An opinion poll, sometimes simply referred to as a poll, is a survey of public opinion from a particular sample. Opinion polls are usually designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals.

History[link]

The first known example of an opinion poll was a local straw poll conducted by The Harrisburg Pennsylvanian in 1824, showing Andrew Jackson leading John Quincy Adams by 335 votes to 169 in the contest for the United States Presidency. Since Jackson won the popular vote in the full election, such straw votes gradually became more popular, but they remained local, usually city-wide phenomena. In 1916, the Literary Digest embarked on a national survey (partly as a circulation-raising exercise) and correctly predicted Woodrow Wilson's election as president. Mailing out millions of postcards and simply counting the returns, the Digest correctly predicted the victories of Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Herbert Hoover in 1929, and Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

Then, in 1936, its 2.3 million "voters" constituted a huge sample; however, they were generally more affluent Americans who tended to have Republican sympathies. The Literary Digest was ignorant of this new bias. The week before election day, it reported that Alf Landon was far more popular than Roosevelt. At the same time, George Gallup conducted a far smaller, but more scientifically based survey, in which he polled a demographically representative sample. Gallup correctly predicted Roosevelt's landslide victory. The Literary Digest soon went out of business, while polling started to take off.

Elmo Roper was another American pioneer in political forecasting using scientific polls.^[1] He predicted the reelection of President Franklin D. Roosevelt three times, in 1936, 1940, and 1944. Louis Harris had been in the field of public opinion since 1947 when he joined the Elmo Roper firm, then later became partner.

Gallup launched a subsidiary in the United Kingdom, where it almost alone correctly predicted Labour's victory in the 1945 general election, in contrast with virtually all other commentators, who expected a victory for the Conservative Party, led by Winston Churchill.

By the 1950s, various types of polling had spread to most democracies. In (post Saddam Hussein era) Iraq, surveys conducted soon after the 2003 war aimed to measure the feelings of Iraqi citizens regarding Saddam Hussein, post-war conditions, and the presence of US forces.^{[citation needed]}

Sample and polling methods[link]

This article or section lacks a single coherent topic. Please help improve this article by rewording sentences or removing irrelevant information. Specific concerns may appear on the talk page. (July 2010)

Opinion polls for many years were maintained through telecommunications or in person-to-person contact. Methods and techniques vary, though they are widely accepted in most areas. Verbal, ballot, and processed types can be conducted efficiently, contrasted with other types of surveys, systematics, and complicated matrices beyond previous orthodox procedures. Opinion polling developed into popular applications through popular thought, although response rates for some surveys declined. Also, the following has also led to differentiating results:^[1] Some polling organizations, such as Angus Reid Public Opinion, YouGov and Zogby use Internet surveys, where a sample is drawn from a large panel of volunteers, and the results are weighted to reflect the demographics of the population of interest. In contrast, popular web polls draw on whoever wishes to participate, rather than a scientific sample of the population, and are therefore not generally considered professional.

Polls can be used in the public relation field as well. In the early 1920's Public Relation experts described their work as a two way street. Their job would be to present the misinterpreted interests of large institutions to public. They would also gauge the typically ignored interests of the public through polls.

Benchmark polls[link]

A benchmark poll is generally the first poll taken in a campaign. It is often taken before a candidate announces their bid for office but sometimes it happens immediately following that announcement after they have had some opportunity to raise funds. This is generally a short and simple survey of likely voters.

A benchmark poll serves a number of purposes for a campaign, whether it is a political campaign or some other type of campaign. First, it gives the candidate a picture of where they stand with the electorate before any campaigning takes place. If the poll is done prior to announcing for office the candidate may use the poll to decide whether or not they should even run for office. Secondly, it shows them where their weaknesses and strengths are in two main areas. The first is the electorate. A benchmark poll shows them what types of voters they are sure to win, those who they are sure to lose, and everyone in-between those two extremes. This lets the campaign know which voters are persuadable so they can spend their limited resources in the most effective manner. Second, it can give them an idea of what messages, ideas, or slogans are the strongest with the electorate.^[2]

Brushfire polls[link]

Brushfire Polls are polls taken during the period between the Benchmark Poll and Tracking Polls. The number of Brushfire Polls taken by a campaign is determined by how competitive the race is and how much money the campaign has to spend. These polls usually focus on likely voters and the length of the survey varies on the number of messages being tested.

Brushfire polls are used for a number of purposes. First, it lets the candidate know if they have made any progress on the ballot, how much progress has been made, and in what demographics they have been making or losing ground. Secondly, it is a way for the campaign to test a variety of messages, both positive and negative, on themselves and their opponent(s). This lets the campaign know what messages work best with certain demographics and what messages should be avoided. Campaigns often use these polls to test possible attack messages that their opponent may use and potential responses to those attacks. The campaign can then spend some time preparing an effective response to any likely attacks. Thirdly, this kind of poll can be used by candidates or political parties to convince primary challengers to drop out of a race and support a stronger candidate.

Tracking polls[link]

A tracking poll is a poll repeated at intervals generally averaged over a trailing window.^[3] For example, a weekly tracking poll uses the data from the past week and discards older data.

A caution is that estimating the trend is more difficult and error-prone than estimating the level – intuitively, if one estimates the change, the difference between two numbers X and Y, then one has to contend with the error in both X and Y – it is not enough to simply take the difference, as the change may be random noise. For details, see t-test. A rough guide is that if the change in measurement falls outside the margin of error, it is worth attention.

