http://www.suntimes.com/7147885-417/emanuel-phone-poll-asks-about-taxes-tea-party-daley-and-more.html
Emanuel phone poll asks about taxes, Tea Party, Daley and more
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com August 19, 2011 1:01AM
Mayor Rahm Emanuel presides over the Chicago City Council meeting Wednesday July 6, 2011. | Rich Hein~Sun-Times
Updated: August 19, 2011 7:46AM
A telephone survey of Chicago voters offers the most extensive clues yet about what Mayor Rahm Emanuel might do to close a $636 million budget gap.
Closing libraries; a 15 percent cut to police, fire and emergency management administration; a $2.5 million cut to programs for seniors, low-income housing and domestic violence are all proposals respondents are asked to give their opinions on.
The survey also opens a window into what issues weigh heavily on the mayor’s mind:
“Rahm Emanuel has been a disappointment as mayor so far and is no better than Mayor Daley,” is one of the statements voters are asked to say whether they agree with.
Another asks whether voters support Emanuel’s school board hiking property taxes $150 million or whether they view that as the mayor “going back on his word” not to raise taxes.
Surveying voter opinion of controversial options is a time-honored tradition at City Hall. Mayor Daley used the same firm, Washington, D.C.-based Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research, that Emanuel’s political fund, The New Chicago Committee, has used.
Tom Bowen, who manages the mayor’s committee, would not comment on the survey, except to say, “We don’t comment on internal strategies.” No city tax dollars are used in the campaign fund’s polling.
The survey seems more extensive than the ones Greenberg used to do for Daley. It asks voters to give Emanuel a grade of 1-100 on how he has done. It tests some of the slogans he’ll use to sell his policies — even whether voters blame tough budget cuts on “Tea Party politicians in Washington.”
Then it asks voters to grade some of Emanuel’s political rivals; other elected officials and some of Emanuel’s appointees:
◆ Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th), whose police security detail Emanuel has said he will trim.
◆ Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis, who has criticized Emanuel for cutting the 4 percent raises for teachers.
◆ Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle
◆ Police Supt. Garry McCarthy.
◆ “City workers.”
◆ Former Mayor Richard M. Daley
◆ Chicago Schools CEO Jean-Claude Brizard
◆ President Barack Obama
“I don’t think anyone should begrudge Rahm for doing a poll,” said Ken Snyder, principal of Chicago-based Snyder Pickerill Media Group, which conducts similar surveys for other elected officials. “He’s got a big agenda, a lot of big ideas. Surveying the attitude and opinions of citizens is respectful and helps him prioritize his agenda. The primary reason for polling is to find out if the things you’re communicating to voters are resonating.”
The survey asks voters to say whether they would have some concerns, serious concerns or no concerns if Emanuel announces any of these budget cuts when he presents his budget Oct. 15:
◆ “Outsources garbage collection to private firms.”
◆ “Cuts funding for economic development and housing by 10 percent.”
◆ “Cuts subsidies for libraries, reduces hours and potentially leads to some libraries closing.”
◆ “Cuts funding for [administration and management of the] Police Department, Fire Department, and Office of Emergency Management by 15 percent.”
◆ “Eliminates perks that allows police, fire and emergency management personnel to be paid when they’re not working.”
◆ “Cuts funding for seniors, low-income housing and domestic violence programs by $2.5 million.”
◆ “Cuts redundant agencies such as the Board of Local Improvement, which costs $350,000 a year.
◆ “Require 40 hours of work before city workers can earn overtime and cuts overtime from double-time to time-and-a -half.”
◆ “End the ability of aldermen to cut water fees and other fees for businesses and non-profits.”
The survey asks voters whether they would agree with some of these arguments:
◆ “The losers in this budget are seniors, children and people who live in high crime areas.”
◆ “Hard choices need to be made but this budget shares the pain as evenly as possible.”
◆ “This budget doesn’t use gimmicks. It’s not looking for quick fixes.”
◆ “This budget will strain our Police and Fire departments further.
◆ “Cuts are unfortunately needed because ‘Tea Party’ politicians in Washington are cutting state and federal funds.”
The survey asks voters whether they support the Emanuel School team’s “tax to the max” proposal to raise property taxes to support the schools. The survey asks voters whether they agree with these arguments about that tax hike:
◆ “Emanuel is asking too much. He promised to balance the budge without raising taxes and just three months after he said he wasn’t going to raise taxes, he has already gone back on his word.”
◆ “This budget gives big tax breaks to downtown businesses and doesn’t spend $800 million in Tax Increment Financing funds to help schools instead of raising property taxes.”
◆ “This school budget represents a balanced approach that includes $3 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue and would add only $84 in taxes every year for owners of a $250,000 home.”
The survey tests voters opinions on whether they think Gov. Quinn should sign a bill allowing casinos in Chicago and around the state.
