Posted by Zac McCrary of the Democratic polling firm Anzalone Liszt offered these comments on the polling numbers released today in the GOP gubernatorial primary race. While he’s a political professional, he has no dog in this hunt. I appreciate his willingness when asked to share some observations with Parlor readers.
I’m always going to be skeptical of 1000 interviews conducted in one night using push-button polling. While that has its advantages (speed and cost), there are arguments for different methodology that are suited for another discussion another time. I have no ax to grind here and I’m glad someone’s putting some public numbers out there.
That said, these numbers look similar to what the James camp showed last week. You assume the James campaign polled at what they thought would be their peak position, and since Byrne has clawed back a bit.
This is certainly good news for Byrne. He’s lost some support from where we saw him in other public polls a few weeks ago, but he’s still in contention for the runoff, despite absorbing a lot of negative ads. The fact that he’s taken a punch and still standing is noteworthy, and certainly James will have to take a punch in the coming weeks too and we can see if he can absorb it as well.
And this confirms James has moved into the top tier. A combination of the money behind his tv ads and the free media furor over the immigration ad has catapulted him into real contention.
I’m sure there will be plenty of twists and turns, but if inertia holds it seems we’d have a Byrne / James runoff. The recent back and forth between Byrne and James on TV could make it tough for both to sustain both positive and negative ad tracks, and the other candidates have to hope for continued James/Byrne bloodshed.
This poll continues to show Moore stuck around 20%. Since he’s a known quantity, he’ll need a major cash infusion (which apparently is possible) to make a runoff. It will take at least in the high 20s or low 30s to make a runoff and it’s pretty clear Moore’s base is around 20%.
Bentley’s numbers throughout the race really show the power of paid media. He started out as a non-entity, but spent some serious money on TV and moved up in or near the top tier for a period. Then he was off TV for a few weeks and dropped considerably. He’s back on TV now but I am not sure how much oxygen there is for him. When he was on TV before, he appeared to be outspending the field but that’s unlikely moving forward. He’ll need a break or two to become a real factor again. If James and Byrne continue to pound each other and the Moore money doesn’t materialize, perhaps he could come up the middle and benefit but the timing would have to work out just right.
I’m looking forward to the sprint to the finish line in the last couple of weeks.
Related Articles:
Zac’s analysis sounds reasonable.
Zac is as smart as they come.
makes sense to me. i do agree that tim james is likely to start taking a pounding and we will see how well he withstands it…or not. Byrne took his hits well and survived so we will see how tim does. all in all – seems like a fair and good analysis.
Zac – thanks for your analysis. Don’t disagree with any of the content.
Sounds right to me.
Hammer, meet nailhead.
The big question is which candidate(s) will benefit and which will suffer from the reported $1.1 million buy from the “New Sons of Liberty” group? Geroge Talbot reports it here: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/talbot_column_mystery_1_millio.html
I don’t think it would surprise anyone if that large amount of money was fronted by AEA to get in more digs at Byrne.
But what are the other possibilities? It’s doubtful it will be geared toward Congressional races considering the amount the purchased in the Mobile market.
Assuming for a second it’s a Byrne hit… That means more might be spent on ads trying to defeat Bradley Byrne than is spent trying to elect any other one candidate. That says a lot. I thought Hubbert was scared of Artur Davis being on the ballot, but that’s nothing compared to Bryne apparently.
That much negative airtime might just do it for Byrne. I suppose there is always a chance it could backfire.
The poll indicates who will be helped by Bryne’s attacks on Tim.
The most popular second choice of Tim’s gang is Moore and then Byrne. There is little second for Bentley. Bentley as little room for growth.
The only person posed to benefit form the Byrne and Tim fight is Moore.
However, to be sure there seems more potential for Tim supports to move to Byrne than current Byrne to go Tim.
One thing about what Zac said. He was comparing different polls and saying this meant this candidate went up or down over the last couples of weeks.
You need to compare the same poll to the same poll. Byrne doing better than he did in the Tim poll does not mean he went up.
He is down from the previous poll of this polling firm. This pollster has been the best for Byrne of any pollster and the worst for Moore. This poll had Moore at 17% in Feb. his all time worse showing and now shows him at 18%.
We really need more polling in order to understand exactly what is happening. But one things does seem clear – the race is going be decided in the last two weeks.
