« North Carolina opposes action in Syria, no impact on Hagan yet though | Main | »

September 11, 2013


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


What a clown show PPP continues to be. Pathetic.


Do you have info on the difference between registered voters here and likely voters for both the recall and governor Hickenloper's re-election?

bill smyth

So, let me get this straight. You presumably use the same methodology, or very similar, methodology, to design and run all your polls. You obviously trust your methodology, otherwise you wouldn't use it. But when your trusted methodology gives you results you don't expect--you believe the results to be an outlier--you don't go back and review the trusted method to find the problem, but rather simply discard the results as anomolous? You don't examine your methods to see why empirical results are not meeting expected results? You see the inner contradiction here? You can't trust the methodology only when it gives you results you expect. You have to trust it all the time or not at all. If it doesn't give you the results you expect, either the methodology is wrong or your beliefs are. In this case, you allowed your beliefs to outweigh the evidence of proof your methodology demonstrated (against the very definition of scientific rigor), which I guess is what you're implicitly or explicitly admitting in your post. But what you're also admitting is that your everyday trust in your empirical methodology can't be all that deep.

Felix Keverich

Colorado is a libertarian state. Just because Obama won it twice, does not mean the voters there support every point of the Democratic agenda.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Mr Bloomberg and Hollywood allies outspent NRA 10 to 1. So if anyone is to blame for turning this race into something bigger than it should have been, it's these guys.


Tom, do you think next time you can ask different questions as they related to universal background checks?

Here are some suggestions:

1) Do you think two friends should have to drive 40+ miles, spend hours to find a willing FFL to conduct a background checks merely for one of the friends to loan a shotgun to the other friend for a 4 day hunting trip?

2) Should friends (all adults in the house) of a family displaced by a flood/fire be required to go through a background check (drive for miles, find a willing dealer, pay $20+ for it, run on all guns, etc.) for the sole purpose of helping out the displaced family?

3) Should a lawful gun owner go through a background check to recover a stolen firearm recovered from the police?

4) Should law enforcement be forced to go through a background check for each and every gun brought to be turned in during a gun buy back?

5) Should a highly regarded, actively involved lawyer (member of the bar) be forced to get a background check if they want to buy firearm from their best friend, who happens to be a police officer?

6) Should standard capacity magazines be banned from private citizens?

7) Should citizens have their ability to defend themselves be restricted?

8) Should lawful citizens be denied the right to transfer lawful private property to family members, friends or next of kin in time of death?

9) Do gun magazines holding more than 15 rounds (cartridges, rounds, ammunition when in the magazine as they are complete - the bullet is what comes out of the gun) have only one purpose, to kill a lot of people quickly?

10) What constitutes "high capacity"? Is it 8? 11? 16? or 31?

11) Should gun magazines that come standard with the most commonly owned, popular firearms be banned - forcing the gun buyer to find non standard, low capacity magazines?

Why not try out some of those questions as they deal with reality.

BTW, you clearly demonstrated a gross lack of objectivity with "But the NRA won the messaging game and turned it into something bigger than it was...". The anti gunners tried to turn this into a proxy for banning/restricting abortion and birth control. Talk about a messaging game that was bigger than it was.


This company is one of the reasons why I NEVER answer ANY polls. It is skewed to steer the person being polled. They claim "didn't find gun control measures that drove the recall", however they never bothered to ask the question "do you support new restrictions on firearms?" or "do you think the existing firearm laws are sufficient?" or "do you think the reason for the recall is because of gun control measures?"

I will let everyone that I know of the tactics of this company. Have already mirrored the page so if they remove or alter, I have a date/timestamp copy.


The progressives passed laws in CA, NY, MD, and other states that were very unfriendly to gun rights, and the only "message" - an empirical fact - is that they do not intend to stop with the measures passed in CO.

Moreover, voters know that the homicide rate in CO, and Denver, is lower than in NYC or in Oakland. People are not willing to give up rights unless there is a real benefit, and there is NO empirical benefit. Stop and frisk, gun restrictions, they have little to no impact on public safety. People know it, so why should they have to choose or give up something for no benefit?

