Its amazing for all the grief and wrath that a certain news network gets (Fox) that there is a poll that shows this, from Politico...
Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.
Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.
There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.
CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.
Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.
Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.
“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”
The telephone poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
It is also important to note that Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a Democratic polling organization, that's got to sting.
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A full analysis of the MA Senate race...
One look from inside (Boston Herald) and another from the outside (Pollster.com).
">
From the Boston Herald...
Rattled Dems fret over health of Senate seat
It’s all about health care.
The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate has come down to one issue, and it’s not Sen. Ted Kennedy’s “legacy.” It’s the misshapen health-care bills that have scared the bejesus out of an ever-growing majority of American voters, even in this bluest of states. Asked his view of the bill, the Republican candidate, state Sen. Scott Brown, says succinctly: “It kinda stinks.”
A month ago, he was 30 points behind his Democratic opponent, the don’t-make-no-waves attorney general, Martha Coakley. She was cruising, playing the one card she never leaves home without - the gender card. Then the specifics of ObamaCare started leaking out. The cuts in Medicare - $500 billion, or as Brown prefers to say, “half a trillion dollars.” Then the state’s union members began to hear about the president’s insistence on a 40 percent tax on their “Cadillac” health care plans.
Overnight, the old dichotomies, Democrat-Republican, red-blue, lost their resonance. This has become a struggle for self-preservation - medical and fiscal. As the old folk song goes, Which side are you on? “This race affects everyone - everyone,” Brown says over and over again. “Forget about the letter after my name. If I win, this broken health-care bill goes back to the drawing board.” Which is why the city was buzzing yesterday with unconfirmed reports that Barack Obama may have changed his mind about staying out of the race. The rumor was that he may fly into Boston this weekend on behalf of the flailing Coakley, whose lead in the latest poll has shrunk to two points. Coakley is still favored to win, but what Brown calls “the machine” is stunned. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, Brown leads Coakley among independents 71-23.
“They are in an absolute panic mode,” one prominent Bay State Democrat was saying yesterday. “They don’t care if bringing in Barack energizes the Republicans and independents - how much more energized can they get? Obama’s people have to get the minority vote out, and Coakley sure can’t do it herself. It’s risky, but it may be the only way now to save her.” The national Democrats are pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race in the final days. On TV and radio here, Scott Brown’s first name is now “Republican,” as in “Republican Scott Brown.” The SEIU, moveon.org, NARAL - all the usual suspects are on board. The “A” word - abortion - is heard once more in the land. But Coakley’s first 30-second hit piece fell a bit flat when, at the end, the campaign misspelled the name of her state as “Massachusettes.” “Maybe Martha should talk to some people who actually live here,” Brown said yesterday. The deluge of attack ads began a couple of hours after the final debate Monday night, just after Coakley left the spin room. She’d turned in yet another lackluster performance, informing the audience that there were no terrorists left in Afghanistan, two days after one of the slain CIA operatives was buried in nearby Bolton, and on the same day that three U.S. servicemen were killed in the war that she seems to think is over.
But Brown won the debate when he fielded a question from the hyper-liberal moderator, David Gergen, who asked him how he could possibly vote to kill health care while sitting in Ted Kennedy’s seat. “With all due respect,” Brown told the Sunday chat-show fixture, “this is not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
Brown was in the midst of an Internet “money bomb” fund-raiser, and after slapping down Gergen, by the end of the night he had raised $1.3 million - $800,000 above the campaign’s goal. In the state’s suburban town halls, voters are lining up to get absentee ballots, just in case the weather takes a turn for the worse Tuesday. For example, in Yarmouth, on the Cape, during the primary last month, 183 residents voted absentee. By Monday, the number of absentee ballots given out in Yarmouth was 543. It’s the same in all of the more conservative cities and towns.
Despite the bitter January cold, the Brown campaign has been swamped with volunteers. On the weekends, there are Brown “standouts” at every major intersection. Representing a gerrymandered, heavily Democrat district in the state Senate, Brown is used to having his yard signs disappear, but this time there’s a difference. “My own supporters are stealing them from each other,” he said. “They say, I need it more than you. I live on a busier street.”
The Democratic establishment is relying on yesterday’s tactics. On Tuesday night, a reporter for the Weekly Standard was assaulted outside a Coakley fundraiser in D.C. by a Democrat operative. The video was quickly posted on the Internet, but the Boston Globe, the Kennedy family house organ, pretended it was still 1973. Their headline: “Reporter takes stumble.” Just like Martha Coakley. She may yet hang on to win, but even she does, one thing is certain. As Scott Brown said, it’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat anymore.
