Welcome to the Zogby Interactive
Home Page
Election 2006—Zogby Polling on the Mark in Tumultuous Midterms
Pollster bats 10 for 10 in the Reuters/Zogby telephone poll package of competitive Senate races; Interactive polling model shines
Pollster John Zogby continued his record of political polling success Tuesday, accurately identifying the winners of 84% of the 73 congressional and gubernatorial races the firm tracked in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s elections.
Zogby
International’s telephone polling of crucial U.S. Senate contests was
particularly stunning – batting 100% in identifying the winners of all 10 of
those toss–up races, including the victories of Democrat Claire McCaskill in
Missouri, who won by 2% (Zogby had her up by 3% a week before the vote) and
Democrat James Webb, who defeated Virginia Sen. George Allen by 1% – the exact
margin identified by Zogby.
Zogby also
correctly showed Democrat John Tester holding onto a slim lead over Republican
Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana. Zogby had Tester up by 2%; the unofficial count
in Montana has the challenger up by just under 1% over Burns.
In other
Senate races, Zogby nailed the Connecticut contest between incumbent Joe
Lieberman, Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, and Republican challenger Alan
Schlesinger. The pollster had Lieberman ahead by 12% – he ended up winning by
10%. Zogby polling in the other races produced similar results.
As the
election drew near, Pollster Zogby was quoted widely saying that he believed
the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives would pick up between 25 and
30 seats, and that Democrats would almost certainly pick up three or four seats
in the Senate, and perhaps get as high as six. As in earlier elections, Zogby’s
estimates turned out to be right on the mark.
Another bright spot for Zogby came from its online polling division, Zogby Interactive, which correctly identified the winners in 17 of 18 Senate races. And the only race that Zogby did not pick correctly – the McCaskill/Talent race in Missouri – was still well within the margin of error. Zogby Interactive had Talent winning re–election by a single percentage point, instead of losing by 2%.
This
separate polling methodology, under research and development at Zogby since
1998, showed particular value in mapping close contests – it correctly
identified the winners in four of the five races that were won by single digits
(the McCaskill race being the exception). Taking into consideration the
last–minute twists and turns that took place in that race after the Zogby
Interactive poll left the field, its result was remarkably precise.
There is
still work to be done in perfecting the interactive polling model – for
instance, the interactive survey had Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar leading
in the Senate race there by 8%, while she coasted to an easy 20% victory. And
in New York, incumbent Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton led by 24% in the poll
but actually won with a 36% edge. Some of that can be attributed to the fact
that, for a variety of reasons, the larger the advantage one candidate holds over
another, the more difficult it is to pinpoint what the exact margin between
them will be on Election Day.
Zogby Interactive also correctly identified 16 of 21 winners in races for governor around the country, correctly choosing the winner in six of the nine closest races that ended with single–digit victories. For instance, in Illinois, Zogby had incumbent Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich up by 7% heading down the stretch; he ended up winning by 9%. In Maryland, Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley was leading in the Zogby Interactive poll by 5%; he won by 7%. Even in the blow–out race for Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick led in the interactive poll by 25% and ended up winning by 21%.
Again, in the governor’s races, there were misses by the interactive model. In Arkansas, the last poll before Election Day has Republican Asa Hutchinson up by 3%, but he lost to Democrat Mike Beebe by 14%. And in Colorado, where gubernatorial candidates Bob Beauprez, the Republican, and Democrat Bill Ritter were tied in the last interactive survey. When votes were counted, Ritter won by 15%.
Pollster John Zogby: “Our analysis of our interactive polling data over time, compared to the public results from other firms, shows that we were ahead of the curve in identifying movements in several key races. We were first to identify weakness in the campaign of Virginia Sen. George Allen, for instance. Then, just before the election, everyone's polling showed that race had turned from a cake–walk to a toss-up. In the Michigan Senate race, we were on the leading edge seeing that race tightening, and then widening again as Stabenow regained her footing. In Ohio, we were early in noting the Republican Mike DeWine was facing trouble with his political base. In the end, he could not regain that support. And in Arizona, we always had the Kyl–Pederson race much closer than other pollsters, who gave Kyl big leads. From Oregon to Florida, we were in the front seat as this election unfolded.
“We
think the strength of this interactive polling model stems in part from the
fact that our pool of respondents tends to feature people who are more
intensely partisan - which means they are somewhat more motivated than the
average American to pay attention to politics and to vote. This means our
results are more likely to reflect actual election outcomes.
"While we had some great successes with both our telephone
surveys and our interactive polling this year, to be honest, it does appear
that the interactive polling has fallen short in some states, notably Colorado
and Arkansas, as well as overstating the count for minor
parties in several states. Nonetheless, it is a solid achievement and a worthy
experiment that we will continue to develop and perfect. This is truly the next
wave for the polling business."
