« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A sharp turn in the Strickland v Kasich polling?

Quinnipiac University released a new poll on the Ohio Governor’s race that has caused a stir. It shows Governor Ted Strickland, Democrat, ahead of former Congressman John Kasich, Republican, while previous polling showed the reverse.

The swing is large at first glance. Should Ohio Democrats be excited? Should Ohio Republicans panic? Let’s unpack this.

First off, the poll itself. Strickland 43, Kasich 38, MoE 2.5. The pool was of registered voters. I come up with a 15% likelihood that Kasich is ahead. Small but not at all negligible.

How does this compare with previous polls? PPP on the 23rd showed much the opposite: Strickland 37, Kasich 42, MoE 3.9%. Pool is listed as “Ohio voters,” which I’m taking to mean registered voters. Model result: 73% chance Kasich is ahead. Before that, on the 8th, Rasmussen polled likely voters and got Strickland 38, Kasich 49, MoE 4.5. Kasich gets an 88% likelihood of being ahead.

This to me looks like it could be a legitimate shift, as it’s putting Strickland on the other side of the tipping point, but not giving him too large of a lead suddenly. Additionally, the PPP poll did show movement away from Kasich, which the Quinnipiac poll merely continues.

But at the same time it is reading the opposite of the previous two polls in this race, so I’d like to see another poll before making any conclusions. If Kasich leads in the next poll, then we dismiss the PPP poll entirely as a statistical anomaly. If Strickland leads again, then we conclude that the last month has seen a steady slide away from Kasich, because the chance of two consecutive outliers is only 1/400, which is probably too small to take seriously.

I would need to see a large body of data discrediting Quinnipiac’s methodology before preemptively dismissing the poll as wrong, though.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

COMMENTS

  • chbroussard

    Could this be a temporary bounce like Obama got after the healthcare bill passed? Or have I missed something amiss in Ohio.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I’m not one to indulge in conservative fantasies about November. We’ll win but there will be a lot of tough fighting ahead. Rob Portman is also losing fror Ohio Senate in that poll by a point. Another poll has Blunt leading by a slim four point margin. Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire are critical because they represent two vote swings, they are GOP held. They are also important electoral states. It is conceivable that we could lose one one or two of these states, all it takes is a macaca moment.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Could be Obamacare bounce. Could be some local thing I don’t know about at all.

    Could be some random thing that’s going to fluctuate repeatedly between now and November.

    Ohio’s a pretty swingy state.

  • redtillimdead

    Which, for some reason, some people on here want to happen.

  • chbroussard

    Will just wait and see what next polls show.

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    …that of the polling groups that have produced polls on the OH gov race, Quinnipiac is the only one to show Strickland ahead, at least since 2010 began.

    http://p.ly/ejbBh

  • devan95

    As the election gets closer, poll takers will instruct their computer programs to place more calls to area codes of cities and urban areas. That way they are guaranteed to get a more liberal response and still be able to say “the calls were random computer generated.” (yeah, but we used the program that makes more calls to Chicago than Farmville)

  • Cheryl

    that was all over the place in the Brown/Coakley race in MA?

  • Swamp_Yankee

    In something of a twist of irony, Ayotte front paged a redstate diary that I wrote on her campaign blog. People operate under the illusion that if you just run “real” conservatives, they will win. Well, Ovide ran twice and got smoked, picked up his toys and went home. So much for that theory

    And so much for the theory of supporting “new blood”. Kelly is the new blood. Ayotte is the popular, forty something mother of two who has never run for office before. Ovide is the old washed up pol who lost twice.

    Maybe Kelly is not a fire breathing conservative, but she’s even tempered in that New Hampshire kind of way. I quit listening to Laura Ingraham for a while when she was calling Ayotte part of the establishment and the old boys network, when Ovide, the old pol, was in D.C. asking for NRSC support. Laura and Dan Reihl were pushing a lot of lies her.

    But the most important thing is that Ovide can, and probably would lose. We cant afford that. Not if we have dreams of repeal. And its not fair to Republicans in NH to have outsiders prop up an old partisan hack, only to lose, and leave the NH GOP in the wilderness for years to come.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    That kind of deliberate rigging would of course entirely invalidate what they do, but I need proof in order to ignore their results.

  • walter_hanson

    I crunched the numbers (interesting they didn’t listen the breakdown like some other polls).

    I got a ratio basically 40% democrat, 30% Republican, and 30% Independents.

    Though one encourgaing things as far as I’m concerned. In litterally every race since Obama got elected the undecides broke dramatically for the Republican. There is a large number of undecided. Sounds like that will help the Republicans in Ohio.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • IJB

    Leaving aside all the major problems with Quinnipiac (they are known to skew Dem, they have consistently been outliers on OH polling this year IIRC), you *never* make any conclusions about anything that defies the current “trend” without more data.

    This is something people like RCP and Fox News do as well, and it irritates me no end – a “trend” is only shown over *multiple* data points, not a single data point. Frankly, a single data point – i.e. a single poll result – isn’t even worth reporting on all on its own: it shouldn’t even be commented on.

    Until you get more data to tell you something else is going on, assume a result like this is an “outlier”.
    (See also: Any of the Kos 2000 polling, and most other Quinnipiac polling.)

  • cump

    I did a little digging, had to dig as I have not heard of this comparison of Kasich to Lehman in my local newspaper (which is, by the way, a heavy democratic area)…but does this hold any weight? http://www.examiner.com/x-23537-Columbus-Government-Examiner~y2010m3d13-In-Ohio-Democrats-spell-Kasich-L-E-H-M-A-N

    This article refers to Democrats inferring that Kasich was involved in the Lehman Brothers collapse. While I doubt seriously that John Kasich had much to do with this financial fiasco, democrats are pushing hard that he did. I’d like to see a complete disclosure by the Kasich campaign team.

    As the primary approaches, I’d hate to see the New York Times attempt to sway the Ohio voters against who I believe to be a good man.

  • JadedByPolitics

    that had Specter UP out of no where and Rasmussen showed the exact same 9 points for Toomey that he enjoyed for the past 3 months. Quinnipac is a BOGUS poll to pay attention to!

  • wolfgang

    ….polling base, and consequentially the results it gets in the production of its polls. Hard right Conservatives quickly get the boot from its statistical pool, skewing the final result substantially to the Left.
    Do you know what day, month, season or year this is? You don’t! That’s excellent, I’d like to ask you some questions. This won’t take more than a moment of your time!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If the methodology is good, you can measure the *status* of the race with one poll.

    However when we have multiple polls and one is different, we can doubt that poll and wait for more data.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Adjoran

    Has there been some event or blunder which particularly affects the race, against the overall state of public opinion which is not aligning with Democrats generally?

    Isn’t Quinnipiac one of those who refuse to disclose their sample data for “proprietary” reasons?

    Without the internals, an outlier should probably be assumed to be an outlier, especially when showing a dramatic shift not explicable by events or overall trends.