The survey asks voters whether they agree with these arguments about Emanuel:
◆ “Emanuel has good judgment.”
◆ “Emanuel represents all the neighborhoods in Chicago”
◆ “Emanuel fights for what’s right”
◆ “Emanuel is an effective manager”
◆ “Emanuel keeps his promises.”
◆ “Emanuel allows corporations [too much say] in City Hall.”
◆ “Emanuel is too ready to raise taxes.”
◆ “Emanuel is out of touch with regular people.”
◆ “Emanuel cares more about downtown than the neighborhoods.”
Daley kept Greenberg on retainer up until the moment he announced his political retirement.
When the 75-year, $1.15 billion deal that privatized Chicago parking meters and the first-round flame-out in the Olympic sweepstakes caused a nosedive in Daley’s popularity, the former mayor knew it before media polls told the same story.
That may well have factored into his decision to call it quits.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
WHY AMES (APPARENTLY) DOESN'T MATTER
Pretty sophisticated analysis of the historical role of the Iowa Straw Poll by Charles Franklin on Mark Blumenthal's blog..check out his graph on the site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-franklin/why-ames-apparently-doesn_b_926809.html
ankil
Why Ames (Apparently) Doesn't Matter by Charles Franklin
After yesterday's excitement over the Ames straw poll, let's take a look at the history and consequences. With Tim Pawlenty's withdrawal today, it seems Ames does indeed matter, at least for negative consequences, and Michele Bachmann's appearances on Sunday morning shows also hints at the upside for visibility and seriousness.
Yesterday, Nate Silver of the New York Times, presented his analysis of why Ames matters. His approach is to link the Ames straw poll to performance in the Iowa caucuses, and the results show that the two are certainly correlated, whether or not they are causally connected. The results convince Silver that Ames is an important signal about a candidate's likely success in the caucuses.
But the caucus is only the first event of the nomination process and so an alternative approach is to focus on the brass ring: the nomination itself. Is there any evidence that performance in the Ames straw poll has an effect on winning the GOP presidential nomination?
The short answer is "no." And the longer answer is "beware of statistical analysis with very few cases".
The chart above shows the predicted probability of winning the nomination based on national polling in the month before the Ames straw poll and whether or not the candidate won the straw poll. There is a strong and statistically significant effect of national poll standing (which is why the curves rise rapidly to near certainty for those polling well). But the estimated effect for winning Ames is not statistically significant, and in fact is estimated to have a negative effect, if any at all. That is why the black line for winners is below the red line for losers. The best conclusion is "no effect at all."
In the figure, solid dots represent nominees while open circles are those who failed to gain the nomination. Straw poll winners who went on to secure the nomination (solid black dots) are Bush '99 and Dole '95. Straw poll losers (solid red dots) who became nominees are Bush '87, Reagan '79 and McCain '07.
The straw poll winners who failed to gain the nomination are also revealing: Romney '07, Gramm '95 (who tied with Dole at the straw poll), Robertson '87 and Bush '79. The common trait is these all won the straw poll while standing below 10% support in the national polls at the time. McCain '07 with 16% poll support holds the record for lowest poll support of an eventual nominee, and he lost the straw poll.
Perhaps what is most revealing here is that the straw poll occasionally ratifies front runners, as it did with Bush in '99 and Dole in '95. But it often gives the nod to relatively weak candidates (from a national polling perspective) who command very modest public support. While attractive within the party, and effective at organizing in Iowa, these candidates had limited appeal in subsequent contests (or faced powerful opponents, as Bush '79 learned when taking his "big mo" against Reagan after Iowa).
If we plug in the current national polling numbers to the model for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, we see that Bachmann is given little chance at the nomination, at least according to the model. Her predicted probability of winning the nomination, based on 13% in national polls and a straw poll win is .023, or 2.3%. (She has fluctuated in polling recently and fallen from her high point of the last month, so the current 13% may or may not adequately reflect her potential support. Her current trend estimate is actually lower, at 8.7%. All candidates in the model are measured by the same standard-the most recent available national poll taken before the straw poll.)
Rick Perry has, of course, only just entered the race so his polls may be highly variable. The latest put him at 17%, yielding an probability of nomination of .114, or 11.4%. Perry's polling has been rising rapidly with a trend estimate at 16.4, essentially the same as his latest poll.
Finally, Mitt Romney remains the polling front runner with 24%, giving him an estimated .363 probability of nomination. His trend has turned down recently and now stands at 19%.
Both Perry and Romney outpace McCain '07 at this point, but stand well behind Reagan '79 or Bush '87, two other straw poll losers, and far behind Dole '95 or Bush '99 who won the straw poll while also polling near or over 50%.
It is worth point out that national polls are no guarantee of success either. Ask Giuliani '07 or Dole '87.