Potential for inaccuracy[link]

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. Others suggest that a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.

A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.^[4] In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get complete responses it may be necessary to include thousands of additional participators.)^[5]

Another way to reduce the margin of error is to rely on poll averages. This makes the assumption that the procedure is similar enough between many different polls and uses the sample size of each poll to create a polling average.^[6] An example of a polling average can be found here: 2008 Presidential Election polling average. Another source of error stems from faulty demographic models by pollsters who weigh their samples by particular variables such as party identification in an election. For example, if you assume that the breakdown of the US population by party identification has not changed since the previous presidential election, you may underestimate a victory or a defeat of a particular party candidate that saw a surge or decline in its party registration relative to the previous presidential election cycle.

Over time, a number of theories and mechanisms have been offered to explain erroneous polling results. Some of these reflect errors on the part of the pollsters; many of them are statistical in nature. Others blame the respondents for not giving candid answers (e.g., the Bradley effect, the Shy Tory Factor); these can be more controversial.

Nonresponse bias[link]

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors, one way or the other, that are in addition to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes, because taking a larger sample size simply repeats the same mistake on a larger scale. If the people who refuse to answer, or are never reached, have the same characteristics as the people who do answer, then the final results should be unbiased. If the people who do not answer have different opinions then there is bias in the results. In terms of election polls, studies suggest that bias effects are small, but each polling firm has its own techniques for adjusting weights to minimize selection bias.^[7]

Response bias[link]

Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients, but more often is a result of the detailed wording or ordering of questions (see below). Respondents may deliberately try to manipulate the outcome of a poll by e.g. advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to boost their side of the argument or give rapid and ill-considered answers in order to hasten the end of their questioning. Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer. For example, respondents might be unwilling to admit to unpopular attitudes like racism or sexism, and thus polls might not reflect the true incidence of these attitudes in the population. In American political parlance, this phenomenon is often referred to as the Bradley effect. If the results of surveys are widely publicized this effect may be magnified - a phenomenon commonly referred to as the spiral of silence.

Wording of questions[link]

It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys.^[8][9][10] This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.^[11]

A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.

The most effective controls, used by attitude researchers, are:

• asking enough questions to allow all aspects of an issue to be covered and to control effects due to the form of the question (such as positive or negative wording), the adequacy of the number being established quantitatively with psychometric measures such as reliability coefficients, and
• analyzing the results with psychometric techniques which synthesize the answers into a few reliable scores and detect ineffective questions.

These controls are not widely used in the polling industry^[why?].

Coverage bias[link]

Another source of error is the use of samples that are not representative of the population as a consequence of the methodology used, as was the experience of the Literary Digest in 1936. For example, telephone sampling has a built-in error because in many times and places, those with telephones have generally been richer than those without.

In some places many people have only mobile telephones. Because pollsters cannot call mobile phones (it is unlawful in the United States to make unsolicited calls to phones where the phone's owner may be charged simply for taking a call), these individuals will never be included in the polling sample. If the subset of the population without cell phones differs markedly from the rest of the population, these differences can skew the results of the poll. Polling organizations have developed many weighting techniques to help overcome these deficiencies, to varying degrees of success. Studies of mobile phone users by the Pew Research Center in the US concluded that "cell-only respondents are different from landline respondents in important ways, (but) they were neither numerous enough nor different enough on the questions we examined to produce a significant change in overall general population survey estimates when included with the landline samples and weighted according to US Census parameters on basic demographic characteristics."^[12]

This issue was first identified in 2004,^[13] but came to prominence only during the 2008 US presidential election.^[14] In previous elections, the proportion of the general population using cell phones was small, but as this proportion has increased, the worry is that polling only landlines is no longer representative of the general population. In 2003, a 2.9% of households were wireless (cellphones only) compared to 12.8 in 2006.^[15] This results in "coverage error". Many polling organisations select their sample by dialling random telephone numbers; however, there is a clear tendency for polls which included mobile phones in their sample to show a much larger lead for Obama than polls that did not.^[16][17]

The potential sources of bias are:^[18]

1. Some households use cellphones only and have no landline. This tends to include minorities and younger voters; and occurs more frequently in metropolitan areas. Men are more likely to be cellphone-only compared to women.
2. Some people may not be contactable by landline from Monday to Friday and may be contactable only by cellphone.
3. Some people use their landlines only to access the Internet, and answer calls only to their cellphones.

Some polling companies have attempted to get around that problem by including a "cellphone supplement". There are a number of problems with including cellphones in a telephone poll:

1. It is difficult to get co-operation from cellphone users, because in many parts of the US, users are charged for both outgoing and incoming calls. That means that pollsters have had to offer financial compensation to gain co-operation.
2. US federal law prohibits the use of automated dialling devices to call cellphones (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Numbers therefore have to be dialled by hand, which is more time-consuming and expensive for pollsters.

An oft-quoted example of opinion polls succumbing to errors was the UK General Election of 1992. Despite the polling organizations using different methodologies virtually all the polls in the lead up to the vote, and to a lesser extent exit polls taken on voting day, showed a lead for the opposition Labour party but the actual vote gave a clear victory to the ruling Conservative party.

In their deliberations after this embarrassment the pollsters advanced several ideas to account for their errors, including:

Late swing 

Voters who changed their minds shortly before voting tended to favour the Conservatives, so the error was not as great as it first appeared.

