As Jonathan blogged below, there is a new poll out of Nevada. While I am glad there is finally some more information out of Nevada, this poll is demonstrative of many of the problems we are seeing in polling for the 2008 nomination process. First, it includes two people, Gore and Clark, whoa re not currently announced candidates. That skews the results. Second, it is a poll of "active voters," whatever that means, rather than likely caucus goers. While likely voter screens will be difficult for this caucus, since there is no precedent for it, surely a poll can do better than 240 "active" voters.

Given these repeated frustrations on early polls, and given the repeatedly low amount of information produced in early states (especially Nevada and South Carolina), I am led to wonder if MyDD itself would be able to make up some of the gap. For a little under $10K (Update [2007-3-10 20:54:27 by Jonathan Singer]: The cost would be in the range of $9,500 TOTAL for the four polls), MyDD could commission Survey USA to conduct four polls in Nevada: one in March, one in June, one in September, and one in December. Compared to other polls that will come out on Nevada, we could make sure that only announced candidates were in the questioning, that undecideds were not pushed too hard, that second choices were given, that there was a decently sized sample, that there were lots of good demographic crosstabs, and still probably have a better likely voter screen than anyone else around. With four polls like this, we could build trend lines, and basically be the organization for Nevada polling during the 2007-8 nomination process.

So, much question to you is this: would you be interested in contributing money for a project such as this? We would not have to collect it all right away, and could instead hold fundraisers when it is time for the next poll. MyDD has also been saving some of our ad money for special projects like these, so we could cover some of the costs ourselves. My question to you is: would you contribute money in order for this project to get off the ground?

I have included a poll in the extended entry. Let me know what you think.

So, as you probably have seen discussed on at least one other blog by now, Kevin Drum wants to know why progressive bloggers who opposed the war before it began held that opinion. I actually hold a similar desire, and have for some time. However, instead of caring what pundits thought four years ago, I have always wanted to know why the American people either supported or opposed the war before it began.

I am not referring to opinion polls on whether or not people think the war was a mistake, whether or not we should withdraw troops, or whether or not people think the war is going well. Instead, I have longed for something that pollsters often appear loathe to do: ask the general public why it supports or opposes the war, why it thinks the war is going well or poorly, and why people think we should escalate or withdraw. There have been hundreds of public polls asking the general public if it supports something, but basically nothing asking people why they support or oppose something.

The absence of polling on public rationales is stunning, and it goes beyond Iraq. Outside of exit polls, people are hardly ever asked why they support or oppose anything, just if they support or oppose something. Wouldn't a richer view of public opinion take into account rationale, instead of just support or opposition? Since many other factors could be involved, such as the cost of a poll, I hesitate to immediately label the absence of polling on public rationale as "elitism." However, the lack of interest large news organizations show in commissioning polls (and large news organizations commission most polls) that ask the public why they hold position x, y or z, certainly makes me wonder if they even care why the public holds position x, y or z. Perhaps they would simply have their highly paid opinion journalists declare why the country holds opinion x, y, or z, rather than actually ask the public the public at large.

More in the extended entry.

By Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright

To: Democratic Congressional Challengers
Re: CA-50 Post-Special Election (Busby-Bilbray) Polling Memo

Fall Election Environment Overview:
This fall, you will face a grotesque political environment, one that requires strategic knowledge, great courage and fortitude to successfully navigate. Facing low approval ratings, Republicans will introduce you to the voters as a flip-flopping, gay-loving, liberal terrorist coddler who wants to cut and run from Iraq, all at the behest of self-absorbed Hollywood moguls and liberal elites.

The establishment Democrats have proven ineffective at combating this positioning, introducing empty slogans like `Together we can do better' that no one repeats or remembers, and policy proposals that few voters believe Democrats are capable of enacting. Most of the polling and advice you'll get from DC insiders and journalists will largely rehash bad information, false choices and irrelevant answers to poorly framed questions. If you take their advice, you will not make significant headway in convincing voters you are best to represent them. And when you lose, it'll be you who ran a bad campaign, not "them." Just ask Francine Busby how that works.

