Introducing Fast Track Polling

Political campaigns and organizations engaged in public policy issues throughout the country are facing an increasing need and desire to conduct simple, short and inexpensive polls.  This is particularly relevant for state legislative and local level campaigns, but also for Congressional races, ballot initiatives and public policy issues.  Typical 5 - 8+ minute tracking polls tend to be too expensive or expansive for these needs.   

Because of the increased demand for short, reliable and accurate polls at a low cost we have developed a new, live professional interviewer poll known as Fast Track.

Introducing Fako & Associates' Fast Track Polls

Our firm has conducted both live and recorded IVR tracking polls, sometimes referred to as robo-polls. Our personal experience with live interviewer and IVR surveys are polls conducted by professional interviewers are consistently more reliable and accurate than IVR polls at the state legislative and other down ballot campaigns. IVR polls have a proven track record of accuracy and reliability in Congressional, Statewide and high profile policy campaigns.  IVR polls are more difficult to consistently and reliably complete at the State Legislative and other down ballot races due to low response rates and limited supply of quality phone samples.  The legal prohibition on calling cell phones with automated dialers and the high cost of adding a cell phone supplement to the IVR polls creates another quality and accuracy concern for IVR polls, especially for down ballot campaigns.

To address the need for reliable, simple, short and inexpensive surveys, F&A has developed a new poll using professional interviewers known as Fast Track.   Fast Track surveys utilize a more reliable and accurate methodology than IVR polls, particularly for down ballot campaigns.  These polls will include interviews conducted on cell phones, to ensure this significant sub-group is included in the sample, reducing coverage bias and making them consistently more reliable than polls that do not or cannot include cell phones.  

We recommend using these polls for:  

• tracking polls where only name favorability and trial heat questions are needed;
• campaigns where a quick and inexpensive check on the opinions of candidates and the status of a race is needed or desired; 
• campaigns that want to track more frequently with polls that use professional interviewers; and, 
• low budget campaigns that need essential polling data on name favorability and the support of candidates.

Fast Track polls will provide essential data for any campaign.  They will include a strict screen for likely voters, test opinions of the candidates, evaluate job performance, where an incumbent is involved, test the support of candidates in a trial heat of the election, and the candidates' strength of support.  Fast Track polls also will include two essential demographic questions for the campaign, typically age and party ID.  

Fast Track polls are much less expensive than the typical 5 - 8+ minute tracking surveys. Fast Track polls will cost between $2,500 - $3,500 depending on sample size (n=300 - 400) and the availability of sample.  This is significantly lower than the typical tracking polls, which cost $5,000 or more, and only marginally higher than many IVR studies.

Fako & Associates also provides comprehensive benchmark and standard tracking surveys to campaigns, public policy groups, labor organizations, and private businesses throughout  the country.

Please contact Dave Fako at (w) 630-243-7111 or via e-mail at: dfako@fakoassociates.com for more information on our new Fast Track polls and our comprehensive strategic benchmark and tracking survey services, 

For more information on F&A, please visit Fako & Associates' website.

Political Analysis of IL 2nd CD Polling Results

The links below feature our political analysis of the 2nd Congressional District Democratic Primary race and supporting documents that were previously released on the 21st.

• Political Analysis of 2nd CD Surveys

• Summary Topline
• Tables for IVR & Cellular Study
• Tables for Live Landline & Cellular Study

Rejoin us next week for a discussion of the benefits and challenges we encountered in this test of IVR surveying compared to live interviewer surveying.

Illinois 2nd Congressional District Democratic Primary Election Poll Results

Fako & Associates, Inc. conducted two surveys last week within the newly defined 2nd Congressional District of Illinois. We conducted these surveys as an internal test, not commissioned by any campaign or third party organization. We chose the 2nd Congressional District to run nearly identical Interactive Voice Recognition and traditional live interviewer surveys because of the unique dynamics of the district. Its population and the state of the race presented numerous beneficial attributes to test the viability of IVR surveying. We will be discussing the advantages and disadvantages we discovered through these two surveys after the Thanksgiving holiday, but for now, we present you some of the results:

Summary Topline
Tables for IVR & Cellular Study
Tables for Live Landline & Cellular Study

Fako & Associates Announces Staff Promotions

Steve Leopoldo has been promoted to Vice President. Steve joined F&A in 2005 and has helped develop winning strategy and message for political and public policy clients throughout the country during his six years with the firm. Most recently, he was the lead polling analyst for the Illinois House Democratic Caucus / Democratic Party of Illinois’ successful effort to maintain their majority and worked on successful political campaigns and public policy issues in New York, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.

Kerry Myers has been promoted to Senior Analyst. Kerry started with F&A in 2008. Kerry has contributed to poll questionnaire design, statistical analysis and developing strategy and message for dozens of campaign throughout the country in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 election cycles. She was the lead “crosstab” producer at the firm and wrote or contributed to dozens of strategic analysis during the 2010 election cycle.

Sandy Kim has been named an Assistant Analyst. Sandy joined F&A’s team in the spring of 2010 as an intern and worked full time during the fall 2010 cycle. She provided significant assistance with coding our open ended questions and proofing reports and crosstabs for dozens of campaigns last fall.

Bucking the trend...

Fako & Associates congratulates our many successful clients of yesterday’s mid-term election.

It was a tough year for Democrats throughout the State and Country, but there were several victories that deserve note:

• Sara Feigenholtz (IL HD 12)
• Keith Farnham (IL HD 43)
  
• Daniel Biss (IL HD 17)
• Bill Cunningham (IL HD 35)
• Kevin McCarthy (IL HD 37)
• Fred Crespo (IL HD 44)
• Elaine Nekritz (IL HD 57)
• Karen May (IL HD 58)
• Carol Sente (IL HD 59)
• Jack Franks (IL HD 63)
• Chuck Jefferson (IL HD 67)
• Patrick Verschoore (IL HD 72)
• Lisa Dugan (IL HD 72)
• Emily McAsey (IL HD 85)
• Jack McGuire (IL HD 86)
• Jehan Gordon (IL HD 92)
• Naomi Jakobsson (IL HD 103)
• Tom Holbrook (IL HD 113)
• Dan Reitz (IL HD 116)
• Stacey Evans (GA HD 40)
• Joseph Addabbo (NY SD 15)
• David Valesky (NY SD 49)
• Tammy Irons (AL SD 1)
• Dan Foley (Montgomery County, Ohio Commissioner)
• Michelle Mussman (IL HD 56) (Presumed Winner)
  

Many of the Illinois House races were through the Democratic Party of Illinois and New York Senatorial races were Independent Expenditure campaigns.

