One of the nice things about the Internet and blogs is that you don’t just have to hear someone read something over the radio– you can get a copy of it and look things over yourself.

The full-text of Dr. Richard Murray’s emailed response to Edd Hendee– interrupted by two instances of LST editorial snark, with a few passages emphasized in bold by LST:

From: "Murray, Richard W" <ADDRESS REDACTED BY LST>
To: <EddHendee@ADDRESS REDACTED BY LST>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:42:29 -0600
Subject: RE: Respose to Dr. Murray’s comments on DeLay poll
                  
Edd:    

Since you say I have not addressed you specific criticisms about the poll, let me respond………….  

While It is obvious that we simply disagree about a number of aspects of the Houston Chronicle survey of January 10-12,  let me get a few things on the record.  Some are  factual, as in the first section below, others are more subjective.  

(1)     This survey was not "my survey."  The Houston Chronicle decided they wanted to do the survey late in the week of January 2nd   after Congressman Delay announced he would not seek to regain the Majority Leader position.  I was out of town at the Southern Political Science Association meeting in Atlanta from Wednesday thru Sunday of that week and thus was not contacted by the newspaper.  Rather, they talked with Bob Stein, the Dean of Social Sciences at Rice, and he agree that he and I would work with the paper on this project, as we had done on numerous surveys in the past.  He assumed I would have no objection but did not talk with me about the survey until I got back to town Sunday afternoon.    

By that time, Bob had worked up a draft of the survey in consultation with the Houston Chronicle reporters and had talked to our director of the polling center at UH, Chris Mainka, to make sure we could work this unexpected poll into our survey schedule as we were beginning work on a local school survey.  Mr. Mainka said we could do this on short notice and ordered the sample from a commercial vendor.   I reviewed the draft and suggested a number of additional questions and some changes in question wording. The suggestions I made were not accepted because Bob and the newspaper wanted to get the survey done quickly and did not want to add questions such as the ones I put forward.  In the end, the only direct contribution I made to the wording of the survey was to add one more income bracket to the closed ended question about total family income.  

I know nooothiinngg, NOOOOTTHIIINGG!!!

The survey was done at the UH Center for Public Policy Center polling center under the direction of Chris Mainka, who hires all interviewers, programs the surveys we do, supervises the actual interviewing, etc..  Chris is, I believe, a conservative and Republican in private life, but that is not relevant – he is a proven professional who has done a tremendous job managing our survey operations over the last 4 years.  Because I trust him, in this case as with other polls, I did not go to the survey center during polling; did not handle the data, nor involve myself in any way in the execution of the project until the complete data set was sent to Dr. Stein and myself.

Bob Stein and I reviewed the data and ran a number of cross-tabulations and breakdowns on the data, and met with Houston Chronicle reporters as they were developing their stories.  We supported putting the survey results on the Chronicle’s website.

(2)     While my direct involvement in the survey itself was limited, as the above comments suggest, I absolutely stand behind the survey as solid work done in accordance with accepted methods in the profession and consistent with the ethical standards of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).

My confidence in the poll,  aside from knowing it was executed by non-political professionals, is also based on independent factual indicators that are not subject to challenge.  One is the racial/ethnic makeup of the Chronicle poll sample compared to the 2000 census data for the district.  These are detailed below.

18+ population in 22nd district              

in 2000 census                                  Chronicle sample of 560 voters  

Anglos              63.2%                           73,6%  

Blacks                9.3%                             8.4%  

Hispanics          18.2%                             8.0%  

Asian/Other         9.3%                             7.4%  

Refused               –                                 2.5%  

A second independent measure is available because we can look at the recalled vote of the 342 people in the Chronicle survey who said they voted in the November 2004 congressional election between Tom Delay, Richard Morrison, and a couple of other candidates, versus actual result.  Here are those data:  

Actual congressional  

Vote in November 2004                           Recalled vote (n=342)  

Tom Delay            150,386 .. 55.16%          179….. 52.34%  

Richard Morrison   112,034   41.09%          132….  38.60%  

Others                   10,200     3.74%            31…    9.06%  

When you look at further internal measures such as reported partisanship of the sample, approval rating of President Bush, etc.  these data have very high face validity.  The sample like thew district, has a distinct Republican tilt, likes George W. Bush a lot more than Americans in general, and so forth.

