WJBK Fox 2 -
Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy, Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn, Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 general election voters to determine their voting preferences.
In what will be a significant blow to Democratic campaign efforts, native son Mitt Romney has climbed into the lead in Michigan’s Presidential contest. The naming of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan has delivered a targeted affect on the Michigan and Midwest campaign dynamics.
Question 1:
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you more likely to vote for in the election??
(Barack Obama): 43.88%
(Mitt Romney): 47.68%
(Another candidate): 3.96%
(Undecided): 4.01%
As a native Michigander, again……I’ll believe it when I see it. Assuming Mitt blitzes the mitten with ads after the convention and gets people to see through the “Obama saved the auto industry” nonsense, then maybe…but until then, mob (union) rules until proven otherwise.
A ‘trial run’ was held in Wisconsin a while back – seems the union thugs didn’t get their way after making a big stink. Been kinda quiet up there ever since. Do you suppose all of America might get similarly quiet should the other 49 states (57 if you’re Zero) follow a similar path?
Wisconsin doesn’t have a liberal-infested, unionized wasteland quite like Detroit, though. For all the stink about the population declining, Detroit still holds a lot of sway over the political landscape of the state, especially when it comes to statewide elections. There are enough UAW drones and people of color who love Obama left to deliver Michigan to him.
Not to worry, there is a Romney-Ryan sign on every corner in the form of a gas price.
Also of note, this same poll shows Pete Hoekstra erasing a nearly double-digit deficit to take the lead on liberal rubber stamp Debbie Stabenow.
this poll is a huge outlier.
It has 81% 50 and over.
it is the same polling company that had Romney by 15% in Florida with 18-30 at 1.35%
This poll has no credibility
Links please – or your post has a credibility problem as well.
My name is Eric Foster, President of Foster McCollum White & Associates. I am the lead pollster for our firm and our partnership with Baydoun Consulting and Douglas Fulmer & Associates and I wanted to address a couple of items that created some confusion in our polling release.
Our polling call list was weighted to the historical weights for age, gender, race, region and congressional district area. Our list is also comprised of voters with previous voting histories in Presidential, state and local elections. We include the moderate and low performance voters, but the call files do contain a significant portion of voters who have a likely history to participate. We do not call voters who have never participated in elections but are registered.
Our PVBA model reviews election statistics for age, gender, voting participation pattern, gender and socio-economic factors to determine the likely voting universe for an upcoming election. Our turnout models are based on state based historical turnout statistics provided by the municipal and county clerks and secretaries of state’s office of a state for age, gender, party, ethnicity and voting method (early, absentee, poll location) instead of exit polls. We trust the reliability of the election statistics from the clerks’ offices to give us value data reads on future elections. For example, our PVBA model for the Primary election in Wayne County Michigan (the largest voting county in Michigan.) was within 0.316% of the actual August 7, 2012 primary. We projected a total county turnout of 246,299 voters for all 43 communities including Detroit and actual turnout was 245,450 (after spoiled ballots were discounted for partisan contest).
The reason we take the historical data for a state is to give us a baseline for each precinct within the state and then build models up from there. We work to identify solid trends of turnout over a series of primary and general election contest so that we can remove outliers within turnout, age, gender, partisan (if collected) and ethnicity and determine the true participation base for that precinct. We can then project out for the variable election conditions (type, advertising impact, voter mobilization, outlier ballot issue impact, etc.) that allow us to determine our high moderate and low performing turnout and voter models.
When we call through the list, we report the demographics of the respondents without weight. If our demographics match the likely voter demographics for the polling study. If there are underrepresented groups within our aggregate respondent universe, we use our weighting model to adjust for their representative weight and the groups reflected polling preference for the baseline questions. We still will report the un-weighted demographics of our respondents because they reflect the prevailing interest level of the voting groups at the time of our polling survey.
Based on the respondent universes, we made the adjustment weight for the five underrepresented groups in Michigan based on our PVBA model. Re-elections for Democrats tend to draw fewer younger and Minority voters then their initial election, per our historical analysis models. We believe that these groups tend to feel that they accomplished the major task of placing their change agent candidate into office and those they should have built enough of a base to sustain themselves.
- We have made weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses based on the following five groups who were underrepresented in our aggregate polling respondents:
• Male respondents – 39.73% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 46% (FMW)B PVBA male voter turnout model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 45.0% of the aggregate universe.
• African American respondents – 6.41% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 17.5% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 17.5% of the aggregate universe..
• Asian American respondents – 0.58% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 2.0% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 2.00% of the aggregate universe.
• Voters ages 18 to 30 years old – 3.63% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 16% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 16.00% of the aggregate universe.
