread Pinal Results - - 56.S 39.5 Collon +17.0 RCP Average 10/16-11/1 - - 48.2 41.2 Cotton +7.0 PPPfl))' IOGO-11/l 1092 LV 3.0 49 41 t'oiuin +8 Ka All Ark.iii«iiNSi:iUite''CDllon \-N. Pr)-ur Polling l):ita A4Chaicsat> BATTLE FOR THE SENATE i RCP AVERAGES: GOP ^7 PICX-UPS 47 Dem GOP 52 i I Kavc Anulysi5 L1/3/J4 — TOm Cotton seems to be breaking open a rral luui here. He enters Election Dny as the favorite. lu/7/14 - Subsequent pollitig hns not borne out the findings of the Suffolk poll. Mark Pryor enters the home slrctch clearly behind Rep. Tom Cotton. 9/29/14 - The recent Suffolk poll seems like an outlier, although we can't be completely certain until wc get more polling. Even that poll showed'Pryor receiving only 45 percent of the \ote. The inuunhcnt is in deep trouble 9/7/14 -Two months before the election, Pryor still seams to be stuck at 43 percent. There's still plenty of room for him to win tliis race, bu: he remains the most vulnerable inaimbcnt. ———Race Preview——— When David Pryor won his Senate scat in 197S, Arkansas was still very much a one>party state. Republicans won only six scats that year in the entire iss-membcr state legislature, ahhough this tied a record set in 1910. Only one Republican had won the governorship since the end of Reconstruction, and oitly one other Republican hud ewn eclipsed the 40 percent mark. l.ikcwlsu, only one Republican had bested 40 percent a Sonnte race .since the beginiiiiig of direct election of senators in tlic iptos. Pryor's son. Mark, won his Satate seat in 2002 in a somewhat different reality. Republicans had won gubernatorial elections in 19S0 and I998,nndhatl narrowly won a Senate election in 1996. But Defense Impacts: An incumbent defense the state was still politically marginal in presidential elections, and approprlalor faces an Iraq War veteran and was still strongly Democratic in atate elections. Mork Pryor defeated rising star In a race the GOP needs to win the Republican Hm Hutchinson in n good Republican year, and found Senate. himself imopposcd in 200B. More on this race at RvalClcar t'U R>nsu But things have changed dramaticaHy in Arkansas politics in the years since then. Pryor's cnllmguc, nisnche Lambert I.inco1n, lost her 2010 rc-election bid by ow:r 20 points, while Republicans captured the General Assembly two years later. A body that had 97 Democrats and 30 Republicans when http:/Avww.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ar/arkansas_senate_cottonj/s_pryor-4049.html 1/3 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Arkansas Senate - Cotton vs. Pryor Poor was elected now stands at 73 RepuUicam and 61 Democrats. Pryor finds himself challenged by fmhinan Rep. Tom Cotton, oneof the NRSC% strongest recruits. Cotton brings a sterling resume - he's a forniei Army captain and Har\T)rd Law School graduate - as well as the beitefit of having represented southern Arksnsas in Congrnss, which is a swing area of the state where Democrats must over-perform in order to win. A recent spate of polling has shou-n Pryor ahead. He's still at only 44 percent in the HOP Average, and iho recent PPP poll shows the president's job approval an awful 13 percent among undecided voters, suggesting that Pryor will luvca tough time comvrting them to his cause. Still, his campaign is showing some signs oflife that uvrent really there a month ago. 1 fb.1 itviccnt C(»nvuu:iil •1 • Can Otiama Ourk l.aniu-Ouck Syndrome? L-L.Bean 1 Steve Coll. The New Yorker • For Obema, No Mjnterm Lesson Joscpn Oirl, Washington Timus SAVE 10- • Don't Govem on Fantasies E.J. DIonne, Wasliinston Post TBROUGH NOVEMBER 11 || • Scott Walker Wins Again John McConnack, Weekly Standard FREE SHIPPING 1 . Valeric Jarretl, the Obarro Whispaer EVEBV'DAY Noam Schdbcr, The New Rcpul>llc •See Ail Coinnicnt; k SHOP NOW IVillinj; l>;i|ii Poll Dole Sample MoE Collon (R) Pryor (D) .Spread Final Hesiills - - - 56.5 39.5 Cniion +17.0 RCP Average 10/16-11/1 - - 48.2 41.2 CollniMT.O PJ'PiO)- 10/30-11/1 1092 LV 3.0 49 41 Coifuti 48 Knsmussoi Kopuris 10«7-10/29 967 l.V 3.0 51 44 Cuilun +7 'llicAik8iis:t\ Pull 10/21-10/27 568 LV 4.1 49 36 Couun -i-1.> NBC Nvvvs/MaiHi- 10/19-10/23 621 LV 3.9 45 43 Coiinn -i-Z t;US Ncvvs/WY IVV.viiOov 10/16-10/23 1567 LV 4.0 47 42 Cotton -i-S Talk Kusinrfs Poir lO/IS-10/16 2075 l.V 2.2 49 41 Cntinn < 8 Rosmusscn Repoiis 10/13- ia'15 940 LV 3.0 47 44 Cation 13 rO.X News* IOM-10/7 707 LV 3.5 46 39 (.'oUnn 1-7 ens NovvM/NVT/I'mitiiW 9/20-IQ/i 1991 LV 2.0 45 41 Collon -t-l R:i.sinu:isen RvpoiL>: 9/24 - 9ns 750 LV 4.0 47 40 L\nion47 USA 'iudovy-SulVoIk' 9/20 - 9/33 500 LV 4.4 43 45 Pryor+2 I'I'l' (Dl 9/18-9/21 1453 LV 2.6 45 39 Collon i6 KHCNcw^AIaiuii' 9/2-9/4 639 LV 3.9 45 40 Coiion -^S CNN.^jpiniim Ko'ctucii 8/28-9/2 523 LV 4.5 49 47 Cnlinn •< 2 CBS NL-«'s.'NY'rA'uuf:..v 8/18-9/2 1572 LV 3.0 43 39 C'ntion v-l KoiMULt.«vii Reports 8/23-8/26 750 LV 4.0 43 44 Piyor t-1 IMTlO) K/l - 6/3 1066 RV 3.0 43 41 Coiliin T-2 Talk Uiisincis Poll* 7/22 - 7/25 I780LV 2.3 44 42 Ctriton •f'2 CUS NcwvNV l/Yoii ltnp;ici iV1:mn£^*niC'iu Grotip (K) 6/29-6/29 1290 RV 2.7 47 43 CiUlon •1-4 M:idcll.-t!i Sireu-givs (10 6/4-6/5 755 l.V 3.6 49 45 CollOIl +4 Ku. irp inj 4/25 - 4/27 840 RV 3.4 42 43 Piyoi' fl NHC Ncv\ s'.Vl;iriyi 4/30 - 5/4 876 RV 3.3 40 51 I'O'or III ivlagclkin Siialcgivs (R) 4/14-4/15 857 LV 3.4 46 43 Cnilim-i"? NY riiniH/KaiSa' 4/*8-4/15 R57 RV 4.0 36 46 Pryor+10 Jalk Business Poll* 4/3-4/4 1068 LV 3.0 43 46 Pryiir +3 Opinion KvjicuvHi As.sucinics 4/1 - 4/8 400 RV 5.0 38 48 Piy<*'HO CI*/\/l iiekinaii Anal} tin (I>) 2/17-2/20 400 LV 4.9 46 46 *ne lmp;K.i M.-uiagancnt Cnoup (K> 2/10-2/10 I2Q2 RV 2.8 46 42 Coliun +4 Rasriutsscn Riiiom 2/4 - 2/5 500 LV 4.5 45 40 C'diiiin 15 ihc Arkiuissu- Poll 10/10-10/17 LV - 37 36 CoHun -t-l linjiact MsiingLsnu'Pil firuuplK) 10/24-10/24 911 RV 3.2 42 4! Collon +1 http:/Awww .realclearpolitlcs.com/epolls/2014/senate/ar/arkansas_senale_colton_vsjDryor-4049.html 2/3 11/10/2014 ReslGlearPolitics - Election 2014 -Arkansas Senate - Cotton vs. Pryor lOAf - ta'S 603 1.V AJa 41 42 ri5-or-U 8i'6-8/7 600 It V 4.0 43 45 lfryor-i.2 stA-m 5S7 LV 4.0 43 41 •„ . , AlloiitUfrlConlirei- lAit'vnrtlse i rrlviicv tHilicy tittp;//www.realclear polilics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ar/arkansas_senate_cotlon_vs j3ryor-4049.html 313 11/24/2014 RealClearPolilics - Election 2014 - Maryland Governor - Hogan vs. Brown Search by Rare: I Choose A Race Maryland Governor - Hogan vs. Brown Gaiiiniitilo' •MiiryJaiul Sn:i)>.sJuil RCP KankhiR: TuS-s U|i 2014 Races: MD-6 PAST Kl'T RACES 2012; l*ro.«;ident |.Siauile 1 MD-ii auio: Co^-«rnur| .Seimtv { MD*i 200H: 2006: Sunsitc I Ci»\-crniir Anthony Brown (D) laarry Hognn fR) 2004: Prubuli'iit Bio I C:in)[K(iitn.Sile r>:(i I I'liUin;: I^atn Foil D'Jte Somple MoE Bn»wn (D) Hogan (K) Spread Final Results - - -- 46.9 51.6 Unpad *4.7 Wl»A UvTHireh (It}-" ltt'26- I(W7 .504 LV 4.4 39 44 Ijiigan >5 ('u)n/:ilL'sItcs'inrclr*»- 10/20-ia'24 832 I.V 3.5 46 44 Mrowii +2 l.:iiSNcw.f/NYT/Y.Mifj.iv 10/16-10/23 1086 LV 5.0 51 33 lJniwi»+l3 Hiilsimnic .Sun l(V-1 - lO/B 600 LV 3.5 49 42 Drown +7 Washmaionl'osr la's-la's 549 LV 5.0 47 38 Drown 19 C»S Ncwwi^Y'lVV.inC'i.w 9/20-10/1 1096 ].V 4.0 55 38 HiiiwdTl? CIIS Ncwi'NY lVYunC.nv 8/1B-9/2 1082 LV 4.0 51 37 Hiitwn •M4 t;nSNc«j/NYIW;iuC-.ov 7/5 - 7/34 1409 RV - 52 39 Dixnvd fi3 Kusmussvn Kcpoiu: 7/9 - 7/10 750 LV 4.0 48 35 Bixnvn ''•13 W'lMliiiiginn Fitsi 962 RV 3.5 51 3.3 Itfiiwn -:-l8 ' 'The WPA KrM-arvh Wi» cnnducu-d fur ihe I l'4t.uii itiimiJAifti:. unci lln* Rcwnrch li'tll ^\r.sr(*iidiick-cl for lliu MAiylunil Xefiuhlk-uii Puity. 2014 SENATE RESULTS NCT CHANGE: GOP -i-R 46 Oem GOP 53 KuLUaViKiK.N'is ij/3/14 - This race seems to hn\2 dosed late, with both parties funnoling in money at the last minute. One suspects the undecided \vtcra here should go Dnmoernt, andthcUUFu-as disujipuintedhere in I994...h:it no: in 2002. _RACC Preview-—— Maryland is increasingly a city-state •• all of ins Rongressionit) distriers are anchored partially in either metropolitan Washington. D.C.. or Daitimore. 'llie state h.is long been a Democratic stronghold, in tlie 19th and ear!)' 20th centuries, 0 Democratic machine in Baltimore combined with voters on the culturally soulhcrn Kaatern Shore to form a Democratic majority. In the later 20lh century, tlie Democrats lost the Eastern Shore but found increasingly rccepti\« voters in the suburbs of D.C. Fost-Civil War, the state Iinsclcaed only six Republican governors, and only ura has managed a SCCOIKI term. The last Republican gowrnor, Bob Ehrlich, won an open .scat .igainst Kathleen Kennedy 'IWnscnd, a disappointing candidate for Democrats, in 2002. Ehrlich had a tempestuous relationship ^sith the Democnitic legislature, and in 2006 he u-as defeated hy Bnllimore Mo>T)r Martin O'Mall^. O'MaHey handily Mt>n a rematch vdth Ehrlich in auiu. Anthony Brown, O'Mallay^ lieutenant go\'arnor, MTin the Democratic primary, and will face off against Repul Larry Hogaa En 0 Democratic state like Maryland, Brown has 0 significant edge, nottvithslanding the hi»dw Democrats In general ore facing this year and Bnmii's owrsight of tlie stated disastrous Obamncare website. Ai.'OUt Us I C'fiitri'.t I AuVK:ti. htlp:/Awww.realclearpolltlcs.conn/epoll5/2014/governor/[nd/maryland_gavernor_hagan_vs_brown-5098.html 1/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPditics - Election 2014 - Kentucky Senate - McCcnneli vs. Grimes Search by Race: I ChoosG A Race a I Kentucky Senate - McConnell vs. Grimes (.a4lll Pulling Datn Poll Dale Sample MuE McConnell (R) Grbiies (D) Spread Final Results - - - S6.2 40.7 McC'oiin*-ll+)S.5 RCPAvcruge in/js- im - - 49.0 41.8 McConnell t-7.2 NftC Ncws-Mari.'!!' 10/27-10/30 556 LV 4.2 SO 41 MiConRcll i9 PPPiDj- 10/30- 11/1 1503 LV 2.5 SO 42 McCoiinoll 18 C'nui ia'-Joiiiniil\Sui\cyUSA* 10/25-10/2*/ 597 LV 4.1 48 43 McCuimcil+5 CDS NcivsflsfYT.Yoii(.-iOV* 10/16-10/33 1502 LV 4.0 45 39 Mc<.'uiiiii:IN6 Ka.smus. All .Kentucky Senate - MvCnitnell vs. Grinica Polling Dala UDOWNIJOAD TWE AAA OAME CASE STUDYiS BATTLE FOR THE SENATE RCr AVERAGES: GOP +7 PICK-UPS 47 Dem GOP 52 K:ire .\li:ily.cLs 10/28/14 -The aSunn^USA poll kMhs like a bit uf an outlier, and there really isnt much reason to suspect that Grimes is closing the gap by locking at the trendlines. McConnell enters the home stretch with the lead. 10/17/14 — National Democrats seem to be pulling the plug on Grimes' campaign. The fiu lenlals of the statearc just too much for her to overcome. 10/7/14 ~ Siir\2yUSA is one of two pollsters to show Grimes ahead this cycle. Until there is a confirming poll, we probably should treat it as en outlier. But it is one cause for hmrtburn for Team Mitch. 9/S/14 ~ As this race engages, Grimes' numbers seem to be falling back to Earth. There is still plenty of time for her to turn things around, but the danger for her is that national Democrats could decide to abandon her campaign if she drops loo far behind. -Knee Previe Kentucky politics can largely be cxplainod by the state's congressional districts. The 1st end 2nd Districts are (roughly) the Jackson Purchase and Pcnn)Tilc areas of the state, which vote like the DeepSouth. The 3rd and 6th Districts represent urban Louisville and greater Lexington, while the 4th District is the Republican suburbs of Cindnnati and lioulsville. The sth District is an amalgam of two older districts, one of which i%-as old moiiniain Rcpublinin territory, and one of which was heavily unionized nnd Democratic coal mining country. The name of the gome for Republicans n to run well in the 4th and gth and hold their ground in the ist and 3niJ. while Democrats try to add to their bases in Lnuisvilla, Lexington, and the coal mining areas of the sth. The problem for Democrats is that the coal mining areas of the 51b have steadilydrifted oway from them over the past deeade. Sen. Rand Paul owes much of hfe aoio \4elory to outsized Republican margins in the area, margins that were matched by Republican presidential candidates in 2008 end 2012. At the same time. Democrats have managed to enjoy continued success at the local level, and hold most statewide officfs. That encapsulates the milliorMlullar question for 2014. when the very unpopular Senate minority leader. Mitch http:/yWww.reaiclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ky/kentucky_senatejncconnall_vsjgrimes-3465.html 1/3 11/10/2014 RealClearPotiiics - Election 2014 - Kentucky Senate - McConnell vs. Grimes McCbnneU. mil face off against Secretary of Skate Albon Lundergan Crimes. If Grimescan pash into the historic Democratic base in coal countr)-. this election will probably stay close. If not, the M percent of the votethat Grimes is currently receiving will probably represent something of a ceiling for her. Kccviil CoiiinKMil Can Oboma Ditck L^me-Ourj; Syndiomc? Steve Coll. The New Yorker For Obama. No Midterm Lesson Joseph Curt, Weshlnplon Times Don't Govcn% on Fantasies E.). Dionne. Washington Pom ScuCt Walker Wins Again John McConnack. Weekly Standard Valerie Jatielt, the. Qbama Whlspurer Noam Scheiber, The New Heoubllc See All Coinmenli Pulling (3utn Pull Dnie Sample MuE McConndl(R) Grimes (D) Spread rinnl Results - - - 56.Z 40.7 MrCiiiincll +l5.5 RCI' Avemfie 10/15-11/1 - - 49.0 4J.8 .MtCotinfiI+7.2 NIlC NCw'irM.ir*iM- 10/27-10/30 556 LV 4.2 50 41 Mi-Cnnncll 1-9 I'l'I'dlJ* iOGO- li/1 1503 LV 2.5 SO 42 McCuimclli-S Cum HfJwii iial'SiirviyI IS A • 10/25-10/29 597 I.V 4.1 48 43 MCCIIIIIKII i'S QtS NtfwrfN V |/Yiii!liiiv 10/16-10.73 1502 LV 4.0 45 39 McCui)ncll*t6 Ciiuru.T-Ji"irn:il/Siii vcyl J.SA * 10/15-10/19 655 LV 3.9 44 43 McCnnncH "-I Ruciniissun KcpthLs 10/15-10/16 1000 LV 3.0 52 44 McCoiinclI--.S Wcsrcni Konmcky Univ.* 10/6- 10/19 LV 4.1 45 42 MtConm-ll T? ri.iX News* 10/4-10/7 706 LV 3.5 45 41 MrC\»im«;ll'«4 Cum icr-Jouinai'Siii veyl.lSA ' 9/29- 10/2 632 LV 4.(1 44 46 Grimes •< 2 CBS Ncws/NVnYuiiGov' 9/20-ID/I 1689 LV 3.0 47 41 McCuiiiiL-li-'-O Rcuius'lpsos 9/8-9/12 944 LV 3.6 46 42 ML-CunnclH4 NBC Ncws-'MaiiM* 9/2-9/4 691 LV 3.7 47 39 M^-oiincll 4 8 Rasimisscn Rcpn!L-« 9/1-9/2 750 LV 4.0 46 41 .McCpniiclI +5 C.NNA)pioion Kcsciirdi 8/28-9/1 671 LV 4.0 50 46 hfcCniiiicli +1 CBS NnvK/NY'lA'ouCov 8/18-9/2 2130 I.V 3.0 47 42 .McCniirh-il 15 CouritT-.l0uin;d'Survc\'USA" 8/25 - 8/27 569 LV 4.2 46 42 MiCoimcll (-4 I'i'lMDj 8/7-8/1D .991 LV J.I 47 42 Mii'-onncll 1-5 Cmii ler-Jdunwl'SiiiVQti.SA 7,'I8-7/23 604 LV 4,1 47 45 McCiiniidl+2 ens Ncw.i.'NYT/VuiiGnv 7/5 - 7/24 LV 4.2 50 46 McCunni;IJ-i4 Msgcllan ,S;r:Utf»ics fK1 W-M 808 LV 3.5 46 49 Grimes <1-3 l Reports 5/28 - 5/29 750 LV 4.0 48 41 McConndl t 7 WoniKi Siinttfgics (10 Sm - 5/24 608 LV 4.0 47 44 McCniuidl-ij Cuurlu-.10urn;il.'"Sur»vy 1 J.S.-\ * S/14-S/16 1475 LV 2.6 42 43 Giimos +1 NliC Ncws:'M.visi 4/30 - 5« 2353 RV 2.0 46 45 McCmintfiHi Cl-A/liiL-kiwui Aii:il>iL-s ffJ) 4/24 - 4/30 500 LV 4.4 46 45 McCunnclt-'l NY Timcy.'Kni.w 4/8-4/15 891 RV 4.0 44 43 McCiiiiiicll +1 Wviixcl i>iraiL-gii» (K) 2/8 - 2/11 1002 LV 3.1 43 42 McCuniicll 1 Cuiu-icr-JinirnaL''S'ui-vv}'USA 1/30-2/J 1082 RV 3.0 42 46 Orimv.<; Kasiniisscn Rcporti 1/29- IAD 500 LV 4.5 42 42 71c PP1' (JJl 12/12-12/15 1509 RV 2.5 43 42 MtCnmiclHI Wvnzd (R) 7/23 - 7/24 624 LV 3.9 48 40 McCoimcll 18 Wcmrcl Sinucsics (R) 6/1-6/2 623 LV 3.9 47 40 ML-Ci>i>ncllf7 l'PP(D; 4/5-4/7 1052 RV 3.0 45 41 Mi-Cnimi:ll +4 J'PP(U) 12/7-12/9 1266 RV 2.8 47 40 Mi-C.uiiiicll -•'? About Us I Cnnt.nct j Advertise | Privocy Policy htlp:/Avww.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ky/kenlucky_senate_mcconnell_vs_grimes-3485.htinl 2/3 11/10«014. RealClearPoli'tics - Election'2014 - Kentucky'Senate - McConnell vs. Grimes LJL.Bean 6 littp;/Amvw.reaiclearpolltics.com/epolls/2d14/senate/ky/kentucky_senate_mcconnell_vs_grlmes-3485.litml 3/3 11/1(V2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Virginia Senate - Gillespie vs. Warner Search by Race;[ Choose A Race Virginia Senate - Gillespie vs. Warner Vii->;ini:> Siuip.vhol RCPAverngc: Wsimctr fij.? RCP KankinK: Leans Dcni 2014 Key Rucve: VA-U |VA-4 I VA-ir> PAST KEY RACES-- 20ia:Gvverncii' • • 20t2: ]*ri«idcnt | Senate | VA-2 Br 2010: VA-a I VA-5 I VA-9 | VA-II Mark Warner (D)* EdGUl4spib(R) 2009:Gi>vurnor Bio I Bin I C'onipnij^ii .Sile Z008: PrcMicli-jtl'l Senate | VA-il 2006:Sciitilv| VA'Z 2004: Pru. rollii-tg llatn Poll Date Sample MuE Warner (D) Gillespie (R) Spread Final Results - - - 49.2 48.4 Wni7ier+ll.8 RCP Avvnige 10/1 - 10/29 - - 4K.S 38.8 Chii All Virginin Svnnlc - CilloNpIc w. Warner Polling'Datii BATTLE FOR THE SENATE KCP AVERAGbS: GOP I 7 PlCK-UPb' 47 Dcm GOP 52 Rare Ansiiysis U/S/M - There are rumors of a break toward Gillespie, but no one is releasing polls. The apples-to-epplcs trendline comparisons for Rannokc College and Christopher New-port Uniwrsity aren't good for Warner, but there just doesn't seem to be enough time for Gillespie. 10/28/14 - Vlfgiida voicrs seem to be waiting stubbornly to make up thuir minds. Cilluspiu was probably hoping for Scott Brow-n*liko mowment, but it doesn't seem to ha\a mntcrlalTacd. 10/7/14 — lite Christophef Newport poll showing a i2*point Warner lead is actually quite good for Gillespie, as it had previously shown him down by 20. litis race Ls clrariy tightening, hut there prt^tably isnl time for Gillespie to close the gap before Election Day. 9/29/14 •• There's actually been s slight tightening here, with the polls showing Warner at his lowest point in the Qcle. Rut it is far too early to suggest that this is anything other than Warner's race to losa 9/23/14 •• WithJust over 50 da)^ to go, Warner remains fully in control of this contest. If CUIespte is going to make a race of it, things need to sta rt tightening soon. -Race Preview — Unlike many Southern states, Virginia has alwayv had u vigorous Republican Party. At first it was based In tlie mountains and hUls east of the Blue Ridge, %vhcrc cliere were few bleclu and little historical support for slavery (there was an additional nncient base among bl.Tck6 that, when comhinod with westernMrginia, made Republicans competitive statewide into the late iRoos; thu was wiped out by the poll tax in 1902). They also began carrying Arlington County In the northeast as early as the ig2».s, establishing a second toehold in the soon-to-be-growing northern Virginia suburbs. The addition of the tlurd base mode Rupublleans a majority when conservative Byrd Democrats rinaiiy exited the Democratic Parly ami began wting Republican. But during the 1990s and aoocs, bill Clintonb socially moderate, nscally consenaliw mes.sage allowed him to become the first Democrat since LBJ to run even in northern Virginia. As the Dcmocrolic Parly oontinucd to embrace a relatively flseally conserx-ativc stance, the northern aiilnirbs conliiiucd to gravitate toward the Party of Jacksoti. This http://Www.realclearpolitics.eom/epolls/2014/senateA/a/vlrginla_senatejgiltesple_y3_warr.er-4255.html 1/2 11/10/2014 RealClearFolitics • Election 2014 • VIrg nia Senate - Gillespie vs. Warner trend culminated in 20u6. when former RepiiUican Gov. George Allen lost to .lim Webb, a relaiixiilyobscun: Oemoeratie oppotwot. largely on the basis of Webb's strong perfonnamr. In northern Virginia. While Allen'i fateful utterance of the word "macnca" is remembered as the incklent that beg-en his decline, in truth he wus buluw 50 percent iit the imlls before that m«nt, and Wcbh^ funilraising wos alread>' piclurig uiv Two ywars later, forintsr Gov. Mark Wnriwr, one of the original "New Dsmocrals' to win .-stai ride eir-lheOld Dominion, wvn llus Senate seat of Sen. John Warner 1^a 3i-percentag«:point margin o\-er former Gov. .lire Gilmore. Warner carved out a center-loft path in the Senate, although, like most I-einocrats, he voted for a large porzion of President Obamn's agendo in the nith Congress. Warner faces former RNC Chairman Rd Gllltspic in the general cli^nn. Oill(S[ncuinha\-e access to jdentyof moimy, but Warner tenia ns personally popular. Ilowcompe-Jtivethis rave becomes probably turns on wlietUcr the atmosphere hnprovns or net for Democrats by Rlectlon Day. RccciikCoiniiieni; Can Obama Duck Lame-Duck Syndrome/ Steve Coll. The New Yorker For Obama, No Midteim Lesson Joseph Curl. Washtngton-Tlmcs Do.n'l Govern en Fantasies ..E J. .Olonne, .Washington.Post.. Srolt Walker wins Again John McCormack, Weekly Standard Valerie Jarrctt. iho Obama Whisperer Noarn Schuibcr, The New Republic See .Ml CitniiiitoiilJ rolluip; Poll Dale Sample MoE Warner (D) Gillespie (R) Spread Final Kcnilts - - - 49.2 48.4 Warner+0.8 RCP Avcmga 10/1 • 10/29 - - 48.5 38.8 tVaimcr +9.7 ChrisiaphtTNewport Un'n.* l(W3.10/29 634 LV 3.9 51 44 WHina'+7 Kivtnokc College'* IU/20-10/25 738 LV 3.6 47 35 W;imcrM2 axis Ncws/NVTrt'unCov' 10/16-10/23 1605 LV 4.0 49 39 Wiiniec +10 Univ. ofMivy Washmgion* IU/1 • ia'6 444 I.V 5.3 47 37 Wumcr+IO Ciirisiophcr Newport Univ.* 9/29-10/5 690 LV 3.7 51 39 WuniCT+12 CDS Nws/NYT'/YniiGov*- 9/30- lO/l 1656 LV 3.0 51 39 Wanicr+12 l*l'I' CD) 9/22 - 9/23 625 LV 3.9 49 37 Warner+i2 Qiiinniphic 9/17-9/22 JOIOLV 3.1 50 41 Warner +.9 Kuanokc College* 9/13-9/19 630 T.V 3.9 49 29 Wamw + 20 Chrisuiphcr Nc*\port Univ.* 9/2 - 9/7 713 I-V 3.7 53 31 Warner+22 C»S Nmvw*NVT7Y.ii.r„iv 8/18-9/2 1635 LV 3.0 SI 39 Wiimcr+I2 Ihi.i>pton Unhnasiiy 7/27 • 7/30 804 LV 2.9 55 32 Warner+23 ens N. wji/NVTA'iiiir.nv 7/S - 7/24 I.V 3.2 53 43 Waniei+10 KoanokeCdlkgv* 7/14 - 7/19 566 RV 4.2 47 2: Wamer t-25 Ra'timisseii Rvpi>rLs 6/11-6/12 750 LV 4.0 S3 36 Warner+17 Oiiinni})ii-u;* 3/19 • 3/24 1288 KV 2.7 46 3! Wamcr + 15 KiXintikcGnllvge 2/22 - 3/28 707 RV 3.9 56 29 Warner +27 Kuimuscn Rcpom 1/20- 1/21 lOUO LV 3.0 51 37 Wamer+14 Clirlslnphvr K'cn purl Univ. 1/15-1/22 1023 RV 3.1 50 30 WiinKTi20 ktMuii-ikc CliilPgC 1/13-1/17 5.53 RV 4.2 SO 21 WBIULT+29 WKB/lhc Politni: Compaiii tR) 11/19-11/20 600 KV 4.0 51 33 Wiinicr+IR . . . _ About Us I Contact I Advertise j Privacy Pc icy s,u.\ Send Anniversary Smiles! Save 15°'^ SHOPJNOW on Romantic Flowers & Gifts http:/A«ww .realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senata/va/virglnla_senate_gillespie_vs_warner.4255.html 2/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. Braley Search bv RacerlchooiieARaee v'l Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. Braley CMiiditlsilu.s h»\v:i Snupsliol RCP.^veraKc: KrnsM2.3 KCl* RanUnjc I'os!: Up 2014 Key Raccsi.Gtn-crnui'| lA-i | LV2 | LA-3 |IA-4 PAST KEY RACES 2012: PreMidcnl | lA-i |IA-2 | TA-3 | LA-4 2010: Govcriinr| .Srnntc | lA-t |IA*2 | LV-3 200B: Vrv.sulcnt Joni Ernst (R) Brutic Braley (D) 2006: Guvunidi-1 lA-l | IA-3 Bio I (.^mpiilgn Bio i Ctmpnixn Site 2004: President | Senate | IA-3 Pull Dale Sample MuE Ernst (R) Bniiey(D) Spread Finwl Rvsulls - - - 52.2 43.7 Ei-nst +K.5 RCP Avcmgr to/27 - ll/J -• - 48.0 45.7 Knisi I-2J IM'I' i\))' il/1 -11/3 1265 LV 2.8 48 45 liiwi *3 Qumnipciu 10/28-11/2 778 LV 3.5 47 47 Tie Hcs Moines Rv^lsuv IO.*28. 10/31 701 LV 3.7 51 44 l:tn« 17 l-yX News 10/28-10/30 911 LV 3.0 45 44 l-jiisl *• 1 ft:»s-mus.scii UC|MIIU 10/28-10/30 990 I.V 3.0 48 47 l-'riisl i l CNNA)piniun Research 10/27-1(W0 647 LV 4.0 49 47 .Ml Inuit Senate - Krnst vs. lIvHlcy Pollin*; Dsila /•ATCi'v: vCviJ' BATTLE FOR THE SENATE RCP AVERAGES; GOP +7 PICK-UPS 47 Dem GOP 52 FARM FRESH LOCAL GROCERIES Order online Use code: Filtc for S20 in Iree fo:iil. ORDERNOW Kai'O .Anaty.xi.s II/3/I4 -'l1ie Qiiinniplac |»II purs a damper on the Republieun celebration folknving the Das Moines Rexistcr poll. Wo should still expect a close race, but Ernst docs have en edge. ia/28/14 •• Loras College breaks a lengthy drought for Braley, who had failed to lead in a poll In ove; a month. Loras has tended to be favorable to^«-a^d Brainy, and the poll average .still favors Ernst; we'd have to have a confirming poll to suggest the fundamental dynamic of the race has shifted. 10/17/14 ~ Ernst has trailed in only a single poll since mid-September. Her lead is narrow, houxvcr. and Braley still Itas time. JO/7/14 - Seven of the last eight polls have sliown either a tie or an Ernst lead. It's safe to say that BralQ' no longer holds a lead. In addition, one of thosa tins (the Lonis College poll) prnvioiuly iiad Rralc^- up four. Ernst probably has an edge at this point. 