Kristen Soltis

Did The Youth Vote Actually Increase in 2012?

2013-05-10T17:56:00-04:00

On election night, the exit poll result showing voters under age 30 had increased as a proportion of the electorate - 19%, up from 18% in 2008 - was perhaps one of the most shocking conclusions of the night. Poll after poll showed serious disappointment, disillusionment, and detachment from voters under age 30. Republicans in particular expected that the Obama electorate could not be replicated. According to the exit polls, they were wrong.

Yet the Census Bureau released their report on voting rates by demographic group from the 2012 election. Based on a supplement to November's Current Population Survey, the report tells a slightly different story than the exit polls about what happened with the youth vote in this last election.

In 2008, the CPS supplement estimated that voters aged 18-24 cast about 12.5 million ballots, comprising roughly 9.5% of ballots cast, an estimate not so terribly different from the exit poll finding that 18-24 year olds were 10% of voters in that election. Broadening out to the full 18-29 group, the CPS estimates this age group cast 22.4 million ballots out of the 131.4 million overall - about 17%. Again, not so far off from the exits.

However, in 2012, the CPS shows about 11.4 million voters were 18-24 years old, or 8.5% of the electorate, while the exit polls actually showed the proportion of voters under age 25 going up to 11%. Looking at the broader 18-29 group, they show about 20.5 million votes cast, comprising 15.4% of the electorate - a far cry from the 19% reported in the exit polls.

So what happened? How could two different, reputable studies come to such different conclusions about the changing proportion of the electorate under age 30?

My theory is that issues with self-reporting of voting behavior may have had something to do with it. In 2008, the CPS tables show an estimated 131,144,000 votes were cast, which is pretty much right on the money. Yet in 2012, the total they give for "reported voting" is estimated at 132,948,000. The FEC begs to differ, with an estimated four million fewer votes having actually been cast. While their data matched up perfectly with reality in 2008, there's a pretty big gap this time around.

The Census Bureau folks acknowledge such discrepancies are possible, and this isn't a huge knock against them. They note that their report may overreport votes in part due to people who truly voted but whose ballots were invalidated, as well as people who misremember their own voting history or who feel social pressure to say "I voted" even when they know they actually didn't vote. (UPDATE: Michael McDonald, also writing for Huffington Post Pollster, eloquently dives into the mechanics behind the CPS and the potential over-reporting issues here.) There's an excellent paper by Masa Aida and Todd Rogers that matches up self-reported voter intent with who actually shows up, and their very first sentence notes:

People tend to over-estimate the likelihood that they performed a socially desirable behavior in the past (eg, whether they voted), and to over-estimate the likelihood that they will perform a socially desirable behavior in the future (Silver, Anderson, and Abramson 1986; Snyder 1974; Epley and Dunning 2000).

However, just because there's evidence that people over-reported their own voting behavior doesn't mean this automatically leads to underestimating the youth vote. The question we really need to answer is whether or not older voters were, frankly, more apt to feel obligated to lie about their own voting behavior. It's not inconceivable to think that a young person would feel less social pressure this time around to vote and therefore would feel less pressure to misstate whether they voted to conform to expected norms. On the other hand, if young people felt less social pressure to vote, then maybe youth turnout really did drop.

There's also the fact that exit polls are far from perfect. (This is nothing new of course; I found a great little interview with Warren Mitofsky from twenty years ago where he's being asked about the challenges of exit polling.) You're not legally required to take an exit poll in the same way you're legally required to reply to the CPS. If you're a busy person, stopping to fill out a lengthy questionnaire may be the last thing you want to do just after voting. Not to mention, shifts away from election day in-person voting have presented a major challenge to the exit polls. However, on the bright side, the exit polls are ultimately weighted back to known precinct returns.

All of which is to say that both studies have their imperfections, but are the best data we have. Both CPS and the exit polls have sample sizes that are huge compared to the traditional polls we consume day in and day out. While both CPS and the exit polls showed similar results for the proportion of voters under age 30 in the 2008 election, they find very different conclusions about what happened with youth turnout in 2012. There's still some more research to be done to get to the bottom of where that gap comes from.

What this debate over the proportion of young voters really overlooks is the far, far more important issue of how those young people voted. Over at The Fix blog, Scott Clement and Sean Sullivan write about this same report today, concluding:

Here is a group that by and large votes Democratic. The more the party can grow the pool of younger votes, the better it is likely to fare overall. Conversely, the smaller the pool becomes, the better it is for Republicans, who don't fare so well with the youth vote.

I think this focuses too much on the turnout question. It assumes that Obama's massive margins are the new normal and that all Republicans can do is to hope young people stop showing up at the polls. Like I wrote last year on this blog, worrying about whether young voters will be 16% or 17% or 19% of the electorate is an interesting game, but the bigger question for Republicans is how they plan to stop losing young voters by such huge margins.

The good news for Republicans is that as recently as the 2000 election, the VNS exit polls showed there was effectively no correlation between age and voting. Republicans don't have to give up on the youth vote and just hope they stay home. They should instead focus on winning them.

In the mean time, the debate over whether or not young voters increased or decreased as a proportion of the electorate remains unsolved. I'd argue it's also not nearly as important as what Republicans plan to do to win over more of those young people who do show up.

