Tale of the Tape: Health Care Polling

NOTE: FHQ doesn't typically wander into the area of policy polling, but I'm in the midst of a unit on sampling and survey research in my summer course political science research class and I'm looking for examples for illustrative purposes. At the moment, the contradictory findings from NY Times/CBS and Resurgent Republic offers the perfect example.

Depending on who you're listening to, the Obama adminstration's efforts to push meaningful (perhaps, "meaningful" as that is certainly in the eye of the beholder) health care reform through Congress is either going swimmingly or is a complete non-starter. [Actually, the sense I get from my view up in the nosebleed section -- definitely not on the sidelines -- is that the obstacles appear more daunting now than they did prior to health care officially being placed on the agenda.] You will find no better example of this than in the divide between the latest New York Times/CBS News and Resurgent Republic* polls (both pdfs) released in the last few days on the matter. Now, these aren't identical polls, but there are a few questions that offer a glimpse into the true contrast here. First, let's focus on question wording on the overlapping questions before we look at the underlying demographics of each poll's sample. For example:

On higher taxes and health care funding...
NYT/CBS:

Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have
health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?

57% Willing, 37% Not willing

RR:
Would you prefer a health care reform plan that raises taxes in order to provide health insurance to all Americans, or a plan that does not provide health insurance to all Americans but keeps taxes at current levels?

RAISE TAXES/HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.....................39%
NO TAX INCREASE/NO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL....52%
DON'T KNOW...................................................................10%

On the federal government versus private health care... (And no, these questions do not necessarily offer an apples to apples comparison.)
NYT/CBS:

Do you think the government would do a better or worse job than private insurance
companies in providing medical coverage?

50% Better, 34% Worse

RR:
Which would you prefer: (ROTATE: a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through the federal government, or a system where most Americans get their health care coverage through a private insurance company)?

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.............................................31%
PRIVATE INSURANCE....................................................60%
DON'T KNOW.....................................................................9%

Now, the first set of questions provides us with a much better direct comparison than the second set, but the nearly diametrically opposed numbers from each poll is eye-catching, to say the least. Question wording in each case, of course, may have a lot to do with this, but let's look at the partisan breakdown just for the heck of it. It wasn't all that long ago -- over this past weekend in fact -- that Nate Silver cautioned that these NYT polls typically trend Democratic in terms of sampling (He further adds that the ten point spread isn't all that extraordinary in the grand polling scheme recently.). And it also may not surprise you that a polling outfit called Resurgent Republic would have a more Republican-leaning sample. But let's have a look under the hood, shall we?

Samples (by party ID)...
NYT/CBS:

GOP: 24%
DEM: 38%
IND: 31%
DK: 8%

RR:

GOP: 32%
DEM: 38%
IND: 26%
DK: 3%

The dispute isn't over the Democrats, where both polls have an equivalent proportion, but among the percentage of Republicans and Independents included. How does this stack up against the national poll average over the last six months (via Pollster)?
That NYT/CBS sample appears to be closer to the current D-R polling gap than the Resurgent Republic sample.** But does that mean health care reform is a done deal? Well, we'll have more polls over the next few weeks and months to tell us whether it is or isn't.

...not to mention some action or inaction on Capitol Hill.


*Incidentally, here is the scoop on Resurgent Republican for those interested.
**It should be pointed out that RR had 1000 cases while NYT had a sample size of 895.


Recent Posts:
Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

Not That You're Reading Too Much into the PA Senate Polling, but...

I take issue with some of the "wide lead" talk concerning Arlen Specter's position in the Democratic primary polling relative to Joe Sestak. This isn't a new development: that I have an issue or that the media is talking up the numbers without digging terribly deeply into them. And for the record, Political Wire is technically right. It is a wide lead.

But is that what we should be focused on at this point in the race?

The margin isn't what matters. At this point, Specter's position in the polls relative to the 50% mark is what's important. And the Republican-turned-Democrat is hovering just over that point currently. The other thing to eye is the fluctuation in the level of undecideds in this race. That number is important because of a few things that are likely to keep the number higher [than they would be minus these factors]. First, this race involves a Republican-turned-Democrat. Secondly, Sestak has not "officially" entered the race. And finally, it is very early in the process.

So early in fact, that polling wasn't conducted nearly so soon in the cycle the last time an incumbent Pennsylvania senator was challenged in a primary. And for that information you have to stretch all the way back to 2004 when a political unknown, Arlen Specter, was challenged in the Republican primary by Pat Toomey. What pattern can we glean from that data?