BOTTOM LINE:  These are good data, and because of that, Professor Stein and myself agreed that no weighting was appropriate in this case.

(3)     Critics of the Chronicle survey have based much of their attack on a misunderstanding of one section of the survey – the March 2006 Republican primary horse race.  The charge is the poll is flawed, biased, etc. because "everyone"  - Democrats, Libertarians, non-partisans, etc. were asked how they would vote in the Republican primary for Congress among the four candidates who will be on the ballot.  This charge is a red herring without merit.

The data the Chronicle reported in the trial heat are for the 213 voters who said they were a) "certain" or "likely" primary voters and b) when asked which primary they would vote in said "Republican."  That group included a few voters who looked like "crossover" voters who said they were Democrats and/or had voted for Richard Morrison but the internals are consistent with what we would expect from GOP primary voters (most are conservatives, give Pres. Bush  high marks, etc..  In sum, the central attack on the Chronicle poll does not stand up upon examination.

Critics have also said the Chronicle should have polled a different population – say just Republican primary voters. As the sponsor of the poll, the newspaper makes the call as to whom they want to interview.  In this case, it was the registered voters in the Congressman’s district – all registered voters – and that is their call as a news-gathering organization.  They made this clear in their stories and that is their only obligation in this regard.  If another news organization or entity wants to poll people who’ve voted in recent Republican primaries, fine, but that is not what the Houston Chronicle wanted to do and they paid for the poll.

I was only following ze’ Chronicle’s orders!

(4)     Finally, critics have said the Chronicle poll is phony, biased, etc. because I am personally a Democrat in my political leanings and thus anything I do in this area is tainted.  Critics have also noted one of my sons is a Democratic consultant who worked for Nick Lampson in 2005.  I am personally a Democrat, and my son did work for Nick Lampson and it is perfectly kosher to point that out so that readers can assess any information from me with those facts in mind.

However, I absolutely reject the charge that in this survey or any other I have worked on,  that I have "cooked" the data or otherwise misrepresented it to attain some kind of partisan advantage for a candidate or side I favor.  In my 40 years in the classroom and 35 years of polling I’ve striven to play it down the middle, and I believe I have succeeded.  Those who would argue differently have a long track record to examine to support their charges. They might start with the thousands of students I have taught at UH, like legislators John Whitmire and Beverly Woolley and County Judge Robert Eckels, or more recently Tyler Nelson, who just completed a semester-long internship in the Washington office of Congressman Tom Delay and is presently a White House Fellow working in Dick Cheney’s office.

As to polls, I long ago learned that when a survey I am associated with reports data that undermine a powerful public official, harsh personal attacks will likely follow to deflect attention from the poll results.  My mentor in this regard was that great master of the dark arts of political villainy, the late Bob Bullock.  In May of 1978 I worked on a poll for the Houston Post that reported then Governor Dolph Briscoe was in serious trouble in the upcoming Democratic primary against challenger John Hill.  The same day the Post ran a front-page story by Jane Ely hyping the story, the Houston Chronicle ran a  front-page story (I believe written by Bo Byers) wherein I was castigated by then Secretary of State Bullock as a "star-gazing Phd" who had done "the worst thing possible  - used my academic position to mislead the voters of the state".  I found it quite fascinating that 28 years later, another person who served in that same appointed office (Jack Rains) has made a similar, but in decidedly less vivid language, attack on your humble servant over this most recent poll which suggests yet another powerful elected official may be in serious hot water with voters.

A few days after the 1978 poll, Briscoe was defeated in the Democratic primary.

The 2006 poll does not show, in my judgment, that Tom Delay is nearly as likely to lose his upcoming March primary contest as Dolph Briscoe was, but it does clearly show a substantial erosion in his support which does endanger his returning to Congress in 2007.

And, one final response to Edd Hendee’s closing point.

I do not think personally think Congressman Delay’s fate hinges as much on Ronnie Earle’s investigation, indictment, upcoming trial, etc. There are, it seems to me as a non-lawyer, a lot of problems with Earle’s case.  More important, in my opinion, is what comes out of  the on-going probe on Capitol Hill by the Public Integrity Unit of the U.S. Department of Justice.  If the 40+ lawyers and hundreds of FBI agents that are vigorously working that case conclude Congressman Delay is not culpable in the Abramoff matter,  his political position will be greatly strengthened.  If they decide otherwise, the results will be devastating.

Blog on!