• Voters ages 31 to 50 years old – 15.86% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 25% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 25.00% of the aggregate universe.
Partisan participation rates:
(Solid Democrat): 26.83%
(Leaning Democrat): 11.48%
Total Democrats 38.31%
(Independent): 25.10%
(Solid Republican): 21.87%
(Leaning Republican): 9.41%
(Tea Party Republican): 5.14%
Total Republicans 36.36%
Religious affiliation participation rates:
(Evangelical Christian): 26.94%
(Catholic): 35.55%
(Baptist): 7.86%
(Protestant/Non Evangelical Christian): 15.90%
(Jewish): 1.62%
(Muslim): 0.35%
(Other or No religious affiliation): 11.68%
Based on the respondent universes, we made the adjustment weight for the five underrepresented groups in Florida based on our PVBA model. We analyzed the respondent’s participation rates to our data models for Florida and also considered the recent spike in Presidential election rates for the younger age groups and the representative portion that each group makes up of the registered voting base. Even though our model projects a lower turnout among primarily voters under 50, we weighted the voters ages 18 to 30 at 12% of the possible election universe and voters ages 31 to 50 at 15%, for a total of 27%. Re-elections for Democrats tend to draw fewer younger and Minority voters then their initial election, per our historical analysis models. We believe that these groups tend to feel that they accomplished the major task of placing their change agent candidate into office and those they should have built enough of a base to sustain themselves.
We have made weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses based on the following five groups who were underrepresented in our aggregate polling respondents:
• Male respondents – 42.38% of respondent universe versus 45.2% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 45.0% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• African American respondents – 6.32% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 10.1% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, 13.2% of Florida’s overall registered voter base and 13.7% of Florida’s adult population, with a final weighted determinate 11.5% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Latino American respondents – 4.06% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 7.0% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, 12.5% of Florida’s overall registered voter base and 21.1% of Florida’s adult population, with a final weighted determinate 10% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Voters ages 18 to 30 years old – 1.33% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 1.8% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and 16.3% of Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 12% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Voters ages 31 to 50 years old – 7.65% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 10.1% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and 21.6% of Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 15% of the aggregate baseline universe.
Partisan participation rates:
(Solid Democrat): 27.35%
(Leaning Democrat): 10.84%
Total Democrats 38.19%
(Independent): 21.02%
(Solid Republican): 26.95%
(Leaning Republican): 8.78%
(Tea Party Republican): 5.06%
Total Republicans 40.79%
Political ideology participation rates:
(Very conservative): 27.94%
(Somewhat conservative): 25.02%
Total Conservative 52.96%
(Moderate): 29.34%
(Very liberal): 8.25%
(Somewhat liberal): 6.72%
Total Liberal 14.97%
(Not sure): 2.73
Religious affiliation participation rates:
(Evangelical Christian): 21.02%
(Catholic): 24.75%
(Baptist): 13.77%
(Protestant/Non Evangelical Christian): 17.37%
(Jewish): 7.58%
(Muslim): 0.47%
(Other religious affiliation): 5.72%
(No religious affiliation): 9.31%
If this is true, then Romney’s pro-Israel comments (the so-called “gaffes”) did not hurt him in Michigan, and may carry Florida.
My name is Eric Foster, President of Foster McCollum White & Associates. I am the lead pollster for our firm and our partnership with Baydoun Consulting and Douglas Fulmer & Associates and I wanted to address a couple of items that created some confusion in our polling release.
Our polling call list was weighted to the historical weights for age, gender, race, region and congressional district area. Our list is also comprised of voters with previous voting histories in Presidential, state and local elections. We include the moderate and low performance voters, but the call files do contain a significant portion of voters who have a likely history to participate. We do not call voters who have never participated in elections but are registered.
Our PVBA model reviews election statistics for age, gender, voting participation pattern, gender and socio-economic factors to determine the likely voting universe for an upcoming election. Our turnout models are based on state based historical turnout statistics provided by the municipal and county clerks and secretaries of state’s office of a state for age, gender, party, ethnicity and voting method (early, absentee, poll location) instead of exit polls. We trust the reliability of the election statistics from the clerks’ offices to give us value data reads on future elections. For example, our PVBA model for the Primary election in Wayne County Michigan (the largest voting county in Michigan.) was within 0.316% of the actual August 7, 2012 primary. We projected a total county turnout of 246,299 voters for all 43 communities including Detroit and actual turnout was 245,450 (after spoiled ballots were discounted for partisan contest).
