#surveyusa

[miscellanyblue]

Pro-gun survey provides textbook example of 'poll’ designed to elicit specific response

(Image: Mike Licht / CC BY 2.0)

In an attempt to counter the impact of two public opinion surveys that indicate New Hampshire voters support maintaining the current license requirement for carrying a concealed handgun in public by a 3 to 1 margin, pro-gun advocates have released their own poll that purports to show Granite Staters oppose the requirement.

The survey, commissioned by the Women's Defense League of New Hampshire, provides a textbook example of how to design a poll guaranteed to elicit a specific response.

The two earlier surveys were administered by experienced, national pollsters. Public Policy Polling surveyed 747 New Hampshire voters in late April and found Granite Staters support the license requirement by a 71% to 23% margin. A subsequent poll by SurveyUSA measured support at an almost identical 73% to 24% margin.

The Defense League poll was apparently conducted by the Women's Independent Majority Polling Project, a New Hampshire-based organization that registered with the Secretary of State’s office just two weeks ago. The registration was filed by conservative activist Susan Olsen, who is also on the Women’s Defense League board of directors. Emily Sandblade, the Free Stater and former State Representative who presented the survey results, identified herself as the group’s statistician.

We had some questions about poll’s methodology. For example, there’s no breakdown of responses by age groups. But frankly, after seeing the wording of the survey questions, details of the survey methodology are fairly irrelevant.

Biased questions poison everything that comes below

The Pew Research Center describes “order effects” which create survey bias. “Researchers have demonstrated that the order in which questions are asked can influence how people respond; earlier questions – in particular those directly preceding other questions – can provide context for the questions that follow.”

The Defense League survey began with a question on self-defense. “Do you support or oppose the right of a person to defend herself with a firearm in a dangerous situation?” This question, intentionally or not, frames the issue of concealed carry in terms of using of a firearm for protection rather than to commit a crime. That bias provides a context for the questions that follow.

As polling guru Nate Silver notes, “when you ask biased questions first, they are infectious, potentially poisoning everything that comes below.”

But it gets worse. Before asking the question to measure support for eliminating the concealed carry requirement, the Defense League survey also included statements declaring, “Vermont has never required a concealed carry license, and yet their crime rate is lower than New Hampshire's” and “The state law governing concealed carry permits was set up to bar union member Irish and Italian immigrants and their families from possessing a concealed firearm.”

Does the question seem fair and unbiased?

The concealed carry questions from PPP and SurveyUSA were simple and straightforward. PPP asked, “Do you support or oppose allowing people to carry a concealed gun without a license?”

SurveyUSA added some context. “Under current New Hampshire law, people are required to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public places. In order to get a permit, people need to offer three character references and pay a $10 processing fee. Do you ... strongly support? Support? Oppose? Or strongly oppose ... requiring permits to carry a concealed handgun in public in New Hampshire?”

Contrast the wording of those questions with the wording of the Defense League question. “Do you support or oppose the ability of local police to make decisions about issuing permits based on their judgment of suitability – even when such decisions can be based on political, union membership, gender, or racial bias?” they asked.

“Perhaps the best test of any poll question is your reaction to it,” the National Council on Public Polls notes. “On the face of it, does the question seem fair and unbiased? Does it present a balanced set of choices? ... You should examine carefully both the results and the exact wording of the questions.” Indeed.

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on http://www.brianbrown.net/2014/10/15/poll-nunn-leads-perdue-in-georgia-senate-race/

Poll: Nunn Leads Perdue in Georgia Senate Race

Democrat Michelle Nunn leads her Republican opponent David Perdue in a new poll of the U.S. Senate race in Georgia. The 11Alive poll, conducted by SurveyUSA, found Nunn with 48 percent support to Perdue’s 45 percent.

The poll also found Georgia’s governor’s race tied between incumbent Republican Nathan Deal and Democratic challenger Jason Carter, at 46 percent.

This is the first poll showing Nunn ahead in the race for the open Senate seat since the beginning of September, after nine straight polls showing Perdue with a modest advantage. Last week’s SurveyUSA poll gave Perdue a one-point lead, for instance, and last week’s WSB-TV/Landmark poll showed the race tied.

Democrats see Georgia’s race as a rare pick-up opportunity in what otherwise looks like a good year for the GOP. The seat is held by retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss.

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on http://www.brianbrown.net/2014/10/09/this-unlikely-independent-just-might-dash-the-gops-senate-hopes/

This Unlikely Independent Just Might Dash The GOP's Senate Hopes

APLarry Pressler

Larry Pressler’s wife, Harriet, drives him to all of his campaign events. He has a single full-time paid staffer running his campaign. A bank loan accounts for half of the money he’s spent on his race so far.

