New York polls
Polls of New York Republicans (not an oxymoron) say that Donald Trump should be getting slightly over 50% of the vote in the April 19 primary there. That wouldn’t be surprising; after all, it’s his home state. But let’s take a closer look at those polls.
A recent one (4/3-4/5) was done by Monmouth. Since New York is a closed primary state, it sampled registered Republicans only. However, it has what I would consider a small sample for a poll: 302. What’s more, although it’s weighted for age and gender it’s random in terms of geography, and I very much doubt that New York’s Republicans are evenly distributed throughout the state. The margin of error is 5.6, which is somewhat high but certainly not astronomical, but for subgroups it’s higher (for example, for males it’s 8.1 and for “very conservative” voters it’s 11). That has to do with the fact that once you get into subgroups the already-small n becomes much smaller.
For example (and I find this interesting in terms of the makeup of the Republicans of New York state), of the 302 subjects, only 80 described themselves as “very conservative,” 98 as “somewhat conservative,” and a whopping 117 as liberal or moderate. Liberal Republicans? There’s a long tradition of that sort in New York, actually; think of the term “Rockefeller Republicans.”
Then we have the curious fact that 9% of the registered Republicans in that poll say they will vote for Hillary Clinton against Trump, and if Cruz were the nominee 10% would vote for Hillary Clinton. Again, who are these people? Kasich does best of all with them against Hillary; I guess those liberals and moderates among them figure he meets their needs as well or better than Hillary does.
In addition, the repondents’ votes are not set in stone. Although 2% have already voted, and 38% have decided for sure, 34% have only a strong preference, 12% a slight preference and a full 14% are undecided. That’s quite a bit of wiggle room; if you add those last two categories you get 26%.
Another recent poll is this one, taken by CBS News just a few days earlier (3/29-4/1), with somewhat similar results. In it, 20% of Republican respondents (the number of Republicans was 545, significantly more than in the other poll) seemed willing to change their minds.
Another interesting question is how often these respondents have voted for the GOP candidates in the past. 34% said “almost always” and 40% said “usually,” which leaves 19% split about evenly and the remaining 7% usually or always have voted for Democrats. And only 81% of respondents in the poll said they probably or definitely will vote in the primaries.
In that CBS poll, however, the subjects were registered voters and there seems to have been no attempt to make sure that the respondents who answered about the Republican primaries actually are registered Republicans who can vote in the primary (New York’s is closed)—or it there was such an effort, the poll results don’t mention it. They also don’t mention whether the sample was weighted and if so in what way. In general, although there are a lot more questions in that particular poll, the pollsters offer a lot less information about its methodology.
One of the most recent NY polls of all was by Emerson (4/6-4/7). Unfortunately, I can’t access the full results (they say it can be found here, but when I try to download the file I get something that looks like impenetrable gibberish) so it’s hard to tell as much about it. But it involves “321 likely [GOP] primary voters, with a margin of error of +/5.4%,” which again seems like a very small n. And I have no idea how they define “likely voters” (are they, for example, registered Republicans? Because if they’re not they can’t vote in the GOP primary in NY). They were weighted for gender, but not for anything else, which makes me wonder once again how the geographical distribution goes, which is important because the majority of NY’s delegates are awarded by winning districts. The rules on that last point are so complex that it’s hard to summarize them (the Emerson link doesn’t do a very good job, either), so if you’re really interested I suggest you go here, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Trump’s Emerson score is good (56 to Cruz’s 22 and Kasich’s 17). But interestingly enough, it represents a drop from his score from just three weeks earlier in a poll by the same group. In an Emerson poll taken March 14-16, Trump had received a hefty 61% of the vote, with Kasich only at 1 and Cruz 12. You can see what’s happening here, and the difference does not reflect the previous presence of Rubio, who had only polled at 4% in that mid-March poll before dropping out.
So the real question—aside from whether any of these polls are correct, which is always the question with polls—is whether the current trend of Trump falling and Cruz/Kasich rising will continue in the next week or so, and if so how far it will go. The margin of error in that recent Emerson poll is already 5+ percent, which means that Trump is within the margin of error for achieveing the 50% level he would need in New York to trigger certain winner-take-all provisions for the state delegates (not the district delegates). Again, it’s so complex I suggest you go to that website if you’re interested in the details.
I am nearly positive that Trump will win the NY GOP primary; all indicates suggest that very strongly. But by how much, and how many delegates will it mean he actually receives?
Plus, the delegates are chosen by the state GOP—even the Trump ones—which could create another problem for Trump, because they may not be particularly loyal to him. That, of course, would probably anger his supporters very much, and understandably so. But as many people have pointed out, if Trump the smart dealmaker didn’t know this and prepare for it, maybe he’s not such a smart dealmaker after all.