Now from pollster.com
We have two new polls out in Massachusetts on the January 19 special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and their results could not be more different. The new survey conducted Saturday through Wednesday last week by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center on behalf of the Boston Globe shows Democrat Martha Coakley leading by 17 percentage points (53% to 36%), while a new automated poll conducted on Thursday and Friday by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows a dead heat, with Brown one point ahead (48% to 47%). A third survey conducted on Monday by Rasmussen Reports has Coakley ahead by nine (50% to 41%).
The disparity of the results is likely to provoke the usual angst about inconsistent polls, debates about past pollster accuracy and the customary conspiracy theories about intentional bias. Forgive me if I don't join in, because as different as these results seem to be, I think the discrepancies actually add up to a consistent and important finding on the state of voter preferences this past week.
Here are three things to keep in mind about polls on the special election:
Turnout Will Matter -- The big spread in results among the polls, and differences apparent within two of them, are all consistent in supporting one finding: The lower the turnout, the better the odds for Scott Brown. These differences indicate that the voters most interested and most likely to vote are Republican, while Democrats are more blase.
Consider the differences in the table below from within Globe/UNH and Rasmussen surveys. Both show a dead even race among the most interested and certain voters, while Coakley leads by huge double-digit margins among all other voters.
Those differences mean the overall results reported by any poll are going to be very sensitive to the "tightness" of the screen or likely voter model used. The more restrictive the screen, the closer the result. My assumption is that the "if you do not intend to vote...please hang up" automated methodology employed by PPP produced an effectively tighter screen and, thus, a likely voter sample closer to the "certain" or "extremely interested" subgroups of the Boston Globe and Rasmussen polls.
Pollsters can't predict turnout - I have yet to see any poll or statistical model that can predict voter turnout with precision, especially in an oddly timed special election like the one in Massachusetts. What pollsters try to do is monitor self reported enthusiasm and interest as compared to previous, comparable contests and try to calibrate their screens and models appropriately (although there is much debate among pollsters about the accuracy of those calibrations and their necessity).
The bigger challenge in predicting turnout, however, has to do with something more fundamental: The size and makeup of the electorate will depend on decisions not yet made by those who may or may not vote on January 19. How many will become more interested and decide to vote over the next 9 days? I'm not sure any poll or methodology can predict that with confidence.
Keep in mind that as of this past week, most Massachusetts voters assumed that Coakley would win in a walk. According to Globe/UNH poll, nearly three quarters (74%) of Massachusetts voters believe Coakley will win, while only 11% say the same about Brown. In that sense, news of a narrowing race could work to Coakley's advantage if it convinces Democrats that their votes are needed and that Ted Kennedy's seat could be lost to the Republicans without their help.
Turnout differences complicate trend tracking - The big spread in these poll results complicates our ability to spot trends. For example, PPP's Tom Jensen last night noted that they fielded their poll on Thursday and Friday, while the Globe/UNH poll was fielded in the first part of last week (Saturday through Wednesday). The earlier start to the Globe poll, he wrote yesterday, "could make a diff[erence] when things are moving fast." That's true in theory but difficult to evaluate in this case because we have to assume we are comparing an apple (the Globe/UNH results) to an orange (PPP) in terms of their likely voter samples.
Now that we have more than five polls released for this race, we should have our tracking chart posted (along with the tracking table, probably later tonight), but be forewarned: The small number of polls and the big "house effects" among them mean that we will really need to limit ourselves to same-pollster comparisons to evaluate trends over the last week. Coakley lead by an average of 29 percentage points on three surveys conducted before the primary last year, but leads by an average of 8 point on the three surveys conducted this past week. So we will see narrowing of the margin between the trend lines on our chart. Has Brown continued to gain over the last week? To answer that questions, we will need o watch tracking polls conducted next week by the same pollsters in the field this week.
Do we have a clear picture today of who will win on January 19 and by how much? Probably not, but we do have a sense of the dynamics that will ultimately determine the outcome.
And one last thought for those covering and commenting on this race: please spare us the cliche about the outcome depending on which campaign's "troops" do the best job turning out their supporters. Field organizations can make a difference, especially when contests are close, but the discrepancies in enthusiasm we are seeing are unrelated to canvassing and phone banking. Conservative Republicans are angry and ready to walk on hot coals if necessary to register their discontent with the direction of government. If he enthusiasm gap narrows, it will be because Democrats come to believe that Martha Coakley shares their priorities, Scott Brown threatens those priorities and the outcome of the election is in doubt.
