Measuring Change Among Voters

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Tracking Polls Can Capture Change, Though They Have Limitations

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic

---

What’s the best way to measure change?

One way, of course, is to survey repeatedly, asking the same questions. That’s what tracking polls do. Tracking polls come from the world of politics - campaign managers want to see the impact of advertising and campaign events on a candidate’s status.

Early campaign tracking polls told a story journalists wanted to tell. In the fall of 1980, public pollsters stopped interviewing a few days before the election. All of them showed the race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” But pollsters for both candidates, who were conducting tracking polls, saw something different: a movement toward Reagan in the last days of the campaign.

That was too good for journalists to ignore. ABC News tracked Democratic voter movement between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart before the 1984 New Hampshire primary; and while their final news release didn’t quite predict Hart’s 12-point victory there, it certainly showed a distinct trend in Hart’s favor between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Public pollsters use tracking polls when campaigns seem volatile, such as the periods between primaries, during and immediately after party conventions, and at the end of the general election campaign. In 1992, the Gallup Organization (with CNN and USA Today) tracked opinion every day of the fall campaign. This year they are producing results each day, which they call the “Daily Gallup.” (There could be an insiders’ joke in that, as the tracking poll is measuring the “horse race.”)

But it can sometimes be difficult in a tracking poll distinguish between real change and sampling error. Pollsters and reporters may be tempted to “explain” a small change by referencing campaign events, but it is usually more likely that the “change” is merely a result of random fluctuations inherent in any survey.

Mark Blumenthal, at pollster.com, has looked at this year’s Daily Gallup and argues that there has not been any real change in Democratic preferences for Hillary Clinton or for Barack Obama since Super Tuesday, February 5th - and that much of the Gallup tracking poll’s changes can be explained by sampling error alone (See the argument here - it has generated much discussion on his blog, and has yielded at least one update.

Tracking polls aren’t very interesting when there isn’t much change. By the last two weeks of the 1984 campaign, there was little movement to be seen - Ronald Reagan was far ahead of Walter Mondale. In more recent elections, there have been only marginal changes in the last week. George W. Bush and Al Gore were fighting to a draw in 2000, with polls suggesting only that the race was close, and the Bush lead over John Kerry in tracking polls in the fall of 2004 was always small.

Sometimes there is real change, but it is short-lasting. Everyone talks about a “convention bounce,” where candidates pick up support after their party’s convention. But the candidate whose party holds its convention first almost always loses that bounce by the end of the other party’s convention - and sometimes even sooner. Changes that are noticed after the candidates hold debates sometime stabilize (George W. Bush gained on Al Gore in 2000, and held on to most of it) and sometimes don’t (Walter Mondale might have cut into Reagan’s lead after their first debate, when Reagan’s age briefly became a factor in the campaign, but that didn’t last long).

---

Poll Database
Search recent CBS News campaign polls.

---

This year, the possibility of political change itself became a story. We were conducting a CBS News Poll in mid-March as the controversy grew over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped sermons, and we saw an increase in Barack Obama’s unfavorable ratings. Thirty percent of registered voters said they had an unfavorable view of him, up from 23% in February. But still, more voters were positive about him. And there was a subsequent event that could stimulate change again: Obama’s March 17 speech on Rev. Wright and on race in America.

Tracking polls have limitations. CBS News sometimes uses a different way of measuring change - one that looks more closely at which people change their minds, in order to better understand why they changed. It can be more accurate than asking voters to pinpoint the moment when their opinions changed. On March 20, three days after Obama’s speech, CBS News called back more than half of those people whom we originally interviewed. That technique - often called a “panel survey” - is one we can use to see who changes, and that can help us figure out why. Such a questionnaire can be very short - demographic questions were asked in the original interview, so they don’t need to be asked again - and there is no need to ask if someone’s opinion has changed, because you can look at the previous response and see that it has.

We found no sizeable overall change in Obama’s rating after his speech, though there was a lot of internal movement. Fifteen percent of those who had a favorable view of Obama before his speech did not maintain it afterwards in the second interview. Twenty-three percent of those whose opinions were unfavorable also changed. Most of those who changed their opinions went into the “undecided” category, suggesting that the speech had given them something new to think about. Forty-two percent of those who had been undecided before the speech said they had an opinion after - but they were almost evenly divided between positive and negative opinions. The impact was greater with some groups than with others - women were more likely than men to move into the “undecided” category after the speech. Obama lost a little ground with independents, and even with Democrats. Republicans had been unfavorable before, and they remained that way.