9/29/14 -Two polls have now shown Eraat with a substantial lead, including the well-regarded Dns Moines Register poll. There ore still a lot uf undecided voters and plenty of time on the clock, so Braley is very much still in this game. 9/23/14 — Democrats cheered wltcn Lorns College showed Braley up four poinLs, v%iule Republicans celebrated when Quinniplac found Ernst ahead by six. Rvvryone else sens a very light race, which is probably where things stand. 9/8/14 — 'lliis race remains tight, with neither candidate having led hy more than two points since early June. It goes without Rayi:ig that Lliis oue could go either way right now. —-Rftce Preview- —• loun was inhlolly one ofthe most heavily Republican states in the cnuntey. Prom 1838 until 1924, the sute had never elected a Demoernlir. senator. Until 199A, it had never .sent one to Wn.shington for tv^o full terms. But the GOP's grip on Iow3 began to weaken in the 1960s', when the state's dovish tendencies and history of support for social reform movements mov«d it tov^urd the Democrots. By 1974. it had only one Republican oongrossman: Charles Gnisalt^'. tittp://Www.realclearpolltics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/lowa_senate_ernst_vs_bratey-3990.titml 1/3 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Bection 2014 - Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. Braley Gfasslej' won I) Senate seal in 1980, defeating Sen. John Cuiwsr by a large margin; this foliowcd Roger Jeiacn's defeat of incumbent Deniocrat Dich Clark in 1978 and seemed to signal the beginning of a revival of Re|>uklican fortunes. But the ferm crisis of the 1980s reversed this trend, and (mpuiist Democrot Tom Harkin, who had been elected to the House in the AK'Dr:FEN'SE some year as Grassley, defeated Jepsen bya surprisingiy iarge Defense Impacts: A defense appropriaturfs margin. As tho state's ideologicalpositioniiig stoblliied just a hair to sent is vacated as Joni Ernst seeks to become the left of center, Harkin won reflection four times, but decided to the flrel female combat x'Oteran in the U.S. call it a career in 2014. Senate. More on this race at RualClc:irl>crciu>e Republicans searched in vain for a top^ight candidate, while Democruts settled upon Rep. Druce Bralcy. Many unab«ts concluded that Democrats would hold the smt. Rut Brale/s campaign Ivis been beset b>' gaffes, while Republicans coalesced around stale Sen. Joni Ernst. Some still fear that Ernst wont holdup to tlie rigors of a long campaign in the spotlight, but for now, this looks to be o very competitive race. Rcu;iilCuiiiii>cnV Can Obama Ducic Lame-Duck Syndrome? Steve Colt, the New Yorker ForOhnma, No iMirfterrn Lesson Joseph Curl, Washington Times Don't Govern on Fantasies EJ. Dlonnc, Washington Fost Scott Walker Wins Again John McCormack, Weekly Standard Vfllcric Jai-rctt, the Cbair.a Whisperer Noam Scheiber, The New Republic Sec All Coniiiitiu I'ollitiK Onlu roll Dare Sample MiiE Ernst (R) Braley (D) Spread Final Uesulls - - - 52.2 43.7 Enisl -i-S.S KCP Avemgc 10A7-1I/3 - - 48.0 45.7 rriisl •^2..3 PIMMIJ)- 11/1-11/3 1265 LV 2.8 48 45 h'msi -3 (;>uMinjpiac 10/28-11/2 778 r,v 3.5 47 47 Tie Oc» Moines RoaKicr 10/28-10/31 701 LV 3.7 51 44 Linsfi? l-OX Nc^^•s 10/38- 10/30 911 LV 3.0 45 44 Hnisi «1 Kn.«iuiiS!tiii Rcpoii? 10/28-10/30 990 LV 3.0 48 4.7 III (UP-1 CNNdVjpiuioii kofcarvh 10/27-10/30 647 LV 4.0 49 47 Knist '.2 YoiiOov 10/25-10/31 II12LV 4.4 42 43 Braley-H Kculcr^/lpsris 10/23-10/29 1129 LV 3.3 45 45 Tie Quiniiipisc 10/22-10/27 817 LV 3.4 49 45 l;msl Jjiras Cnlltfgc 10/21-10/24 1121 LV 2.9 44 45 Mraicy +\ NHC: Ncusilriarn-i 10/18-10A2 772 L.V 3.5 49 46 l-nisi-i3 CHS NL-WS/N'YT/Y.IIIOOV 10/16- 10/23 2322 LV 3.0 44 44 Tie OoinnipKic ID/IS-10/21 964 LV 32 48 46 ijiwi -ti USA T(>day/.SiilVolk* 10/11-10/14 SOD LV AA 47 43 pJii.'Sl Chiliinipiuc 10/8-10/13 967 LV 3.2 47 45 llm^c r: Rasnuusi-n K;iions 10/8- 10/10 957 LV 3.0 48 45 ILrnsi «-3 DCS .Moliu'S KcgrKiccUhioinbhTg 10/3-10/8 1000 LV 3.1 47 46 Itmst i 1 1 oru^ College 10/1 - 10/3 600 LV 4.0 42 42 TIC NHC WZJ-WX 778 LV 3.5 46 44 lunst) 2 CIJS .Vws.'NY l7T iuiC.ov 9/20- lO/l 2359 LV 2.0 43 44 Braley -hi VVV (D) fW5-9/28 1192 LV 2.8 45 43 12 Ucs Moines ItcsiskT* 9/21-9/24 546 LV 4.2 44 38 ->6 K:»iiiiisscn Ki.vail'i 9/17-9/18 750 LV 4.0 43 43 TIC I^CiX News 9/14 - 9/16 600 LV 4.0 41 41 Tie (jiuinnipiac 9/10-9/1S 1167 LV •2.9 50 44 limsl i-fi CNN/Opininn Kc.SLMrcli 9/8 - 9/10 608 LV 4.0 48 49 Jlraley-i] li>ras CII|JL£C 9/2 - 9/5 1200 LV 2.8 41 45 Brale>'+4 USA Today/SiilTolk* 8/23 - 8/26 500 LV 4.4 40 40 Tic ens NCWR/N VTA'OUGOV 8/18-9/2 1764 LV 3.0 42 44 (3n)k7 v2 http://lwww,realclearpolltlcs.com/epolls/2014/senate/ia/iowa_senate_ernst_vs_braley-3990,htinl 2J3 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Iowa Senate - Ernst vs. Braiey 8/22-8/24 915 LV 3:2 42 42 Tie Rd^inuissttit Rq)4!ns 8/L1-8/12 750 LV 4.0 43 43 Tic CMS NcwS:>/YTA oiiGov 7/5 - 7/24 IsV 2.7 48 47 Fmst+l NBC Ncws/Mami 7/7-7/13 1599 RV 2.5 43 • 43 'He- Qutnnipiac 6/12-6/16 1277 RV 2.7 40 44 Bralcy-H Lona College m-6/s 600 LV 4.0 48 42 linisitO' Rasmuxacn Kcpuns 6/4 - 6/5 750 LV 4.0 45 44 J-msi +l S/lS-S/19 914 RV 3.3 39 45 4/24-: 4/30 . "500 LV 4.4. 40- ... 44-- - nrali!>-.M- Sufroik 4/3-4/8 800 LV 3.5 30 38 Rrale>'i-8 Kusmiisseii RqimU 3fl4 - 3/25 750 LV 4.0 37 40 Brolcy +3 OiiiiuiipiM:- VS-3/10 1411 RV 2.6 29 42 Bnilcy+13 PI'P About Us I Cuntsct | Advertise | Privuey Policy l-i AaiilCleiirTfiliiln aaJ4 I littp;//www.realclearpolltlos.oom/6pGlls/2014/senate/ia/lcwa_senate^ernst_v8_braley-3990.litml 3/3 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Illinois Governor - Rauner vs. Quinn SMirh by Raco; i CboosQ A Race v i Illinois Governor - Rauner vs. Quinn '11)1*60-Way R CsuulLiluto.s JllinoiiiSiiapxIiol RCP Average; Quinn fO.8 RCP Ranking: Tuss Up aoi4 Key Races: Sciinie | lL-8 | rL-io |IL-u \ 11^12 | IL- 13 I IL-l- PAOT KEY RACES 2012: President | House 2010: GoiTTitor I .Senate | House Pat Quinn (D)* Bruce Rnuner (R) 2008: President j JL-iO | IL-ii Uio I Campaign Situ Blu I Cnm|«iign aSik* 20A6: riO\'ernnr | II.-A | lt.-A 2004: Hrcsidcnl | Senate PnlltnK natii Poll Date Sample M6E QuTnn(D) ' ReiiiierfR) 'Spread Final Results - -- - 45.9 S0.7 Rauner •f4.8 RCP Average 10/16-11/2 - - 45.6 44.8 Qiiinii +0.8 rpi'03) ii/i-n/2 106-1 LV 3.0 48 48 Tic i Chicsigo Sim-TlniL'S* 10/28-10/28 823 I.V 3.9 45 42 Quinn +3 i CHS Ncws/NYT/YouGiiv 10/16- 10/23 3SI9LV 3.0 45 41 Qiihtn +4 Ra.^niiLSXcn Reports laQU-10/22 lOODLV 3.0 47 48 Ksmiicr i-j Clik-agf Trlbuntf* 10/16-10/21 BOOLV 3.5 43 45 Kiniiier-13 All Illinois Gtiwrnor • Rauner vs. Quinn Pulling Data BATTLE FOR THE SENATE TO U S RCP AVERAGES: GOP +7 PICK-UPS 47 Oern GOP 52 FALL WINTER^ 2014/15 ! , /h. ib R;icc^\jiMtysis 10/28/14 — All signs hurajwint to a ckisu race, which probably isn't what Rauner wants. Me needs to make the sale to a group of Democratic voters, and so for huant done so. 10/19/14 - Rauiwr got some u-clcome news when Southern Illinois University found him with a small lead over Quinn. But thot poll had a huge number of undecided raters, and in a state like Illinois, that is probably rough news for Bauner. to/7/14 - Quirm has bounced back, and holds a lead. The state might Just be too blue for Rauner lo wliu Race Preview—-" Had you asked n pnlilical observer 30 years ago wlallwr a gownor's race in Illinois would be oonipetilive, you'd likely have received n look normally re5er\'cd for those claim to have been ebducled aliens, niinois has historically been one of the more politically eompetilira .states in the United States, and a governor's race in Illinois was supposed to be dose. But in recent )«ars it has I e surprising to hear that a Republican was competitive in this race. Ewn while. beset by allegations of ethical impropriety, Rod Blagojevich was able to winre-dection handily in 2006against the lone Republican statewide ofnceholder, and underwhelming Gov. Pat Quinn was eble to fend off a game challenge from Republican Bill Brady in 2010. This time, Quinn is receiving gcnuraily poor polls against his challenger, businessman Bruce Rauner. But Brady polled well in 20io as udl. but undvdded voters ended upbreaking overwhelmingly against him nt the end Quinn is hoping tlul Democrats once again come liome for him, big Umu. in the end. Kcccni (?iiminciilitry A- Ncivs StdrUvs Can Obama Duck Lame-Duck Syndiomc? Steve Cull, The New Yoiker For Obama, No Midtumi Lesson http://Vvww.realclearpolitlcs.com/epolls/2014/governor/il/illinols_governor_raunerjvs_quinn-4224.html 1/2 •11/10/2014 RealClearPolit'cs - Election 2014 • llllnols Governor - Rauner vs. Quinn Joseph Curi« Washington Times Oun't Govern on Kantasies E.J. Oioniie. Wasltlnglun PuSL Scott Walker Wins Again John McCormack, Weekly Standard Valeric iurreu, ine Obaina Whisperer Noam Schclber. The h'env Republic SCM: Ml Cotimieii rcHiii;; Data Poll Dale Sample MnE Qubin (D) Raiintf (R) Spread Finul Results - - - 45.9 50:7 Ruiinrr+4.K RCP Average 10716-IIA - - 45.6 44» Qiiinn +0.8 I'PPiOj 1171-11/2 1064 LV 3.(1 48 4£ Tie CTstcu[p> !>un-T1in*:.s' 10/28-10/28 823 [,V 3.9 45 4: Quinn +3 CllS Nws/NYT.'YmiOov 10/16-10.'23 3519 LV 3.0 45 4" Quinn i4 Ktviniib'svu RvpiTiL^ 10/20- 10722 1000 LV 3.0 47 4; Kauiicr+ 1 ChiKigti Trilmnc* 10/16-10/21 800 LV 3.5 43 45 Kautii.r-<'2 IlitSiriKin Pnil'SIU* 9/'23. 10/15 691 LV 3.1 41 4; R.nunLT < 1 Suii-Tinws/WivXskAincriea" lQ/8-10/8 lOSl LV 3.0 44 4. Oiiinn iv Cii-S Ncw.s.'?N Vr/VoiiClov 9/20 • 10/1 3955 LV 2.G 46 43 Qiibin f-3 Kaiinwscn Kc|»on.s 9.'24 - 0/2.5 750 LV 4.0 44 42 •Quiim +3 WcAskAincrica* 9/18-9/19 1418 LV 3.G 41 44 Rauner+3 CliicaguTitbutiu* 9/3 - 9/12 800 RV 3.5 48 3^ Quinn -H1 CUS N'cw-jfNY r/VoiKlov 8/18-9/2 4363 LV 3.C 40 41 Uflu|KV-»4 Sun-Tiincs/WcAskAmcrica m-m 1085 LV 3.1 38 51 fciiincr+l.T RU. C:ri.SN'cwsfNVTA*oiiCir.v 7/5-7/24 5298 RV ... 43 4i llnunw-il KasfluLsscn Kcpnns 4/9-4/10 750 LV 4.C 40 41 ILtunur WcAskAmcriita 1/30 - 1/30 1354 LV 2.; 39 4? Kiiiuicr 1K ITPiDl n/22 - 11/25 557 RV 4.; 41 33 Quinn i3 ...... About Us I Contnct | Advertise | Privacy s*ollcv it- Markerless Motion Capture (Si The easiest to use, most cost effective motion capture system o o hnp://\«ww.realclearpollllcs.com/epolls/2014/governor/ll/illinors_governor_rauner_\a_quinrv4224.html 2/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolltics - Election 2014 - Kansas Governor - Browntack vs. Davis Search by Race: I Choose A Race Kansas Governor - Brownback vs. Davis (.'.uulubjlc.s K:ui.«(:is5in;tpKliMl RCP Averxige: Un\i5« +2.0 RCP Ranking: IVMS Up 2U14 Key Races: Senate| KS-a | KS>s FAST KEY RACh:s— 2U»: Presidcnl 2019: (im'crnor | Senate | KS-H 2008: l^rc.s-idunt | KS-2 Paul Da\'is (D) Sam Brownback (R)' 2006: Ouvuritur Oio I Chm|>ni£n.Sile Hio I Cacnpnigii Site 2004:1'resiUunr | Senate | KS-3 | l Polling Usita Poll Date Sample MoE Davis (D) Brownback YiniCiuv* 10/2S-10/31 1137 LV 4.8 38 39 ilnxvnb'jck 11 Siir\c,vI.i.SA* 10/22 - ia'26 623 r,v 4.0 46 43 Duvu 13 4 NUC N'cwa/MHrl.vi*- 10/18-10/22 757 LV 3.6 45 44 Dnvis-i-l All Kansas Governor • Bronnhnek \-s. l)a\-is Polling Data BATTLE FOR THE SENATE RCP AVERAGES: GOP +7 PICK-UPS 47 Dem GOP 52 Kairc AnulvKis 10/28/14 - Like the Seiiate race, the polling here is a little bit all o\-cr the place. This is looking like a vTvy close battle. 10/19/14 -- 'Hie state'^ underlying partisan dynamics seem to be asscrcing themselves here, as Brownback has shot upovard in the past fewi^'ceks. The state's Senate race might c\en be hdping him hy making the race less of a referendum on him and more of a partisan affoir. 10/7/14 - Davis's lead is small, but stendy. Brownback is in real trouble. to/.i/i4 — The race has tightouKl sominvhat, and it remains an open question whether Daxia can really hold on to a lead against Brownback in a year like this one. Race Prcvicvv While Kansas has fairly consistently \oted Republican at the federal level since the end of the Great Depression, the stale has elected a number of Democratic governors. In fact, Republicans haveonly hdd the mansion for 20 of the 90.11 50 >xuirK, aiul no RcpubliciinhHS succtiudvd nnollmr Reiniblican in the state since the 1960s. In 2002. Kathleen .Sebelius was able to take advantage of a longstanding split between inodcrntc and conservative Republicans to edge into the governor^ mansioa Slie then won a large victory in 2006. Rcpuhliiuin Run. Sam Brownback succeeded her, winning b>'a large margin in 2010. But Brownback has been a controversial governor, and many of his actions have served to uiffcimc the Icnsions between conservatives and inuduratus. He starts out in a very lough position against his Democrotic opponent'. IU*c«:nt Oiininuiitsiry .Vcivs .Storic.v Can Obama Duck i.ain<3-Duck Syndrome? Steve Coll, The New Yorker For Cbama, No MIotemv Lesson Joseph Curl, Washington Times Don't Govern on Fantasies http:/Aiwvw.reaici earpolitics.com/epoils/2014/governor/ks/kansa5_governor_brownback_vs_davis-4146.htmi 1/2 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Kansas Governor - Brownback vs. Davis E.l. Oicnne, Washinyton Post Sc.otc y/Blker Wins Ayain John M'Xormack, Weekly Standard Valerie Jarrelt, *Jtc Ooama Whisperer Noam Schelbcr, The New Republic SocAll Cniiiinuiili roll Dale Sample MnE Davis (D) Urownback (K) Spread Final Results - ~ - 46.1 50.0 Biwtii)ack-»-3.9 : •. RCPA^-crage 10/18-11/3 - - 44.6 42.6 DavU +2.0 pi'Pcn)^ 11/1-11/3 963 LV 3.2 46 45 Davis +1 l'''>X NL-" -' I0/3R- laoo 907 I-V 3.0 48 42 Davis 16 ! YOuCiiiV 10/?.S-I0«I 1137 LV 4.8 38 39 nrim'iihnrk'i 1 f .Sun-o-USA' 10/22 -10/26 623 LV 4.0 46 43 L)»vis-i.^ CUS N-WS/NYT/V.JIICUM- 10/16-10/23 1973 LV AJO 40 43 Drou'ninirk +.i ; NUC Nc^\•s/^^•risl• 10/18-10/22 757 LV 3.6 45 44 Davw+I " Kasmiisscn Kqinrls 10/20-10/21 960 LV 3.0 52 45 Duvls H-7 i Kcmiii£liiii KciC'.irch tirmip (Kl" 10/9-10/12 1091 LV 3Ji 45 48 Rruwnhaok -• : PIM'iDj I0/'9-l0n2 1081 LV 3.0 45 44 Dm is +1 FOX Nws' 10/4-10/7 702 LV 3.5 40 46 |{rnwi)h:ii:k -< 6 • CNN.'Opininn Kesenrch I0/2-I0/6 687 l.V 3.5 49 49 Tic « Sun-tfVUSA" 10/2-lO/S 549 LV A3 47 42 Davis-K5 { NRCNcws/Marisr 9/27-10/1 636 LV 3.9 44 43 Davis+1 } fliS Ncvvs.'NVr/Viiiifl.iv 9/20 - 10/1 2013 LV 3X1 42 45 nrnwnhack 4 3 USATr^ljiVSulTiiIk' 9/27 - 9/30 500 LV 4.4 46 42 Davis +4 Kasmus^i) Kcptiris 9/16-9/17 750 LV 4X1 47 43 Davis 44- •s FOX NL-WS" 9/14-9/16 604 LV 4.0 45 41 Davis 4 4 PPP (1)1 9/11-9/14 1328 LV 2.7 45 39 Davis'i-O SuiAi-wUSA* 9/4 • 9/7 555 LV 4.2 47 40 DavLv +7 ; uns Ncivs-'NYT/N nuCinv 8/18-9/2 839 LV 5.0 40 47 Hro\^'^^ack +7 Siirv-cyUSA* 8/20-KA3 560 LV 4.2 48 40 Davis i-S l'l'P(D; 8.'14-8/]7 903 LV 3.3 44 39 Davis ^•5 Ka5mu«scn Kcporu 8/6-8/7 750 LV 4.0 51 41 Davis +10 CIIS Ntfivs/NY'rVYoiiOov 7/5 - 7i74 1274 RV 40 52 llrki\vnhark+1> Sim-^yUSA* 7/17-7/22 1208 LV 2,9 48 40 Davis -18 Siin^yUSA- 6/19-6/23 1068 LV 3.1•• 47 41 Davis 4 6 Kn^iniissoii Hcpoiis 4/16-4/17 750 LV 4X1 40 47 rirtiwnhnck 4 7 I'I'I'tDJ 2/18-2/20 693 RV 3.7 42 40 Davis >: 10/23-10/24 511 RV 4.4 43 39 Davis 4 4 About Us I Conlacl |Advcrttee | Privucv Policy •.Kv.iicicari'Mnkitvou Markerless Motion Capture Its The easiest to use, most cost effective motion capture system o o ht(p:/A«ww.realclearpolltics.com/epolls/2014/governor/ks/kan$as_governorJ)rownback_vs_(lavls-4146.html m 11/24/2014 RealClearPditics - Election 2014 - Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. Swafford Search by Race: IChooaa A Race Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. Swafford Note: If no oindidate receives 50 percent of the vote plus one, there will be a runoff on January 6. *lV'o-\Vay Rail:: Perdue x-s. Niinii CaiulMl.'itcK David Perdue (K) Michelle Nunn (D) Amanda Swafford (L) Kio I OimiviiftiiSiU' Hiu I Caniptusn Site Rio I Cuni|vii!sn Silo Pdllln;; llata Pall Date Sample MoE Perdue (R) Nunn (D) SwolTonl (L) Spread Final Kesulls - - - 53.0 45.1 1.9 Perdue+7,9 RCr Average 10/27-11/3 - - 47.8 44dl 3.6 Pvnluc+3.0 WSIfl V/l..Tndm«ric 11/2-11/2 1300 LV 2.5 50 46 2 iVfilue i-4 I'lTtDj I1/I-II/3 975 LV 3.1 46 45 5 J\Tduc t-l SiirvnMSA 10/30-11/2 591 LV 4.1 47 44 5 Pnduc r3 lnssiilcrAdv;inugc 1(V30- 11/2 1463 LV 2.6 48 45 3 Pwdije T.1 NDCNcus/Muiisi 10/27-10/30 603 LV 4.0 48 44 3 PLldiwtU All Gucirgiu Suunlu - Pvrdtic x'.s. Ntiini vs, Sxvafrord PolliiiK Data [!> 2014 SENATE RESULTS NET CHANGE: GOP 46 Dem GOP 53 Uiicu .AIIMI.VNIK 11/3/14 - Most signs here point to n runoff, but not all of ihem. What is someMbat surprising is that Perdue is the candidate who seems to he brushing against the runoff door, xvhile Niinn^ numbers ore in free fall. If we get to a runoff situation, Purdue^i ulculiun isn't assured, but il is likely. iO/28/14 - SurveyUSAand Landmark wvre prcxiously two of Purdue's worst polls, so there maybe some movvmcnt back toivard the Rcpublienn candidate. Of course, the question is still whether cither candidate can get to 50 percent plus one, somctlung none of the polls are suggesting. 10/17/14 -* This is one of the few races in the country to break heaxily towurd Democrats. Perdue certainly hasn^ helped himself with his comments about outsourcing, especially in rural Georgia. The question here is whether Obama's job approval ultimately acta as an ancltor on Nuim, and more importantly, whether she can get lo the 50 jiercent needed to avoid a runoff. in/7/14 - Perdue iiinintnhu a lead, but commenis he nisda about outsourcing may change the dynsimics of this race. Stay tuned... 9/23/14 - The race is moving away from Nunn, as people tune In and Georgia reverts to its fundamentals. Even Lindmark, which has .steadily shown n Nunn advantage, finds voters moving toward Perdue. 9/7/14 " Recent polls show a lighlenhig in this race, but Nunn's challenge is newrtheltsis findiitg a coalition In Georgia to get up around 50 percent. -Rnce Preview In zooa, Georgia snapped. The state had been among the last in the South to cling to its Demoeratie roots: Bill Clinton cartiod Georgia in 1992, and a coalition of African-Americans and rural whites had kept the Democrats in control of the goxvrnor's mansion, the Icglsbturc and even 0 Senate scat All of that changed in 2002, as rural whites revolted, throwing out the Democratic governor, senator, ond (two years later) the legislative. Two yuars later. Republican http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll8/2014/senate/ga/georgia_senate_perdue_vs.nunn_vsjswafrord-5253.html 1/3 11/24/2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn vs. Swafford Johnny Isnkson roiled to a 58 iwrvenHo porcunt win o\ve CunsrcsswDmanDeiiise MajeUe. Demiicrats enjoyed n reasonably dose race in the aoo6 general election, but Cell Itadly short in the nu^off necessitated whenneithei- Savby diambliss nor Jim Martin toppud 50 percent. Democrats arc excited about Michelle Niinn's chances of ending the party^ i4-)«ar dr>' spell in the Senate, and changing dcmographica may ind(!iid hdp the parly of Jackson regain its footing here. But this Dcfcnac Impacts: A political neophyte is still a Republican state, and ewsn with massive black turnout in battles the daughter of a former Sennto UOO8, nemocrnts couldnt put the Senate seat away. Iliis rare starts Armed Serxiccs Committee chairmanin one of out cJiise, with Nunn and Perdue trading leads in the polls, but giwn the most defcnscJuAvystates. the eovironmeitt and the Republican lean of the statu,Perdue More an this race at RcalClHiirOcfcnse ^ ^ probably starts wilh'antxlge. A Natl in the Cofrin of "Team of Rivals'" Thecfy Chris Ctlllcza, Wash Post The Auaaclty or* John Podosu ' Ben Geman, National Journal An^erica, You've Been Gru'jeredl Kurt SctMlchtcr, Townhall Obama Keiohtens the Contradictions C'J. Diuiinc, Washington Post A Small Man In a Big Olfice ENERGIZEIYOUR.WORKOUTM^ Kevin Wiliiamson. National Review aUIETC0MF.0RTiZSi^m^em3a& See All C<»iiini*nl yEADPMONESimit^^^^cMH^ LEARN M0RET>^ rolling Uiiln 1 1 3 Poll Dale Sample MoE Perdue (R) Niiiiii (D) Spread Final Kesnits - - - 53.0 4S.1 1.9 Perdue +7.9 RCr Average 10/27-11/3 - - 47.8 44.8 3.6 Pcrdur+.t.O W,S0-n'-1.;uidiii.irk 11/2-11/2 I.i00 LV 2.5 50 46 2 l'tf.'duc+4 PPP/IJ) 11/I-I1/3 975 I.V 3.1 46 45 5 Porduu +1 Survx-jUSA ia'30- 11/2 591 LV 4.1 47 44 5 Poniuc *-3 lnth)i-cAi{\'»in(igc 10/30- 11/2 1463 LV 2.6 48 45 3 Perdue-+3 NUC Ncws/Miifisl 10/27-10/30 603 LV 4.0 48 44 3 I'ciduf i4 WSB-'fV/Unilmsri: 10/29- 10/29 ISOD LV 2.5 47 47 3 Tic Ycmtiov 10/25-10/31 1743 LV 3J 44 42 I Perdue-12 .SuAxyUSA 10/24-10^7 6J1 LV 4.0 48 45 3 Perdue 13 .Alionia Jouiniil-Comiitiiiiuji 10/16-10/23 1170 I.V 3.6 44 42 6 Perdue-r2 CHS Nmvs.^NYTrYoiiG.jv 10/16-10/23 1774 I.V 4.0 47 44 I Perdue+3 lasidiTAdvamugc 10/21 • 10/22 704 LV 3.7 45 47 4 Nunn +2 WSI.t-rvVLandinn.'k 10/20 r 10/21 1000 LV 2.8 47 47 3 •ne CN.M'Opiiiiuii RtiSiUirh 10/19- IIW2 565 LV 4.0 44 47 S Niiiin +3 SllAcyUSA 10/17- 10/20 606 LV 4.1 44 46 4 Nunii +2 WRBI .^l.DdgiT-Knqiiirw.VM B 10/13-10/14 1543 IV 2.5 45 46 6 Niinii +1 SUAX7USA 10/10- 10/13 563 LV 42 45 48 3 Niinn +3 WSH-IV/Uiinlnurk 10/7-1a« 1000 LV 3.1 46 46 4 Tic Sun-ayU.SA 10/2- IQ/6 566 I.V 4.2 46 45 3 Peiduc+i riM' (D) l(V2-10/5 895 LV 3J 45 43 5 l'vrJuu+2 irucidCTAdvanugc 0/29-10/1 947 LV 3.2 47 43 4 Peiituc t-4 CBS NcwjyNVTVYtiuCftv 9/20-10/1 1851 I.V 3.0 47 43 2 Penliic f'l SUACXI.'SA 9/19-9/22 550 I.V 4..1 46 45 4 Perdue -t 1 h\siderAdv.-utiagc 9/10 - 9/11 1167 I.V 2.9 50 40 5 Perdue+10 WSn-rv/UnOniari: 9/9 - 9/11 I109LV 2.9 43 46 6 Nunn >-3 Alkuiia Jiniiniil-Consiituilon 9/8 - 9/11 884 LV 4.0 45 41 6 Perdue+4 .SUAX7USA 9/S - 9/8 558 I.V 4.2 47 44 5 Perdue 4 3 CHS NfWB/NYrA'ouGov 8/18-9/2 1900 I.V 3.0 47 41 3 Perdue+6 WKHLfl.tfJgcr-1'Jiiiuircr/l'MD 8/24 - 8/25 1578 LV 2.5 4.1 45 7 Nunn 1-2 WSIM'V/LanJinark 8/20-8/21 600 LV 4.0 40 47 3 Nunn +7 .SurwyUSA 8/14-8/'! 7 560 LV 4.2 .50 41 3 Pcidue-f9 InsidcrAdviuilapu 8/12-8/13 719 LV 3.7 47 40 8 Pet due+7 hHp:/Aiiiww.realclearpblllics.cotti/epolls/201'l/senatE/g(i/georgia_senatej:erdiMjifS_hunn^ys_swaffwd-5253.html 2/3 RealClearPolitlcs • Election 2014 - Georgia Senate- Perdue vs. Nunn vs. Swafford WSil-'IV;i.-uiiini!irl; 7/25 - 7/23 750 LV 3.K 47 4' Nuhil-!-! aa-.m 955 ny 3.2 43. n. 6 iTfjim-rS Abuui Ui I Caiiiad: I Aili/citisa |rrivacv Palic-/ ii .....J •vve^iiiiUnlpn.pqrTi:' $0 fee* online,tb thb Philippines •yvto'seiit baniirli^lank 1 litlp:/Awww.realclearpolltlcs.com/epolls/2P14y0enale/ga/georgia_8enatB_perdue_vs_nunn_vs_swanbrd-5253.titml 313 11/10/2014 RealClearPolilics - ElecUon 2014 - N.C. Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan vs. Haugh .Search by Race:I Choose A Race a I N.C. Senate - Tillis vs. Hagan vs. Haugh KayHag&n(D)' Thom Tinis(R) Sean Maugh (L) Uio I Campaign Sili: Kid I CaimpHlgii Silft Kid I Caani|»ign Sila Poll Date Sample MoE Hagan (D) Tllib(R) Haugh Kaci: An:i)y.s'ls 11/3/14 ~ Both parties are claiming early voting '.vas good fur them, whichis coioulenl with the ootrall take on the race: It is close. 10/28/14 " Hagan'i lead continues lo trickle away. But withonly a w^•uk to go until Election Day, .she may wll be able to run out the clock. 