So yes, it was surprising to Larry Pressler when he woke up Wednesday to find himself within striking distance of winning the race for South Dakota’s junior seat in the US Senate. A SurveyUSA poll released that day showed Pressler, an Independent, would get 32% of the vote in a race that pits him against former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, and Democrat Rick Weiland, a former aide to Sen. Tom Daschle.

“If I win, this is going to be an amazing, astounding campaign,” Pressler told Business Insider in an interview Wednesday.

The SurveyUSA poll found Pressler just 3 points behind Rounds, who has been the presumptive winner of the race since incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) announced his retirement. Johnson’s seat has been viewed as a near-certain pickup for Republicans, one of about a dozen that are in play (they need to pick up 6 to take back control of the US Senate).

In the poll of likely voters, 28% said they planned to vote for Weiland. But if he were to drop out, according to the poll, Pressler would open up a 15-point lead against Rounds, who has been dragged down by allegations of mishandling a major program when he was governor. Without Pressler in the race, meanwhile, Rounds would still maintain a slight edge over Weiland. 

Pressler has become the second independent to make a late play for a key Senate seat, joining Greg Orman in Kansas. Like Orman, Pressler wouldn’t reveal whether he planned to caucus with the Republicans or Democrats should he win. But he did float the possibility that if he and Orman won their respective races, he might seek to form a “working group” with the other two independents currently in the Senate — Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Maine’s Angus King.

“We would try to work with both sides of the aisle to end the poisonous disputes, especially on fiscal matters,” Pressler said. Pointing to Sanders’ success in spearheading a bill to expand veterans’ health benefits earlier this year, Pressler said it’s clear independents can “get things done” in Washington.

Pressler spoke by telephone from Reagan National Airport, a place he has been many times before. Pressler was first elected to Congress in 1975 as a Republican, becoming the first Vietnam War veteran to serve in Congress. He spent two terms in the House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate, where he spent 18 years.

Now, he is trying to win back the seat he lost to Johnson. 

APRick Weiland smiles at the South Dakota Democratic Party’s convention earlier this year.

This time around, his campaign is predicated on a key promise: The 71-year-old former congressman and senator says he would only serve one term in Congress before bowing out. This, he said, would help him avoid becoming “beholden to special interests” and free up time that would otherwise be spent raising money to run for re-election.

He says he plans to focus on two key issues: the deficit and immigration reform. He wants to work to “smartly” slash military spending. One idea he cited was closing what he called “obsolete” overseas military bases — eliminating some of them altogether and relocating others, perhaps, to the US-Mexico border. On immigration reform, he said he was sympathetic to the plan the Senate passed in 2013 that has languished in the House for more than a year. 

Pressler voted for President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and he said he’d be a “friend” to the president. But he painted his opponents in the South Dakota race as extremes of both the left and right, saying South Dakotans’ best option is someone in the middle.

“I’m not beholden to anyone. Just because you vote for somebody doesn’t mean that you’re tied to all their policies,” Pressler said. “For example, let’s say you had voted for Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean you’re responsible for Monica Lewinsky. Let’s say you’d voted for Richard Nixon. I wouldn’t hold you accountable for Watergate.

“The way I see politics, I vote a split ticket. I vote for issues. And I’m running on issues.”

Pressler’s Kryptonite may be the money factor. Unlike Orman, a successful businessman who is financing much of his own campaign, Pressler has had stints as a professor, as a business adviser, and as a lawyer since leaving the Senate in 1997.

He plans to spend $100,000 of his personal savings on the race and has taken out a $100,000 loan. The high end of his expectation for fundraising is another $100,000 — giving him a war chest that would represent a small fraction of what Rounds and Weiland will likely spend.

Just this week, for instance, Weiland received a total of $2 million in campaign funds. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced plans to spend $1 million on ads and field operations over the final month of the race. And that’s on top of a just-announced $1 million ad campaign from MayDay.US, the self-declared “super PAC to end all super PACs” led by political activist Lawrence Lessig.

According to Tom Jensen, the director of the firm Public Policy Polling, Weiland’s considerable resources will likely end up putting him in a stronger position than Pressler — unless Pressler gets unexpected outside support.

“I think Pressler is likely to fade down the stretch due to his lack of money, and if he does, Weiland is far more likely to be the beneficiary of his votes than Rounds,” Jensen said.

