SurveyUSA: Merkley is surging (and here's one reason why...)
Last night, KATU released the results of the third SurveyUSA poll in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.
With a four-point margin-of-error, it's true that Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick are statistically "tied" - but only barely. Merkley leads Novick by four points - 31 to 27 - so Novick's best-case-scenario is +4, whereas Merkley's best-case scenario is +12.
[Update: After this post went up, the Tribune and KPTV released a Davis/Hibbits poll that shows Novick up 29-23, with a 4.8% margin-of-error. No trend lines yet, however, since this is the first (and only?) poll they've done.]
Here's a chart of the three SurveyUSA polls - with shading to illustrate the MoE.
Compared to the same poll just eleven days earlier, the net shift has been +6 in Merkley's favor.
As with any campaign, there are lots of factors at work here. Some of them are obvious and public (like TV ads) and others are very nearly imperceptible (like hundreds of campaign volunteers knocking on doors across the state). In-between are the effects of direct mail, campaign events, personal emails from supporters, and yes... radio commercials.
On the one hand, radio is very public. After all, it's broadcast. On the other, because radio is so much cheaper to produce, it can be much more narrowly targeted than television. If you're not in the target market (or if you listen exclusively to public radio), you're not likely to hear a particular radio spot.
Despite my role on the campaign, I had no idea the Merkley campaign was running radio ads targeting women voters - until today, when I heard one while fiddling with the dial. This 60-second radio spot has been running for several weeks now.
That might explain in part the strong surge in support that Jeff Merkley's seen from women voters in Oregon. Here's the chart. (Unshaded, because I think the smaller sample changes the MoE, but I'm not sure how much. Oh, to remember my grad-school statistics...)
On the jump, the same chart for Oregon male voters - for those who are curious.
[Once again: my firm built Jeff Merkley's website but I speak only for myself.]
|
May 13, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (86 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 13, 2008 3:30:27 AM
Yeah, uh huh. Jeff Merkley is "politics as usual"? The guy that finally figured out how to take back the Oregon House - after sixteen years? Right. He doesn't know anything about winning and delivering on change. Mmmm hmmmm.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | May 13, 2008 3:50:26 AM
Kari posted: "Yeah, uh huh. Jeff Merkley is "politics as usual"? The guy that finally figured out how to take back the Oregon House - after sixteen years? Right. He doesn't know anything about winning and delivering on change. Mmmm hmmmm."
I'm just going with the views of the vast majority of the newspapers in the state ... people who are impartial, as opposed to folks (like Kari) who are on Merkley's payroll.
If Merkley were truly the cats meow, given his bankroll from the DSCC, he wouldn't be in a statistical dead heat with Novick, he'd have Novick way, way in the rear view mirror. That's one of the reasons why so many impartial people are voting for Novick. They realize how much more he could do if and when he has DSCC money in his pocket, and not in the pocket of his opponent.
Posted by: Dan | May 13, 2008 5:24:57 AM
Claims that Merkley was somehow singlehandedly responsible for flipping the state legislature are ridiculous and don't take into account the major anti-republican sentiment here and around the country during the time. Merkley is hardly responsible for that.
George W. Bush bears much of the responsibility for what happened all over the country in 2006. If Democratic strategists somehow think they had some incredible gameplan in that got them the gains 2006, and will this year as well, then we are making short term gains indeed. The Republicans dramatically overplayed their hand and basically handed us the game.
We as progressives have to get smarter and change the way the game is played. Sending out establishment candidates won't initiate the drastic changes we need made in the system. That's why I'm voting for Steve Novick.
I don't think Merkley is a terrible candidate, just an okay one. Steve Novick is a major talent and that is why he should be our next senator.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 8:00:08 AM
Well, I believe that Jeff is also a major talent, and he will make a fantastic United States Senator after he beats Gordo in the fall. He can do it.
