iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP Bias In Landline-Only Polls, Confirms Pew Research

First Posted: 11/22/10 10:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Telephone

For pollsters, 2010 was the year in which methodology mattered. Pollsters that invested in more expensive dual samples to reach Americans on both landline and mobile phones should have produced more accurate forecasts of Congressional voting, while those that relied only on traditional landline samples found greater support for Republican candidates. That's the finding of a new report from the Pew Research Center that compared traditional landline samples to surveys conducted over both cell and landline phones.

Pollsters have fretted for nearly a decade about the growing number of Americans in so-called "cell-phone-only" households that are out of reach of traditional landline telephone poll samples. In previous elections, simple weighting techniques largely corrected for the small statistical bias resulting produced by the missing voters, but the missing slice is now estimated at more than quarter of U.S. households, big enough to affect polling accuracy.

The new Pew Research analysis confirms findings from an early October report, released in early October, which found the Republican statistical skew evident in landline-only samples growing since 2008. Subsequent surveys conducted by the Pew Center in October yielded the same pattern:

Across three Pew Research polls conducted in fall 2010 -conducted among 5,216 likely voters, including 1,712 interviewed on cell phones -- the GOP held a lead that was on average 5.1 percentage points larger in the landline sample than in the combined landline and cell phone sample. In six polls conducted in the fall of 2008, Barack Obama's lead over John McCain was on average 2.4 percentage points smaller in the landline samples than in the combined samples.

In Pew Research's final pre-election poll in 2010, the landline sample of likely voters found Republican candidates ahead 51%-39%, a 12-point lead. In the sample that combined landline and cell phone interviews, the Republican lead was 48%-42%, a six- point advantage. The national vote for House candidates is not yet final; currently, Republicans lead by approximately a seven-point margin.

2010-11-22-Blumenthal-20101122PewTable.png

Most remarkable about the new Pew Research findings is how closely they parallel the differences among the other public polls conducted at the national level this fall. As shown in the table below, the seven organizations that interviewed Americans over landline and cell phones gave the Republicans a roughly six-percentage point advantage on the national House votes in their final-week surveys. The four pollsters that interviewed via landline only gave Republicans a lead averaging more than 10 percentage points.

The most recent tallies of U.S. House vote preference from the Associated Press give Republican candidates a nearly seven percentage point lead nationwide (52.0% to 45.3% with 2.7% of the vote cast for other candidates), although those totals may still exclude some not yet counted early and provisional ballots. They also exclude a dozen congressional districts where no votes were cast because incumbents were unopposed.

2010-11-22-Blumenthal-20101022genericfinal.png

The Pew Research report also finds that the pro-Republican skew is not just a matter of those missing because they live in "cell phone only" households. There is also the issue of how pollsters reach the nearly two-thirds of Americans who use both landline and cell phones. The Pew Research surveys allowed for a comparison of these "dual users" reached either by cell or by landline phone:

Dual users reached on their cell phone differ demographically and attitudinally from those reached on their landline phone. They are younger, more likely to be black or Hispanic, less likely to be college graduates, less conservative and more Democratic in their vote preference than dual users reached by landline.

Among dual users reached by landline, Republicans had a 12-point advantage among likely voters. But the GOP lead was only five points among dual users reached by cell phone. Among cell phone only voters, there was no Republican lead (a nominal 47%-44% Democratic edge).

Thus, future accuracy in polling may not be a matter of merely calling "cell phone only" voters via cell phone. Pollsters may need to conduct parallel surveys of "dual users" via cell and landline phone. The Pew Research report found merely "adding just the cell-only respondents to the landline samples reduced the GOP advantage," from more than 12 to roughly 10 points, "but not as much as including all of the interviews from the cell phone sample," which reduced the Republican lead to the more accurate 7.6 percent margin.

2010-11-22-Blumenthal-20101022PewDualUsers.png


Read the whole report: Pew Research Center

Follow Mark Blumenthal and HuffPost Pollster on Twitter

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
For pollsters, 2010 was the year in which methodology mattered. Pollsters that invested in more expensive dual samples to reach Americans on both landline and mobile phones should have produced more ...
For pollsters, 2010 was the year in which methodology mattered. Pollsters that invested in more expensive dual samples to reach Americans on both landline and mobile phones should have produced more ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 543
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phranquenstew
12:33 PM on 11/23/2010
Given that many voters actually cast ballots by what they perceive as the "trend"... or don't bother voting at all, because of being discouraged... polls do the public a grave disservice.
No one has ever been successful at explaining to me what their real value is, aside from providing employment for a handful of people and adding to the cost of campaigns.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
04:18 PM on 11/23/2010
I will offer a couple of examples of real value.
 