By the way, that most recent Emerson poll indicates that in a general election, all of the GOP candidates would be toast and the Democrat would win the state.
One other curiosity I noticed in the same poll:
Among New York’s 27 Congressional districts, each worth 3 delegates, [Trump] appears to dominate in five (the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Eleventh) and stands a good chance of passing the crucial 50% threshold in 11 other districts which would give him a winner-take-all victory [that is, in terms of the three delegates in each of the districts where he might get 50% of the vote]. In contrast, Cruz is competitive in only seven Congressional districts.
But recall that there were only 321 likely GOP voters in that entire poll. You’ll note that there are 27 districts in NY. That means that there was an average of about 12 poll respondents per district. How could any valid conclusions possibly be drawn on a such a basis?
A poll with almost double the number of respondents was the most recent one by Fox, taken March 4-7, and featuring 602 likely Republican primary voters. That’s almost double. Trump’s score was 54, Kasich’s 22, and Cruz’s 15, so this one was the lowest of them all for Cruz. 23% of respondents say they could change their minds, however.
Here’s the description of how the respondents were chosen:
…[They] were randomly selected from a statewide voter file of registered New York voters using a probability proportionate to size method. This simply means phone numbers are proportionally representative to the number of voters in all regions across the state of New York.
I don’t know quite what that means. We know that only registered Republicans are allowed to vote in the GOP primary in NY, so were only registered Republicans asked about the Republican primary? It’s not at all clear from the way that is worded. As for the geographic proportionality of the sample, districts in NY vary greatly in their composition—some districts are overwhelmingly Democratic and some are majority Republican, and New York’s delegates are selected on a district-by-district basis, so in some districts each single voter has far more selective power in a primary than in other districts with more Republicans. Was that reflected in the geographic distribution of poll respondents, or are the samples merely assumed to be proportionate because the list is of all registered voters in a region and they were randomly selected within each region? It’s very confusing, I must say, but it’s important to know the answer in order to understand how valid the poll is.
As I already indicated, my guess is that Trump’s support in New York is very very strong. But since the majority of New York’s delegates are not selected on a statewide basis (only 14 out of 95 are), it’s hard to know what to make of any of these polls, because they don’t seem to take the importance of districts into account.
You may ask why on earth I’m paying so much attention to them, then. Good question. Well, they’re the only evidence we have. Plus, when I read headlines about the results of polls, it usually piques my curiosity. How was the poll done? Is it really valid? It’s a weird little peccadillo I have, but I happen to be interested in polls.
Every pollster knows the statistical sample needed to ensure accuracy. Knows what questions need to be asked, to gain a clear picture. So, if the polling methodology is ‘puzzling’, it’s an indication of a hidden agenda, where accuracy is not the goal but being able to ‘report’ the ‘results’ desired.
Political polling is a business and as often as not, the client’s desires are the polster’s primary consideration because staying in business is always the polster’s foremost priority.
Political organizations fund polling not just for the usual reasons (public reaction, trends, current placement within the field) but for less obvious reasons, such as influencing the electorate.
After all, if Trump is @ 50% and Cruz @ 15%… why bother to vote in the primary?
Right Scoop is reporting that Ivanka and Eric Trump did not register as republicans before the deadline, so they will not be voting for daddy. The kicker is Ivanka is team trump’s get out the vote spokesperson. This shows the level of the YUGE! deal maker’s managerial prowess. No wonder the well oiled Cruz machine is running circles around Trump in Colorado and elsewhere, harvesting delegates by the rules, while team trump whines that Cruz is cheating. And, its just not fair!
Geoffrey – It’s doubtful that there’s an agenda. It’s simply the case that New York is a big place with few Republicans. There were 190,000 voters in the NY primary in 2012, which was almost exactly 1% of the state’s population.
I don’t really trust any of the polls where delegates are elected on a district basis. Most of the reporting I see is so superficial that I think it’s more about ratings and clicks than about providing info. I just hope Cruz is getting out to districts where he might win.
NIck:
I agree that proper and valid polling is especially difficult to do in a situation like that.
Nick,
I can readily accept that New York is a big place with few Republicans but there is always an agenda. Given the current climate, when it comes to politics, how could it be otherwise?
Geoffrey – It’s in the interest of pollsters to be as accurate as possible. It’s one of those professions where failure is mathematically demonstrable.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, but what is the agenda, and how much does it affect the polling?
For example, if a pollster fails to predict an election, and is off (or particularly way off) too often, that pollster’s reputation suffers. That is very important to a pollster, and argues for trying to be as accurate as possible in predicting outcomes.
Some pollsters are known to be more propaganda-driven than others. That is based on their track record, and who hires them and for what. But a great many of the mainstream pollsters’ fame and reputation rests on their predictive ability, and to be accurate you cannot also be skewing the data.