Perhaps worst of all, you will probably face some form of October surprise from the Republicans and your opponent: a game-changing event or message stream. And you will be blind-sided because establishment Democrats will be caught off-guard. Again. And you and your campaign will pay the price of their failure.

Realistically, when it comes to developing a winning position and messaging, you are on your own. Or rather, you are on your own, except that the voters - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - agree with the outrage that you feel towards the political system and agree that Republican leadership is the problem. Yet, voters will only vote for change if they know you can deliver on that change once elected.

So far, few believe that will happen, as our data in CA-50 show.

I was on Radio Open Source last night talking about Lieberman-Lamont in the context of our new polling data.  I was on with John Nichols of The Nation and Mary Katherine Ham of Townhall.com.  I like both of them very much, but about two thirds of the way through, I got really angry at both John and Mary Katherine for their rehashed bullshit on Democrats having no message, doing badly this cycle, and presenting no alternative.

Actually, mostly I was mad at John.  Katherine is a partisan, and she had to advocate her side.  But I am tired of the evidence-less 'left' that consistently insults Democrats and insults the American people by putting forward the idea that Democrats in Congress can do anything but hold Bush accountable.  Bush is in charge and he will be in charge for two and a half more years.  The most the Democrats can do is stop him from screwing things up more.  The American people know this.  48% of Republican base voters know this.  Why don't the pundits get it?

Anyway, if you want to hear me flip out on a couple of people on the radio, the show is here.  I used to work with Chris Lydon, and he's a great host, one of the best voices in talk radio, and someone who really gets the internet.

Please continue to donate to the MyDD / Courage Campaign Polling Project. This important work cannot continue without your support. Also, check out the official, public, PDF version of the report. It includes graphics and you can email it to whoever you like.

In an important development paralleling the Vietnam-era split in the Democratic Party base, a split is developing among Republican Party base voters around the war in Iraq and the credibility of Republican Party leaders who initiated the war. In post-election polling done by Courage Campaigns and MyDD.com in the Republican-leaning California 50th district, we found that only 19% of Republican voters believe that the Republican Party will hold Bush accountable for mistakes made in Iraq, versus 48% of Republican voters who believe that the Democratic Party will hold Bush accountable.

Other findings include:

• 63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq. 24% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made ‘a lot of mistakes in Iraq’, and another 39% believe that Bush has made ‘some mistakes in Iraq’.
• 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush has definitely or probably not told the truth about the situation in Iraq. 14% believe that Bush has ‘definitely’ not told the truth about the situation in Iraq, and another 20% believe that Bush has ‘probably’ not told the truth about the situation in Iraq.
• 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush should probably or definitely be held accountable for the situation in Iraq. 19% of Republican voters believe that Bush should ‘definitely’ be held accountable, and 15% believe he should ‘probably’ be held accountable.
• 48% of Republican voters believe that the Democratic Party is likely to hold Bush accountable for mistakes in Iraq, versus only 19% who believe that the Republican Party is likely to hold Bush accountable.

It is clear that a substantial minority of Republican base voters no longer trust their leadership on issues of war and peace, and that President Bush’s lowered credibility has lowered the credibility of Republican Party leaders in general. At the same time, without skillful exploitation of these vulnerabilities on the part of Democratic candidates, Republican candidates can hold on to their voters, as Brian Bilbray did in his special election victory. A previous polling memo showed that both withdrawal messaging or ignoring the war allows Republican candidates to solidify their voter base and depress turnout among independents.

Voters and likely voters in the bright red California 50th Congressional District believe that George Bush made mistakes with regard to the conduct of the war in Iraq, is not truthful about that war and that Democrats, not Republicans, are the only force that can hold him accountable.

This poll demonstrates clearly that the occupation in Iraq matters to voters and that progressive candidates have the obligation to assure that Congress will be in charge of holding the president accountable.

