Hey look, a post!

While I’m sure everyone involved is so proud of Vanderbilt’s data filtering app for its recent poll of Tennessee showing Barack Obama still losing in one of the two states he ran behind John Kerry in, but the problem is that the details are made less transparent.

What a shame.

Some pollsters put out lots of information. I’m going to single out Public Policy Polling and SurveyUSA. They put out big, beautiful tables full of information. That serves a dual purpose: It not only lets us study what’s going on with the poll to find out what it’s saying about the public, but it also lets us analyze the poll itself to see if we should trust what it’s saying about the public.

The Vanderbilt poll makes it very difficult to try to figure out just what it’s saying about the basic demographic and political makeup of the voting public in Tennessee. Without that information, we have a difficult time evaluating the poll’s validity and its results.

I hope this doesn’t become a trend.

Possibly Related Posts

• December 12, 2011 -- Marist projects a larger wave for Democrats in 2012
• August 22, 2011 -- The candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want
• April 14, 2012 -- Swingometer: Rasmussen tracking poll means big Romney win

Rather than look at just one state, I thought it might be interesting to see what Swingometer has to say about a national poll, and as it turns out, the most recent national poll is the tracking poll from Rasmussen Reports.

This one is much better news for Mitt Romney than the North Carolina poll was.

The result is Romney 48, Obama 43, which turns out to be a two-party split of Romney 52.7-Obama 47.3 (R+5.4). The actual 2008 popular vote was McCain 45.7, Obama 52.9 (D+7.2). Together, that’s a swing of R+12.6, a large change from 2008.

Asking Swingometer, we find that a swing that large results in a clear win for Mitt Romney. He picks up Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, as well as NE-2 and ME-2.

It’s terribly early of course. It’ll be a while before we get other pollsters trying a likely voter model. But while we wait, what else do we have to look at?

Possibly Related Posts

• April 14, 2012 -- From North Carolina… a poll.
• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency
• March 29, 2012 -- Quinnipiac: Romney better in Pennsylvania than Ohio

North Carolina was President Obama’s narrowest win in 2008. I’ve long thought that the state would be the quickest, easiest pickup for Republicans in 2012. As the final matchup between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney shapes up, early polling begins to confirm that guess.

500 likely voters, MoE 4.5. Rasmussen Reports finds that North Carolina is still pretty close, with a result of Romney 46, Obama 44. Still though, that’s a swing of a few points right off the bat. In a two-party vote, that’s a swing from 50-50 to 51-49, or R+2.

By itself, that swing is not enough to change the final vote though. According to the Swingometer, 2 points only flips Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska’s 2nd district. That still results in a 332-206 win for the President.

Mitt Romney needs a larger nationwide swing, or at least a larger swing in close Obama states, in order to be the next President. But, it’s early yet. Republicans will take some time to unify I suspect, and when that happens, I expect North Carolina to be out of reach for the President.

Possibly Related Posts

• April 14, 2012 -- Swingometer: Rasmussen tracking poll means big Romney win
• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency
• March 29, 2012 -- Quinnipiac: Romney better in Pennsylvania than Ohio

Quinnipiac University put out a pair of polls this week I thought were interesting to note. Now, I have and still do think that it’s too soon to test general election Presidential matchups, so don’t think I’m reading a lot into these. But apart from that, I find it odd that Mitt Romney is doing better in Pennsylvania than he is in Ohio.

Ohio and Pennsylvania may border each other, but their electoral histories differ. Ohio has gone for the winner of every Presidential election starting with the 1964 wipeout. Ohio picks winners. The state’s rarely been wrong. It favored Nixon over Kennedy, Dewey over Roosevelt, and didn’t like Cleveland (favoring Harrison and Blaine over him), but backed every other winner since Abraham Lincoln and the establishment of the Republican Party as one of the two leading parties in the country. That’s 34 winners and 4 losers.

Pennsylvania in recent years has been more loyal to one side, backing the Democrat every time since 1992. Pennsylvania has taken on a partisan leaning, different from the swing state status of its neighbor to the west.

That is why I find it odd that Quinnipiac put out a pair of polls showing Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by 3, 45-42 in Pennsylvania (1232 registered voters, MoE 2.8), even as a companion poll shows Obama ahead of Romney by 7, 47-40 in Ohio (1246 registered voters, MoE 2.8).

Sure, with an MoE of 2.8, There’s about a 1/3 chance Obama’s yet doing better in PA than he is in OH despite this poll. Likewise that figure holds for Romney actually doing better in OH than he is in PA. So it could be nothing.