Polls cost money. Pollsters are a money-making proposition. They spend money on polls, and the more subjects, the more expensive the poll is. Doing all the matching for each district, and getting it right, as well as getting enough subjects to be accurate in each district, would probably cost a lot more than they are willing to spend for a state poll in a primary.
Nick:
Great minds think alike 🙂 .
Trump is a man-made disaster.
No censor button.
Inarticulate.
Will set conservatism back a generation at least.
If anybody associates Trump with conservatism we are doomed.
GB,
I can guarantee you the Cruz machine is doing in depth polling and other research precinct by precinct. In a state like NY and in many other states, a slim majority in any given precinct harvests delegates. In NY the goal for Cruz is keeping Trump below 70% of the total delegates. I am confident his team will succeed. It is a numbers game.
Polls are polls, some more valid than others, but as nick and neo note, polling firms that are wildly off base do not stay in business for long.
It is hardly an all or nothing proposition for a pollster. If the client’s priority is accuracy the pollster will focus upon accuracy.
If the client indicates that ‘evidence’ in support of their propaganda is their priority, those pollsters who have previously indicated a ‘willingness to cooperate’ will be sought out. You can bet your last dollar that both parties know exactly which pollsters can be counted upon to ‘cooperate’.
Such a pollster will protect themselves by asking some questions that allow them to make some accurate predictions. Carefully crafting their questions so as to create the evidence the client desires, while also protecting their reputation by getting some things right.
Obviously, the closer to the primary or election, the less latitude pollsters have, so their results become more accurate.
This is known as covering your a**.
Geoffrey, I just don’t think that you’re describing reality. Campaigns need accurate information. No campaign wants misleading information, and no pollster is going to release bad or tweaked data. Now, the press may be interested in pushing a story, and they’ll phrase a policy question in a leading way. That definitely happens. And campaigns may do internal polling that they don’t release publicly. But a polling outfit won’t knowingly produce bad horse-race data.
One other thing, since I’m listing every possibility. There’s such a thing as push-polling, which only pretends to be polling. Candidate A’s campaign calls someone up and says, “Hello, I’m from a polling company you’ve never heard of. Would you more or less likely to vote for Candidate B if you found out he abused animals?”
I think this is great, and I was wondering specifically about NY districts because of the delegate system.
Per the other commenters, pollsters can’t just skew polls for long without taking a business hit. I would assume the general polls are ballpark, but the devil is in the details for NY.
Nate Silver projected Trump to get 71 delegates, but Trump’s already behind the general pace so he would like more. If he gets fewer than 71, it’ll be a loss.
Nick,
No offence but I think you’re being a bit naive. Look at the overwhelming number of questions pollsters ask that reveal bias, which you evidently assign to plain incompetence.
Neo has devoted many a post mentioning the misleading questions often asked of voters. Perhaps I’m wrong but I neither think it accidental nor an indication of stupidity or incompetence. I do think it a clear indication of bias and purposeful misdirection, which to me is clear evidence of an agenda.
I would much prefer that polling be as you believe it to be, I simply find it unpersuasive.
GB…
I’m in your camp.
I term it Agit-Polling.
The idea is to create an Astro-Turf of ground swell support.
Which, IIRC, is what happened when Trump used paid actors to flesh out his earliest ‘crowds.’
We are witnessing how Trump is not going to attain a 1st ballot nomination — and how Cruz is piling up delegates to throw himself over the top on the second ballot.
Regardless of Rubio, Rubio’s CROWD has figured out that they have to join forces with Cruz to stop Trump.
Everywhere one turns, Trump is not attaining devout Trumpbot delegates.
He’s getting long time Republicans, most of them conservative.
Let me say this more clearly – you’re unlikely to find that kind of bias in polls about competing candidates. Issue polls, definitely.
neo,
my wife is demographically similar to you.
She doesn’t trust Cruz and won’t vote for him.
what would you say to her to convince her otherwise?
avi:
It’s not easy to change a person’s mind, even if it’s one’s spouse.
Maybe especially if it’s one’s spouse.
That said, there are several approaches you could take. One is to find out exactly why she doesn’t trust him, and rebut those points (including the one about his face), one by one.
Another is to tell her more about Cruz’s record before he became a politician, and his many accomplishments.
Another approach is to compare his trustworthiness to the trustworthiness of whoever she’s thinking of voting for instead. If it’s Trump she favors, there’s a lot of information to do that.
Another is to have her read neo-neocon 🙂 .
But the bottom line is that not only are people often less-than-amenable to persuasion, but that tends to be because these things are often based on emotion, and emotion is seldom susceptible to reason.
thanks Neo. i think its his looks she doesn’t trust.