Update: Via Twitter, Alex Lundry notes that the Globe Poll tests independent Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the famous family), while the PPP poll does not. What's interesting about that is that the presence of a "Kennedy" on the ballot appears to cos Republican Brown more support than Democrat Coakley . Also, for what it's worth, roughly 90% of those who support "Kennedy" (4 of his 5 percentage points) have not yet "definitely decided on a candidate, and about the same number (90%) are voters that are less than "extremely interested" in the Senate race.
">
From the Boston Herald...
Rattled Dems fret over health of Senate seat
It’s all about health care.
The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate has come down to one issue, and it’s not Sen. Ted Kennedy’s “legacy.” It’s the misshapen health-care bills that have scared the bejesus out of an ever-growing majority of American voters, even in this bluest of states. Asked his view of the bill, the Republican candidate, state Sen. Scott Brown, says succinctly: “It kinda stinks.”
A month ago, he was 30 points behind his Democratic opponent, the don’t-make-no-waves attorney general, Martha Coakley. She was cruising, playing the one card she never leaves home without - the gender card. Then the specifics of ObamaCare started leaking out. The cuts in Medicare - $500 billion, or as Brown prefers to say, “half a trillion dollars.” Then the state’s union members began to hear about the president’s insistence on a 40 percent tax on their “Cadillac” health care plans.
Overnight, the old dichotomies, Democrat-Republican, red-blue, lost their resonance. This has become a struggle for self-preservation - medical and fiscal. As the old folk song goes, Which side are you on? “This race affects everyone - everyone,” Brown says over and over again. “Forget about the letter after my name. If I win, this broken health-care bill goes back to the drawing board.” Which is why the city was buzzing yesterday with unconfirmed reports that Barack Obama may have changed his mind about staying out of the race. The rumor was that he may fly into Boston this weekend on behalf of the flailing Coakley, whose lead in the latest poll has shrunk to two points. Coakley is still favored to win, but what Brown calls “the machine” is stunned. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, Brown leads Coakley among independents 71-23.
“They are in an absolute panic mode,” one prominent Bay State Democrat was saying yesterday. “They don’t care if bringing in Barack energizes the Republicans and independents - how much more energized can they get? Obama’s people have to get the minority vote out, and Coakley sure can’t do it herself. It’s risky, but it may be the only way now to save her.” The national Democrats are pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race in the final days. On TV and radio here, Scott Brown’s first name is now “Republican,” as in “Republican Scott Brown.” The SEIU, moveon.org, NARAL - all the usual suspects are on board. The “A” word - abortion - is heard once more in the land. But Coakley’s first 30-second hit piece fell a bit flat when, at the end, the campaign misspelled the name of her state as “Massachusettes.” “Maybe Martha should talk to some people who actually live here,” Brown said yesterday. The deluge of attack ads began a couple of hours after the final debate Monday night, just after Coakley left the spin room. She’d turned in yet another lackluster performance, informing the audience that there were no terrorists left in Afghanistan, two days after one of the slain CIA operatives was buried in nearby Bolton, and on the same day that three U.S. servicemen were killed in the war that she seems to think is over.
But Brown won the debate when he fielded a question from the hyper-liberal moderator, David Gergen, who asked him how he could possibly vote to kill health care while sitting in Ted Kennedy’s seat. “With all due respect,” Brown told the Sunday chat-show fixture, “this is not Ted Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
Brown was in the midst of an Internet “money bomb” fund-raiser, and after slapping down Gergen, by the end of the night he had raised $1.3 million - $800,000 above the campaign’s goal. In the state’s suburban town halls, voters are lining up to get absentee ballots, just in case the weather takes a turn for the worse Tuesday. For example, in Yarmouth, on the Cape, during the primary last month, 183 residents voted absentee. By Monday, the number of absentee ballots given out in Yarmouth was 543. It’s the same in all of the more conservative cities and towns.
Despite the bitter January cold, the Brown campaign has been swamped with volunteers. On the weekends, there are Brown “standouts” at every major intersection. Representing a gerrymandered, heavily Democrat district in the state Senate, Brown is used to having his yard signs disappear, but this time there’s a difference. “My own supporters are stealing them from each other,” he said. “They say, I need it more than you. I live on a busier street.”
The Democratic establishment is relying on yesterday’s tactics. On Tuesday night, a reporter for the Weekly Standard was assaulted outside a Coakley fundraiser in D.C. by a Democrat operative. The video was quickly posted on the Internet, but the Boston Globe, the Kennedy family house organ, pretended it was still 1973. Their headline: “Reporter takes stumble.” Just like Martha Coakley. She may yet hang on to win, but even she does, one thing is certain. As Scott Brown said, it’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat anymore.
