The GOP’s Cautious Approach to Online Polling

As more public surveys move to the internet, GOP pollsters are uneasy about emerging modes.

National Journal
Steven Shepard
See more stories about...
Steven Shepard
Sept. 13, 2013, 9:21 a.m.

One sub­ject that may have got­ten short shrift in my story on the Re­pub­lic­an polling re­boot in Na­tion­al Journ­al magazine (avail­able for Na­tion­al Journ­al mem­bers) is the fu­ture of non-tele­phone sur­vey modes, par­tic­u­larly in­ter­net polling, which is grow­ing in use and pop­ular­ity. Most of the poll­sters I spoke to em­phas­ized that they were still fo­cused on phone polling, but some are at least be­gin­ning to ex­per­i­ment with web and mo­bile sur­veys.

Re­pub­lic­an poll­ster Alex Lun­dry, who works at the Al­ex­an­dria, Va., firm Tar­get­Point Con­sult­ing, thinks the GOP polling re­in­ven­tion only scratches the sur­face by ig­nor­ing “emer­ging modes.” “We are op­tim­iz­ing a fail­ing but func­tion­ing sys­tem” in tele­phone polling, Lun­dry said. “We’ve also got to be put­ting re­sources in­to op­tim­iz­ing an emer­ging and in­nov­at­ive sys­tem.”

Lun­dry, who led Rom­ney’s data team in 2012, said the lack of em­phas­is on in­ter­net polling makes the pro­ject short­sighted. “We can’t neg­lect the on­line side as well,” par­tic­u­larly for ad test­ing, he said. Do­ing a sur­vey on­line al­lows a cam­paign to show its ad­vert­ising — wheth­er tele­vi­sion, ra­dio or mail­er — to voters and cap­ture their im­me­di­ate re­ac­tions. But too few cam­paigns are util­iz­ing this tech­no­logy.

“Even among those cam­paigns that are mov­ing ad test­ing on­line, the num­bers aren’t that large, and they’re not uni­form,” Lun­dry ad­ded. “You lose the op­por­tun­it­ies to com­pare from ad-to-ad.”

But the re­com­mend­a­tions proffered by the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee and Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee (Lun­dry par­ti­cip­ated in the RNC’s Growth and Op­por­tun­ity Pro­ject, he said) fo­cus ex­clus­ively on phone polling. “These dis­cus­sions and these things will con­tin­ue go­ing for­ward. The in­ter­net-slash-kinda di­git­al as­pects of the sur­veys is kinda an ex­cit­ing dir­ec­tion that some of these things are go­ing,” said NR­CC polit­ic­al dir­ect­or Rob Simms.

“I think for us, in some dis­tricts, that’s not go­ing to work, prac­tic­ally speak­ing. In some oth­er dis­tricts, it could be very use­ful,” Simms ad­ded.

Any ap­peal of web-based sur­veys in the near fu­ture to GOP cam­paign poll­sters might lie in it as a solu­tion to the cell phone prob­lem — the nearly 2-in-5 adult Amer­ic­ans who live in a house­hold without a land­line phone. Since cell phones are more ex­pens­ive to call (num­bers must be dialed by a hu­man be­ing, not a com­puter), polling these re­spond­ents over the in­ter­net­is a pos­sible solu­tion.

The fu­ture is “com­ing soon­er than people real­ize,” said GOP poll­ster John McLaugh­lin. “It’s go­ing to be more im­port­ant to have [a voter’s] email ad­dress or Face­book page than it’s go­ing to be to have their cell phone num­ber.”

Oth­er poll­sters are more skep­tic­al of do­ing mixed-mode re­search. Pub­lic Opin­ion Strategies, in Al­ex­an­dria, Va., is one of the largest firms on the GOP side, but it was their work for NBC News and the Wall Street Journ­al in pro­du­cing their reg­u­lar, bi­par­tis­an sur­vey that al­lowed them to study this more closely. They, along with the Demo­crat­ic firm Hart Re­search As­so­ci­ates, con­duc­ted 5,000 in­ter­views with cell-phone-only re­spond­ents in 2012 as part of their NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al polling. “And so we have a pretty good pro­file of cell-phone-only re­spond­ents, in terms of who they are demo­graph­ic­ally and their at­ti­tudes,” said POS’s Bill McIn­turff, at an last week here in Wash­ing­ton on the fu­ture of polling, sponsored by the me­dia firm Kantar.

McIn­turff and POS then con­duc­ted large pan­els on in­ter­net and mo­bile devices with cell-phone-only re­spond­ents to see how the people reached there com­pared with those ac­tu­ally reached by di­al­ing a cell phone.

“They’re in­ter­est­ing be­cause they’re much bet­ter edu­cated than phone re­spond­ents, a lot less Latino, and, on most at­ti­tudes, they were the same, ex­cept for gay mar­riage and abor­tion, where the in­ter­net and the mo­bile cell-phone-only re­spond­ents were much, much more lib­er­al than the phone folks,” he said.

That made him doubt the valid­ity of do­ing mixed-mode polls. “And so this no­tion that there’s go­ing to be a world where you can com­bine meth­od­o­lo­gies, where you’re go­ing to com­bine phone, in­ter­net or mo­bile, maybe that world will come,” McIn­turff said. “But as I look at this data in 2013, I don’t think that you can simply take phone land­line and some­how com­bine it with a dif­fer­ent meth­od­o­logy and cre­ate one uni­fied sur­vey.”

“We are do­ing tons on the in­ter­net, we are … start­ing to do sub­stan­tial stuff on mo­bile,” he ad­ded. “I see them as dif­fer­ent products with dif­fer­ent ob­ject­ives. I don’t see how, today, from the work we’ve done in 2013, they oughta be blun­ted in­to one sur­vey re­sponse.”

The biggest im­ped­i­ment to us­ing the in­ter­net for cam­paign polls, McIn­turff said, is that there aren’t enough po­ten­tial re­spond­ents in your sampling frame — that is, the group of people who’ve vo­lun­teered to par­ti­cip­ate in in­ter­net polls — to sur­vey at the con­gres­sion­al dis­trict-level. That means that the phone sur­vey is go­ing to re­main the dom­in­ant mode for his firm and their com­pet­it­ors, even if oth­er seg­ments of the polling in­dustry mi­grate to in­ter­net or mo­bile.

“There simply are not large enough cell sizes in the in­ter­net pan­els, mo­bile pan­els and oth­ers to do [con­gres­sion­al dis­trict] or [state le­gis­lat­ive] work,” said McIn­turff. “The polit­ic­al poll­sters will be the last, last, last people on the phones.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×