And, as for his sucesss in the legislature, Jonathan Poisner says it all, with respect to the environment:
When Jeff Merkley joined the Legislature, he immediately took up the environment as an issue. He was smart enough to figure out quickly that with hostile Republican leadership, he had to think small – so he focused and made progress on an important, but narrow issue – reducing water pollution from outboard motors. As he moved up in seniority and led the Democrats back into power, his vision expanded dramatically. He was always a good vote and leader, but when the Democrats took control, he shined. The 2007 Session was the Legislature’s greenest in 30 years – passing 16 separate environmental bills, with the highest average environmental rating since 1977.I don’t think folks recognize what an extraordinary achievement that was and how much of the credit is owed to Merkley. It’s not just that there was only a 31-29 Democratic majority in the House, with virtually all of the Republicans hostile. It’s that some of the Democrats also had a track record of voting for the environment less than half the time. Merkley succeeded in getting them to a yes vote on bill after bill by working closely with Environment Committee Chair Jackie Dingfelder using all the tricks of the trade – personal relationships, unusual allies, coalitions, and hard-nosed pressure.
These are precisely the skills that separate successful U.S. Senators from those who go there and make speeches. If you’re electing a President, speeches really matter. As a Senator, not so much. There’s a chance Steve Novick might turn out to be great at moving an agenda in DC, but it’s just that – a chance. With Merkley, we’re not taking a chance.
We can't understate the importance of what he helped craft. Sure, he wasn't solely responsible. But he should get a lion's share of the credit, for causing the flip to happen and then piloting a narrow majority to one of the best progressive sessions on-record.
Posted by: Jim Ross | May 13, 2008 8:04:11 AM
Radio is a great persuasion tool, especially to women, who tend to vote much more rationally than male voters, who vote more viscerally. Women tend to be late deciders and this spot at this time could be decisive. This race is going to come down to the wire.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:07:24 AM
kari, did you let Kevin write this one? Because your senses have left you in your zeal to prop up Merkley.
The last poll was a tie. This poll is a tie. In fact, the last poll could have easily been 31-27 Merkley, and this one could be 30-28 Novick--and here you're
potentially crowing about the wrong poll.
You why else it represents no real change in the race? Undecided haven't budged; still 24%. With essentially the same pool of voters, they got a different answer within the same range as before.
Is it nicer to be up than down? Sure---but you can't hang your hat on it at all. Novick had a 60% of being ahead last time; maybe it was actually in the 40% for Merkley. Same situation here.
To declare that Merkley has "surged" is unsupported by the data, and an irresponsible claim. And to further justify it on the basis of Merkley actions even less grounded in evidence.
And in any case, after the petulant display Canter gave after the first SUSA poll, merkley doesn't get to claim later polls are suddenly valid because he likes the toplinebetter.
And finally, 43% already voted? Right.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 8:11:08 AM
I dunno, TJ. There's been a lot of talk about poll results throughout this campaign. But I think that it's fair to note that it's still very close and with many undecideds. And it's absolutely a race to the finish.
But, you know, the trends are noteworthy. I disagree with the notion that it's irresponsible to claim upward movement where it exists.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:23:59 AM
"But, you know, the trends are noteworthy. I disagree with the notion that it's irresponsible to claim upward movement where it exists."
Ben, that's what I'm saying--there's no basis to claim it DOES exist. The last two polls could have been run on the same day with the same voters, and gotten the two results you see here.
It IS very close, it IS a race to the finish with apparently 1 in 4 still undecided. Those conclusions are well supported by the data. What is NOT supported, is that Merkley is "surging," between the last poll and this one.
Posted by: Kevin | May 13, 2008 8:24:13 AM
This is GREAT news for the Merkley campaign.
Not only are all the trend lines running in his favor but some of the earlier prognostications - that Merkley's ad would hurt Obama - simply are not reflected in the accompanying SurveyUSA presidential poll where Obama has increased his lead.
As for the cross-tabs on this Senate poll, I was most struck by Merkley's surge and lead in the 18-34 demographic which appears to rebuff another prognostication that Novick & Obama would benefit from young voters. Since the May 2nd poll Obama gained 13 points, Merkley gained 17 points and Novick lost 13 points among the 18-34 group.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:26:14 AM
and the MoE on women is around 5.5-7, probably in the low 6s depending on the female universe (I did 410,000 and put the number of women in the sample at 315, giving them a slight numeric edge both times).
Which means you can't say much about how they're doing with women, either. If the spread ain't 20 points at least, I wouldn't conclude anything much at all. Crosstabs you can't count on.