10/17/14 -'lillis has clearly narrowed the gap here,now that the Republicaned blitz is underway. Well have tn wait for mure polling to determine wlic.'lher he has the lead or not. 9/23/14 •• The Democratic ad blitz has clearly taken Its toll on Tillis, although 1lagan has seenonly a modest iniproveiiieni In her numbers and remains stuck at around 45 percent. Still, Tillis has some major image repair to do if he wants to win this race. 9/8/14 •• Tills race lias been remarkably stable. Tlie only real wild card is Liberteriun candidate Sean Maugh, whu ha.s polled wall and pcdod off more ballots from Tillis than from Hagan. Third parties tend to fade down the stretch (except when they don't), so we'd expect things to tilt back Tillis' %vay. But we really haw no way of knowing for sure. "Kttce I Throughout its history, North Cirolina has always had a stibslantial Republican presence in the northwest 11 aln area. The Democratic Party was split betweenprogressives and conservatives, and as the national Democratic Party mowid leftward, it created an opportunity for Republicans to fuse the more conservBlive Democrats with the Republican rump and crealea majority. Jesse ilelins was the first Republican to succeed inbringing those coiuervntives into the GOP while, at the same time, northerners .RPj\LCLE.AR!DEFEN: hltp:/A«ww .realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/hc/north_carolina_senate_tillis_vs_hagan_vs_haugh-5136.html 1/3 11/10/2014 RealClearPolitlcs - Election 2014 - N.C. Senate - Tlllis vs. Hagan vs. Haugti flocking to the Rtweareh TViangle Park brought an even more Defense Impacts: An Incumbent Democrat pronounced RepubUcaii bent to the state. For a while it looked Kke on the Senate Armed Services Committee North Carolina \%ould become a solidly rod state. seeks to defend her seat in a state with e large military population. But this didnt happen, as moderate governors like Jim Hunt and More on this race at lU'elClcarDcfensu Mike Easley kept some of the conservative DcmocrntR in the fold, whilcsuburbanites nroiind RTF drifted toward the Democratic Forty. In aooa, Elizabeth Doli: sucuusafully held Helms' seat ngainst Democrat Erskine Bowles. Dole was fairly quiet in the Senate, and drew tvhat was thought to be s fairly mediocre opponent in state Sen. Kay Hognn. Dole lod Hagan liandily for much of 2008, often breaking su percent In the polls. But Hogan pulled close nftcr the Democratic convention, and then broke the race open after tho financial collapse. Sheled the Democratic ticket in the state, running ahead of both Barack Obama and gubernatorial candidate Bcv Perdue. Hagan herself has had a reasonably unewmtful term. She faces two basic cliallenges. First, she has mostly backed the national Democratic agenda, and second, she cant rely upon the surge in African-American turnout that accompanied Obania's run for office and helped to propel her across the finish line. Democrats attempted to maiupulate the • KepuUiean primary 10 Increase the chances the GOP would dect a candidate who HBUW Implodn bot w>li!r.9 nomiiiated 1 Iniisc Speaker Thom TiJiis. He is the face of an unpopular legislature, but neither Obama nor Hagan is particularly pnpuliir in ihu state either. Pulls show a tight race, but Hngan is below 45 percent, and is In deep t rotiblo. KucctiCOniniicnlJ 4 Can Obamn Ouch Lnmc-Ouck Syndrome? Steve Coll, The Nev; Yorker 4 For Obama, No ,xtd»crrri Lesson Joseph Curl, Washington Times 4 Don't Govern on Fanrasles New Creative Cloud EJ. Oionne, Washliyjton Piist Photography plan. « Scott Walker Wins Again John McCormack, Weekly- Siandam All-new r-'hotosiiop CC pins Lightrourn * Valerie Jarrett, the Obama Whispe^^^ deektoD and mobile. Jus: -^;$p.59/mo. Noam Schelber, The New Republic SuL- /VII Cnnimcntil I'olliliK'DHtil Poll Date Sample MoE Hogan (D) Tillis (R) Haugh (L) Spread FIIIHI Rexulls - - - 47.3 49.0 3.7 Tmis+1.7 RCP Average 10/19-11/3 - - 44.1 43.4 4.9 Hagan +0.7 PPPilJ) U/l-ll/3 1333 LV 2.7 46 44 5 Hagan ••••2 Cii-iiM (Kl 10/29-10/30 600 LV 4.0 41 41 6 lie l-O.V News IQ;-28-10/30 909 LV 3.0 43 42 4 llag.an*! 1 llailtci'fR) 10/28-1000 511 LV 4J. 44 46 6 Tillis CNN/f)plniiMi Kcsctirch 10/27- 10/30 559 LV 4.0 48 46 4 ll:\gan^2 YtitiOov IQ/2S-10/31 1727 LV 3.0 44 41 2 llag.in <3 Nigh I'ohiVSui^'cyUSA 10/21-10/25 802 LV 3.5 44 44 5 Tic NIK; Ni;w.s.-'MiirLsi 10/19-10/23 756 LV 3.6 43 43 7 Tic CHS iW-ws-ZNY LTYciiiOov 10/16-10/23 1910 LV 4.0 44 4! 2 Hagnn '<-3 .Siir^-^yliSA 10/16-10/20 568 LV 4.2 46 43 6 i lagan -HJ rvv(Ul 10/16-10/18 780 LV 3.5 46 43 5 Il3gan-f3 Civiuu (Kl 10/15- 10/18 600 RV 4.0 4] 42 6 Tillis >i Surv'c> li'.SA 10/9-10/12 554 LV 4.3 44 41 7 Hagan +3 lllgli Pntiil 9/30- 10/9 584 LV 4.1 40 40 7 Tic LISA loJ:i)7-Sullb!k 10/4-10/7 500 LV 4.4 47 45 4 llngtin \T.tC NcWs/MiiriM 9/27 - 10/1 665 I.V 3.8 44 40 7 Hagnn -r4 ens Ncws.'NV IVYoiiC.iiv 9/20-10/1 2002 LV 3.0 46 45 2- Hagiui-)-! Civilus fRl 9/25-9/28 600 RV 4i) 46 41 4 Hagan-15 CNN/iO|i(iiiiin Kctcjrch 9/22 - 9/25 595 LV 4.0 46 43 7 flagiui H IJittli Poini 9/13-9/18 410 LV 5.0 42 40 6 fltigun -r^ l-tJX News 9/14-9/16 605 LV 4.0 41 36 6 Hagan ->-5 ri'l* (DJ 9/M-9/I4 1266 LV 2.8 44 40 5 Hngan f4 SiinxYUSAJGiviiiw ilo 9/9-9/10 490 LV 4.5 46 43 5 Hagan i-3 Ainciluii In.tigItU (Kl 9/5-9/10 459 LV 4.6 46 36 6 Hagan+ 10 CTW Now«.^Y Viymtiov 8/18-9/2 2059 LV 3.0 42 43 S nilis i tJSA ri.Uay/.SijlTf.lk 8/16-8/19 500 LV 4.4 45 43 5 i-1iig.ui -12 httpi/AvViiw.realcl earpolillcs.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/north_carolina_s8nate_tillls_vs_hagan_vs_haiigh-5136.html 2/3 A1/1CV2014 RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - N.C. Senate - Tillls vs. Hagan vs. Haugh IMM* (Pj 8/14-8/17 865 LV 3.4 42 38 8 lIngan+4 CivtLis (R) 7/28-7/29 600 RV 4.0 42 41 8 l-lason->-) ITIMD) 7/17 - 7/20 1062 RV 3.0 41 34 8 IJiigui-^7 CxvMxi (K) 6'18-6/22 600RV 4.0 44 37 10 Migm+l VVf {D^ 6/12-6/15 1076KV 3.0 39 34 II Ilagaii ^5 Civitiv: (H) 5/10-5/22 600RV 4.0 37 41 10 •|illis+4 IMM' (D) 5A;.5/1I 877 RV 3.3 38 36 II Hagan »3 About Us jCorit.ict lAdvertisR j PrivMcy Policy The new Adobe Creative Cloud M Photography plan. I r:'.',Phpic-J-,Qp CCpl.L I htlp;//Www .realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/nc/nortli_caralina_5enateJlllls_vsJiagan_vs_haugh-5136.html 3/3 5 0 I Esdiibit D 11/24/2014 The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrals | FIveThlrlyBght 2014 MIOTEnMSl 9:08 AM I NOV 5. 2014 The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats By NATE SILVER For much of this election c}'cle, Democrats coni|)lained the polls were biased against them. T'hey said the polls were failing to represent enough minority voters and applying overly restrictive likely-voter .screens. They claimed early- voting data ivas proving the polls wrong. They cited the fact that polls were biased against Democrats in 2012. The Democrats' complaints may have been more sophisticated-seeming than the "skewed polls" arguments made by Republicans in 2012. But in the end, they were just as wrong. The polls did have a strong bias this year — but it was toward Democrats and not against them. Based on results as reported through early Wednesday morning - Til detail our method for calculating this in a moment — the average Senate poll conducted in the final three weeks of this year's campaign overestimated the Democrat's performance by 4 percentage points. The average gubernatorial poll was nearly as bad, overestimating the Democr at's performance by 3.4 points. Tlie problem with Democrats' claims is that they were one-sided. I don't mean Partisan Bias In Senate that in the typical false equivalence way. I mean that they were ignoring some Polls important empirical evidence. Average statistical bias in polls conducted in final 21 days of This evidence suggests that polling bias has been largely unpredictable from campaign, 1990-2014 election to election. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the polling was biased against Democrats in 1998, 2006 and 2012. However, just as certainly, it was YEAR AVERAGE BIAS biased against Republicans in 1994, 2002 and now 2014. It can be dangerous 1990 D+1.0 to apply the "lessons" from one election cyde to the next one. 1992 D+1.1 1994 D+3.1 Our estimates of polling bias arc evaluated in the same way we've assessed 1996 R+0.2 theiii in the picst. They rely on a simple average of all polls' released in tlie 1998 R+4.g final three weeks of the campaign. Bias is calculated as the difference between 2000 R+2.1 the polled margin and the actual result. (For instance, a poll that projects the 2002 0 + 4.0 Democrat to win by 7 points when she actually wins by just 3 has a 4-point 2004 0+0.2 Democratic bias.) Wc exclude races in which one of the top two finishers was 2006 R+2.7 an independent candidate. 2008 0+0.2 2010 R+0.9 We'll publish 2014 data in full soon^ but here are the preliminary results — 2012 R+3.4 first, for this year's Senate polls: 2014 0 + 4.0 ^ FlVErHIRWEICHT htlp^/fjvethlrtyelght.com/features/the-polis-were-skewed-toward-democrats/ 1/5 11/24/2014 The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats | FiveThirty0ghi Senate Polls Had A Democratic Bias NUMBER OF POLL ACTUAL STATE POLLS AVERAGE RESULT* BIAS Colorado 21 R +1.8 R+5.0 D +3.2 North Carolina 21 D +0.5 R+1.7 D +2.2 Georgia 20 R +1.5 R+7.9 D +6.4 Iowa 18 R +1.6 R+8.5 D +7.0 New Hampshire 16 D+2.0 D+3.2 ' R +1.2 ~D~+12:6 ~ D"+"13:3'" "'R'+"0;7 1 Michigan 11 5 Louisiana (primary) 10 D +4.7 D +1.1 D+3.6 Arkansas 9 R +4.7 R +17.0 D +12.3 Kentucky 8 R +6.6 R +15.5 D +8.9 Alaska 7 D +0.5 R +4.1 D+4.6 South Dakota 7 R +14.1 R +21.8 D +7.7 I Maine R +29.1 R +36.4 D +7.3 Illinois 4 D +11.5 D +10.0 D+1.5 Massachusetts 4 D +18.3 D +24.2 R +6.0 Minnesota 4 D +11.3 DVI6.3 D +6.9 New Jersey 4 D +16.5 D+14.0 D+2.5 Oregon 4 D+18.3 D +16.5 D+1.8 Virginia 4 D +8.5 D+0.6 D+7.9 New Mexico 3 D+9.0 D +10.8 R+1.8 Tennessee 3 R +17.7 R +30.0 D +12.3 Hawaii (special) 2 D +39.0 D +42.3 R +3.3 Montana 2 R +16.0 R +28.3 D +12.3 Oklahoma 2 R +35.5 R +39.5 D+4.1 Oklahoma (special) 2 R +32.7 R +38.9 D +6.3 South Carolina 2 R +17.5 R +15.6 R +1.9 South Carolina (special) 2 R+28.0 R +24.1 R +3.9 Texas 2 R +24.0 R +27.3 D+3.3 Delaware 1 D +18.0 D +13.6 D +4.4 Idaho 1 R +31.0 R +32.2 D +1.2 htlp://(ivethirtyelght.com/fealures/lhe-polls-were-skewed-foward-democrals/ 2/5 11/24/2014 The Polls Were SkewedToward Democrats | FIveThirtyEight Mississippi R +22.0 R +20.4 R +1.6 Nebraska R +29.0 R +33.7 D +4.7 Rhode Island D +45.0 D +41.0 D+4.0 West Virginia R +22.0 R +27.6 D+5.6 Wvnminn _ _ P.+210,0 FU-.54J_..-..-D.+14.7- Weighted Average R+1.0 R+5.0 D+4.0 *>4s of 5 a.m., Nov. 5,2014 U FiyETHIRTYEIGHT As you can see, the polls were biased toward the Democratic candidate in almost all hey races. They were fortunate to have "called" the winner correctly in certain cases; Some of the worst misses came in states like Kentucky and Arkansas where the Republican won, but by a considerably larger margin than polls projected. There was also a near-disaster in 4 Virginia. It looks like Democratic incumbent Mark Warner will pull out the race, but the polls had him up by 9 points I rather than being headed for a photo finish.3 Meanwhile, the average bias in gubernatorial polls was 3.4 points in favor of Democrats. Governor Polls Had A Democratic Bias NUMBER OF POLL ACTUAL STATE POLLS AVERAGE RESULT* BIAS Georgia 19 R +3.4 R +8.0 D +4.6 Florida 18 D +0.0 R +1.2 D +1.2 Colorado 17 D+0.7 D+0.5 D +0.2 New Hampshire 14 D +6.4 D+5.2 D+1.2 Iowa 13 R +17.9 R +21.8 D+3.9 Massachusetts 13 R+2.6 R+1.7 R +0.9 Michigan 12 R +1.9 R +4.1 D +2.3 Kansas 10 D+2.8 R +3.8 D+6.6 Arkansas 9 R +4.9 R +13.9 D+9.0 Illinois 8 D+0.3 R+4.8 D+5.1 Connecticut 7 R +0.1 D+1.7 R +1.8 Maine 7 R +1.2 R +3.9 D+2.7 Wisconsin 7 R +1.6 R+5.7 D+4.1 Pennsylvania 6 b+9.7~ D+9.8 "R +ai Cajifprni_a_ 5. -D+1_8.4 D.+17.0 D+1.4 http://flvethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-ske\.ved-toward-democrats/ 3/5 11/24/2014 The Polls Were Skewed Toward Democrats | FiveThirtyElght South Dakota 5 R +32.0 R +45.3 0 +13.3 Arizona 4 R +7.3 R +12.4 D +5.2 Maryland 4 D+2.8 R +9.0 D +11.8 Minnesota 4 D+7.8 D +5.6 D+2.2 New York 4 D +23.3 D +13.4 D +9.9 Oregon 4 D +9.0 D+2.9 D +6.1 Hawaii 3 D +16.7 D+12.9 D+3.8 New Mexico 3 R+15.3 R +14.6 R +0.7 Ohio- — .3... R +20;7—— R-+30;9-—D-+10.-2 Rhode Island 3 D +5.7 D +3.9 D +1.8 South Carolina 3 R +14.3 R +14.6 D +0.3 Alabama 2 "R+29.7 R +27.2 R +2.5 Idaho 2 R +15.0 R +17.1 D+2.1 Oklahoma 2 R +16.2 R +14.8 R+1.4 Tennessee 2 R +30.5 R +47.4 D +16.9 Texas 2 R +18.0 R +20.4 D+2.4 Nebraska 1 R +20.0 R +18.7 R+1.3 Nevada 1 R +25.0 R +46.5 D +21.5 Vermont 1 D +12.0 D +1.4 D +10.6 Wyoming 1 R +25.0 R +33.6 D+8.6 Weighted Average R+2.4 R+5.8 D+3.4 *As of 5 a.m.. Nov. 5.2014 FIUETHIRTYEIGHT In the governor's races there were a higher number of missed "calls" — including in Illinois and Kansas and especially in Maryland, where Republican Larry Hogan wound up winning by g percentage points despite trailing in every nonpartisan pull released all year. Tliis type of error is not unprecedented — instead it's rather common. As I mentioned, a similar error occurred in 1994, 1998,2002, 2006 and 2012. It's been about as likely as not, historically. That the polls had relatively little bias in a number of recent election yeare — including 2004,2008 and 2010 — may have lulled some analysts into a false sense of security about the polls. Interestingly, this year's polls were not especially inaccurate. Between gubernatorial and Senate races, the average poll missed the final result by an average of about 5 percentage points — well in line with the recent average. The problem is that almost all of the misses were in the same direction. Tliat reduces the benefit of aggregating or averaging different polls together. It's crucially important for psephologists to recognize that the error in polls is often correlated. It's correlated both within states (literally every nonpartisan poll called the Maryland governor's race wrong, for example) http;//fi vethirtyeight.com/features/the-poll5-were-skewed-toward-dem corals/ 4/5 11/24/2014 The Polls Were Sknved Taward Derhocrals | FIvelhirtyElght and amongst them (misses often do come in the same direction in most or all close races across the country). This is something we've studied a lot in constructing tlie FiveTliirtyliight liiodel, and it's something we'll take another look at before 2016. It may be that pollster "herding" — the tendency of polls to mirror one another's results rather than being independent — has become a more pronounced problem. Polling aggregators, including FiveThiityEight, may be contributing to it. A fly-by-night pollster using a dubious methodology can look up the FiveThirtyRight or Upshot or UuflPost Pollster or Real Clear Politics polling consensus and tweak their assumptions so as to match it — hut sometimes the polling consensus is wrong. It's equally important for polling analysts to recognize that this bias can just as easily run in either direction. It probably isn't predictable ahead of time. To the extent polling bias is predictable, it may call for a.ssessing nonpolling factors — the so-called "fundamentals" — along with the polls in each race. One simple factor is the overall partisan.ship of a state as measured by its past voting history. In the past. Republicans have tended In outperform their polls in. red states while Democrats have done so in blue slates. 5 Many of the key races were iieiri in red states this year. That won't be true in 2016, and we'll undoubtedly see some pollsters and polling aggregators draw the wTong lessons from 2014. Hie polls may be biased again in 2016: wo just won't know much about the direction of it until votes have been cast and counted. CORRECTION (Nov. 5, 2:5a p.in.): An earlier version of this article mi.sstatcd how much the average gubernatorial poll overestimated the Democrat's performance. It was 3.4 points, not 4 points. 3 FOOTNOTES HLKII UNDKIl lUit MI1>'1'I!K.MS. 1DI4 SSN.ME SLSCTIUNS. rOLl. HIAS. I'OI.Ll.NC ACCllllACY. POLI.IKC INDUSTRY IIAIC SIIVED ' y OniLcsiiuei53B gS Nats SINer is the founder and editor in chief of FIveTtiirtyEighl. COMMENTS Add Coniment MODE HlltE SILVER IICI'.E ECU HICIERMS SORE rULIIICS FivcTliirtyEiglit's College Football Playoff Forecascaov Can Alabama Afford To Lose?Nov 20 I-Icrc's Proof .Some Pollsters Are Pulling A Thumb-On The .ScaleNov u The NFf, Should Expand To London. Bur First: Canada, Mexico And UA.NOv 11 ALL NAtc SILVER http://fivethirtyeighLcom/features/the-pclls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/ 5/5 Exhibit E ^ i 11/24/2014 2014 ElecUon Results Senate: Map l)y State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO UpdBted: EH Sciuicii: 7233 Sliaiei 4>e5 Sham IDS Slkum 2014 Senate Election Results Democraeic Republican Net •«. Gained O.Losie Neiia,GiiirtR DcmocroiicWin Republican Wtn Other Party Win Partial Results No Results NoElccUon Special Senate Elections Senate Election Results by State Filter Options Jump lo State,.. Alabama Sonata Election, r 17 4,2014 I ' K J. Sea.lon. (1) Unconlealad http://\«ww.politlco.com/2014-election/resulls/map/senate/#.VHNnpfhF8b2 1/6 11/242014 2014 Eleclion Results Senate: Map by State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO (Ij InctiRiboni. * Runoff Alaska J Sonato Election, November A. 2014 ' ft 0. SulHvan 118.579 0 M. Boeleh (!) 45.6% 111.688 i t M. Fifth 3.7% 9.028 N T. Olanoutaea 1:6% 4.725 (I) Ineumbenl, * Runoff Arkansas Senato Eloctloii; Novjmber/I; Z0'14' •1 *T. Ceileii 56.5% 478.309 ; » M. Ptyor 0) 36.5% 332^68 1- N. LaPnineo 2.0% 17.103 ; ft M.'Swaiioy 2.0% 18.717 (i) Inctimbonl, * Runoff Colorado Senate EleelionrNovembar«. 2014 } S " C..Gaiiilnoi 48.5% 866.97«; 0 'M...Udoll (1) 46.0% 915J4;5; i; '6.Koni 2.0% •31,225 u'S.''Sh6pon •1.4%' 30004 ' 33.543- •' R.'Aeosu i:2^ J u B. Hammons 0.3% c.3ir Delaware Sonnio Elocllon,.Novo'inbi!r4,2.014' i> C. Caons;(l) 65.8% 130^5 K'HWOHO 42.2% 0B.81B o A. GrsK 1.9% 4.580 (4 bisumbenl ''Rimeff Georgia ; ; Senate E!octlon,:Nevemiw8r 4,2014-- i ft D. Perdue 53.0% U5S.393 I DM.Nunn 45.1% 1.164.588 < t A. Swafford 1.9% 48,930 ' <4 Ineumftoni, * Runoff http:/A«fww.pollticc.com/2014-elecUoiViesults/map/8enateAr.\/HNnpfnF8b2 216 11/242014 2014 Bection R^ults Senate; Map liy State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO Hawaii Special Senate Election. November e. 2014— : 0. e.Scliatz(l) 69.6% 2*6.720 •' A C. Cavasso 27.7% 97.972 j L M.KokoakI 2.5% 9.93B 0) tncuinteni • Runoff Idaho '.sbnato ElQClion.-Novomber 4; 2014 A J. Rlach 0 N. Mltehatl 34.7% 151^7 (0 Ineumbonl * Runoff Illinois Sonato Election, November 4.2014- 6«U t* D..Dufbln ||). Sli%- >.859.802 K J. Oborwols 43:i%' 1.303:942 I. S. Hanson 3:8% i?o.7a2 (i) Ineumbonl. * Runoff Iowa { ; .Senate Election, November 4; 2014 ; -n J. Ernst 52.2% 588,921 . bB..Bfal6y. 43.7% 491,708 i ' R..Stowart 2.4% 28,882 • L D.Bubior 0.7% 8.315 ! 0 B. Qiiaat 0.5% 5,928 . > R.Sbillh 0.4% 4.711 (1) liicufflboni.' Runoff Kansas Sonato Elbctlon. Nuvcmbtif 4,2014 , R P. Reboita (I) 53.3% 449.974 • ' O. Orman 42.5% 3S8.898 I -! L R. Bataon 4.3% 36,002 * (i) IncumscnL ' Runoff Kentucky Sanato Eloctlon.- ir4 9 http.7AArww.polltlco.com/2014-elecii on/results/inapisenateAit.VHNnpfhF8t)2 316 11/24/2014 2014 Election Results Senate: Map by State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO ; « M.MeConnall(l) 66.2K 809.795 : 0 A. Grfmos 40.7% 884fi99 L D. Pattervon 3.1% 44.240 ^ (I) biEUmbBfiL * Runofl Louisiana Senate-Election, t r'<. Join 0 • M. Loridrlou'{l) 42.1% 618,840 a 'B.Caosldy 41.0% 602.439 R R.-Mano95- 13.8% 202^13 •«T.CIpnitoniB 1.0% 14.158 8. McMonIs 0.0% 19.024 : 0 W. Ablaa 0.8% luie B W. Waymira 0.3% 4.609 } C) u V. Sonogal 0.3% 3A31 (i) Incumhenl. • Runoff :• Maine ; Senate Election. Nqvorabar 4.20i4 R S. Colilna (1) 68.4% 411.211 D S. Bollewa 31.6% 189^53 1} Ineivnawii, * Rimoff Massachusetts i Sona'tp Eloctipn, November4,--2014- 0 E. Markoy (I) 82.0% 1.280.738 I , R B. Horr 38.0% 789.378 0) ineumtMnl. * Runoir Michigan Senate Election, Novembar4r20l4 0 0. Patera 54.6% 1.603.781 n T. Land 41.4% 1.2B3A60 ' L J. Fulnor 2.0% 62.504 : u R. Matkin 1.2% 37.165 e C. Wahmhoff 0.8% 26.040 ' (i) Incumbent.' Runoff Minnesota Senate Election; Novamber 4.2014 ** . 0 A. Fnnkon (I) 53.2% 1.053.794 http://Www.polftico.com/2014-election/iresult8/hiap/senate^.VHNnpfhF8b2 4/6 11/24/2014 2014 aection Results Senate: Mapby State. Uve Midterm VoUng Updates - POLITICO . K M. MCHadden I S;Car|8on 2.4% 47.WM t j I H. Johnson 1.5% 29AW . (I) hiMtntonl. * Runoil Mississippi • Sbnato.Electibn. r:joyemh6r.<-. 20l4 • i R T. Cochran (|) BO.4% 37020B . DT.ChlldBia 37.4% 228.074 * R S. (THara 2.2% 13.8M (I) IncumbenL * Runoir i ' Montana 1 , Senate.Electiorf, November 4.2014 ft 8. Dalnea 57.9% 210.863 4 0 A. Curtis 40.0% 14&A01 L R. Roots 2.1% 7.T12 (i) Incumbent. • HunM Nebraska R B. Sasso 64.8% 339.868 •D D. Oomlna 31.1% 163.674 R J.Jsnklns 3.0% 18.513 p T.Watson 1.2% 6.114 . (i) Incuf^nl * Runoit New'Hampshire . Senate Election; November 4,-2014- ' ° J. Shahoon(i) 51.ew JSO.nt > S. Brown 48.4« t34J , (1) Incumtienl • Runoif New Jersey . SenatejElec'tloh, (eoovtiibat-e, 2014- i< .C.^Bookor(i)' 55.5% 1J)16.204 p'.J.e.qH 42.4% 772.991 • JeBnialflill 0.9% 18.304 ! .H. Schrooder 0.3% 5A19 < J. Boss 0.2% 4.405 f E. LaVargno 0.2% 3,760 http://www.polltl(».com/2014-electlon/results/map/^enate/#.VHNripfhF8b2 SIS 11/242014 2014 Election Results Senate: Map by State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO , • A.Sabas 0.2% 3.422 (H Incwmboiii. * Runeft New Mexico ' iSonaio Eloctloni Novoinbor 4.2014 I •> .T.Udall(t) S5.4* 180.074 j •A.W4h 44.8* 3M.70B • (I) InclMibanl. • Ruiwll North Carolina ] Senate Election, November 4; 2014 - n T.TBHo. «,0% •» K. Hagnn Oi; 47.3% 1,364.758 -• I's. Haiign 3.7* lOBiiea (1) lAcuffltenl, * Runoff Oidahoma ISbn^'tp Elpcjt|on, Ncwb'n^^ 20'i4 ir7T."nip » J. Inhofo.d) I o M. Sllveretoln 20.5% 233,832 •1 J.Farr i.3% ">.534 I FLWooda 1.2* >.800 ; ' • A.DaLozlar 0.9% 2.266 } j lO liiciinibanL ' Runoff j ; Special Senate Election, - - • • i http:/Avww.po]itlco.com/2014-election/resultsMiap/^enate^.VHNnpfhF8b2 6/6 11/240014 2014 QecUon Results Senate; Map Isy State, Live Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO i Speciar Senate EiectionT November 4 2014 1 tbO°4 WbtJUHllTl^ R J. Lankford 67.9% 556.362 D C. Johnson 29.0% 237,531 I M. B'eard 3.2% .25.91? (i) Incumbent, * Runoff I Oregon 4 Senate Election;~November'472014~ 94.2% KBpbrting D J. Merkley (!) 55.8% 744,516 R M. Wehby 37.3% 498,191 I L M. Montchalin 3.0% 40,649 I P C. Lugo 2.2% 28,897 c J. Leuenberger 1.7% 22,205 (I) Incumbent, * Runoff Rhode Island Senate Electionj-November472014- 99.8% HBpOHIMd ! D J. Reed (!) 70.7% 222,776 R M. Zaccaria 29.3% 92,389 i . . ' (i) Incumbent, * Runoff http://www.politico.eom/2014-election/results/m ap/senate/#.VHOy-_nF8l)2 T/5 11/24G014 2014 Election Results Senate: Map t^ State.- Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO i South Carolina Senate Election, November 4,2014 .100% Kyput until R L. Graham (i) 54.5% 665,605 0 B. Hutto 38.9% 475.532 P T. Ravenel 3.9% 47,205 L V. Kocher 2.7% 33,481 (i) Incumbent. ' Runoff Special Senate Election, November 4, 2014 3 iuu7o KopoHmy R T. Scott (i) 61.2% 749,266 D J. Dlckerson 37.1% 454,279 21,450 6 t A J. Boss! 1.8% (I) Incumbent, ' Runoff South Dakota ! Senate Election, November 4,2014 : iuu% uttpmimg : R M. Rounds 50.4% 140,721 I Q R. Weiland 29.5% 82,408 I L. Pressler 17.1% 47,728 ' G. Howie 3.0% 8,469 (i) Incumbent, * Runoff http;/Awww.poliUco.com/2014-electlon/results/map/senate/#.VHOy-_nF8tj2 2/5 11/24/2014 2014 Bection Results Senate: Map t)y State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO Tennessee : Senate Electionj November 472014- TPO..% RUPUIHI!^ R L. Alexander (i) 61.9% 849.748 I ' 0 G. Ball 31.8% 437,175 J I c j.Wilmoth 2.6% 36,056 , G M. Pleasant 0.9% 12,530 i I T. Emerson 0.8% 11,146 I O. Page 0.6% 7,711 I R. Tyler 0.4% 5,751 ' I J. James 0.4% 5,671 > I B. Phillips 0.2% 2,380 ^ • E. Gauthier 0.2% 2,308 ' I E. Schechter 0.1% 1,668 > C. Salekin 0.1% 784 I (i) Incumbent. * Runoff 1 ! Texas • Senate. Election7Navember-47-201-4- - mu% Kti[imiiiiy. R J. Cornyn (i) 61.6% 2.855,068 G D. Alameel 34.4% 1.594,252 >- R. Paddock 2.9% 133,467 G E. Sanchez 1.2% 54.587 (i) Incumbent, * Runoff htlp:/Awww.polltico.ccm/2014-electlon/resuIts/map/senate».VHOy-_nF8l>2 3/5 11/24^014 2014 Election Results Senate; Map \tj State, Uve Midterm VotingUpdates • POUTICO Virginia Senate Election, November 4, 2014 D M. Warner (i) 49.2% 1.071,283 R E. Gillespie 48.4% 1,054.556 j L R. Sarvis 2.5% 53,396 j (i) Incumbent, * Runoff ; West Virginia Senate Election, November 4. 