Panel surveys are a great tool - different from tracking polls, and very useful after some major event. We’ve used them following debates and even after wars have begun (tracking which people opposed beforehand changed their minds when it began), and we will certainly use them again.

[it_oldtimer]

@ ranger1948: You''re absolutely right, of course; the first requirement for becoming a politician is having a world-class ego, along with a matching lust for power.

But Hillary hasn''t just "embellished a little bit" in order to win; she''s downright LIED - repeatedly! Her lies have become so obvious, frequent and pervasive that it brings to mind the comment of one-time Clinton buddy David Geffen, who said of his former friends "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it%u2019s troubling."

To characterize her recent "sniper-fire" fairy-tale as simply having "misspoken" is another outright lie. Her defense has been that she simply mixed up one place/incident with another - no biggie. The fact of the matter though, which anybody can verify, is that she has NEVER been in ANY situation even remotely similar the one she described in that speech! So where did that whole story come from?

Obviously she simply made the whole thing up in an attempt to falsely paint herself as the seasoned politico who''s comfortable being in the line of fire.

She did it so easily, so glibly, so naturally. Had the people that were with her at the time not come forward to challenge her account, I would have believed it myself! What a polished, consummate liar she is!

Geffen is right: that deeply ingrained propensity to simply fabricate an outright lie - and deliver it so naturally, whenever it suits her purpose, really IS very troubling.

[jack3213]

ALL THE MUDSLINGING IS JUST A REFLECTIOIN OF THE CHARACTER THAT EACH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE REPRESENTS. NO MATER HOW YOU SUGAR COAT IT, OR APOLOGIZE FOR MIS-SPEAKING, OR OVER STATE QUALIFICATIONS, IT WOULD BE DISGRCEFUL FOR EITHER OF THESE TWO DEMOCRATIC CHOICES TO WIN, THEY ARE A POOR DEPICTION OF A LEADER.

[b-easy63]

HILLARY CAUGHT "EMBELLISHING AGAIN"

"I think for anyone to try to question the Clintons'''''''' huge support (for Ireland) and start trying to nitpick and saying, ''''''''But she wasn''''''''t sitting down at the negotiation table'''''''' _ sure, we know she wasn''''''''t sitting down at the negotiation table," Ahern said.

After suffering criticism from rival Obama''''''''s campaign and Protestant politicians in Northern Ireland, Clinton this month backed off language that suggested she was ever involved in the 22 months of negotiations that preceded the Good Friday pact.

But Clinton still suggests that she wielded a hidden hand over the diplomatic triumph.

"I wasn''''''''t sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental," she said in a March 13 interview with National Public Radio."

We''''re sure it was Hillary, just as sure as we are that you ducked snipers and ran for cover with no greeting ceremony in Bosnia.



catch the full article here:



http://www.cbsnews.com/stor
ies/2
008/03/28/ap/politics/main3976527
.shtml

[tawpdawg1]

This just in on another site:

***Obama way ahead.

Latest Dela Katessin poll has Obama beating McCain head-to-head in the general by 64% to 33% and that margin is increasing over the same poll last month while McCain would beat Clinton 55% to 42% with 3% too stupid to decide which poll to believe.

[truthfinder1]

The pollster is loosing it. The selecting process, group and the questions are so biased that the poll results what they want to see, not what the general publics true intentions. I had to laugh when the poll was completely off on New Hampshire primary. What was the excuse? ''New group of voters (primarily old white women) showed up out of nowhere and change the statistics''. Out of panic the pollsters made excuses. But what a stupid excuse! Somehow they omited old white female in their poll audience?
What happened to all good honest reporters. Were they all sacrificed by bunch of political breeds? I sure miss them..

[jack3213]

WHERE IS THE SURPRISE? PEOPLE ARE FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN GET ALOT MORE FOR THE BUCK WITH A FULL MODERATE REPUBLICAN PACKAGE THAN HAVING TO PAY ALOT FOR VERY LITTLE WITH A DUMB DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL? YOU THINK YOU PAY HIGH TAXES NOW, AND SHOULD YOU WANT TO PAY MORE- VOTE FOR THE NON CREDIBLE WOMAN OR THE PHONEY BLACK MAN. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE.

