« | Main | Maine favors gay marriage »

March 14, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Narrow leads are not good enough. The bigots will come in with their secret donor millions and fear mongering TV ads about how the children are in danger etc. etc. and easily reverse a narrow lead.

Dustin Ingalls

Its not just that those over 65 are a larger percent of the electorate than the youngest group, its also that those over 65 turn out to vote at rate of 90% as opposed to the 25% turnout of the typical under 30 voter.Thats what it means when theyre a larger share of the electorate. The electorate is only those who turn out, unless youre talking about the eligible electorate. This is a poll of registered voters, but it does in some sense reflect eagerness to vote through the response rate. Those more likely to vote are more likely to stick through the whole poll. Its a large part of why Democrats are doing better in our polling now than they did in the polls last fall or even last summer before we started our likely voter screen.


Its time ME. Onward to full marriage equality rights now in America, where marriage is firstly a civil and contractual matter. Period.Cheers, Joe Mustich,CT Justice of the Peace, USA.


Its not just that those over 65 are a larger percent of the electorate than the youngest group, its also that those over 65 turn out to vote at rate of 90% as opposed to the 25% turnout of the typical under 30 voter.


What I find interesting about the PPP polling in March is the cross tabs on age. In this poll those 18-29 are 6%. In 2004 that group was 17% of the vote and 2008 it was 16%.The question on the table is pretty obvious: are these polls suggesting a huge dropoff in the youth vote in 2012 OR is this a function of the fact that the race is not engaged yet. If the latter is true, one can argue these polls are sigificantly understating probable Democratic strength.Some other recent polls show the same thing:Missouri - In 2008 voters 18-29 made up 21% of the electorate, in the PPP poll they make up 10%. Virginia - in 2008 they made up 21%of the electorate and in 2004 they made up 17%. In the PPP poll they made up 9%.North Carolina - In 2004 they made up 14% of the electorate and in 2008 they made up 16% of the electorate. In the PPP poll they made up 10%.Wisconsin: In the PPP poll they made up 10%, in 2008 they made up 22% and in 2004 20%.

Dustin Ingalls

We dont weight for party--only gender, race, and age. We report the results we get and let the proportions of each party (or the unenrolled, as theyre called in Maine) fall where they may. Party turnout fluctuates from election to election, as we all saw in the drastic swings between 2008 and 2010 and already between last fall and now. Just because independents are 35% of the registered electorate doesnt mean theyre going to be 35% of the people who vote. They tend to turn out at lower rates than do partisans. You also have to consider that this is a self-reported question. We dont base it off of registered voter data. Some independents report themselves as Democrats when theyre feeling particularly blue, and as Republicans when theyre angry at a Democratic president, like last fall.


I meant, Did this help you get the results you wanted?


For the record, this polls sample was 39% Democratic, 36% Republican, 26% Independent. Actual registered voters in Maine are 33% Democratic, 28% Republican, and 35% Independent. PPP essentially switched the percentage of Republicans with the percentage of Independents, and Id be interested to know why.

Tom Jensen

So what then did you mean by the question Did this help you get the results you wanted?


Thanks for knocking down a theory I never had or enunciated, though. Any other imaginary theories of mine you want to argue with?If youre going to reply to comments, reply to what people actually write, why dont you?


I did not, in fact, think that.I was asking why your poll had 9% fewer Independents than the actual voting registration. Thats a fairly large differential that could skew the results, and its reasonable to assume that was done for a reason rather than by accident.Perhaps you could answer the question like a professional instead of being automatically defensive and ascribing motives to me and putting words in my mouth.

Tom Jensen

Assuming you think the results we wanted were to show LePage as unpopular and support for gay marriage, independents gave LePage worse numbers than the population as a whole and independents gave gay marriage stronger support than the population as a whole. So more independents would mean worse numbers for LePage and better numbers for gay marriage. So much for your theory...


Why is your survey only 26% independents when Maine voters are more like 40% independents? Did this help you get the results you wanted?


I dont think its correct to characterize LePage as still underwater with 43% approval. While its less than 50%, thats not the relevant number given the last election. LePage got less than 39% of the vote in November - that means that hes added more than 4% to his approval rating. Hes made some pretty divisive public comments since his inauguration (NAACP can kiss his butt, we should permit BPA in the state since the worst that will happen is that women will get little beards) so this advance is actually pretty interesting news.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

PPP POLLS BY YEAR: 2006-2017

We came to PPP after a public poll in the San Jose Mayoral race showed our opponent ahead by 8 points. They found our candidate (Sam Liccardo) ahead by 3 points and that allowed us to be able to push back with the press against the perception that our opponent was now a strong favorite in the race. Sam ended up winning by 2 points and is now the next Mayor of San Jose. PPP worked very fast and had a very accurate read on the electorate when we needed them
–Eric Jaye, Storefront Political Media.

For more information on hiring PPP for your polling needs click here

Among the Best Pollsters, Year after Year.

2014 :
Rated Most Accurate Pollster in Governor’s Races Nationally

2012 :
Correctly predicted the winner of every state in the Presidential race, and the winner of every major Senate race

2010 :
First pollster to predict Scott Brown’s upset win over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, only pollster to predict Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory over Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate primary.

2008 :
Ranked by the Wall Street Journal as the 2nd most accurate swing state pollster in the Presidential election.

WSJ Graphic


Public Policy Polling
2912 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: 888.621.6988

Questions or Comments?
Email Us




Dean Debnam Dean Debnam
Public Policy Polling CEO

PPP is best known for putting out highly accurate polling on key political races across the country, but we also do affordable private research for candidates and organizations.  Why pay tens of thousands of dollars for a survey when one of the most reliable companies in the nation can do it for less?"

Learn more about working
with PPP for your next project >


Facebook Facebook
Twitter Twitter
RSS Feed RSS Reader