Posted by: Jefffrane | May 13, 2008 8:26:53 AM
If you look at the methodology of this report, and look carefully at the results, there's reason to be skeptical of the conclusions being drawn. First of all, this was a telephone poll, which means the "random" phone numbers were drawn from directories of landlines. What is the percentage of young voters with landlines? Second, the breakdown of likely voters is 19% for the critical vote under age 34, further indication that the survey essentially missed young people entirely. And finally, what group is responsible for the huge increase in Democratic voter registration?
It's been well established that young people are registering and voting because of Obama's candidacy, and that same anti-establishment enthusiasm is more likely to respond to Novick than Merkley. It's going to be very interesting when the primary votes are actually counted, but I think you're going to see a marked variance from these results, and it's going to come from young voters.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:27:44 AM
"Since the May 2nd poll Obama gained 13 points, Merkley gained 17 points and Novick lost 13 points among the 18-34 group."
If you believe that much swing really happens in one week, you can't be helped.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 8:28:19 AM
"Posted by: Daniel Spiro | May 13, 2008 3:50:26 AMI'm just going with the views of the vast majority of the newspapers in the state ... people who are impartial.."
LOL.
It's so cute to when the little ones still believe in Santa.
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 8:34:51 AM
Ah, questions of methodology indeed. I think we've all taken turns with various polls arguing the ifs and buts on the results.
It might not be a set-in-stone readout, perhaps, but what poll is? As it stands, trends are still overwhelmingly positive for Jeff, if still quivering with a degree of undecideds. But, you know what, I'll take it. And I think it does show people are responding to Jeff as they get to know him, his body of work, and his efforts.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 8:35:08 AM
"Posted by: Dan | May 13, 2008 5:24:57 AMClaims that Merkley was somehow singlehandedly responsible for flipping the state legislature are ridiculous and don't take into account the major anti-republican sentiment here and around the country during the time."
Of course nobody is actually claiming Merkley flipped the legislature by himself. However it is a fact that he was the pivotal person leading, strategizing and recruiting for the effort to flip the leg.
To ignore that he was the one behind our wins is to be oblivious to what actually occurred. To dismiss or downplay that reality only reveals the person suggesting it doesn't really know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Kevin | May 13, 2008 8:35:30 AM
If you believe that much swing really happens in one week, you can't be helped.
Oh I dunno, Mark. You touted the high quality SurveyUSA's polls so often back when they showed Novick ahead that you've made a believer of me.
:-)
Posted by: jeff Merkley's conscience | May 13, 2008 8:36:12 AM
Maybe the saddest thing here is watching people basically say, "Yay Merkley's disingenuous smear campaign is working. Yay America. Go Jeff!"
There aint no "progress" involved in winning because you're more willing to lie and spending more money.
Thaat's more of the same ol' same ol', and on that note, Merkley's negavitve ad is the perfect encapsulation of his campaign: Off the shelf, just like Kitzhaber says.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 8:39:57 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:23:59 AMBen, that's what I'm saying--there's no basis to claim it DOES exist.
Except for the actual poll numbers.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:40:51 AM
"Oh I dunno, Mark. You touted the high quality SurveyUSA's polls so often back when they showed Novick ahead that you've made a believer of me."
That's a nonresponsive answer. I have been consistent in believing that SUSA does generally good work. Unlike Merkley folks, I didn't pretend the poll must be fucked up in some way because my guy wasn't nominally ahead. What I'm saying is that swings of which you describe are extremely unlikely events in a week's period. Voter sentiment just doesn't move that fast in most cases, even with a smear ad in play. I would welcome your reprinting of my pieces on the previous two SUSA polls, in order to point out where I have gone beyond what the data will allow.
Quality of the polling doesn't have anything to do with how to read one. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and with polls you are Chuck fucking Norris, Kevin.
Posted by: Fair and Balanced | May 13, 2008 8:41:54 AM
How about going with the views of those who are in a really good position to judge the merits of a candidate for a legislative body; i.e. Oregon's state legislators?
Every single one of the Democrats in the House, from the most liberal to the most conservative - and there's quite a span - have endorsed Merkley. It's not like they have to; he won't even be a member next session, win or lose. They were just impressed with his performance.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:43:58 AM
Mitch, what ARE the actual poll numbers? I wasn't aware you'd contacted all 800,000 voters this weekend. Failing that, "the actual poll numbers" are subject to error. In this case, 8 points of it across the two candidates.