Will Young Voters Stay Home in November?

2012-07-13T15:30:09-04:00

With high unemployment, significant student debt, diminished career prospects and an increase in the number needing to move home with Mom and Dad to make ends meet, young Americans are having a rough go of it these days.

But will this frustration drive young voters to the polls, or will it keep them from turning out? Gallup today suggests young voters are less enthusiastic about this election.

Gallup's findings are interesting but not without problems. They find that in 2004, some 81 percent of young voters said they would "definitely" vote, and in 2008 that number was 78 percent. Today, they find only 58 percent saying they will "definitely" vote, and the gap between young voters and older cohorts is a wide one.

However, they compare voters' self-assessment of their own likelihood to vote in summer 2012 up against how voters felt in October of 2004 and 2008. We can't necessarily divine the meaning of young voters' predictions about their own behavior unless we can compare it to a similar point in a prior election.

Harvard's Institute of Politics conducts a survey twice a year that provides a more useful comparison. In their Spring 2012 survey, they find that only 49 percent of voters 18-29 will "definitely" be voting, and another 15 percent say they will "probably" vote. Among four-year college students, interest is slightly higher, at 53 percent "definitely" voting and 21 percent" probably" voting.

They also have a survey from Spring 2008 of four-year college students that allows us to make a better apples-to-apples comparison. In that survey, some 72 percent said they were "definitely" going to vote, and another 16 percent said they were "probably" going to vote.

Are young voters less excited about this election? Probably. The Harvard data certainly show that at least among college students, the enthusiasm level has fallen from where it was at a similar point in 2008.

Yet young voter turnout has been relatively steady for the last four elections. Despite the high level of enthusiasm that young voters felt in 2008, they did not make up a significantly larger piece of the electorate than in the three prior presidential elections.

Consider the history of American presidential elections since the voting age was lowered to 18. Initially, young voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate. The oldest of the Baby Boomers would have been around 26 years old in the 1972 presidential election, and the size of the Boomer generation combined with the exercise of a newly-granted right to vote for many young people led to an electorate where 26 percent of voters were under 30 that year. (The Census definition of a Baby Boomer is someone born mid-1946 to 1964.)

This chart shows how the under-30 vote has tracked through previous elections. Starting with the Clinton/Dole race in 1996, when all of the Boomers had aged-out of that under-30 bracket, young voters made up 17 percent of the vote in a presidential year, and that number hasn't changed much since.

Surveys are showing less enthusiasm from young voters, but previous elections seem to indicate that the proportion of voters under 30 hasn't bounced around much since 1996. It seems that it would be unlikely that the youth vote in 2012 would drop significantly.

But what will make a much bigger difference in this election is not the proportion of young voters so much as the choice they make when they do enter the voting booth. And how will these voters break? Obama's 34-point margin among young voters in 2008 was an enormous change from prior trends. (Kerry only won young voters by a 9-point margin, and Gore only won them by two points. The widest margin previously had been 19 points, a record shared by Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996.)

The bigger question for the campaigns is not whether or not young voters will turn out but for whom they will turn out. And while young voters may be frustrated and disappointed, neither side should expect young people to stay home this November.

Is Obama Destined to Win or Doomed to Fail?

2011-12-01T18:39:36-05:00

Whether Obama's reelection is considered a slam-dunk, an uncertain proposition, or an impossibility depends entirely on the data you consider a credible indicator these days.

If you ask some on the right (as well as more than a few depressed Democrats), Obama is toast. The data to support their case are straightforward: no president (since the advent of modern survey research) has been reelected with an approval rating below 48 percent. Obama's numbers these days are below that threshold and are just south of Jimmy Carter's at this point in his presidency. Furthermore, the highest unemployment rate that accompanied a president's reelection is 7.2 percent, a far cry from today's 9 percent. Republican voters are more excited. Young voters aren't going to show up when their unemployment rate is through the roof. Not to mention, the new electoral college map hands Republicans six freebie electors if they simply hold the states McCain won in 2008. Simple conclusion: the Obama reelection effort is doomed.

Or is it?

Consider the case made by Obama-optimists: the long-term trends are in his favor. Back in 2009, James Carville and Ruy Teixeira were writing books, declaring the somewhat inevitable demographic-driven decline of the GOP. Even today, Obama retains strength among minorities and young voters. (The latest Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin report makes the case that demographics are a strength for Obama.) Obama's campaign is raising millions upon millions and saving it all to spend in the general election. Not a single television in America won't be bombarded with ads reminding them of those Republican meanies in Congress and of who was in charge when we got Osama bin Laden. Republicans may put up a fight, but he's just too strong a campaigner. Case closed.

So which is it?

Count me somewhere in the middle.

Obama optimists are right that demographics are changing in ways that largely favor their side. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate in 2008, a jump from 2004, when they comprised 11 percent. I've got no reason to believe that the Obama campaign's turnout efforts will be less successful among African Americans this time around, with his approval ratings still sky high (84 percent in August). Latino voters, on the other hand, jumped from 8 percent to 9 percent, and Latinos accounted for more than half of the population growth in the U.S. during the last decade, with large numbers in swing states like Florida and Nevada. Obama won two thirds of Latino voters in 2008.

