The Chicago Tribune released a poll on September 13 showing Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn with an 11 point lead over Republican challenger Bruce Rauner. This rather large lead for Governor Quinn goes against the grain of almost every other poll that had Rauner ahead. An exception was the Democratic Governors' Association poll that had Quinn up by 3.
But a poll showing such a stark difference from the rest raises some questions. First and foremost, why is the result so different? It certainly appears to me that the poll is an outlier. And that's not to say that Governor Quinn won't or can't win in November, or that the polling won't oscillate back and forth over the next several weeks. But compared to other polls released around the same time, it provided a result that was, well, weird. Consider these poll results that were released in the neighborhood of the September 13 Tribune poll:
YouGov had Rauner up by 4 (September 11)
DGA had Quinn up by 3 (September 11)
WeAskAmerica had Rauner up by 8 (September 3)
Excluding the WeAskAmerica poll published over a week ago and just focusing on the more recent YouGov and DGA polls suggest that the race is probably very close. And that's why the Tribune poll showing an 11 point Quinn lead is so striking. So what's up?
First of all, most of the polls employed a "likely voter" model. The Tribune poll conducted by APC Research utilized a "registered voter" model. But it gets a little confusing. This morning I listened to the Trib's Rick Pearson discuss the poll on WGN Radio's Sunday Spin (great show). He indicated that it was based on registered voters, but then suggested that the pollster asked the registered voters if they were likely to vote. It doesn't appear that the pollster used the traditional methodologies to determine if a voter was more likely to vote, such as whether they voted in previous elections, if they knew where their polling place was, etc. If the Trib pollster was trying to narrow the universe to likely voters, they used a pretty weak approach. A lot of people will tell a pollster that they intend to vote even though they probably won't show up on election day. That's why pollsters utilize a screening process to determine who really is a likely voter based not on intent, but historical practice. If the Trib pollster used a more involved screening process, it hasn't been fully explained. Since the paper said it polled "registered voters," then that's what I'm going with. And no less than stat guru Nate Silver says that registered voter polling is suspect.
The second major issue with the poll is that it finds a party identification breakdown similar to a Tribune poll released in the fall of 2008. This equivalency suggests that the electorate will behave as it did in 2008. This partisan breakdown was determined by asking registered voters about their party identity. Even if this partisan breakdown is accurate, the political currents in 2014 are running in the opposite direction compared to 2008. Not only was 2008 a huge Democratic year as a result of war fatigue and an historic meltdown in the financial sector, but it was punctuated by tremendous voter enthusiasm for Barack Obama in Illinois and elsewhere.
President Obama isn't on the ballot in November and there's a growing sense that the GOP may benefit from structural and policy advantages in 2014 that will result in an electorate favorable to their candidates. Illinois Democrats are sufficiently concerned that their voters won't be as motivated to come out on election day that they are pursuing strategies to mitigate this feared apathy. These include Democratic-favored ballot initiatives, a coordinated campaign with organized labor, and attempts to change the electorate by registering hundreds of thousands of new voters and turning them out. Time will tell if these efforts are ultimately successful.
The 2014 Governor's race is likely to be very close either way. It's true that polls are just a snapshot in time and that an eternity remains in the Illinois Governor's race. Even so, I suspect that the Tribune snapshot is the equivalent of a blurry photo for the reasons stated above. It will be interesting to see what the next major poll suggests about the state of the race.
First of all, most of the polls employed a "likely voter" model. The Tribune poll conducted by APC Research utilized a "registered voter" model. But it gets a little confusing. This morning I listened to the Trib's Rick Pearson discuss the poll on WGN Radio's Sunday Spin (great show). He indicated that it was based on registered voters, but then suggested that the pollster asked the registered voters if they were likely to vote. It doesn't appear that the pollster used the traditional methodologies to determine if a voter was more likely to vote, such as whether they voted in previous elections, if they knew where their polling place was, etc. If the Trib pollster was trying to narrow the universe to likely voters, they used a pretty weak approach. A lot of people will tell a pollster that they intend to vote even though they probably won't show up on election day. That's why pollsters utilize a screening process to determine who really is a likely voter based not on intent, but historical practice. If the Trib pollster used a more involved screening process, it hasn't been fully explained. Since the paper said it polled "registered voters," then that's what I'm going with. And no less than stat guru Nate Silver says that registered voter polling is suspect.
The second major issue with the poll is that it finds a party identification breakdown similar to a Tribune poll released in the fall of 2008. This equivalency suggests that the electorate will behave as it did in 2008. This partisan breakdown was determined by asking registered voters about their party identity. Even if this partisan breakdown is accurate, the political currents in 2014 are running in the opposite direction compared to 2008. Not only was 2008 a huge Democratic year as a result of war fatigue and an historic meltdown in the financial sector, but it was punctuated by tremendous voter enthusiasm for Barack Obama in Illinois and elsewhere.
President Obama isn't on the ballot in November and there's a growing sense that the GOP may benefit from structural and policy advantages in 2014 that will result in an electorate favorable to their candidates. Illinois Democrats are sufficiently concerned that their voters won't be as motivated to come out on election day that they are pursuing strategies to mitigate this feared apathy. These include Democratic-favored ballot initiatives, a coordinated campaign with organized labor, and attempts to change the electorate by registering hundreds of thousands of new voters and turning them out. Time will tell if these efforts are ultimately successful.
The 2014 Governor's race is likely to be very close either way. It's true that polls are just a snapshot in time and that an eternity remains in the Illinois Governor's race. Even so, I suspect that the Tribune snapshot is the equivalent of a blurry photo for the reasons stated above. It will be interesting to see what the next major poll suggests about the state of the race.
No comments:
Post a Comment