Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » About that PPP poll
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
About that PPP poll

Thursday, Jul 30, 2015

* Dave Fako wrote a very insightful comment yesterday which explains why the new PPP poll isn’t all that helpful to gauge the general election contest

PPP has a good track record, and I have no comment on accuracy or methodology, but high quality standards and reliability and disclosure are and always have been vital to me and our polling firm (Fako Research & Strategies). Below is the methodology statement from the poll which discloses the breakdown of partisanship by primary voting history and the mode - in this case 80% of interviews are via phone (presumably landline) and 20% via Internet among households without landlines.

My only comment about the poll’s methodology is this: their methodology statement says the poll was conducted among 931 registered voters, which was made up of 409 Democratic Primary voters and 369 Republican Primary voters, leaving 153 non-primary voters in their sample.

Is PPP saying only 16% of Illinois general election electorate is made up of non-primary voters (frequently IDed as “Independent”) on most Illinois voter files?

In 2012 ~ 69% of all general election voters were NOT Democratic or GOP Primary voters.

He’s right.

So, we probably shouldn’t give this particular poll too much weight regarding general election issues.

* But it does have some use for primary contests, so back to PPP

Scott Walker leads the Republican field in the state with 23% to 18% for Donald Trump, 11% for Jeb Bush, 8% for Chris Christie, 7% for Ben Carson, 6% for Marco Rubio, 5% each for Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul, 4% for Ted Cruz, 3% for Carly Fiorina, 2% each for Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, 1% each for Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, and Rick Perry, and the dreaded less than 1% rounding to 0 for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.

Walker is very popular in his neighboring state, with a 64/15 favorability rating. To put those numbers into perspective, no other Republican hopeful does better than a 51% favorability in the state. Walker leads both with voters describing themselves as ‘very conservative’ and ’somewhat conservative,’ while Trump is the choice of moderate Republicans.

On the Democratic side Clinton is dominant. She gets 60% to 23% for Sanders, with Martin O’Malley at 4%, Jim Webb at 3%, and Lincoln Chafee at 1% rounding out the field. Clinton gets at least 54% within every group we track by ideology, gender, race, and age with her support peaking among African Americans with whom she gets 76% and Hispanics with whom she gets 72%.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Mama - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:18 am:

    Scott Walker leads. Friends in Wisconsin (un-union jobs) said Walker ruined their state.

  2. - Chupacabra - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:33 am:

    Who are the nine people who voted for Lincoln Chafee? What are their names and phone numbers? I need to talk with them, they need help. Lincoln Chafee is the former Gov. of Rhode Island who had worse public approval ratings than Dr Walter Palmer. Chafee’s economic platform consists of introducing the metric system.

  3. - A guy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:41 am:

    Thank you for this additional analysis. It puts things into much greater context.

  4. - Tournaround Agenda - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:43 am:

    McLean County is larger than Rhode Island. Just saying.

  5. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:47 am:

    ==Chafee’s economic platform consists of introducing the metric system.==
    I far prefer the metric system to trickle-down economics.

  6. - Shore - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:58 am:

    those are great numbers for walker, who I don’t like , because I see trump eventually collapsing and his supporters fleeing to the strongest conservative bush challenger.

    I love MSK, but this should be a wake up call to him and the squad to clean up his game.

  7. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:29 pm:

    Interesting. I usually have a lot of faith in PPP

  8. - Keyser Soze - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 2:01 pm:

    I am a math-science person so polling has always been a source of fascination. Fako’s commentary is insightful and illustrates the ever increasing difficulty in pinning down reliable results. Consider landlines vs cell phones, the emergence of a great many limited issue candidates (e.g., 16 republican primary candidates, holy cow), the growth of partisan talk radio and television, etc.
    Add to that the surprising factoid that 69% of voters in a general don’t vote in a primary. This calls into question a poll’s assumption that it is relying on “likely voters.” Apparently, the likelihood of anyone actually voting is very questionable, guesswork at best. In the instant case, the heavy reliance on primary voters, as representative of general voters, most likely yields results that are skewed to the partisans but which greatly discount 69% of the voters. So, are the results reliable? I mean no disrespect to PPP because all pollsters face the same issues and most use similar models. I don’t have an answer to the inherent polling problems. I wish I did. Nonetheless, the process of forecasting elections continues to fascinate.

  9. - Dave Fako - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 2:07 pm:

    I want to emphasize my comments were not directed at PPP in terms a reliability or accuracy, and in fact they have a good track record, and should be commended for disclosing enough details to make some assessments of the poll. My comments are more intended to emphasize the need to evaluate every poll publicly released before jumping to conclusions, etc. The fact is based on the methodology disclosure, this particular poll is simply composed of too many partisan primary voters - and if you look at the results of partisan cued questions, they closely track the partisan split (by vote history, not self ID). I would be very interested to see the results weighted by a more normalized ratio, although that would be excessive weighting that would not fit my firm’s quality standards.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* *** UPDATED x1 - Pritzker spox re-confirms "pensions are a promise" *** Rahm Emanuel jumps aboard Tribune's pension bandwagon
* Caption contest!
* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Let's be careful out there
* A constitutional amendment for pensions is just not in the cards
* Preckwinkle pushing new tax hike
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Buy a ticket to "Christmas with Rich Miller" and help a great cause
* Study: Illinois schools need guidelines for dealing with sexual misconduct cases
* *** UPDATED x2 - Emanuel: Hike gas tax by 20-30 cents - Blankenhorn: Hike gas tax by at least 15 cents *** We really need a capital bill
* SOTS or no SOTS?
* "It's a first"
* Illinois Policy Institute responds to CTBA's response to Fitch
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...






Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller