Great research leads to exceptional advertising and Ipsos is delighted to congratulate our clients on their wins at the ARF 2013 David Ogilvy Awards. Here is a shout out to our friends at Procter & Gamble, Clorox Bleach, ConAgra Foods and Kraft Foods as we put the spotlight on… The David Ogilvy Awards.
Today, Keynans will vote for a new president. The whole world is watching as well. Why? The last Kenyan presidential election in 2007 lead to widespread violence as supporters of Raila Odinga accused Mwai Kibaki and his supporters of stealing the election. Given that politics in Kenya is often strongly linked to tribal affiliation, much of the violence was directed by members of one tribe toward those of another. At its core, much of the violence found its origins in many long-standing economic grievances. Against this backdrop, the international community has kept a close eye on this election.
One constitutional change resulting from the violence in 2007 was that if no one candidate gets a majority of the votes, there will automatically be a second round run-off election between the top two vote getters within 30 days of the first round election-day.
On 7 October 2012, Venezuelans showed up to cast their vote for president on Election Day with an unprecedented sign of voter enthusiasm pushing final turnout up over 80%. This race pitted Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, the incumbent and long-sitting president, against the 40-year-old opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski. Just this on its own would provide sufficient suspense for most. This electoral campaign, however, was one of particular drama and uncertainty
On November 6, Americans went to the polls for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. When the final results were in, it was clear that Ipsos Public Affairs was a winner as one of the election’s most accurate pollsters!
Ipsos Public Affairs, together with Thomson Reuters, found themselves in the winner’s circle following Tuesday’s 2012 U.S. Presidential Election having accurately predicted the outcome.
Ipsos has been getting a lot of questions lately about the political makeup of polls. This is normal towards the end of an election cycle – lots of people scrutinize the polls a lot more closely! We welcome the discussions, and it offers us an opportunity to help people better understand what makes up a quality political poll.
The US presidential election in November will be a close one. Many poll watchers, myself included, see this one as a nail bitter which will be won at the margins. I still strongly believe that Obama will be the victor (link) but details and not generalities will carry the day.
In elections of this type, success is typically defined by a percentage point here, another there. This puts a special premium on targeting and winning over those undecideds constituencies who have not chosen their champion. One such group is likely independent voters who will probably show up at the ballot box, but do not lean strongly towards Republicans or Democrats. Without a doubt, both the Romney and Obama camps will be giving this segment a very close look this electoral season.
As we count down to the November general election, opinion research outfits (like us) are going to release an ever-increasing number and variety of election poll results. Poll aggregation sites (link) help polling consumers make sense of this barrage of data by presenting the average results of the most recent polls. The running average is supposed to iron-out potential outliers or the idiosyncrasies of any one poll to provide a stable, and accurate, benchmark. However, aggregation sites also combine surveys of differing (though overlapping) populations, specifically all Americans, registered voters and likely voters. Do these different populations have different profiles and could they be systematically skewing the aggregator average?
The Obama-Romney match up is shaping up to be a nail biter. Our most recent Reuters-Ipsos poll has them in a statistical deadheat; other polls show a similar narrowing. Part of this trend is without a doubt a direct result of a dip in economic optimism, a dysfunctional Europe and lousy jobs report. But this variability is also just the natural ebb and flow of the election. Sometimes you are up; other times you are down.
The sitting Republican Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker beat the Democratic challenger Tom Barrett 53% to 46% yesterday in a recall election. Many pundits had touted Wisconsin as a political bellweather— “as goes Wisconsin, so goes the nation in November and beyond”. A Walker victory signals a resurgent Republican party with its revamped small government, collective-bargaining-busting mantra. In contrast, a Walker loss would be a strong ‘proof point’ that the Obama agenda is here to stay.
Party identification, i.e. self-identification as a Republican, Democrat, Independent or something else, is one of the most valuable pieces of information modern electoral pollsters collect about their respondents. Armed with party ID information, we can make pretty accurate guesses about how people feel about issues, what stories will appeal to them and, ultimately, how they will vote. It is an essential poll metric for undertaking any type of socio-political analysis of a population. Some research organizations even use it as a weighting variable. However there are two challenges inherent to measuring party ID: 1) there is no industry-standard, foolproof way of identifying party ID, and 2) there are no “true population” statistics for party ID against which we can benchmark our measurements.