Nonresponse bias 

Conservative voters were less likely to participate in surveys than in the past and were thus under-represented.

The Shy Tory Factor 

The Conservatives had suffered a sustained period of unpopularity as a result of economic difficulties and a series of minor scandals, leading to a spiral of silence in which some Conservative supporters were reluctant to disclose their sincere intentions to pollsters.

The relative importance of these factors was, and remains, a matter of controversy, but since then the polling organizations have adjusted their methodologies and have achieved more accurate results in subsequent elections.^{[citation needed]}

Polling organizations[link]

In Australia the most notable companies are:

• Newspoll - published in News Limited's The Australian newspaper
• Roy Morgan Research - published in the Crikey email reporting service
• Galaxy Polling - published in News Limited's tabloid papers
• AC Nielsen Polling - published in Fairfax newspapers
• Ipsos and I-View

In Brazil the most notable companies are:

• IBOPE (Instituto Brasileiro de Opinião Pública) which acronym has become the Brazilian household word for TV audience rating and a slang word that indicates that a meeting or similar function had significant attendance.
• Datafolha

In Canada the most notable companies are:

• Angus Reid Strategies
• EKOS Research Associates
• Environics Research Group
• Harris/Decima
• Ipsos-Reid
• Léger Marketing
• Nanos Research

In Egypt, the most notable polling organization is

• Opinion Poll Center^[19]

In Germany, notable polling organizations are

• Allensbach Institute
• Forsa institute
• Infratest dimap
• TNS Emnid

In Jordan the dominant organization is:

• Knowledge World Center for Polls

In Iran, some notable polling organisations include:

• Ayandeh - closed in 2002 and director Abbas Abdi arrested^[20]

In New Zealand, some notable polling organisations include:

• Colmar Brunton
• UMR Insight

In Nigeria the most notable polling organisation is:

• NOI-Gallup poll

In South Africa, some notable polling organisations include:

• Ipsos Markinor who have conducted opinion polls since 1976.
• Plus 94 Research - published in Sunday Times South Africa newspaper

In Ukraine, the most notable pollsters are:

• Research & Branding Group, widely published throughout Ukraine and Internationally. Works include exit polls and regular surveys of the public's political opinions^[21][22]
• Razumkov Centre A policy think tank also widely published throughout Ukraine^[23]
• SOCIS (Socis center for social and political studies) ^[24]

In the United Kingdom, the most notable pollsters are:

• ComRes, retained pollster for the BBC and The Independent
• Ipsos MORI (formerly MORI).
• YouGov.
• GfK NOP
• ICM
• Populus, official The Times pollster
• TNS-BMRB

In the United States, some notable companies include:

• Gallup poll run by The Gallup Organization
• Harris Poll
• Ipsos
• National Opinion Research Center
• Nielsen ratings
• Pew Research Center
• Rasmussen Reports
• Research 2000
• YouGov.
• Zogby International

In Spain:

• Metroscopia
• Sigma 2
• TNS Demoscopia
• Opina
• Akra Delta
• Netquest
• ESEQ, Estudios sociales, políticos y de mercado
• Ipsos

All the major television networks, alone or in conjunction with the largest newspapers or magazines, in virtually every country with elections, operate their own versions of polling operations, in collaboration or independently through various applications. One of the applications can be found on Facebook ^[25]

Several organizations try to monitor the behavior of polling firms and the use of polling and statistical data, including the Pew Research Center and, in Canada, the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy.^[26]

Failures[link]

The best-known failure of opinion polling to date in the United States was the prediction that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry S. Truman in the 1948 US presidential election. Major polling organizations, including Gallup and Roper, indicated a landslide victory for Dewey.

In the United Kingdom, most polls failed to predict the Conservative election victories of 1970 and 1992, and Labour's victory in 1974. However, their figures at other elections have been generally accurate.

Influence[link]

Effect on voters[link]

By providing information about voting intentions, opinion polls can sometimes influence the behavior of electors, and in his book The Broken Compass, Peter Hitchens asserts that opinion polls are actually a device for influencing public opinion.^[27] The various theories about how this happens can be split into two groups: bandwagon/underdog effects, and strategic ("tactical") voting.

A bandwagon effect occurs when the poll prompts voters to back the candidate shown to be winning in the poll. The idea that voters are susceptible to such effects is old, stemming at least from 1884; William Safire reported that the term was first used in a political cartoon in the magazine Puck in that year.^[28] It has also remained persistent in spite of a lack of empirical corroboration until the late 20th century. George Gallup spent much effort in vain trying to discredit this theory in his time by presenting empirical research. A recent meta-study of scientific research on this topic indicates that from the 1980s onward the Bandwagon effect is found more often by researchers.^[29]

The opposite of the bandwagon effect is the underdog effect. It is often mentioned in the media. This occurs when people vote, out of sympathy, for the party perceived to be "losing" the elections. There is less empirical evidence for the existence of this effect than there is for the existence of the bandwagon effect.^[29]

The second category of theories on how polls directly affect voting is called strategic or tactical voting. This theory is based on the idea that voters view the act of voting as a means of selecting a government. Thus they will sometimes not choose the candidate they prefer on ground of ideology or sympathy, but another, less-preferred, candidate from strategic considerations. An example can be found in the United Kingdom general election, 1997. As he was then a Cabinet Minister, Michael Portillo's constituency of Enfield Southgate was believed to be a safe seat but opinion polls showed the Labour candidate Stephen Twigg steadily gaining support, which may have prompted undecided voters or supporters of other parties to support Twigg in order to remove Portillo. Another example is the boomerang effect where the likely supporters of the candidate shown to be winning feel that chances are slim and that their vote is not required, thus allowing another candidate to win.

