Not a push poll
I got an e-mail on Monday, asking:
Does Labour use push-polling?
I had thought that push-polling wasn’t used by any of the political parties in NZ at the moment. But my partner just had a lengthy opinion poll telephone call with [named deleted by DPF] that involved a lot of what she thought were dodgy questions. Many of the questions involved the interviewer reading out statements by Key and asking if she felt less inclined to vote for National after hearing these. And by contrast there were lots of positive questions involving statements about the Labour Party.
This in fact though is not a push poll. Merely reciting negative statements on a politician is not a push poll – it can be legitimate testing of attack lines, messages etc.
So what is the difference between a push poll and research of attack lines? The American Association For Public Opinion Research has an FAQ on the issue:
Political telemarketing calls, when disguised as research, may sometimes be difficult to differentiate from a legitimate survey. Here are characteristics that will usually indicate that the call is not a legitimate survey.
- One or only a few questions are asked, all about a single candidate or a single issue.
- The questions are uniformly strongly negative (or sometimes uniformly positive) descriptions of the candidate or issue.
- The organization conducting the calls is not named, or a phony name is used.
- Evasive answers are given in response to requests for more information about the survey.
- The number of people called is very large, sometimes many thousands.
- The calls are not based on a random sample.
- It is difficult to find out which organization conducted the interviews.
And they explain the difference between message testing and a push poll:
The fact that a poll contains negative information about one or more candidates does NOT in and of itself make it a ‘push poll.’ Political campaigns routinely sponsor legitimate “message-testing” surveys that are used by campaign consultants to test out the effectiveness of various possible campaign messages or campaign ad content, often including negative messages. Political message-testing surveys may sometimes be confused with fake polling, but they are very different.
So that poll, presumably on behalf of Labour, was entirely legitimate as a form of message testing. They were trying to find out which attack lines on Key will have the most effect on reducing National’s support, and conversely which lines about Labour will be most effective at increasing support for them.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
They should ask
“Would Labour having a new Leader, Phil Goff, increase your chances of voting Labour at the next election?”
February 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Would Labour having a new Leader, Phil Goff, increase your chances of voting Labour at the next election?”
Because voters LOVE parties that collapse into an open civil war in the leadup to an election.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Push poll it may be but Labour are pulling themselves if they think anyone believes them any more. They have a desperate glint in their eye that smells of a loser. The latest on tax cuts will be greeted with derision especially if Cullen is the messenger.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
and then Danyl uttered: “Because voters LOVE parties that collapse into an open civil war in the leadup to an election.”
If it were a quick switcheroo of leader and handled expertly it *could* cause Labour to rebound in the polls. Think of the publicity Goff would get, – the comparisons to Key would also get interesting. Who would the media favour then?
February 7th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Danyl – there is no need for the change to involve open warfare. A carefully-managed transition would be a vote winner, as it would show Labour was skilled at succession planning.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Mavxp beat me to it. Labour is doomed with Clark but a fresh new leader, with Clark’s endorsement, as she moves on to new offshore challenges … Labour would be in a very strong position to fight back against Key.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Goff wouldn’t want it anyway before the election. He knows the left will give him one election only. If he became leader this year he won’t be in 2011. If he takes over after 2008 and wins 2011, then he is much harder to roll.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
DPF
Lets hope that Goff does get the leadership then, the prospect of the Labour party imploding as the loony left attack Goff is something that is guaranteed to keep them from the treasury benches for decades.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Theres a hospital pass if ever I saw one.
Clak couldn’t give this one away with a free meatpack.
Goff may be a terrorist hand holding nong but hes not a moron.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Lets hope that Goff does get the leadership then, the prospect of the Labour party imploding as the loony left attack Goff is something that is guaranteed to keep them from the treasury benches for decades.
And maybe John Key will give everyone a new pony every Christmas!
Labour are still deluding themselves that they can recover from their current position and win the election. They’re not going to roll Clark, whom they rightly see as a major asset for the party.
