(FMW)B Polling Accuracy Analysis Report

Foster McCollum White & Associates

______________________________________________________________________________________

1

Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B

Polling Accuracy Report

Polling Studies 2010 to 2012

And Methodology Overview

Conducted by

Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B

Report Completed

September 10, 2012


______________________________________________________________________________________

2

Foster McCollum White & Associates and Baydoun Consulting 2010 to

2012 Public Opinion Polling Accuracy Analysis

On behalf of Foster McCollum White & Associates and Baydoun Consulting, we are

proud to produce the following report on our joint public opinion polling projects and the

reliability of our statistical analysis and polling construct model. Our industry is an

evolving industry with the constant pace and need for information about voters,

consumers and businesses is growing at a rapid rate. Firms that are in a continuous state

of business process improvement are the firms that will continue to identify the models

for studying the various audiences and interpreting data in coherent, logical and ethical

manners. Our analytics service model is one that we strive to continuously improve our

processes and stay ahead of the trends within the analytics industry.

The following report highlights the polling studies that we have completed from the

Michigan Primary election of 2010 through the Michigan Primary election of 2012 and

the comparable election data from those completed election cycles. We are assessing our

polling methodology, statistical sampling models and analytic constructs to report

accuracy and effective in our model across the topline aggregate data and geographical

cross tabular data. We have complied direct election statistics for each election cycle to

measure the direct correlation between our poll respondents’ desired selections and the

actual election selections. Our findings within the report reflect a very high level of

statistical accuracy and predictive outcome modeling for determining the course of each

election that we conducted polling on. We believe that our previous predictive analysis

history and our continuing business process improvement model will allow us to continue

a high level of accuracy and data reliability for the 2012 General election cycle and future

election cycles.

We are in the midst of conducting multiple state polling studies for the 2012 General

election cycle and will update this report upon the completion of the November election.


______________________________________________________________________________________

3

Michigan Democratic Primary Governor’s Contest

July 29, 2010

FMW & Baydoun Consulting conducted a state-wide poll on the Michigan Democratic

Governor’s primary. A 1,648 sample survey of registered and likely Democratic voters

and hard partisan Democratic voters who have already voted or are certain or likely to

vote in the August 3rd

Democratic primary for Governor of Michigan was conducted on

July 29th

. This sample is reflective of voters who have a consistent history of participating

in Democratic Primaries over a minimum of the past four primary election cycles. The

margin of error for this polling sample is 4%. We have made no weighting adjustments to

the aggregate baseline responses. Our respondent demographics matched our PBVA

demographic models with a variance ratio of 5%.

Baseline question

If the election was held today in the Democratic primary for governor, who would you

vote for? Andy Dillon, Virg Bernero, or are you undecided??

(Andy Dillon): 21.8%

(Virg Bernero): 49.9%

(Undecided): 28.3%

Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 28.80 points.

The primary was held on August 3, 2010. The final results are listed below:



(Undecided): 0%

Bernero margin of victory in the Democratic Primary was 17.36 points. Bernero gained

8.93 points from the undecided voting universe (31.55% of the undecided respondents).

Dillon gained 19.67 points from the undecided voting universe (69.51% of the undecided

respondents).

Geographical Voting Regions

Bernero’s lead among hard partisan Democrats is virtually insurmountable in the other

three regions. They are as follows:

Central Michigan – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 62.3%

Dillon 16.3%

Undecided 21.3%

Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 46 points.


______________________________________________________________________________________

4

Central Michigan – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 72.15%

Dillon 27.85%

Undecided 0%




respondents).

Thumb region – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 57.3%

Dillon 13.8%

Undecided 28.6%


Thumb region – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 66.38%

Dillon 33.62%

Undecided 0%




respondents).

Southwestern Michigan Region – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 50.8%

Dillon 16.2%

Undecided 33.0% Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 34.6 points.

Southwestern Michigan Region – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 58.61%

Dillon 41.39%

Undecided 0% Bernero margin of victory in the Democratic Primary was 17.23 points. Bernero gained



respondents).