Overall, Zogby correctly identified 85% of the winners using his interactive polling methodology.
Governor Races
|
|
|
|
Zogby Interactive
Polling
|
Nov. 7, 2006
Election Results
|
|
AR (R:Hutchinson vs.
D:Beebe)
|
|
Hutchinson 48.2;
Beebe 45.3
(Hutchinson +2.9)
|
Beebe 55% – 41%
|
|
AZ (R:Munsil vs.
D:Napolitano)
|
|
Napolitano 51.3;
Munsil 42.7
(Napolitano +8.6)
|
Napolitano 63% –35%
|
|
CA (R:Arnold
Schwarzenegger
vs.D:Angelides)
|
|
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
47.6;
Angelides 38.8
(Arnold
Schwarzenegger
+8.8)
|
Schwarzenegger
56% – 39%
|
|
CO (R: Beauprez vs.
D: Ritter)
|
|
Beauprez 46.6;
Ritter 46.4
(Beauprez +0.2)
|
Ritter 56% – 41%
|
|
CT (R:Rell vs.
D: DeStefano)
|
|
Rell 53.1;
DeStefano 40.5
(Rell +12.6)
|
Rell 63% – 45%
|
|
FL (R:Crist vs.
D:Davis)
|
|
Crist 49.9;
Davis 45.1
(Crist +4.8)
|
Crist – 52% – 45%
|
|
GA (R: Perdue vs.
D: Taylor)
|
|
Perdue 48.3;
Taylor 36.3
(Perdue +12.0)
|
Perdue 58% – 38%
|
|
IA (R: Nussle vs.
D: Culver)
|
|
Culver 47.6;
Nussle 46.4
(Culver +1.2)
|
Culver 54% – 45%
|
|
IL (R:Topinka vs.
D:Blagojevich)
|
|
Blagojevich 39.6;
Topinka 33.0
(Blagojevich +6.6)
|
Blagojevich 49%
– 40% – 11%
|
|
MA (R:Healey vs.
D: Patrick)
|
|
Patrick 58.1;
Healey 32.7
(Patrick +25.4)
|
Patrick 56% – 35%
|
|
MD (R:Ehrlich vs.
D:O'Malley)
|
|
O’Malley 49.3;
Ehrlich 43.9
(O'Malley +5.4)
|
O’Malley 53% – 46%
|
|
ME (R: Woodcock vs.
D:Baldacci)
|
Baldacci 38.9;
Woodcock 26.4(p)
(Baldacci +12.5)
|
|
Baldacci –
38%–30%–21%
|
|
MI (R: DeVos vs.
D: Granholm)
|
|
Granholm 51.6;
DeVos 42.7
(Granholm +8.9)
|
Granholm 56% – 42%
|
|
MN (R:Pawlenty vs.
D:Hatch)
|
|
Hatch 46.1;
Pawlenty 44.7
(Hatch +1.4)
|
Pawlenty 47% – 46%
|
|
NV (R: Gibbons vs.
D: Titus)
|
|
Titus 47.5;
Gibbons 46.6
(Titus 0.9)
|
Gibbons 48% – 44%
|
|
NY (R:Faso vs.
D:Spitzer)
|
|
Spitzer 63.2;
Faso 27.3
(Spitzer +35.9)
|
Spitzer 69% – 29%
|
|
OH (R: Blackwell vs.
D: Strickland)
|
|
Strickland 50.8;
Blackwell 43.3
(Strickland +7.5)
|
Strickland 60% – 37%
|
|
OR (R:Saxton vs.
D:Kulongoski)
|
|
Kulongoski 47.2;
Saxton 46.6
(Kulongoski +0.6)
|
Kulongoski 51% – 43%
|
|
PA (R:Swann vs.
D: Rendell)
|
|
Rendell 55.2;
Swann 42.0
(Rendell +13.2)
|
Rendell 60% – 40%
|
|
RI (R:Carcieri vs.
D: Fogarty)
|
|
|
Carcieri 51% – 49%
|
|
TN (R: Bryson vs.
D: Bredesen)
|
|
Bredesen 54.3;
Bryson 40.5
(Bredesen +13.8)
|
Bredesen 69% – 30%
|
|
TX (R: Perry vs.
D: Bell)
|
|
Perry 36.7;
Bell 28.5
(Perry +8.2)
|
Perry 39%, 30% –
Strayhorn 18%
Friedman 13%
|
|
WI (R: Green vs.