[ranger1948]

old-timer
Did you ever know a politician who wouldn''t do whatever it takes to win ? I do not support any of the three candidates, but obama is one i would never vote for no matter what. Not because he is black, but i think he is guilty by association and that makes me question what he really is about.

[b-easy63]

In my mind, it''''s either Hillary or McCain.
Posted by phillysage at 05:31 PM : Mar 27, 2008

Then it will have to be McCain, because Hilary may be going to jail for campaign fraud:

soon to potentially break in the news is the story before the California appeals court which show not only that a campaign fraud done by her mgr concerning Paul and Lee was ugly, but that Hillary (HERSELF ONCE AGAIN)was involved. At issue is a 250K donation made to her senatorial campaign. Her staff said she had no knowledge of it, so she was not roped into the scandal when her campaign mgr faced charges of hiding that money from the IRS.

Unfortunately VIDEO may again place Hill in deep doo, doo. It seems there is a video tape recording her discussing the fund raiser with the donors (on it, she talks about who would be there and what they will do) this means she performed what is known as a direct campaign request. donations from donors for that kind of request are limited to 25K. Since the donation was for 250K, that would be considered campaign fraud.

Woe is Hillary and Damnnnn those videos and tape recordings that make being a great liar so hard to keep up these days!!! ROTFLMAO.

the Link: http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modlo
ad&name=News&file=article&sid=344 the case#www.lasuperiorcourt.org

nChoose Civil = then Case Summery = type in the Case Number BC304174

[it_oldtimer]

It''s just become soooo embarrassingly obvious that Hillary Clinton will do or say literally ANYTHING in order to win. She honestly seems to think that America "owes" her the White House, for some strange reason.

She''s become such an all-full-of-herself poll-driven political s*l*u*t that I really don''t trust her any further than I can spit. She''s really no different than McCain in my opinion - both are "old school" Washington insiders capable of delivering nothing more than continuing legislative gridlock.

Hillary''s nebulous ego is dwarfed only by her obsessive political ambitions. If the woman has so much as a shred of genuine humility in her, I''ve never seen it.

If you really want change, Obama is the only credible choice.

Phillysage says Obama is a pawn of the rich. That''s just laughable - Obama''s contributors are a matter of public record, and they''re certainly not the "rich". Nothing could be further from the truth: Obama''s financial support and success comes entirely from millions and millions of "little people" who each donated less than $150 - that''s a known fact, and one of the most amazing things about his campaign. It''s all grass-roots support - he doesn''t need the rich to support his bid.

[phillysage]

how come no word of the indictments on the Governor of Puerto Rico, friend and superdelegate for Obama--
Hillary can forget to cover her mouth when she sneezes and there''s a story on it.
but Obama''s friends caught stealing bundles of money, and no story at all!
come on, misogynist media!

[phillysage]

Hillary will win a plurality of the total primary vote--she deserves the superdelegate vote. We all know Hussein Obama is just concerned about winning even on a technicality--the audacious candidate of "change" really could care less about democracy. His highly-paid lawyers have fought to keep the voices of the people in Michigan and Florida from being heard--just like Bush''s lawyers did in 2000 against Al Gore. It stinks.
In my mind, it''s either Hillary or McCain.
to vote Obama is stooping too too audaciously low.
I am a liberal and a Democrat--always have been, but my country comes first. Michelle, I have ALWAYS been proud to be an American.

[phillysage]

Hillary will win a plurality of the total primary vote--she deserves the superdelegate vote. We all know Hussein Obama is just concerned about winning even on a technicality--the audacious candidate of "change" really could care less about democracy. His highly-paid lawyers have fought to keep the voices of people in Michigan and Florida heard. It stinks.
In my mind, it''s either Hillary or McCain.
to vote Obama is stooping too too audaciously low.

[phillysage]

Obama''s ability to raise money is one of the things that is most troubling about him and his campaign. He is a pawn of the rich, it seems. Do they want a black (really half-black) President so they can justify how they want to do in not only the poor but also our nation''s middle class?
No wonder "highly-educated" rich people love him.

[smashwl7]

All of us need to Contact the superdelegates and tell them they need to support Obama and put a end to this thing now. Or they may not get re-elected.

Who cares if these people take there money away. Obama can raise more money than they can even dream of. What they forget is he has the people behind him. He can also help Pelosi with her re-election bid. We all need to tell the Democratic superdelegates to end this thing ASAP.