But even so, if we believe these polls, the two states are close. If the two states are following history, and Pennsylvania is close to Ohio, then this election has the possibility of being a Romney landslide.

But that’s if we believe general election horserace polling during a contested primary.

Possibly Related Posts

• September 28, 2011 -- Quinnipiac in OH and PA: Romney leads, Perry leads, Santorum flops
• March 5, 2012 -- Mittmentum moves to Ohio, Gingrich leads Georgia on a true Super Tuesday
• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency

Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.

Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.

Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.

I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.

Possibly Related Posts

• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency
• April 14, 2012 -- Swingometer: Rasmussen tracking poll means big Romney win
• April 14, 2012 -- From North Carolina… a poll.

Marist College polled South Carolina for NBC. By request, I’m looking at this poll, but not because of anything it says about the upcoming primaries in the state.

Instead, it’s the projection of the general election that is interesting. It seems to suggest a wave for the Democrats bigger than 2006 or 2008.

The facts: Poll taken over 3 days, 12/4-12/6, a short time for a college poll. 2,107 registered SC voters, MoE 2.1.

Again, I’m not even looking at the actual results much, though they do show Newt Gingrich solidly ahead in the three-way matchup against Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, up 48-30-12 among 635 primary LVs (MoE 3.9). I care about the general election sample.

According to Marist’s “Nature of the Sample” table, Democrats make up 33% of the sample of RVs, Republicans 30%, and Independents 36%. That sounds reasonable at first, but this is South Carolina. At the peak of the wave for the Democrats, the 2008 election, CNN’s exit polling shows a breakdown of 38% Democrats, 41% Republicans, and 20% independents. Independents appear to be vastly oversampled, and taking more from Republicans than from Democrats, in the Marist poll.

Democrats do traditionally have party identification advantages in America, but even in a great year for Democrats, they failed to have one in the 2008 elections in South Carolina. For Marist College to project such a swing in 2012, they must be predicting an even bigger wave in 2012, than the Democrats had in 2008.

Or we could just dismiss the poll as premature and likely wrong. That’s where I stand.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 22, 2011 -- The candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want
• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency
• January 21, 2012 -- Gingrich to win, and win big

Ten years ago, Gallup started polling the opinions Americans had of various industries. Two years later, the US Government was thrown into the mix. Monday, Gallup looked back to see how they’ve all done over the last decade.

It turns out the Federal Government is now less popular than any polled industry. Including Bankers, Lawyers, and Oil men.

It didn’t used to be that way. In 2003, the first year the government was added to the poll, it had a net +6 favorable rating, 41/35. A 41/35 rating this year would have put the government 12th of the 24 industries (+ government for 25 total) that were polled.

But as it turns out, the government hasn’t kept that rating. By 2004 the government was in the negative, and by 2008, the last year of the George W Bush administration, the government was running at a -42 net, 18/60. That number rebounded in 2009, after the election of Barack Obama, to a -25 net, 29/54, but has worsened again in every year since.

So now under Obama the result is slightly worse than it ever got under Bush, having dropped to a -46 rating, 17/63, which is dead last in the poll. The oil industry was slightly better off, despite the gulf and high gas prices, at a -44. Bailouts haven’t dragged banks nearly as far, as they only register a -17, while perennial pincushion lawyers only hit a -16.

The Computer industry is at the top of the chart at a huge +62, far away from the next two, restaurants at +49 and Internet at +40.

Interestingly, the Banks at -17 have fallen precisely that far over the last ten years, 17 points. Oil was previously at the bottom, only having dropped four points over the decade, but the government has crashed 24 points, the biggest drop on the table, and in only eight years, while the other industries had ten.

It’s hard to project electoral results from this, as George W Bush won solidly in 2004 despite a net -5, and there was no incumbent in 2008 when the government was at a net -42. Further, these kinds of polls can be misleading. Often the US Congress will get horrible approval ratings, but every year most incumbents win re-election.

Caveats aside, I do find it interesting that Obama’s election did shift this poll from a -42 to a -25 just after Obama’s election, and I suspect Presidential approval is pretty closely tied with the overall government’s approval. We’ve already seen that the President’s down, as well.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 29, 2011 -- Polling catastrophe for President Obama
• August 24, 2011 -- The oddity of Ron Paul
• October 4, 2010 -- House Projection for October 4

I mentioned recently that broader polling pools favor Democrats, so when a big new poll of adults comes out from Gallup that shows Barack Obama to be in trouble, I take notice.

The facts: Gallup’s results are a three day rolling average of daily poll of 1,500 adults. Telephone poll, no mention given of mobile phone handling. MoE 3.

