Skip to main content

Gallup: Why we're not polling Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein, or Virgil Goode)

A Gary Johnson 2012 campaign staff member recently asked the Gallup Organization exactly why it was not including the Libertarian presidential candidate in current polls.

The answer was interesting:
Hi [name redacted]

Gallup makes decisions on possible inclusion of third party candidates in its trial heat ballot testing based on a number of criteria. Gallup’s default position is to include only the two major party candidates, and to consider inclusion of one or more of the many third party and independent candidates only when there is compelling evidence that they are significant factors in the campaign. In large part, Gallup uses its editorial judgment as the basis for this decision-making, including assessments of news coverage of third party and independent candidates. Additionally, Gallup assesses evidence of significant voter interest in these candidates, based on responses to open-ended vote preference questions, in which any candidate or party’s name is accepted; responses to a vote preference question in which the names of all candidates who will appear on the ballot in most states are read; and measuring name identification of third party candidates. These questions help inform Gallup about the level of third-party voting and help inform Gallup about whether a third-party candidate merits inclusion in its standard presidential trial-heat question.
Gallup has yet to assess where third parties candidates stand on these measures in 2012 as it waits for the various third parties to decide on nominees. Gallup will begin doing so as early as next month, and will continue to look for evidence that a third party or independent candidates deserves inclusion in Gallup’s standard vote preference question going forward. 
Thanks,
Alyssa
ALYSSA BROWN
Communication Specialist
202.715.3104
901 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
USA
GALLUP
Let's parse this seriatem

1.  Gallup's "default" is only two candidates.  Why?  Interesting question.  Can they make a methodological case that including more candidates somehow skews the results?

2.  There must be "compelling evidence" to include a third party or an independent candidate in a poll.  Are we about to find out what that is?

3.  Oh, the "compelling evidence" is Gallup "editorial judgment," relying heavily on "news coverage." Of course, Alyssa, one could argue that since polls actually drive coverage and analysis, that the ability to make significant inroads into news coverage hinges heavily on . . . inclusion in the polls.  Circular arguments, anyone.

4.  They use a certain amount of open-ended questions without party preference, like (presumably), "Who would you vote for if the presidential election were held today?"  This is followed by reading the names of all ballot-qualified candidates, which automatically prejudices the poll against any candidate who has not yet finished achieving ballot access.

5.  The most fascinating aspect of Alyssa's answer is this (which bears repeating):
 Gallup has yet to assess where third parties candidates stand on these measures in 2012 as it waits for the various third parties to decide on nominees. 
Except, ah, Alyssa, the Libertarians have already nominated Gary Johnson, the Greens have already nominated Jill Stein, and the Constitution Party has already nominated Virgil Goode.

Oops.


But we do learn something very important:  it is at the beginning or middle of June that Gallup will make its decision about who should be covered in polling questions.


That means that news coverage over the next three weeks is critical. 

Comments

tom said…
By those criteria, Gallup should not be covering Mitt Ronmey, who has yet to be nominated.

And no one who cares about unbiased polling (if such a thing is possible) should pay any attention to Gallup's results.
Anonymous said…
Hello,I do not believe that people like myself are being heard
from or listened to . I have been writing news stations and polling
places asking that they include and cover Mr. Johnson in the polls , news and on TV . All I can say is that if I get a chance to vote for MR. Johnson in Nov. he can be assured of at least one vote . I think he is the best candidate I have ""EVER'' seen and I am 59 years old . Thank You
Anonymous said…
Vote for Virgil Goode, not the scumbag baby killers Obama or Gary Jonson.
tom said…
Well Anonymous(2), you've certainly rallied the slanderous redneck vote.

I'm sure President Goode will make you Secretary of State after he wins by a landslide thanks to your support.
Anonymous said…
Not sure what kind of difference it will make, but for what it's worth, people are petitioning to get Gary in on the polls.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/590/741/682/get-gary-johnson-onto-a-gallup-poll/

Of course, you can always contact gallup polls directly too: http://www.gallup.com/poll/contactUs.aspx

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...