Pew: Growing Cell Phone Poll Bias Favors Republicans

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mark Blumenthal

Does it matter that many polls -- including the vast majority that we are currently watching at the state and congressional district level -- do not call Americans who use only a cell phone and thus lack landline telephone service? Yes it does. It creates a growing bias that appears to benefit Republican candidates. That's the message of a new analysis released this afternoon by the Pew Research Center.

Since 2006, a rapidly increasing percentage of American households lacks landline phone service. The most recent government estimates find that one in four American households is reachable by cell phone only. Pollsters have been reluctant to sample and call Americans on their cell phones, partly because it costs more and partly because federal law requires hand dialing any call placed to a cell phone, which makes such calls less efficient and puts cell phone polling off limits to automated survey methodologies.

For the last four years, the Pew Research Center has conducted public opinion surveys involving separate, parallel samples of both landline and mobile phones. Their design allows for a comparison between combined samples of landline and cell interviews and samples based only on landline calls.

Before the 2008 election, they found that calling only landline phones introduced a "small but real" bias in favor of John McCain, an average bias of 2.3 percentage points on the margin on nine national surveys conducted between June and October of that year.

This year, according to today's report, the Pew Center finds that sampling only landline phones creates an even bigger bias -- "differences of four to six points on the margin" - in favor of the Republicans. The most recent survey in the study, conducted in late August and early September, also involved comparisons based on a subgroup of "likely voters" chosen using a traditional seven question turnout scale (similar to the classic Gallup likely voter model):

The combined landline and cell estimate produced a seven-point Republican advantage: 50% supported the GOP candidate for Congress in their district while 43% backed the Democratic candidate. The Republican lead would have been 12 points if only the landline sample had been interviewed, a significant difference from the combined sample of five points in the margin.

The impact such a bias may have on this year's pre-election polls depends in part on the polls involved. At the national level, many organizations now routinely sample and call both landline and mobile phones. These include, in addition to the Pew Center, ABC News/Washington Post, AP/GfK, CBS News/New York Times, Gallup (both their daily tracking and the surveys in partnership with USA Today), Kaiser Family Foundation, McClatchy/Marist University, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Newsweek.

At the statewide level, however, more expensive cell phone interviewing is far more rare. Except for a single experiment conducted by SurveyUSA this summer (involving live interview calls to cell phones) we have not seen any cell phone sampling or calling by the pollsters that use an automated, recorded voice methodology. The organizations we know of that are currently calling samples of both cell and mobile phones include California's Field Poll and Public Policy Institute of California, the University of Cincinnati Ohio poll, and the Marist Poll's statewide surveys. While the Quinnipiac University announced plans to begin calling cell phone samples earlier this year, polling director Doug Schwartz tells the Huffington Post that they "decided to suspend cell phone calling, which is much less efficient than calling landlines," until after the election.

It is also worth noting that while the Pew Center found a modest bias for landline-only samples in their survey experiments in 2008, their post-election analysis found that other national surveys that called on both cell and landline phones were no more accurate than national surveys that called only landline. Moreover, at the statewide level where virtually all polls were landline only, the errors were "still relatively small" and favored Republicans more often than Democrats.

link

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Hanging on to any thread of hope? To be sure, the only poll that counts is the one on the first tuesday of November. But until then you can take some comfort however small it may be.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hanging on to any thread of hope? To be sure, the only poll that counts is the one on the first tuesday of November. But until then you can take some comfort however small it may be.

What's the there to hope for? Even if the Democrats maintained the same number of seats, they don't have a filibuster proof majority which plays perfectly into the hands of those who don't think government has any role in solving our nation's problems. The Republican Party is hoping to gain a majority so they can repeal or undo most of the legislation that has successfully passed over the last couple of years. What a wonderful plan for this country that is.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The Republican Party is hoping to gain a majority so they can repeal or undo most of the legislation that has successfully passed over the last couple of years. What a wonderful plan for this country that is.

Yes it is a wonderful plan. The last two years have set this country back decades. The first order of business for the new congress is to repeal as much of it as they can. Now there is a plan I can support.

[Heracles 417]

Yes it is a wonderful plan. The last two years have set this country back decades. The first order of business for the new congress is to repeal as much of it as they can. Now there is a plan I can support.

Yes, because the eight years prior to that really propelled it. Nothing better for an economy and lower taxes than unfunded two wars.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes it is a wonderful plan. The last two years have set this country back decades. The first order of business for the new congress is to repeal as much of it as they can. Now there is a plan I can support.

More pie-in-the-sky thinking. Nothing can or will be undone or repealed without a 2/3 majority and that's not going to happen.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

More pie-in-the-sky thinking. Nothing can or will be undone or repealed without a 2/3 majority and that's not going to happen.

Sure it can, it does not take 2/3 to pass a new law that takes the place of an old one. Unless your talking about overcoming a veto, then we will just wait two more years until Obama is out of office.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yes, because the eight years prior to that really propelled it. Nothing better for an economy and lower taxes than unfunded two wars.