Here's where things get tricky.

Obama's approval rating among Latinos has fallen precipitously since his election, falling from a high of 82 percent down to a low of 48 percent in Gallup's August polling. There's also the question of whether or not young voters will be as eager to show up this time around, given that their approval of his presidency has fallen, as well.

It's one thing to assume that the electorate will look as favorable in terms of makeup, and it's an even bigger leap to assume that an electorate that demographically looks the same will vote the same.

On the other hand, the historical data points about approval rating and reelection chances ought not provide too much comfort to hopeful Republicans. Voters may disapprove of Obama, but they disapprove of just about everything else, too. (Congress, I'm looking at you.) That low-water mark of 48 percent was set by President George W. Bush, preceded by Bill Clinton's 50 percent, preceded by Ronald Reagan's at 58 percent. Notice the trend? It may simply be that voters are more and more frustrated with their government and find themselves facing elections where they are more willing to vote for a candidate they disapprove of.

It is of course too early to predict Obama's reelection chances. Republicans have not yet chosen a nominee, and who the party chooses will have an impact on the contours of the race to come. As for those thinking Obama is a sure bet, or that he's a lost cause, there's plenty of evidence that neither are right.

Rick Perry: National or Niche Candidate?

2011-08-16T12:36:16-04:00

Since the entry of Texas Gov. Rick Perry into the Republican presidential field, there has been a great deal of airtime and ink dedicated to commenting on his viability in both the primary election and the general. When it comes to the primary, recent surveys have shown Perry doing well, coming in a close second behind Gov. Mitt Romney. As Perry's name ID improves (nationally, he hovered around 56% before his announcement), he's likely to see a bump in those numbers.

But in a year when Republicans are hungry to defeat President Obama and to regain control of the White House, will "electability" play a role in the party's selection process? Moreover, just how "electable" is Gov. Perry nationwide?

There are two emerging camps of thought on this issue. The first, dominant at the moment, is the idea that Gov. Perry will run into trouble as a national candidate, allowing President Obama to win swing groups and swing states. But the second, first explored by National Journal's Josh Kraushaar, is that Perry was able to do reasonably well in his 2010 re-election race among groups like independents, women, and Latinos.

I think a useful way to look at this is to compare Perry's performance with swing groups to the performance of McCain in 2008 as well as the national level performance of House Republicans in 2010. Neither comparison is perfect, but it does shed light on how Perry has run about as well as a traditional Republican candidate would with these groups.

First, let's take women. In 2010, Gov. Perry won 53% of female voters in Texas, very similar to the 52% of Texas women who voted for Sen. McCain in 2008, and slightly better than the 49% of women nationwide who chose a Republican candidate for the House in 2010. It's good news for Perry that he outperformed the 2010 national numbers for women, but it remains to be seen if women in other states will vote for Perry in the same numbers that women in Texas have.

Next, let's look at independents. Perry performed less well with Texas independents in 2010 than John McCain did in 2008; Perry won 56%, while McCain won 62%. However, Perry ran even with House Republicans among this critical group, who also earned the votes of 56% of independents nationwide in 2010.

Because Texas has a higher proportion of Latino voters, much will be made of Perry's ability to appeal to this group. In his 2010 race, Perry won 38% of Latinos, which slightly outperformed both McCain in Texas in '08 (35%) and House Republicans in '10 (35%). While this doesn't indicate he's substantially better with this group, it also shows he's not doing worse and could be competitive with the Latino vote in other key states like Florida.

The major caution flag that he been raised about Perry's electability points to his appeal among evangelicals. In his 2010 race, Perry won 84% of white evangelicals but only 42% of the rest of the electorate. At first blush, this appears to be a problem; after all, while white evangelicals made up 35% of the Texas 2010 electorate, while they only made up 1 out of 4 voters nationwide, and only 23% of GOP primary voters in New Hampshire in 2008.

However, take a look at how John McCain did among Texas voters in 2008. McCain won 83% of evangelicals, and 42% of non-evangelicals. House Republicans also won only 42% of non-evangelicals. Sound familiar? That's the same level that Gov. Perry performed at with Texas non-evangelicals in 2010 - 42%.

All of which is to say that the exit polls do not give the impression that Gov. Perry is likely to be less appealing to swing voters than someone like John McCain in 2008. That news isn't terribly great; as Kraushaar points out in his piece, McCain did not come away with the win in the 2008 election. Perry would have to do much better.

Yet on the other hand, Perry appears not to be a "niche" candidate and performs the same as House Republicans did nationwide in 2010. If he can carry his numbers beyond Texas, he would be a serious contender for the Presidency.

In order to become president, Perry would have to build on his current status with swing groups. But to count him out and dismiss his candidacy out of hand would be an incredible folly for strategists on either side of the aisle.

Are Primary Polls Missing Young Voters?

2011-07-07T13:42:45-04:00

Despite the long stretch of time between today and the New Hampshire GOP presidential primary, there's an understandable appetite for data about the race as it stands today. Polls today may not be great predictors of the final ballot, but they can give insight into who has (and who lacks) momentum.