2014 TOCTOT^SpBHTftjr" 280.123 a R S. Capito 62.1% D N.Tennant 34.5% 155,456 I- J. Buckley 1.6% 7,360 M B. Baber 1.2% 5,448 c P. Hudok 0.6% 2,544 • (!) Incumbent, * Runoff i Wyoming Senate Eiection, November 4, 2014 lUUVo Rtipuiiiity R M. Enzi (i) 72.3% 119,534 0 C. Hardy 17.6% 29,043 < C. Gottshall 8.0% 13.175 http:/Avww.politico.com/2014-election/resu1ts/map/senate/W.VHOy-_nF8l)2 4/5 11/24/2014 2014 Election Results Senate: Map tiy State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTiC'O 1 J. Porambo 2.2% 3.602 (i) Incumbent. * Runoff http://Www.poiitico.eom/2014-eiection/results/map/senate/#.VHOy-_nF8b2 5/5 Exhibit F 11/24/2014 Governor Election Results 2014: Map l>y State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO 2014 Governor Election Results Democralis Whn RepuMnin Wn Other Party \.Mn Pertial ResuRs No Results No BecUon I 1 Key Governor Election Results by State Filler Options Jump to Stole... Alabama Governor Election. November 4,2014 I H R. Benlley (1) 747.357 0 P. Griffith 36.4% <27.218 (•) hicuinbenl. * Runofl Alaska Governor Election, ^ ember 4.2014 N B. Walker 46.1% 117.130 R S. Parnoll (1) 46.4% 113,126 t- c. curt 3,1% 7 442 C J. Myore 2.4% 5.890 (1) Incunibani, * Runofl tittp7/Www.polltico.com/2014-electl on/results/map/governor#.VHNov_nF8b1 1/7 11/24/2014 Governor Election Results 2014: Map t>y State, UveMidterm Voting Updates - POLITiCO Arizona I.. i Governor Election, November 4.2014- e 0. Oueey 53.5% r80.452 0 F.OuVal 41.6% 621.438 L B.Haaa 3.8% 66,752 A X Moalor 1.0% 15.276 ' U) Incumoenl. • Ruiull Arkansas G'ove>ri'aVEIbctldn;N6vbmSer'4..2ai4' n A. Hutehlnson 55.4% 488.017 D M. Rosa 41.6% 350.535 L F.OIIboit 1.9% 16.220 6 J. Drake 1.1% 6A70 4 (I) liicwmbsiii, * Runoff 3 California Govomor Elpction; No 2 D J. Brown (i) 69.4^ S.B56.2S3 R N. Kashkarl 40.6% 2.640.054 (I) iMumbffnl • Rwneir Colorado Governor Election,'^ 14,-2014- 0 J.Hiekonloopor.(l|. 49.1% 677,711 1 B: Boouproz 48.2% 021.204 L-'M. Hosa ^9% 36,226 o H. Hbmpy- 1.3% 26.278 u M. Dunarbn 1.2% 23.187 i> P. Flbrfnd 0.3% S.725 (II incumbent. • Runoff Connecticut Govomor Elocllon, Nov«mber4.2014- - irr* BfpnH; 0 D, Malloy (I) 90.7% 648,248 R T. Foley 48.2% S21.645 V J. VIseonll 1.1% 11.422 , (I) ineumbeni,' Runoff litlp://www.polltlco.com/2014-election/resull8/map/governor/#.\/HNov_nF8b1 .2/7 11/24/2014 Governor Bection Results 2014: Map by State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POLITICO Florida ( Qovemor Election, Novemtier 4.2014 j B R. Scott (I) 48.2% 2.861.390 : D c. Crist 4T.1% 2.795563 \ J L A.wyins 3.8% 222578 N O. BuiksU 0.7% 41551 „ !i.F..Khovari.,. o.Jli. jo-irt (I) Incumbent.' Runoff Georgia Oovernor Elocllom November 4; 2014- M N. Deal (I) 52.8% 1541.161 b J, Carter 44.8% 1.139.476 i A. Hunt 2.4% 80.151 (i| Incumbtnt. * Runoff 4 3 Hawaii Govofnor Election; November 4; 2014- o. 0. Igb 40.5% 161505 u .0. Albna 37.1%. I35i7*2 I M.Honnoi 11.7% 42525 i -i J. Oovis 1.7% 6.383 . lb inambontf'' Runoff Idaho I Govom'or Elpctip'n;, Novamber'4,2014 R B. Ottor (1) S3.S% 23S549 D A. Belukoff 38.8% 169.497 L J. Biijok 4.1% 17.862 • J. Humble 2.0% 8.795 e S. Pankey 1.2% 5518 I Pro-Llfe 0.7% 2568 (i) bicufflbenl. * Runoff Illinois Govornor Election,-November 4.2014- - R B. Raunor 50.8% K76)592 »'P.-.Qulnn (i) •45.0% ueos.iia- • C.'Grfmm 3:4% 118599- . (il.incurnbont. - Hunoff http-7A«ww.polificc.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/#.\/HNov_nF8b1 3/7" 11/24«014 Governor Bectlon Results 2014: Map tiy State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - Iowa . Govarnor Election, Novatnbar 4,2014- - 1 a T. Branatad (1) 59.1% 684,a06 1 a J. Hatch 37.3% 41G,2S8 . i L. Hlab. 1.8% 20.207 1 1 ^ J..Hennagor. 0.9% I0A32 j o J. Narelsso 0.9% 1C.252 j (i) tnnmbenl • Runofl Kansas ^ ;Goyernor lloMlpn, Noweniher 4,t2014 • R 8. Brewnback (1) 50.0% 4?.3^C5 i B p. Davia 46.1% IMaffl.-i L K. Umbohr 4.0% 23.708. (i) IncumbenL' Runofl Maine ' GpvGrriorElocllbn. Novamticr 4.2014 • i R P. LoPags (1) 49.2% 284.189 • • • 3 .. oM.MIehaud 43.3% 284.380 ^ • E. Cutler 8.4% 51,405 ' (l| Sneumboni, • RtdnoB i . . Maryland Governor ElectionrNovembaT 4.2014 - t R L. Hogon 51.6% 847.107 , 1' A: Brown 46.9% 770.511 i-5:.Quliin 1.5% 23,801 (0 IneumbcM.' Runoff Massachusetts R C. Baker 40.5% 1.041.640 D M. Coakley 46.6% 1.001,279 u E. Falchuk 3.3% 71.144 - 1 S. Lively 0.9% 18.102 I J.McConnlek 0.8% 16.12S (11 Inuimbant, ' RUaioff Michigan http://Www;polltlco.comC014-elMtiofVfesults/map/governor'*'.VHN{W_nF8b1 4/7 11/24ffi014 Governor ElecUon Results 2014: Map liy State. Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO R R. Snyder (1) 51.0% 1.S8BJ)22 D M. Scheuer 46.8% 1.469J75 L M. Buzume 1.1% 35,574 u M. McFarlln 0.8% 18,177 0 P. Homenluk 0.6% 14,803 (t) Ineumbani < Runoff Minnesota OovornDr Election; November 4.2014 D M. Dayton (1) 50.1% 988.713 It J. Johnson 44.5% 87A.9.17 ( H.NIeollol 2.9% 56.885 « C.-Wrlghl 1.6% 31245 ! C..Moll}fpo|i 0.0% 70,092 0) hcuRibenl,' Kuno^t 4 3 Nebraska :Gbybrrior EtocUbn. r r- r. nickQttQ 57.8% 301.648 I' C. Hassobreok 38.9% 203.888 I. M:-Elwoiih' 3.5% ta.4M f ll> hiciifrtiBM * Ruriafi Nevada 1 I Goyorhor Erqctlqn, f(womker K B. Sandoval (I) 70.6% 386.538 0 R. Goodman 23.9% 130.742 ' HNono of these 2.9% «."7 candldatea 1 D-VanDeiBook 2.7% 14.548 (i) hicumtMRL * Runoff Lieutenant Oovornor Election,- November 4.2014— 4 M. Kutehlaon 59.5% .-».4jA79 D L. Floraa 33.6% 183,598 I M. Little 3.9% 21.232 N .None of those 3.0% 18.308 eandldetoa (i) mcumbonl. • Runoff New Hampshire Governor ElectlonrNcvainbcr4; MM M. Haaaan (I) 52.6% 265.228 http:/Awww.polltlco.com/2014-electlon/iesults/map/goVernor/#.VHNoy_nF8b1 5/7 11/24G014 Oovernor ElecHon Results 2014; Map tiy State, Uve Midterm Voting Updates - POUTICO ' H W. H«VI 47.4% 230.309 0) IndinOenl, • Runoll New Mexico OovornqrEloellpn.Movonilipr'i. 8014 " S. Martlnsi (I) 57.3* 290.492 o ftKIng 42.7* 214.014 (I) Inuimlienl • Runoll New York I _ GjOyohior Eloction;.Ncyambof <. 2014 o A. Cuomo (I) 54.0% 1.919.225 R R.A«torlno 40.6% 1.«3.713 o H. Hiiwklns 4.9% 173A0e I ; L M. McDormotl 0.4% 15.5M ; O S. cohn 0.1% 4.S49 • Q) bicumbenl. * Runoll Ohio Governor ElectlonrNovamber4T 2014- 1 " J. Kaalch (1) 63.8% 1.822o436 ;! •> E-FIUOanild 32.9% 099.201 : o A. RIOB 3.3% 99.415 , (I) incuinbflnl, * Runoff Oklahoma Governor Election; Novembar 4; 2014 K M. Fallln (I) 8S.8% 459.789 o J. Dorman 41.0% 337,729 • icwmiB 2.1% 17.143 i I R. Prawdzlanakl 1.1% 9.102 ' (I) Incumbenl. * Runoff Oregon ; Govompr Eloctlofi. > If 4. 2014 -• 0 .J.KllihtiborO) 49.8% 698316 b p. R'lch'ards'o'n 44.7% 600.330 I r J. Lovin 2.0% 26.297 >• P. Grnd 1.5% 19.557 ] c A. Auor 1.1% 14.590 ^ ' C. Honry 0.9% 12.521 littp;/Avww.polltlco.com/2014-electlbn/results/map/governor/#.VHNov_nF8b1 m 11/24/2014 Governor ElecHon Results 2014: Map t)y State. Live Midterm VoGng Updates - POLITICO ' (i! Insumilefil.' Runal! Pennsylvania Governor Election, November 4.-2014- nntf nei 0 T.Wotf 54.9% VB9g.3i8 " T. Coibett (I) 45.1% t.f6O,0S7 0) iiQJRiii'eni] • Runalf , Rhode Lsland Governor Elocllon.'Novc-mbci 4.2014- I G. Ralmondo tittp:/A«ww.polltlco.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/#.VHNov_nF8b1 7/7 Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP liu. rri".C>f \ ••'.>nUi Two LAFAYETTE CENTRE 1133 21" STREET, NW SUITE 450 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 mi.DECi5f:iS'a (202)778-4060 FACSIMILE! (202)778-4099 l)WLU>.COM Lewis K. Loss (202)778<4a63 December IS. 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY OfTice of the General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 Re: MUR 6869 Dear Sir/Madam: We serve as counsei for the Commission on Presidential Debates (the "CPD") and the individual respondents in connection with MUR 6869. On behalf of all respondents, we submit this response to the Complaint filed by Level the Playing Field ("LTPP') and Peter Ackerman (collectively, Complainants). CPD is a private, nonpaitisan SOI(c)(3) organization.that receives no goverruniieht or party funding. CPD's primary mission is to ensurei for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates are held every four years between the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. To that endi CPD has sponsored general election presidential debates in every election since 1988. Although its plans for 2016 are in the developmental stage. It looks forward to bringing high quality, educational debates to the electorate in 2016. The Complainants in MUR 6869 present arguments that the Federal Election Commission (the "FEC" or the "Commission") has considered and rejected on multiple occasions. They urge that (1) CPD is not non-partisan and, therefore, is not a qualified "staging organization" under applicable PEC regulations, and (2) CPD fails to apply pre-established, objective candidate selection criteria in determining eligibility to participaite in the debates it sponsors because it relies on public opinion polling as.a criterion for inclusion. Neither assertion is correct, as the PEC has previously ruled oh multiple occasions. See, e.g., MURs 4987, S004, 5021, 5207, 5378,5414 and 5530. See also Buchanan v. FEC, 112 F.Supp. 2d 58,74-75 (D.D.C. Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December IS, 2014 Page 2 2000), ?ffd in part. No. 00-5337 (D.C.Cir. September 29, 2000)C'Buchanan"); Natural Lew Party v. FEC, Civ. Action No. 00-02138 (D.D.C. September 2j, 2000), affd in part, No. 00- 5338 (D.C. Cir September 29,2000). In light of the redundant nature of the Complaint, in this letter, CPD provides only a summary of the principal reasons that the Complaint is without, merit. CPD submits detailed declarations herewith that contain additional information on the background of the CPD, its 2 operations and the great attention it has brought over the years to the important task of 2 determining to whom invitations to debate should be extended. Upon request, CPD vrould be ci happy to submit additional information. 4 Background General election debates between and among the leading candidates for the oflice of President of the United States are not required or assured. After the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, there were no such debates in 1964,1968 and 1972. There were debates in 1976,1980 and 3 1984, but they were hastily arranged after negotiations between the candidates that left many uncertain whether there would be any debates at all. The 1984 experience, in particular, reinforced , a mounting concern that, in any given election, voters could be deprived of the opportunity to observe a debate among the leading candidates for President.' Following the 1984 election, therefore, two distinguished national organizations, the ! Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Harvard University Institute of Politics, conducted separate, detailed studies of the presidential election process generally, and of the role of debates in that process'specifically. Tile reports produced by these two independent inquiries found, inter alia, that: (I) debates are an integral and enhancing part of the process for selecting presidential candidates; (2) American voters expect debates between the leading candidates for President; and (3) debates among those candidates should become institutionalized as a permanent part of the electoral pfocess. Both the Georgetown and Harvard reports recommended that the two major political parties endorse a mechanism designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that presidential debates between the leading candidates be made a permanent part of the electoral process. Declaration of Janet H. Brown, attached as Ex. 1., at ^ 10. (Hereinafter, "Brown Decl.") In response to the Harvard and Georgetown studies, the then-chairmen of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, Paul O. Kirk, Jr., and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., respectively. Jointly supported creation of the independent CPD. Id. ^ 11. The CPD was incorporated in the District of Columbia on February 19, 1987, as a private, not-for-profit corporation to "organize, manage, produce, publicize and support debates for the candidates for See eenerallv N. MInow & C. Sloan, For Great Debates 21-39 (1987); Commission on National Elections, Electing the President; A Program for Reform 4i-42 (R.E. Hunter ed. i986); Swerdlow, The Strange ~ and Sometimes Surprising - History of Presidential Debates In America, in Presidential Debates 1988 and Beyond 10-16 (J. Swerdlow ed. 1987). LOSSJUDGE & WARD, I.LF December IS, 2014 Page 3 , President of the United States." Mi ^ 3. The CPD has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service under § SOI (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1^. The CPD Board of Directors presently is jointly chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael McCurry, who succeeded CPD co-foundcr Paul Kirk, in 2009. ^ 6.. Although at the lime the CPD was formed. Messrs. Kirk and Fahrenkopf served, respectively, as chairmen of the - Democratic'NatiOnal Committee The CPD receives no funding from the government or any political party. Id. ^ S. The CPD obtains the funds required to produce its debates every four years and to support its ongoing Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December IS, 2014 Page 4 voter education activities from the communities that host the debates and, to a lesser extent, Ironi corporate, foundation and private donors. Id Donors have no input into the management of any of the CPD's activities and have no input into the process by which the CPD selects debate participants. hL The CPD sponsored two of the three presidential debates in 1988 and has sponsored every general election presidential debate in each.election cycle since 1992. Id 19-29. It also has sponsored every general election vice presidential debate since 1988. 1^ ^ 4. In each election cycle, the CPD's debates have been viewed by tens of millions of Americans, and have served a valuable voter-education fimcdon. Id In addition, the CPD has undertaken a number of broad-based, nonpartisan voter education projects designed to enhance, the educational value of the debates themselves, and is presently considering a number of projects to further its mission. 40-41. Although the CPD plans to sponsor debates in 2016, it has not yet announced its plans, 9 nor has it announced its candidate selection criteria, ^ 36. We review additional aspects of (J 9 the CPD's history and operations below, in the course of responding to Complainarits' principal I g charges. CPD is a Proper Staging Organization In order to be eligible to conduct debates in. accordance with applicable FEC regulations, the sponsor (referred to as a "staging orgaliization" in thC regulations), must be either (a) a noh- profit, tax exempt organization tinder section S01(c)(3) or (c)(4) of the tax code that does not "endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties," or (b) a bona fide media organization as detailed in the regulations. 110.13(a). CPD is a SO1(c)(3) tax exempt organization that does not "endorse, support, or oppose political cwdidates or political parties." Brown Decl.| 3. Complainants dispute this, but their aiguttent is without merit for multiple reasons. First, Complainants cite no evidence whatsoever that CPD endorses, supports or opposes political candidates,, and they cannot. The CPD is an independent organization that is not controlled by any political party or outside organization. Id. 3-S. It does not endorse, support or oppose political candidates or parties. Id. It adopts nonpartisan candidate selection criteria well in advance of each general election debate season and it adopts and applies those criteria solely to advance the educational purposes of its debates and not to advance or oppose any candidate or political party, id. ^ 36. Second, in the absence of any evidence that CPD is not a proper staging organization, Complainants argue that CPD is disqualified by (1) its origins, which date back to the 1980s, which contain isolated references to the organization as. bipartisan rather thah non partisan, and (2) various ways in which CPD directors have participated over the years, directly or indirectly, in the political process separate from their role with the CPD. The FEC properly has rejected Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December 15,2014 Page 5 such argument by innuendo in the past. For example in connection with MUR S414, the First General Counsel's report, subsequently adopted by the Commission, stated in connection with similar arguments as follows: In MURs 4987,5004, and 5021, complainants allege that the CPD and its board of directors are bipartisan, not nonpartisan; In support, they stated ' that the CPD'was created by the former chairman of the DNC andRNC . -— - to allow the major parties to control the presidential and vice presidential debates and to promote their candidates in violation of II. C.F.R. § 110.13 (a) In all these matters, the Commission found no reason to believe that the CPD had violated the Act. In subsequent section 437g(a}(8) dismissal suits brought by some of these MUR complainants, , courts found for the Commission.' (footnote omitted) Based on this precedent, these arguments should he rejected. Moreover, in a passage that is even more true today, the Report stated that "[njot only did challenges based on Fahrenkopfs and Kirk's leadership of the CPD not carry the day when they were fresh, but as neither man has been a party ofTicial since 1989, the passage of time has i rendered such assertions less persuasive.V Id. Of course, such a challenge is even more stale another teii years on, and Paul Kirk concluded his service as Co-Chair of the CPD some five years ago. Brown Decl. at ^ 11. Likewise, the fact that CPD Board members have participated j in various ways in our nation's political processes (for example, by expressing at one time or 1 another perfona/ support for varying candidates) is not evidence that the major parties (or any outside eritities) control the CPD's decision-making or that CPD "endorses, supports, or opposes political candidates or political partiies."' .< Third, Complainants also urge that memoranda of understanding ("MOU") between the | major party candidates constitutes evidence that the CPD is not a proper staging organization. The fact that such MOU have been entered into by the major parly candidates (but not the CPD) is well known and the Commission previously has rejected the assertion that the MOU somehow demonstrate that CPD is not a proper staging organization. See MUR 5414. Indeed, to the extent that the assertion is that through their MOUS the major party candidates actually control the CPD's candidate selection, the assertion is* frivolous. The CPD announces its criteria well in advance of even the nomination of the major party candidates. Brown Decl. at f 36, and the Uansparency of the CPD's criteria allows anyone who wishes to confirm the CPDs adherence to its published criteria. Further, every such MOU since 2000 has stated that the major party ' The fbotnote'accompanying the quoted text noted that in Buchanan, the court upheld the Commission'f determination that CPD was a proper staging organization and rejected the same arguments advanced by Complainants herein. ' Although not required by FEC regulations, CPD's directors adhere to a longstanding practice of not serving in an ofllcial capacity with any political patty or campaign while serving on the CPD board. Brown Decl. ^ 12. Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LIP December 15,2014 Page 6 candidates will adhere to CPD's decisions concerning candidate selection, not the other way around. Id. ^38. Of course. Complainants' attack on CPD's eligibility to serve as a staging organization is actually a surrogate for attacking the CPD's candidate section criteria. However, those carefully adopted and applied criteria have repeatedly been found by the FEC to be in full compliance with applicable regulations, as discussed below. The CPD's Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria Comply with FEC Regulations. The FEC's regulations, found at 11 C.F.R. § 110.13 (c), as amended in 1995, provide in pertinent part as follows: Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging organization(s) must use pre*established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election debates, staging organization(s) shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate. As noted, CPD has not yet adopted Criteria for the 2016 debates. The CPD's 2012 Non partisan Candidate Selection Criteria are attached as Tab E to the Brown Declaration. The 2012 Criteria document explains: The goal of the CPD's debates is to afford the members of the public an opportunity to sharpen their views, in a focused, debate format, of those . candidates from among whom the next President and Vice President will be selected. In each of die last six elections, there were scores of declared candidates for the Presidency, excluding those seeking the nomination of one of the major parties. During the course of ihe campaign, the candidates are afforded many opportunities in a great variety of forums to advance their candidacies. In order most fully and fairly to achieve the educational purposes of its debates, the CPD has developed nonpartisan, objective criteria upon which it will base its decisions regarding selection of the candidates to participate in its 2012 debates. The purpose of the criteria is to identify those candidates who have achieved a level of electoral support such that they .realistically are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency. The three Criteria can be summarized as follows: (1) satisfaction of the eligibility requirements to hold the Office of President of the United States, as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, (2) qualification to appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority, and (3) a level of support of at Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December 15,2014 Page? least IS percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The Complainants' attack is limited to the third criterion. The CPD's candidate selection criteria have been the subject of multiple prior challenges "arid rulings by the FECl-'ejectihg thbse'^hallenps7~In light~'0f thisTacrtharthe primary issues raised by Complainants have been fiilly presented to and resolved by the PEC on multiple occasions, we simply note as follows. First, the CPD has gone to great lengths in the adoption and application of its candidate selection criteria to ensure that it has been in Rill compliance-with FEC regulations. From 1988 through the 1996 election, CPD employed multi-faceted criteria to identify the leading candidates to be invited for inclusion in its debates. Beginning in 2000 and continuing through the 2012 election, CPD has employed the streamlined criteria discussed above, including the IS percent threshold (referred to herein collectively as the "2000 Criteria"). We provide a detailed discussion of the criteria, their evolution over time and the rationale behind the criteria in the attached Declaration of Janet Brown, 13-35 (Ex. 1). The Criteria are also addressed in the Declaration of Dr. Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, attached as Ex. 2 (hereinafter, "Newport Decl."). I Second, the FEC has considered both the pre-and post 2000 Criteria. In MURs 4451 and i 4473, the FEC considered and discussed at length the multi-faceted selection criteria employed by the CPD prior to 2000. The FEC concluded that; 'The CPD debate criteria contain exactly i the sort of structure and objectivity the Commission had in mind when it approved the debate ; regulations in 1995." geg Statement of Reasons at 7, attached as Ex. 3. In MURs 4987 and 5004, the FEC unanimously rejected an attack on CPD's candidate selection criteria for 2000 (which, as noted, are substantially the same as those used in 2004, 2008 and 2012). A copy of the First General Counsel's Report oii those matters is attached as Ex. 4. In that report, which includes a detailed review and discussion of the issues presented, the General Counsel concluded (1) "the CPD satisfies the requirement of a staging organization that it not endorse, support or oppose political candidates or political parties," and (2) "CPD's criteria t for participation in the candidate debates appear to be pre-established, objective criteria as required by 11 C.F.R. §110.13(c), and not designed to result in the selection of certain pic- chosen participants." Id. at 15. The Report explained; It should be noted that the CPD used a different set of candidate selection criteria for the 1996 debates than it has proposed for the 2000 debates. However, ^e CPD's candidate selection criteria for 20Q0 appear to be even more objective than the 1996 criteria. In 1996, the CPD's candidate selection criteria were: (1) evidence of national orgmization; (2) signs of national newsworthitiess and competitiveness; and (3) indicators of national enthusiasm or concern. With LOSS, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December IS, 2014 Pages respect to signs of national newsworthiness and competitiveness, the CPD listed factors, such as the professional opinions of Washington bureau chiefs of major newspapers, news magazines and broadcast networks; the opinions of professional campaign managers and pollsters not employed by the candidates; the opinions of representative political scientists specializing in electoral politics; a comparison of the level of coverage on front pages of newspapers and exposure on network telecasts; and published views of prominent political commentators. The CPD's candidate selection criteria for 2000, which consist of constitutional eligibility, ballot access, and a level of electoral support of 15% of the national electorate based upon the average of polls conducted by five major polling organizations, appear to be relatively easier to determine which candidates will qualify, and appear to be even more objective than the 1996 candidate selection criteria. Given this, and the fact that the Commission did not find a problem with the 1996 criteria, it appears that the CPD's candidate selection criteria for participation in the 2000 general election debates are in accordance with the ' requirements of 11 C.F.R. § 110.13. The FEC's decision in MURs 4987 and 5004, finding no reason to believe a violation had occurred, was affirmed by both the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. §ee Buchanan v. Federal Election Comm'n. 112?. Supp, 2d 58,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13448 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, '{ 2000), affd. No. 00-5337 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29, 2000), Natural Law Party of the United States of .'j America v. Federal Election Comm'n. Civ. Action No. 00CV02138 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2000), afTd. No. 00-5338 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29.2000). Thirds notwithstanding these rulings, in 2002,2003,2004, and 2005, several individuals and organizations filed additional complaints objecting to the CPD's candidate selection criteria, | and all met the same fate. The FEC repeatedly found no evidence of any political party involvement in the CPD's operations; no evidence of political party input in the development of the CPD's candidate selection criteria; and that the selection criteria was objective and in compliance vrith the Federal Election Campaign Act and with the FEC's regulations. See MURs 5207,5378,5414, and 5530. Fourth, Complainants emphasize perceived shortcomings in the use of public opinion polling as part of the candidate selection criteria. The FEC has made clear, as did the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, that polling or other assessm.ents of a candidate's chances of winning are permissible factors to consider in setting candidate selection criteria. See. e.g.. MUR 5530, at 6 ("in MURs 4987, 5004 and 5021 (Buchanan) the Cominission specifically considered the selection criteria the CPD adopted for the 2000 presidential and vice presidential debates and approved its use of 'indicators of electoral support' as one of those criteria.") (citing Buchanan v. FEC, 112 F. Supp. 2d 58. 74 (D.D.C. 2000)). See also MURs 4451 and 4473, Statement of Reasons, at 8 (Ex. 3); MUR 4987, at 16 (""[T]he Commission noted in MURs 4451 Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December 15,2014 Page 9 and 4473 that it declined to preclude the use of polling or 'other assessments of a candidate's chances of winning the nomination or election' when promulgating 11 C.F.R. § 110.130."). Fifth, the FEC's repeated rejection of attacks on the CPD's selection criteria reflects the "broad discretion afforded to debate sponsors in determining the criteria for participant selection." MUR 4987, at 16 (citing 60 Fed. Reg. 64,262 (Dec. 14. 1995)). The FEC has stated that "[tjhe choice of which objective criteria to-use is-largely left to the discretjon-of-the-staging organization." 60 Fed. Reg. 64,262 (Dec. 14, 1995). The Commission noted that "questions can be raised regarding any candidate assessment criterion and absent specific evidence that a candidate assessment criterion was 'fixed' or arranged in some manner as to guarantee a preordained result, we are not prepared to look behind and investigate every application of a 4 ^ candidate assessment criterion." MURs 4451 and 4473, at 9 (Emphasis added). The CPD seeks ^ 4 to educate voters by "bring[ing] before the American people, in a debate, the leading candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency." Brown Deck 1 30. The CPD has reasonably concluded that limiting debate participation in the final stages of a long general election campaign to those who have achieved a level of support of at least 15 percent advances the educational purposes for which it holds debates. Contrary to Complainants' thesis, the CPD is not required to structure its debates to serve as a launching pad for presidential hopefuls seeking exposure. Sixth, the Complaint relies heavily on the assumption that the 15 percent level of support criterion is too onerous for third party and independent candidates, due to the costs of campaigns and other factors unrelated to any of the CPD's actions. Notably, this is the same level of support that had been required by the League of Women Voters, which Complainants describe as as a "strictly nonpartisan organization," whose "dedication to nonpartisanship and voter education created conflict with the major party candidates .. ." Compl. at 16-17. See Brown Decl. ^ 33.^ As noted, the FEC has repeatedly found the 2000 Criteria to be in accord with the FEC's regulations, and in Buchanan, the Court found that the "15% support level set by the CPD" was not inconsistent with the FEC's regulations and afiTirmed the FEC's dismissal of the complaint. 112 F.Supp. at 74-76. * Complainanls seek to sidestep the inconvenient fact that history affords multiple examples of third party candidates achieving levels of support that reached or exceeded IS percent. Compl. at 45-46; see Brown Decl. \ 33. Complainants urge, based on their counterintuitive surmise, that the media and campaign finance-world has changed such that these prior candidates' success is unachievable today. Not only is this conclusion unsupported, it defies logic. The last two presidential elections in particular provide prime examples of how technology has allowed candidates to reach a larger group of potential voters without expending the resources required in the pre-dlgital age. A number of political observers noted, for. instance, that social media allowed campaigns to reach a large number of potential voters at a fraction of the cost of traditional paid advertising and to "prganiu supporters in a way that would have in the past required an army of volunteers and paid organizers on the ground." See, e.g., Clair Cain Miller, How Obama's internet Campaign Changed Politics, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 7, 2008; Derek Prall, The Social Soapbox, How social media and data analytics are helping grassroots candidates gain legitimacy. Am. City & Cniy., OcL 22,2014 (discussing independent mayoral candidate, Victoria Provenza's, use of social media to "move from obscurity, to contender."). LOSS, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December IS, 2014 Page 10 Seventh, Complainants' various cost comparisons designed to advance their burdensome argument are suspect comparing as they do the estimated costs for a wholly unknown unaffiliated candidate to achieve a stated level of name recognition, on the one hand, with expenditures by candidates who sought but failed to win a major party nomination (/,e., Messrs. Cain and Santorum), on the other. The point of this comparison is unclear for multiple reasons, including that these failed candidates were not invited to participate in debates sponsored by CPD. Also flawed are Complainants' comparisons of their fictional Wholly unknown candidate to the expenditures in a single campaign by a successful candidate for a major party nomination (t.e., Mr. Romney) while ignoring, for example, that same .candidate's expenditures in prior campaigns for President and other high profile offices that surely contribute to the candidate's 4 name recognition and popular support. In any event, the CPD has-no control over the cost of campaigning or advertising, and it is not required to abandon its ediicatibiial mission to further'the partisan goals of Complainants.' Whatever concerns Complainants may have about the cost of launching a competitive presidential election bid, those concerns do not translate into a legitimate attack on the legality of the candidate selection criteria CPD has employed to the advance the voter education purposes for which it sponsors debates in the final weeks of a long campaign. Eighth, relying entirely on bald speculation. Complainants suggest that the selection and timing of polls used to assess whether a candidate meets the 15 percent threshold could be manipulated lo achieve particular results. Notably, Complainants have prbvided no evidence of any such manipulation. They do not (and cannot) point to a single candidate who should have received an invitation but did not due to the poll selection; nor do they identify any polls indicating that a third-party or independent candidate actually met the IS percent threshold. Moreover, CPD has been extraordinarily careful in how it selects and uses polling data. Since 2000, CPD has relied on the expertise of Dr; Frank Newport, Editbr-ih-Chief of Gallup for the past.24 years, to assist it in applying its polling-based criteria. Newport Decl. ^1, 7-8:' Ninth, no candidate selection criterion that limits the number of debate participants is immune to criticism. That includes the two proposed alternative criteria referenced in the Complaint: (1) extending invitations to candidates that qualify for federal matching funds or that have raised a specific sum in campaign contributions; and (2) LTPF's own proposal, extending ' Complainants rely heavily on Douglas Schoen's purported expert report. For the reasons noted in text, that report doea not support the result Complainants seek. Accordingly, .CPD ddqs.not address herein what appear to be numerous flaws with the Schoen analysis. * Concerns about the manipulation of poils are particuiarly'exaggerated here as the CPD, acting on Dr. Newport's analysis, has relied largely on the same polls since impiemeniing the IS percent threshold in 2000, Newport Deci. ^ 9-13, and Complainants have not presented any evidence showing that (he independent polling organizations are biased toward any particular candidates. See Buchanan, 112 F. Supp. at 76 ((WJithout at least some evidence that the independent pollsters have an incentive to rig the process < .. I cannot conclude that the FEC's finding of objectivity was unreasonable."). Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LLP December IS, 2014 Page 11 an Invitation to the third-party or independent candidate who gathered the most signatures during the ballot access process, Compl. at SO. Both approaches referred to by Complainants run the risk of placing the partisan interests of minor party candidates above the interest of the electorate in hearing the leading candidates debate. Complainants ignore the fact that a sponsor of general election debates that hopes to provide the electorate with a debate that includes the leading candidates faces a difficult task: to be inclusive enough to invite each of those candidates who genuinely qualify as a leading candidate, but not so inclusive that the candidates in whom the electorate is most interested refuse to participate. Candidates for federal office are not required to debate. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized in the context of litigation over the 1988 presidential debates, it is speculative at best to assume that the leading candidates wouid agree to share the stage with candidates enjoying only scant public support. Fulant V. Bratfy, 935 F.2d 1324, 1329 (D.C, Cir. 1991). Further, even if the leading candidates chose to participate, the selection criteria must avoid the risk of creating crowded debate stages in which the educational value of the debate is hindered by the sheer number of speakers. This problem is inherent in an approach that does not condition debate participation on the meaningful demonstration of significant public interest in a campaign. As a candidate selection criterion, qualification for candidate matching funds, as referred to by Complainants, is both over and under-inclusive. It relies entirely on the candidate's performance in the previous election. It necessarily excludes up and coming candidates who did not receive 5 pefcent of the popular vote in the previous election, but whose stock has since risen, and it excludes entirely new party candidates who did not participate in the prior election. At the same time, this criterion would include candidates who did receive at least 5 percent of the popular vote in the previous election, but have little support and no chance of winning the next election. In other words, qualification for matching fhnds as a candidate selection, criterion would rely on performance from previous elections in selecting debate participants, while the CPD's criteria assesses current electoral support. The .number of signatures obtained during the ballot access process is a particularly flawed predictor of a candidate's electoral support or potential. Unlike a public opinion poll, a signature obtained in the ballot access process does not necessarily express any preference for one candidate over another. Also unlike voting (and, by extension, polls measuring how one would vote) there is no electoral prize for obtaining the most signatures in the ballot access process. The goal is to meet and surpass the threshold; beyond that, candidates have no incentive to obtain the additional signatures that they may need to Anish with the highest total. A prudent candidate may decide to preserve his or her resources for other uses thai benefit the campaign. Moreover, LTPF's proposed April 30 deadline is puzzling as signature filing deadlines vary across states, many of them falling well after April of the election year. The number of signatures gathered by April, therefore, says nothing about a candidate's support, nor is it Loss, JUDGE & WARD, LIP December 15,2014 Page 12 indicative of the total number of signatures that a candidate will collect at the end of the ballot access process. Undoubtedly, another independent or third party candidate could also argue that this proposed rule favors the most vveil-known third parties, and operates to exclude new party-or independent candidates who lack the resources or recognition to obtain the highest number of signatures or to do so as early as Complainants propose. Realizing that no candidate selection criterion is immune to criticism, the FEC—^through its regulations—has conferred broad discretion on debate sponsors to determine candidate selection criteria. CPD has approached this issue with great care over the years. The FEC has determined repeatedly—arid courts have affirmed—that the CPD is an appropriate staging organization and that the CPD's 2000 Candidate Selection Criteria are- in compliance with appiicable FEC regulations. I•5 Accordingly, the CPD respectfully submits that the Chmplaint should be dismissed, If we can provide any additional information, please do .not hesitate to let us know. Respectfully submitted. Loss, Judged^ [iL.L.P. Attachments cc: Jeffs. Jordan, Esq. (w/attachments) Supervisory Attorney, Central Enforcement Docket Janet H. Brown (w/attachments) •< j BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECIION COMMISSION In the matter of MUR6869 *'i The Commission on Presidential Debates, • Declaration of F^ank M. Newport In etaL Support of foe Commission on Prasidendal Debates' Opposltloa to Level foe PIa;|ing Field and PeterAckerinan's iCqimol'alnr. I, Frank M. Newport, give this declaration based on my personal knowiedgoj 1. I am Oallup'a Editor-ln-ddef. I first Joined the Gallup Organimtion in 1988, and have served as tiie Editor*in«Chlef since 1990. As Edito^in•Chief. 1 am in charge of Oallnp's doxbestie public opinion polling. 2. In 2010-2011,1 served as fiie elected president of the American Assodation for Public Opinion Research, the nation's largest profiMsional society of pollsters. I also serve as foe Vice Chair of foe Board of Directors of foe Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, and as e Trustee of the National Council on Public Polls. 3.. . Before joining CaUup, I spent nine years as a partner at Tanance, Hill, Newport, and Ryan, a Houston-based research firm, where I conducted public opinion and maiket research for a variety of businesses and organizatibps acrou foe country. In that role, I was involved in 4. I have a Pb.D. in Sociology from tiie University of Michigan, and have tau^ sociology and survey rosearcb mefoods at the University of Missouil-St Louis, I have also : appear^ as a guest lecturer at colleges and universities around tiw countiy. Currently, I am foatined on the weakly btoadcast "V^t Are Wc Thinidii^' produced by NPR's WHYY Radio In Phlladelpbia, and I iun a fiequant goeat on tolevlBlpn and othot radio ahowa diaeuaaing pubUo opinion, polling and draeleotioas. - 5. I have authored aumeroiia artiolea on public opinion polling that hove been published in peer reviewed academic joumaia and other trusted publications, including die American Sociological Review, the New York Timea, the American Journalism Quarterly, the 1 Journal of Politioal and Medical Soriology. Social Forces, Public Opinion Quarterly, and Piiblic Perspectives, I am die author of the book Potting Matters, published by Wiley in 2004, the f chapter 'Tolling" in the Encydopedia.of International Media and Communications, the co-editor of J^nnbig the White House 2008 (widt Alec M. Oallup) published by Facts on File, and the i editor of TTie Gattup Pott series, published annually by Rowman and LitUefield. 6. I have over 30 years of experience-in conducting public opbion polling and t. assessing the methodologies used by public opinion pollsters, including their strengths and I I weaknesses. 7. I have been retained as an ^dependent advisorto the Commission on Pieaidential Debates ("CPD") in each presidential election cycle startbg in 2000, In that capacity; I have advised CPD in connection with its spplication of its published nonpartisan candidate selection i criteria. CPD's criteria iniclude that invited candidates must have a level of support of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling orgaiiizations, using Oie average of those organizotlqns' most recent publicly- reported results at the.time of the determination. 8. In my role as CPD's advisor, I have in eoeh election cycle recommoided to CPD which five national public opinion polls, in my pro&ssional ju^ginroti were most smtable to be . 2 relied upon, b making my leoomniend^ons, I prinoipBlly considered the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizationB and the ftequeoey of the polling conducted. I make those lecommendatlona based solely upon my proftssional Judpnent'. and without any piartiSBn purpose or pre^determlned result in mind. CPD has always adopted aiy recommendations. 9. The specific polls CPD has relied upon in each election cycles based on my reconunendationa, are as follows: 10. 2fiS2: ABC Newsmu Washington Post. NBC Newsmie Wall Street Journal, CBS NewsHlte New York Times^ Fox News^Opihipn Dynamic, CNN/USA Today/Gallup j ^ 11. 2SSi: ABC News/Dw Washington Post, NBC Newsmie Wall Street Jonmal, f ^ -CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, CNNAJSAToday/Oallup 12.' MQg; ABC News/The Washhagton Post, NBC Newsmie Widl Street Joumal, CBS NewsH'he New York Times'. Fox News/Opbiion Dynamio, USA Today/Oallup 13. 2012; ABC Newsmie Washington Post, NBC New^Ihe Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News^Oallup |;: 14. I am fhmiliar with the polling meAods employed by all of the polling I;- |i organizations upon wliose polls CPD has relied since 2000. Based on my experience and. protbssional Judgment, it was, and remains, my professipnal opinion that these orgahlzaitions' . polls would bo oondueted In a teBpOnsible and profiMsional maimer that meets the industry * standards and reflects the ben-current advanoes in polling methodology. ; 15. In each election cycle since 2000, 1 hove also assisted CPD In gathering be polling data fiom the selected polling organizations and applying that data to the fifteen percent ftreahold, la each electloa cycle in which I hove been Involved, CPD hee fidAfuUy i^Ucd its Eumcuncsdcrit^a to the polling data.-^ Publle Opinion PoUIOg 1B the Most Aceimte Way to Meaanre Candidate \ SuPDOii Before an:feltctioii; 16. Public polling is by fiur the best method of measuring a candidate's support among ^ die eleotoiate prior to Election Day. Polling Involves a soientlflc process tfaiou^ which polling '.i. experts seek to determine, msthematioally, the best estirnate of die public senthnent on a 1 ' particular ti^ic at a specific point in time. Ihe polling conducted by the orgsfiizadons v^se surveys CPD relies upon has utilized probability based random sBxnpling methodologies, which I allow the results of a randomly-selected sangile to be gcwaUmd to the i^pulallon fiom which those samples are drawn, within margin of error limitatiohs; Each of these organizatioiis has utilized ounent scierwe-based methodological techniques, which involve a number of stages of sampling, weighting cmd analy^g before results are rdpesed and generalized to the underlying population. 17. The science of public opinion polling is coDstantiy evolving as the methodology continues to improve. In recent years, as one exaoiple, research organizations using a prabability-bssed random digit dial technique have increasingly Included interviews conducted via ccli phones as Wl as by the traditional landlines. SampUng weighting fat xecmt years has •i evolved significantly, and now in many instances includes wdghts baaed on the population density of the region in which individual respondents , live, as well sa weights based on evolviog Census Bureau teeimiques of dassifylng individuals by race and eOinicity. These changes are part of ongoing refinements intended to inotease the accuracy of the population estimates calculated fiom the sample actually surveyed. T t Fnblle Opinion FoOi UMd by CPD are Reliable, Accurate, and are Dcaigned •toMhimfaoErpera ^ .. . : 18. I have reviewed Con^lBinanta' Bubmissions and data relating to Uie accuraoy of public opinion polls. Mone of the information preseDied by Complainants casta doubt on d» teliability of tbe public opinion polls CPD has relied upon over the years. 19. Compiainants have dted ttdd^teim ^leotiQa rwTidft inWe^^ • * polls upon which CPD relies in applying its candidate selection criteria, and to support their I argument that public opinion polling is partioulBrly error-prone in tfaieo-way races, I disagree. First, presidential election polling ie inherently more reliable dian is polling in low turn-out elections, like the mid-termB relied upon by Complainants. State polls in low turnout mid-term eleotipns are generally more subject to sampling and non-aampling errors Sum die national polls which are used by CPD in presidential electionB, making state poll results less xelevant to tbe CPD standards. A presidentiBl race involves a larger portion of the electorete, engages mote voters nationwide, and presents fewer obstacles in IdentL^flng likely voters, 20. Second, it is always the case that pre-election polls will not precisely duplicate (he actual voting results on Election Day, A pre-election poll is designed to measure the true level of public support at the time the poll Is administered, not on Election Day. 21. None of Compldnants* arguixiehts or supplemental data regarding the mid-term eleotion results support the notion that polls in dnee-wiy races will disproportionBtaly misiepiesent any candidate's public support at tbe time the poll is administered. There is nothing about support for a signlfioant third party-osruiidBcy that makes it more difficult to measure. I know of no instance in die modem era of polling in vdiich rudor poUs prior to a presidential election felled to include and measure support fer a third patty CBndldate'who in feet received a significant percentage of the natiohal vote on Election Day. PoUs are estimates and imperfect .