Personally, if anyone’s going to get sacked I think it should be Clarks comms team. If the Prime Minister starts raising the dead her spin Doctors will still sit around blinking witlessly while National thunder and rant about Labour putting honest kiwi grave-diggers out of work.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I’ve seen worse nose dives Danyl… course they smashed into the ground and burned like a son of a bitch. But I’ve seen worse.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
David – you assume Goff thinks he couldn’t beat Key this election. Even the TV3 poll shows a very close race between National and its allies and Labour and its allies. National only gets in by a seat or two. If Goff figures that he can win a few points back from Key then he can win the 2008 election and be his party’s saviour. That would keep the Left at bay until such time as he wanted to step down or was beaten by National in an election. It has been quite clear over recent days that Shane Jones is also trying to position himself for the leadership, and his mana is growing within Labour, including the Labour Left. It makes more sense for Goff to work with Clark to make the change happen professionally now before the election than to wait for Jones to become more powerful. The hand over can be achieved professionally as long as Clark figures she is best to retire not out, rather than being bowled middle stump by the voters.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I cannot see Helen Clark willingly relinquishing the reigns. She has shown us that she is willing to lie, steal and do whatever else we don’t even know about to remain in power. Why would she, after those actions, hand it over to Goff? Doesn’t seem likely at all.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Labour are still deluding themselves that they can recover from their current position and win the election”
Labour and the Greens being virtually neck and neck with National with months to go and a budget to unveil?
The opposition, John, “accident waiting to happen” Key?
Thats right Danyl, no way back.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Sonic,
I would be interested in your viewpoint. After all Labour has done for the people, and with the sound economic position, how do you account for Labour’s unbelievable unpopularity?
February 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sonic,
It appears that not only can you not read, but you also cannot count. The last TV3 poll had National at 49%, Labour at 35%, and the Greens at 7%. That is 49% versus 42%.
Hardly neck and neck.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Whats the margin of error on that poll IP, just out of interest.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
How did people know who was ‘ahead’ or ‘behind’ before polls were invented?
February 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I don’t know, sonic. Three or four percent, perhaps. About the same as the margin of accuracy in anything you say.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
And sonic displays his matchlessly lamentable ignorance of the manner in which margins of error work.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
So if the margin of error is 4% the figures could be National 45% versus Greens+Labour 46% couldnt it?
Adolf, I leave being lamentably ignorant to you, looking at your blog you have so much more practice than me.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Surely if the margin of error can shorten the gap it can also widen it?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
True Pita, It could be National 53% and Labour/Green 38%.
All I’m pointing out is that is the difference in numbers is within the margin of error.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Yes Sonic, it’s possible. It’s also unlikely. Especially given the number of polls showing a similar result. In conjunction they from a current picture that one would be hard pressed to paint as “neck and neck”
Also, I don’t think you’ve put enough rose into that tint either. As I understand it, if the margin of error is 4% then 95% of the time the Greens and Labour will have a figure between 34% and 50% (add +- 4% to each Labour and Green), with 42% being the best current estimate.
95% of the time that National will be between 45% and 53%, with 49% being the best current estimate.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I though it worked.
Technically, it’s possible that Labour/Greens are on 90% and National are on 5%. You should run with that.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sonic said:
Great political strategy you have there. Hope that your opponent makes the ‘big mistake’. Sure it worked last time when the Nats had Mr Magoo for a leader but it won’t work again this time. Campaigning in OZ last year and in the USA in 2008 has shown that negative tactics backfire badly. The voters want new ideas not the Laurel and Hardy act Labour are currently giving us.
The big story in 2008 so far is that Clark’s much vaunted political skills are in serious decline as happened to Muldoon in 1984. It’s not over till election day but Labour are in the shit up to their eyeballs. A negative strategy won’t cut the mustard anymore.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
J Mex: I think the margins also change depending on support level – i.e. the margin of error for someone on 3% is lower than for someone on 50%. Take that into account too.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
JMex
Its been a long time since I studied stats but I don’t think that the Labour and Greens figures can be independantly adjusted by the margin of error then added to create the 95% cofidence interval you describe.
Intuition says that if one is higher then it is likely that the other will be lower (because they all must add to 100) so it would be more likely that the correct method would be to add the two then apply the margin adjustment.
Someone should know, is falafulu fisi around today?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“Hope that your opponent makes the ‘big mistake’.
Past performance is usually the best indicator of future performance.
Given Key’s bumbling last year I think it’s pretty sure we’ll get more of the same in 2008.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
So that poll, presumably on behalf of Labour, was entirely legitimate as a form of message testing. They were trying to find out which attack lines on Key will have the most effect on reducing National’s support, and conversely which lines about Labour will be most effective at increasing support for them.