______________________________________________________________________________________

5

Southeastern Michigan – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 46.1%

Dillon 27.0%

Undecided 26.9%

Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 19.1 points

Southeastern Michigan – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 54.44%

Dillon 45.56%

Undecided 0%




respondents).

Northern Lower Peninsula region – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 42.7%

Dillon 17.7%

Undecided 39.6%

Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 25 points

Northern Lower Peninsula region – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 56.51%

Dillon 43.49%

Undecided 0%




respondents).

Upper Peninsula Region – July 29, 2010 Poll

Bernero 46.8%

Dillon 14.9%

Undecided 38.3%

Bernero margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 31.90 points

Upper Peninsula Region – August 3, 2010 results

Bernero 54.88%

Dillon 45.12%

Undecided 0%





______________________________________________________________________________________

6

respondents).

FMW & Baydoun Consulting Polling Accuracy

The FMW & Baydoun Consulting polling model was extremely accurate when

comparing the aggregate and geographical cross tabular groups.

Our election poll results were:



(Undecided): 28.3%





(Undecided): 0%

Bernero margin of victory in the Democratic Primary was 17.06 points.

Our data model suggested that Speaker Dillon would win an average of 66% of the

undecided voters and Speaker Dillon won 69.51% of the undecided voters. Our polling

findings for Mayor Bernero’s lead among the aggregate voting universe and geographical

cross tabs were statistically accurate. We correctly projected that Virg Bernero would win

all six geographical regions of Michigan.


______________________________________________________________________________________

7

Michigan November General Election Polling Study for

Governor

October 11, 2010

FMW & Baydoun Consulting conducted a state-wide poll on the Michigan Governor

General election. A survey of registered and likely voters, equally pre-weighted towards

registered Democratic and Republican voter percentages and Independent voters who

have already voted or are certain or likely to vote in the November 3rd

general election

was conducted on October 11th

, 2010. 2331 Respondents participated in the survey; the

margin of error for this polling sample is 2.03%. We have made no weighting

adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses. Our respondent demographics matched

our PBVA demographic models with a variance ratio of 5%.

Baseline question

The general election for Governor is 23 days away. If the election for Governor was held

today, who would you vote for, certainly for Virg Bernero, leaning toward Virg

Bernero, Certainly for Rick Snyder, leaning towards Rick Snyder, another candidate or

undecided?

(Certainly for Virg Bernero): 26.51%

(Leaning toward Virg Bernero): 6.01%

Total Virg Bernero 32.52%

(Certainly for Rick Snyder): 43.97%

(Leaning toward Rick Snyder): 9.91%

Total Rick Snyder 53.88% (Another Candidate or undecided): 13.60%

Snyder’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 21.36 points.

The General election was held on November 3, 2010. The final results are listed below:

Virg Bernero 39.90%

Rick Snyder 58.11% Other Candidates: 1.99%

Snyder’s margin of victory in the November General election was 18.21 points. Bernero

gained 7.38 points from the undecided voting universe (54.26% of the undecided

respondents). Snyder gained 4.23 points from the undecided voting universe (31.10% of

the undecided respondents).


______________________________________________________________________________________

8

Geographical and Political Voting Regions

Cross Tab Grouping Rick

Snyder

(October

11 Poll)

Virg

Bernero

(October

11 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Snyder

Rick

Snyder

(Nov. 3

Final)

Virg

Bernero

(Nov. 3

Final)

+/-

Margin

for

Snyder

Southeastern Michigan –

Snyder Home Region 50.48% 38.00% +12.48 51.24% 47.10% +4.14

Southwestern Michigan 58.35% 26.87% +31.48 67.49% 30.52% +36.98 Thumb Region of Michigan 49.99% 34.80%

+15.19 56.79% 41.08% +15.71

Central Region of Michigan

- Bernero Home region 59.25% 30.62% +28.63 63.46% 34.47% +28.99

Northern Lower Peninsula

Region of Michigan 55.15% 26.34% +28.81 66.45% 30.71% +35.74

Upper Peninsula Region of

Michigan 42.64% 29.41% +13.23 56.85% 39.95% +16.90

Major 17 County Cluster 52.72% 35.21% +17.51 55.41% 42.82% +12.59

Major Democratic 6 CC 43.27% 45.15% (-1.88) 43.64% 54.67% (-11.03)