“Weiland’s path to victory is probably something along the lines of 41-40-19, but you get the same seat either way. I just don’t think Pressler’s current level of support is sustainable given his own lack of fundraising and the unlikelihood of anyone outside investing in him.”

Pressler understands that money is his biggest obstacle. His first reaction when he heard the news about the DSCC’s new spending on the race? “Oh boy.”

Said Pressler: “I’m sort of like a rabbit at a shooting site with no weapon.”

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[brianbrownnet]

A new article has been published on www.brianbrown.net

New Post has been published on http://www.brianbrown.net/2014/10/09/meet-the-candidate-who-just-might-dash-the-gops-senate-hopes/

Meet The Candidate Who Just Might Dash The GOPs Senate Hopes

APLarry Pressler

Larry Pressler’s wife, Harriet, drives him to all of his campaign events. He has a single full-time paid staffer running his campaign. A bank loan accounts for half of the money he’s spent on his race so far.

So yes, it was surprising to Larry Pressler when he woke up Wednesday to find himself within striking distance of winning the race for South Dakota’s junior seat in the US Senate. A SurveyUSA poll released that day showed Pressler, an Independent, would get 32% of the vote in a race that pits him against former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, and Democrat Rick Weiland, a former aide to Sen. Tom Daschle.

“If I win, this is going to be an amazing, astounding campaign,” Pressler told Business Insider in an interview Wednesday.

The SurveyUSA poll found Pressler just 3 points behind Rounds, who has been the presumptive winner of the race since incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) announced his retirement. Johnson’s seat has been viewed as a near-certain pickup for Republicans, one of about a dozen that are in play (they need to pick up 6 to take back control of the US Senate).

In the poll of likely voters, 28% said they planned to vote for Weiland. But if he were to drop out, according to the poll, Pressler would open up a 15-point lead against Rounds, who has been dragged down by allegations of mishandling a major program when he was governor. Without Pressler in the race, meanwhile, Rounds would still maintain a slight edge over Weiland. 

Pressler has become the second independent to make a late play for a key Senate seat, joining Greg Orman in Kansas. Like Orman, Pressler wouldn’t reveal whether he planned to caucus with the Republicans or Democrats should he win. But he did float the possibility that if he and Orman won their respective races, he might seek to form a “working group” with the other two independents currently in the Senate — Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Maine’s Angus King.

“We would try to work with both sides of the aisle to end the poisonous disputes, especially on fiscal matters,” Pressler said. Pointing to Sanders’ success in spearheading a bill to expand veterans’ health benefits earlier this year, Pressler said it’s clear independents can “get things done” in Washington.

Pressler spoke by telephone from Reagan National Airport, a place he has been many times before. Pressler was first elected to Congress in 1975 as a Republican, becoming the first Vietnam War veteran to serve in Congress. He spent two terms in the House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate, where he spent 18 years.

Now, he is trying to win back the seat he lost to Johnson. 

APRick Weiland smiles at the South Dakota Democratic Party’s convention earlier this year.

This time around, his campaign is predicated on a key promise: The 71-year-old former congressman and senator says he would only serve one term in Congress before bowing out. This, he said, would help him avoid becoming “beholden to special interests” and free up time that would otherwise be spent raising money to run for re-election.

He says he plans to focus on two key issues: the deficit and immigration reform. He wants to work to “smartly” slash military spending. One idea he cited was closing what he called “obsolete” overseas military bases — eliminating some of them altogether and relocating others, perhaps, to the US-Mexico border. On immigration reform, he said he was sympathetic to the plan the Senate passed in 2013 that has languished in the House for more than a year. 

Pressler voted for President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and he said he’d be a “friend” to the president. But he painted his opponents in the South Dakota race as extremes of both the left and right, saying South Dakotans’ best option is someone in the middle.

“I’m not beholden to anyone. Just because you vote for somebody doesn’t mean that you’re tied to all their policies,” Pressler said. “For example, let’s say you had voted for Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean you’re responsible for Monica Lewinsky. Let’s say you’d voted for Richard Nixon. I wouldn’t hold you accountable for Watergate.

“The way I see politics, I vote a split ticket. I vote for issues. And I’m running on issues.”

Pressler’s Kryptonite may be the money factor. Unlike Orman, a successful businessman who is financing much of his own campaign, Pressler has had stints as a professor, as a business adviser, and as a lawyer since leaving the Senate in 1997.

He plans to spend $100,000 of his personal savings on the race and has taken out a $100,000 loan. The high end of his expectation for fundraising is another $100,000 — giving him a war chest that would represent a small fraction of what Rounds and Weiland will likely spend.

