Pollster Discusses Marriage Equality

by: Hopeful

Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 06:14:20 PM EST

At a gut level, the public is divided. As a policy issue, most people don't really care one way or the other.

He goes through the evidence that both sides have mid-to-upper 40s but that it's just not a priority for many people. He makes a strong argument rejecting the claim that marriage must be decided by a referendum:

The public should absolutely have the final say on any situation that involves state borrowing. I also think a constitutional convention - where the public gives a straight up or down vote on the outcome - is worth serious consideration in New Jersey right now.

But the founders of our country - or at least James Madison in the Federalist Papers - were fairly clear that any issue affecting the rights of a minority should be determined within a deliberative setting. And general elections almost never meet the criterion of being deliberative - as anyone who followed this year's vacuous gubernatorial race will attest.

Also interesting is his view -- as a political scientist, statistician, and pollster -- of the panel that found that civil unions are not working:

I actually met with the Commission in August 2007 to discuss a potential study on civil unions. Ideally, the research would have interviewed a sample of civil union couples and a matching sample of married couples to see if the former were systematically experiencing any roadblocks that the latter were not. For various reasons (costs, logistics), the study was never conducted.

Though cost is certainly a concern anything that would reveal the truth about civil unions' failures more convincingly should be considered -- though, as Murray notes, opponents may not care what the truth is.

He finally goes on to ask why the state recognizes marriage at all? This related point that perhaps states should not be in marriage business at all has often been debated on liberal blogs (DBK raised it here today). Personally I don't care for that argument, but rather than discuss it here, I guess I'll have to write that "Why I Support Marriage Equality" post tomorrow after all.  

Murray's Margin of Error

by: joeynovick

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 08:58:42 AM EST

Patrick Murray is the founding director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. According to their website, "The Monmouth University Polling Institute has become a premier independent survey research center known for its in-depth tracking of public policy and quality of life issues."

Murray is a frequent media commentator on politics and public opinion---in fact, one of the folks that PolitickerNJ.com asked the opinion of each week to see which gubernatorial candidate "Won The Week". PolitickerNJ.com named him one of 14 People to Watch in New Jersey Politics in 2009.  He's got a fancy looking website, with all sorts of numbers and names, graphs and graphics, statistics and such. Polling Institute director Patrick Murray appears regularly on One-on-One with Steve Adubato, and is a frequent guest on all the shows that cover NJ political scene.
Furthermore, according to their website, "The Monmouth University Poll's standard methodology utilizes a random digit dial (RDD) 'probability' sampling design to select survey participants. All telephone exchanges (i.e., area code and first three digits of the phone number) that reach a household are programmed into a computer...after interviewing is complete, the sample is 'weighted' to correct for the fact that some respondents are harder to reach than others.... The Monmouth University Poll either tracks or adjusts for geography, gender, race, age, and education to comport with current U.S. census figures of the adult population. This weighting ensures that findings from a sample can be generalized to the full target population."

One would think that Mr. Murray could predict anything with extreme accuracy, given all the fancy degrees, computers, and statistics training.

But wait, there is this catch-all disclaimer on all the surveys: "All surveys are subject to 'sampling error' "----you know, that "plus or minus" number at the end of the poll that tells you just how much they could be off by. "This poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%" or so is what you'll hear.

Now, my background---I am just an old, bald, overweight comedian from Brooklyn, with no fancy statistics degree. I don't have an extravagant office at Monmouth University. I am not on NJN or 'One on One with Steve Adubato' each week. I was not named one of PolitickerNJ's 'most important' anything last year or this year. And the same will most likely be the case for next year.

My methods for predicting the results of a contest between two (or more) does not require me to spend hours and hours bothering people of all ages by phone at dinner time, and then weighting the results 'cause I could not get enough of one type of folk or another.

I just go by my instincts. That's right-from the gut. My keen insight. My unique sixth sense. And that insight told me the Yanks in Six.

With all his fancy training, stats, and phone calls-what was Murray's prediction?

That the Phillies repeat.

I guess that would be a margin of error of ---"plus or minus 100%" percent.

"I was looking at the World Series through (Phillies)red-colored glasses," opined Mr. Murray, paying off on our bet. The result: one hundred dollars from his pocket to the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang Camps for kids with cancer. And he will be sending on a jar of honey to me, too. How sweet it is.

So, the lesson: If you want accurate predictions of who will win political races in NJ, stick with Murray. (I predicted Jon Corzine by 3 points).

However, if you wish to predict the winner of any World Series where the Yankees play the Phillies, call me.

If anyone else want to donate to the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang Camps for kids with cancer, go to Jump for Joey and follow the links.

Who wants change without hope?

by: Hopeful

Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:57:45 PM EDT

Chris Christie put out a new web video in response to President Barack Obama's campaign stop for Governor Jon Corzine Thursday. Christie has been trying to use Obama's "Change" mantra to unseat the incumbent, but has been having limited success in getting it to resonate with voters.