Charlie Martin

You know, your reputation as a polling organization might be better served if you didn't suppress polls that aren't going the way you want, or say things like "If voters made their decision based on the actual pretty unobtrusive laws that Giron helped get passed, she likely would have survived" in your analysis.

One might almost get the impression that PPP was primarily an advocacy and push-polling group.


tommy, tommy tommy, do you know how silly you look? LOL


Background checks have strong public support. Expanded background checks don't. Why is this so hard for people to figure out?


Who care people??? They still had the #'s dead on and it is their choice to release polls or not, just like all of the other polling companies do as well. Back off and get a grip!


**Cares ^


There is no such thing as an "unobtrusive" law.

The purpose of all laws is to give the government the power to arrest, fine, imprison or kill you if you don't obey them.

Stick your "unobtrusive" laws in your ear.


How pathetic.

Give 'em hell guys!


It's all in how you ask the questions. You seem to believe that they are "unobtrusive" laws — maybe that is true for you — many others disagree. It's a well-known fact that the anti crowd has deliberately conflated terms and misrepresented the current laws in order to try to encroach further.


Of course, the real problem could be with the election "numbers" that had Obama "winning" by "almost 20 points."

R. Hillyard

Hmmm.... do you think anyone is going to listen any polls from Public Policy Polling anymore. You're tainted as a liberal organization that only releasing numbers to further your own agenda. You should rename yourself LPP. Liberal Policy Polling, then at least you're telling the truth about something.


Dustin: Motives matter. (Some) People (should) care about motives.


"If voters made their decision based on the actual pretty unobtrusive laws that Giron helped get passed, she likely would have survived."

Obviously you are severely incorrect. The NRA had nothing to do with this. The people of Colorado saw firsthand the impact of the obtrusive laws that were passed. That IS why these two public servants were recalled. Your reflection shows just how ridiculous the progressive movement is. It makes no sense and passing blame on an organization instead on the root cause of the dissatisfaction is pathetic.


PPP should inform Debbie Wasserman Schultz of their "poll" and their "mistake" in not releasing it. She is blaming voter suppression.


While I generally support some level of gun control laws, I absolutely do not support them when some emotional event, such as Newtown, is used to manipulate public opinion about said laws. I would imagine fair number of people feel similarly.

John Graham

PPP is a bunch of Libtards. Why not explain WHY you only post results you like Jackass?


Why should WE have any confidence in your numbers if YOU don't? I have no use for an organization that peddles data only if it fits the pre-determined narrative or personal opinion of the pollsters. Pathetic! But, thank you for your honesty. You have shined a bright light on your ineptitude.

Bill Clinton Warned You

So maybe after horribly blowing the Sanford election, and now blowing this recall beyond belief to the point of drawing ridicule from Nate Silver, have you ever considered the possibility that it isn't the voters who don't understand the questions from the geniuses at PPP, but that maybe accepting a theoretical argument like background checks in concept is different from supporting an actual BG law as it is implemented?

It is sort of like how people consistently support in theory the concept of cutting government spending, but would go ballistic and head to the polls if their favored programs like medicare or social security were cut. I am sure almost everyone says that yes, in theory they would like a background check to stop criminals from obtaining guns - but that is an entirely different reality from when BG checks are actually implemented. Remember, a number of politicians basically didn't believe your poll results for Toomey/Manchin bc they wanted to know if your polls were right, how come they only heard from the 10% instead of the supposed 90%.

Instead of accusing the people of being "confused" or not smart enough to understand your questions, you should do some self analysis and realize that approving of a particular idea in theory and in practice are two wildly different things. What I am saying is nothing new, and it is something even Bill Clinton tried to warn you Dems about.

Your credibility was severely damaged from this stunt, and only if you make the necessary corrections and start accepting that reality is different from the theoretical will you even begin to recover.


"In a district that Barack Obama won by almost 20 points..."

Consider the possibility that district voters believed Obama when he lied through his teeth about his position(s) on new gun control measures. Consider the possibility that they no longer approve of his latent leftism and disregard for the constitution generally and 2nd Amendment in particular.