Unfortunately, modeling an electorate perfectly is impossible, especially when an election is many months away. Further complicating the matter are harder to reach audiences like young voters. I found myself scanning the most recent Public Policy Polling survey of New Hampshire GOP primary voters to see how young people were responding to the race. What I found raised a number of questions.

First, I found an odd pattern in the responses for the 18-29 group. For any question, the results for the 18-29 banner point broke out as 17%, 33%, 50%, 67%, or 83% of respondents. Normally, when something like that occurs, it is because a cell size is small enough to create that pattern. In this case, you could have as few as 6 total respondents. The survey toplines say that 4% of respondents were 18-29, meaning anywhere from 12 to 15 interviews after weighting.

Second, with only 4% under age 30, it seemed young people were under-represented. In the 2008 primary, 14% of GOP primary voters were 18-29.

I posed these questions on Twitter to PPP (@ppppolls) and they were nice enough to respond. While they did not provide me with the actual cell size of their 18-29 sample, they did reply that they are: "Not seeing a lot of interest from young ppl in GOP primary yet. Suffolk had 18-34 for NH GOP at 10% last week, 18-29 wd be 5-6."

This response intrigued me. I can certainly accept the premise that young people are less interested in the race at this point, but had never thought of this as a reason for them to be under-represented in the sample. Wouldn't it be better to survey a representative sample of who is likely to be there on election day -- including a healthy sample of 18-29 year olds -- and then show that disinterest through their high levels of "undecided," "don't know," "refused," etc? I am unsure if PPP weighted at all by age and, if so, why they chose 4% as the target for the 18-29 age group.

CNN came under fire recently for not having enough young people for a reliable standalone sample, and simply put "n/a" in those cells. PPP in this case gave the results anyhow. Someone reading the PPP New Hampshire crosstabs would come away with the impression that, say, Tim Pawlenty's "base" is young voters (33% of 18-29, but only 6% of the overall sample), or that Mitt Romney has absolutely no support (0%) from those under 30. Those conclusions, if drawn from a small handful of interviews, simply do not stand up on their own.

Kudos to PPP for actually releasing crosstabs, something few pollsters do. I believe that pollsters do want to "get it right" and the tough task of tracking down young people to interview makes it harder and harder to achieve that ideal. In this instance, however, I think the significant under-representation of young voters can harm the quality of the results and give an inaccurate picture of the state of the primary campaign. Pollsters and consumers of polling data both lose out if the 2012 primary narrative is being defined by data that is missing a critical group of voices.

Ideology: Do the Polls Match America?

2010-09-30T13:19:29-04:00

Most major polls over the last few months have painted a picture of an American voting public that is predominantly conservative. Before we dig into the polls that have come out recently, let's look at historical data to get some context for what one might expect the ideological makeup of the American electorate to look like.

First, let's look at the brilliant post this week from Pew Research Center by Michael J. Robinson, entitled "A Static America: A Contrarian View of Current U.S. Public Opinion Trends," showing data going back to the 80s indicating that America has been remarkably stable in terms of ideology. The line, going from 1987 to the present, barely wiggles as it traces American ideology over the course of the decades. Americans may change their voting behavior, sure, but ideology is much stickier than the pundits give it credit for.

Let's also take a look at the exit polls.

At the House level, the exit polls have shown that moderates have outnumbered conservatives -- and by considerable margins -- in every election since at least 1984. In fact, even in 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept a wave of conservative members into Congress, moderates still outnumbered conservatives. Sure, the gap closed significantly from the 1992 election, but we still did not see the number of conservatives even reaching parity with moderates, much less exceeding them.

We've now established the context. The electorate has had more moderates than conservatives, and even in years that were extremely good for Republicans, the closest conservatives ever came to parity was still 37% conservative to 45% moderate. The Robinson piece further underscores the stability of ideology in the electorate.

Why then are so many of our public polls showing samples with an ideological makeup that looks nothing like this, with conservatives outnumbering moderates?

One egregious recent example is the AP/GfK poll that thrilled Republicans with a generic ballot advantage of +10 among likely voters. Yet look at their sample; the sample of adults was 22% liberal, 31% moderate, and 45% conservative. And as Alan Abramowitz wrote on Pollster.com just a few weeks ago, this year has shown an increasingly large gap favoring Republicans as you narrow a sample down to "likely voters," which gives me serious doubts that the likely voter sample would be less heavily conservative than the overall adult sample.

Let's look at another major poll that had Republicans breaking out the champagne. In early September , an ABC News/Washington Post poll generated excited cheers from Republicans when its likely voter sample showed +13 for Republicans on the generic ballot. They don't release the ideological breakdown of their likely voter sample, but their overall sample of adults shows 40% conservative, 37% moderate, and 19% liberal. One can only speculate as to how much more conservative the "likely voter" subsample is.

The mid-September CBS/NYT poll of adults gets it closer, with 36% conservative and 40% moderate. Among "likely voters" they give Republicans a +2 advantage on the generic ballot, but we don't know what the partisan or ideological makeup of that subsample is. Again, likely voter screens tend to be more favorable to Republicans this year, and it is unlikely that the likely voter universe is less conservative than the adults universe.