Fako & Associates would also like to congratulate Illinois Supreme Court Justice Tom Kilbride for winning his retention election in the face of a serious effort by national political organizations to attack his judicial integrity and oust him from State Supreme Court. The campaign organization constructed on his behalf was a focused and disciplined campaign with a unique strategy and a dedicated team.

Polling - Public vs. Internal

This is an interesting article written by Charlie Cook on the National Journal. He quotes Stu Rothenberg's comments about internal polling and much of what is publicly available.

The passage that most interested us is:

"I should echo an argument made several weeks ago by my good friend and competitor Stu Rothenberg. He scoffed at those who mistakenly believed that polls conducted independently from the candidates and parties were inherently better or more reliable than campaign polling.

My view is that most academic polling, as well as the polling sponsored by local television stations and newspapers, is dime-store junk.

The far more sophisticated polling is done by top-notch professional polling firms for campaigns, parties and major business and labor organizations. These polls are considerably more expensive and the methodology is more rigorous.

Most of these surveys are not made public, but insiders can be made aware of them. While even the most experienced and contentious political pollsters have more challenges than a generation ago, their work is still far superior and reliable.

The end result is that you have two separate conversations about these political races: one that is driven by the publicly available, but less reliable, stock of polls and the other made by the black market of high-quality and more expensive surveys done for private clients, including the campaigns themselves."

Avoid Getting caught Under the Dome

"I would say that we may have underestimated the anti-incumbent mood."

-- U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), cnn.com, June 8, 2010

After reading this, we were wondering where the Senator has been living for the last year – in a cave?

A strong anti-incumbent, anti-establishment and anti-Washington sentiment has been brewing for over a year, manifesting in real political movements and some partisan driven groups.

The Senator's comments reflect a common affliction with many office holders, they develop an "under the dome" mentality, which is when their sphere of influence and perceptions are based on what a small circle of capitol insiders say and feel. Incumbents lose touch with the real needs and concerns of the people they represent. This mentality drives incumbents to feel everything they do in the Capitol is important to the voters back home while ignoring the local (small) things they must do back in their community.

Elections are won by candidates who remain in touch with the core needs and values of the people they represent and recognize that serving in a governing body is an honor and not a right bestowed upon them. They must recognize their job is to advocate for the people they represent, not a small group of capitol building advocates. Elected officials must advocate the issues and values in the legislature and beyond that connect with the voters in their communities, states, Districts. Incumbents should always be actively engaged in their communities when not required to be in session or the Capitol – this will prevent disconnections exemplified by Sen. Lincoln’s comment. Unfortunately, too many of our elected officials retreat to the safety cocoon of the Capitol and lose touch with the realities of what happens in their communities.

This is why we advise and push our incumbent clients to remain fully engaged in their communities throughout their term and to not focus exclusively on their work in the Capitol. This engagement includes aggressive earned and paid communications before the traditional campaign season, significant personal activity in their community among the voters – walking, Town Hall meetings, small groups / coffee meetings, as well as simply doing their job well – holding regular publicized offices hours, returning phone calls, taking care of problems with constituents no matter how big or small, etc. This also includes periodic polling to maintain a real pulse on the constituents they represent, identify opportunities and challenges and devise political and policy strategies to address these challenges.

Incumbents who remain engaged in their community will know the needs and concerns in their community that must be addressed and catch changes in attitudes. They will not have to climb out from their safety cocoon and be awaken by an anti-incumbent election.

The Political Environment in 2010

Coakley's loss in the presumed one of the safest of US Senate seats for Democrats came as a major upset, but not a surprise based on data in the closing weeks of the campaign. It is apparent that Coakley was not a good candidate and Brown was very good. Tactical and strategic mistakes were made by Coakley’s campaign, and those mistakes have been and continue to be discussed in depth elsewhere.

This loss sparked a couple of questions, one of which, is this the result of campaign failures or an omen? We're already seeing the media sound the siren song about the upcoming "Republican Wave," and the talking-heads recounting 1994's losses, but the polling data suggest another, less sensational story.

The polling data tells us that there were two serious problems contributing to the Coakley loss. Elections can never be considered a formality and the political environment can't be ignored. We'll leave the operational criticism aside, hoping for agreement that there is no substitute for a hard working candidate and a finely tuned campaign strategy implemented with efficiency and discipline. The political environmental impact on this campaign must be examined in-depth by all Democrats so as to understand what lies ahead in 2010. As outside observers without direct access to any internal data, we can only make more general observations and conclusions based on our experience and recent work in similar situations on the East Coast.

The importance of polling and pollsters to conduct in-depth examinations of the political environment, with an emphasis on voter intensity / engagement is as valuable and vital to a campaign as more "headline grabbing" information like where a candidate stands in a trial-heat scenario or the persuasive strength of his or her messages. A thorough evaluation of the political environment within which a campaign must operate should identify opportunities and expose underlying problems that have not yet manifested. Third-party polling data suggests that there was a serious motivational problem among base Democratic voters in Massachusetts. These motivational problems were obviously not overcome.

Were the motivational problems due to displeasure (disgust?) with the progress (or lack of progress) arriving out of DC? Probably, but weren’t these issues exposed in the polling? Regular polling was not conducted during this well-funded senatorial campaign, which is a perplexing revelation to us. The campaign did not have the ability (or felt it was unnecessary) to check their progress and determine if the motivational issues were being reversed (that is, if it was exposed in the initial benchmark survey). The campaign also did not have data that would have told them if their message was resonating or if events outside of their control (like the healthcare bill) were having an impact among the voters.

The root problem appears to be that corrective action was not taken to motivate the base. A campaign was not run that was designed to win in a very unfavorable climate, despite the natural partisan advantages in the State.

While some will point to losses in New Jersey and Virginia as the foundation of a "wave" that helped to wipe out the Massachusetts Senate race, there were several local-level campaigns between Virginia and Massachusetts (with far less funding and ability to communicate to voters) that were able to weather the storm.

Our polling caught early signs of motivational problems in several New York elections. Our NY clients were able to address these problems during the front end of their campaigns and were able to drive turnout. Losses are inevitable and, even if a national political wave is turning against Democrats, campaigns that track environmental changes and work diligently to prepare for changing dynamics will be far more likely to weather the worst of political storms.