I suspect your internal data on Obama's popularity in the district suggests a falling out of sorts. Hmmm?

Harwood Farcourt

"...I figured there was no way that could be right ..."

Yeah? Show us your figures.


We, the Gun trotting, Bible thumping red-necks already knew that PPP is a leftist mouthpiece.

Today Tommy confessed what we-the-people have known for a long time.

Conducting a poll to gauge public sentiment/mood on a particular issue with a set expectation for the outcome!

Are you in the business of polling people or shaping their opinions to your liking?

Dr Nick R.

Democrat laws = "unobtrusive"

Republican laws = war on: women, muslims, blacks, poor people, illegal immigrants, children, workers,......

Willy Ruffian

Obama won by a 20 point margin.That was a national election and the Dem budget was sufficient to raise the dead and busloads of Somalis, not so this time.


D, nobody here called you "gun trotting, bible thumping rednecks". Only you did.

Then you turn around and say "we the people". Which is it, "we the people" or "we the gun trotting, bible thumping rednecks"?

How did any of PPP's actions shape opinion? Their poll predicted a 12% recall, and we got a 12% recall. Publication of this poll did not affect the outcome. Actually, refusal to publish the poll might've hurt the Dem side, as this poll could've alerted the Dem side to the need for a change in strategy.


PPP: "If voters made their decision based on the actual pretty ""unobtrusive"" laws that Giron helped get passed..."

*Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron lost their seats in the state’s first-ever legislative recall election, despite the support of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hundreds of ground troops from groups like Organizing for America, and a 7-to-1 spending advantage AND THE COLLUSION BY OMISSION OF PPP.

hat tip: HotAir.com ...(caps mine)


D, don't you have the maturity to not need to write in all caps?


Whether you think the results are correct or not, this is something that is ethically dishonest. Publish your polling methods and all the tables and let readers make the decision. The researchers and analysts made a very inappropriate decision, and I believe PPP made it for political reasons.

Furthermore, PPP's towing of the Democratic party line by placing judgment on the gun control policy ("pretty unobtrusive laws") and claiming that the reasons for a recall were bogus ("But the NRA won the messaging game and turned it into something bigger than it was- even if that wasn't true- and Giron paid the price") is the exact opposite of any scientific behavior expected of professionals. You are supposed to let the data speak for itself - not suppress it or inflate it.

With all of this taken into account, it is plainly obvious that PPP is nothing more than a pseudoscientific numbers factory acting as the empirical arm of left-leaning politicians and policies. This is a disgrace to scientific polling, and above all else, reporting the truth.


I think the OP's puzzlement at a 12-point win, when polls showed a fairly even split on the onerous magazine ban, stems from the failure to appreciate the *depth* of the opposition to gun and magazine bans.

For those of us who actually own smaller-caliber guns designed for double-column magazines, a magazine ban is not some minor imposition. It is HUGE deal. Hence we are far more motivated to volunteer, contribute funds, and vote the issue.


This post is prima facie evidence that PPP exists to push the leftist agenda.


So let me summarize what was just said with that statement.

"We lied… But it was the NRA’s fault!"

Seems legit.


Let me explain...
Pueblo, Colorado, the town I live near, is a Democratic stronghold.
When the few Republicans that are in Pueblo decided to try recalling state senator Angela Giron, I figured that was a long shot. But after the conservative group collected enough signatures that there had to be a recall, some of Giron's supporters started going door to door to verify signatures. At one point a homeowner told them that his home was private property and asked Giron's supporters to please leave. They staged a sit-in on his front lawn to show that they didn't have to leave. (I am not sure, this may have happened twice.)
Also, two weeks before the recall election, the hotels started filling up with gypsy voters from Chicago and Michigan. (All it takes to vote in Colorado is declaring intent of residence.) I thought this gypsy voter idea was just a rumor until I was at Panda Express and heard the women in line in front of me talking about the hotel and how they were only staying a few days, after they had voted they could go back home...
That is why Angela Giron lost the recall in Pueblo, because normal residents like me didn't approve of her supporters' tactics.

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