Now from pollster.com
We have two new polls out in Massachusetts on the January 19 special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and their results could not be more different. The new survey conducted Saturday through Wednesday last week by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center on behalf of the Boston Globe shows Democrat Martha Coakley leading by 17 percentage points (53% to 36%), while a new automated poll conducted on Thursday and Friday by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows a dead heat, with Brown one point ahead (48% to 47%). A third survey conducted on Monday by Rasmussen Reports has Coakley ahead by nine (50% to 41%).
The disparity of the results is likely to provoke the usual angst about inconsistent polls, debates about past pollster accuracy and the customary conspiracy theories about intentional bias. Forgive me if I don't join in, because as different as these results seem to be, I think the discrepancies actually add up to a consistent and important finding on the state of voter preferences this past week.
Here are three things to keep in mind about polls on the special election:
Turnout Will Matter -- The big spread in results among the polls, and differences apparent within two of them, are all consistent in supporting one finding: The lower the turnout, the better the odds for Scott Brown. These differences indicate that the voters most interested and most likely to vote are Republican, while Democrats are more blase.
Consider the differences in the table below from within Globe/UNH and Rasmussen surveys. Both show a dead even race among the most interested and certain voters, while Coakley leads by huge double-digit margins among all other voters.
Those differences mean the overall results reported by any poll are going to be very sensitive to the "tightness" of the screen or likely voter model used. The more restrictive the screen, the closer the result. My assumption is that the "if you do not intend to vote...please hang up" automated methodology employed by PPP produced an effectively tighter screen and, thus, a likely voter sample closer to the "certain" or "extremely interested" subgroups of the Boston Globe and Rasmussen polls.
Pollsters can't predict turnout - I have yet to see any poll or statistical model that can predict voter turnout with precision, especially in an oddly timed special election like the one in Massachusetts. What pollsters try to do is monitor self reported enthusiasm and interest as compared to previous, comparable contests and try to calibrate their screens and models appropriately (although there is much debate among pollsters about the accuracy of those calibrations and their necessity).
The bigger challenge in predicting turnout, however, has to do with something more fundamental: The size and makeup of the electorate will depend on decisions not yet made by those who may or may not vote on January 19. How many will become more interested and decide to vote over the next 9 days? I'm not sure any poll or methodology can predict that with confidence.
Keep in mind that as of this past week, most Massachusetts voters assumed that Coakley would win in a walk. According to Globe/UNH poll, nearly three quarters (74%) of Massachusetts voters believe Coakley will win, while only 11% say the same about Brown. In that sense, news of a narrowing race could work to Coakley's advantage if it convinces Democrats that their votes are needed and that Ted Kennedy's seat could be lost to the Republicans without their help.
Turnout differences complicate trend tracking - The big spread in these poll results complicates our ability to spot trends. For example, PPP's Tom Jensen last night noted that they fielded their poll on Thursday and Friday, while the Globe/UNH poll was fielded in the first part of last week (Saturday through Wednesday). The earlier start to the Globe poll, he wrote yesterday, "could make a diff[erence] when things are moving fast." That's true in theory but difficult to evaluate in this case because we have to assume we are comparing an apple (the Globe/UNH results) to an orange (PPP) in terms of their likely voter samples.
Now that we have more than five polls released for this race, we should have our tracking chart posted (along with the tracking table, probably later tonight), but be forewarned: The small number of polls and the big "house effects" among them mean that we will really need to limit ourselves to same-pollster comparisons to evaluate trends over the last week. Coakley lead by an average of 29 percentage points on three surveys conducted before the primary last year, but leads by an average of 8 point on the three surveys conducted this past week. So we will see narrowing of the margin between the trend lines on our chart. Has Brown continued to gain over the last week? To answer that questions, we will need o watch tracking polls conducted next week by the same pollsters in the field this week.
Do we have a clear picture today of who will win on January 19 and by how much? Probably not, but we do have a sense of the dynamics that will ultimately determine the outcome.
And one last thought for those covering and commenting on this race: please spare us the cliche about the outcome depending on which campaign's "troops" do the best job turning out their supporters. Field organizations can make a difference, especially when contests are close, but the discrepancies in enthusiasm we are seeing are unrelated to canvassing and phone banking. Conservative Republicans are angry and ready to walk on hot coals if necessary to register their discontent with the direction of government. If he enthusiasm gap narrows, it will be because Democrats come to believe that Martha Coakley shares their priorities, Scott Brown threatens those priorities and the outcome of the election is in doubt.
