"Relying on Polls" Is Not a Bad Habit

In Politico, former Washington journalist Sam Youngman writes of trying to kick "bad habits," such as "relying on polls instead of talking to voters."

He is mistaken.  As we explain in our textbook, haphazard conversations with voters do not provide a true gauge of public opinion:

Opinion is a state of mind. Medical imaging may someday show how the brain mulls politics. Until then, we must infer thoughts from acts. Lincoln and Douglas gauged sentiment by listening to audiences, reading mail, and studying newspapers. Politicians still do.

Such informal methods are frequently unreliable. Many people with strong opinions may lack the time to write, call, or show up at meetings. Conversely, floods of letters, e-mails, and phone messages might not represent spontaneous outpourings of public sentiment. Campaigns and interest groups often stir them up to create the appearance of a groundswell. They persuade people to get in touch with officials, newspapers, and radio call-in shows, even supplying model letters or phone scripts. They bus people to rallies and give them signs to wave. Most people rarely write political letters or attend rallies. To understand these quiet Americans, politicians and reporters may talk with “the person in the street.” The problem with this approach is that a few chats are more likely to reflect a particular time and place than to represent a cross section of the public. In midmorning, younger people are at work or in school, so retirees rule the street. Interviews at 10 a.m. will show more concern about social security than student aid.

The only way to know how large numbers of people think is to take a genuine random-sample survey.  As we also explain in the book, these surveys may vary in quality, and interpreting the results takes knowledge of polling technique and political context.  In-depth conversations with voters may help provide such context, but they cannot be a substitute for the survey data.

A Straw Poll

Straw polls are nonbinding ballots at party events, and are not a scientific measure of partisan sentiment. Still, they matter, reports the Globe Gazette of Mason City, Iowa:

Next month’s Iowa Republican Party straw poll in Ames is all about the bounce.
Either the upward bounce the non-binding, unscientific poll will give the candidate or candidates who outperform expectations, or the bounce out of the 2012 GOP sweepstakes that it could deliver to a presidential hopeful who shows poorly.

The straw poll is essentially a party fundraising exercise, but it has become a major political event because it takes place in the state that traditionally launches the presidential selection process every four years.

“It’s a completely meaningless event with tremendous political impact,” said Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford. “Nobody’s elected to anything, but people derive some conclusions from this.”
...

Early public opinion polls have placed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Bachmann at the front of the still-developing GOP field, said Dave Peterson, an associate political science professor at Iowa State University.

The straw poll will be the first significant test of which candidates “are going to perform in putting boots on the ground.”

Peterson said early polls had New York’s Donald Trump as a contender, but he “took off like a rocket and crashed like a meteor” and the same may be true for candidates who fail to produce double-digit support at Ames.

Ron Paul and Straw Polls

Our chapter on public opinion and participation distinguishes random-sample surveys from other types of "polls." Sarah Tung writes at The Houston Chronicle:

What’s that, you say? Rep. Ron Paul has won yet another straw poll?

At this weekend’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, the Lake Jackson Republican effortlessly bested his fellow 2012 presidential hopefuls.

Paul sidled to victory with 612 votes out of the 1,542 that were cast. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman came in second with 382. Rounding up the top three with 191 votes was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann. Last year’s victor, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who did not attend this year, won only 74 votes.

Earlier this year, much to no one’s surprise, Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll with roughly 30 percent of the votes. And the Lake Jackson Republican swept to victory in an Internet straw poll conducted by the Tea Party Patriots in conjunction with its Arizona convention. (Texas Gov. Rick Perry finished 11th.)

But the Lone Star State’s most notable libertarian lacks similar success in most national polls, with numbers that barely register in the double digits. At the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses, for example, Paul won only 9.9 percent of the 119,000 total votes.

As of today, for instance, the RealClearPolitics average of GOP preferences is as follows:

Romney... 24.4

Palin..........16.0

Giuliani......11.0

Cain..............9.3

Gingrich.......7.1

Paul..............6.9

Michael Muskal explains at The Los Angeles Times:

Straw votes or polls are a special hybrid between scientific surveys and general elections. A scientific poll is based on a sample that professes to offer some insight into how the general electorate will vote. But a straw poll is merely the counting of anyone who shows up at that moment. The number of voters is generally small and self-selected, so there is no way to extrapolate the results to a larger body like the general electorate.

To use an example from the movie "Field of Dreams," it is similar to the voice that tells the hero, Ray, "If you build it, he will come." Hold a straw poll and dedicated partisans will come to cast a ballot for their choice, often Ron Paul.

Paul has done extremely well in straw polls, winning twice at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2010 and this year before Saturday's victory. His supporters are ardent in going to great lengths to express their preference for the 75-year-old congressman.

But Paul's support rarely seriously grows when the number of voters rapidly expands as the venue shifts from a small, self-designated preference poll to a larger caucus, like Iowa's, or eventually, the even larger arenas of primaries. Paul can always be a voice, but he has had enormous difficulty becoming a competitive player.