Philosophical vs Substantive Polling Questions

There’s often a disconnect between what public opinion survey results suggest and the public’s true position on an issue. To understand why survey results sometime imply one outcome and reality reveals another, the consumers of public opinion data need to learn the difference and identify philosophical position and substantive survey questions.

Philosophical survey questions, as philosophical questions in general, are not designed to arrive at a definitive answer about a specific issue. While most people could identify fundamental philosophical questions (What is the meaning of life? What is good/evil? What is beauty?), survey questions designed to evaluate philosophical positions are less easily distinguished.

Philosophical survey questions often ask respondents to evaluate the priority they place on various concepts or ideas, or to indicate whether they support or oppose a plan or idea in general terms. An example of philosophical position survey question may include a priority question about whether respondents feel adding air conditioning to existing schools without air condition is a high, medium, low, or not a priority. Another example could be when respondents are asked if they agree or disagree with the statement that the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. These questions do not discuss a specific plan, but rather probe how respondents generally feel about these topics.

Understanding the philosophical position of the voters is critical for developing a campaign’s strategy. If it is known, following our example, that voters are generally or highly supportive of adding air conditioning to schools where it currently does not exist, then the campaign for adding air conditioning has a starting point from where to understand their position. Supporters of adding air conditioning know that they are operating in an ‘environment’ that is ‘friendly’ to their cause. Supporters can focus their campaign on issues that will retain support, instead of trying to shift opinions in favor of adding air conditioning.

Philosophical opinions are often the poll results to which campaigns try to direct the public’s attention. They are the results about which campaigns generally want their issue debated, they focus on the big idea. Substantive questions, however, often reveal a schism in respondent opinion, and are less likely to be reported or the focus of a media release. Substantive questions, following our example, would ask survey responds if they supported or opposed adding air conditioning to schools in their district where it currently does not exist if they knew the proposal would require a bond costing thirteen million dollars. A substantive question injects the facts missing from a philosophical question and allows voters to make a more informed decision about their position on the issue, concept, or idea.

There are varying degrees of substantive questions. Respondents could be asking their opinions about an issue with only being presented the basic facts (Adding X number of air conditioners at Y cost). This type of question is often called an ‘initial ask’ or an ‘uninformed ask.’ It is generally asked in neutral language and, if the issue is about something likely to appear on a ballot, worded as closely as to the questions language on the ballot as possible. This sort of question gives a clear indication if the philosophical opinions of the respondents will differ with the reality.

Substantive questions may also be included to try to simulate the dynamics of an engaged debate about an issue (along with additional message testing techniques). Questions like these are typically called ‘informed asks.’ In an informed ask, balanced messages in support and opposition of an issue are cited after a statement of facts about the issue (Adding X number of air conditioners at Y cost, supporters say… opponents say…). Respondents are then asked, based on the information presented in the question, if they support or oppose the issue.

Through examining the differences between philosophical opinions and what respondents indicate through substantive questions is where strategy is developed. Campaigns need to know where the voters stand philosophically on their issue, idea, or concept and where support (or opposition) is lost (or gained) once additional information and messages are presented about the topic. Polling offers campaigns the ability to target demographic and attitudinal groups, discover where and among which respondents changes in opinions occur, and what needs to be done to keep or convert supporters to their cause.

To genuinely understand public opinion on an issue, more than the philosophical data needs to be presented. We have observed the philosophical fallacy in the current deluge of polling results presented in the media about healthcare reform. While the polls show wide appeal for change and reforming the system, specific plans, substantive questions, show a less consensus about how to fix the system. Consumers of healthcare survey data should be careful to seek out the results for substantive questions and not be clouded by reports based on the philosophical support of a plan.

Fako & Associates, Inc. Congratulates Our Winning Clients

We wish to congratulate several of our mayoral clients who achieved electoral victories in yesterday’s municipal elections: Tom Weisner of Aurora, IL (62%), Tim Nugent of the Village of Manteno, IL (53%), and John Spring of Quincy, IL (54%).

Yesterday’s municipal election was dramatically different than the general election we experienced just six months ago. Despite the clear skies and comfortable temperatures, this time, there were no waves of early voting or lines on Election Day. As many experts in the field proposed, yesterday’s election showed the effects of voter fatigue.

Low turnout makes for challenging elections. Campaigns have to motivate their supporters to participate in the election and ensure that every supporter is accounted for on Election Day. These efforts underscore the importance of having a disciplined field campaign and the need to develop the resources required to reach out to voters.

Congratulations Mark Lesko

Fako & Associates, Inc. would like to congratulate Supervisor-elect Mark Lesko in his overwhelming victory in the election for Brookhaven, New York Town Supervisor on March 31, 2009.

F&A, Inc. worked with an incredibly talented group of consultants, campaign staff, and volunteers to develop the winning strategy that guided Lesko in securing 55% percent of the vote over Republican Timothy Mazzei. Lesko put together an outstanding field campaign team and an unrivaled team of consultants whose hard work helped to elect a strong fiscal reformer who will fight corrupt practices and save taxpayers' hard earned money.

Our strategy in Brookhaven was a continuation of our work in New York State over the past several cycles, helping Democrats regain office in tough, suburban and rural parts of the State. While we have experienced several victories in urban areas, it is our work in Upstate , the North County, and the Adirondacks that helped the New York Senate to regain majority control in Albany for the first time in forty years.

Fako & Associates, Inc. Congratulates our Winning Clients

Fako & Associates, Inc. would like to congratulate our winning clients in last night's historic election. We saw unprecedented victories in Missouri, New York, and our home state of Illinois.

Our congratulations and thanks go out to the Democratic Party of Illinois for allowing us to help expand their majority in the Illinois House of Representatives with the victories of challengers Keith Farnham and Emily McAsey and the previously Republican held open seat victories of Mark Walker and Jehan Gordon.

We assisted in developing the strategy that helped maintain the following Illinois House of Representatives seats: State Representatives Fred Crespo, Paul Froehlich, Careen Gordon, Gary Hannig, Naomi Jakobsson, John Bradley, Arthur Turner, Barbara Currie, Monique Davis, Ester Golar, Deborah Graham, Al Riley, and Elaine Nekritz.

Missouri proved once again to be a difficult state for Democrats. At the time of writing this note of congratulations, we are still unsure of the Presidential results for the Show Me State. We can, however, offer our congratulations to Missouri Representative-elect Jill Schupp in her dominating victory over Frank Plescia.

