PPP versus the rest

So, our friends over at RRH think they’ve found a flaw in the way PPP are conducting their polls. Too many liberals and not enough independents they say. The assumption is they are somehow skewing their results in favor of Democratic candidates. Since November we haven’t really seen much polling from firms other than PPP. But there have been some, particularly with regard to Senate races. I thought it might be worth bringing them all together here to compare and contrast.

Florida – Incumbent Bill Nelson (D)

In December PPP found Nelson leading Connie Mack by 8, Mike Haridopolos by 12, Adam Hasner by 16 and George

LeMieux by 11.


In February Mason-Dixon found Nelson up by 5 on Mack, by 21 on Haridopolos, by 22 on Hasner and 14 on LeMieux.


The latest PPP numbers find Nelson leading Mack by 13, Haridopolos by 16, Hasner by 16 and LeMieux by 15.


Michigan – Incumbent Debbie Stabenow (D)

In December PPP found Stabenow up by 1 point on Pete Hoekstra.


In February EPIC-MRA found Stabenow up by 2 points on Hoekstra.


The latest PPP numbers have Stabenow up 12 points on Hoekstra.


Montana – Incumbent Jon Tester (D)

In November PPP found Tester trailing Denny Rehberg by 2 points.


In January Opinion Diagnostics found Rehberg leading by 6 points.


In March Mason-Dixon found Tester leading Rehberg by 1 point.


Nebraska – Incumbent Ben Nelson (D)

In December Magallan found Nelson trailing Jon Bruning by 14 points and Don Stenberg by 6 points.


In January PPP found Nelson trailing Bruning by 11 points and Stenberg by 4 points.


New Jersey – Incumbent Bob Menendez (D)

In January Fairleigh Dickinson University found Menendez leading Tom Kean, Jr. by 10 points and Kim Guadagno by 21 points.


In January PPP found Menendez leading Kean by 2 points and Guadagno by 15 points.


Pennsylvania – Incumbent Bob Casey, Jr. (D)

In January PPP found Casey leading Rick Santorum by 7 points, Jim Gerlach by 16 points and Charlie Dent by 20 points.


In February Municipoll found Casey leading Santorum by 12 points, Gerlach by 14 points and Dent by 19 points.


Massachusetts – Incumbent Scott Brown (R)

In December PPP found Brown leading Mike Capuano by 16 points.


In March Western New England College found Brown leading Capuano by 13 points.


35 thoughts on “PPP versus the rest”

  1. my post from the other thread but here goes.

    What is the purpose of a March 2012 senate poll for Florida?  Frankly its mostly for amuesment because its not clear who the GOP nominee will be and the political climate for Nov 2012 is a little hard to determine right now.  So I don’t get too excited about it.

    My second point is what exactly is the proper way to poll for a Nov 2012 election in march 2012?  There are no set rules.  PPP is showing a pool of registered but active voters that are more democratic, less independent and more liberal in Nov 2008.  If you do believe that will occur you can buy the PPP results.  If you think that will occur or its pointless to guess about Nov 2012 turnout you can ignore the PPP polls.

    Where I do have a problem with PPP is this.  In all these redo election polls, when ask if you were to vote today who would you vote, they are still using a projected Nov 2012 turnout model.  The same pool of voters for the Nelson poll was asked about Scott-Sink. I contend the buyers remorse polls for WI-OH-FL should not be using a 2012 turnout model but rather a 2010 or a march 2011 turnout model.  

    That being said kudos to PPP for showing  their work.  I might add that other polls show that your mix of voters can have a huge impact on results.  

  2. It’s obvious that when you offer more ideological choices, you’re going to get more people self-identifying in varying degrees of “liberal” and “conservative” than with just 3 total choices.  The RRH guys should be smart enough to recognize that, and also to recognize if liberals are oversampled, so are conservatives

    There’s nothing wrong with PPP except maybe their continued low favorability/job approval ratings, but those are across-the-board.  But at least they’re not as bad as last cycle.

    I gotta say, as you and others have noted I really like PPP dominating polling early this cycle, a stark contrast to Rasmussen last cycle.  Rasmussen lost almost all its remaining credibility with its 2010 flop…which is amazing since it’s awfully tough to have an inaccurate GOP skew in a GOP wave year.

  3.  No one here is shocked but that comment.  Please clarify for me what PPP has does?

    1st do they weight each poll in each state?  Do they set targets for women, men, young people, old people, democrats, indies or republicans?

    2nd or do they randomly call 800 people and just count the 1st 500 who response?

    If they weight their polling pool its fair game to question their results because of how they decide to set their numbers. This is a judgement call on their part and its far to look at the basis of their decisions.  

    If they do not have set goals for age, sex, party or ideology then its fair to judge what they came up with based on looking at exit data and other polls.

    That has been the gist of my comments on PPP this week. I think David thought I was a smart*** for talking about the 7% percent solution for disappearing indies.  I regret that as I prefer to keep discussions on a higher plane.  My basic points are listed above and they are what they.  

  4. Some of the examples are not clear, and the Magellan poll for New Hampshire is in the same line than the resutls of PPP for close (in PVI) states.

Comments are closed.