Just this week, for instance, Weiland received a total of $2 million in campaign funds. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced plans to spend $1 million on ads and field operations over the final month of the race. And that’s on top of a just-announced $1 million ad campaign from MayDay.US, the self-declared “super PAC to end all super PACs” led by political activist Lawrence Lessig.

According to Tom Jensen, the director of the firm Public Policy Polling, Weiland’s considerable resources will likely end up putting him in a stronger position than Pressler — unless Pressler gets unexpected outside support.

“I think Pressler is likely to fade down the stretch due to his lack of money, and if he does, Weiland is far more likely to be the beneficiary of his votes than Rounds,” Jensen said.

“Weiland’s path to victory is probably something along the lines of 41-40-19, but you get the same seat either way. I just don’t think Pressler’s current level of support is sustainable given his own lack of fundraising and the unlikelihood of anyone outside investing in him.”

Pressler understands that money is his biggest obstacle. His first reaction when he heard the news about the DSCC’s new spending on the race? “Oh boy.”

Said Pressler: “I’m sort of like a rabbit at a shooting site with no weapon.”

Link to this story: 

Please share with your friends:

[partisanid-blog]

SurveyUSA shows Ohio is no "firewall" for Obama. Romney behind only 1 pt in 2008-scenario

Paul Ryan, his wife and mother campaign in Owensville, Ohio with Governor John Kasich (R), Sen. Rob Portman, and his wife, on Sep. 12, 2012. Photo found here.

Survey USA is out with a new poll showing Obama leading Romney in Ohio, the President's "firewall," by a 45-42% margin. 3% choose someone other than Obama or Romney, and 9% are undecided. Poll findings indicate that 39% of Ohio likely voters self-identify as Democrats, 32% identify as Republican, and 26% identify as Independent. Both Obama and Romney are attracting equal portions of their base, while Romney captures Independent voters by 8 points, 41-33%. As a result, it's easy to see that we're dealing with a Democratic friendly poll sample, given that Romney leads strongly with Independents, yet still trails the President overall. In the Democratic year of 2008, Ohio partisan identification was D+8 according to CNN exit polls. But poll-nerd/analyst @NumbersMuncher points out that the actual Ohio partisan ID in 2008 was closer to D+5, or 37.5D/32.5R/30I. He explains it here:

This was a wave election and Barack Obama took Ohio by 4.6%, 51.5 to 46.9. The exit polls show a split of 39% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  When you take that breakdown and put it against the exit poll results of vote per party, Obama would win 52.8 to 45.6 – 7.2% victory.  This means that the exit polls were off a little, which is normal since they are, after all, a poll.  On the plus side, having an *actual* vote total to compare to makes it easier to work with.  If you mess around with the exit poll party % against the share of vote for each party, you come out with this breakdown: 37.5% Democrats, 32.5% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  That gives you a vote of 51.6% for Obama and 46.9% for McCain – pretty close to actuals. That means for 2008 the exit polls show an EIGHT point Dem advantage, but in reality it was likely closer to 5%. That is a huge difference when looking at the current polls.  Article here

SurveyUSA's party ID finding in Ohio could be entirely accurate when compared to actual turnout this November. But what if it isn't? What if turnout looks more like the D+5 scenario laid out above? Here's how the SurveyUSA poll would look if that were the case:  SurveyUSA poll weighted to 2008 Ohio turnout (per @NumbersMuncher): Party ID        Obama                    Romney 37.5D            33     (88%)             2.25     (6%) 32.5R            1.625 (5%)              28.925 (89%) 30I                9.9     (33%)            12.3     (41%)                        44.525%                   43.475% What was a 3 point race becomes a 1 point race in the event turnout in Ohio resembles '08 turnout. On the other end of the turnout spectrum, here is what the SurveyUSA poll would look like if the 2012 electorate resembles 2010 turnout: SurveyUSA poll weighted to 2010 Ohio turnout (per @NumbersMuncher): Party ID        Obama                    Romney 37.5D            33     (88%)             2.25     (6%) 36.5R            1.825 (5%)              32.485 (89%) 26I                8.58    (33%)            10.66     (41%)                       43.405%                   45.395% Imagine that: when you reweight the SurveyUSA poll to 2010 turnout, Romney takes a 2 point LEAD in Ohio. When you weight it to 2008 turnout, Obama leads by 1. Either way, I'd hate to have to defend calling Ohio my "firewall" state, whether you're Romney or Obama. It appears to be a toss-up.

