(Yeah, baby, rumble – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Tom Jensen, some guy at Public Policy Polling, takes issue with my post yesterday. My central point was that any poll right now that attributes to US Sen. Michael Bennet 75% name rec — let alone 75% opinion-holding — among Colorado voters is laughable on its face. If the guy even breaks 30% name recognition in the state right now, he should take his team out for steak.
Here’s what Jensen has to say in reply — keep in mind, this guy regards himself and is treated in the press as a reputable pollster:
Some blogger in Colorado whacks our poll today, saying there’s no way 75% of voters in the state really have an opinion about Michael Bennet.
I think that’s probably true, but it doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with our poll. [twas brillig emph.]
Um…Tom, yes it does. Big time. If you put out a poll memo making claims about Bennet’s standing, and then acknowledge your poll didn’t really measure Bennet’s standing, there’s something very wrong here indeed.
So before going on to accuse me of writing “nasty stuff,” Jensen agrees with my central premise: This poll is meaningless in determining Michael Bennet’s public standing.
However unintentionally, Jensen is conceding PPP’s core methodology is scientifically unreliable. First though, let’s give some leg room below the fold to his goofy rationalization:
We choose to include party labels whenever we do approval or favorability ratings on pretty much any politician. That’s because for a lot of voters party labels go a lot further toward their perceptions of elected officials than anything specific to the individuals themselves. So there were probably a lot of Republicans in this poll who don’t know much about Bennet but disapprove of him because he’s a Democrat and a lot of Democrats who don’t know much about him but said they approved of his work for the same reason. If you don’t include party label you probably get more than 50% with no opinion, but since voters making their decisions based solely on party labels and little else is a real fact in politics we give them when we’re polling.
So basically, Jensen is saying his poll bears no relation to Bennet’s actual performance rating; it’s all tied up in party ID, but it’s a personal gut-level guess how much; and if you don’t include party label “No Opinion” is probably more than 50%, but who knows! In the midst of a number of hackneyed assumptions, Jensen is essentially conceding they think their polling is simply a basic read on current party perception and little more, but then they deliberately write their script in a way to massage candidate results.
This is why reputable polling firms differentiate generic head-to-heads (testing party approval without candidate names) from testing individuals; to get a more scientifically reliable result. PPP’s poll script makes this entire exercise GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
Jensen’s admissions today is in stark contrast to the confident and definitive claims made in yesterday’s polling memo, which was unfortunately treated as authoritative by press outlets:
41% say they disapprove of [Bennet’s] job performance so far, with 34% approving. 25% don’t have an opinion one way or the other. He is meeting with approval from 59% of Democrats but only 11% of Republicans, and his overall reviews from independents are negative as well, with 32% approving but 43% disapproving.
We can see now that PPP is in no position to make any reliable claims about what anyone thinks of Michael Bennet, according to their own pollster. They do not have any reliable data upon which to base their claims.
This doesn’t even take into account the classic unreliability of robo-polling generally, the sample problem of this particular poll, and the unscientific quality of the script. Do they even randomize the script to switch up the candidate questions for increased reliability? Probably not, because that would take more work. This is a methodological nightmare!
That PPP seems oblivious to this is the most disconcerting thing. I’m sorry, but two people with a robo-dialer and a logo do not a polling firm make.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Boebert Damns Her Would-Be Successor With Faint Praise
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Boebert Damns Her Would-Be Successor With Faint Praise
BY: ParkHill
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Genghis
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: ParkHill
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: I’m Gabe Evans, and This is the Worst Ad You’ve Seen in Years
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: davebarnes
IN: Monday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Jensen has.
I may have to adopt that: “Even when we’re absolutely wrong, we’re still…you know…right…’cause we say so.”
Especially if you agree with him that “monkeys can fly out of my ass” is a valid approach to polling.