Democrats in New York won a majority in the New York Senate last night for the first time in forty years and we’re proud to have helped accomplish this goal with the successful re-election of three incumbent Senators and the victory of two challenger candidates that turned the tables in New York State.

We congratulate Senator Darrel Aubertine, David Valesky, and Bill Stachowski in maintaining their seats in the New York State Senate. We worked on two amazing challenger campaigns with Senator-elect Brian Foley defeating longtime incumbent Caesar Trunzo in Suffolk County's Third Senatorial District and Senator-elect Joseph Addabbo defeating Serph Maltese of Queens.

These victories represent the work of hundreds of dedicated volunteers, staff, and numerous highly talented consultants. We thank you for allowing us to be a part of your team.

Exploring Ideology and Partisanship in Political Polling

The public, campaign professionals, news media organizations and interest groups are being inundated with polling results now that we are in the final stages of the 2008 election cycle. We are already witnessing reports about who is winning, losing, and why a candidate is stronger or weaker than the other as campaigns position for earned media and fund raising dollars.

Party Identification (ID) is one of those demographic sub-data points receiving a lot of attention this cycle. Party identification may be reported based on a poll respondent’s declared or partisan registration status in states where this data is available and applicable or, more commonly, based on a “self-identified partisanship” demographic question in polls. This data is very useful for both public review and internal strategic analysis.

We see many reports that Democrats have a certain percentage advantage compared to four years ago, etc. This polling data is catching legitimate changes in voter attitudes. However, self-identified partisanship is a moving target. An individual who identifies as a Democrat today may have said Independent a year ago and Republican four years ago. This is a natural adjustment as people’s attitudes and perceptions of the political parties change over time.

The current partisan shift and trends are fueled by negative perceptions of the GOP brand, which causes fewer people to admit they are affiliated with / support the GOP, even if their underlying beliefs are more in line with Republicans. Obama’s appeal to elements of the electorate who previously didn’t participate (younger voters) and those who are shifting their affiliations based on their attraction to Obama, also fuel the changing partisan identification.

Self-identified partisanship shouldn’t be relied upon as an indicator of voting behavior in isolation. Due to its fluidity, we strongly recommend all polling analysis and public released polls include an evaluation based also on self-described ideology. This sub-group is frequently arrived at by a question such as the following (or similar iterations):

• How would you describe your own political beliefs -- very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative or very conservative?

Ideology tends to be a more stable, underlying factor that drives an individual’s voting behavior. It is an excellent variable to evaluate in conjunction with and context of changing partisan affiliations. It can verify strong partisan shifts in favor or against a candidate. It allows for a more realistic, accurate assessment of the political environment if the underlying ideological make-up of the surveyed electorate is out of alignment with a shifting partisan composition.

For example: If a Congressional District shows a 10 point increase in Democratic identification from two years ago, but the District remains a moderate to conservative leaning area, then the surface movement among partisans may be tempered by the voters’ underlying ideological leanings. This situation would show favorable trends for a Democrat, but not a fundamental change in the voters’ likely behaviors, although the partisan shift will have an impact on the immediate election.

Alternatively, in an area that has a 10 point Democratic gain from the last cycle and shows a moderating, more liberal electorate than previous elections, is catching a fundamental change in the electoral make-up and an indication of a long term, more stable movement in the Democrats favor.

The two scenarios where Democrats receive a similar gain in self-identified partisanship will require a different tone of message because of the underlying ideological composition of the District. A campaign that fails to realize the ideological difference between a liberal Democrat and a moderate to conservative Democrat or a center-right, Independent leaning area where self identified Democratic affiliation is increasing can be disastrously off message.

In conclusion, opinions of partisan sub-groups should not be reported or analyzed in isolation of the voters’ ideological position. Publicly released polls should include sub-group analysis by partisan and ideological breakouts and all reporting on polls should include similar evaluations. We also recommend campaigns utilize ideological data in their internal strategic analysis, which will lead to better, more accurate strategic recommendations and decisions.

Informed Polling and Getting it Right

Every pollster will tell you that political polls are a snapshot in time and at best consecutive polls can elicit trends, but should not be used to predict turnout or the outcome of an election.

While the national attention is on how the pollsters got it wrong in several contests with surveys taken only days before an election, few are talking about how early surveying often-times gets things right. We've occasionally written about the importance of informed trial heats in some of our past posts.

To refresh, an informed trial heat is designed to simulate the effects of an engaged campaign, presenting balanced positive and negative messages about each candidate (or multiple candidates). The end result of the election scenario tells a campaign what is possible with their messages and themes they plan to implement. Most importantly, this section will determine if the core message works in direct contrast to the opponent(s)' message and can identify movement among the various demographic and attitudinal groups -- helping refine strategy.

F&A recently conducted a benchmark survey for a client running in a Democratic primary for open seat in a multi-candidate open-seat race. The benchmark poll was designed to evaluate the political environment, determine voter’s top issue concerns, examine opinions of the candidates and other significant figures, and test messages in support and in opposition of various candidates. As we always do in comprehensive benchmark polls, we included an informed trial heat question in the survey. The client was on a tight budget and didn't want to include "minor" candidates in the informed trial heat. After some debate, we were able to convince the client to include the "minor" candidates in the question.

We accounted for the ability of the "minor" candidates to get their message out given their budget constraints. Their messages were curtailed in the informed scenario to a simple bio-statement, while "major" candidates received bio, supporting, and opposing information, simulating an engaged campaign.

In our poll, the results of the informed trial heat were unexpected; a "minor" candidate took a 22 percentage point lead above the assumed frontrunner in the informed scenario, an increase of 25% above the candidate's level of support in the initial trial heat (the uninformed horse race question). A "major" candidate jumped up 7% and the assumed frontrunner stalled with a gain within the margin of error. Undecided voters in the initial trial heat heavily sided with one of the "minor" candidates. The percentage of undecided voters was reduced by over 40% in the informed trial heat. At this point we recognized the minor candidate's growth potential and advised the client to pay close attention to this so-called "minor" candidate. We noted that this individual clearly had the basic background and simple message that would break through the clutter of a highly engaged multi-candidate race, despite an initial perception of not being viable.