Update: Via Twitter, Alex Lundry notes that the Globe Poll tests independent Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the famous family), while the PPP poll does not. What's interesting about that is that the presence of a "Kennedy" on the ballot appears to cos Republican Brown more support than Democrat Coakley . Also, for what it's worth, roughly 90% of those who support "Kennedy" (4 of his 5 percentage points) have not yet "definitely decided on a candidate, and about the same number (90%) are voters that are less than "extremely interested" in the Senate race.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Brown ahead in latest PPP poll!!!!!
I so fucking called this one. Remember what I said yesterday?
So lets say for the sake of argument that the trend continued over the next 3 days here and I'll be generous and only slash 2 points from Coakley because I know 2 polls does not a trend make but it's all the data I have available at the current moment. I predict that the next major poll will have the race 48-47% Coakley. Which means its within the margin of error and its basically tied. Will I be right?
Yep, turns out I am, score for me! :)
Senate Race Competitive
Raleigh, N.C. – The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley.
Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state. That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey last fall. Beyond that 66% of Republicans say they’re ‘very excited’ about turning out while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment. Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative. Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama’s health care plan by a 47/41 margin and only narrowly express approval of the President’s overall job performance 44/43. “The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.” PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT! Not only did I get the numbers right (48-47) I actually underestimated Browns move from 39-50 and 41-50 for Coakley and then a 48-47 Brown lead! WOW, talk about tanking, they say the margin of error is +/-3.6% which means Browns numbers are in the range of 44.4%-51.6% (not bad for a Republican in Massachusetts) and Coakley's range is 43.4%-50.6%. That is huge because that means absolute best case for Coakley is 0.6% over the magical 50%. What might be more telling is this from realclearpolitics.com
Poll Coakley (D) Brown (R) Spread
PPP (D) 47 48 Brown +1
Rasmussen 50 41 Coakley +9
Suffolk 58 27 Coakley +31
Western NE College 58 32 Coakley +26
Suffolk 54 24 Coakley +30
Her numbers were never that far above 50% and I rememeber reading one blogger saying that she wasn't the strongest candidate in the democratic field and got the nomination by default and apathy. Since September Brown has literally doubled his numbers while Coakley has lost 7% of her vote and it stands at a 31 point swing. This is amazing and shaping up to be an upset. Heck at this point I'd say the upset is if the democrats hold on to this seat. Every freaking thing is trending towards Brown, the left is in full meltdown mode. Proof of that in tomorrows post. I need to start being a poll lackey or something, I have been nearly dead on going back to the November elections. I'm not bragging (ok maybe just a little) go back and look at my posts and predictions for the NJ/VA governors race.
So lets say for the sake of argument that the trend continued over the next 3 days here and I'll be generous and only slash 2 points from Coakley because I know 2 polls does not a trend make but it's all the data I have available at the current moment. I predict that the next major poll will have the race 48-47% Coakley. Which means its within the margin of error and its basically tied. Will I be right?
Yep, turns out I am, score for me! :)
Senate Race Competitive
Raleigh, N.C. – The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley.
Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state. That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey last fall. Beyond that 66% of Republicans say they’re ‘very excited’ about turning out while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment. Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative. Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama’s health care plan by a 47/41 margin and only narrowly express approval of the President’s overall job performance 44/43. “The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.” PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT! Not only did I get the numbers right (48-47) I actually underestimated Browns move from 39-50 and 41-50 for Coakley and then a 48-47 Brown lead! WOW, talk about tanking, they say the margin of error is +/-3.6% which means Browns numbers are in the range of 44.4%-51.6% (not bad for a Republican in Massachusetts) and Coakley's range is 43.4%-50.6%. That is huge because that means absolute best case for Coakley is 0.6% over the magical 50%. What might be more telling is this from realclearpolitics.com
Poll Coakley (D) Brown (R) Spread
PPP (D) 47 48 Brown +1
Rasmussen 50 41 Coakley +9
Suffolk 58 27 Coakley +31
Western NE College 58 32 Coakley +26
Suffolk 54 24 Coakley +30
Her numbers were never that far above 50% and I rememeber reading one blogger saying that she wasn't the strongest candidate in the democratic field and got the nomination by default and apathy. Since September Brown has literally doubled his numbers while Coakley has lost 7% of her vote and it stands at a 31 point swing. This is amazing and shaping up to be an upset. Heck at this point I'd say the upset is if the democrats hold on to this seat. Every freaking thing is trending towards Brown, the left is in full meltdown mode. Proof of that in tomorrows post. I need to start being a poll lackey or something, I have been nearly dead on going back to the November elections. I'm not bragging (ok maybe just a little) go back and look at my posts and predictions for the NJ/VA governors race.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Ben nerds it up with polls...