D: Doyle)
|
|
Green 47.2;
Doyle 46.7
(Green +0.5)
|
Doyle 53% – 45%
|
Senator Races
|
|
|
|
Zogby Interactive
Polling
|
Nov. 7, 2006
Election Results
|
|
AZ (R:Kyle vs.
D:Pederson)
|
|
(Kyle 51.8;
Pederson 44.4)
(Kyle +7.4)
|
Kyle 53% – 44%
|
|
CT (I:Lieberman vs.
D:Lamont)
|
Lieberman 48.6;
Lamont 36.6
(Lieberman +12)
|
Lieberman 47.4;
Lamont 42.5
(Lieberman +4.9)
|
Lieberman 50%
– 40%–10%
|
|
FL (R: Harris vs.
D:Nelson)
|
|
Nelson 53.7;
Harris 39.6
(Nelson +14.1)
|
Nelson 60% – 38%
|
|
MA (R:Chase vs.
D:Kennedy)
|
|
Kennedy 61.8;
Chase 32.4
(Kennedy +29.4)
|
Kennedy 69% – 31%
|
|
MD (R:Steele vs.
D: Cardin)
|
Cardin 48.8;
Steele 44.3
(Cardin +4.5)
|
Cardin 51.8;
Steele 42.6
(Cardin +9.3)
|
Cardin 54% – 44%
|
|
MI (R: Bouchard vs.
D: Stabenow)
|
|
Stabenow 49.3;
Bouchard 41.9
(Stabenow +7.4)
|
Stabenow 57% – 41%
|
|
MN (R: Kennedy vs.
D:Klobuchar)
|
|
Klobuchar 50.5;
Kennedy 42.8
(Klobuchar +7.7)
|
Klobuchar 58% – 38%
|
|
MO (R: Talent vs.
D:McCaskill)
|
McCaskill 46.0;
Talent 43.4
(McCaskill +2.6)
|
Talent48.6;
McCaskill 47.3
(Talent +1.3)
|
McCaskill 49% – 47%
|
|
MT (R: Burns vs.
D: Tester)
|
Tester 47.4;
Burns 45.5
(Tester +1.9)
|
|
Tester 49% – 49%
|
|
NJ (R: Kean Jr. vs.
D:Menendez)
|
Menendez 49.1;
Kean 37.3
(Menendez
+11.8)
|
Menendez 48.7;
Kean 42.8
(Menendez +5.9)
|
Menendez 53% – 45%
|
|
NM (R: McCulloch
vs.
D: Bingaman)
|
|
Bingaman 58.2;
McCulloch 37.5
(Bingaman +20.7)
|
Bingaman 70% – 30%
|
|
NV (R: Ensign vs.
D:Carter)
|
|
Ensign 58.3;
Carter 36.8
(Ensign +21.5)
|
Ensign 55% –41%
|
|
NY (R: Spencer vs.
D: Clinton)
|
|
Clinton 57.3;
Spencer 33.0
(Clinton +24.3)
|
Clinton 67% – 31%
|
|
OH (R: Dewine vs.
D: Brown)
|
Brown 48.8;
DeWine 42.4
(Brown +6.4)
|
Brown 48.7;
DeWine 47.3
(Brown +1.4)
|
Brown 56% – 44%
|
|
PA (R: Santorum vs.
D: Casey)
|
Casey 47.7;
Santorum 39.6
(Casey +8.1)
|
Casey 52.7;
Santorum 43.8
(Casey +8.9)
|
Casey 59% – 41%
|
|
RI (R: Chafee vs.
D: Whitehouse)
|
Whitehouse 53.4;
Chafee 38.8
(Whitehouse
+14.6)
|
|
Whitehouse 53% – 47%
|
|
TN (R: Corker vs.
D: Ford)
|
Ford 42.7;
Corker 53.0
(Corker +10.3)
|
Corker 49.3;
Ford 48.1
(Corker +1.2)
|
Corker 51% – 48%
|
|
TX (R: Hutchinson
vs.
D:Radnofsky)
|
|
Hutchinson 54.8;
Radnofsky 35.9
(Hutchinson +18.9)
|
Hutchison 62% – 36%
|
|
VA (R: Allen vs.
D: Webb)
|
Webb 44.8;
Allen 43.7
(Webb +1.1)
|
Webb 51.0;
Allen 47.2
(Webb +3.8)
|
Webb 50% – 49%
|
|
WA (R: McGavick
vs.
D: Cantwell)
|
|
Cantwell 50.0;
McGavick 46.1
(Cantwell +3.9)
|
Cantwell 58% – 39%
|
|
WI (R: Lorge vs.