As I watched that video, the penny finally dropped on why this message wasn't working for Christie...

Frankly, I found it depressing. That's when it hit me. Chris Christie is offering a message of change without hope. And not just in this web video, but throughout his entire campaign.

It's worth the reading the whole thing -- Murray also discusses what the voters on his focus panel say.  

I'd add that I still feel Corzine also needs a bit more "hope" and positive messaging. Corzine's attacks have helped Christie collapse all the way into the thirties, bu that still leave him tied. Obama put a lot of positives into yesterday's speech for Corzine and I think a bit more of this would really Corzine turn out his voters.

Monmouth Focus Group on the Candidates

by: Hopeful

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 01:15:00 PM EDT

Personally, I continue to think the unaffiliated voters -- and Democrats -- need to be given a positive word to vote for Corine. Looking at the image, the largest positive Corzine word is "trying."  Well, as the saying goes, "trying is not good enough."  

Looking at how pollsters choose their topics

by: Hopeful

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 10:16:34 AM EDT

As contributors to the chattering class, we pollsters also have a responsibility to keep what's truly important in our sights. That means not just measuring voter opinion of the nonsense being fed to them by scripted campaigns, but actually giving voice to what the voters themselves want to know about how this state will be governed over the next four years. Like tracking the fact that property taxes is consistently the top issue voters want to hear the candidates talk about.

I understand that a pollster can generate headlines - and perhaps clients - by asking what would happen if Corzine were replaced on the ballot by another candidate - as one out-of-state Democratic pollster did recently. [Although, it is intriguing that this partisan pollster did not include Dick Codey as one of the options - the only name that probably would have bested Christie in the poll]. However, these poll results do nothing to inform the debate for those of us who actually live in the state and are concerned about how we are going to pay our bills, such as - to use an entirely random example - property taxes.

Perhaps the most bizarre example of measuring New Jersey public opinion was a recent question asking if President Obama is the anti-Christ. If this polling firm really wanted to be relevant to the current state of affairs in New Jersey, it should have asked whether the state's voters believe any of the gubernatorial nominees is the anti-Christ. That's certainly how each candidate hopes his opponent will be perceived by November 3rd.

You'll notice that Murray uses the media establishment technique of never naming the person (Tom Jensen) he's criticizing -- implicitly placing their action beyond the pale. You'd never guess from this column that Monmouth/Gannett's release that week was Jersey to Bruce: Keep Rocking! (PDF). This week's release is more consistent with Murray's stated principles, New Jerseyans on Their Property Taxes (PDF).

But the more interesting question is how do pollsters choose their topics? Both the PPP and Monmouth/Gannett polls have actually answered the question. Tom Jensen has written about the origin of the Anti-Christ Question following the Joe Wilson affair:

One of the suggestions was that we poll on this question of whether Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ. We couldn't get it on the Wilson poll due to length considerations, but I got several follow up e-mails and messages on Twitter from people saying they really did think we should ask it, so we did...

Anyway, our company really is trying to find an intersection between high quality, accurate scientific polling and genuine utilization of social media. So the moral of the story is send us your crazy question idea and we really might ask it.

You can see the actual suggestion from a reader here:

One other suggestion, although it's a little frivoulous:

Do you believe Barack Obama is the Antichrist?

(I've always wanted to push slightly beyond the 'birther' stuff to see if this is what's really driving a portion of the population.)

In short, PPP's question actually is something their audience wanted, and while it may not exactly be "giving voice to what the voters themselves want to know," it's not far off. I'll certainly agree it's too bad no one told PPP to add Dick Codey when they asked for comments n their New Jersey questions.

Now, let's see what the Monmouth/PPP release states on the origin of their topics. For the Bruce Springsteen poll, it's near the end of the release:

Monmouth University will be hosting Glory Days: A Bruce Springsteen Symposium at its campus in West Long Branch, New Jersey on September 25th to 27th. The event will bring together educators, journalists, historians, musicologists, and fans interested in Bruce Springsteen and his influence on American culture. It will also include musical performances and tours of important Springsteen sites. Tickets for the symposium and the performances are available to the public. For more information, please visit: www.cpe.vt.edu/glorydays.

Yes, in the same week Patrick Murray criticized Tom Jensen  for a "bizarre" poll that it is not "responsible" and was aimed to "make headlines," he put out a poll that is literally an advertisement. (Indeed, I could argue the question was chosen to favor Bruce, because Sinatra would have done well if it was not restricted to "rock performer," and the Beatles were split into three different responses.) As for his much vaunted tax poll, it appears from that release that Gannett chose the topic to, at least in part, advertise their newspaper:

As part of the Gannett New Jersey newspaper series "Fighting New Jersey's Tax Crush" (www.app.com/TaxCrush), the Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll took a wide-ranging look at public views of the tax that 6-in-10 Garden State residents tab as the least fair tax they pay.

Well, if Monmouth and Gannett pay the bills, it's appropriate they choose the topics, but Murray should spare us the sanctimonious lectures.