«• J.' , , . ; pFodicton of fiituio oventB, Init there is no doubt dut prbpnly conduoted polls lenuiin die but measure of public support for a candldater=«sd the best'sssessmeat of the piinolpal rivals for die' Presidency—at the time the polls are conducted, .1 22. The reports attached to the Complaint also make reforenoe to sampUhg and non- sampling errors; but bodi typea of errors and their effect on a poll's accuracy are'oflen' rolsunderstood, Satnpling error Is generally conceived of as npreaen&g statistical issues in the relatioiishlp of the specific indivlduda selected to be interviewed In a sanvle. and the ihdivlduids 4 6 in the population fiom which the sample was drawn. The margin of sampling error rqiorted with poll results indicates that, due to a variety of random foctora, the reported estimate may vary by a A certain number of pereentage points fiom the actual, state of public opinion on that day. It does not, however, mean that a result enyVriiere within the margin.of error is Just as lik^y as the repotted estimate, Rather, foe reported result is the polling organuation'sbest objective eatJmate of where public opinion stands at that point in time. 23, Non-sampling error in public opinion polls refers to issues reUttiog to the ptoceaa of obtaining the apeoifio informadon of interest fiom the survey respondent Such errors may be caused by several different fhctors, includfog interviewer effects, the effect of specific question wording and the context in which fiie question (qipears during the. survey process,-attributes of re^ondenis, and the spccifio mode of interviewing being utilized. But public opinion polling organizations take a number of industry standard ml validated steps to control for and minimize noo-sompling errors, including foe utilization of identioal question wording and survey coutext fiom survey to survey over time for key questions, the tndnlng and monitoring of interviewere, and foe process of validating survey procedures over fone to reduce specific categories of non- sampling error. 24. CPD's t^jpRtach—to sdect and average du results of five'ppUa tbat ate well* established, long*titne, national, published, cited widely and direeted by experienced and capable researeh profbsslonals—mlnlmizes toe efbct of both sampling and non-sampling mora and is a :l ' •I sound approach to identifying reliably those candidates who have achieved the requisite level of. •I national support, In my professional judgment . _ _ | The IncluBtonofThird-Party Candidates in Public Opinion PoUs is Properly ( 1 Left to the Discretion oftoe Polling.Qrg&niatiftiia , ; ...... I 25. ' Well-established pollsters with years of experience in political polling, who | conduct polls at a specific time during toe course of a presidential election, will inevitably Include and measure toe support of presidential candidates whose support level in the underlying population would reach toe 1S% level or higher at toe time of the poll, The precise wording of j the eiectibn ballot quesUon asked in each poll is an indqrendent decision made by the j professionals (including survey scientists, editors and producera) at each of the five polling a organlxations completely indepcndeiit of CPD. The final dedslons on the candidate names to be explicitly included in the ballot represent the professional Judgment of those tunning the polls at I i each organization, and these ptofsssionals all, based on my experienhe, take Into account the ' relevant and available empirical data. ' 26. Given that there are many candidates who run fbrpiesideat each year, it is ndtoor toasible nor appropriate to include every candidate's name in a public (qiiruon poll. Polling professionals must use their expert Judgment to determine which candidate names are to be included In a survey on the basis of evidence reflecting interest in, and strength of, the campaign of all potential candidates. Based on my 33 years of experience assessing and conducting polls, it is extraordinarily unlikely that a poll would toil to identify and include among toe candidates listed in polling quesUons a candidate vtoose level of support is anywhere near 15 percent of the nati<^. electotete. Polling nsuhs flom the racent mid-tcnn el^bns dted fay the ConpUdnantB ahed light on tfaia point. 1 have not identifled a single reputsfale poir in'QuS^ and gubeniBtorial elections that fidled to include a candidate who subsequondy received more dian even 10 percent of the vote on Election Day. 27. The polling or^zatibes relied upon by CPp over the years included third party candidates in their polls when the proftssionals mnning the polls daeined It approptiats to do ao, based on those profbssionab* assessment of a wide range of evidence available to them. ' I. i Furthermore, polling organizations allow respondents to voluntcw the. name of any candidate whom dtey support and that response is recorded. Some surveys also ask open-eqded questions which Bot as a fail'Safe to identify any additional candidates whose atqiport appean to be building among the electorate, bid was not significant enouj^ .to be included in traditional surveys. I declare under penalty of peijury that the fbregoing is true and correct. Executed thia ; I of December, 2014. Ftaak M. Newport, Ph.D. BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) MUR4987 The Commission on Presidential Debates ) DECLARATIQW OF FRANK NEWPORT. PI».P. ft I, Frank Newport, give this declaration based on personal knowledge. 1. I am Editor-in-Chiefofthe Gallup Poll. For over sixty years, the Gallup si Organization has been the world leader in the measureznent and analysis of people's d 'i* attitudes, opiiuons and behaviors. I have been associated with the Gallup Organization since 1987, and have served as Editor-inChief of the Gallup Poll since 1990. In my present capacity, I have direct or indirect responsibility for the over 50,000 interviews conducted annually by the Gallup Poll. 2. Prior to joining the Gallup Poll, I was a partner at the Houston research firm of Tarrance, Hill, Newport and Ryan, where I conducted public opinion and market research for a wide variety of businesses and organizations across the country. In that capacity, I was involved in the implementation and analysis of hundreds of market research and public opinion polls. 3. I obtained my master's degree and Ph.D. in Sociology firom the University of Michigan and have taught sociology at the University of Missouri - St. Louis. My writing on public opinion polling has appeared in numerous scholarly publications, including the the Journal of Political and Medical Socioloev. Social Forces: Piiblic Opinion Ouarterlv. and Public Perspectives, and I regularly appear on national television and radio programs as 232TS9V2 I an expert on public opinion polling. I also serve on tlie Board of Directors of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and as a Trustee of the National Council on Public Polls. 1 have extensive experience in the conducting of public opinion polling, the methodologies used by public opinion pollsters, the leading organizations involved in public opinion polling and the strengths and weaknesses of public opinion polling. 4. The science of public opinion polling is by &r the best mechanism we have ir i [L for accurately measuring public sentiment. Public opinion polling in this country is a highly f) ' A • developed and tested scientific process by which polling experts seek to arrive \ 4 ' ; $ Q mathematically and objectively at the best estimate of public opinion on a specific topic at % • 'f' ? 4 i specific time. Public opinion polling, and in particular national polling conducted during C? i Q the presidential general election campaign, has a high degree of reliability. The National 1 a 1 Council on Public Opiiuon Polls ("NCPP") recently conducted a study to exanune the 1 5^^ j reliability of pre-election polling conducted in the 1996 presidential election. NCPP averaged the final poll estimates of several leading survey organizations and found that the public polling results matched very closely, within 2%, the actual electoral results. The NCPP also analyzed final presidential election polls dating back over 50 years. NCPP's study found that average poll error has been similarly low fijr presidential elections between 19S6 and 1996. Moreover, both the methodology and frequency of political polling have improved and continue to improve. (The 1948 election is often cited by polling critics as proof of the unreliability of polls. Not only has the science of conducting public opinion polling advanced tremendously since 1948, but the polls conducted in 1948 were conducted far in advance of Election Day. It is likely that significant shifts in voter sentiment occurred in the substantial interval between the time the polls were conducted and Election Day.) 2327S9v2 5. One element of public opinion polling that is often misunderstood is the ' ! margin of sampling error. A poll seeks to pinpoint the best estimate of public opinion at a given time. The percentage figure reported by a polling organization reflects that organization's best estimate of the matter surveyed. The margin of sampling error that is 1. ^ usually reported with survey results indicates that, due to a variety of random factors, the • reported sample estimate could vary by a cert^ number of percentage points from the ^ actual state of public opinion on that day. That does not mean that a result aiiywhere within 0 ^f 'i* the margin oferrorisjust as likely as the reported estimate. Rather, the reported result is ;i the polling organization's best objective estimate of where public opinion stands at a i specific point in time. P 6. Another way in which polls can be misinterpreted is when the result of an election is compared to a poll taken well before the election as a means of criticizing the I perceived accuracy of the poll. A public opinion poll is an estimate of public opinion at the time the poll was taken, and is not a prediction of where public opinion will be at a later point in time. 7. I currently serve as a consultant to the CPD and in that regard provide CPD with consulting services and advice in the areas of polling methodology and statistics. I was retained in this connection prior to the CPD's announcement of its Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2000 General Election Debate Participation. 8. The CPD has made the determination that one of the criteria it will apply in deciding which candidates it wll invite to participate in its 2000 debates is whether the candidate has a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average 232789 v2 of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the CPD's determination. I have been retained as a technical advisor to the CPD in connection with its impiementation of the 15% standard. 9. The CPP has decided that in order to apply the above criterion, it will consider publicly reported results from the following national opinion polling organizations; ABC News / Washington Post: CBS News / New York;Timesi NBC News / Wall Street C u Journal: CNN / USA Today / Gallup; and Fox News / Opinion Dynamics. Each of these it j five polling organizations is nationally recognized and well-respected and each has a fine record of conducting public opinion polls in a reliable, professional and sdentific manner. O I s These polls are referred to widely for reputable estimates of a candidate's standing. In 4 it • addition, these organizations each can be expected to poll frequently and regularly in the ii I final weeks ofthe 2000 Presidential camprugn. ifU 10. CPD Avill not be conducting its own polls or instructing the organizations on how to conduct their research. Rather, CPD has made the decision to. rely on the professional judgment of the survey research scientists and proftssionals who work for the polls to make decisions on how to collect their data and report their results. I am generally familiar with the methods employed by the five organizations, and I believe that it is reasoiiable to conclude that polls by these organizations will be conducted in a responsible, professional manner, and that they will be conducted frequently during the time period directly before and between the CPD's scheduled debates. 11. There will be some unavoidable differences in the methodology employed by each polling organization; for example, there may be differences in the definition of the national electorate, the sample size used, and the wording of questions used by the polling 233789 v2 organizations. These types of differences do not in and of themselves mean that any of the polls use unreasonable methodology or that any of the polls are conducted in a manner that is not objective. To avoid any methodological diflerences the CPD would have to limit itself to using one poll. Instead, in order to eliminate over-dependence on any one poll, CPD has chosen to use a simple average from among results recently reported by the above- listed organizations. {\} (0 12. The use of an average of a number of polls in this context is reasonable. The :l* i :l" average of a number of polls can be determined in a scientific, objective manner, and that i i'l average will be a good indicator of a candidate's level of public support. Indeed, the use by (D s the CPD of an average could have the result of reducing random error that may be :\- a associated with the use of data from only one source. u (II 13. Most national polls provide respondents the opportunity to volunteer the (U name of candidates whose names are not presented in the survey question. Some survey organizations also will ask "open-ended" questions in order to pick up the names of any candidates whose support appears to be building among the electorate. It is up to each polling organization to determine at what level of support it will report resuhs relating to a particular candidate and at what level of support it will include a candidate's name in the question itself. Based on my experience, I believe that there is an extraordinarily high likelihood that any candidate who enjoys a level of support that approaches 15% of the national electorate would be included among the candidates identified in the polling questions asked by the organizations on whose polls CPD will rely. 14. (jiven polling practices in the recent past and my professional expectations regarding polling to be done in connection with the 2000 general election campaign, I n>7>9«> expect that the sample sizes for the five polls selected by the CPD will be roughly the same. In the event that they are not, I do not expect that minor differmGes in sample sizes used will in and of themselves cause sigiuficant variation in the results reported by the polls, or that small differences in sample sizes will make one poll sigmficantly more reliable than another. This is based on my belief that each of the organizations employs professional, scientific and reliable methods. In addition, given past experience, the polling organizations fM are not likely to allocate undecided votes among the candidates at that stage of the campaign when the CPD will be consulting their polls. Some polling organizations allocate I'i •. Op undecideds in their last polls before an election, while others never do allocate undecideds. S . :!• 4 , c Polling organizations also have different mechanisms they use to allocate undecideds. It is I my understanding that the CPD has made the decision to rely on the judgment of the polling ' Q firms themselves in regard to the undecided allocation issu^ and that the CPD vnll hot attempt to repercentage or allocate undecideds itself 1S. I declare under penalty of peijuiy that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May _±, 2000. Frank Newport 232789 V2 Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - The... hlip://fivcthirtyeight.blogs.nytimcs.com/2012/ll/I0/which-polls-fared-be... ®|je JfcUr JJark Slmeisi .. FiveThirtyEight- - — — Nate Silver's Political Calculus Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race ^ By Nate Silver November lo, 2012 8:38 pifi As Americans' modes of communication change, the techniques that produce the most accurate polls seems to be changing as well. In last Tuesday's presidential election, a number of polling firms that conduct their surveys online had strong results. Some telephone polls also performed well. But others, especially those that called only landlines or took other methodological shortcuts, performed poorly and showed a more Republican-leaning electorate than the one that actually turned out. Our method of evaluating pollsters has typically involved looking at all the polls that a firm conducted over the final three weeks of the campaign, rather than its very last poll alone. The reason for this is that some polling firms may engage in "herding" toward the end of the campaign, changing their methods and assumptions such that their results are more in line with those of other polling firms. There were roughly two dozen polling firms that issued at least five surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, counting both state and national polls. (Multiple instances of a tracking poll are counted as separate surveys in my analysis, and only likely voter polls are used.) For each of these polling firms, I have calculated the average error and the average statistical bias in the margin it reported between President Obama and Mitt Romney, as compared against the actual results nationally or in one state. I of5 10/19/2015 5:35 PM Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - The;.. http;//fivethirtycight.blogs.nytiines.com/2012/l 1/10/which-polls-fared-be..; For instance, a polling firm that had Mr. Obama ahead by two points in Colorado — a state that Mr. Obama actually won by about five points — would have had a three^point error for that state. It also would have had a three-point statistical bias tpward Republicans there. The bias calculation measures in which direction, Republican or Democratic, a firm's polls tended to miss. If a firm's polls overestimated Mr. Obama's performance in some states, and Mr. Romne/s in others, it could have little overall statistical bias, since the misses came in different directions. In contrast, the estimate of the average error in the firm's polls measures how far off the firm's polls were in either direction, on average. 3 Among the more prolific polling firms, the most accurate by this measure was ^ TIPP, which conducted a national tracldng poll for Investors' Business Daily. 4 Relative to other national polls, their results seemed to be Democratic-leaning at the g time they were published. However, it turned out that most polling firms underestimated Mr. Obama's performance, so those that had what had seemed to be Democratic-leaning results were often closest to the final outcome. Conversely, polls that were Republican-leaning relative to the consensus did especially poorly. Among telephone-based polling firms that conducted a significant number of state-by-state surveys, the best results came from CNN, Mellman and Grove Insight. The latter two conducted most of their polls on behalf of liberal-leaning organizations. However^ as I mentioned, since the polling consensus underestimated Mr. Obama's performance somewhat, the polls that seemed to be Democratic- leaning often came closest to the mark. Several polling firms got notably poor results, on the other hand. For the second consecutive election — the same was true in 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney's performance by about four percentage points, on average. Polls by American Research Group and Mason-Dixon also largely missed the mark. Mason-Dixon might be given a pass since it has a decent track record over the longer term, while American Research Group has long been unreliable. 2 of 5 10/19/2015 5:35 PM Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - The... http://fivethirtyeightblogs.nytimes.eom/2012/l 1/10/which-polls-fared-be... FiveThirtyEight did not use polls by the firm Pharos Research Group in its analysis, since the details of the polling firm are sketchy and since the principal of the firm, Steven Leuchtman, was unable to answer due-diligence questions when contacted by FiveThirtyEight, such as which call centers he was using to conduct the polls. The firm's polls turned out to be inaccurate, and to have a Democratic bias. It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six - percentage points among-likely voters,-far-different-from-the-average-of-other - surveys. Gallup's final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama's performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House. Instead, some of the most accurate firms were those that conducted their polls online. The final poll conducted by Google Consumer Surveys had Mr. Obama ahead in the national popular vote by 2.3 percentage points - very close to his actual margin, which was 2.6 percentage points based on ballots counted through Saturday morning. Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, came close to the actual results in most places that it surveyed, as did the Canadian online polling firm Angus Reid. Another online polling firm, YouGov, got reasonably good results. The online polls conducted by JZ Analytics, run by the pollster John Zogby, were not used in the FiveThirtyEight forecast because we do not consider their method to be scientific, since it encourages voters to volunteer to participate in their surveys rather than sampling them at random. Their results were less accurate than most of the online polling firms, although about average as compared with the broader group of surveys. We can also extend the analysis to consider the 90 polling firms that conducted at least one likely voter poll in the final three weeks of the campaign. One should 3 of 5 10/19/2015:5:35 PM Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - The... http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.eom/2012/l l/lO/which-polls-fared-be... probably not read too much into the results for the individual firms that issued just one or two polls, which is not a sufficient sample size to measure reliability. However, a look at this broader collective group of pollsters, and the techniques they use, may tell us something about which methods are most effective. Among the nine polling firms that conducted their polls wholly or partially online, the average error in calling the election result was 2.1 percentage points. That compares with a 3.5-point error for polling firms that used live telephone interviewers, and 5.0 points for "robopolls" that conducted their surveys by automated script. The traditional telephone polls had a slight Republican bias on the whole, while the robopolls often had a significant Republican bias. (Even the automated polling firm Public Policy Polling, which often polls for liberal and 3 Democratic clients, projected results that were slightly more favorable for Mr. Romney than what he actually achieved.) The online polls had little overall bias, 4 however. 