And the result for August 25-27 came up with the shocking result: Obama’s approval is at 38, while disapproval is up to 55, slightly worse than the 20-22 result of 38/54. For context, George W. Bush at the beginning of September 2008, September 8-11 was at 33 approval and 65 disapproval. Obama’s approval is only 5 points away from matching Bush at the very end of his Presidency, the month of Obama’s own electoral win.

So while it’s not yet appropriate to say that Obama has grown to be as unpopular as Bush, the trend just might take him there by election day 2012. Then again, it might reverse. But I don’t know offhand whether any President has managed to come back from figures this bad, to getting back in the black with approval above disapproval.

Possibly Related Posts

• August 24, 2011 -- The oddity of Ron Paul
• December 8, 2011 -- Gingrich: Is his rise sustainable?
• May 20, 2012 -- Neat technology shouldn’t come ahead of poll transparency

This week Gallup polled four Republican candidates against Barack Obama. For the three leading Republicans the results are typical, and do more to show the difference between polls of adults and polls of registered voters (Gallup polled both).

But oddly enough, Ron Paul was different.

The facts: 1026 adults, 879 registered voters. MoE is given as 4 for both. A quota of mobile phone responders was required, so they were covered in addition to land lines.

Among registered voters, most of the races are close. Romney leads 48-46, Perry ties at 47, Paul trails 45-47, and Bachmann trails 44-48. The chances of each candidate leading Barack Obama are 59 Romney, 50 Perry, 40 Paul, and Bachmann brings up the rear with a 30%.

That wasn’t why this poll caught my attention though. No, what’s interesting is the shifts when going from Registered Voters to Adults. Romney +2 goes to -1, Perry even goes to -4, Bachmann -4 goes to -5, but what about Ron Paul? He gains. He goes from -2 to -1. Paul’s 40% chance of a lead becomes 45%, near coin flip territory, when the sample includes people who are not registered to vote.

Of course it’s meaningless electorally, but it’s interesting to note, I believe. Republicans tend to do worse among Adults, but Ron Paul is the exception to that rule it seems. His support is unlike other Republicans, in that he does better with people who don’t vote.

Possibly Related Posts

• September 19, 2011 -- Gallup: Romney gaining from Bachmann?
• August 22, 2011 -- The candidates Iowa Republicans don’t want
• December 8, 2011 -- Gingrich: Is his rise sustainable?

By request, we have a somewhat unusual poll: We Ask America asked Iowa Republicans which candidate they don’t want as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012.

As is usual this time of year, the poll is skewed by the inclusion of non-candidates. This time, overwhelmingly so.

The usual facts: It’s a poll of 649 Republican “Iowa Voters” (which I’m guessing is something in between RV and LV, but it might be just RVs) for the Primary questions, and 2342 Iowa Voters for Presidential approval questions. MoE 3.85 for Republicans and 2.02 overall. Automated poll, so no mobiles were likely included in the sample.

Sometimes the inclusion of non-candidates skews a poll. For the question of what candidate Iowa Republicans don’t want, one non-candidate is defining the poll. Sarah Palin wins a full 25% of the question, well ahead of Newt Gingrich’s 16%, and Jon Huntsman’s 14%. Michele Bachmann tied for fourth at 12%, Mitt Romney finished sixth at 7%, and Rick Perry tied for eighth at 3%.

We Ask America then went for the candidates Iowa Republicans prefer. Interestingly, the top three finished in a different order from their do-not-want finishes. Rick Perry did win convincingly at 29%, but Michele Bachmann jumped to second at 17%, with Mitt Romney third at 15%. Sarah Palin finishes at 7%, behind Ron Paul and Other.

This poll suggests to me that opposition research dumps against Rick Perry have yet to leave a mark on him. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain such a solid lead (I show a 94% chance Perry leads Bachmann if this poll is sound) as both Republicans and Democrats continue to target him.

This poll also suggests Sarah Palin’s paths to victory are limited, should she choose to enter the race. I can’t see her winning Iowa when she loses a quarter of the state party right off the top. If she wanted an early win, she’d have to look elsewhere.

In other results, the poll shows a possible pickup opportunity for Republicans in 2012, as only 39% of Iowa voters favor the President’s re-election, versus 54% who oppose a second term for Barack Obama.

Possibly Related Posts

• September 28, 2011 -- ARG on New Hampshire and Iowa: Romney up, Perry wavering
• September 22, 2011 -- Romney running away with New Hampshire
• January 3, 2012 -- Today’s the big day in Iowa