DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Report POLITICAL REPORT POLITICAL REPORT A MONTHLY POLL COMPILATION Volume 14, Issue 10 • November 2018 IN THIS ISSUE: Views on the Issues, Donald Trump, and More (pp. 1–5) POLITICALHow Groups Have Voted Over Time (pp. 6–9) REPORT Election 2018: What Voters Said Voters delivered a split verdict on November 6, with Democrats regaining the House and Republicans holding the Senate. On many issues shown on this page and the next one, such as Donald Trump’s immigration policies, the effects of his trade and tax policies, stricter gun control measures, and the Russia investigation, there were sharp differences between those who voted for Democratic and Republican House candidates. Both sets of voters agreed that the health carePOLITIC system needs major changes. AL REPORT Responses of those who voted for Responses of those who voted for Democratic House candidate (Responses of all voters) Republican House candidate Most important issue facing the country 59% Health care (41%) 21% 10 Immigration (23%) 39 14 The economy (22%) 30 14 Gun policy (10%) 7 The US health care system needs 75% Major changes (69%) 63% 20 Minor changes (24%) 29 3 No changes at all (4%) 5 Donald Trump’s immigration policies are 82% Too tough (46%) 8% 4 Not tough enough (17%) 30 8 About right (33%) 60 Condition of the nation’s economy 49% Excellent/Good (68%) 90% 48 Not so good/Poor (31%) 9 Do you support or oppose stricter gun control measures? 81% Support (59%) 30% 15 Oppose (37%) 65 Source: 2018 National Election Pool exit poll. (Continued on the next page) AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 • 202.862.5800 • www.aei.org (Continued from the previous page) Responses of those who voted for Responses of those who voted for Democratic House candidate (Responses of all voters) Republican House candidate What should the Supreme Court do about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal? 85% Keep it as is (66%) 44% 9 Overturn it (25%) 43 Effect of Trump’s trade policies on the economy in your area 4% Helped (25%) 51% 50 Hurt (29%) 5 37 No impact (37%) 37 Effect of the tax laws passed last year on your family’s financial situation 8% Helped (29%) 53% 35 Hurt (22%) 7 52 No impact (45%) 35 Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is mostly 69% Justified (41%) 12% 26 Politically motivated (54%) 83 Has the government done enough to protect the election from foreign interference? 19% Yes (38%) 60% 70 No (50%) 26 Which concerns you more about today’s election? People who should not be able 14% to vote will cast ballots (36%) 63% People who should be able to vote will be prevented 79 from voting (53%) 22 Source: 2018 National Election Pool exit poll. AEI POLITICAL REPORT CONTRIBUTORS Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow Editor: Eleanor O’Neil Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar Design: Claude Aubert Michael Barone, Resident Fellow Intern: Jackie Clemence The survey results reported here were obtained in part from searches of the AEI poll archive, the iPoll Databank, and other resources provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author[s]. AEI, 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 • 202.862.5800 • www.aei.org 2 AP VoteCast surveyed people leading up to and on Election Day who said they intended to vote or had voted. Like the exit poll, the AP VoteCast survey found that health care topped the list of important issues facing the country, followed by immigration and the economy. Here, we look at what voters told AP VoteCast about their views on those and other issues. How they voted . Dem. Rep. Most important issue facing the country Health care 26% 74% 23% Immigration 23 20 78 The economy and jobs 19 37 59 Gun policy 8 80 17 The environment 7 86 10 Terrorism 6 39 58 Foreign policy 5 64 34 Taxes 4 48 48 Abortion 2 19 79 Views on Affordable Care Act/Obamacare Would like lawmakers to: Repeal the law entirely 25% 8% 90% Repeal parts of the law 27 31 66 Leave the law as is 13 79 18 Expand the law 34 89 8 Immigration policy—immigrants living in US illegally Would like illegal immigrants to be: Offered a chance to apply for legal status 69% 64% 32% Deported to the country they came from 30 19 79 US-Mexico border wall Strongly favor 31% 9% 90% Somewhat favor 17 25 71 Somewhat oppose 13 64 32 Strongly oppose 39 90 7 Condition of national economy Excellent/Good 66% 37% 61% Not so good/Poor 33 78 18 Views of gun laws Should be more strict 61% 72% 26% Should be less strict 8 20 77 Should be kept as they are 30 17 80 Concerns over effects of climate change Very/Somewhat concerned 70% 66% 32% Not too/Not at all concerned 29 13 85 Opinion of 2017 tax law Approve strongly 18% 8% 91% Approve somewhat 31 25 73 Disapprove somewhat 24 74 22 Disapprove strongly 24 92 6 Source: AP VoteCast, a new national survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News and the Associated Press that aims to provide an alternative to the exit polls. The survey was conducted online and by telephone from October 29 to November 6. The responses shown in this report are those of people who said they intended to vote or had voted in the midterms. Read more about the AP VoteCast survey: https://www.ap.org/en-us/topics/politics/votecast-methodology. AEI, 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 • 202.862.5800 • www.aei.org 3 The Presidential Factor In recent midterm elections, more voters have told exit pollsters that one reason for their vote was to express support for or opposition to a president than gave those responses in the past. Twenty-six percent of 2018 voters said one reason for their vote was to express support for Trump, 38 percent to express opposition to Trump, and 33 percent to express support for Trump. Nearly 4 in 10 voters in House races wante to impeach Donald Trump. Q: Was one reason for your vote for Congress today to express support for ________, to express opposition to _________, or _________ was not a factor? One reason for vote for Congress was . To express support To express opposition President was for the president to the president not a factor George H. W. Bush 1990 19% 15% 62% Bill Clinton 1994* 17 28 55 1998 18 20 62 George W. Bush 2002 37 18 45 2006 22 36 40 Barack Obama 2010* 23 31 38 2014* 19 33 45 Donald Trump 2018 exit poll* 26 38 33 Note: *Question wording was “your vote for US House.” In the 2018 AP VoteCast survey of people who said they voted or intended to vote, the results were nearly identical to the exit poll results: 26 percent said one reason for their vote was to express support for Trump, 38 percent to express opposition to Trump, and 35 percent said Trump was not a factor. Source: National Election Pool exit polls. Q: How do you feel about the way Donald Trump is handling his job . ? Strongly approve 31% Somewhat approve 14 Somewhat disapprove 8 Strongly disapprove 46 Source: 2018 National Election Pool exit poll. Q: Should Congress impeach Donald Trump and remove him from office? Yes 39% No 56 Source: 2018 National Election Pool exit poll. AEI, 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 • 202.862.5800 • www.aei.org 4 Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation In the exit poll, 43 percent of voters supported Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, while 47 percent opposed it. Republicans and Democrats were mirror images of one another in their vote. They also asked a question about how important his confirmation was in seven states with Senators who were thought to be vulnerable. In North Dakota, Montana, and Florida, majorities said their Senator’s vote was a minor factor or not a factor at all. In Nevada, a solid majority, 57 percent said Dean Heller’s vote was the most important or an important factor. Q: How do you feel about Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court? Responses of those who voted for Responses of those who voted for Democratic House candidate (Responses of all voters) Republican House candidate 10% Support (43%) 84% 79 Oppose (47%) 10 Source: 2018 National Election Pool exit poll. Q: Thinking about voting in this midterm election, how important to you was the debate over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court? How they voted . Dem. Rep. Debate over Kavanaugh’s confirmation Very important 48% 56% 43% Somewhat important 27 50 47 Not very important 17 41 56 Not at all important 9 34 62 Source: AP VoteCast conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox New and the Associated Press. Q: In your vote for the Senate, was ________ vote against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court . The most important factor/ A minor factor/ An important factor Not a factor at all Responses of voters in Missouri (McCaskill’s) 49% 46% Indiana (Donnelly’s) 50 42 North Dakota (Heitkamp’s) 42 53 Montana (Tester’s) 47 51 Florida (Nelson’s) 39 54 Q: In your vote for the Senate, was _________ vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Red State, Blue State July 2012
    P age | 2 Red State, Blue State July 2012 Demographic Change and Presidential Politics in Virginia By Dustin A. Cable and Michele P. Claibourn Executive Summary Virginia is one of the most closely watched battleground states in the upcoming presidential election, with the commonwealth’s 13 electoral votes figuring prominently in the strategies of both the Republi- cans and Democrats. Until Barack Obama’s upset victory in Virginia four years ago, the commonwealth had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. Some political analysts believe de- mographic trends have finally, and perhaps permanently, tilted Virginia from a “red” state to a “blue” state. Such prognostications may be overblown. Demography is not political destiny; it only helps to establish the field on which the major contenders must play. The economy, current events, and the candidates themselves have at least an equal role. At the same time, demography suggests coalitions that might be formed, viable persuasive appeals candidates might make, and the most effective tactics campaigns might employ. Throughout history, successful political leaders have recognized and capitalized on de- mographic change to win victories for their parties. This report briefly reviews Virginia’s political history, analyzes trends within key demographic groups over the past twenty years, and simulates the 2012 presidential election based on patterns seen in the last two presidential contests. Among the major findings: • While Virginia’s minority population has grown significantly, this has not yet led to cor- responding increases in the minority proportion of eligible voters. • Nevertheless, the white (non-Hispanic) share of the 2012 voting-eligible population is expected to drop by two percentage points from 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: the Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008