First of all, polling on the Specter/Toomey race did not begin until the fall of 2003 before the April 2004 primary. Polling in May and June of 2009, then, precedes that point in the senate electoral cycle. The starting point is largely the same for the candidates in the polls, though. You can see the trendline here (see "Matchup Poll Graph" on the right side). But what OurCampaign provides is the polling without verification of the sources and without that undecided number. So let's look at the polling data and a better graphic of the trends from the fall of 2003 through primary day in Pennsylvania in late April of 2004.



The thing is that Specter jumped above the 50% mark in a few polls but for the most part was stuck just under 50% throughout. All the movement, not to mention momentum, was with Toomey across the five months of polling in the campaign. The more undecideds decided, the more Toomey gained on Specter among likely (Republican) voters in the closed Pennsylvania primary.

[Click to Enlarge]

If we contrast that with the average Pollster has for the six polls conducted in the last month and a half on this hypothetical Democratic primary race, we see that Sestak has already cut further into Specter's advantage without having even formally announced his intention to run. The 17 point advantage Specter now holds is more than half of what it was in the week after his switch to the Democratic party and all the Sestak talk began (The average of the three polls conducted during the first week in May had Specter up by 41 points.). The kicker is that that is with less than ten points having been cut off the undecideds value (The average undecided mark in those same three polls mentioned above was 21 points with the latest Rasmussen poll showing 13% undecided). In other words, Sestak is taking away from Specter more than he's picking up undecideds.

And it's still early (for polling in this race and for the levelling of wide lead charges).


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (6/18/09)

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (6/18/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Of all the lines I'd imagine penning, this would probably not have been at the top of my list, but here goes:

That's more like it. An independent poll in the Virginia governor's race from Daily Kos.

When compared with the Anzalone Liszt poll conducted on behalf of the Democratic Governors Association that was released a couple of days ago, though, the Kos/R2K poll withstands the independence test better. A new poll, then, means FHQ must recalculate the average standing of the candidates in the governor's race in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And what do you know? The deadheat from a week ago is still a deadheat today. But Bob McDonnell edges past Creigh Deeds here (and the map above becomes ever so slightly more reddish purple than it was).

Our typical caveats remain, however. There are still but five polls total in this race (since the point at which Deeds became viable following the Washington Post endorsement), and that means we are still likely to see some "wild" fluctuations. With the "Deeds leads" poll not receiving the full weight of the most recent poll, the full body of evidence outside of the most recent poll continues to favor McDonnell overall. That should be said with a note of caution, though. This is still a close race; not the virtual tie from a week ago, but still very much within the margin of error.

That said, I'll add one more helpful graphic now that we have a couple of averages in the books. As we saw recently in the 2012 presidential primary poll tracking, two points on a graph aren't terribly exciting. But you have to start somewhere. To keep track of the ebbs and flows of the FHQ averages over the course of the campaign is something that I think will prove instructive for us all in both the New Jersey and Virginia contexts. [And this is something that would have been helpful during the presidential race a year ago on a state by state basis. When I have more time on my hands for combing back through that data, that may be something I'll add here in the future.] The graph really tells the tale -- at least as it is scaled with the inclusion of the undecideds. This is just a close race.

It should continue to be fun to track.

[Click to Enlarge]

Recent Posts:
How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

How Not to Emerge as a 2012 GOP Darkhorse

One question: What's worse for a prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate?

• Taking an ambassadorial position with the Obama administration.
• Admitting to having had an extramarital affair.
  

My hunch is that neither plays terribly well with primary voters on the right. We may be able to mark John Ensign off the list of those in consideration for inclusion on FHQ's candidate emergence tracker in the same way Jon Huntsman was recently removed.


Recent Posts:
A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

A Week Later, Deeds Still Leads, but...

A new poll is out from Anzalone Liszt Research on the Virginia governor's race. Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire has the results up showing Deeds ahead of current Virginia attorney general, Bob McDonnell, by a 42%-38% count. That spread is in line with the Rasmussen poll conducted in the aftermath of last week's Democratic primary, but the drawback here is that this poll was conducted by the Democratic polling firm on behalf of the Democratic Governors Association. No, that doesn't compromise the results necessarily, but the numbers certainly have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Our traditional action in this case is to hold out any polling from partisan firms from our polling averages. That was done during the 2008 election cycle and will continue to be employeed in FHQ's tracking of the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.

In other words, interesting results, but...

UPDATE: Pollster's got the results up now with a link to a pdf of the full poll.


Recent Posts:
Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

Republicans and Democrats to Work Together to Prevent Frontloading/National Primary?