Major Republican 7 CC 66.82% 22.35% +44.33 69.57% 28.55% +41.03% Swing 4 County Cluster 54.84% 33.39% +21.45 60.42% 37.81% +22.61

Summation

The data suggest that while the Governor’s campaign was tightening pre-debate, it was

reversed by the debate and follow up coverage of it. The party themes of corporate

outsider who will take jobs from Michigan aren’t closing the knowledge gap inside of

Democratic voters, Major Democratic counties and urban communities. What Bernero

needed was a impactful and responding personal messaging event, to introduce him to all

key voter groups and start the community impact discussion of the campaign. Bernero

and Brenda Lawrence are both well positioned to have the discussion on community

impact, due to their current positions. Bernero’s campaign was either unwilling or unable

to create that type of messaging. FMW & Baydoun Consulting suggested the following

campaign strategy changes based on our polling data and political consulting experience:

Improve his support ratings among Democratic voters and decease Snyder’s

incursion into the Democratic voter community

Recapture his home voting region and win that region by a minimum 10 point

cushion

Find a way to raise the policy and philosophical differences between Snyder and

the right of center organizations and Tea Party groups within the Republican

Party, to weaken Snyder’s base of support.

Use his position as Mayor and running mate Brenda Lawrence’s experience as a


______________________________________________________________________________________

9

Mayor to reshape his message to more specific community impact focus and their

personal commitment to help citizens. The traditional partisan messaging isn’t

strengthening his support with Democratic voters or making him competitive with

independents. He is better positioned to argue for those voters due to the daily

impact mayor’s have on voters lives. That needs to be clearly communicated.

Snyder stayed on the right course for victory. Bernero’s campaign was never able to take

advantage of Snyder has to be the inability to consistently climb about the 45% threshold

in most voter groups. The data suggested that soft partisan and undecided voting blocs

are enough to throw this race into a competitive nightmare. However Snyder was able to

stay the course and the lack of clear positive alternative narrative from Bernero’s

campaign allowed Snyder to expand his base and solidify him at the 45% and above

threshold of hard core voter support. Overall, Snyder’s was able to do the following items

that FMW & Baydoun Consulting suggested from our polling data:

Continue the messaging plan. He is making inroads into Democratic areas and

dominating Independent voting blocks. He must maintain this advantage.

Press more campaign activity into the Central, Southeastern and Thumb Regions

of Michigan, to press the advantage and force Bernero to fight in Democratic and

his home base

Continue and expand outreach efforts into Minority voting communities. These

communities are significant (12% and higher) in 5 of the major 7 Republican

counties and 3 of the 4 major swing counties along with all of the Major 6

Democratic counties.






Total Rick Snyder 53.88% Another Candidate or undecided: 13.60%


The General election was held on November 3, 2010. When all of the ballots were

counted, the final results are listed below:


Total Rick Snyder 58.11% Other Candidates: 1.99%

Snyder’s margin of victory in the November General election was 18.21 points.


______________________________________________________________________________________

10

Our data model suggested that the candidates would split the undecided voters evenly and

Snyder won 31% and Bernero won 54% of the undecided voters. Our polling findings for

Rick Snyder’s lead among the aggregate voting universe and geographical cross tabs

were statistically accurate. We correctly projected that Virg Bernero would only win the

Major Democratic 6 county cluster and that Snyder would win 43% of the vote in this

heavy Democratic voting counties (43.27% poll results and 43.64% actual voter totals).

We correctly projected Snyder would win all six geographical regions of Michigan, the

Major 17 counties cluster group, Major Republican 7 counties cluster and the Major

swing 4 counties cluster which are the bellwether indicator for every Michigan general

election. Our polling results were within less than 1 point of the margin in the Thumb

region of Michigan, Central region of Michigan, Republican 7 counties cluster and swing

4 counties cluster in Michigan.