The most recent NBC/WSJ also gets it around that range with their sample of adults, with 37% moderate and 39% conservative. However, remember, this is adults -- not registered or likely voters -- and yet conservative is still outnumbering moderate.

A recent POLITICO-GWU Battleground poll of likely voters showed 63% of their sample considering themselves conservative (curiously, "moderate" was not even offered as an option).

All of which poses a very serious question that has major implications for how on (or off) the mark these polls are: Are pollsters these days surveying too many conservatives?

Despite decades of evidence to show that ideology is fairly consistent, it wouldn't be completely out of the blue for conservatives to make an enormous gain over the 2008 electoral makeup. Between 1992 and 1994, the proportion of the electorate that was conservative did jump 7 points from 30% to 37%. If that occurred again, you'd wind up with 41% conservative (a 7-point jump from the 34% in 2008). Depending on how much of that jump peeled away from the moderate number, you could feasibly have more conservatives turn out than moderates or liberals. But that's a big "if."

This isn't to say that pollsters with very heavily conservative samples are wrong. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that a massive structural change is occurring in the American electorate this year that has conservatives making a massive jump -- so massive as to eclipse that of 1994.

But what it does say to me, as a Republican, is that we ought to stop dancing in the end zone before we've scored a touchdown. It tells me that two-and-a-half decades of data show things aren't as wobbly as they seem, that the electorate doesn't change its ideological makeup radically, and that polls with more conservatives than moderates just might be painting a rosier picture than we all might find ourselves looking at on election day.

Just as pollsters ought to get in the habit of releasing the partisan makeup of their samples, including their subsamples of registered and likely voters, they also ought to release the ideological breakdown. As a consumers of political data, we have a right to make informed decisions about whether or not a poll is sampling conservatives more heavily than we think it should.

When election day rolls around, and I update that ideology chart above, I may well find that red line for "conservatives" intersects and crosses over the green line for "moderates." But I'm not confident that's going to happen. I think everyone ought to seriously consider the ideological makeup of survey samples when weighing how much stock to put in the results they produce.

FL Senate: Charlie's Comeback (and how he could be stopped)

2010-06-25T11:38:03-04:00

If there is only one person in the world for whom the oil spill disaster in the Gulf is a blessing in disguise, that man is Charlie Crist.

From photos of the Governor surveying the spill to soundbites of him demanding full compensation for Florida's spill related damages, Crist's handling of the spill has offered him the chance to look like a leader, above politics, fighting for Florida.

But his favorables, according to Quinnipiac's June 9th survey, haven't changed dramatically from the more difficult days of early 2010 and late 2009. His current job approval, at 57%, is lower than it was in October 2009 when Rubio's insurgency was underway. His favorables today are lower than the October poll as well, currently at 52%.

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio has struggled to pivot out of primary mode and into a general. The shift from running as "the true conservative" to a general election candidate will not be an easy one, and it becomes more and more critical with each tough poll that the Rubio campaign make that transition and begin to build his case to an audience beyond Tea Parties and local GOP groups.

There are a number of things going in Crist's favor - but don't count Rubio out. Five months is an eternity in politics. Looking at the recent polls and exit polling data going back to 1994, there are a variety of factors that will keep this race interesting through November.

1)Florida's unemployment rate is the fifth highest in the nation at 11.7%. There's an anecdote my colleagues and I have been using recently to describe the current political environment. Imagine a run-down house on that is on fire. Sure, the windows need repair, the house could use a coat of paint, the lawn needs to be cut. But until you put out the fire, the rest of that is irrelevant. The fire in politics today is the unemployment rate; until jobs come back to Florida, everything else is a distraction. When you can't drive down a suburban street without seeing foreclosure signs, voters have bigger issues they are voting on than whether or not former party chair Jim Greer had an illegal consulting arrangement with the Florida GOP. The temptation will be high for candidates to get into discussions about party credit card statements and backroom deals but things in Florida are very serious, and voters will respond to the candidates that take the economic crisis seriously.

2) Around one out of four voters in 2010 in Florida is likely to be independent. In the 2006 election, 24% of voters in the Governor's race were independent - a number that jumped to 29% in the Presidential race in 2008, in congruence with the nationwide trend of a small bump in independents. Capturing these voters is key. Currently, Crist is winning 51% of independent voters according to the June 9 Quinnipiac poll. This is not particularly surprising - both Meek and Rubio have been fighting for their partisan supporters - but if Crist continues to sustain a majority of the independent vote, he will be incredibly formidable heading into November.

3) As a result, Rubio must improve his brand with independents. Republicans know Marco Rubio. They love Marco Rubio. Only a quarter haven't formed an opinion about him, and only 11% don't like him. When it comes to locking down his side, he's good. His bigger problem comes from independents, where his fav/unfav is roughly even at 31-30. He absolutely needs to have favorables that are over 50% among independents in order to be competitive with Crist.