In addition, Mark Pickup in Cameron Anderson and Laura Stephenson's "Voting Behaviour in Canada" outlines three additional "behavioural" responses that voters may exhibit when faced with polling data.

The first is known as a "cue taking" effect which holds that poll data is used as a "proxy" for information about the candidates or parties. Cue taking is "based on the psychological phenomenon of using heuristics to simplify a complex decision" (243) ^[30]

The second, first described by Petty and Cacioppo (1996) is known as "cognitive response" theory. This theory asserts that a voter's response to a poll may not line with their initial conception of the electoral reality. In response, the voter is likely to generate a "mental list" in which they create reasons for a party's loss or gain in the polls. This can reinforce or change their opinion of the candidate and thus affect voting behaviour.

Third, the final possibility is a "behavioural response" which is similar to a cognitive response. The only salient difference is that a voter will go and seek new information to form their "mental list," thus becoming more informed of the election. This may then affect voting behaviour.

These effects indicate how opinion polls can directly affect political choices of the electorate. But directly or indirectly, other effects can be surveyed and analyzed on all political parties. The form of media framing and party ideology shifts must also be taken under consideration. Opinion polling in some instances is a measure of cognitive bias, which is variably considered and handled appropriately in its various applications.

Effect on politicians[link]

This section requires expansion.

Starting in the 1980s, tracking polls and related technologies began having a notable impact on U.S. political leaders.^[31] According to Douglas Bailey, a Republican who had helped run Gerald Ford's 1976 presidential campaign, "It's no longer necessary for a political candidate to guess what an audience thinks. He can [find out] with a nightly tracking poll. So it's no longer likely that political leaders are going to lead. Instead, they're going to follow."^[31]

Regulation[link]

Some jurisdictions over the world restrict the publication of the results of opinion polls in order to prevent the possibly erroneous results from affecting voters' decisions. For instance, in Canada, it is prohibited to publish the results of opinion surveys that would identify specific political parties or candidates in the final three days before a poll closes.^[32]

However, most western democratic nations don't support the entire prohibition of the publication of pre-election opinion polls; most of them have no regulation and some only prohibit it in the final days or hours until the relevant poll closes.^[33] A survey by Canada's Royal Commission on Electoral Reform reported that the prohibition period of publication of the survey results largely differed in different countries. Out of the 20 countries examined, three prohibit the publication during the entire period of campaigns, while others prohibit it for a shorter term such as the polling period or the final 48 hours before a poll closes.^[32]

See also[link]

• Deliberative opinion poll
• Entrance poll
• Exit poll
• Open access poll
• Push poll
• Straw poll
• Sample size determination
• Electoral Calculus – United Kingdom election prediction website

Footnotes[link]

External references[link]

• Asher, Herbert: Polling and the Public. What Every Citizen Should Know, fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1998.
• Bourdieu, Pierre, "Public Opinion does not exist" in Sociology in Question, London, Sage (1995).
• Bradburn, Norman M. and Seymour Sudman. Polls and Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us (1988).
• Cantril, Hadley. Gauging Public Opinion (1944).
• Cantril, Hadley and Mildred Strunk, eds. Public Opinion, 1935-1946 (1951), massive compilation of many public opinion polls from US, UK, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere.
• Converse, Jean M. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960 (1987), the standard history.
• Crespi, Irving. Public Opinion, Polls, and Democracy (1989).
• Gallup, George. Public Opinion in a Democracy (1939).
• Gallup, Alec M. ed. The Gallup Poll Cumulative Index: Public Opinion, 1935-1997 (1999) lists 10,000+ questions, but no results.
• Gallup, George Horace, ed. The Gallup Poll; Public Opinion, 1935-1971 3 vol (1972) summarizes results of each poll.
• Glynn, Carroll J., Susan Herbst, Garrett J. O'Keefe, and Robert Y. Shapiro. Public Opinion (1999) textbook
• Lavrakas, Paul J. et al. eds. Presidential Polls and the News Media (1995)
• Moore, David W. The Superpollsters: How They Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in America (1995).
• Niemi, Richard G., John Mueller, Tom W. Smith, eds. Trends in Public Opinion: A Compendium of Survey Data (1989).
• Oskamp, Stuart and P. Wesley Schultz; Attitudes and Opinions (2004).
• Robinson, Claude E. Straw Votes (1932).
• Robinson, Matthew Mobocracy: How the Media's Obsession with Polling Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy (2002).
• Rogers, Lindsay. The Pollsters: Public Opinion, Politics, and Democratic Leadership (1949).
• Traugott, Michael W. The Voter's Guide to Election Polls 3rd ed. (2004).
• James G. Webster, Patricia F. Phalen, Lawrence W. Lichty; Ratings Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Audience Research Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
• Young, Michael L. Dictionary of Polling: The Language of Contemporary Opinion Research (1992).