As the campaign progressed, the so called minor candidate ended up raising some serious money and gained significant earned media attention in addition to their own paid activities. It became apparent that this minor candidate was not minor, something our polling has observed only three months before the election

The "minor" candidate ended up winning this election, slightly ahead of the "major" candidate that we also observed gaining traction through the informed trial heat. This highlighted the usefulness and importance of utilizing informed trial heat questions in polls and why clients should never ignore perceived "minor" opponents. Polls that include an informed trial heat are one of the most useful strategic planning tools available to a campaign. It gives campaigns the information needed to determine if their message works (in the above example, out client’s message was not working); provides detailed strategic planning information, particularly at the demographic sub-group level, and gives campaigns information to prepare and adjust strategy for unanticipated situation (such as an unexpectedly strong opponent).

Congratulations Aubertine Campaign

Fako & Associates, Inc. congratulates Darrel Aubertine and the Aubertine campaign team for running a successful campaign that resulted in a 52.4% to 47.6% victory in New York's 48th Senate District. While some refer to the results as shocking, our strategic polling showed that victory was achievable, even with a staggering partisanship deficit of thirty thousand more Republican registrants. Congratulations goes out to the Aubertine campaign for their hard work and sticking to the strategy that lead to victory, no matter how badly the odds were stacked against them.

Open Ended & Listed Issue Concerns

Our polling and several national polls by other organizations have shown that the Iraq War is no longer the highest issue concern among likely voters. While still a major issue that could quickly rise to the top again given sufficient media attention, the War is being trumped by financial concerns about the stalling economy, foreclosures, raising taxes, and health care and prescription medicine.

"The economy, stupid"

Different Bush, different Clinton, same message... new Obama?

Is it really 1992 all over again?

"It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush..." -- Hillary Clinton, January 31, 2008

Some seem to think so.

Carville's famed sign on the wall of the Little Rock office in 1992 also included two other important phrases:

1. "Change vs. more of the same"

2. "Don't forget health care."

While the relevance of 1992 is up for debate, we're finding that health care is becoming ever-more defined as an economic concern, and undoubtedly, an underlying component of the current feeling of economic uncertainty. According to a 2005 Harvard University study*, 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy in the US had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Indeed, don't forget health care.

Simply talking off a bullet point isn't enough to relate to the voters. Candidates have to speak directly to the concerns of the electorate. While all challenger campaigns are inherently running on a message of "change," even if that message is never directly communicated, the nuances of the message behind their version of "change" will determine if they connect with the voters. As we've seen in the recent debates, none of the candidates were shying away from the word "Change..."

Undoubtedly the word "change" tested well.

Pollsters sometimes use listed issue concern questions instead of open-ended issue concern questions to save time (and money) in a survey. We find that listed issue questions often miss the way how issues are being discussed. While F&A, Inc. hasn't recently conducted a nation-wide survey that included a top issue concern question, some of our recent surveys in several mid-west and east coast state legislative campaigns included open-ended verbatim response questions about the voters' top issue concerns.

For example, in one of our recent surveys, a respondent offered the following when asked about his or her most important issue concern:

"I WOULD SAY HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE AND THAT DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS PRICES SHOULD BE LOWERED. I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE AFFORDABLE INSURANCE"

This response was typical of all responses that related to health care. A campaign in this district that focuses it's health care message on concerns other than making health care affordable and lowering the cost of prescription drugs will not be connecting with the concerns of the voters in this particular district.

1992 or not, candidates who speak directly to the concerns of the voters in a way that addresses their concerns will fair far better than a candidate who elaborates off a bullet point without qualified direction.

Early benchmark surveys should be as comprehensive as possible and include open-ended issue concerns whenever possible and appropriate for a campaign's budget. These types of questions help drill deeper into the how and why a voter thinks and cares about a particular issue and provides better strategic direction on how a candidate can address the issue.

In a presidential race, 1992 or 2008, there simply is no excuse for not having the message right. Regardless of the level of campaign, we always say it is better to have the message designed right the first time, than to spend the rest of the campaign correcting it.

* Himmelstein, D, E. Warren, D. Thorne, and S. Woolhander, "Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy, " Health Affairs Web Exclusive W5-63, 02 February , 2005.

Be prepared for the "Re-Elect" reports and beware of the numbers

Around this time of year you'll start to notice newspapers reporting "re-elect" numbers in their headlines and press releases and fundraising memos from candidates stating Congressman XX has a re-elect number of only XX% (Always way below 50%).

They will arrive from a few different forms of questions...

Thinking about the 'upcoming' election for U.S. Congress, do you think you will vote to reelect (NAME OF CONGRESSMAN), will you consider voting for someone else, or do you think you will vote to elect someone else?

Do you think most of the Democrats in Congress deserve to be reelected, or not?

Do you think (NAME OF OFFICIAL), the Representative in Congress from your district has performed his or her job well enough to deserve reelection, or do you think it's time to give a new person a chance?

These "re-elect" question may take other forms as well.

Beware of these numbers when reported on their own, without other supporting information.

"Re-elect" questions, in our experience, usually reflect suppressed levels of support for candidates and don’t show a true status of an incumbent's re-election standing. For example, in 2006 we polled in a Midwestern congressional district for a prospective challenger. The incumbent had a very low (26%) re-elect number, but that same official had nearly a 50% positive job approval rating and a personal favorability rating that was twenty points higher than the re-elect assessment. We've seen similar discrepancies between re-elect questions and other incumbent assessment items in our surveys and other polls throughout the years.

The "Re-Elect" question, in its various forms, should never be interpreted on its own as the tell-tale sign of an incumbent's prospects. It should only be factored in the evaluation when it is accompanied by related questions whose data also support its conclusion.

Accompanying indicators should include such measurements as job approval ratings, personal favorability ratings, and trial heat numbers. Job performance is the best indicator of whether a politician is meeting the expectations of his or her electorate. Job performance is almost always the best indicator of an incumbent's current re-election chances. Personal favorability ratings will reveal the depth and which direction voter sentiment leans towards an incumbent. The personal favorability rating identifies if an incumbent's ratings are driven by soft -- passive name ID, simple partisanship, or if there is real, personal like / dislike and, intense and deep favorable / unfavorable sentiment behind the official's ratings. The trial heat will place the candidate in a ballot simulation with another candidate(s), complicating the election by injecting numerous factors, including party labels and, not the least of which being the level of recognition and personal favorability voters feel towards the challenger(s). These factors, taken in the whole, provide a comprehensive review of an incumbent’s prospects.