1. Polls can gauge trends in attitudes over time. Certain polling organizations often attempt to ask the question using the exact same wording over a period of many years. The result is that we can see trends in how attitudes are changing over time. This information can be used in many ways. It can give government officials guidance when setting policy. It can reveal the need to address certain issues. It can be used for academic study of sociology.
 
2. Polls can be used to determine prevailing opinion on topics for which people do not vote. This information can be used in a variety of legimate ways. Interest groups can use such data to determine if their messages are being understood and/or well received. Governmental entities can determine areas where increased services are needed. The information can be used to determine situations where education is necessary.
 
-----
 
The above are a couple of examples where the information provided by scientific polling is both useful, and difficult to determine by other methods.
11:08 AM on 11/23/2010
This is called poli-tricking,used well on the not so bright crowd.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:44 AM on 11/23/2010
Do they poll in Spanish? The Hispanic vote is supposed to be 25% by 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
10:49 AM on 11/23/2010
That is a good question. Nate Silver wrote a blog that discusses the possiblity of polling inaccuracies due to underpolling of Latino voters.
 
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/did-polls-underestimate-democrats-latino-vote/
 
It seems that right now some polling companies do offer Spanish and some do not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kye154
12:34 AM on 11/23/2010
Polls are only as good as the sampling technique and the size of the population sampled. Inferences made with only small sampling numbers, and not paying attention to distributive functions are the biggest problem with polls, particularly when they involve politics and economics. Consequently. they can be very misleading to people who do not fully understand statistics. It is also very rare to see statiticians do curve-fitting analysis to validate what they crank out too. Consequently, statiticians are very likely to give results that are either off the mark or not representative of the population. Last of all, people who rely on these statistics rarely ever challenge them, and accept the statiticans figures at face value, which invariably carries a larger risk at being wrong than assumed, and isn't any better than guessing. Seen this happen too many times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sister Bluebird
10:34 PM on 11/22/2010
I find most questions to be terribly leading. That doesnt impress me.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
08:50 PM on 11/22/2010
Alas, if this were the GOP's only bias . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MAH1952
08:45 PM on 11/22/2010
I don't get polls. I am supposed to vote in a particular way because it is the most popular. By that reasoning we should be speaking German since Hitler was more popular than FDR. Whatever happened to thinking for oneself?
photo
rebelriser
artist, published author, activist
06:11 PM on 11/22/2010
I've always hated polls, I won't answer them, and I think people who do go along with the polls should find better things to do with their time. Stop cooperating with polls, and they'll have to stop polling.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joshy X
observer in Weimar Amerika
05:34 PM on 11/22/2010
OH yes the GOP bias shown in the 2010 midterm polls... HOW wrong those proved ! hahaa
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
xlntcat
06:48 PM on 11/22/2010
The GOP bias shown in the polling data became crystal clear in the 2010 midterms where polls were off in favor of the GOP significantly.  Did the GOP actually win in W. VA and NV as indicated by the polls?  Polling data in NV was off by 7 points.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joshy X
observer in Weimar Amerika
11:29 PM on 11/22/2010
nice try.. even the head of Reagan's Republican National Committee went with Reid in the end.. buy Harry's son was running for governor and got creamed...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kara Kramer
05:24 PM on 11/22/2010
Everybody in the media knew this before the election. In fact, they counted on it to influence voters. I wonder how long it'll be before objective studies finally do away with the myth of the liberal media?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:58 PM on 11/22/2010
But the bias is within the margin of error!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
xlntcat
06:50 PM on 11/22/2010
Not in NV or in W Va where the polling was off 7 and 11 point respectively.  That isn't within the margin of error.
heckmepitus
Truth, justice and the American way
04:22 PM on 11/22/2010
Horse hockey, Rasmussen, a land line poll predicted Republicans 28 governorships-they got 29 and 45 senate seats-they got 47. So at least Rasmussen was a little bit biased against the actual Republican gains. So dream on about some sort of bias.

With a day to go before midterm elections, the Republican advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot jumped to the record high of 12% for the third time.
Republicans continue to be trusted more than Democrats on most key issues.
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power summary predicts Democrats picking up 48 Senate seats while the GOP pick up 45. Seven states are still considered Toss-Ups.
The Rasmussen Reports Gubernatorial Scorecard predicts 28 governorships going to the GOP, 12 going to the Democrats and one governorship going to an independent candidate. Nine state governor seats are still considered Toss-Ups.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
05:03 PM on 11/22/2010
Nobocy said Rasmussen wasn't good at picking and choosing their results in order to advertise how they are "accurate".
 
Rasmussen, as you mention, predicted a 12 point difference overall among voters casting their votes in house elections. This was close to the predicted margin for many polls including Pew (the organization that did the study mentioned above). However, the actual margin was 7%. Pew found that including cell users produced much better results.
 