Additional Sources

• Walden, Graham R. Survey Research Methodology, 1990-1999: An Annotated Bibliography. Bibliographies and Indexes in Law and Political Science Series. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. xx, 432p.
• Walden, Graham R. Public Opinion Polls and Survey Research: A Selective Annotated Bibliography of U.S. Guides and Studies from the 1980s. Public Affairs and Administrative Series, edited by James S. Bowman, vol. 24. New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc., 1990. xxix, 360p.
• Walden, Graham R. Polling and Survey Research Methods 1935-1979: An Annotated Bibliography. Bibliographies and Indexes in Law and Political Science Series, vol. 25. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 1996. xxx, 581p.

External links[link]

• Polls from UCB Libraries GovPubs
• The Pew Research Center nonpartisan "fact tank" providing information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world by conducting public opinion polling and social science research
• "Use Opinion Research To Build Strong Communication" by Frank Noto
• Public Agenda for Citizens nonpartisan, nonprofit group that tracks public opinion data in the United States
• National Council on Public Polls association of polling organizations in the United States devoted to setting high professional standards for surveys
• USA Election Polls tracks the public opinion polls related to elections in the US
• Survey Analysis Tool based on A. Berkopec, HyperQuick algorithm for discrete hypergeometric distribution, Journal of Discrete Algorithms, Elsevier, 2006.
• "Poll Position - Issue 010 - GOOD", track record of pollsters for USA presidential elections in Good magazine, April 23, 2008.

v t e Social surveys Gathering data Collection methods  · Census  · Sampling for surveys · Random sampling · Questionnaire · Interview (Structured, Semi-structured and Unstructured) Analyzing data Categorical data · Contingency table · Level of measurement · Descriptive statistics · Exploratory data analysis · Multivariate statistics · Psychometrics · Statistical inference · Statistical models (Graphical · Log-linear · Structural) Applications Market research · Opinion poll Major surveys National Election Studies · Gallup poll · General Social Survey · International Social Survey · United Kingdom Census · United States Census · National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey · World Values Survey Professional associations International Statistical Institute · World Association for Public Opinion Research · American Association for Public Opinion Research · European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research Category · Projects (Business · Politics · Psychology · Sociology · Statistics)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2009)

Mervin Field is an American pollster of public opinion in the state of California.^[1]

Biography[link]

Field was born in 1921 in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and graduated from Princeton High School in 1938. His subsequent formal education was limited to a few months each at Rutgers night school, the University of Missouri and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. His first experience with survey research was in his high school junior year, when in a chance occurrence he was introduced to the polling pioneer, Dr. George Gallup. Field’s first survey was in determining student preferences for his high school senior class president. Prior to World War II, Field worked for Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) and the Gallup Poll in Princeton, New Jersey.

Field Research Corporation[link]

The Field Research Corporation (FRC) is a commercial consumer and opinion research practice operating locally, regionally and nationally.

Field Poll[link]

The Field Poll is an independent, nonpartisan public opinion news service., with a focus on California. As of late 2009, it has published more than 2300 reports. of operation. It relies on financial support from newspapers and television stations, the University of California, the California State University system, and various non-profit foundations, not from political candidates or interests.

Since 1956, the Poll has deposited its survey data with the University of California and California State University campuses, to make them available for scholars, media, and public policy makers. It is a unique and rich archive that is used in political science, journalism. sociology, and survey research methodology courses.

Awards[link]

Field has received two awards from the American Marketing Association, one in 1956 for his “Field Index of Advertising Efficiency” and another in 1971 for his “Outstanding Service to the Profession of Marketing Research.”^{[citation needed]} In 2001, The Market Research Council (New York) named him to its Hall of Fame.^{[citation needed]}

He was the recipient of the 1979 American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Award for “exceptionally distinguished achievement”. The citation accompanying the award said in part that he "has been the chief architect of and a successful campaigner for a contemporary code of standards for public opinion research…..”^{[citation needed]}

In 1996, he was awarded an honorary degree of LL.D by California State University. The citation said in part….”Mervin Field is a highly respected leader within his profession…and in the course of his career he has become a trusted advisor to academia, civic associations, governmental institutions and the business community…”

He has held offices in the American Marketing Association (AMA) and the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), and helped establish the National Council of Published Polls (NCPP) and is one of the founding directors of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO).

He is a past member of the Advisory Council of the Institute of Governmental Studies; University of California, Berkeley; and for a period was a Regents’ Professor at Berkeley.

References[link]

External links[link]

• the Mervin Field at the Science Literacy Project
• The Field Research Corporation

Frank Luntz
Frank Luntz at the 2009 Texas Book Festival
Born	(1962-02-23) February 23, 1962 (age 50)
Nationality	American
Education	University of Pennsylvania Oxford University
Occupation	Communication Consultant and Political Pollster

Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant, pollster, and Republican Party strategist.^[1] His most recent work has been with the Fox News Channel as a frequent commentator and analyst, as well as running focus groups after presidential debates. Luntz's specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”^[2] He is also an author of business books dealing with communication strategies and public opinion. Luntz's current company, Luntz Global, LLC, specializes in message creation and image management for commercial and political clients.

Background[link]

Luntz grew up in West Hartford, Connecticut, and graduated from Hall High School. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania and received his Doctorate in Politics from Oxford University. He is unmarried.^[3]

Luntz has appeared as a consultant or panel member on a number of television news shows, including The Colbert Report, Capital Gang, Good Morning America, Hannity, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, PBS NewsHour, Nightline, The O'Reilly Factor, Real Time With Bill Maher, and The Today Show. He has written op-eds for publications such as The Financial Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.