These stunning findings are from a new poll commissioned by the Courage Campaign, a non-partisan, progressive 527 based in Los Angeles, and MyDD.com, a progressive blog devoted to analysis and commentary on political campaigns and infrastructure. This poll was conducted as a follow-up to the polling memo the two organizations released on August 2nd, which examined reasons for Francine Busby's loss in the special election in the district. The poll was conducted from August 2nd-3rd by Wright Consulting, and surveyed 308 registered voters who participated in the July 5-26 Courage Campaign / MyDD poll. The poll has a margin of error of 5.8% for the entire sample, with smaller subgroups have a larger margin of error.

Full questionnaire can be found here:
http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/followupquestions.pdf

Complete crosstabs can be found here:
http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/Crosstabs.pdf

For further information, contact Chris Bowers of MyDD at chris@mydd.com, or CJ Frogozo of the Courage Campaign at cj@couragecampaign.org

Complete findings can be found in the extended entry.

Here is what I am looking at:

• Friday is the end of the second fundraising quarter. We have four new candidates up on the Dkos / MyDD / SSP netroots page, and you guys have poured in $11K since yesterday evening. Fantastic! Let's keep it coming!
  
  
• Also, we are getting close to our fundraising goal for the next polling project: why did Francine Busby lose? The poll will go into the field soon, so please help us reach our $20K goal.
  
  
• According to a new poll, in Rhode Island, Whitehouse and Chafee are neck in neck, 38%-37%. However, Whitehouse crushes Laffey, 55-25%. Go Laffey--win that primary for the all-powerful conservative base!
  
  
• The great Bush bounce: from 33.9% to 36.6%. Is that the best the media can do for this guy? The lapdogs are really losing their potency.
  
  
• Michael Nutter to run for Philly mayor. I'll be keeping my options open for a while.
  
  
• Mystery Pollster compares public support for World War Two with public support for the war in Iraq. Tony Snow won't like the results.
  
  
• Review of the new DeLay film: The Big Buy: Tom Delay's Stolen Congress

This is an open thread.

As of this afternoon, we are currently at just under $12,000 raised for the third installment of the polling project. This is a joint effort with the Courage Campaign, and is asks a not-so-simple question: Why Did Francine Busby Lose?. In order to make this poll happen we are going to need to reach our $20,000 goal. We are more than halfway there, but we need your help. Please, donate to the polling project today.

In 2006, there will be thousands of election polls commissioned by political campaigns, news organizations, and other interested parties. Of all the polls that will be conducted in 2006, this one may be the most important. The June 6th special election in the Ca-50 is the only federal election that will take place between now and November 7th, and figuring out what happened in that election is crucial to understanding how we can win in November. This is the only poll that will give us that information. It is worth the price of five hundred trial heats and Bush job approval ratings.

Now, while MyDD has established itself as capable of producing legitimate, scientific, buzz-generating polls, I do not expect that the entire Democratic Party will immediately adopt strategies relevant to the findings of this poll. However, because of the influential nature of our audience, because we have a track record of being able to produce strong polls, and because your suggestions have helped make our draft questionnaire one darn good poll, this will change some minds. If done correctly, I believe that this poll will help shape the strategic direction of many local races, congressional races, state parties and even a few statewide races. The DCCC and the DSCC are not going to see the results and recommendations of this poll and suddenly change course. However, some campaigns will take this information seriously, and I believe doing so will help them win in November.

We need your help to make it happen. In the past we have read and taken your suggestions into account for how to construct the poll, but now we need your continued financial support as well. If we don't get the money, we can't run the poll. Please, donate to the polling project today. Let's get this thing in the field.

As I continue to work through the details of attempting to put together the third polling project with The Courage Campaign, I realize I have reached another point where I need your help. In addition to suggesting ideas for why Francine Busby lost, I now need your help in developing progressive messages you think would work if used by Democratic candidates for Congress in 2006. The messages do not have to be specific to any particular policy area, and can be as broad or narrow as you like. They do, however, have to be short (30 words or less) and they do have to be positive. After all, we don't just want to know why Francine Busby lost, we want to know how she and other candidates could actually win.

Use this thread to post comments outlining what type of positive, progressive messaging you would like to see tested in an actual poll. Also, please consider donating to the Courage Campaign in order to get this thing off the ground.