« In North Carolina, McCrory and Republicans continue to fall | Main | Crazy E-Mail of the Day »

September 13, 2013


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


Haven't you just essentially provided 15 justifications for why releasing a poll in Colorado would have been completely legitimate?


Exactly, Tom. You guys run the most accurate polling outfit out there. Haters gonna hate. Silver should be happy be had your polls in the database, instead his self-importance clouds his judgment.


You guys don't seem to get this whole statistics thing.


You missed another success where you were out on a limb.

In the final week of the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary in Florida both Mason-Dixon and Quinnipiac released numbers indicating a clear defeat for Rick Scott. PPP had numbers showing a win for Scott which turned out to be true.

Vic McDonald

I am a long time Republican fan of PPP. I don't agree with your politics, but I respect your polling. We will never know if your incredulity at your own poll was a completely professional decision, or whether some deep seated ideological slant in the gun debate tilted you towards making the call that you did. All that this proves is that you are human. The fact that you had revealed your decision after the fact, shows that you have class!

Alan Snipes

All the more reason to have released this poll. Whether it is true or not, it gives the appearance of something to hide and an agenda to push. The only agenda you should be pushing are accurate polls. Sometimes you will get things wrong, but so what. Overall, you have demonstrated your accuracy. As I said yesterday, why give your critics ammunition when it was so totally unnecessary?


In 2012, PPP correctly called 11 of 12 battleground states (it called a tie in NC, which automatically means it missed the mark - there is never really a tie in an election, someone is going to win). This also means that of 22 end polls total (including non-battlegrounds, like Montana), PPP got it right in 21 states. In Maine, Florida, Virginia and Minnesota, PPP absolutely nailed the margin within 0.3% of the actual result. That is absolutely outstanding. The average mathematical bias of these 22 end poll was 1.41 points to the RIGHT, not to the Left. To compare, Rasmussen missed 6 of 12 battleground states in 2012, an absolutely pathetic batting average. complete analysis of most of the 2012 pollsters here: http://rosenthalswelt.blogspot.de/2013/02/the-moment-of-truth-how-did-pollsters-do.html


I haven't read these attacks, but the one accusing PPP of "copying" is essentially an allegation of fraud. If the allegation is untrue, it is libelous. Unless the charge came in a Youtube comment or in someplace where it will be ignored, I cannot imagine why PPP would not consult with an attorney to consider legal action against the person making the allegation.

As for the list above, as impressive as it is, there is plenty more that you could have included. Just off the top of my head, you nailed the special election in the Iowa state senate in 2011, which nobody else polled. I also believe you nailed the Turner/Weprin special election to replace Anthony Wiener.

Your gay marriage polling has been accurate not only in Maine in 2009, but in CA in 2008, NC in May 2012, and in all 4 contests in November 2012. PPPs polling in CA on Prop 8 contradicted the grossly erroneous polling by PPIC and Field, which both had Prop 8 losing. If PPP were copying, it would have replicated Field's and PPIC's erroneous results.

Indeed, if PPP were "copying" other pollsters, it would only be polling on races that other pollsters were covering. It wouldn't be going anywhere near recall elections, primaries and special elections.

Please consider suing.


For those Republicans, why not just read your favorite Rasmussen? Did those who criticize PPP now criticize Rasmussen for its 2012 election result?

Patrick Stuart

Also a "long time Republican"/conservative fan of PPP here. I ask if you would give me the courtesy of glancing at a quick note I wrote up.

Here's the thing: I've seen you guys do polling in the past where the voters expressed one preference, and yet indicated that they would vote contrary to the way they believed. An obvious example is SSM. A more pertinent example is Michigan, where laws against compulsory union dues were quite popular to start, or Texas where late-term abortion laws are quite popular, and yet voter approval of the politicians is murky at best.

In all of the above cases, you released the poll. In this case, you did not release it. If I may suggest: ask yourselves why did you neglected to release it this time, but not in others.

I think you might find that, despite your very best intentions, you were defeated by your own political bias. Not because you were hard-headed, but because that's just how sociology works sometimes. By hanging out in certain crowds, reading certain publications, etc., a worldview may seem more plausible to us by means of exposure. I think this is what sunk your ship this time, and why Silver rightly criticized your operation.

Getting smacked down by Nate Silver is the polling equivalent of getting told off by Michael Jordan. He's the big guy in town. But don't let it get to you - your firm isn't going to fold or even take a large hit. Admit that you made a mistake (to yourself if noone else), and continue providing quality polls to us, John Q. Public.


One more thing, it seems that ppp is more accurate than mot of the leading polling firm.


Ppp ftw. You've been my go-to pollster for every election pool I've ever entered, and i have yet to lose one.


Especially Montana senate 2012-if I'd stuck with Nate Silver on that one i woulda lost.

Plus i like Toms twitter sass.


I really dislike Nate Cohn and Nate Silver position on this.

It is obvious for me that PPP do polls, and to ask PPP for expalining their methodology is symply dumb. A pollster can not explain the entire methodology because there are many campaign staff members triying to manipulate pollster's results (knowing the methodology is a lot easier).

And to accuse PPP of doing polling averages is not realistic. PPP is not waiting to other pollsters to jump in a race, and in some cases have very different results of the rest.


Poll results matter, and if the poll results agree with the result of the race, it is a merit of the pollster.

In the 2010 cycle PPP's numbers were a little unbalanced toward the Republicans, but the last cycle was very good.

I'm missing the two polls released weekly because it was good to see them.

Nate Silver should pay more attention to his own results. PPP is not his trouble. In 2010 he was a victim of the massive Rasmussen "polling", and he was not able to detect it. And the last year his record was not also too good.


PPP shouldn't feel it has to defend itself. Your polls are accurate, and last week's little kerfluffle was no big deal. Just continue doing what you do.

N Grondin

best polling out there.

can you please just do a senate poll in Arkansas!!!

Brandon Day

I have a great deal of respect for PPP polling and wanted to vocally let all the admins/pollsters know that you still have my good faith :)

FYI, your polling is my "go-to" for election predictions and, as you have made abundantly clear, you're always on the mark.

Thank you for all that you do and your sound methodology

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