______________________________________________________________________________________

11

Michigan November General Election Polling Study for

Attorney General

Secretary of State

Michigan Ballot Proposal 2 October 7, 2010

FMW & Baydoun Consulting conducted a state-wide poll on the Michigan Attorney

General, Secretary of State and Ballot Proposal 2 for the November 2010 General

election. A survey of registered and likely voters, equally pre-weighted towards

registered Democratic and Republican voter percentages and Independent voters who

have already voted or are certain or likely to vote in the November 3rd

general election

was conducted on October 7th

, 2010. This study produced included 2,282 respondents.

The margin of error for this polling sample is 2.05%. We have made no weighting

adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses. Our respondent demographics matched

our PBVA demographic models with a variance ratio of 5%.

Baseline question – Attorney General

The general election for Attorney General is 27 days away. If the election for Attorney

General was held today, who would you vote for, solidly for Bill Schuette, leaning

toward Bill Schuette, solidly for David Leyton, leaning towards David Leyton, another

candidate or undecided?

(Solidly for Bill Schuette): 37.71%

(Leaning toward Bill Schuette): 11.59%

Total Bill Schuette 49.30%

(Solidly for David Leyton): 20.11%

(Leaning towards David Leyton): 5.68%

Total David Leyton 25.79% (Another Candidate or undecided): 24.92%

Schuette’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 23.51 points.



Bill Schuette 43.48%

David Leyton 52.59% Other Candidate: 3.94%

Schuette’s margin of victory in the November General election was 9.11 points. Leyton

gained 17.69 points from the undecided voting universe (71.02% of the undecided

respondents). Schuette gained 3.29 points from the undecided voting universe (13.20% of

the undecided respondents).


______________________________________________________________________________________

12

Baseline question – Secretary of State

The general election for Secretary of State is 27 days away. If the election for Secretary

of State was held today, who would you vote for, solidly for Jocelyn Benson, leaning

toward Jocelyn Benson, solidly for Ruth Johnson, leaning towards Ruth Johnson, another

candidate or undecided?

(Solidly for Jocelyn Benson): 35.53%

(Leaning toward Jocelyn Benson): 11.13%

Total Jocelyn Benson 46.66%

(Solidly for Ruth Johnson): 41.47%

(Leaning towards Ruth Johnson): 11.42%

Total Ruth Johnson 52.89% (Another Candidate or undecided): 0.50%

Johnson’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 5.94 points.




Total Ruth Johnson 50.68% Other Candidates: 4.10%

Johnson’s margin of victory in the November General election was 5.46 points. Benson

lost 1.44 points from the polling respondent voting universe. Johnson lost 2.21 points

from the polling respondent voting universe.

Baseline question – Constitutional Amendment Ballot Proposal 2

The November General Election will have two ballot proposals. Proposal 2 will AMEND

THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FELONS FROM HOLDING

ELECTIVE OFFICE AND SPECIFIED TYPES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

POSITIONS if approved by voters. If the general election was held today, who would

you vote for, vote YES for Proposal 2, vote NO for proposal 2, undecided or will not vote

for this ballot proposal

(Vote YES for Proposal 2): 62.11%

(Vote NO for proposal 2): 14.18%

(Undecided): 23.30%

(Will not vote for this ballot proposal): 0.42%



______________________________________________________________________________________

13



Total Vote YES for Proposal 2 74.91%

Total Vote NO for proposal 2 25.09% (Another Candidate or undecided): 0%

The Yes side’s margin of victory in the November General election was 49.82 points.

The No side’s gained 10.91 points from the undecided voting universe (46.82% of the

undecided respondents). The Yes side’s gained 12.8 points from the undecided voting

universe (54.18% of the undecided respondents).

2010 Attorney General Geographical Voting Communities


Cross Tab Grouping Bill

Schuette

(October

7 Poll)

David

Leyton

(October

7 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Schuette

Bill

Schuette

(Nov. 3

Final)

David

Leyton

(Nov. 3

Final)

+/-

Margin

for

Schuette

Southeastern Michigan 47.29% 27.29% +20.00 45.17% 51.41% (-6.26)

Southwestern Michigan 54.73% 22.28% +32.45 61.78% 34.43% +27.34 Thumb Region of Michigan

– Leyton Home Region 45.50% 29.03%

+16.47 50.55% 45.06% +5.48

Central Region of Michigan

- Schuette Home region 49.12% 28.07% +21.05 59.06% 36.59% +22.46




Michigan 48.58% 28.58% +20.00 53.84% 41.50% +12.34


Summation The Attorney General’s campaign was over at the time of our polling study. Bill

Schuette’s aggregate advantage of 23.51 points and the cross tab advantage of an average

of 24.13 point margin over Leyton were too much to overcome.