With the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee slated to meet next week to begin its discussions on altering the presidential primary calendar for 2012, The Hill is reporting that a new ally in the effort has emerged. New Hampshire Democrat and Democratic Change Commission member, James Roosevelt has been in contact with several members of the Republican committee about ways in which the two parties can work together to head off the problems with the perceived inevitability of a national primary (de facto or not) in 2012 and/or beyond.

And this appears to come through in some of the comments from the story:

“If we don’t try to coordinate, [the primary process] just keeps leapfrogging into the previous year,” Roosevelt added.

“If we don’t do it now, we’re not going to get another chance,” Bennett warned.

One thing we can glean from this is that way the 2008 calendar played out added a sense of urgency to the issue of frontloading; enough of a sense that the parties have realized that time is short and that they are potentially willing to work together to avoid the worst case scenario. And that's a fairly significant step.

Oh, and a hat tip to Don Means over at the National Presidential Caucus for the link to The Hill article.


Recent Posts:
Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/11/09)

Monday Reading: GOP Behind the Eight Ball?

There were a couple of pieces that came out this weekend -- one from former McCain consultant Mike Murphy in Time and the other from Dan Balz at the Washington Post -- that paint a rather dire picture for the Republican Party's future electoral prospects. The premise is simple: Demographics are changing and unless the GOP does too, the Party of Lincoln will fall into minority status long term.

Is that the case, though? It wasn't that long ago that the Democratic Party was equally "leaderless" and pundits were offering their suggestions for how the party could turn it around. One such cautionary tale was from David Brooks just after the 2004 presidential election. In an op-ed that has stuck with me since, Brooks pointed out the importance of the exurbs in electoral politics. Further he noted that, as is often the case in the elections game, those first to recognize the importance of a new demographic are likely the first to reap the benefits of sending campaign resources their way. The Bush campaign understood the power of this segment of the electorate and used its advantage in those exurban areas (among others) to outpace John Kerry overall.

The interesting thing is that of the three states Brooks mentions, all three -- Florida, Nevada and Virginia -- voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. And of the counties/cities Brooks cites, two of the three -- Loudoun County in (northern) Virginia and Henderson outside of Las Vegas -- flipped similarly. Only Polk County along the I-4 corridor in Florida stayed red, though it was six points less red than it had been in 2004.

In other words, the Democrats, or the Obama campaign at least, learned something from that 2004 election by turning a positive for the GOP into an advantage for their party. [The counterargument there is that the Democrats may have learned something, but it was the economy that was their advantage.] Is a similar turnaround even on the table for the GOP, though? At this point in the presidential election cycle, it is difficult to perceive. Murphy points out the Obama administration's spending as a potential opening for Republicans, but even that is underscored by the demographic advantages both he and Balz chalk up for the Democrats.

The real thing to look at is who the Republicans ultimately turn to as a spokesperson for their party and that brings us full circle back to the leadership question. Who is delivering the message and how the party reacts to that person counts. Does the party find, then, a Ronald Reagan, circa 1980 or a Bob Dole, circa 1996? Yes, the conditions were different for both of those candidates, but I don't think there is any debate as to the identity of the superior spokesman among the two.

But who is that person for the GOP in 2009? 2010? 2012? If we glance at the FHQ Candidate Emergence Tracker (in the left sidebar also), Sarah Palin outdoes all others included, but is she the candidate to counter Obama and mute the demographic advantages the Democrats hold? Currently, I'd be willing to wager that the concensus answer would be no and if that's the case, who is that candidate that could turn things around for the GOP? That's why this leadership question is important: because who emerges is the quickest and most effective way to counter the Obama effect and shift the narrative long term.

The problem? We just don't know who that is.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: Virginia (6/11/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey (6/11/09)

Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (6/11/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

What some think New Jersey will be when it is all said and done, Virginia is now. A close race. As was the case earlier with the New Jersey gubernatorial race, FHQ is applying our graduated weighted polling average to the other high-profile race of 2009. In the Virginia gubernatorial race, though, there isn't any waiting. The rematch of the 2005 attorney general's race in the commonwealth ended as a dead heat and looks to be picking up where it left off now that both parties have settled in on nominees.

At the moment, based on the post-primary victory boost he received from at least one polling outfit, Creigh Deeds is ahead of Republican nominee, Bob McDonnell by the slimmest of margins; just a few tenths of a percentage point and well within the margin of error.