So what would you prefer? The ten years the reps controlled congress or the last four years of a dem congress? Since 2007 we have gone from 5% unemployment to 10%. Our national debt has doubled. We have been stuck in a recession for 2 years now. While things were far from perfect under Bush it was like a vacation compared to the dem congress. Yeah, the dem congress has done such a great job!

[scandal 951]

Does it matter that many polls -- including the vast majority that we are currently watching at the state and congressional district level -- do not call Americans who use only a cell phone and thus lack landline telephone service? Yes it does. It creates a growing bias that appears to benefit Republican candidates. That's the message of a new analysis released this afternoon by the Pew Research Center.

Since 2006, a rapidly increasing percentage of American households lacks landline phone service. The most recent government estimates find that one in four American households is reachable by cell phone only. Pollsters have been reluctant to sample and call Americans on their cell phones, partly because it costs more and partly because federal law requires hand dialing any call placed to a cell phone, which makes such calls less efficient and puts cell phone polling off limits to automated survey methodologies.

Interesting. But I don't see any explanation for why the landline bias should favor Republicans over Democrats. There is clearly a trend to cellphone-only households in America (we are one). And I can see the rationale for why polling organizations stay away from contacting cellphones. But where's the justification for why Republicans should have a higher proportion of landline phones than Democrats?

There is precedent for this sort of thing. In the infamous 1948 Dewey/Truman campaign, all the polls showed Dewey beating Truman in a landslide. Of course, the precise opposite happened. One very significant reason for why the polls were all wrong is that they relied, for the first time in a US Presidential race, on phone canvassing. At that time telephones were for the privileged classes only. Farmers, laborers, factory workers did not have phones. Bankers, businessmen, lawyers did. You can pretty easily see where the Republican bias crept in.

[scandal 951]

Sure it can, it does not take 2/3 to pass a new law that takes the place of an old one.

No, not 2/3. But it does take 60 votes in the Senate to pass just about any legislation of significance or even to get a judicial appointment through. Steve has a valid point: neither party is going to have 60 seats in the Senate come January. We've had 2 years of the Party of NO fillibustering and blocking the Democratic agenda. Now, in all likelihood, we'll see if Democrats are going to look kindly on allowing their GOP colleagues to get any bills through. More paralysis ahead, most likely.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting. But I don't see any explanation for why the landline bias should favor Republicans over Democrats. There is clearly a trend to cellphone-only households in America (we are one). And I can see the rationale for why polling organizations stay away from contacting cellphones. But where's the justification for why Republicans should have a higher proportion of landline phones than Democrats?

There is precedent for this sort of thing. In the infamous 1948 Dewey/Truman campaign, all the polls showed Dewey beating Truman in a landslide. Of course, the precise opposite happened. One very significant reason for why the polls were all wrong is that they relied, for the first time in a US Presidential race, on phone canvassing. At that time telephones were for the privileged classes only. Farmers, laborers, factory workers did not have phones. Bankers, businessmen, lawyers did. You can pretty easily see where the Republican bias crept in.

I think it has to with the demographics of cell-phone-only voters vs. those who still use a landline

Edited October 16, 2010 by El Buscador

[Pooky 3,794]

No, not 2/3. But it does take 60 votes in the Senate to pass just about any legislation of significance or even to get a judicial appointment through. Steve has a valid point: neither party is going to have 60 seats in the Senate come January. We've had 2 years of the Party of NO fillibustering and blocking the Democratic agenda. Now, in all likelihood, we'll see if Democrats are going to look kindly on allowing their GOP colleagues to get any bills through. More paralysis ahead, most likely.

All it will do is remind the American people that when the other side is in the ascendancy, BOTH American political parties are the party of No.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No, not 2/3. But it does take 60 votes in the Senate to pass just about any legislation of significance or even to get a judicial appointment through. Steve has a valid point: neither party is going to have 60 seats in the Senate come January. We've had 2 years of the Party of NO fillibustering and blocking the Democratic agenda. Now, in all likelihood, we'll see if Democrats are going to look kindly on allowing their GOP colleagues to get any bills through. More paralysis ahead, most likely.

Which is a very good thing!

[Danno 1,228]

Yes, because the eight years prior to that really propelled it. Nothing better for an economy and lower taxes than unfunded two wars.

You left out the biggie.... the one that will only grow and never go away.

Free meds for all seniors, even The Bush's and Warren Buffet or any other millionaire .... which by the way we might recall that seniors are the most wealthy age group in the country.

All this will be charged to the up and coming generations.

Thanks "W".

[Danno 1,228]

No, not 2/3. But it does take 60 votes in the Senate to pass just about any legislation of significance or even to get a judicial appointment through. Steve has a valid point: neither party is going to have 60 seats in the Senate come January. We've had 2 years of the Party of NO fillibustering and blocking the Democratic agenda. Now, in all likelihood, we'll see if Democrats are going to look kindly on allowing their GOP colleagues to get any bills through. More paralysis ahead, most likely.

Awwe come on now, when we look back we see most presidents had this obstacle to deal with, ..might even say it was planned to work this way, no?