    MARTA STEELE Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008 A Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism Book i MARTA STEELE Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: The Election Integrity Movement's Rise and the Nonstop Battle to Win Back the People's Vote, 2000-2008 Copyright© 2012 by Marta Steele. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles and reviews. For information, address the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism, 1021 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43205. The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization. The Educational Publisher www.EduPublisher.com BiblioPublishing.com ISBN:978-1-62249-026-4 ii Contents FOREWORD By Greg Palast …….iv PREFACE By Danny Schechter …….vi INTRODUCTION …….ix By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …...xii AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION …..xix CHAPTER 1 Origins of the Election ….….1 Integrity Movement CHAPTER 2A Preliminary Reactions to ……..9 Election 2000: Academic/Mainstream Political CHAPTER 2B Preliminary Reactions to ……26 Election 2000: Grassroots CHAPTER 3 Havoc and HAVA ……40 CHAPTER 4 The Battle Begins ……72 CHAPTER 5 Election 2004 in Ohio ……99 and Elsewhere CHAPTER 6 Reactions to Election 2004, .….143 the Scandalous Firing of the Federal
    [Show full text]
  • Exit Polls Showed Him Ahead in Nearly Every Battleground State, in Many Cases by Sizable Margins
    The Center for Organizational Dynamics operates within the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Arts and Sciences, Graduate Division, conducting research and scholarship relevant to organizations, public affairs, and policy. Copyrights remain with the authors and/or their publishers. Reproduction, posting to web pages, electronic bulletin boards or other electronic archives is prohibited without consent of the copyright holders. For additional information, please email dynamics-center@sas.upenn.edu or call (215) 898-6967 A Research Report from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Division, School of Arts & Sciences Center for Organizational Dynamics The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy Steven F. Freeman1 stfreema@sas.upenn.edu 2 December 29, 2004 Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the internet on election day this year sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won the election. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. Although pre- election day polls indicated the race dead even or Bush slightly ahead, two factors seemed to explain Kerry’s edge: turnout was very high, good news for Democrats,3 and, as in every US 1 I would like to thank Jonathan Baron, Bernard B. Beard, Michael Bein, Mark Blumenthal, James Brown, Elaine Calabrese, Becky Collins, Gregory Eck, Jeremy Firestone, Lilian Friedberg, Robert Giambatista, Kurt Gloos, Gwen Hughes, Clyde Hull, Carolyn Julye, John Kessel, Mark Kind, Joe Libertelli, Warren Mitofsky, Michael Morrissey, John Morrison, Barry Negrin, Elinor Pape, David Parks, Kaja Rebane, Sandra Rothenberg, Cynthia Royce, Joseph Shipman, Jonathon Simon, Daniela Starr, Larry Starr, Barry Stennett, Roy Streit, Leanne Tobias, Andrei Villarroel, Lars Vinx, Ken Warren, Andreas Wuest, Elaine Zanutto, John Zogby, and Dan Zoutis for helpful comments or other help in preparing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Polling in Recent Presidential Campaigns
    Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Discussion Paper Series #R‐33, June 2009 Changes in Media Polling in Recent Presidential Campaigns: Moving from Good to “Average” at CNN By Michael W. Traugott Shorenstein Center Fellow, Spring 2009 Professor of Communication Studies, University of Michigan © 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. This essay was prepared during a fellowship semester in Spring 2009 at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. I am grateful to the Center for financial support and to the University of Michigan for released time to work on this project. The work presented here has benefited from the research assistance of Mary Ellen Smith, for which I am grateful. 1 Introduction Political coverage generally, and campaign coverage in particular, form a central part of the news in the United States. One reason is the important role of elections in our democratic system of governance, a combination of our belief in the representation function of elections and that the outcomes make a difference in which policies are pursued and implemented. Just as importantly, the coverage of elections has many features that appeal to journalists and editors. Elections occur on a fixed schedule, known well in advance; this enables planning for the allocation of resources to the coverage. They involve conflict between the competing campaigns, another highly valued element of newsworthiness. They have events and circumstances that change everyday. They have a relatively orderly progression to a definitive conclusion on Election Day so the coverage is bounded and focused on the outcome; and there is a clear winner and loser at the end, even though in the cases of Bush v.