7 The difference between the performance of live telephone polls and the automated polls may partly reflect the fact that many of the live telephone polls call cellphones along with landlines, while few of the automated surveys do. (Legal restrictions prohibit automated calls to cellphones under many circumstances.) Research by polling firms and academic groups suggests that polls that fail to call cellphones may underestimate the performance of Democratic candidates. The roughly one-third of Americans who rely exclusively on cellphones tend to be younger, more urban, worse off financially and more likely to be black or Hispanic than the broader group of voters, all characteristics that correlate with Democratic voting. Weighting polling results by demographic characteristics may make the sample more representative, but there is increasing evidence that these weighting techniques will not remove all the bias that is introduced by missing so many voters. Some of the overall Republican bias in the polls this year may reflect the fact that Mr. Obama made gains in the closing days of the campaign, for reasons such as Hurricane Sandy, and that this occurred too late to be captured by some polls. In the FiveThirtyEight "now-cast," Mr. Obama went from being 1.5 percentage points 4 of 5 10/19/2015 5:35 PM Wliich Polls Fared Best (and Worst) In the2012 Presidential Race - The... http;//fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytinies.com/2012/ll/10/which-polls-fared-bc... ahead in the popular vote on Oct. 25 to 2.5 percentage points ahead by Election Day itself, close to his actual figure. Nonetheless, polls conducted over the final three weeks of the campaign had a two-point Republican bias overall, probably more than can be explained by the late shift alone. In addition, likely voter polls were slightly more Republican-leaning than the actual results in many races in 2010, In my view, there will always be anjmpprjiant p_l_ace for high-quali^ telephone polls, such as those conducted by The New York Times and other major news organizations, which make an effort to reach as representative a sample of voters as possible and which place calls to cellphones. And there may be an increasing role for online polls, which can have an easier time reaching some of the voters, especially younger Americans, that telephone polls are prone to miss. I'm not as certain about the future for automated telephone polls. Some automated polls that used innovative strategies got reasonably good results this year. SurveyUSA, for instance, supplements its automated calls to landlines with live calls to cellphone voters in many states. Public Policy Polling uses lists of registered voters to weigh its samples, which may help to correct for the failure to reach certain kinds of voters. Rasmussen Reports uses an online panel along with the automated calls that it places. The firm's poor results this year suggest that the technique will need to be refined. At least they have some game plan to deal with the new realities of polling. In contrast, polls that place random calls to landlines only, or that rely upon likely voter models that were developed decades ago, may be behind the times. Perhaps it won't be long before Google, not Gallup, is the most trusted name in polling. © 2015 The New York Times Company 5 of 5 10/19/2015 5:35 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times http;//fivethirtycighl.blogs.nytimcs.com/2012/10/18/gallup-.vs-the-world/ Slje iNlftu JJork Simc0 FiveThirtyEight - — Nate Silver's Political Calculus Gallup VS. the World 4 By Nate Silver October 18, 2012 6:29 pm 4 Our regularly scheduled forecast update for Wednesday slipped through the I cracks. The FiveThirtyEight forecast was not much changed based on Wednesday's 9 polls, however, with Barack Obama's chances of winning the Electoral College increasing incrementally to 65.7 percent from 64.8 percent. We'll catch up with Thursday's polls with the next update. In the meantime, I'm going to focus on one particular survey, the Gallup national tracking poll. The Gallup national tracking poll now shows a very strong lead for Mitt Romney. As of Wednesday, he was ahead hy six points among likely voters. Mr. Romney's advantage grew further, to seven points, when Gallup updated its numbers on Thursday afternoon. The Gallup poll is accounted for in the forecast model, along with all other state and national surveys. However, its results are deeply inconsistent with the results that Other polling firms are showing in the presidential race, and the Gallup poll has a history of performing very poorly when that is the case. Other national polls show a race that is roughly tied on average, while state polls continue to indicate a narrow advantage of about two points for President Obama in tipping-point states like Ohio. The forecast has Mr. Obama as a narrow favorite in I of 7 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times htlp://Fivethirtyeighl.blogs.nylimes.com/20l2/10/l8/gallup-vs-the-world/ the election largely on the basis of the state polls. (You can read my thoughts here on the challenge of reconciling state and national poll data.) Our database contains records from 136 distinct pollsters that have released at least one state or national survey at some point in this election cycle. Of those, 53 are active enough to have issued at least one survey since Oct. 1. With so much data to sort through, it will usually be a counterproductive use of one's time to get overly attached to the results of any one particular poll. Whether 1 you look at the relatively simple averaging methods used by Web sites like Real Clear 0 Politics, or the more involved techniques in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, the Gallup 4 national tracking poll constitutes a relatively small part of the polling landscape. 4 h Let me walk you through the rules for how the FiveThirtyEight model weighs ^ the Gallup poll relative to all the other information it accounts for. This explanation will be modestly technical — you may want to skip ahead to the next section if you P aren't concerned with these details. The Role of the Gallup Poll in the FiveThirtyEight Model There are two maijor pieces of information that we're looking to extract from each poll. One is simply the raw number — who is ahead or behind? The other is the trend it shows in the race — which candidate is gaining or losing ground? Different types of polls are relatively more and relatively less useful for these pui-poses. Because national tracking polls like Gallup are published every day, they are useful for the trend part of the calculation, measuring the change in the race against a constant baseline. Each poll receives a weight in the FiveThirtyEight trend-line calculation based on its sample size and its pollster rating. The model accounts for the fact that tracking polls use an overlapping set of interviews. A three-day tracking poll might consist of interviews conducted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for instance. When the polling firm issues its next release of the Survey, a fresh set of interviews from Thursday will replace the ones from Monday in the sample. Thus, we reduce the weight assigned to each edition of a tracking poll to avoid counting the same 2 of? 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimcs.eom/2012/10/l8/gallup-vs-lhe-world/ interviews multiple times. Even so, there are quite a few interviews conducted by a tracking poll over the course of a week — about 3,000 per week in the Gallup national tracking poll, for instance. But Gallup is not the only national tracking poll. There are six published on most days; the others are from Rasmussen Reports, Ipsos, the RAND Corporation, Investors' Business.Daily and United Press International. (A seventh daily tracking poll, from Public Policy Polling, made its debut on Thursday.) Of the daily tracking polls, the Gallup survey receives the largest weight in the trend-line calculation. It uses a larger sample size than most other polls, and it has a § methodology that includes calls to cellphone voters. On the other hand, the pollster ratings are also based in part on past accuracy, I and Gallup's performance is middling in that department. It mostly gets a lot of weight by comparison, since the tracking surveys are a mediocre group on the whole. The trend-line adjustment also looks at other national polls when they are published, like the New York Times/CBS News or the Wall Street Journal/NBC News surveys. This is a high-quality group of polls; the disadvantage is that they are published only occasionally. State polls are also useful for determining the overall trend in the race. In this case, the advantage is the abundance and diversity of data: there might be 10 or 20 state polls published on a typical day, often from 5 or 10 polling firms. The trend-line calculation applies a 50 percent penalty to the weight assigned to state polls because trends in any one state could be an aberration. However, the states generally rise and fall together when there is a shift in the national climate — and if one candidate makes an especially large gain in one state, it must necessarily be counterbalanced by others in which it is below average. The relative amount of weight assigned to each type of poll is fluid rather than fixed, and depends on the overall volume of data. On days when a large number of state polls is published but few national ones, they will generally be the more useful 3 of? 10/19/2015.5:42 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.ny'times.com/2012/10/l 8/gallup-vs-lhe-world/ source for making inferences about the trend in the race. But on average since Oct. i, the Gallup national tracking poll has accounted for 12 percent of the information that the model uses to calculate the trend line. The other daily tracking polls, collectively, have accounted for 24 percent of the data, and the occasionally published national polls for 19 percent. Finally, the state polls account for about 45 percent of the data used to calculate the trend-line adjustment. Thus, even though the Gallup national tracking poll is more influential than any other individual poll series in the FiVeThirtyEight trend-line calculation, it still accounts for only about 12 percent of it. It can very easily be outweighed by the other polls if they are in disagreement with it. As I mentioned, however, this is only half the battle. Once "old" polls are brought up to date by adjusting them to reflect the current trend in the race, we still need to take some kind of average of them. i- The way the polls are employed to calculate the average is a little different than in calculating the trend line. Our research suggests, for instance, that state polls, rather than national polls, often provide a better estimate of the national popular vote, in addition to the Electoral College. In addition, although the trend-line calculation relies fairly heavily on the quantity of polling — even a mediocre poll can be useful for measuring how the race is changing if it is published frequently — the polling average tends to place more emphasis on the quality of the poll. (Otherwise high-quality polls that are a bit of out-of-date can still have a fair amount of influence on the average. The problem with these polls being less recent is mitigated because the trend-line adjustment, serves to make them more contemporary in the event that there has been a., significant shift in the race.) Over all, the Gallup daily tracking poll accounts for only about 3 percent of the weight in this stage of the calculation. The national tracking polls collectively, including. Gallup, account for only about 10 percent of it. Most of the weight, instead, is given to the state polls. 4 of 7 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times http://fivelhirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.eom/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/ This is, obviously, a rather detailed answer to the seemingly simple question of how much information is provided by the Gallup national tracking poll, as opposed to all the other state and national surveys. Nevertheless, any rigorous attempt to consider the value of the Gallup poll would probably get you to something of the same answer. Perhaps the Gallup poll accounts for 5 or 10 percent of the information that an election analyst should evaluate on a given day. The Gallup poll's influence on the subjective perception about where the presidential race stands seems to be proportionately much greater than that, however — especially when the poll seems to diverge from the consensus. This simply isn't rational, in my view. As I discuss in my book, our first instincts are often quite poor when it comes to weighing information. We tend to put too much emphasis on the newest, most widely reported and most dramatic pieces of data — more than is usually warranted. Gallup Performs Poorly When Out of Consensus Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly. You do not need to look any further than Gallup's track record over the past two election cycles to find a demonstration of this. In 2008, the Gallup poll put Mr. Obama 11 points ahead of John McCain on the eve of that November's election. That was tied for Mr. Obama's largest projected margin of victory among any of the 15 or so national polls that were released just in advance of the election. The average of polls put Mr. Obama up by about seven points. The average did a good job; Mr. Obama won the popular vote by seven points. The Gallup poll had a four-point miss, however. In 2010, Gallup put Republicans ahead by 15 points on the national 5 of 7 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup vs. Ihc World - The New York Times http://fivcthirtyeight.blogs.nytimcs.eom/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/ Congressional ballot, higher than other polling firms, which put Republicans an average of eight or nine points ahead instead. In fact. Republicans won the popular vote for the United States House by about seven percentage points — fairly close to the average of polls, but representing another big miss for Gallup. Apart from Gallup's final poll not having been especially accurate in recent years, it has often been a wild ride to get there. Their polls, for whatever reason, have 1 often found implausibly large swings in the race. In 2000, for example, Gallup had George W. Bush i6 points ahead among likely 4 voters in polling it conducted in early August. By Sept. 20, about six weeks later, they Q had A1 Gore up by lo points instead: a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the 4 course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that ^ large. Then in October 2000, Gallup showed a 14-point swing toward Mr. Bush over the course of a few days, and had him ahead by 13 points on Oct. 27 — just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie. In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton's margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days. After the Republican convention in 2008, Gallup had John McCain leading Mr. Obama by as many as 10 points among likely voters. Although some other polls also had Mr. McCain pulling ahead in the race, no other polling firm ever gave him larger than a four-point lead. It's not clear what causes such large swings, although Gallup's likely voter model may have something to do with it. Even its registered voter numbers can be volatile, however. In early September of this year, after the Democratic convention, Gallup had Mr. Obama's lead among registered voters going from seven points to zero points over the course of a week — and then reverting to six points just as quickly. Most other polling firms showed a roughly steady race during this time period. 6 of 7 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup vs. the World - The New York Times http://fivethirtycight.blogs.nytimes.coni/2012/10/18/gallup-ysrthe-world/ Because Gallup's polls usually take large sample sizes, statistical variance alone probably cannot account these sorts of shifts. It seems to be an endemic issue: with their methodology. To be clear, I would not recommend that you literally just disregard the Gallup poll. You should consider it — but consider it in context. The context is that its most recent results differ substantially fi-om the dozens of other state;,and itatioual. ppUs. about the QampaigiL Itls much morejikely thafcG>llu^ . is wrong and everyone else is right than the other way around. A version of this article appears in print on 10/20/2012, on page A12 of the NewYork edition with the headiine: In National Polling, it's Gailup vs. the-Rest. i © 2015 The New York Times Company •^1 I; 7 of? 10/19/2015 5:42 PM Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012 - The Washington Post http5://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-flx/wp/20l3/06/04/gallup-exp.. toa6l)ington post The Fix Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012 By Scott Clement June 4,2013 The Gallup Poll's misfire in the 2012 election was caused by a variety of defects in the way the firm conducts surveys, according to the organization's top pollster, who provided the most detailed explanation to date of how the firm plans to improve their polling accuracy in future elections. Flanked by survey experts from aicademia, Gallup President Frank Newp'drCwalked through four major factors thatjed the poll to veer toward the "inaccurate end of the spectrum." (Gallup's final pre-election poll result - 49 percent Mitt Romney, 48 percent President Obama - differed not only from other surveys but also from Obama's four-point victory.) Those 4 factors ranged from problems with the organization's likely voter model to unpublished landline numbers. (Much more on that below.) i i The unusual gathering by the powers-that-be at Gallup - and the report issued ~ is a recognition of the damage done to the poll's brand in the last election. Gallup's polling drew intense criticism in the wake of the election and its partnership wth USA Today was dissolved. (The organizations described the breakup as mutual). Newport outlined four main reasons for the poll's inaccuracy. "None of these factors are large in and of themselves — but they are significant enough that they made a difference in who would win the presidential election," he added. The four factors he listed: 1. Likely voter model shifted too far tovyard Romney Gallup's seven-question model to determine likely voters is famous in the polling world, but may have contributed to errors in 2012. While most likely voter models improved Romney's 2012 standing, Gallup's resulted in a larger-than-average four-point shift. In particular, the finding mirrors problems in the 2008 New Hampshire primary, when Gallup's likely voter model produced larger errors than un-adjusted data, according to a report by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Gallup said the 2012 election data were not sufficient to diagnose what was wrong withits likely voter model, but plans to test the accuracy of the model in gubernatorial elections this year in New Jersey and Virginia by comparing survey results with records of whether respondents actually voted. 2. Too many whites Gallup's pre-election surveys contained too many whites among the base sample of American adults and too few Hispanics 1 of3 10/19/2015 5:43 PM Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012 - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.eom/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/04/gallup-cxp., and African Americans, a bias that had the potential for great impact given deep racial voting diyisions. Newport said the way Gallup asked about race - a series of "yes/no" questions - resulted in a higher share of respondents identifying as multiple races than in government estimates and made weighting to correct distributions more difficult. This year, Gallup implemented new questions about race that are similar to other public polls, a change that has "resulted in an impact on presidential job approval ratings." according to Newport. 3i Sub-reg;ional swings Gallup's final pre-election polls overrepresented voters in regions where Romney performed better. While Gallup sampled and weighted sui-veys to match each of the four regions' population levels, Newport said certain sub-regions - in particular (t time-zones that interviewers called latest - were underrepresented throughout their election polling. "Better controls of 0 calls within time zone sub-regions would have increased Obama's margin over Romney by at least one percentage point," ^ Newport said. Gallup hasn't changed their method, but says they are examining ways to better organize call strategies and produce a more accurate sample. 4 4* Secret landline phones Gallup, like other pollsters, calls both landline and cellular phones in surveys to ensure nearly all Americans have a chance at participating. But in 2011, Gallup decided to begin only calling landline phone numbers listed in public directories, a practice that costs less, believing that people with unlisted landline phones could still be reached via cellular phones. But an experiment conducted this spring found that this method produced a sample that was older, less Democratic and less likely to approve of President Obama. As a result, Gallup plans return to calling both listed and unlisted landline numbers. Gallup examined, but ruled out, a number of possible explanations for their 2012 poll miscues, described in their full report. Scott Clement is a pollster with Capital Insight, the independent polling group of Washington Post Media. Pollster Peyton M. Craighill contributed to this report. Scott Clement is a survey research analyst for The Washington Post. Scott specializes in public opinion about politics, election campaigns and public policy. Your Three. Videos curated for you. 2of3 10/19/2015 5:43 PM Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012 - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.coin/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/04/gallup-exp... Learn to make tradition 1:19 ; The A look inside the world14:14 See Unconventional warfare 3:49 UsI 3 of 3 10/19/2015 5:43 PM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? http;//www.nationaljournal.coiTi/s/8875 l/gallup-blcw-its-presidential-pol... www.natiqnaljournal.com CAMPAIGN 2012 Polls, but Why? The polling giant and other experts delve into how to fix a persistent bias toward -Romney-and-the GOP." - Steven Shepard O November 18,2012 Last week's presidential election has widely been seen as a victory for pollsters O who, on balance, saw President Obama as the favorite before Election Day. But g that wasn't the case for the esteemed Gallup Organization. Its polling 'fhHp://www.galliip.com/poll/T;78i7/election-20i2-likelv-voters^trial- heat-obama-romnev.asPxl showed Republican Mitt.Romney with a significant lead among likely voters 10 days before Nov. 6 and marginally ahead of Obama on the eve of an election that Obama won by about 3 percentage points. At an event on lliursday at Gallup's downtown Washington offices, Gallup Editor in Chief Frank Newport told a gathering of fellow pollsters that the organization was reviewing its methodology in light of these inaccuracies. But its fairly consist ent Republican bias in 2012 and its overestimation of the white portion of the electorate raise important questions about sampling and the way Gallup determ ines which respondents are registered and likely to vote. "We don't have a definitive answer," Newport said. The day before Election Day, Gallup released data ciilled from tlm Four pievibiis davs(http://^vww.^allup•com/poll/l^8filQ/l•omnev-obama-Eal1up^^Flnal-election- siirvev.aspxL showing Romney with a i-point lead among likely voters, 49 per cent to 48 percent. Before that final survey, Gallup had suspended polling for three days in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, when nearly 10 million Americ ans were without electricity. Immediately before the storm hit, Gallup showed Romney ahead by 5 points, 51 lofll 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? http://www.nationaljoumal.eom/s/8875 l/gailup-blew-its-presidenfial-pol... percent to 46 percent, and Romney led by as many as 7 points in mid-October. Ail the while, most other national polls showed a neck-and-neck race. The reasons for Gallup's inaccurate results remain unclear, and they are particu larly baffling because Gallup,, from a simple methodological standpoint, does things the right way. The company calls both landline and cellular telephones, and in October, it mcreased the proportion fhtfD:./Aiollingmatti3fs:galht /20i2/.id/survevTmeth6ds-cdmplcx.