Mr Jinks, I think the better question is whose money the New Sons of Liberty will be spending and how it relates to their mission of get a “original, first-source, vaulted birth certificate” on file for all Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates.
The weak spot in this poll is the “Republican List” which some firm in Virgina provided. Always beware of out of state lists that claim to identify Alabama Republican Primary voters.
James has reportedly backed out of a one-on-one face off with Byrnes on the Morris/Montiel Viewpoint talk radio program which James requested around 3 weeks ago and which was scheduled for the Friday May 14 program. The program is streamed live over the internet and can be listened to @ http://newstalk1079.com/ by clicking on “LISTEN LIVE” on the right side of the page. He has also reportedly just dropped out of a gubernatorial debate in Huntsville on May 17 according to http://www.flashpointblog.com/2010/05/12/whnt-huntsville-times-others-holding-gubernatorial-debate/. One has to wonder why.
Didn’t Zac McCrary work for ALADEM not too long ago?
There is an old rule in politics: don’t debate when you are ahead.
If they want a one-on-one debate on Morris and Montiel, Mark can have a debate with his LISTENER.
james is not ahead anon. wake up. he is also not strong when matched up in a debate against byrne….. so he runs. it’s sad. if you want to be governor mr. james….. man up.
Generally, a smart politician avoids debates when he’s ahead, and I don’t have much sympathy for talk show hosts who are mostly upset about losing the ratings/attention. (I’ll stipulate that James is “ahead” right now, in that he’s positioned to make the top 2 and then lead initial polling in the runoff).
But James is running on a “common sense” man of the people theme, and he previously made “anytime-anywhere” type statements. Backing out undermines the plain-spoken image he’s cultivated and makes him seem like “just another politician.” This strategy may put him into the runoff, but it could also cause long-term damage to his credibility, which is pretty much all he’s running on.
not a scientific poll…still means little in grand scheme
Brak has it about right. You didn’t see Bob Riley debating Roy Moore in 2006. James thinks he is ahead, so he doesn’t debate. It’s the smart short-term play, but Brak is also right in saying it could hurt long-term. Bottomm line is that a few weeks ago Bradley Byrne would not want a debate, now he wants one. That shows how the relative positions have changed.
JD – The “Virginia firm” that provided our data is run by the same man who was hired by RNC Chairman Haley Barbour in the 90′s to CREATE Voter Vault for the Republican Party.
We use his data for most all our clients, and he’s got the best data we’ve been able to find on Known Republican Primary voters since we don’t register by party in AL.
Brent,
Can you clarify page 8 of the poll where it seems to show 43% undecided as of date of this poll whereas on page 3 it shows 21% undecided?
Page 3 shows 100% when you add up all the candidates plus undecideds – which is what I expected, page 8 shows 122% when you add them all up.
http://www.mypublicstrategy.com/images/10538AL.chartsforbooks.pdf
Thanks
Anon,
I’ll take a stab at that. You’re adding the wrong numbers together. 43% are undecided period, so they obviously have no second choice either.
57% had a first choice, then when you add the second choice numbers together you get 57% again. When you add those together you get 114%, which is what I get when I add all the numbers together. I’m not sure where you come up with 122%…
If everyone had a first and second choice you would get 200%.
You can read my thoughts on the poll here: http://www.theworldaroundyou.com/2010/05/13/byrne-and-james-tied-in-latest-independent-poll/
TWAY_Kris, that’s what I thought at first, but if 43% of undecideds are undecided on their first choice, then it seems that would have been reflected on page 3.
The 122% I got by adding up all the May 2010 “first choice” numbers in red.
Voter Vault is a joke. Since there is no party registration in Alabama, there is no way to verify who is a republican. You must ask the question to screen the pool and using a push botton technique just doesn’t cut it.
I hear good things about Anzalone Polling and Zac personally from John Killian. Thanks for your comments on the Republican field.
Zac used to work for the Alabama Democratic Party, but Zac is an honest and honorable man. He is not prone toward anger and handles these discussions well–with a wise approach in gathering information for sound conclusions.
Danny, you did well to seek comments from Zac McCrary
Jack, Brent,
Still waiting on clarification of page 8 of the poll where it seems to show 43% undecided on their 1st choice as of May 201o in this poll whereas on page 3 it shows 21% undecided 1st choice as of May 2010.
http://www.mypublicstrategy.com/images/10538AL.chartsforbooks.pdf
Would you mind posting the raw data somewhere?