    [Show full text]
  • JANUARY 6, 2005 No
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRSTSESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2005 No. 2 House of Representatives The House met at 11 a.m. and was So we will pray and act now and for- Mrs. Emerson; Ms. Granger; Mr. Peterson of called to order by the Speaker pro tem- ever. Amen. Pennsylvania; Mr. Goode; Mr. Doolittle; Mr. pore (Mr. SIMPSON). LaHood; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Sherwood; Mr. f Weldon of Florida; Mr. Simpson; Mr. f THE JOURNAL Culberson; Mr. Kirk; Mr. Crenshaw; Mr. DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER Rehberg; Mr. Carter; and Mr. Alexander. PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Hunter, Chair has examined the Journal of the Chairman. The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- last day’s proceedings and announces fore the House the following commu- Committee on Budget: Mr. Nussle, Chair- to the House his approval thereof. man. nication from the Speaker: Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- WASHINGTON, DC, Committee on Education and the Work- January 6, 2005. nal stands approved. force: Mr. Boehner, Chairman. I hereby appoint the Honorable MICHAEL K. f Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. SIMPSON to act as Speaker pro tempore on Barton, Chairman; Mr. Hall; Mr. Bilirakis; this day. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Upton; Mr. Stearns; Mr. Gillmor; Mr. J. DENNIS HASTERT, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Deal; Mr. Whitfield; Mrs. Cubin; Mr. Speaker of the House of Representatives. gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Grinch Stole the White House . . . Again, by Alan Waldman, 11/20/04
    The following is mirrored from its source at: http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/112004Waldman/112004waldman.html. Hyperlinks and footnotes contributed by the ratitor. How the Grinch stole the White House . again by Alan Waldman Online Journal 20 November 2004 The Smell of a Rat Media Muzzled The 2004 Election Fraud: Its Scope and Nature The Felonious Four All Early Tuesday Indicators Predicted a Kerry Landslide All Exit Polls Showed Kerry Won --Until They Were Altered Election Fraud Came in Many Flavors Florida Fiasco The Ohio Outrage Election Fraud in 39 States and Israel The Election Was Clearly Stolen Footnotes In 10 states where there were verifiable paper trails -- or no electronic machines -- the final results hardly differed from the initial exit polls. Exit polls and final counts in Missouri, Louisiana, Maine and Utah, for instance, varied by 1 percent or less. In non-paper-trail states, however, there were significant differences. Despite corporate media attempts to kill or ridicule away the story, Talk Radio and the Internet are abuzz with considerable evidence that John Kerry was elected president on November 2, but that Republican election officials made it difficult for millions of Democrats to vote while employees of four secretive, GOP-bankrolling corporations rigged electronic voting machines and then hacked central tabulating computers to steal the election for George W. Bush. Florida’s 2000 election problems -- votes spoiled by chads, overvotes, undervotes, exclusion of minority voters, etc. -- were never repaired and both worsened and spread to many other states, exacerbated by new and more devious abuses. The Bush administration’s "fix" of the 2000 debacle (the Help America Vote Act) made crooked elections considerably easier, by foisting paperless electronic voting on states before the bugs had been worked out or meaningful safeguards could be installed.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House
    H84 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 6, 2005 the relief of victims in areas affected by the the Vice President and the Secretary of President and DICK CHENEY of the December 26, 2004, Indian Ocean tsunami for the Senate, the Members and officers State of Wyoming received 6 votes for which a charitable contribution deduction is of the House rising to receive them. Vice President. allowable under section 170 of the Internal The Vice President took his seat as Revenue Code of 1986. Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the the Presiding Officer of the joint con- The bill was ordered to be engrossed certificate of the electoral vote of the vention of the two Houses, the Speaker and read a third time, was read the State of California seems to be regular of the House occupying the chair on his third time, and passed, and a motion to in form and authentic, and it appears left. reconsider was laid on the table. therefrom that JOHN F. KERRY of the The joint session was called to order Commonwealth of Massachusetts re- f by the Vice President. ceived 55 votes for President and John RECESS The VICE PRESIDENT. Mr. Speaker Edwards of the State of North Carolina and Members of Congress, pursuant to The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- received 55 votes for Vice President. the Constitution and laws of the Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certifi- ant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair United States, the Senate and House of declares the House in recess until ap- cate of the electoral vote of the State Representatives are meeting in joint of Colorado seems to be regular in form proximately 12:55 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the United States
    AN EVALUATION OF 2016 ELECTION POLLS IN THE UNITED STATES AD HOC COMMITTEE ON 2016 ELECTION POLLING COURTNEY KENNEDY, Pew Research Center MARK BLUMENTHAL, SurveyMonkey SCOTT CLEMENT, Washington Post JOSHUA D. CLINTON, Vanderbilt University CLAIRE DURAND, University of Montreal CHARLES FRANKLIN, Marquette University KYLEY MCGEENEY, Pew Research Center1 LEE MIRINGOFF, Marist College KRISTEN OLSON, University of Nebraska-Lincoln DOUG RIVERS, Stanford University, YouGov LYDIA SAAD, Gallup EVANS WITT, Princeton Survey Research Associates CHRIS WLEZIEN, University of Texas at Austin The Committee was supported by the following researchers: Junjie Chen, Andrew Engelhardt, Arnold Lau, Marc Trussler, Luis Patricio Pena Ibarra 1 Several months after joining the committee, Kyley McGeeney took a position at PSB, her current employer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 presidential election was a jarring event for polling in the United States. Pre-election polls fueled high-profile predictions that Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of winning the presidency was about 90 percent, with estimates ranging from 71 to over 99 percent. When Donald Trump was declared the winner of the presidency in the early hours of November 9th, it came as a shock even to his own pollsters (Jacobs and House 2016). There was (and continues to be) widespread consensus that the polls failed. But did the polls fail? And if so why? Those are the central questions addressed in this report, which was commissioned by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). This report is the product of a committee convened in the Spring of 2016 with a threefold goal: evaluate the accuracy of 2016 pre-election polling for both the primaries and the general election, review variation by different survey methodologies, and identify significant differences between election surveys in 2016 and polling in prior election years.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Conference
    Virtual Conference Program 76th Annual Conference Data Collection, Measurement, and Public Opinion During a Pandemic May 11-14, 2021 www.aapor.org #aapor Dynamic Data Collection Solutions ReconMR is an experienced survey research company focused on delivering the highest quality data collection services in the industry. ReconMR specializes in dynamic data collection solutions for social science, academic, public opinion and government surveys with more than 25 years of experience delivering representative high-quality data and results. OUR SOLUTIONS Online IVR Panel Mail SMS Inbound Phone Management Expertly Trained Staff Advanced Technology • 1,000+ telephone interviewers • Industry leading multi-modal contact management and • Familiar with IRB Protocols, Human Subjects Protection data collection interviewing software (Voxco) integrates Training, Multi-Modal Coordination and Survey Research all communication methods Procedures • Experience using client hosted CRM software and a • Vetted staff – successful criminal background check required wide variety of data collection/tracking systems • English and Spanish language capabilities • Advanced inbound/outbound telephony systems designed for maximum efficiency and contact rates • Established partnerships with tenured social science with extensive reporting capabilities researchers • Analytics with live dashboards High-Volume Calling Capacity Secure Infrastructure • 700+ CATI stations across 5 call centers • Network and physical security exceed industry • Secure work-from-home capabilities for continuity standards • Daytime and evening calling hours cover all time zones • Data Security, Integrity and Confidentiality Policy has been scrutinized and approved by clients that adhere to HIPAA and FISMA compliance requirements to protect PII/PHI OVER 25+ YEARS EXPERIENCE BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION • SAN MARCOS • SAN ANTONIO • HOUSTON • CORPUS CHRISTI www.ReconMR.com | 135 S.