The simple conclusion then is that there is no evidence that straw poll success increases the likelihood of winning the GOP presidential nomination. Strong polling among Republicans nationally is far more powerful, even if certainly not a guarantee.
If there is a straw poll effect it seems more likely to be short term and tactical rather than long term and of strategic value. Pawlenty has given up. Bachmann is and will be in the spotlight for a while. But the short term effects show little evidence of carrying over to long term success in the nomination chase.
(I find a slight improvement in prospects of winning the Iowa caucus among straw poll winners, which is consistent with Silver's finding based on percentage votes. But when predicting nomination success with a model similar to the one presented here, winning the Iowa caucus has no effect on nomination probability, once national poll standing is incorporated in the model.)
Non-geeks may want to stop here.
The longer answer is to notice how poor the data are for answering the question at all. The black line for winners has no cases along it from Bachmann at 13% to Dole at 48%. In contrast, the red line for losers is pretty well populated in this range. What that means statistically is we have no information for estimating the effect of winning the straw poll for anyone between 10% and 48% national support. The black line then is estimated based on the four winners who all stood below 10% and the two winners who were over 48%. (Bachmann doesn't count because we don't know the nominee yet, obviously.) It is the mathematical shape of the curve that provides the leverage for estimating the black line between 10% and 48%, and that is thin gruel indeed. The red line in contrast enjoys several cases in this range, and while it too has substantial uncertainty in outcomes it is far better grounded in data than is the curve for straw poll winners.
Given these limitations of data which the real world has provided, the best conclusion remains that we don't have any evidence that the straw poll provides a boost in likelihood of winning the nomination, once national polls are taken into account. Anecdotally, it is revealing to ponder the division between straw poll winners who are very low in national polls and winners who are very high in poll, with no one in between. It seems dark horses have a real shot in the straw poll, but not so much at the nomination.
P.S. And Joshua Tucker cuts to the chase without making it excessively complicated with just two bars
Posted by Dotty Lynch at 1:43 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-franklin/why-ames-apparently-doesn_b_926809.html
ankil
Why Ames (Apparently) Doesn't Matter by Charles Franklin
After yesterday's excitement over the Ames straw poll, let's take a look at the history and consequences. With Tim Pawlenty's withdrawal today, it seems Ames does indeed matter, at least for negative consequences, and Michele Bachmann's appearances on Sunday morning shows also hints at the upside for visibility and seriousness.
Yesterday, Nate Silver of the New York Times, presented his analysis of why Ames matters. His approach is to link the Ames straw poll to performance in the Iowa caucuses, and the results show that the two are certainly correlated, whether or not they are causally connected. The results convince Silver that Ames is an important signal about a candidate's likely success in the caucuses.
But the caucus is only the first event of the nomination process and so an alternative approach is to focus on the brass ring: the nomination itself. Is there any evidence that performance in the Ames straw poll has an effect on winning the GOP presidential nomination?
The short answer is "no." And the longer answer is "beware of statistical analysis with very few cases".
The chart above shows the predicted probability of winning the nomination based on national polling in the month before the Ames straw poll and whether or not the candidate won the straw poll. There is a strong and statistically significant effect of national poll standing (which is why the curves rise rapidly to near certainty for those polling well). But the estimated effect for winning Ames is not statistically significant, and in fact is estimated to have a negative effect, if any at all. That is why the black line for winners is below the red line for losers. The best conclusion is "no effect at all."
In the figure, solid dots represent nominees while open circles are those who failed to gain the nomination. Straw poll winners who went on to secure the nomination (solid black dots) are Bush '99 and Dole '95. Straw poll losers (solid red dots) who became nominees are Bush '87, Reagan '79 and McCain '07.
The straw poll winners who failed to gain the nomination are also revealing: Romney '07, Gramm '95 (who tied with Dole at the straw poll), Robertson '87 and Bush '79. The common trait is these all won the straw poll while standing below 10% support in the national polls at the time. McCain '07 with 16% poll support holds the record for lowest poll support of an eventual nominee, and he lost the straw poll.
Perhaps what is most revealing here is that the straw poll occasionally ratifies front runners, as it did with Bush in '99 and Dole in '95. But it often gives the nod to relatively weak candidates (from a national polling perspective) who command very modest public support. While attractive within the party, and effective at organizing in Iowa, these candidates had limited appeal in subsequent contests (or faced powerful opponents, as Bush '79 learned when taking his "big mo" against Reagan after Iowa).
If we plug in the current national polling numbers to the model for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, we see that Bachmann is given little chance at the nomination, at least according to the model. Her predicted probability of winning the nomination, based on 13% in national polls and a straw poll win is .023, or 2.3%. (She has fluctuated in polling recently and fallen from her high point of the last month, so the current 13% may or may not adequately reflect her potential support. Her current trend estimate is actually lower, at 8.7%. All candidates in the model are measured by the same standard-the most recent available national poll taken before the straw poll.)