Re-elect questions can be useful when interpreted and reported in conjunction with these other related factors, but should never be considered a strong, accurate read on an incumbent if reported independent of other variables.

So, we advise anybody who reads a news story, gets a press release, or sees a fundraising memo proclaiming an incumbent is in dire straits because of some low re-elect number to ask for other supporting data to verify such a conclusion.

[Note: For the reasons stated above and to ensure credibility and accuracy in our surveys, Fako & Associates rarely asks re-elect questions in our polls. When clients request the use of the question, we will only use and report it in conjunction with other questions such as personal favorability and job performance ratings.]

Components of Political Polling: The Benchmark Analysis

Campaigns need a detailed analysis that highlights the key findings of a survey and interprets the findings into usable strategic recommendations. A good analysis always goes significantly more in-depth than the "slide show" presentations that have become popular in recent years. A quality analysis provides direction, focus and discipline to a campaign.

Continuing our series on understanding political polling, we've previously discussed the components of crafting a survey and how to read crosstabs. Now, we will discuss the components that should be present in an in-depth strategic analysis of a typical comprehensive benchmark survey.

An analysis is essentially a detailed strategic playbook for a campaign in three parts. A good analysis will be one part reporting key findings, one part analysis and strategic interpretation of those findings, and another part interrelating these findings and interpretations into cohesive strategic advice.

The analysis should report the significant findings of the survey and the pollster's strategic interpretation of the data. As the report progresses, a strategy is developed as all the pieces of the puzzle come together, with a final conclusion and a detailed understanding of the candidate’s situation, dynamics of the election and a clear (or best available) path to victory.

All surveys should start with background information on the survey and other pertinent information. Sometimes campaigns will overlook this information, but it is critical so we'll take some additional time to address the importance of the 'technical stuff.'

Survey Methodology

Analysis reports for all surveys should contain a statement on methodology. The methodology statement should contain several fundamental facts about how the survey was conducted. At a minimum, the sample size, margin of error, the days the survey was conducted, if screening and/or weighting techniques were used, and how the survey was conducted should be present. It also should identify the polling firm and who commissioned the survey.

While many polling organizations are hesitant to reveal their specific scientific sample designs on reports for public release, the methodology statement should contain some insight on which sampling methods were use and their intended purpose. This gets into how a survey was conducted. This post isn't intended to discuss methodology statements, a topic we may cover another day.

Methodology statements are important to campaigns because they help address concerns over the quality and accuracy of collected research data. Unless the methodology statement ensures the statistical validity of inferences about the studied population, a survey won't earn credibility with potential donors, supporters, campaign staff or the media and should not be trusted to guide your campaign.

Survey Information / Glossaries

Most analysis reports will contain references to various demographic and attitudinal groups using terminology that may need defining because pollsters use their own terminology. Basic terms may be as simple as referring to regional classifications (ex. "This specific group of precincts represents this neighborhood..."). Slightly more complex terms may reference overall supporters and opponents or further classifications such as Weak/Strong Supporters/Opponents. The glossary should define how these groupings are arrived. Depending on the complexity of the analysis, a glossary may be defining combinations of attitudinal groups.

It also is important for surveys to identify the demographic composition of the survey, which to a degree may be accomplished in the glossary. This is important to evaluate if the survey is representative of known demographics or if it is identifying a demographic shift that older data does not reflect.

The Political Environment

The following sections deal with something we refer to as the political environment. Campaigns must accommodate for several factors not within the control (or limited control) of the campaign, but have significant impact on how the campaign must operate.

Voter Intensity

Election turnout is not predicted by political polling, but the voters' interest (intensity) in an election and trends in voting patterns are exposed through survey data. One of the goals of a benchmark survey is to determine the environment in which a campaign must operate. Benchmark surveys typically ask voters (often through a series of questions) how interested they are in participating in an election.

It's vital to know if your campaign will have to overcome a deficit of interest to energize your base or potential supporters. Gauging voter intensity among your opponents’ supporters helps to reveal the level of activity and interest in your opponent. Voter intensity can also reveal if certain attitudinal groups are likely to express their feelings through the ballot box (ex. Conservative Men list "School Taxes" as their number one issue concern and have a significantly higher level of interest in the election than the population as a whole).

This small piece of survey data is critical and can provide a lot of information related to the overall interpretation of the poll.

Partisanship & Ideology

Through demographic questions, a benchmark level survey should be able to determine variations of self-identified partisanship across the various regions, demographic and attitudinal groups in your survey. It's helpful to know where your partisan base of support is, which areas are ideologically aligned with your positions, if voters are independently minded in terms of voting, if voters revert to partisan voting with lesser known candidates, etc.

Is your opponent dependent on his or her partisan label or is there cross-over support? Is promoting your partisan label a good thing in this district or does it preclude the voters from even listening to your message? What is the partisan and ideological makeup of undecided voters and other key target groups? These questions and many others can be addressed through testing partisanship and ideology and analyzing how these factors will impact the election.

Mood of the Voters

The mood of the voters section of an analysis lends the campaign insight into how pessimistic or content the voters are feeling. The mood of the voters can be arrived at through several different types of survey questions, including the common right track / wrong track questions. The mood of the voters is a significant because, depending on their mood, the voters could be primed for messages of change, less responsive to such messages, more accepting of an incumbent's messages of accomplishment, or more likely to reject messages of accomplishment.

Through cross tabulation, your pollster should be able to tell the campaign what is the driving factor behind the mood of the voters. Sometimes the mood of the voters has little to do with how they feel about a particular elected official.

A benchmark survey also helps a campaign understand what the voters are concerned about and how the voters feel about known significant or controversial issues. Knowing what the voters are concerned about in general helps the campaign refine its communications to speak to the concerns of the voters. Having an understanding of the voters' opinions on complex issues (like immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage) can save a campaign from making disastrous decisions such as shifting the focus of a campaign’s message in a way that clashes with the voters or seeking a third party issue endorsements that alienates the candidate from the voters.

Issue Concerns

Our surveys usually include a volunteered (open-ended) most important issue concerns section, although many pollsters use a listed version of this question (which we feel provides less useful information). These questions typically reveal the macro problems that the campaign already has an awareness of, to a degree. At the micro level, the most important issue concern can expose undercurrent and developing issues and allow for micro-targeting of particular demographics which significantly express concern over a certain problem more than other voters.