He would seem to be on the wrong side of these populist issues and you know how Coloradoans vote …
Tea Parties
Bailouts
Believe it if you want, but stop filling up unrelated threads with it.
sxp, I love it. Teabaggers like you hate when that data doesn’t sell your spin.
Do you have any idea what you’re writing? Like, ever?
and guess no. What do I win?
About what I expected from you Libertad. You do not disappoint. 🙂
And actually, under this President, my taxes are less this year, you profoundly ignorant fuck.
Thanks for playing follow the dumbshit (Libertad.)
Daily you post about this activity, why? and why here?
Aren’t their sites built for these proclivities of yours?
and I’m the one with the fixation?
Fuck off, you stupid worthless piece of shit.
You two definitely like to go at it…
a post entitled “Look poop for brains.”
Sorry, won’t take civility lessons from you. You’re only civil when you think it’ll show up someone else. Usually you’re snide, self-righteous, and OH MY GOD so fucking condescending.
Sometimes you say the sweetest things 🙂
There’s nothing that can’t be fixed by a smiley face at the end. Don’t ever forget that!
entee
C&P’ing all that wasn’t annoying enough, you couldn’t give a link? C’mon, man. It’s the same shit, different day with you.
and the people love the tea party tax protests and hate the bailouts.
Is there an error in the data from Ras’m?
Pardon me if I don’t indulge you.
If he doesn’t have that name ID, does that show that his efforts to date have been futile at raising name ID, is the public turned off to the Ritter-Bennet message?
I don’t think so. After only a few months, it’s common sense that he is still going to have a ways to go to raise his profile. It will take hundreds of thousands of dollars in media spending to really establish and solidify his, but it would be foolish to start that kind of spending now.
The only conclusion you can legitimately draw from Bennet’s low name rec is that he has low name rec.
Most people have no interest in politics right now. When I got an interview scheduled with Michael Bennet I told my wife and daughters and their reply was “who’s that?” And I talk about this stuff at home (clearly they’re tuning me out…)
I doubt Udall has 75% name recgnition, much less Michael “Who?” Bennet. I know from years of canvassing the depressing number of people who can’t name their own Sen. or Rep. 75% or higher is the kind of name rec you get for names like “Jesus”.
But sorry Dave, I do have serious doubts about appointee Bennet’s chances going up against a Repub with relatively high name rec in 2010 and they aren’t based on one silly poll.
That most people don’t know who their current congressman is, even if they’ve been there for years. Nobody knew who Bennet was when he was appointed; why would they know who he was four months later? What matters is how well known he is in the summer of 2010 – not four months after being appointed.
and see the number of people who STILL haven’t heard of any of these people weeks, much less months, before an election. It’s really depressing.
I gotta give you guys credit. Promoting this diary in an effort to completely discredit PPP before they come out with their numbers on Ritter is pretty smart.
Do your backs hurt from all of the water you’re carrying for Bill Ritter?
I don’t recall if he is U, D, or R but he seems to have some inside knowledge on polling. He’s been saying the polling on the Guv is below 50% for sometime.
ps when Pols carries Dem water, is it a basin diversion?
Reasons please.
And if it’s well-written we’re glad to promote it.
If MesaModerate could tap into something that didn’t involve visceral rage, resentment and bleated talking points, the results could be fascinating!
not “tempting.”
analysis on PPP’s excellent public opinion work. Why don’t you start with their credentials in the field.
low polling for ritter, bennet, obama, etc?
Check out my diary. Promote it if you had pure intentions when you promoted the Diary from twas brillig…
… but they state that they promote “well written” diaries, so in order to qualify your diary must be well written. Yours is just a slap-dash rehash of everything you’ve said on this thread already, minus your usual vitriol. Your statement here makes clear that your intention is to try to get Pols in a “gotcha” and thus prove to yourself that they’re biased. Fail.
gopstudent just wrote a much better diary on the same subject. One of the things that makes it better is that he actually quotes pertinent findings from the poll and presents a new perspective not yet discussed under other diaries. Learn from that.