The reason we take the historical data for a state is to give us a baseline for each precinct within the state and then build models up from there. We work to identify solid trends of turnout over a series of primary and general election contest so that we can remove outliers within turnout, age, gender, partisan (if collected) and ethnicity and determine the true participation base for that precinct. We can then project out for the variable election conditions (type, advertising impact, voter mobilization, outlier ballot issue impact, etc.) that allow us to determine our high moderate and low performing turnout and voter models.
When we call through the list, we report the demographics of the respondents without weight. If our demographics match the likely voter demographics for the polling study. If there are underrepresented groups within our aggregate respondent universe, we use our weighting model to adjust for their representative weight and the groups reflected polling preference for the baseline questions. We still will report the un-weighted demographics of our respondents because they reflect the prevailing interest level of the voting groups at the time of our polling survey.
Based on the respondent universes, we made the adjustment weight for the five underrepresented groups in Michigan based on our PVBA model. Re-elections for Democrats tend to draw fewer younger and Minority voters then their initial election, per our historical analysis models. We believe that these groups tend to feel that they accomplished the major task of placing their change agent candidate into office and those they should have built enough of a base to sustain themselves.
- We have made weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses based on the following five groups who were underrepresented in our aggregate polling respondents:
• Male respondents – 39.73% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 46% (FMW)B PVBA male voter turnout model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 45.0% of the aggregate universe.
• African American respondents – 6.41% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 17.5% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 17.5% of the aggregate universe..
• Asian American respondents – 0.58% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 2.0% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 2.00% of the aggregate universe.
• Voters ages 18 to 30 years old – 3.63% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 16% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 16.00% of the aggregate universe.
• Voters ages 31 to 50 years old – 15.86% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 25% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, with a final weighted determinate 25.00% of the aggregate universe.
Partisan participation rates:
(Solid Democrat): 26.83%
(Leaning Democrat): 11.48%
Total Democrats 38.31%
(Independent): 25.10%
(Solid Republican): 21.87%
(Leaning Republican): 9.41%
(Tea Party Republican): 5.14%
Total Republicans 36.36%
Religious affiliation participation rates:
(Evangelical Christian): 26.94%
(Catholic): 35.55%
(Baptist): 7.86%
(Protestant/Non Evangelical Christian): 15.90%
(Jewish): 1.62%
(Muslim): 0.35%
(Other or No religious affiliation): 11.68%
Based on the respondent universes, we made the adjustment weight for the five underrepresented groups in Florida based on our PVBA model. We analyzed the respondent’s participation rates to our data models for Florida and also considered the recent spike in Presidential election rates for the younger age groups and the representative portion that each group makes up of the registered voting base. Even though our model projects a lower turnout among primarily voters under 50, we weighted the voters ages 18 to 30 at 12% of the possible election universe and voters ages 31 to 50 at 15%, for a total of 27%. Re-elections for Democrats tend to draw fewer younger and Minority voters then their initial election, per our historical analysis models. We believe that these groups tend to feel that they accomplished the major task of placing their change agent candidate into office and those they should have built enough of a base to sustain themselves.
We have made weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses based on the following five groups who were underrepresented in our aggregate polling respondents:
• Male respondents – 42.38% of respondent universe versus 45.2% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 45.0% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• African American respondents – 6.32% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 10.1% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, 13.2% of Florida’s overall registered voter base and 13.7% of Florida’s adult population, with a final weighted determinate 11.5% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Latino American respondents – 4.06% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 7.0% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election, 12.5% of Florida’s overall registered voter base and 21.1% of Florida’s adult population, with a final weighted determinate 10% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Voters ages 18 to 30 years old – 1.33% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 1.8% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and 16.3% of Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 12% of the aggregate baseline universe.
• Voters ages 31 to 50 years old – 7.65% of actual respondent universe was weighted to reflect the 10.1% of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election and 21.6% of Florida’s overall registered voter base, with a final weighted determinate 15% of the aggregate baseline universe.
Partisan participation rates:
(Solid Democrat): 27.35%
(Leaning Democrat): 10.84%
Total Democrats 38.19%
(Independent): 21.02%
(Solid Republican): 26.95%
(Leaning Republican): 8.78%
(Tea Party Republican): 5.06%
Total Republicans 40.79%
Political ideology participation rates:
(Very conservative): 27.94%
(Somewhat conservative): 25.02%
Total Conservative 52.96%
(Moderate): 29.34%
(Very liberal): 8.25%
(Somewhat liberal): 6.72%
Total Liberal 14.97%
(Not sure): 2.73
Religious affiliation participation rates:
(Evangelical Christian): 21.02%
(Catholic): 24.75%
(Baptist): 13.77%
(Protestant/Non Evangelical Christian): 17.37%
(Jewish): 7.58%
(Muslim): 0.47%
(Other religious affiliation): 5.72%
(No religious affiliation): 9.31%