Ok, being already an amatuer political scientist (it is my major after all) I have a love/hate relationship with polls. I will be crunching some numbers from polls from the last week that I found on realclearpolitics.com that represents the fluid, if not bizzare, data set I have to work with here. Note ***=important poll/most weight **=somewhat important poll/semi-biased/some weight *=biased poll/little to no weight. Weight means due to poll's circumstances and factoring in how many undecided voters there are in the poll and the MoE (margin of error) which for the sake of my sanity I will put at +/-3, I will adjust the poll according jto my formula after crunching the raw data and compare the unaltered data to my altered data. This should take most of my afternoon but I have nothing better to do
Monday, November 02
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll: **Siena Hoffman 41, Owens 36, Scozzafava 6 (undecided
Hoffman +5
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*PPP(D) Christie 47, Corzine 41, Daggett 11 (undecided 1%)
Christie +6
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:*PPP(D) McDonnell 56, Deeds 42
McDonnell +14
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll:*PPP(D) Hoffman 51, Owens 34, Scozzafava 13
Hoffman +17
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Quinnipiac Christie 42, Corzine 40, Daggett 12
Christie +2
Sunday, November 01
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Monmouth/Gannett Christie 43, Corzine 42, Daggett 8
Christie +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Times-Dispatch/MD McDonnell 53, Deeds 41
McDonnell +12
Saturday, October 31
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll:**Siena Hoffman 35, Owens 36, Scozzafava 20
Owens +1
Friday, October 30
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports Christie 46, Corzine 43, Daggett 8
Christie +3
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Stockton/Zogby Christie 39, Corzine 40, Daggett 14
Corzine +1
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Neighborhood Research (R) Christie 42, Corzine 35, Daggett 8
Christie +7
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Fairleigh Dickinson Christie 41, Corzine 39, Daggett 14
Christie +2
Thursday, October 29
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Democracy Corps (D) Christie 38, Corzine 43, Daggett 12
Corzine +5
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**SurveyUSA Christie 43, Corzine 43, Daggett 11
Tie
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000 Christie 42, Corzine 41, Daggett 14
Christie +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000 McDonnell 54, Deeds 44
McDonnell +10
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Suffolk University McDonnell 54, Deeds 40
McDonnell +14
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000(D) Hoffman 32, Owens 33, Scozzafava 21
Owens +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Roanoke College McDonnell 53, Deeds 36
McDonnell +17
Wednesday, October 28
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports(NP)McDonnell 54, Deeds 41
McDonnell +13
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**VCU McDonnell 54, Deeds 36
McDonnell +18
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Quinnipiac Christie 38, Corzine 43, Daggett 13
Corzine +5
Tuesday, October 27
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports(NP) Christie 46, Corzine 43, Daggett 7 (undecided 4%)
Christie +3
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**SurveyUSA McDonnell 58, Deeds 41
McDonnell +17
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll:*Minuteman/Neighborhood (R) Hoffman 34, Owens 29, Scozzafava 14
Hoffman +5
New Jersey Governor Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*PPP(D) Christie 42, Corzine 38, Daggett 13
Christie +4
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Suffolk University Christie 33, Corzine 42, Daggett 7 (undecided 18%)Corzine +9
***Generic Congressional Vote Rasmussen Reports Democrats 38, Republicans 42 Republicans +4
This is BIG because usually the generic ballots underpoll republicans by 2-4% so that could actually be a +6-8% which is devestating to democrat hopes to hold on to House leadership
Monday, October 26
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll***CFG/Basswood Research(R) Hoffman 31, Owens 27, Scozzafava 20 (undecided22%)
Hoffman +4
Breakdown
NJ Governor
10/27 Corzine +9, Christie +4,+3
10/28 Corzine +5,
10/29 Corzine +5, Christie +1, tie
10/30 Corzine +1, Christie +1,+7,+3
11/1 Christie+1
11/2 Christie+2,+6
So since 10/27 there have been 14 polls taken, 4 have Corzine leading by an average of 5%. 9 have Christie leading by an average of 3.3% and one tie. Right now it looks like it SHOULD be a virtual tossup thanks to Daggett siphoning off votes from Christie, unless he pulls a Scozzafava and drops out Christie is going to possibly have to sweat it out until the early morning hours Wednesday. My prediction
Christie 49%, Corzine 43%, Daggett 7% with the remaining going to fringe candidates. The PPP poll today is huge because it leans democratic in its idealolgy so Christie may have a 8-10% point lead which could cause some of his supporters to get overconfident and stay home on election night.
Ok back to work...