Is someone trying to start a Spanish Inquistion?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
[i]Past performance is usually the best indicator of future performance.[/i]
Excellent! This means we can look forward to more cockups from Mallard, Cullen, Clark, Carter, Parker and the rest of that sorry crew.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
TDS
No they will simply retrospectively validate their cock-up’s and tell us to move on. Good little poodles like sonic and the anonymous advertisers from the standard will do as they are told.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I hope the worm has SOOOOOOO turned as far as the voting public is concerned, that evry thing Liarbour does like the above now just makes everybody more cynical than ever.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Margin of error, explained:
http://www.resolutions.co.nz/sample_sizes.htm
February 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Does anyone still think that using the term “Liarbour” is clever?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Because I’m thinking I might start introducing “Craptional”
February 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
david c
I agree, Liarbour is so 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007.
For 2008 we should just call them “Toast”.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I thought it was Liarbore.
Always a handy phrase, means you don’t need to read the rest of the comment!
February 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Of course, with this margin of error business, the Greens may not even make it over the threshhold, making the Labour/Green bloc even smaller.
Much smarter to take an average of recent polls, and look at the trends. The trends suggest Labour is rooted.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“The opposition, John, “accident waiting to happen” Key?”
And labour are an accident a week.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“Its been a long time since I studied stats but I don’t think that the Labour and Greens figures can be independantly adjusted by the margin of error then added to create the 95% cofidence interval you describe.”
I don’t know either – and it’s been a while since I studied stats too. I’m sure DPF will know the answer. It’s his (other)job after all.
The point I guess I was making is that once you start arguing the margin of error then you know you are in the toilet. Especially when poll after poll has showed pretty much the same thing/trend.
As I said, it’s tecnically (and therefore statistically) possible that when the pollsters called 100 people, they happened to call the only 47 national supporters in the country and a few NZF, ACT and Green supporters. Everyone else in the country, except those 58 or sopeople, at that moment could have been Labour voters. It’s possible.
I guess an extra definition of “neck and neck” needs to be entered into the dictionary as a colloquialism exclusive to Sonic.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan says:
Interesting point Danyl, and one I’ve wondered about for a long time. Say whatever else you will about Winston, but one thing I have to hand to him is that he genuinely takes advice from his advisors (his failure is in his inability to always choose the right people to advise him).
If I felt he was about to do something damn stupid I could say so and he’d genuinely listen, debate it with me, sometimes seek the counsel of others, and often moderate or change his opinion.
I know Helen Clark but I’ve never worked for her. She does, however, strike me as a singularly strong-willed person. So for some considerable time now I’ve been wondering whether her comms team are gnashing their teeth and wailing “Nooooooo!” but being ignored, meekly saying “Yes, Prime Minister, making some outrageously dishonest statement is just what we need at this point…” because they’re too scared to disagree, or just plain stupid?
Or does she suffer, perhaps, from the same malady as Winston? Has she chosen unwisely in H2 and shut out other counsel?
I guess we’ll have to wait for the (auto)biographies…
February 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Well I proposed the theory yesterday taht her ‘team’ are as anxious for helen to lose and then move on as the rest of the Party is, then they may be able to rebuiod for the next election. as it stands, they are lumbered with an increasingly dotty ‘old guard’ of Clark, and Cullen.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Translation to this post: Curia frequently engages in message polling on behalf on national.
Still, points for not breathing hypocritical outrage.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:56 am
DPF – are you able to release the name of the polling company? Assuming that your informant’s statement is correct, surely there wouldn’t be a legal imperative preventing you from advising who they are.
I would be very keen to ensure that the polling company I deal with isn’t the one involved in this case.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Why hide the name of the polling company?
Is it CM Research?
February 8th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
What a coincidence: I’ve just received a call from UMR, asking my opinion on a range of issues facing NZ.
There were some interesting exchanges:
Q. “Do you think that John Key’s decision to adopt Labour’s policy of interest-free loans was a clever move, or a sign that he can’t make up his mind?”
A. “A clever move – just like that arsehole Michael Cullen’s decision to lower taxes.”
Q. “Do you prefer John Key’s policy of boot camps and cutting benefits for 16 and 17 year-olds, or Helen Clark’s policy of keeping them at school and improving their education.”
A. “Actually, you’ve just misrepresented both positions. Key never mentioned boot camps. He talked about taking a firm line with arseholes, and making people accountable and self-suffcient. Clark, on the other hand, promised more of the same for those same arseholes. So, when it comes to dealing with arseholes, I prefer Key’s position to Clark’s.”