He was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania from 1989 until 1996 and also taught at George Washington University and American University.

Use of language[link]

Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." "If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak."^[2]

In an article in The New Yorker Luntz is quoted as saying, "The way my words are created is by taking the words of others.... I've moderated an average of a hundred plus focus groups a year over five years... I show them language that I've created. Then I leave a line for them to create language for me."^[4]

In a January 9, 2007, interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Luntz redefined the term "Orwellian" in a positive sense, saying that if one reads Orwell's Essay On Language (presumably referring to Politics and the English Language), "To be 'Orwellian' is to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening… and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever."^[5]

Luntz's description of "Orwellian" is considered to contradict both its popularly defined meaning as well as that defined by George Orwell. Luntz believes that Orwell would not have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied by quoting Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language", where Luntz focuses on how Orwell derides the use of cliché and dying metaphors.^{[citation needed]}

Luntz's description of his job revolves around exploiting the emotional content of language. "It's all emotion. But there's nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional." "...my job is to look for the words that trigger the emotion." "We know that words and emotion together are the most powerful force known to mankind.."^[2]

Additionally in his January 9, 2007, interview on Fresh Air, Luntz discussed his use of the term, "energy exploration" (oil drilling). His research on the matter involved showing people a picture of current oil drilling and asking if in the picture it "looks like exploration or drilling." He said that 90 percent of the people he spoke to said it looked like exploring. "Therefore I'd argue that it is a more appropriate way to communicate." He went on to say "if the public says after looking at the pictures, that doesn't look like my definition of drilling—it looks like my definition of exploring—then don't you think we should be calling it what people see it to be, rather than adding a political aspect to it all?" Terry Gross responded: "Should we be calling it what it actually is, as opposed to what somebody thinks it might be? The difference between exploration and actually getting out the oil—they're two different things, aren't they?"^[5]

James L. Martin, chairman of the conservative 60 Plus Association, described Luntz's role as being that of pollster and popularizer of the phrase "death tax".

Martin gained an important ally in GOP pollster Frank Luntz, whose polling revealed that "death tax" sparked voter resentment in a way that "inheritance tax" and "estate tax" couldn't match. After all, who wouldn't be opposed to a "tax on death"? Luntz shared his findings with Republicans and included the phrase in the GOP's Contract with America. Luntz went so far as to recommend in a memo to GOP lawmakers that they stage press conferences "at your local mortuary" to dramatize the issue. "I believe this backdrop will clearly resonate with your constituents," he wrote. "Death is something the American people understand." Apparently, he's right. Spurred by Luntz, Republicans have employed the term "death tax" so aggressively that it has entered the popular lexicon. Nonpartisan venues like newspapers and magazines have begun to use it in a neutral context--a coup for abolitionists like Martin.^[6]

Publications[link]

Luntz is the author of the 2007 New York Times Best Seller "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear." His second book, "What Americans Really Want ... Really: The Truth About Our Hopes, Dreams and Fears," climbed to #6 on the New York Times Business Best Sellers list. In March 2011, Luntz released his book "Win: The Key Principles to Take Your Business From Ordinary to Extraordinary".

Representative work[link]

U.S politics, 1990s[link]

Luntz was the Pat Buchanan's pollster during the 1992 U.S. Republican presidential primary, and later that year served as Ross Perot's pollster in the general election.^[7]

Luntz also served as Newt Gingrich's pollster in mid-1990s for the Contract with America.^[8]

Global warming[link]

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.^[9] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.^[10]

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science....Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."^[11]

In 2010, Luntz announced new research that shows the American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. "Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said. "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don't still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment." In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: "People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument." ^[12]

2005 UK Conservative leadership election[link]

In 2005 Luntz conducted a focus group broadcast on the Conservative leadership race on the BBC current affairs show Newsnight. The focus group's overwhelmingly positive reaction to David Cameron was seen by many as crucial in making him the favorite in a crowded field. Cameron was the eventual victor.^[13] In March 2007, Newsnight invited him back to gauge comparative opinions on Cameron, Gordon Brown and Sir Menzies Campbell in the city of Birmingham.

2007 Irish general elections[link]

Luntz led a focus group telecast with the Irish state broadcaster RTE to gather the opinions of the Irish people before the May 24, 2007 general elections. RTÉ hoped to show viewers some of the campaign techniques the political parties were using without their knowledge.^[14]

2007 Australian federal election[link]

Another focus group of swing voters was analysed by Luntz in the lead-up to the November 2007 poll between the ruling Coalition and the opposition Labor party. Luntz noted that, like the Irish scenario, the Coalition was well established, presiding over the country for 11 years and overseeing continued economic growth for much of that period; and that unlike the lead-up to the Irish elections, Australia had a stronger and more popular opposition leader in Kevin Rudd: "This is much closer to the Irish election where the leader just barely scraped in, Bertie Ahern, because the economy was so good. But the big difference there was the opposition leader was not as good as Kevin Rudd." Luntz was brought in to conduct his research in a collaborative effort by Sky News Australia and The Australian newspaper.^[15]

2010 UK General Election[link]

During the 2010 UK General Election, Luntz led focus groups during the Prime Ministerial debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and wrote about his findings for The Sun,^[16] and also appeared on the BBCs Daily Politics.