Breakdown
VA Governor
10/27 McDonnell +17
10/28 McDonnell +18,+13
10/29 McDonnell +17,+14,+10
10/30 N/A
10/31 N/A
11/1 McDonnell +12
11/2 McDonnell +14
Pretty depressing for Deeds considering Obama actually won this state last year and has had a Democratic govenor for the last 8 years. Since 10/27 8 polls have been released all showing McDonnell with at least a double-digit lead (average 14.5% lead). "Bold" prediction by me, McDonnell wins by a minimum 60-40 due to strong GOP turnout and democratic indifference, leaving the fact that Deeds was probably the worst that the state dems could do for a nominee of the 3 contenders there were. This thing was over before it started. Even Obama essentially gave the middle finger to the Deeds camp. He never stood a shot.
And finally
NY-23 Special Election aka crazy race
10/26 Hoffman +4
10/27 Hoffman +5
10/28 N/A
10/29 Owens +1
10/30 N/A
10/31(Scozzafava drops out) Owens +1
11/1 (Scozzafava endorses Owens) N/A
11/2 Hoffman +17 (from a D poll!) and Hoffman +5
My jaw nearly hit the floor this morning when I saw that Hoffman showed a 17 point lead from PPP. I can't discount it because its a self described democrat poll. My theory is that Scozzafava endorsing Owens turned some of her possible, lukewarm supporters, to switch alligence to Hoffman. She is seen as a turncoat and probably was bribed to do this. My prediction,
Hoffman 57% Owens 38% Scozzafava 5%
Monday, November 02
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll: **Siena Hoffman 41, Owens 36, Scozzafava 6 (undecided
Hoffman +5
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*PPP(D) Christie 47, Corzine 41, Daggett 11 (undecided 1%)
Christie +6
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:*PPP(D) McDonnell 56, Deeds 42
McDonnell +14
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll:*PPP(D) Hoffman 51, Owens 34, Scozzafava 13
Hoffman +17
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Quinnipiac Christie 42, Corzine 40, Daggett 12
Christie +2
Sunday, November 01
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Monmouth/Gannett Christie 43, Corzine 42, Daggett 8
Christie +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Times-Dispatch/MD McDonnell 53, Deeds 41
McDonnell +12
Saturday, October 31
New York 23rd District - Special Election
Poll:**Siena Hoffman 35, Owens 36, Scozzafava 20
Owens +1
Friday, October 30
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports Christie 46, Corzine 43, Daggett 8
Christie +3
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Stockton/Zogby Christie 39, Corzine 40, Daggett 14
Corzine +1
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Neighborhood Research (R) Christie 42, Corzine 35, Daggett 8
Christie +7
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Fairleigh Dickinson Christie 41, Corzine 39, Daggett 14
Christie +2
Thursday, October 29
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Democracy Corps (D) Christie 38, Corzine 43, Daggett 12
Corzine +5
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**SurveyUSA Christie 43, Corzine 43, Daggett 11
Tie
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000 Christie 42, Corzine 41, Daggett 14
Christie +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000 McDonnell 54, Deeds 44
McDonnell +10
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Suffolk University McDonnell 54, Deeds 40
McDonnell +14
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll:*Daily Kos/R2000(D) Hoffman 32, Owens 33, Scozzafava 21
Owens +1
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**Roanoke College McDonnell 53, Deeds 36
McDonnell +17
Wednesday, October 28
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports(NP)McDonnell 54, Deeds 41
McDonnell +13
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**VCU McDonnell 54, Deeds 36
McDonnell +18
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Quinnipiac Christie 38, Corzine 43, Daggett 13
Corzine +5
Tuesday, October 27
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:***Rasmussen Reports(NP) Christie 46, Corzine 43, Daggett 7 (undecided 4%)
Christie +3
Virginia Governor - McDonnell vs. Deeds
Poll:**SurveyUSA McDonnell 58, Deeds 41
McDonnell +17
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll:*Minuteman/Neighborhood (R) Hoffman 34, Owens 29, Scozzafava 14
Hoffman +5
New Jersey Governor Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:*PPP(D) Christie 42, Corzine 38, Daggett 13
Christie +4
New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie
Poll:**Suffolk University Christie 33, Corzine 42, Daggett 7 (undecided 18%)Corzine +9
***Generic Congressional Vote Rasmussen Reports Democrats 38, Republicans 42 Republicans +4
This is BIG because usually the generic ballots underpoll republicans by 2-4% so that could actually be a +6-8% which is devestating to democrat hopes to hold on to House leadership
Monday, October 26
New York 23rd District Special Election
Poll***CFG/Basswood Research(R) Hoffman 31, Owens 27, Scozzafava 20 (undecided22%)
Hoffman +4
Breakdown
NJ Governor
10/27 Corzine +9, Christie +4,+3
10/28 Corzine +5,
10/29 Corzine +5, Christie +1, tie
10/30 Corzine +1, Christie +1,+7,+3
11/1 Christie+1
11/2 Christie+2,+6
So since 10/27 there have been 14 polls taken, 4 have Corzine leading by an average of 5%. 9 have Christie leading by an average of 3.3% and one tie. Right now it looks like it SHOULD be a virtual tossup thanks to Daggett siphoning off votes from Christie, unless he pulls a Scozzafava and drops out Christie is going to possibly have to sweat it out until the early morning hours Wednesday. My prediction
Christie 49%, Corzine 43%, Daggett 7% with the remaining going to fringe candidates. The PPP poll today is huge because it leans democratic in its idealolgy so Christie may have a 8-10% point lead which could cause some of his supporters to get overconfident and stay home on election night.