What Rasmussen is doing in the claims of your first paragraph is claiming that election outcomes are more important than how close their numbers really were. In other words, if their poll indicated a 15% winning margin and the difference was 5% then they take credit for "accuracy".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
05:07 PM on 11/22/2010
nobody
heckmepitus
Truth, justice and the American way
06:00 PM on 11/22/2010
Rasmussen accurately predicted the only thing that matters, election results. There is nothing else of any consequence.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
06:30 PM on 11/22/2010
Beyond what I said above, just adding up and saying "we predicted this many" is not vaIid. That is true for a few reasons. First, it counts Rasmussen as being "correct" on landslides even if they are off by several percentage points. Second, adding together all results allows them to be wrong in one direction on one race and wrong in the other direction on another race, and they get counted for being "right" twice.
 
So, to test your claims I decided to look at Rasmussen's performance on races individually against the actual election percentages. This takes awhile so I just looked at your first part, governorships.  I took Rasmussen's final pre-election poll numbers for each race and compared the actual election results in each governor's race.  The results were as follows.
 
- There were 32 total races where Dems and Reps were the primary candidates.
- Rasmussen's results were biased in favor of the Republican in 22 of those races (they predicted more for the Republican than he/she received)
- Rasmussen's results were only biased in favor of the Democrat for 10 races (where they predicted more for the Democrat than he/she received).
 
- There was a bias of greater than 3% toward the Republican in 9 of the races.
- There was a bias of greater than 3% toward the Democrat in only 4 of the races.
 
- There was a bias of greater than 5% toward the Republican in 3 of the races.
- There were NO races where a bias was greater than 5% for a Democrat
- 5% is a value that is outside of a standard margin of error for typical Rasmussen polls.
 
From these numbers it is clear that in this election Rasmussen was, on average, strongly predicting Republican candidates as being higher than they were.
heckmepitus
Truth, justice and the American way
06:38 PM on 11/22/2010
You're just wrong. Rasmussen predicted Republicans would gain 4 senate seats, they gained 6. Rasmussen predicted the Republicans would end up with 28 governorships, they got 29.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
04:12 PM on 11/22/2010
Young people, for the most part, don't use landlines, period. So, technically, it's not that the polls are biased towards the GOP, it's just the fact that the pool that the bulk of these polls are coming from is an audience that, inherently, will be friendlier to the GOP. Older, whiter, more suburban, more homeowners, etc. Down the entire slate of demographics, the pool available for the bulk of the polling tilts toward the GOP.

As a rule of thumb, for example, whatever results any Rasmussen poll comes up with, if you add 4 points to the Democratic candidate, you'd end up with a decent look at what the actual polling ought to be.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Bike Commuter
No More Hurting People
05:11 PM on 11/22/2010
If the sample is coming from an audience that is "friendlier to the GOP" than the population as a whole, then the poll is biased toward the GOP. That is the definition of bias in a poll. Bias doesn't have to be intentional bias.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
02:40 AM on 11/23/2010
Calling a poll biased INHERENTLY connotates that you believe that something in the actual poll, by design, is creating that bias, and that's not all that accurate.

If young people, by their own choices, decide to not get landlines, self segregating themselves from the potential pool, there really isn't all that much that a polling company could do to correct that. It's not rocket science, as far as I'm concerned.

If, in a country of 300 million people, 200 million of whom are eligible to vote, and only 100 million people actually decide to cast a vote, it makes absolutely no sense to try and assume what the folks, who didn't participate, would've done. If you don't put yourself in the pool, frankly, you don't matter. Tough, but that's reality.

Now, if most intelligent people understand what 'population' the samples are coming from for these pools, folks should be able to self correct. Rasmussen, by default, under-counts Democratic support by 4 points, on every poll that they do. The clearest and most egregious violator, in my opinion, but the rest of the polls probably have the same or similar bias, with PCCC likely undercounting Republican support in their polling. Oh well.
04:02 PM on 11/22/2010
Paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty to Alice: "When I quote a Pew Poll, it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less - especially when it favors the Republicans and negates the Obama Administration." [an apropos add-on]

Polls in general? Ha! In my 85th orbit on this speck of planetary debris left over from a cosmic explosion, and one who always votes [usually for the least jerk of the jerk-wannabees], I've never been polled by anyone:NEVER! But polls must be important. Politicians don't go to the latrine without checking the polls first. It's a crappy [pardon the pun] procedure to convey information but it does: usually skewed-to-fit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phranquenstew
12:43 PM on 11/23/2010
BRAVO, Bill!
I'll be seeing you on the dark side of the moon!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kiel
Liberation Philosopher
03:45 PM on 11/22/2010
This is obvious, but I am glad it's being reported on.