Accolades[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Sir David Frost has called Luntz the “The Nostradamus of pollsters.” Time Magazine has named him one of “50 of America’s most promising leaders aged 40 and under” and he has been called the “hottest pollster” in America by the Boston Globe. Frank was named one of the four “Top Research Minds” by Business Week and was a winner of the coveted Washington Post “Crystal Ball” award for being the most accurate pundit. In 2007, Barack Obama said, “When Frank Luntz invites you to talk to his focus group, you talk to his focus group.”^{[citation needed]}

Criticism[link]

In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, of which Luntz was not a member, criticized Luntz for refusing to release poll data to support his claimed results "because of client confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR at the time, said

In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.^[18][19]

Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase 'government takeover' to refer to healthcare reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "'Takeovers are like coups,' Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. 'They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.'"^[20] In an editorial response, the Wall Street Journal wrote that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles." "We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover," the editors of PolitiFact announced.^[21]

Bibliography[link]

• Luntz, Frank. Candidates, Consultants, and Campaigns: The Style and Substance of American Electioneering. New York: Blackwell, 1988.
• Luntz, Frank. Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear New York: Hyperion, 2007.
• Luntz, Frank. What Americans Really Want...Really New York: Hyperion, 2009.
• Luntz, Frank. Win: The Key Principles to Take Your Business from Ordinary to Extraordinary New York: Hyperion, 2011.

References[link]

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (July 2011)

• Official Facebook Page
• Luntz Global, Luntz's communications company
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Frank Luntz on Charlie Rose
• Frank Luntz collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Works by or about Frank Luntz in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Frank Luntz at SourceWatch
• Frank Luntz profile on NOW on PBS
• Interview: Frank Luntz on The Persuaders, PBS Frontline, November 9, 2004
• Frank Luntz Accepts Global Warming Science, TreeHugger.com, June 19, 2006
• Frank Luntz Explains 'Words That Work', NPR Fresh Air, January 9, 2007
• How to speak Republican, interview with Katharine Mieskowski, Salon.com, January 23, 2007
• Frank Luntz Rides Again, Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Journalism Review, December 10, 2010

Joe Scarborough
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 1st district
In office January 3, 1995 – September 5, 2001
Preceded by	Earl Hutto
Succeeded by	Jeff Miller
Personal details
Born	Charles Joseph Scarborough (1963-04-09) April 9, 1963 (age 49) Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Melanie Hinton (div.) Susan Waren
Alma mater	University of Alabama, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Profession	Attorney, currently television host
Religion	Baptist

Charles Joseph "Joe" Scarborough ( /ˈskɑrbɔroʊ/; born April 9, 1963) is an American cable news and talk radio host, lawyer, author, and former politician. He is currently the host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, and previously hosted Scarborough Country on the same channel. Scarborough served in the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001 as a Republican from the 1st district of Florida. He has been named to the TIME 100 as one of the most influential people in the world. ^[1]

Early life, education and early legal career[link]

Born in Atlanta, Georgia, he was born to George F. Scarborough, a businessman, with two other siblings. When his father died in May 2011, his life story appeared in the Congressional Record and in Politico's Playbook. Scarborough even wrote an eulogy op-ed online.^[2]

Joe Scarborough graduated from Pensacola Catholic High School in Pensacola, Florida (although he is not a Catholic). He received a B.A. from the University of Alabama in 1985 and a J.D. from the University of Florida College of Law in 1990.^[3] During this time he wrote and produced CDs with his band, Dixon Mills,^[4] and taught high school. He was admitted to the The Florida Bar in 1991,^[3] and practiced law in Pensacola.^[5]

Scarborough's most famous case was representing Michael F. Griffin, the accused killer of abortion doctor David Gunn, in early to mid 1993. He made several court appearances for Griffin.^[6] "There was 'no way in hell I could sit in at a civil trial, let alone a capital trial,' he claims now, referring to the prospect of prosecutors seeking the death penalty against Griffin."^[7] Scarborough assisted Griffin in choosing a trial lawyer from the many who offered their services, and he also shielded the family from the media exposure, pro bono.^[8]

Scarborough also helped to raise his political profile and made numerous contacts by assisting with a petition drive in late 1993 to oppose a 65 percent increase in the City of Pensacola's property taxes.^[5]

Political career[link]

Congress[link]

Joe Scarborough's official Congressional portrait

In 1994, Scarborough won a tough Republican Party primary for Florida's 1st congressional district, which came open after eight-term Democrat Earl Hutto announced his retirement. In the general election, he defeated the Democratic candidate, Pensacola attorney Vinnie Whibbs, (the son of well respected former Pensacola mayor Vince Whibbs), with 61 percent of the vote. This win wasn't considered an upset since the 1st has always been a rather conservative district; it hasn't supported a Democrat for president since 1960 and, while Democrats continued to win most local offices well into the 1990s, they tended to be very conservative even by Southern Democratic standards. It had been considered very likely that Hutto would be succeeded by a Republican once he retired.

Scarborough was reelected with 72 percent of the vote in 1996. In 1998 and 2000, he was opposed by only a write-in candidate.