Crappy polling is crappy polling, whether it’s crappy sampling, crappy scripting or crappy summarizing.
We’ve been writing here for months that Ritter isn’t polling well. It was even in the Big Line for a long time. That’s not a secret, and it’s not something we’ve shied from talking about.
Who even cares about polls when we’re 18 months away from election day.
Wake me up in 2010.
Maybe not to us so much, but to the candidate and campaign.
Good poll numbers obviously help with fundraising. Nobody wants to sink money into a loser.
A reliable poll on name recognition is also essential as a guide to how to spend money.
And as an incumbent, you always want to have more than 50 percent positives.
That said, the only polls I’d rely on are internals: ones I commissioned myself done by people I trust.
but so much is going to happen between now and election day that they cannot possibly tell us what the outcome will be.
The closer we get to the election, the more they’ll be able to tell us about Bennet and Ritter’s chances.
but not as high as 75%. I’m sure it’s over 50% though(but not by much). Everyone was watching to see who’d get it so it isn’t like only 3 out of 10 people in Colorado know their junior Senator.
But we sure can’t tell by looking at this poll.
You Dem babies cry when a poll is not to your liking. But it’s ok because unless the economy gets better Dems are going to lose Congress!!
YES!
You’ve got a great track record so far.
sjintheno,
Is the McCain campaign still promising you mcpoints 5 months past the election?
The least you could do is run off a good rant about the “torture memo’s” and how you’d waterboard a meany to save millions.
Turn off 24 and give us a laugh.
We can argue methodology all day here (and it sure is fun) but I think what is really news is that if the election were held today, Bill Ritter gets beaten by a trained monkey.
McInnis 48
Ritter 41
Penry 40
Ritter 42
A West Slope relative newcomer like Penry is within the margin on a sitting Governor. Be afraid my liberal friends.
although it is the Ritter number in absolute terms, which is under 50%, that matters, rather than the opponent numbers, which are more a function of name recognition than actual support at this stage of the game.
Isn’t the whole POINT of a poll to attempt to accurately gauge public opinion? And if a poll fails to do that, isn’t there BY DEFINITION something fundamentally wrong with it?
So if Jensen of PPP actually wrote …
… what the heck does he MEAN? He simply makes no sense at all. And neither does his poll. It’s meaningless.
Might as well take a poll of 100 people as to whether they like George W. Bush. Only 20 respondents said no – but that’s because the other 80 were under two years old.
but with that said, I don’t think we Dems should be doing somersaults.
That would assume the basic methodology of the poll had any validity to it. It doesn’t. There’s no margin of error when there is 100% unreliability.
Jensen inadvertently invalidated PPP as a firm. These guys are not serious pollsters. They have no idea what they are doing.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that journalists are going to continue running their stuff.
Andrew! Andrew! Andrew! Andrew!
All together now:
Andrew! Andrew! ……………
He thinks the chant is for him.
I think PPP’s poll is fine and accurate
Bennet’s numbers, in my mind, more represent how people feel about a Democrat incumbent right now, more so than Bennet, personally
I did my fair share of initiating polls in the past and many respondents answer questions based on how they feel about the 2 parties, often more so than whether they know the candidate or not
That’s just disagreeing without presenting an argument, while showing you missed the entire point of the post.
Obviously they’re off the reservation. Is it painful when your socialist agenda is exposed as ineffective, destructive and opposed by the majority of America?
if you would stop believing your hyperbole grenades make you look devious and daring. Give it a try.
as strange as that may seem (consistency, anonymity, a greater ability to call lots of people at reasonable hours instead of stetching into unreasonable hours and a greater tendency for people not to waffle with a robot are the main factors), at least under the Survey USA methodology (I don’t know precisely how PPP does it).
But, I agree that claiming that someone who only knows who Bennet is via the poll itself counts as approval or disapproval as that term is typically used.