4) Kendrick Meek still doesn't have a statewide brand, and if he develops one, he will slightly erode Crist's share of the vote. Crist currently pulls in a whopping 37% of Democratic voters. I believe this has a lot to do with the fact that 69% of voters, including 59% of Democrats, say they haven't heard enough about Meek to form an opinion. As the election proceeds and all candidates hit the airwaves one can expect Crist's advantage to erode. These days, a candidate can build a brand almost overnight - consider that Rick Scott came out of nowhere and now boasts 53% of Florida voters who have an opinion about him. Meek may not be armed with the same kind of war chest, but by election day it is highly unlikely that Meek will still be an unknown to 7 out of 10 voters.

5) Painting Crist as an opportunist is not enough - people think everyone does what's popular. The conventional wisdom is that if Rubio pulls down Crist's favorables and brands Crist as a political opportunist, he can gain ground. The Quinnipiac poll showed that almost half of Florida voters (48%) think Crist makes decisions based on "what's popular" - a charge they also believe about Marco Rubio (42%). When the question is asked generally about "most public officials", 74% say they usually do what is popular. Fighting the battle over whether or not Crist is "principled" isn't fighting a battle on which Rubio has some major advantage in the general electorate. Furthermore, it's not as if Florida voters didn't associate Crist's defection from the GOP with ulterior motives - 60% said he left the Republican party because he couldn't win the primary, including 57% of independents. Voters aren't naïve on this point. If Rubio spends five months beating up on Crist as an opportunist and neglecting to build his own favorables among independents, it's not likely to be as productive as he'd like.

Most folks I talk to say that in order for Rubio to have a fighting chance against Crist, he needs to bring down Crist's favorables. Of course, that strategy might yield a slight bump in standing, but I don't believe it is nearly enough to win. Voters already assume politicians do what they need to do to get elected. They already assume Crist has made politically motivated moves in this race. And they vote for him anyways. The problem isn't Crist's favorables, the problem is Rubio's neutral brand image among independents. And the way for Rubio, Crist, or Meek (or any candidate in any race, for that matter) to build that brand is to become the leader on the issue of the economy and jobs.

Crist may be getting a break in the press with his handling of the oil spill. But the ultimate impact of the oil spill is more than environmental, it is economic. If tourism dollars start leaving the state and the economic situation grows more dire, the primacy of the economy in this and all races will become even greater. In January 2007 when Crist was sworn into office, Florida's unemployment rate was 3.5%. Besides March 2007, every month that Charlie Crist has been Governor, Florida's unemployment rate has gotten worse. Even the national unemployment rate doesn't have a trend as dramatically consistent as that, and even though the national rate has levelled off, Florida's keeps getting worse.

If Rubio wants to take Crist head on, he should - but with economic policy contrasts that demonstrate both how Crist failed to ameliorate the jobs situation and with how Rubio would propose to fix the problem. Rubio rose to fame as the "ideas" man in Tallahassee, and it is that same focus on "ideas" that can be his ticket to Washington in November.

Powerful Women in Love: Do Powerful Women Need a Power-Based Partnership?

2010-06-07T12:00:00-04:00

This post is part of the "Modern Male Brains & the Young, Powerful Women Who Love Them" series compiled by Dr. Louann Brizendine, neuroscientist and author of the recent book, The Male Brain. The series explores how the next generation of women relates to love while balancing complex, stressful lives.

Bill and Hillary. Carville and Matalin. Sarkozy and Bruni. Brangelina. In thinking about powerful, prominent women in love these days, it is easy to conjure the image of the traditional "power couple."

It makes sense that many on-the-go, rockstar women are drawn to other on-the-go rockstars. Relationships take time and effort, a meshing of values and at least a few similar interests. For a woman who finds herself going from boardroom to boardroom, airport to airport, finding a mate that understands and shares that lifestyle may seem the best -- or only -- option.

But today, powerful women have more freedom than ever to have both vibrant careers and loving relationships, and to have the two be as related or unrelated as they choose.

Take for instance my favorite female politician from the other side of the aisle, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Talk about an inspiring story of a powerful woman: a mother of three and a rising star in the House, she underwent multiple surgeries in 2008 to combat breast cancer. No one but a few family members and staffers knew at the time.

In a fantastic article about Wasserman-Schultz published last year, her marriage is described as one that "paired two opposites," with her husband Steve working at a bank, taking care of their children, picking them up from soccer practice and making chicken nuggets on the nights each week that Wasserman-Schultz is in Washington.

Powerful women with husbands who aren't also CEOs aren't rare at all, but we don't hear about them as often. I disagree with the notion that these stories aren't as noteworthy or interesting.

I find this story, and those like it, incredibly empowering. There is more than one way for a powerful woman to be in love. These days, thankfully, a woman doesn't need a rich man or a powerful man in order to be seen as powerful herself. And she doesn't need to hide her ambitions either. She can simply fall in love and find someone who makes her happy. All doors are open.

Things have not always been this way. And, to be sure, things are not perfect these days either. Women with busy schedules and big goals can easily assume that we need to either hold ourselves back or find someone else who operates at our speed.

It's because of experience that many successful women worry about being able to be themselves -- fully, unapologetically -- in a relationship. Yet I have hope that these fears will become a thing of the past.

No matter how talented, driven, and independent any individual -- man or woman -- may be, it is tough to deny that for all of us, life is a team sport. We are all supported by a structure of family members and loved ones that ground us, guide us and support us. While some on our "team" are determined by blood, some are invited by choice. The decisions to love and whom to love are the most important in our life. I feel incredibly grateful that today's powerful woman is more able than ever before to make those decisions without restriction -- to be both completely herself, completely successful and completely in love.