Like most freshmen Republicans elected during the 1994 Republican takeover of the House led by Newt Gingrich, Scarborough was regarded as a reliable conservative. He was a part of a small group of Republican congressmen the National Journal said possessed a surprising amount of power given their youth and lack of experience in Congress. He received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.^[9] He signed the Contract with America. Scarborough served on the Armed Services, Judiciary, Government Reform, and Education committees. In 1998, he was named Chairman of the Civil Service Committee.

Scarborough was one of a group of about 40 freshmen Republican legislators who dubbed themselves the "New Federalists" after the Federalist Papers. Scarborough was elected Political Director of the incoming legislators. The New Federalists called for sweeping cuts in the U.S. government, including plans to "privatize, localize, consolidate, [or] eliminate"^[10] the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy and Housing and Urban Development, but were largely unsuccessful in their goals. Gingrich tapped Scarborough to head a Republican task force on education, and Scarborough declared, "Our goal is to get as much money, power and authority out of Washington and get as much money, power and authority into the classroom as possible."^[5]

Scarborough supported a number of pro-life positions while in Congress including legislation (H.R.2436, Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999) that made it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of other crimes, though he did not vote for the passage of the final bill.^[11][12]

Scarborough sponsored a bill to force the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations after a four-year transition^[10] and voted to make the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "self-sufficient"^[13] by eliminating federal funding. He also voted for the "Medicare Preservation act of 1995,"^[14] which cut the projected growth of Medicare by $270 billion over ten years, and against the "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996,"^[15] which raised the minimum wage to $5.15. Scarborough had a conservative voting record on economic, social, and foreign policy issues, but was seen as moderate on environmental issues and human rights causes (including closing the School of the Americas and Lori Berenson).^[5]

[US Congressman Joe Scarborough] heard about Lori Berenson on an NPR broadcast. He went to Peru and spent a day at her second trial. He watched the prosecutors and the judges working together, heard the evidence and decided that she had done nothing that would have convicted her in a U.S. court. Even a repentant terrorist, who was to have been the strongest witness, said Berenson was not a member of MRTA and gave no help at all. Scarborough thought the court had to conclude she was not a terrorist leader.^[16]

While in Congress, Scarborough received a number of awards, including the "Friend of the Taxpayer Award" from Americans for Tax Reform; the "Guardian of Small Business Award" from the National Federation of Independent Business; the "Spirit of Enterprise Award" from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the "Taxpayer's Hero Award" from the Citizens Against Government Waste; and the "Guardian of Seniors' Rights Award" from the 60 Plus Association.

Committee memberships[link]

• 104th Congress^[17] --Committee on Government Reform and Oversight --Committee on National Security (formerly Committee on Armed Services)
• 105th Congress^[18]--Committee on National Security—Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--Committee on Education and the Workforce
• 106th Congress^[19]-- Committee on Armed Services--Committee on Government Reform-- Committee on the Judiciary
• 107th Congress^[20]--Committee on Government Reform-- Committee on the Judiciary

Electoral history[link]

Resignation and controversy[link]

Scarborough announced his intent to resign to spend more time with his children five months into his fourth term in Congress. "The realization has come home to me that they're at a critical stage of their lives and I would rather be judged at the end of my life as a father than as a congressman," Scarborough said.^[22] A special election was held to replace him.

On July 20, 2001, one of Scarborough's aides died after hitting her head on a desk when she fainted while alone in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach, Florida, office.^[23] According to Scarborough, soon after her death, allegations "spread all over the Internet" that he had been involved,^[23][24] although there was no evidence of foul play. In 2003, he joked about the incident with Don Imus on Imus's radio program.^[25] In 2004, it was the subject of a public spat between Scarborough and filmmaker Michael Moore.^[26]

Post-Congressional politics[link]

After leaving Congress, he joined the law firm of prominent Florida attorney Fred Levin. He practiced law with the firm Beggs and Lane,^[27] the oldest firm in Florida. He was appointed to the President's Council on the 21st Century Workforce in 2002.^[28]

In August 2005, Scarborough confirmed reports that he had been asked to consider a challenge to U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris for the Republican nomination to challenge Senator Bill Nelson's reelection bid. However, he announced later that month that he was renewing his contract with NBC.^[29]

In July 2006, former aides to Harris's 2006 Senate campaign claimed that Harris had called potential Scarborough supporters and raised the death of an aide in his home district office as a means to prevent his entry into the race.^[30] Scarborough, who had never intended to enter the race, initially considered suing Harris but decided to let the incident pass. He later told Nelson that drawing Harris as an opponent in the race made Nelson "the luckiest man in Washington."^[31]

In early 2009, Scarborough confirmed reports that he had been approached by Florida Republicans who wanted him to run for the Senate seat vacated by Republican Mel Martinez. Scarborough said he was not likely to run as he believes he can have more influence over public policy as the host of Morning Joe, than he would as a U.S. Senator. However, he has not ruled out a political career in the future.^[32]

In October 2010, Scarborough called former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich "cartoonish" and said that Gingrich engages in "hate speech."^[33]

Media career[link]

Joe Scarborough

Scarborough is the host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, which features interviews with top newsmakers and politicians and analysis of the day’s biggest stories. Previously, he hosted Scarborough Country, a primetime news show. He and Mika Brzezinski also briefly hosted a syndicated talk radio show called the Joe Scarborough Show on ABC Radio Network.

While still serving in Congress, Scarborough founded the free weekly Pensacola-area newspaper The Florida Sun in 1999. The paper later merged in 2001 and is now known as the "Independent News."^[34]