D:Kohl)
|
|
Kohl 47.2;
Lorge 38.0
(Kohl +9.2)
|
Kohl 67% – 305
|
House Races
|
|
|
|
Zogby Interactive
Polling
|
Nov. 7, 2006
Election Results
|
|
AZ-8 (R: Graf vs.
D: Giffords)
|
Graf 41.3;
Giffords 52.5
(Giffords +11.2)
|
|
Giffords 54% – 42%
|
|
CO-7 (R: O'Donnell vs.
D:Perlmutter)
|
O’Donnell 39.8;
Perlmutter 54.1
(Perlmutter +14.3)
|
|
Perlmutter 55% – 42%
|
|
CT-2 (R:Simmons vs.
D:Courtney)
|
Courtney 42.3;
Simmons +46.6
(Simmons +4.3)
|
|
Simmons 50%–50%
|
|
CT-4 (R:Shays vs.
D:Farrell)
|
Farrell 50.7;
Shays 43.5
(Farrell +7.2)
|
|
Shays 50% – 48%
|
|
FL-22 (R: Shaw vs.
D:Klein)
|
Klein 49.2;
Shaw 39.6
(Klein +9.6)
|
|
Klein 51% – 47%
|
|
IA-1 (R:Whalen vs.
D: Braley)
|
Braley 48.6;
Whalen 41.5
(Braley +7.1)
|
|
Braley 55% – 43%
|
|
IL-6 (R:Roskam vs.
D: Duckworth)
|
Duckworth 54.2;
Roskam 40.0
(Duckworth +14.2)
|
|
Roskam 51% – 49%
|
|
IN-2 (R: Chocola vs.
D:Donnelly)
|
Donnelly 51.9;
Chocola 39.0
(Donnelly +12.9)
|
|
Donnelly 54% – 46%
|
|
IN-9 (R:Sodrel vs.
D: Hill)
|
Hill 47.5;
Sodrel 46.0
(Hill +1.5)
|
|
Hill 49% – 46%
|
|
KS-2 (R: Ryun vs.
D: Boyda)
|
Boyda 46.7;
Ryun 44.2 (p)
(Boyda +2.5)
|
|
Boyda 51% – 47%
|
|
KY-4 (R: Davis vs.
D: Lucas)
|
Lucas 44.9;
Davis 41.9
(Lucas +3.0)
|
|
Davis 52% – 44%
|
|
MN-6 (R: Bachmann vs.
D:Wetterling)
|
Wetterling: 42.1;
Bachmann 52.2
(Bachmann 10.1)
|
|
Bachmann 50% – 42%
|
|
NC-11(R: Taylor vs.
D:Shuler)
|
Shuler 47.6;
Taylor +43.3
(Shuler +4.3)
|
|
Shuler 54% – 46%
|
|
NM-1(R:Wilson vs.
D: Madrid)
|
Madrid 53.2;
Wilson 43.9
(Madrid +9.3)
|
|
Wilson 50% – 50%
|
|
NY-19 (R: Kelly vs.
D: Hall)
|
|
|
Hall 51% – 49%
|
|
NY-20 (R:Sweeney vs.
D: Gillibrand)
|
Sweeney 51.2;
Gillibrand 37.1 (p)
(Sweeney +14.1)
|
|
Gillibrand 53% – 47%
|
|
NY-24 (R: Meier vs.
D:Arcuri)
|
Arcuri 45.6;
Meier 39.3 (p)
(Arcuri +6.3)
|
|
Arcuri 54% – 45%
|
|
NY-25 (R: Walsh vs.
D: Maffei)
|
Maffei 48.6;
Walsh 45.0
(Maffei +3.6)
|
|
Walsh 51% – 49%
|
|
NY-26 (R:Reynolds vs.
D: Davis)
|
Reynolds 47.0;
Davis 46.0
(Reynolds +1.0)
|
|
Reynolds 52% – 48%
|
|
OH-18 (R: Padgett vs.
D:Space)
|
Space 53.2;
Padgett 33.1
(Space +20.1)
|
|
Space 62% – 38%
|
|
PA-6 (R: Gerlach vs.
D: Murphy)
|
Murphy 48.6;
Gerlach 43.5
(Murphy +5.1)
|
|
Gerlach 51% – 49%
|
|
TX-22 (R:Sekula vs.
D:Lampson)
|
|
|
Lampson 52% – 42%
|
|
VA-2 (R: Drake vs.
D: Kellam)
|
Kellam 43.4;
Drake 51.0
(Drake +7.6)
|
|
Drake 51% – 49%
|
|
VA-5 (R: Goode vs.
D: Weed)
|
Goode 46.0;
Weed 36.4 (p)
(Goode +9.6)
|
|
Goode 59% – 40%
|
|