And...OH NO! Another poll, from Hibbits, that is fucked up and worthless! Why? Because it shows Novick nominally ahead! Ack! It's dirty, demean it before someone believes it!
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 13, 2008 8:46:25 AM
Is there anything more compelling than an anonymous poster calling a candidate a liar with no links or reference to specifics?
*************
Lestat, loved the Santa reference.
*************
I tell, ya, with my wife in the tank for Clinton and the Forever War in the Senate race, I can't wait for next Tuesday. My head is about to explode from the stream of illogic and the willful disregard of any and all countervailing facts among the Movers and Shakers in this state.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 8:46:44 AM
Posted by: jeff Merkley's conscience | May 13, 2008 8:36:12 AMMaybe the saddest thing here is watching people basically say, "Yay Merkley's disingenuous smear campaign is working. Yay America. Go Jeff!"
You are right. After all Merkley ads employed the Jedi mind trick (aka Novick's own words) to "smear" Novick into calling Obama the "great white hope" and a "fraud" because, well that's just Novick being a good progressive and focusing his sharp mind on the substantive issues that affect people's lives.
I know I hate it when Merkley "smears" me by quoting my own words and "smearing me" into being an asshole towards my co-workers.
Posted by: orexpat | May 13, 2008 8:47:39 AM
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121065483391101200
According to the Tribune Davis, Hibbitsts & Midgall is calling it 29-23 for Novick with 40% undecided. But they are just a small local firm, so what do they know? ;)
Regardless, it's going to be interesting down to the wire. It would be nice if supporters on both sides could refrain from throwing rocks in the meantime.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:48:26 AM
And by the way, I should have much more cred now that I have switched allegiances and now firmly back Jeff Merkley for Senate.
No really, go look! I honest to God have a "Merkley for Senate" post that I wrote, at LO!
If only you'd have realized what it would take before, Kari!
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 8:49:12 AM
Cool down, TJ. Yes. The Hibbits shows Steve narrowly ahead. And, yes, the SUSA shows Jeff narrowly ahead. And, yes, it's all somewhat of a sprint-to-the-finish tie if you want to look at it like that.
In SUSA, where we get excellent cross-tabs, we can see Jeff's growing success. I'd love to see whatever cross-tabs Hibbits has. They sure show a lot of undecideds (over 40%), but that's okay too.
The Hibbits poll is not worthless, but neither is this one. But I'll take Jeff's movement as I can see it; a month ago, he was close-but-behind in the polls and now he's picking up steam and leading in several key categories (if SUSA is to be believed).
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 13, 2008 8:51:40 AM
I've updated this post with the Davis/Hibbits poll info. Thanks for the tip, TJ.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 8:55:36 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:43:58 AMMitch, what ARE the actual poll numbers?
Ahhhh... the numbers which are the basis SurveyUSA poll, you know... the subject of this thread. You can claim they are wrong, but your panicked dismissal and about face on the veracity of SurveyUSAs polling, who you went on at great lengths to tout back when they showed Novick in the lead, if you like, but I must say it is bemusing to see you playing dumb about the treand-line within SurveyUSAs numbers and claim there is no basis to for people to point to the clear movement in Merkley's direction in the SurveyUSA numbers.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 8:56:10 AM
"In SUSA, where we get excellent cross-tabs, we can see Jeff's growing success. I'd love to see whatever cross-tabs Hibbits has. They sure show a lot of undecideds (over 40%), but that's okay too."
I don't know what you mean by "excellent," but it's not a synonym for "precise." As I said, MoEs are 6-7 at a minimum--and for the youth vote it's more like 10+.
You cannot see Jeff's growing success, is the point--it's not supported by the data. Especially when the undecided has stayed exactly the same.
Posted by: trishka | May 13, 2008 9:00:21 AM
you all understand statistics and margin of error, right?
what the poll data from SUSA show is that merkley may be moving ahead - but he may not be.
it's a big fat unknown at this point.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 9:00:31 AM
"You can claim they are wrong,"
I can, but I didn't. I have no problem agreeing with the prospect of a +12 Merkley - +4 Novick scenario, any more than I did when it was +10 Novick - +6 Merkley. You are avoiding the point, which is pretty clearly that neither poll establishes a defined lead for either man, and in fact could easily be different sides of the same coin, variant by sheer random differences in who responded.