Also in today's series: Desiree Peterkin Bell and Marissa Louie.

AAPOR 2010: Thoughts from a First-Time Attendee

2010-05-18T13:03:35-04:00

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. The conference featured presentations from private sector, government, and academic researchers about their methods and findings, in addition to the release of reports by two AAPOR task forces - one on online panels, one on cell-phone surveying.

On the whole, I had a phenomenal experience. I truly enjoyed the spirit of collaboration as attendees and presenters shared best practices and supported each other's research.  I had an opportunity to meet an impressive group of established public opinion researchers, and also got to meet many young students and professionals who are doing fascinating work. (I now believe that pollsters are excellent conversationalists precisely because they're so good at asking questions.)

I think that one of the great benefits of attending AAPOR came in seeing how research is conducted by those in other industries.  For example, political pollsters deal with a variety of pressures that are lessened in academic research: the speed of data production, the need to insert your findings into the conversation quickly, as well as client demands and cost pressures.  While a major academic study may consume years of a doctoral candidate's life, a campaign poll typically needs rapid turnaround and subsequent immediate release in order to remain "fresh."  A campaign rarely if ever has time to improve its coverage and conduct in-person face-to-face interviews of populations missed by land-line and cell-phone surveys, for instance. Weeks or months of post-stratification are a luxury not afforded to those in the world of campaign polling.  

At AAPOR, you get exposure to "the ideal" - projects refined by the most advanced and rigorous techniques, exploring the toughest challenges of sampling, processing and analysis that the survey research field faces.  It highlights ways to improve your methods, regardless of field, and helps a researcher facing time and cost pressures make informed decisions about what is critical to producing useful data.  And for a political pollster, AAPOR is a great time to focus on these issues exclusively, away from discussion about whose clients won more races or who got which race predictions closest.

There was one thing that surprised me a bit about the AAPOR conference, and I'd love to hear comments on this from those who have been to the conference before or who have been involved in the organization more deeply.  Essentially, if AAPOR is the "American Association for Public Opinion Research," one might logically assume the conference would devote a substantial portion of time to the findings of public opinion research in addition to the methods of collecting data.  

A great example of a panel that balanced these two was the Gary Langer/Matthew Warshaw presentation about ABC News' "Where Things Stand" research in Afghanistan.  I walked away with a greater understanding of how to conduct research in the most incredibly challenging circumstances, but I also learned what the people of Afghanistan think about the future of their nation.

However, the vast majority of content from the conference was about the process of social science research. In some cases, it was not necessarily even about opinion research in the strictest sense of the word "opinion", but rather the collection of demographics.  This is understandable, given that at a professional conference, everyone is trying to figure out how to do what they do better, but I felt there was a very narrow focus on the methods of research and less attention paid to what we're finding.  

Why do we conduct opinion research in the first place? We do it to learn about certain groups of people and audiences.  Developing a research methodology that perfectly captures cell-only populations is as useful as the research findings it generates.  So what are we finding? Opinion research conducted by another organization about, say, shifting attitudes in America about the media, have a great deal of application to my work as a political pollster, even if that research presentation does not impact the methods of how I do my work in the future.

With the wealth of knowledge possessed by the various professional and academic organizations in AAPOR, it would be great to see more panels highlighting the findings of public opinion professionals.

In the end, I think it is critical that more political pollsters take the opportunity to focus on their methods in order to create the highest quality data. We often measure political pollsters by the accuracy of their results and how often their numbers are "on the money" when final ballots counts are in. A conference like AAPOR gives researchers the tools to make sure they are right rather than lucky. There is a great deal that political polling professionals can learn from their counterparts in other industries and I feel very thankful that I had the opportunity to attend this conference and learn from their experiences.

AAPOR 2010: Courtney Kennedy

2010-05-16T22:03:43-04:00

Some of the items I was most interested in learning about at AAPOR this year were the findings of the task force on cell phone survey research. Given my particular interest in understanding young voters, I am particularly concerned about the lack of coverage among that group with landline-only research. The task force presented a number of findings that acknowledged the increased costs and challenges of cell-phone sampling (cognitive shortcutting, potential risks to respondent safety, response rates, etc.) Courtney Kennedy's award-winning student paper on whether or not cell phone respondents employ cognitive shortcuts when responding to surveys. Essentially, are respondents paying attention and giving us good data? As the recipient of the Seymour Sudman student paper award, Kennedy tackled a critical question in understanding how to conduct better research using this sample frame. I was lucky enough to be able to ask her about her work for a moment at the AAPOR conference this weekend in Chicago.

AAPOR 2010: Pew's Jocelyn Kiley

2010-05-16T21:50:14-04:00

One of the things I loved most about the AAPOR conference was the opportunity to learn from pollsters of different disciplines. The lessons one organization learns about how to reach a unique population are often useful to researchers of all varieties. In this case, Pew presented its findings about how best to reach Hispanics in general public opinion surveys. From issues in language and translation to interviewer hand-offs to the prevalence of cell phone use, Pew's findings highlighted the challenges in ensuring Hispanics are properly represented in survey research. For campaign pollsters, particularly those operating in states with a high proportion of Hispanic voters, knowing how to get a representative snapshot is becoming more and more critical to monitoring political attitudes. I had a chance to chat with Jocelyn Kiley about the research and its importance to political polling.