    [Show full text]
  • ELECTION PROJECTIONS: Estimating Election Outcomes
    11/28/2012 Statistical Science and the Art of Election Polling Scott Keeter Director of Survey Research Prepared for the CNSTAT public seminar “Reflections on Election Polling and Forecasting from Inside the Boiler Room” October 19, 2012 skeeter@pewresearch.org 1 11/28/2012 Critics of Polling Were Very Vocal in 2012 A Tweet in Response to Our Late July Poll Showing Obama With a Sizeable Lead 2 11/28/2012 But National Polls Have Been Very Accurate Candidate Error in National Polling, 1992-2008 Year # of polls Candidate Error (%) 1992 7 1.1 1996 9 2.1 2000 10 1.1 2004 16 0.9 2008 19 0.9 Source: NCPP And State Polls Have Done Nearly As Well Candidate Error in State Polling,2002-2010 Year # of polls Candidate Error (%) 2002 98 2.3 2004 198 1.7 2006 152 2.0 2008 236 1.8 2010 202 2.1 Source: NCPP 3 11/28/2012 Thinking about the Challenges to Polls from a Total Survey Error Perspective Total Survey Error Errors of Non-Observation • Coverage Error – Cell phone only voters • Non-response Error – Partisanship; engagement • Sampling Error 4 11/28/2012 Total Survey Error Errors of Observation • Questions and questionnaires – Determining likely voters and who they will vote for • Interviewers • Mode • Data analysis – What to do with the undecided? Coverage Error 5 11/28/2012 Telephone Coverage 40 35 Households with 30 no phone 25 19.7% 20 15 10 5 0 1963 1970 1975 19801985- 1997 2001 Early Late Late Late 1986 2003 2005 2007 2011 Source: National Health Interview Survey 11 Telephone Coverage 40 36.2% 35 Households with Households with only 30 no phone
    [Show full text]
  • A Meeting Place a Meeting Urveys Samplin Ncenti Met I a S N G R
    th Annual 7 Conference Interviewers and Interviewing Race an E S A l ection Po A tandards Questionnaire Pretesting ddress Based Samplin daptive Design / Responsive Desig Paradata Nonprobability Sampling Immigration Exit Polls Health and G International d / Sensitive Topics ll Regulations Et Non-Response Incentives ende Health Care in Public Opinion g Language Total Survey Error Aging h LGBT Research Translation nicit r Social Media Research Q Online Panel Surveys ualitative / Ethics y Mobile Device Data Collection Longitudinal Data Collection Fit for Purpose Big Data / Administrative Data / Auxiliary Data Media and Response Rate and Polling and Society g Public Opinion Other Quality Metrics Internet Data Collection Multimode Measurement Error Data Collection Cell Phone Sampling n E S mall Questionnaire Design stimati A Meeting Place Environment and Climate Change A Methods to Maximize Participation Proxy Responding rea on Sampling / Weighting Cross-Cultural Research Conference Program May 14 – 17, 2015 The Diplomat • Hollywood, Florida www.aapor.org #aapor Ipsos Public Affairs conducts strategic research in more than 100 countries around the world in partnership with clients from government, public, corporate, and not-for- profit sectors. We understand and manage issues, advance reputations, determine and pinpoint shifts in attitude and opinion, enhance communications, measure impact, and evaluate policy. We see respondents as citizens, stakeholders, employees, consumers, and voters. We can effectively and quickly reach elite, stakeholder, and other highly targeted respondents, with the same ease as the general public. Strategic advice is our key deliverable. We provide clients with advice that goes beyond reporting on data, based on a concrete understanding of the issues and their context.
    [Show full text]
  • Desipio and Leal for Week 2
    A View from the Battleground’s Periphery: Latinos and the 2004 Elections1 Louis DeSipio David L. Leal Since 1988, more than fifty scholars have contributed to these quadrennial analyses of Latinos and American national elections. These volumes discuss Latino 2 efforts to shape presidential politics as well as the efforts by political institutions to build Latinos into their winning coalitions (de la Garza and DeSipio 1992; 1996; 1999; 2005). In each, we have struggled with an ongoing dilemma: how to characterize Latino contributions accurately so that we neither perpetuate a rhetoric of inevitable influence nor undervalue the increasing contribution of Latinos to the national political fabric. The 2004 election continues this dilemma. On the one hand, Latinos proved central – at least early in the campaign – to both parties’ strategies for victory. The nominees of each party could make a reasonable claim to loyalty among a significant share of the Latino electorate. Structurally, Latinos had a previously unavailable opportunity to shape the selection of the Democratic nominee. In addition, Latino politics became more national, as outreach and mobilization efforts took place in old as well as new states of Latino residence (see Bejarano and Segura, this volume). On the other hand, Latino votes were, again, not particularly significant to the outcome of the presidential race. As has been true in several recent election cycles, Latino leaders did not invest extensively in mobilizing new Latino participants beyond efforts to register new Latino voters. The campaigns followed the pattern of the 2000 race by hiring few Latino campaign staff and assigning most of those they did hire to Latino-focused outreach responsibilities.
    [Show full text]