The numbers that are the basis of this poll do not show a Merkley surge. They show a tie last time, and a tie this time. And the same proportion undecided.
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 13, 2008 9:00:56 AM
Hey lesta, where ya been for so long?
Hope everything is well.
Or, as Jeff Merkley might say:
"...lesta ..be..long
...in... ...h..ell."
Posted by: Ben | May 13, 2008 9:08:34 AM
Okay, maybe I've been playing too many dark video games in whatever remains of my spare time. But that actually cracked me up Pat. Also, I recently finished reading the lovely Stephen King novella "Apt Pupil." Talk about dark!
How macabre!
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 9:13:35 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 9:00:31 AM"You are avoiding the point, which is pretty clearly that neither poll establishes a defined lead for either man, and in fact could easily be different sides of the same coin, variant by sheer random differences in who responded."
Except that is not what is being discussed here. The trend-line shows movement towards Merkley. THAT is what is being discussed and what is shown within the SurveyUSA numbers. Since the Hibbits poll is a singular poll on the race, we cannot deduce any trendline for movmeent from it whether its numbers are accurate or not.
"The numbers that are the basis of this poll do not show a Merkley surge."
Except that they do.
"They show a tie last time, and a tie this time. And the same proportion undecided."
Clap louder.
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 13, 2008 9:00:56 AM"Hey lesta, where ya been for so long?"
Been slammed so hard at work. The corporation I work for had a total rebradning roll-out a few months ago, and so we on the creative services team have been drowning in redesigning everything form business cards, to product brochures and feel to trade-show signage.
"Hope everything is well."
Other than being inundated at work, things are going great. Paid off my last credit card and my last car payment so now I am 100% debt free... and Obama is going to be our parties nominee, so all is good right now with me.
And you?
Posted by: Stephanie V | May 13, 2008 9:19:03 AM
Which means you can't say much about how they're doing with women, either. If the spread ain't 20 points at least, I wouldn't conclude anything much at all. Crosstabs you can't count on.
In the NE Hassalo Street sample it is a statistical tie for sure. %^>
Here's what we know:
Nobody knew who either of these guys was until they started advertising.
Steve went on the air first so he got his name recognition up first.
Jeff came to TV later and got his name recognition up to rough parity, so that in the polls their results were within the margin of error.
Then Jeff took out a second mortgage to fund a barrage of negative ads.
But guess what? Now there are two brand name polls, one leaning each way, but both still within the margin of error.
There are also a lot of undecideds and Steve is on the air with a great new ad that defuses the attack ads and lays out his biggest endorsements.
We've seen Merkley's worst and we're still in a dead heat, with Steve's best only now coming online.
It's going to be a fun week.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 9:21:07 AM
"The trend-line shows movement towards Merkley."
Then point it out, specifically. What numbers indicate to you a trend towards Merkley? Spell out your claim. Explain literally how you count out movement towards Merkley.
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | May 13, 2008 9:21:48 AM
I campaigned for Steve at a Clinton event last night and lots of folks told me they'd already voted for Steve - many more than those who said they'd already voted for Merkley. The main demographic about this event was it was well attended by Mexicans.
Posted by: Shirley | May 13, 2008 9:39:22 AM
All I have to say is Jeff is for the people, He stood up for the workers at the Hilton with their boycott even though he took at lot of heat from everyone and still surports us for the last 5 and a half months. Talking about the add the one I can''t stand is the one with three guys saying they are Steve and then he comes on saying he's the little guy standing up for the people.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 13, 2008 9:46:50 AM
Off-topic-
Tim Hibbitts has a KPTV poll out this morning showing Obama ahead by 17 pts.
http://www.kptv.com/yourvote/16247266/detail.html
SUSA has him up by 11 yesterday. I would go with Hibbitts on an Ore. race.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 13, 2008 9:50:30 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 9:21:07 AM"The trend-line shows movement towards Merkley."
Then point it out, specifically. What numbers indicate to you a trend towards Merkley?
Pretty straight forward, Merkley's numbers improved from the previous SurveyUSA numbers while Novicks and the undecideds went down.