It is particularly important for the issue section of the analysis to relate the voters' concerns with the messages that were tested in the survey because messages that test strong will be inherently stronger if they relate to a key concern of voters. Knowing the most important issue concerns and on which voters they have the greatest affect and how they interrelate with a candidates agenda (message) will help the campaign target persuasive messages and develop a communications plan that ties into key concerns and the candidates strongest points.

Opinions of Significant Issues

Occasionally there are significant and unique developments and issues that will have a direct effect on the election. These can include national, state, local and sometimes campaign specific issues. Pollsters do not tell candidates what their positions should be on the issues, but they can provide guidance on how to deal with the issue and how that concern may factor into the campaign.

It’s important to know what voters think about key issues in order to determine if your position is helpful or a hindrance to your campaign. Your poll can determine which demographics are likely to be "single-issue" voters though the use of issue questions and follow-up questions on voting behavior.

Reproductive freedom and stem cell research are examples of two hot button issues where a campaign needs to know if their position would make better sense as a broadcast or targeted message.

Benchmark level surveys also evaluate opinions of the candidates and other public individuals or organizations that could have an impact on the campaign. Knowing the voters' opinions of a candidate and his/her opponent lets a campaign know whether they have to focus time and money repairing image problems, defining themselves to the voters, if they can define their opponent or if the opponent is too well known, etc. Political surveys also test support for candidates in various configurations of trial heat simulations and test the campaign’s messages for persuasive value.

Opinions of Candidates and Other Public Figures

A political survey is more than just finding out who is winning and who is best known. Benchmark level surveys allow for an in-depth review of the candidates. Personal favorability and job performance ratings where an incumbent is involved are typically included in benchmark level surveys.

These items give an overall picture of where a candidate stands in the minds' of the voters. More in-depth surveys will offer a series of open-ended questions asking specifically about positive or negative aspects of either candidate. This type of questioning can prove invaluable in tight races, especially when one of the candidates is a longer-term incumbent or well known public figure.

Discovering the voter's opinion of the candidates will allow the campaign to know if a candidate has deep rooted appeal, passive support, if the voters think he/she is doing a good job and, through open ended questions, can discover nuances in opinion that can expose potential vulnerabilities or strengths.

Beyond the candidates, a campaign needs evaluate opinions of other significant public figures (or organizations). This data helps the campaign decide if it is worth expending resources to promote an endorsement, or which demographics to target information on a specific endorsement and if an opponent's public supporters can impact voting behavior.

Trial Heats and Informed Trial Heats

The horse race question is the standard-bearer for political surveys. A simple trial heat can tell you which candidate is currently leading if the election where held today and, more importantly, it can tell a campaign where and among whom each candidate is performing better and worse. The analysis of this component of the survey should detail where each candidate garners their support, how deep and strong their support is and identify each candidates' areas of weakness.

An informed trial heat is designed to simulate the effects of an engaged campaign, presenting balanced positive and negative messages about each candidate. The end result of the election scenario tells a campaign what is possible with their messages and themes they plan to implement. Most importantly, this section will determine if the core message works in direct contrast to the opponent(s)' message and can identify movement among the various demographic and attitudinal groups -- helping refine strategy.

The interpretation of this part of a survey should include detailed demographic profiles of various targets groups such as undecided voters, strong and weak supporters of the candidates, persuadable voters and any other group the pollster has identified as vital to the campaign. This section of the analysis also should highlight the key objectives of the campaign and the targets to meet those objectives. For example, the poll may identify that your Democratic candidate has significantly lower name ID and support among Democratic women than their male counterparts, so a key early base building objective of the campaign would be to raise name ID and favorable image of your candidate among this group.

Messages

It is better for the campaign to have its messages right the first time, than to spend the rest of the campaign correcting it.

A benchmark survey tests the persuasive value of a campaign's set of messages. There are various ways to accomplish this -- through contrasting statements, statement choice tests, informed ballot test and through tests of isolated issues / messages / language and other means. Benchmark level surveys typically test batteries of positive and negative messages on all candidates.

Through the analysis process, it is possible to determine which messages hold the most overall strength and, just as importantly, among which subgroups and key target groups each message is most persuasive.

With an understanding of the top issue concerns in the district, campaigns can utilize message testing to speak directly to targeted sets of voters on issues that they are most concerned. Testing messages isn’t about finding out what to say; so much as it is to find out if what the campaign plans to say is worth saying and who best to say it to. Message testing is used by campaigns to narrow down their messages to those that are both relevant and most convincing.

Campaigns can also test the value of narratives and themes the campaign is considering using. A well fitted narrative and a comprehensive theme can tie together the various policy priorities and beliefs of the candidate into a cohesive message that works for its political environment.

The analysis of the poll should: recommend the overall thematic connections for the message; suggest language that emphasizes this narrative; synthesize the message; identify what components and language are the best for the campaign to utilize; and, identify the strongest points of contrast with your opponent(s).

Analysis Conclusions and Message / Target Group Demographic Profile

We also feel that all analysis should have a conclusion that ties all the pieces together into a simple, easy to use format. This conclusion clearly needs to show the political environment, dynamics of the election, key target groups, the demographic profile and the messages that work best with these groups. We like to use a simple target and message profile chart -- basically a "reminder sheet" for the campaign team.

This summary will synthesize the more detailed and complex components of the analysis into a simple to use actionable document. It will highlight the campaign's key objectives, targets and message. This conclusion serves as a constant reminder for the strategic team of where the campaign needs focus.

Are you a D.I.Y. or Campaign by Committee Candidate?

As we move deeper into the 2008 election cycle and campaigns at all levels gear up, we see a process issue debated within campaigns about how to properly manage a political campaign.

There are essentially two models of operating a campaign, the "strong leader" and the "Campaign by Committee." The complex nature of modern campaigns and the finite period of time between inception and Election Day require campaigns at every level to have extraordinarily good management.

When considering running for elected office, potential candidates should understand that a "campaign" is an entity, not an activity. Professionals who work campaigns at ground level typically describe the process of building a campaign as forming a large business over night; and, describe the feeling in the office the day after the election as walking into a ghost town.

There is an old axiom in the political world: "campaigns by committee lose." Campaigns by Committee are set to fail. They fail because decisions aren’t made quickly and differing parts of the "committee" debate and micro-manage infinitesimally small details of the race such as color of signs, what picture to use, the content of press releases, what events the candidate should attend, taking a position on an issues, etc. These types of campaign committees are absent a leader, other than the candidate, who has the command and authority to end the decision process and make final judgments.