Rick Perry has, of course, only just entered the race so his polls may be highly variable. The latest put him at 17%, yielding an probability of nomination of .114, or 11.4%. Perry's polling has been rising rapidly with a trend estimate at 16.4, essentially the same as his latest poll.
Finally, Mitt Romney remains the polling front runner with 24%, giving him an estimated .363 probability of nomination. His trend has turned down recently and now stands at 19%.
Both Perry and Romney outpace McCain '07 at this point, but stand well behind Reagan '79 or Bush '87, two other straw poll losers, and far behind Dole '95 or Bush '99 who won the straw poll while also polling near or over 50%.
It is worth point out that national polls are no guarantee of success either. Ask Giuliani '07 or Dole '87.
The simple conclusion then is that there is no evidence that straw poll success increases the likelihood of winning the GOP presidential nomination. Strong polling among Republicans nationally is far more powerful, even if certainly not a guarantee.
If there is a straw poll effect it seems more likely to be short term and tactical rather than long term and of strategic value. Pawlenty has given up. Bachmann is and will be in the spotlight for a while. But the short term effects show little evidence of carrying over to long term success in the nomination chase.
(I find a slight improvement in prospects of winning the Iowa caucus among straw poll winners, which is consistent with Silver's finding based on percentage votes. But when predicting nomination success with a model similar to the one presented here, winning the Iowa caucus has no effect on nomination probability, once national poll standing is incorporated in the model.)
Non-geeks may want to stop here.
The longer answer is to notice how poor the data are for answering the question at all. The black line for winners has no cases along it from Bachmann at 13% to Dole at 48%. In contrast, the red line for losers is pretty well populated in this range. What that means statistically is we have no information for estimating the effect of winning the straw poll for anyone between 10% and 48% national support. The black line then is estimated based on the four winners who all stood below 10% and the two winners who were over 48%. (Bachmann doesn't count because we don't know the nominee yet, obviously.) It is the mathematical shape of the curve that provides the leverage for estimating the black line between 10% and 48%, and that is thin gruel indeed. The red line in contrast enjoys several cases in this range, and while it too has substantial uncertainty in outcomes it is far better grounded in data than is the curve for straw poll winners.
Given these limitations of data which the real world has provided, the best conclusion remains that we don't have any evidence that the straw poll provides a boost in likelihood of winning the nomination, once national polls are taken into account. Anecdotally, it is revealing to ponder the division between straw poll winners who are very low in national polls and winners who are very high in poll, with no one in between. It seems dark horses have a real shot in the straw poll, but not so much at the nomination.
P.S. And Joshua Tucker cuts to the chase without making it excessively complicated with just two bars
Posted by Dotty Lynch at 1:43 PM
DEVIN DWYER: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low in Gallup Poll
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-in-gallup-poll-.html
Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low in Gallup Poll
August 15, 2011 9:52 AM
PrintRSSShare:EmailMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooABC News’ Devin Dwyer (@devindwyer) reports: President Obama’s approval rating has sunk to 39 percent in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the lowest point of his presidency.
The survey, based on a three-day rolling average, also found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s job handling, a new high.
Battered by several weeks of bad economic news and a bruising debate over the debt ceiling, Obama sets out on an official bus tour through Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois later today aimed at selling his plan for economic growth, reclaiming the media spotlight that has been dominated by Republicans and building support among Midwest voters.
Recent state-by-state polling by Gallup found that Obama’s approval ratings in Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois are currently above the national average.
In Minnesota, 52 percent of voters approve of Obama’s job handling, while 49 percent approved in Iowa and 54 percent in Illinois, Gallup found. The national average for the first half of 2011 was 47 percent.
August 15, 2011 in Devin Dwyer, President Obama | Permalink | Share |
Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low in Gallup Poll
August 15, 2011 9:52 AM
PrintRSSShare:EmailMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooABC News’ Devin Dwyer (@devindwyer) reports: President Obama’s approval rating has sunk to 39 percent in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, the lowest point of his presidency.
The survey, based on a three-day rolling average, also found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s job handling, a new high.
Battered by several weeks of bad economic news and a bruising debate over the debt ceiling, Obama sets out on an official bus tour through Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois later today aimed at selling his plan for economic growth, reclaiming the media spotlight that has been dominated by Republicans and building support among Midwest voters.
Recent state-by-state polling by Gallup found that Obama’s approval ratings in Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois are currently above the national average.
In Minnesota, 52 percent of voters approve of Obama’s job handling, while 49 percent approved in Iowa and 54 percent in Illinois, Gallup found. The national average for the first half of 2011 was 47 percent.
August 15, 2011 in Devin Dwyer, President Obama | Permalink | Share |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)