Polling the PPP Way
Most poll to obtain objective data and reach a conclusion. Others poll to obtain data that justifies a pre-determined conclusion.
Regarding today’s PPP press release on selected data from a recent survey, please note the following:
1. PPP altered the industry-standard language for determining an incumbent’s re-election strength. The alternative choice for the voter is always asked as “is it time for a new person?” PPP changed it to “prefer someone else?” Those with a rudimentary understanding of polling recognize the material impact this language will have on the data. They didn’t change the language for no reason.
2. PPP did not release or did not care to test President Obama’s job approval in these districts. In the alternate universe of PPP, presidential re-election cycles are not a referendum on the President’s handling of the economy. This would come as a shock to any political science major in America.
3. Shockingly, PPP assumes you’re too dumb to know that a low-to-mid 40s re-election score for an incumbent Member of Congress is actually quite good. In the wave of 2010, virtually no Democrats lost with a re-elect number above 40%. Furthermore, these re-elect numbers are even more impressive given that the Republicans currently represent only a portion of the voters polled due to redistricting. For example, 75% of Rep. Tim Johnson’s district is new.
4. The Democratic, though reputable, polling operation of Democracy Corps recently conducted a poll in 60 districts held by Republicans that largely went for Obama in 2008. That poll found that named incumbent Republican Member of Congress beat a generic Democratic challenger by 9%. Among independents, the spread skyrockets to 32% for the Republican. Now, that is newsworthy and significant data, Democratic no less.
Nice try, PPP. Try harder (and smarter) next time.
POLLSTER: Public Policy Polling for House Majority PAC
DATE: Conducted 10/19-23/2011(Released 10/26/2011)
SAMPLE: Sampled 500-1,000 RVs; MoE ± 2.3-4.4% in 12 Congressional Districts
SOURCE: Politico Morning Score