AAPOR 2010: Chris Wilson and Bryon Allen

2010-05-16T21:39:46-04:00

While AAPOR's panels are predominantly comprised of academics and professional non-partisan researchers, it was nice to run into a handful of political pollsters who had presentations as well. Chris Wilson and Bryon Allen from Wilson Research Strategies dug into the ANES data to answer a basic question: what matters more, persuasion or turnout? Is it more critical to move the middle or to energize your base? Their research points to persuasion as key. I pulled them aside for a moment before their panel to find out about their research.

AAPOR 2010: Washington Post's Jennifer Agiesta

2010-05-16T21:34:10-04:00

On the second day of the AAPOR Conference in Chicago, I had a chance to catch up with Jennifer Agiesta of the Washington Post who chaired a panel session on candidate preferences and election outcomes. The panel featured presentations on a number of topics that impact how public opinion measures elections, including third parties and whether or not having your name at the top of the ballot gives you a distinct advantage. I caught up with Jennifer after the panel to chat with her about the presentations and to find out what challenges she's anticipating as a media pollster heading into the 2010 elections.

AAPOR 2010: Public Opinion in Afghanistan

2010-05-14T01:16:52-04:00

If you think pollsters in the US have it rough - difficulty getting folks to agree to participate, difficulty finding good samples given the rise of cell phone only households, etc. - try conducting public opinion research in Afghanistan. Over the last few years, ABC News has worked with research firm D3 Systems and the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research to pull together some unique and fascinating research on shifting public opinion in the country. Their Emmy award-winning work was presented in the first session here at AAPOR and I was there to hear what they'd done and what they'd learned.
Research of this nature is of interest not just because of its unique nature but also because of its impact. For instance, their research found that beliefs about civilian casualties were linked to optimism about the country's situation and a variety of other indicators. With the "winning the hearts and minds" item so integral to the conflict in Afghanistan, research like that conducted by ABC/D3 highlights key links between public opinion and things like the conduct and outcome of a war effort.
I had the opportunity to chat with ABC News' Gary Langer and D3's Matthew Warshaw about their research - take a look to hear more about the findings of their research and the challenges they encountered.

The Tea Party: Who's Invited?

2010-03-17T17:23:31-04:00

Over a year has passed since Rick Santelli's famed CNBC rant made waves in political circles, and the "Tea Party" movement still remains a vibrant and very controversial force in American politics.

Yet despite exhaustive discussion and coverage of the movement, there is still little consensus on what makes a Tea Party member. What does the movement look like? Who's in it? And, most of all, what do they want?

Since December, The Winston Group has conducted telephone surveys of thousands of registered voters and just this week released an analysis of its findings: that 17% of registered voters consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, and that they - like voters overall - are deeply concerned about the economy and jobs as we head toward the 2010 election.

The conventional wisdom about the Tea Party has not yet settled on any one definitive portrayal of the movement, but the data tell a fascinating story - over 4 out of 10 self-identified Tea Party members aren't Republican, and a third don't consider themselves conservative. They tend to be older than the voters on the whole, tend to come from middle-income households, and are slightly more likely to be male than the overall electorate.

But what truly sets the Tea Party apart from even Republicans or conservatives broadly is its commitment to economic conservatism. Tea Party members, like voters overall, are very focused on the economy and jobs; some 36% say it is their top issue. Yet while only 6% of voters overall say that the national deficit and spending are their top issues, that number spikes to 21% among Tea Party members.

The Tea Party is a movement defined by its preference for fiscal restraint and low taxes. Presented with two competing proposals to create jobs, over four out of five Tea Party members say tax cuts for small business will create more jobs than increased government spending on infrastructure. When the options were expanded, tax cuts still were chosen as the top job creator, but are closely followed by "expanding development of all energy resources." Interestingly enough, the next runner up - "cracking down on illegal immigration" - was not notably more popular among Tea Party members (19%) than voters overall (16%).

When it comes down to it, the Tea Party does not appear to be focused on economic conservatism as an end in and of itself. When asked in the January survey if they favored "reducing unemployment to 5%" or balancing the budget, 63% chose reducing unemployment - a negligible difference from the 64% of voters overall who agree. Jobs are the goal - items like tax cuts and balanced budgets are a means to achieve that goal.

To be sure, no survey is perfect, and the data here can't address all questions about the nature of the Tea Party movement, nor - as with any poll - can the results be applied as fact to each and every person calling themselves a member of the movement.

Yet the survey results paint a picture of a movement that is experiencing many of the same anxieties as voters overall - concern about how America's economy can get back on track, and concern about how to get Americans back to work. These aren't partisan or ideological concerns; survey after survey has shown the economy to weigh heavy on the minds of voters of all affiliations. What sets the Tea Party apart is its belief that the policies of economic conservatism are the best way to generate the outcome that most Americans desire - a stronger economy, and most of all, jobs.