This committee system wastes time in the decision making process. The opportunity cost of the decision paralysis (that inevitably comes from the committee process as the stress of the campaign process sets in) is where the death of campaigns by committee arrive. The cost of campaign time and resources in debating decisions is opportunity and opportunity's benefits forgone, like fund raising, contacting voters, and moving the campaign forward. Time and money are the most valuable resources a campaign has; they need to be spent wisely. If a campaign falls behind in money, it can possibly surge back, but time can never be recovered.

Campaigns at all levels need a dedicated and experienced decision maker who can execute decisions with total authority and in a timely manner. The decision maker or "strong leader" cannot be the candidate. A candidate can't do everything in a campaign; in fact, a candidate should only focus on meeting voters, raising funds and recruiting volunteers.

Campaigns at every level need a campaign manager. The campaign manager (CM) is the overall coordinator of the race and should have directive control over all operations and strategic decisions of the campaign. The campaign manager is the chief administrator of the campaign and the candidate. A campaign needs someone who can see the forest for the trees and make the trains run on time, with the ability to direct the candidate's schedule and coordinate with campaign staff and consultants to oversee the successful implementation of all aspects of the campaign's operations and strategy.

Here are some of the basic responsibilities of a campaign manger:

• The campaign manager should have control over the campaign's finances (i.e. nothing gets spent without CM approval).

• The CM must have directive control over all staff and consultants and all staff / consultants ultimately report and are accountable to the CM.

• The CM must have the authority to direct the candidate’s activities and schedule (with candidate input).

• The CM should be the final decision maker on all operational and strategic decisions (with input from staff, consultants & candidate) and he/she must have the authority to resolve internal disputes and make decisions between differing / conflicting recommendations to the campaign.

The CM reports to the candidate, but the candidate must understand that the manager is the person who is in charge of the day to day operations of the campaign.

To review, a candidate can't and shouldn't try to do it all. No matter how competent the candidate is, the candidate's time is best spent serving the functions of a candidate. A campaign can't be a democracy or even a republic; it needs to be run by be strong leader. Campaigns simply don't have enough time to debate the pros and cons of every decision. A campaign needs an authority figure, a campaign manager with the experience to manage the complex and high stress organization that is modern political campaigns and someone with the authority to execute timely decisions. These are the components of a winning campaign structure.

Two common mistakes that cost local campaigns their elections.

Campaigns outside of major population centers, lower budget and local campaigns often rule out conducting strategic opinion surveys for two reasons: they think they can't afford a strategic survey and the candidate and/or staff believes they know the city or district where they are asking for votes. These mistakes set up local and lower budget campaigns for failure.

While having a comprehensive survey that allows for an in-depth evaluation of the election dynamics and gauging voters' philosophical outlook would benefit any campaign, that level of information is not necessary to develop a winning strategy for a campaign that will likely be driven by direct voter contact (field campaigning) and direct mail.

A poll, regardless of size and length, should be designed to develop a strategy. As we've discussed previously on this blog, the cost of polling is arrived at primarily though the number of interviews conducted and the length of the survey (in minutes, not necessarily the number of questions). Even a shorter poll can highlight the persuasive winning arguments and expose the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. A modest poll doesn't mean you are only going to find out who is winning, losing and better known… All polls are about developing and refining strategies that maximize the use of a campaign's finite resources.

Localized races like District Attorney, County Board, and Alderman and Mayor (in smaller cities) can make use of smaller sample sizes (depending on the size of the voting population) and shorter surveys that last 5 to 10 minutes. Surveys of this scope can accurately evaluate the opinions of the candidates and other public figures, test the strength of support for the candidates, identify key targets, and test a limited number of messages for the campaign while not breaking the campaign's budget.

One of the main objectives of a lower budget campaign in seeking polling should be to find the message(s) that have the widest appeal to the largest amount of voters and niche messages that are targetable to subgroups of appropriate scope.

When determining which messages tend to work better with certain subgroups, it may not be possible to determine with high statistical accuracy that a particular message works better with a very specific, micro-targeted subgroup in poll with a small sample size. Larger and more practically targeted subgroups will allow for a statistically reliable reading of which message is most persuasive among broader subgroups and the sub-set will be useful and practical for your direct mail and field campaign budget.

To give an example on targeting for a lower budget campaign, let's assume the campaign's survey reveals that your candidate has weaker support among younger women. Generally speaking, it is more effective for a lower budget campaign to use a more practical, broader direct mail targeting criteria (such as "women under 50" instead of "Women 18-25 in households with children with net income over 100K") and deliver a message that tests well among many voters within a broader subgroup. Distributing your best messages to the largest amount of voters as possible is vital because campaigns at the local level already are dealing with a small numbers of voters, are lower profile, gather less earned media, and the candidates are typically less known and get less attention than other higher profile campaigns.

An experienced polling company should be able to evaluate the messages your campaign wants to test and help you refine them in a way that will maximize the quality of the data your survey will provide. Subgroup analysis to determine message targeting is still possible with smaller sample sizes, even with the inherently higher margin of error that a smaller sample size brings. The bottom line is that a campaign shouldn't spend money for a survey that provides data that the campaign’s budget won't allow it to use.

The other common mistake of lower budget and local campaigns is assuming a level of knowledge about the voters, their concerns, and what messages will work for their campaign. While it is possible to knock on every door in a smaller city or county, it is impossible for a candidate or campaign to gather the type of information that is revealed by a random sample survey of likely voters. Even the briefest of political polls will screen for likely Election Day voters and sample the electorate in proportion to the predicted Election Day turnout. The screening process helps to ensure that the opinions reflected in the survey are those of voters who will likely participate in and ultimately decide the outcome of the election. The response campaigns receive from activists, supporters, and voters at the door do not generally represent or generalize to the opinion of all those who are likely to cast their ballot on Election Day. Polling provides vital strategic data to compliment the anecdotal information that your campaign will receive.

Getting wrapped up in the cost of political polling and the need for full-blown, multiple micro-targeted direct mail campaign often reinforces the belief among candidates and their staff that their campaign doesn't need strategic research to understand their electorate. The reality is that lower budget and local campaigns can rarely afford to go into an election without the research that a basic survey can provide. Good information is the foundation of a successful campaign strategy. Thinking that political polling is too expensive and that they know their electorate well enough cost campaigns their elections.