For this race, the rules are the same in terms of the implementation, but which polls FHQ is using are different than was the case with New Jersey. Whereas, uncertainty regarding the Republican nominee in the Garden state had been greatly reduced -- Chris Christie was always polling the best among the Republicans in the nomination race and had/has consistently been leading Corzine in the polls for months -- the uncertainty surrounding the Democratic nomination race in Virginia was much higher. Terry McAuliffe broke a three way virtual dead heat and took the polling advantage only to be overtaken by Deeds following the Washington Post's endorsement on May 22. To that point Deeds could hardly have been called a viable candidate in sight of McAuliffe's lead. That, in turn, affects the impact his lower earlier numbers would have on his averages were they to be included here. Viability is the concern here. Christie was always the seeming cream of the crop among New Jersey's GOP. But a similar phenomenon didn't take place in Virginia -- for Deeds at least -- until the sea change represented by the Post's endorsement. The endorsement's affect can be debated, but what can't be is how the polls shifted after that point. Direct effect or not, that is the point where the change began to appear in polls.

As such, FHQ will be using that date, May 22, as the point at which our examination of this race will begin. Yes, that gives but four polls (13 fewer than we have at our disposal in New Jersey currently) to look at, but those previous polls ground the Rasmussen poll that may prove to be nothing but a nomination-clinching boost. Time and additional polling will tell the tale in that regard.

As it stands now, that poll was enough to push Deeds into a very slight lead as the general election campaign gets underway. Again, updates will come as soon as new polling emerges in either of these races. Both, I think, are going to be good ones that'll help tide us over until the 2010 midterm festivities begin.

*The aggregation of polling comes to FHQ via the good folks at Pollster.com.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey (6/11/09)

Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition

Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (6/11/09)

[Click to Enlarge]

Now that the general election showdown is set in the New Jersey governor's race, the time has arrived to dust off the ol' graduated weighted average of electoral college fame and apply it to the 2009 elections. The ground rules are the same as they were last year during the presidential election: recent polls are given full weight while past polls are given a progressively smaller weight. You can get a better ideas of the calculations here.

That said, FHQ should probably add a few caveats.

First, the map of New Jersey above is scaled on a red-blue gradient. The greater an advantage Chris Christie has, the redder the map will become. With a nearly ten point edge, that map is fairly red. Should the race tighten, the map will trend purple before becoming bluer in the event that Corzine is able to mount a comeback.

Also, we should note which polls are being considered. Our first inclination was to simply use the polls released since the primary phase was completed. However, given that Christie had been the frontrunner in the GOP race and polling ahead of the governor for most of 2009, it may be more instructive to include some of the past polls. For now we've included any poll conducted and released in 2009. That provides us with seventeen polls instead of the two we would have if we took just the post-primary polls. As such Christie's lead is a shade under ten points. [Incidentally, if FHQ were to have used just the two most recent polls, Christie's advantage would have stretched to 50.5% - 39.0%. It isn't, then, an inconsequential move to include the other polls. However, the extra information from the other polls allows us to control for any poll to poll fluctuations that may not reflect the true nature of the race.]

Finally, both races in New Jersey and Virginia (coming soon) will be updated when new polling becomes available. If 2005 polling is indicative, updates will be sporadic through the rest of the summer and pick up in September and October. I would also expect Virginia polling to increase in frequency this time around.

*The aggregation of polling comes to FHQ via the good folks at Pollster.com.

Also, if you haven't already checked, the final, unofficial results from Tuesday's Democratic primary in Virginia are now up. The link is just below in "Recent Posts."


Recent Posts:
Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition

Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

Virginia is for Voters

Virginia is for Voters: Results Edition

The results are coming in for the Democratic gubernatorial primary (and have been for well over an hour now). Just like last week, Jack was at the ready to provide us with a link to the results online.

Thus far, Creigh Deeds is doing his best to outdo even the best of the recent polling forecasts. Did I really say he'd underperform those numbers? Nah, that couldn't have been me. Oh.

June 11, 12:36pm: The final unofficial numbers are in:
Deeds finished up with just under half the total vote cast in Tuesday's primary. The state senator and Democratic gubernatorial candidate was 729 votes shy of that 50% mark.

10:42pm: Deeds' surge extended beyond votes. Google searches of the three candidates over the last thirty days are indicative; not to the level of recent polling or of the vote tonight, but indicative of Deeds supplanting McAuliffe as frontrunner in the race for the nomination.


10:16pm: While we await the results from the final five precincts, Christian Heinze over at GOP12 has some 2012 implications for us to ponder based on who is likely to be a McDonnell supporter:

"From a 2012 perspective, you can expect even more 2012 candidates to fundraise and stump for McDonnell, as they advance their message by advancing McDonnell's."