Ok back to work...
Breakdown
VA Governor
10/27 McDonnell +17
10/28 McDonnell +18,+13
10/29 McDonnell +17,+14,+10
10/30 N/A
10/31 N/A
11/1 McDonnell +12
11/2 McDonnell +14
Pretty depressing for Deeds considering Obama actually won this state last year and has had a Democratic govenor for the last 8 years. Since 10/27 8 polls have been released all showing McDonnell with at least a double-digit lead (average 14.5% lead). "Bold" prediction by me, McDonnell wins by a minimum 60-40 due to strong GOP turnout and democratic indifference, leaving the fact that Deeds was probably the worst that the state dems could do for a nominee of the 3 contenders there were. This thing was over before it started. Even Obama essentially gave the middle finger to the Deeds camp. He never stood a shot.
And finally
NY-23 Special Election aka crazy race
10/26 Hoffman +4
10/27 Hoffman +5
10/28 N/A
10/29 Owens +1
10/30 N/A
10/31(Scozzafava drops out) Owens +1
11/1 (Scozzafava endorses Owens) N/A
11/2 Hoffman +17 (from a D poll!) and Hoffman +5
My jaw nearly hit the floor this morning when I saw that Hoffman showed a 17 point lead from PPP. I can't discount it because its a self described democrat poll. My theory is that Scozzafava endorsing Owens turned some of her possible, lukewarm supporters, to switch alligence to Hoffman. She is seen as a turncoat and probably was bribed to do this. My prediction,
Hoffman 57% Owens 38% Scozzafava 5%
Monday, August 31, 2009
polls
Today is just some cut and paste stuff. I could vent my frusterations but I think that this is more effective. All numbers come from RasmussenReports.com...
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.
One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.
54% Say Government Probe of Past CIA Interrogations Will Threaten National Security
•Pelosi’s Unfavorables Now Up To 64%
•55% Disagree with Obama’s Decision to Close Gitmo Prison
•62% Like Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending
•70% Prefer Government That Provides Fewer Services With Lower Taxes
•49% Say Workers Should Be Able To Opt Out of Social Security
This summer brought a significant shift in voter preferences in the Generic Congressional Ballot. As Republican Congressional candidates once again lead Democrats by a 43% to 38% margin this week, this is now the ninth straight ballot the GOP has held a modest advantage.
Over the past nine weeks, Republicans have held a two-to-five point advantage over Democrats every week. It is important to note, however, that the recent shift is not only because Republicans have been gaining support, but that Democrats have slipped in support. While support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%.
Things are looking good.
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.
One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.
54% Say Government Probe of Past CIA Interrogations Will Threaten National Security
•Pelosi’s Unfavorables Now Up To 64%
•55% Disagree with Obama’s Decision to Close Gitmo Prison
•62% Like Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending
•70% Prefer Government That Provides Fewer Services With Lower Taxes
•49% Say Workers Should Be Able To Opt Out of Social Security
This summer brought a significant shift in voter preferences in the Generic Congressional Ballot. As Republican Congressional candidates once again lead Democrats by a 43% to 38% margin this week, this is now the ninth straight ballot the GOP has held a modest advantage.
Over the past nine weeks, Republicans have held a two-to-five point advantage over Democrats every week. It is important to note, however, that the recent shift is not only because Republicans have been gaining support, but that Democrats have slipped in support. While support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%.
Things are looking good.
Monday, August 17, 2009
DUDE! WOW!
I really couldn't believe this article as I was reading it. Sure its from CNS a right leaning publication but the poll was done by gallup, hardly a conservative pollster, which is why this is credible.
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
Things are looking very good for 2010.
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
Things are looking very good for 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