-ahdrever-ev61vinE.htmn of cell-phone inter views to half. Moreover, Gallup remains among the world's most prominent and respected public-opinion organizations, and its more than. 75 years of polling data comprise a large portion of the information we have about Americans' attitudes about their government and society over that time. So were Gallup's struggles this year the result of sampling bias — through its ran- dom-digit-dialing interviews, did Gallup simply talk to too many Romney sup- =5 porters? Was its likely-voter screen filtering out Obama supporters who would go on to cast ballots for the president? Or is it some combination of the two? 3 "Model" Behavior Gallup's likely-vQter model fhttp://nationaljournai.cpm/i)Qlitics/romn^y^gdggS: •obomarin-first7galliip-mW5ureT.of^ikely-votctS"gOJ.ajie0q) is a battery of seven questions it uses to determine which respondents are most likely to cast ballots. Tliese questions include how likely they say they are to vote, their self-reported vote history, whether they know where to vote, and how much thought they have given to the election. Respondents are awarded points for their answers to these questions, and only those who accrue a significant number of points pass through the likely-voter screen. But these measures may have led Gallup to understate the participation of the critical demographic groups that comprised Obama's winning coalition: younger voters and minorities. On Oct. 26, Gallup.Meqsed a demographic ah^lygis fhttp:/7wwW:galhip,CQm /pon/js8B9Q/g0ia^lectorate-|qplcs-like-2008.a$p?t).of those respondents classi fied as likely voters in its daily tracking poll between Oct. 1 and Oct. 24. Of those voters, 78 percent were classified as non-Hispanic white, significantly more than the percentage of white voters measured by exit pollsters, 72 percent. Four years ago, Gallup also found an electorate that was 78 percent white, an overestimation from the 74 or 75 percent recorded by exit polls. But this year's disparity is of a greater magnitude. Gallup has also underrepresented younger respondents in its measures of likely 2oril 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? htlp://www.nationaljoumal.com/s/8875!/gallup-blew-its-presidentiaI-pol.. voters. Over the first 24 days of October, 13 percent of Galliip's likely-voter sample was younger than age 30. Exit polls show these younger voters made up 19 percent of the national electorate. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman believes this Idnd of likely-voter screen is counterproductive. Speaking at the event at the Gallup building, Mellman said that pollsters and the media have "overfetishized this whole notion of likely voters." "We should not be concerned about finding likely voters," said Mellman. "We should be concerned about simulating the likely electorate." Implicit in Mell- 11 man's comments is the idea that the composition of that likely electorate would fj not have been 78 percent white. Free "SamplevS" jj But others say that issues with Gallup's initial sampling may be to blame. Andrew 8 Kohut, the retiring director of the Pew Research Center who served as president of the Gallup Organization from 1979-1989, pointed to the difference in Gallup's results for all registered voters versus likely voters in its final preelection poll: Romney led by 1 point among likely voters, but Obama held a 3-point lead among all voters. Kohut compared that to Pew's final results fhtfH://www.people- press.oi:g/20i2/ii/04/Qbama.gains-edgg--in.ctimpaigns-final-days/J, which also showed a discrepancy of 4 net points between registered and likely voters. "I think there's something very basic going on with their sample. It's not with their likely-voter scale," Kohut told National Journal in a telephone interview, adding, "I helped create that likely-voter scale." Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz wrote an article for the Huffington Post Pollster more than two weeks before. Election Day titled, "Is Galliip Headi.ng •for Another Die Miss?•nit'tp:/./ivww:huffinetoiiDost:com/alan-abramowitz /electioh-nolis-gallup b iQ8q86';.htmD" Abramowitz pointed to Gallup's over statement of support for the generic Republican congressional candidate in 2010, compared to the overall number of votes cast for Republican congressional can didates in that election, as the basis for his assertion that Gallup is "the biggest outlier among all of the national polls." '"iTiey need to.rethink what they're doing," Abramowitz said Friday. While Abramowitz pointed in his piece to the demographic composition of the likely-voter sample as a cause of Gallup's outlier status, he toldJVationai Journal, 3 of 11 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup Blew Its PresidciUial Polls, but Why? http;//www.natioiialjoumal,coiTi/s/88751/gallup-blcw-its-presidential-pol.. "The results for registered voters were also off." Abramowitz referenced a libiig; exhaustive qiticle fhttp;.//w.wv.htiffingt6npoijil.c9th/2Qt2/o6/.i7/galluB^oll-racerbarack-. dbama n. isSQtiiw.htmlPutni hp ref=(Spollster) written earlier this year by Huffington Post Pollster founder Mark Blumenthal that suggested the way Gallup asked its respondents about their race Was causing them to weight their surveys to a population with more whites and fewer nonwhites. And while some of Gal- lup's methodological tweaks this year led them to interview more nonwhites, for the overall sample, "for some reason that didn't affect what they were finding" for registered or likely voters, Abramowitz said. O verweigliti ng In the blog post announcing Gallup's switch to a 50 percent cell-phone sample, 4 Newport also described the process by which Gallup weights, or adjusts, its ° * sample. It makes adjustments to ensure that the initial sample of adults is reflect- ^ ive of the overall population — adjustments that Blumenthal wrote may be flawed ^ — but it does not adjust fiirther to simulate what Mellman, the Democratic poll- 2 ster, calls the "likely electorate." "As has always been the case, we do not attempt to weight the composition of the likely voter sample in any way — such as by political party or race or age — to ap proximate some guess of what we or others think it should look like demograph- ically on Election Day," Newport vm)te. "That approach is precarious given that the electorate can look quite different (especially looking at political parties) from one election to the next;" The problem for Gallup is that the electorate looked only slightly different from the most recent presidential election, and those differences reflected increasing roles for demographic groups more favorable to the incumbent, instead of the de creasing roles Gallup was finding. After the election, Newport wrote in another.blog post nittD://pollingmatters.gallup.coin/20i:2/ii/ndlliriE-likelv-voter.s-ahd-law- Qf-Gommons.htmn that he thinks "it is clear that voting today is subject to new pushes and pulls, including, in particular, the highly sophisticated ground games employed by the Obama (and, to a lesser degree, the Romney) campaign this year." He continued: "These methods may in the end affect voters who were not certain about voting at the time of a poll interview, but who were brought into the voting pool at the last minute by aggressive get-out-the-vote and late registration meth- 4ofll 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? hltp://www.nationaljournal.eom/s/8875 l/gallup-blew-its-presidential-pol., ods. Our traditional 'bootstrap' method of identifying likely voters is self-weight ing — letting voters' responses to questions determine their probability of voting. This bears investigation." But, as Pew's Kohut pointed out, his organization uses a very similar likely-voter screen, and their final poll was considerably more accurate. At the Thursday event, Newport conceded, "Everybody has a likely-voter model." Yet Gallup re mained a Republican-leaning outlier over the final weeks of the campaign. While tlie reasons for Gallup's GOP lean are not definitive, Kohut sounded wistful about the organization's poor performance. "I'm puzzled by it," he said. "I feel very badly about it. I wish they had done well." ~ I "Model" Behavior Gallup's h'kely-YOtgy model nittP7/hatiqhaljQl.U7if7l.qQm/pplitics/roininey-cdgas- Qbama-inrfirSt-galluD-measure-of-likelv-voters-2O.i2i0oq.) is a battery of seven 4 questions it uses to determine which respondents are most likely to cast ballots. These questions include how likely they say they are to vote, their self-reported vote history, whether they know where to vote, and how much thought they have given to the election. Respondents are awarded points for their answers to these, questions, and only those who accrue a significant number of points pass through the likely-voter screen. But these measures may have led Gallup to understate the participation of the critical demographic groups that comprised Obama's winning coalition; younger voters and minorities. On Oct. 26, Gallup released a.demographic annlvsis;fbttp:/./w\vw.Ka.UiipjQrn •/poll/if;839.q/2bi2relcct0rateMo6k$-like-2Oo8.aspx:) of those respondents classi fied as likely voters in its daily tracking poll between Oct. 1 and Oct. 24. Of those voters, 78 percent were classified as non-Hispanic white, significantly more than the percentage of white voters measured by exit pollsters, 72 percent. Four years ago, Gallup also found an electorate that was 78 percent white, an overestimation from the 74 or 75 percent recorded by exit polls. But this year's disparity is of a greater magnitude. Gallup has also underrepresented younger respondents in its measures of likely voters. Over the first 24 days of October, 13 percent of Gallup's likely-voter sample was younger than age 30. Exit polls show these younger voters made up 19 percent of the national electorate. 5 of 11 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? http;//www.nationaljournal.com/s/8875 l/gallup-bJew-its-presidential.-pol.. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman believes this kind of likely-voter screen is counterproductive. Speaking at the event at the Gallup building, Mellman said that pollsters and the media have "overfetishized this whole notion of likely voters." "We .should not he concerned about finding likely voters," said Mellman. "We should he concerned about simulating the likely electorate." Implicit in Mell- man's comments is the idea that the composition of that likely electorate would not have been 78 percent white. Free "Samples" But others say that issues with Gallup's initial sampling may be to blame. Andrew Kobut, the retiring director of the Pew Research Center who served as president of the Gallup Organization from 1979-1989, pointed to the difference in Gallup's results for all registered voters versus likely voters in its final preelection poll: 8 Romney led by 1 point among likely voters, but Obama held a 3-point lead among 4 all voters. Kohut compared that to Pewls final results nittp://\vwvv.pe6ple- 6 press.org/20i:2yi:iyb^/obama-gainsWedgeTih-campaiEns-fihaT-davs/li. whichalso showed a discrepancy of 4 net points between registered and likely voters. "I think there's something very basic going on with their sample. It's not with their likely-voter scale," Kohut told National Journal in a telephone interview, adding, "I helped create that likely-voter scale." Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz wrote an article for the Huffihgton Post Pollster more than two weeks before Election Day titled, "Is Gallup Heading •for Another Big Miss? nittp://\v\vw.huffihetohpost.cOniyalan^abrambwtz /electioriTPoIls-galliip b idSdS&q.htmlV Abramowitz pointed to Gallup's over statement of support for the generic Republican congressional candidate.in 2010, compared to the overall number of votes cast for Republican congressional can didates in that election, as the basis for his assertion that Gallup is "the biggest outlier among all of the national polls." "They need to rethink what they're doing," Abramowitz said Friday. While Abramowitz pointed in his piece to the demographic composition of the likely-voter sample as a cause of Gallup's outlier status, he told National Journal, "The results for registered voters were also off." Abramowitz referenced a long, exhaustive article (ht1p;/Avvy\v.liuffin^ipost:cdm/26i2/o6/t7/gA]lpp'-no"-''9CP-barack- 6ofn 10y20y20l5 H:19AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? http://www.nationaljoumal.eom/s/88751/gallup-bIew-ils-presidential-pol.. dljaiTtia n .i.';8qQ^7.html?utm- lip refe@polisteiO written earlier this year by Huffington Post Pollster founder Mark Blumeiithal that suggested the way Gallup asked its respondents about their race was causing them to weight their surveys to a population with more whites and fewer nonwhites. And while some of Gal- lup's methodological tweaks this year led them to interview more nonwhites, for the overall sample, "for some reason that didn't affect what they were finding" for registered or likely voters, Abramowitz said. Overweighting In the blog post announcing Gallup's switch to a 50 percent cell-phone sample, J[ Newport also described the process by which Gallup weights, or adjusts, its sample. It makes adjustments to ensure that the initial sample of adults is reflect ive of the overall population — adjustments that Blumenthal wrote may be flawed — hut it does not adjust further to simulate what Mellman, the Democratic poll ster, calls the "likely electorate." 4 4 "As has always been the case, we do not attempt to weight the composition of the ^ likely voter sample in any way — such as by political party or race or age — to ap proximate some guess of what we or others think it should look like demograph- ically on Election Day," Newport wrote. "That approach is precarious given that the electorate can look quite different (especially looking at political parties) from one election to the next." The problem for Gallup is that tlie electorate looked only slightly different from the most recent presidential election, and those differences reflected increasing roles for demographic groups more favorable to the incumbent, instead of the de creasing roles Gallup was finding. After the election, Newport' wrote in another blog post fhttp:/7pQllingmatteis.ganiip.mm/2ni2/ii/poilling-likelv-votersrand-law.r of-comiTioiis.html> that he thinks "it is clear that voting today is subject to new pushes and pulls, including, in particular, the highly sophisticated ground games employed by the Obama (and, to a lesser degree, the Romney) campaign this year." He continued: "These methods may in the end affect voters who were not certain about voting at the time of a poll interview, but who were brought into the voting pool at the last minute by aggressive get-out-the-vote and late registration meth- ods. Our traditional "bootstrap* method of identifying likely voters is self-weight ing — letting voters' responses to questions determine their probability of voting. This bears investigation." 7 of 11 10/20/2015 •1.1:19 AM Gallup Blew Its Presidential Polls, but Why? http://www.nationaljoumal.com/s/8875l/gallup-blew-its-presid,ential-pol., But, as Pew's Kohut pointed out, his organization uses a.very sitnilar likely-voter screen, and their final poll was considerably more accurate. At the Thursday event, Newport conceded, "Everybody has a likely-voter model." Yet Gallup re mained. a.Rep.ublicanrleaning.Qntlierjoyer_the.final.weeks. of .thexampaign While the reasons for Gallup'is GOP lean are not dehnitive, Kohut sounded wistful about the organization's poor performance. "I'm puzzled by it," he said. "I feel yiery badly about it. I wish they had done well." I 8 of 11 10/20/2015 11:19 AM Gallup gives up the horse race - POLITICO http.7Avww.politico.coni/story/2015/1.0/gallup-poll-20l6-pollsfers-214493 around, Gallup won't commit to tracking the general election next year. It's a stunning move for an organization that built its reputation on predicting the winners of presidential elections. But it comes at a time of unusual tumult in the polling world. Other top-level brands like the nonprofit Pew Research Center have, yet to poll the horse race, and still others have expressed concern about the accuracy of polling at a time when fewer people are reachable or willing to talk to pollsters. Gallup had vowed to examine its methods closely after 2012. And after a lengthy post-mortem-, Gallup-editor-in-ehief Frank-Newport-promised-to-be ready'^hen-t-he-n&x-t presidential election" arrived. But so far, Gallup hasn't been willing to put its methods to the test. Newport told POLITICO that Gallup has shifted its resources into understanding issues facing voters — and won't be following the primary horse races, other than asking about how Americans feel about the individual candidates. Trump's supporters found to have the worst grammar By ELIZA COLLINS "We believe to put our time and money and brainpower into understanding the issues and priorities is where we can most have an impact," he said. But it's a far cry from this time four years ago, when Gallup had already conducted 11 different surveys of Republicans' presidential preferences. Its horse-race polls have been missed this time around, because the number of candidates on the Republican side and the ways in which news organizations have attempted to winnow the field for debates have made polls more consequential than they've ever been. "In this case, the problem is both cause and effect," said Cliff Zukin, a Rutgers professor and the former president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. "The difficulty in doing this well has caused major players to not participate. That means there's even less legitimacy because people who know how to do this right aren't doing it." Gallup's reputation is greater than that of any other polling operation, though its track record was never flawless. It was among the outfits that missed Harry Truman's victory over Thomas Dewey in 1948, but 12 years.later it woii plaudits for nailing John F. Kennedy's razor-thin win over Richard Nixon. 2 of 5 10/19/2015 5:45 PM Gallup gives up the horse race - POLITICO http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/gai iup-pol 1-2016-pol lsters-214493 POLITICO Gallup's final 2012 survey showed Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama by 1 point — 4.9 points off from the final result. In which Obama prevailed by 3.9 points. It also misidentlfied the winner. IAP Photo Gallup gives up the horse race As pollsters confront unprecedented obstacles, the biggest name in the business backs away. By STEVEN SHEPARD110/07/15 05:09 AM EOT Gallup has been the country's gold standard for horse-race election polling ever since its legendary founder, George Gallup, predicted Franklin Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936. But after a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told POLITICO it isn't planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle. And, even following an internal probe into what went wrong last time ofS 10/19/2015 5:45 PM Gallup gives up the horse race - POLITICO http://www.politico.eom/story/2.015/10/gallup-poll-2016-pollslers-214493 In 2012, many national polls underestimated President Barack Obama's standing leading up to election, but Gallup's failure was especially visible because the Obama campaign had pushed back publicly against Gallup's surveys. When Gallup, in mid-October of that year, released a poll showing Obama and Mitt Romney tied in the swing states, the Obama campaign — led by Joel Benenson, Obama's lead pollster — went so far as to question Gallup's methodology in a public memorandum. Bush: Trump is evolving his views toward the right place By NICK GASS Gallup's final survey showed Romney leading Obama by i point — 4-9 points off from the final result, in which Obama prevailed by 3.9 points. It also misidentified the winner. That led to a lengthy and expensive effort by Gallup to retool its methodology, a process the pollster described back in 2013 as aimed at the next presidential election. Gallup concluded that major parts of its methodology — using live interviewers to call land lines and cellphones, while screening out people who hadn't voted in recent elections — were still the preferred means to conduct election polls. That review continued through 2014, when Gallup conducted polls of the national generic congressional ballot for internal use, which Newport and his colleagues "analyzed very carefully," he said Tuesday. Newport concedes that, by skipping the horse-race polls, observers won't be able to judge Gallup's surveys against an objective result: the election. "That is certainly one of the advantages that an election provides, and that is an external standard," he said. So why hasn't Gallup weighed in on the state of a race that — judging by cable-television ratings and other metrics — has captivated a large segment of the country? "We're looking to see where we can make the best contribution to understanding the election," Newport said. "We're committed to helping the democracy, if I may be so pretentious," he added. Clinton ad highlights McCarthy statement on Benghazi By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI At this point in 2007, Gallup was updating its primary standings for both parties more than 3 of 5 10/19/2015 5:45 PM Gallup gives up the horse race - POLITICO http://\vww.pblitico.coni/slory/2015/10/gallup-poll-2016-pollsters-214493 once a month. And as the candidates moved from Iowa through the rest of the early states, Gallup maintained a daily tracking poll for both parties. Asked whether Gallup plans to skip horse-race polling for the entire 2016 primary process,. Newport said, "That's certainly what we've decided to date." And Newport also wouldn't commit to horse-race surveys for the general election. Last cycle, Gallup began constant tracking in April 2012, pausing only during Hurricane Sandy. "We have not made final decisions on what we are going to do in 2016 yet," Newport said. 1 b Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center has conducted fewer horse-race polls, though their 2 most recent survey did include an open-ended question asking voters whom they preferred 4 as their party's nominee for president. I( "We had done a pretty good job in 2011-2012," said Carroll Doherty, director of political I research at Pew, whose final poll in 2012 had Obama up by 3 percent. Nonetheless, he said, ^ the organization is putting its resources into other areas this time around. C "We're not going to track the horse race in the same way we have in the past," Doherty said. "There's a lot of people doing that, and they do a good job." Other pollsters, particularly those working for media outlets, have maintained their horse-race polling pace, however. That's in large part because of the role the televised debates are playing in the campaign — and the role polls are playing in helping the networks divide the field for those debates. "We're doing the exact same number of polls as we did in 20U," said Republican pollster Bill Mclnturff, who is part of a bipartisan team that conducts surveys for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. But pollsters still lament Gallup's relative absence this cycle — in large part because of its rich history and extensive archival data. "We've just become so used to having Gallup around that is kind of odd that we're not seeing them this cycle," said Patrick Murray, the director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. "But I know they are trying to position themselves differently." 4 of 5 10/19/20.15 5:45 PM Gallup gives up the horse race - POLITICO http://www.pol itico.com/story/2015/10/gallup-pol l-20l6-poilsters-214493 5 of 5 10/19/2015 5:45 PM