...and...

"It's been said many times, but only because it's true -- the 2009 race has big 2012 implications."

9:53pm: Parts of Isle of Wight County and Suffolk City in the 4th, parts of Mecklenburg in the 5th, one precinct in Alleghany County in the 6th and another portion of Alleghany County in the 9th are all still out at this point. Looking at the votes in already in those areas, it likely won't be enough to push Deeds over the 50% barrier.


9:38pm: Just eight precincts remain to be incorporated into the final unofficial tally, but we should note that of the 11 Virginia congressional districts, Deeds won 10. Terry McAuliffe won the 3rd (Richmond and Norfolk) by less than 1000 votes out of over 37,000 cast.

Deeds has been able to win everywhere in this primary, but can that success be extended statewide in the general? This is not a bad way to start. He may have done well enough to make his victory -- and not McAuliffe's polling collapse -- the story coming out of tonight. That won't hurt as the general election campaign begins.

9:34pm: Deeds is up to 49.79% with almost all precincts in. Whether the new Democratic nominee breaks 50% + 1 vote may be the most exciting counting of the night in this race. And no, that's not a good thing for McAuliffe or Moran.


9:24pm: Deeds' percentage was slowly declining toward 49%, but it has climbed back up to 49.49% with nearly 99% reporting. Will he get that majority? Like the 60 seats in the Senate, it won't matter much since the result is so decisive.


9:19pm: Nate Silver's got McDonnell or Deeds in the thick of 2012 and 2016 VP buzz given Virginia's new status as a swing state (see comment at 8:37pm on 538.). Who does that three or seven years in advance? Oh, I see.

9:11pm: Nevermind. Huckabee's got a new goal for McDonnell now that the Republican gubernatorial candidate cleared 5000 Facebook supporters. "...lets start new goal 10,000 by Friday at midnight."

9:10pm: On a related note, Mike Huckabee tweets: "Please help @bobmcdonnell reach 5,000 fans on FB by midnight..." Another sign of the changing dynamics of political campaigns.

9:06pm: Google Blast? Times, they are a-changin' on the campaign front.

...in case you didn't know.

And remember folks, the 2009 uses of this web ad-buying technique are just test runs for 2010 and 2012. Just think of where things can go in just three more years.

9:02pm: Deeds is not only going to win, but he'll approach a 50% majority in a three candidate race. And with nearly 95% of precincts in, turnout might just hit 6%.



8:55pm: A few thoughts on the upcoming campaign from a comment earlier in the day:

"McDonnell has won statewide and is popular, but that win was by .01% or 323 votes. Let's say McDonnell's popularity gives him, what, a 5?, 10? point boost relative to that 2005 outcome. To what extent is that offset by the growth in registration between 2005 (4.4 million) and 2008 (4.9 million)? My guess is that that growth is more Democratic than it is Republican.

"But that brings us back to the turnout question. Turnout was nearly 45% in 2005 and I'd guess that it would meet or surpass that level this year given the stakes."

8:52pm: Well, perhaps I should have checked the newswire before I started. It may have saved me some typing. Deeds wins. Now we have a rematch of the 2005 attorney general race for November.

8:46pm: This pretty much says it all. Chris Cillizza of The Fix fame cited Fairfax County and Norfolk City as areas to watch as the results rolled in this evening. African American voters in Norfolk were crucial to McAuliffe's chances. Deeds is beating the former DNC chair there. In Fairfax, the populous Northern Virginia hotbed for Democrats, Moran was supposed to minimize Deeds advantage in order for McAuliffe to have chance. The result? Deeds again is prevailing with a portion of the vote closely mirroring his share statewide.

8:41pm: Deeds' home county, Bath County had 830 votes cast (nearly a quarter of all voters in the county). The final tally there? Deeds: 800, McAuliffe: 25, Moran: 5. That isn't a lot of votes, but percentage-wise, that's a home court advantage.

8:32pm: Well, at least turnout broke that 5% barrier.

...but not by much. Hey, there are still 15% of precincts yet to call their results in. We could see 6% turnout. Of course, FHQ should note that without party registration in the commonwealth, Virginia calculates turnout based on the total number of registered voters. Still, that's not a number you'd like to see in any election; democratic or otherwise.



8:20pm: With over 75% of precincts reporting, Deeds is up by a healthy margin. And that may be understating matters.




Recent Posts:
Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

Virginia is for Voters

The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.