If ever there’s been a time for an old fashioned caveat emptor
(let the buyer beware) warning about political polls in California,
this is it.
If ever there’s been a time for an old fashioned caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) warning about political polls in California, this is it.
For this state’s pollsters demonstrated in last June’s primary election they are either unable to conduct reliable surveys, or that voters lie to them, or both. Or something.
One example: In a Field Poll reported in several major newspapers the day before the primary, just 41 percent of registered independent voters considered by Field as likely to vote said they approved of the job done by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the only exit poll taken on primary day found 46 percent of actual voters approved Schwarzenegger’s performance, with the score much higher among independents.
That means the Field Poll was off – unless some likely voters did not show up or other, less likely ones did turn out. Given the record low primary turnout, chances are many “likely voters” didn’t bother. Should they be considered likely to vote next time?
It’s been more of the same all this summer and fall, with various polls showing Schwarzenegger leading his re-election race by margins anywhere from 3.5 percent (which would indicate the election is a tossup) to 13 percent (a landslide).
Even more dramatic were the shifts and wrong conclusions in other races last spring. The best example was the run for the Democratic nomination to take on appointed incumbent Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. In this one, both the Los Angeles Times Poll one week before the vote and the Field Poll just days later reported a significant lead for termed-out state Sen. Deborah Ortiz of Sacramento over fellow termout Sen. Debra Bowen of Marina del Rey. Yet Bowen won, and it wasn’t even close.
Was this because Ortiz offended voters on the final weekend with ads portraying herself as a champion of abortion, when the secretary of state’s duties have nothing to do with that? Or was it something else?
Bowen, who used no television advertising at all en route to her large margin, says the discrepancy was due to factors not measured in any poll.
“Traditional polling does not capture the Internet or grass roots campaigning,” she said. “We sent out 600,000 e-mails in the last three days and look what it did!” Bet on her doing something similar in November, and polls missing it again.
Almost as confusing to poll readers were results in the race to be the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. One week before the vote, the Los Angeles Times Poll showed current Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi with almost double the vote of state Sen. Jackie Speier of San Mateo County and an even larger margin over another termed-out senator, Liz Figueroa of Alameda County.
Four days later, Field reported Speier with a five-point edge over Garamendi, apparently signifying a major shift. But if there was indeed a shift, it didn’t last long, as Garamendi won by six points.
What could cause all this unreliability and turmoil? It could be methodology or it could be voter lying or it could be a matter of timing.
Some pollsters make phone calls over a period of seven or even nine days, recognizing that some of those polled early might have changed their minds by the end of the time period, but figuring changes of mind usually go both ways and balance out. Others poll for short periods, risking the possibility of momentary preferences that might not hold up.
Then there are newer polls, less established and less widely published or broadcast. These sometimes use “robot” telephone recordings to ask voters their preference – risking that it might not really be the voter they seek who answers the phone. In this situation, a small child could conceivably be pushing the buttons on the phone and skewing the poll findings.
But none of that accounts for Democrat Phil Angelides, state treasurer and his party’s nominee for governor, having a one-point margin over Schwarzenegger in polls two days before the primary election and trailing the incumbent governor by about eight in the only exit poll, a finding that’s fairly consistent with subsequent surveys through the summer and early fall.
Put it all together and you have a scene of extreme volatility and very questionable polling results. Either there’s something wrong with the polls or the voters are simply very uncertain and tentative before they head to the only polls that count.
Tom Elias is author of the book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated second edition. His e-mail address is td*****@ao*.com