[partisanid-blog]

SurveyUSA shows Ohio is no "firewall" for Obama. Romney behind only 1 pt in 2008-scenario

Paul Ryan, his wife and mother campaign in Owensville, Ohio with Governor John Kasich (R), Sen. Rob Portman, and his wife, on Sep. 12, 2012. Photo found here.

Survey USA is out with a new poll showing Obama leading Romney in Ohio, the President's "firewall," by a 45-42% margin. 3% choose someone other than Obama or Romney, and 9% are undecided. Poll findings indicate that 39% of Ohio likely voters self-identify as Democrats, 32% identify as Republican, and 26% identify as Independent. Both Obama and Romney are attracting equal portions of their base, while Romney captures Independent voters by 8 points, 41-33%. As a result, it's easy to see that we're dealing with a Democratic friendly poll sample, given that Romney leads strongly with Independents, yet still trails the President overall. In the Democratic year of 2008, Ohio partisan identification was D+8 according to CNN exit polls. But poll-nerd/analyst @NumbersMuncher points out that the actual Ohio partisan ID in 2008 was closer to D+5, or 37.5D/32.5R/30I. He explains it here:

This was a wave election and Barack Obama took Ohio by 4.6%, 51.5 to 46.9. The exit polls show a split of 39% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  When you take that breakdown and put it against the exit poll results of vote per party, Obama would win 52.8 to 45.6 – 7.2% victory.  This means that the exit polls were off a little, which is normal since they are, after all, a poll.  On the plus side, having an *actual* vote total to compare to makes it easier to work with.  If you mess around with the exit poll party % against the share of vote for each party, you come out with this breakdown: 37.5% Democrats, 32.5% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  That gives you a vote of 51.6% for Obama and 46.9% for McCain – pretty close to actuals. That means for 2008 the exit polls show an EIGHT point Dem advantage, but in reality it was likely closer to 5%. That is a huge difference when looking at the current polls.  Article here

SurveyUSA's party ID finding in Ohio could be entirely accurate when compared to actual turnout this November. But what if it isn't? What if turnout looks more like the D+5 scenario laid out above? Here's how the SurveyUSA poll would look if that were the case:  SurveyUSA poll weighted to 2008 Ohio turnout (per @NumbersMuncher): Party ID        Obama                    Romney 37.5D            33     (88%)             2.25     (6%) 32.5R            1.625 (5%)              28.925 (89%) 30I                9.9     (33%)            12.3     (41%)                        44.525%                   43.475% What was a 3 point race becomes a 1 point race in the event turnout in Ohio resembles '08 turnout. On the other end of the turnout spectrum, here is what the SurveyUSA poll would look like if the 2012 electorate resembles 2010 turnout: SurveyUSA poll weighted to 2010 Ohio turnout (per @NumbersMuncher): Party ID        Obama                    Romney 37.5D            33     (88%)             2.25     (6%) 36.5R            1.825 (5%)              32.485 (89%) 26I                8.58    (33%)            10.66     (41%)                       43.405%                   45.395% Imagine that: when you reweight the SurveyUSA poll to 2010 turnout, Romney takes a 2 point LEAD in Ohio. When you weight it to 2008 turnout, Obama leads by 1. Either way, I'd hate to have to defend calling Ohio my "firewall" state, whether you're Romney or Obama. It appears to be a toss-up.

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

Our opponents have the cultural elite, wealthy contributors, and editorial writers, but we have voters on our side. We are particularly pleased with the lead the amendment enjoys among Independent voters and the large percentage of Democratic voters who support the amendment.

John Helmberger, Chairman, Minnesota for Marriage Source: The New American

Helmberger's response to a new poll conducted jointly by SurveyUSA and KSTP that found a 15 point spread between those who support the mean-spirited marriage amendment and those who oppose it. Read more about the poll in my blog post from yesterday.

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

According to new polling numbers released July 22, amendment supporters now have a 15 point lead. The survey, conducted through SurveyUSA and KSTP-TV, found that 52 percent of respondents indicated that they would be voting for the amendment while only 37 percent opposed.

Many will argue, “Oh, this is just one poll…” but the reality is, these numbers are similar to what many other states have seen in their amendment fights.

Minnesota (and our friends and allies in other states), it’s time to take notice. We need to make sure our voices are louder than ever, that we’re telling our stories, that we’re talking to friends and family and that we’re out there in the workplace and communities talking about why this amendment is so bad for Minnesota.

Election day is just over 100 days away. The clock is ticking.

Note: additional information on the survey can be found at twincities.com.