(5/9-11, likely and actual voters, 4/28-30 in parens):
Jeff Merkley (D): 31 (28)
Steve Novick (D): 27 (30)
Candy Neville (D): 11 (8)
David Loera (D): 2 (2)
Roger Obrist (D): 2 (4)
Pavel Goberman (D): 2 (2)
Other/Undecided: 24 (26)
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 9:55:54 AM
"Jeff Merkley (D): 31 (28)
Steve Novick (D): 27 (30) "
That is literally no more the truth than this:
Jeff Merkley (D): 28 (31)
Steve Novick (D): 30 (27)
Do you understand the concept of survey error? Both outcomes above are possible.
And because of that, you cannot say there is a surge for Merkley--not when it is well within the parameters of these polls for Novick to actually be ahead, with Merkley actually having been ahead in the last poll.
And if you needed any more data to prove that point, we now have an independent poll showing ANOTHER tie, with Novick nominally leading this time.
If you aren't intellectually honest enough to get "still tied, lots of undecided" out of those figures, either you aren't familiar with survey error or you're just letting hope invade your brain and crush the rationality cells in an epic battle.
Posted by: Kevin | May 13, 2008 9:56:59 AM
Posted by: trishka | May 13, 2008 9:00:21 AMyou all understand statistics and margin of error, right?
what the poll data from SUSA show is that merkley may be moving ahead - but he may not be.
it's a big fat unknown at this point.
Trishka,
Your assertion only holds true if you isolate this single poll, cover your eyes and refuse to compare it to the trends revealed by comparing it to previous SurveyUSA polls.
Furthermore, one needn't have a PhD in statistics to understand that polls use the numbers that they do because they reflect the statistically most likely scenario.
Yes, Merkley MIGHT actually be up 12 points, and yes, Novick MIGHT actually be up 4 points. But Merkley is statistically MOST LIKELY up by 4 points over Novick - thus the poll stats released yesterday.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 10:12:43 AM
"But Merkley is statistically MOST LIKELY up by 4 points over Novick "
Again--patently false, Mr. Norris. The reported result is NOT the most likely result, it is the midpoint on a range that (at the 95% confidence level) extends about 2 standard deviations away, 1 SD in either direction. (It's actually 1.96 SD, but let's not quibble).
You don't know what you are talking about, and you are spouting off in front of people who do it for a living. I urge you to stop.
Posted by: Miles | May 13, 2008 10:17:08 AM
But Merkley is statistically MOST LIKELY up by 4 points over Novick - thus the poll stats released yesterday.
Actually, Kevin, that's not true. Polls use single data points because that's the easiest way to explain the poll (and get press coverage). There is no more probability that Merkley has the support of 31% of voters than there is that he has the support of 27% or 35%. In fact, the probability that Merkley is really at 31% is extremely low -- as it would be if we assumed any single data point within that range.
Assuming they are using 95% confidence intervals, this poll claims with 95% certainty that Merkley's support is between 27% - 35% (likewise, there is a 95% certainty that Novick is between 23% - 31%). The probablity that Merkley is up by 12 points is exactly the same as the probability that he's down by 4 points.
All of this assumes a valid random sample, which I would quibble with, but that's another post.
Posted by: Miles | May 13, 2008 10:23:21 AM
Most interesting to me is the 40%+ that is still undecided in the Davis/Hibbits poll. That number is shockingly high with only one week to go in the campaign. If the poll is right, this may be one of the most volatile races in Oregon's history. It will be fascinating to see if late-deciding voters break towards the experienced establishment candidate or the rookie change agent.
In my totally invalid sample, things are breaking towards Novick. Even my MOM voted for him, which in my sample means Merkley's in trouble.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 13, 2008 10:44:16 AM
Miles, I believe there is a natural asymtotic line away from the midpoint, where the maximum error amount is generally a less likely result than one of lower error. But you're correct that the midpoint is not defined as the most likely result.
Does anyone else want to hazard a guess how SUSA found a sample where 43% have already turned in their ballot?
Post a comment
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | May 13, 2008 3:15:00 AM
We'll see what effect Novick's new ad (unleashed only yesterday) has on these polls. It is the perfect response to the negative ads that Merkey has been running lately.
If the people of Oregon want to choose politics as usual over the inspiring and non-traditional approach Novick offers, so be it, but I have the sneaking suspicion that they will vote for change this go around.