Thanks
Good analysis. I can’t wait for the next 2 1/2 weeks … it’s going to be entertaining. Especially with the mystery million dollar ad buy.
It was interesting to see the AG poll. Do people really believe Strange is that far ahead? Will the oil lobby story hurt Strange? It will be a great day if Troy King gets run out of office!
Good analysis by Zac. I suspect he is right on.
Also, on page 9 the there is a “n=some number” under each candidate in the 1st choice column. Is this the number of votes for each candidate? I’m asking because when you add the total number for all of the candidates in the 1st choice column it is 1,006 – that total number of ALL respondents for the poll.
Given that the number of undecideds on 1st choice is listed as either 21% or 43% depending on what page you are looking at, it seems to me that the total number of respondents on page 9 would be less than the total number of respondents.
Observations: This sample is the largest to date, which is more statistically significant than previous polls, except for James. Bradley’s samples were too small previously. Bradley is shivering now because these polls show James ahead significantly in the largest markets, Birmingham and Huntsville. James has gained significant ground with YOUNG voters and FEMALE voters, both of whom VOTE in primaries. This poll shows that the UNDECIDEDs have actually decided they do not want Byrne, and are moving toward other candidates, such as James or Bentley, and a number of them have moved away from Byrne. Byrne is not gaining ground, which is what a “front runner” candidate would have hoped to do. What the news reports don’t show, however interestingly, is that for first and second choices, James is WAY ahead of Byrne. Very good results overall with far less range in margin of error than previous polls. James is gaining ground, not suprisingly since he started TV ads far after Bradley.
Bradley Byrne has faced a 1 million dollar false and negative campaign by the AEA, with Tim James help. Yet he still polls number 1. Bradley is through the worst of the storm and the storm has not even started for Tim James.
KUDOS Anon above.
You’re dead on. That poll shows 1006 votes FOR THE CANDIDATES WITHOUT UNDECIDEDS. That just cannot be UNLESS . . . .
I don’t want to point fingers until this is addressed. But those numbers not adding uo COULD indicate that there was an “adjustment” after the fact. Not casting aspersions here, but that needs to be addressed because it is highly suspicious.
These anons are right, the raw numbers are inconsistent with the percentages. The claimed response totals for each candidate add up to 1006 supporters, which means there would have to be 1273 total respondents if you include undecideds in order to make the percentages right. But the pollsters claim several times that there were 1005 total respondents.
My guess is someone tried to “reverse engineer” the vote totals for the graph by multiplying (projected vote % with undecideds removed) x (total respondents) instead of looking at the original totals. Why do this? Maybe there was some weighting to the sample to account for oversampling (by geography, gender, whatever) such that the real raw numbers don’t add up to the percentages. Weighting can be a valid technique to get a more reliable result, but even if that’s what happened it’s a bit deceptive to try to conceal the methodology by reporting fake “raw numbers” on the charts. I’d love to hear an official explanation.
(The page 8 mistakes are more easily identified. 43% is plainly the percentage of May respondents that were “second choice undecided,” since the totals of the second choices add up to 57%. They mislabeled this as the first-choice percentage and left off the first-choice undecided figure (21%) altogether. They also left out the Feb. second-choice undecided number, which would be about 75%.)
I asked Brent Buchanan for the raw data for the poll this morning (minus any phone or personal information) to have another pollster duplicate and verify their results – he said they would not provide that data.
Bill Johnson – we aren’t providing the data to anyone, but you can call Mike Baselice (the pollster) yourself and talk with him.
OK Bill, I get the point, You’re not at 2% you’re at 5%.
Simon, no, I have just looked at enough poll data over 78 races to know when some things don’t add up. I noticed how Public Policy quit commenting or explaining things when these questions came up.
The last poll they released was just before qualifying – the timing of which pushed Kay out of the race, which I cynically suspect was what the point of it was.
The bottom line is this – who’s paying for this poll or are they just doing it out of the goodness of their heart?
If they would release the raw data, then their results could be verified. If they altered the results, it would be impossible on a 1000 sample survey to adjust all the permutations of the answers to make it add back up to their crosstabs which they have already released publically.
It’s kind of like the global warming, climate change controversy – if they are very confident of the results, why not release the raw data?
Tin Foil Hat Alert.
I think Johnson has a valid point – what about it Public Policy?