______________________________________________________________________________________

14





Total Bill Schuette 49.30%

Total David Leyton 25.79% Another Candidate or undecided: 24.92%

Schuette’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 23.51 points.



Bill Schuette 43.48%

David Leyton 52.59% Other Candidates: 3.94%

Schuette’s margin of victory in the November General election was 9.11 points.

We correctly projected that Bill Schuette would win all five of the six geographical

regions of Michigan and the Major 17 counties cluster group. Our polling results were

within less than 1.5 point of the margin in the Northern Lower Peninsula region of

Michigan and Central region of Michigan.


______________________________________________________________________________________

15

2010 Secretary of State Geographical Voting Communities


Cross Tab Grouping Jocelyn

Benson

(October

7 Poll)

Ruth

Johnson

(October

7 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Benson

Jocelyn

Benson

(Nov. 3

Final)

Ruth

Johnson

(Nov. 3

Final)

+/-

Margin

for

Benson

Southeastern Michigan –

Benson & Johnson’s Home

Region

50.00% 49.78%% +0.22 53.09% 43.48% +9.62

Southwestern Michigan 41.30% 58.71% (-17.41) 35.30% 60.55% (-25.25) Thumb Region of Michigan 46.55% 52.88%

(-6.33) 46.32% 49.15% (-2.83)

Central Region of Michigan 49.53% 50.00% (-0.47) 39.43% 55.98% (-16.55)


Region of Michigan 41.26% 56.64%

(-15.38) 35.72% 58.74% (-23.02)


Michigan 50.01% 50.00% 0.00 41.78% 52.64% (-10.78)

Major 17 County Cluster 47.98% 51.80% (-3.82) 48.32% 48.00% +0.32

Summation

Benson was the one Democratic candidate that had a reasonable roadmap to victory.

Johnson underperformed significantly when considering the brand advantage that

Republicans enjoyed during the 2010 election season. Johnson was hamstrung by two

factors; voter mood against institutionally experienced candidates and voter interest in

fresh eyes to view and fix government. Benson offered both factors, which made it

difficult for Johnson to advance her message. The election results proved our polling

analysis that the Secretary of State was the closest race of the three topline campaigns.

Benson was able to win Southeastern Michigan by 9.62 points in part to her ability to

regain support among Macomb County Democrats and the major 17 counties cluster.

Johnson was able to hold off Benson by increasing her victory margin in the following

regions:

Central region of Michigan, winning 16.55 points.

Northern Lower Peninsula region, winning by 23.02 points.

Benson also was unable to win the Thumb region of Michigan which was critical to her

ability to win statewide. She out performed both topline Democratic candidates (Bernero

and Leyton) but was unable to win this important corridor.


______________________________________________________________________________________

16






Total Ruth Johnson 52.89% Another Candidate or undecided: 0.50%

Johnson’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 5.94 points.




Total Ruth Johnson 50.68% Other Candidates: 4.10%

Johnson’s margin of victory in the November General election was 5.46 points.

Our polling findings for Ruth Johnson’s lead over Jocelyn Benson and their individual

percentages of voter support were all within the overall margin of error. We correctly

projected that Benson would win the Southeastern Michigan region. We correctly

projected Johnson would win the other five geographical regions of Michigan.


______________________________________________________________________________________

17

2010 Proposal 2 Ballot Campaign


Cross Tab Grouping Yes on 2

(October

7 Poll)

No on 2

(October

7 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for Yes

on 2

Yes on 2

(Nov. 3

Final)

No on 2

(Nov. 3

Final)

+/-

Margin

for Yes

on 2

Southeastern Michigan 59.85% 14.78% +45.07 74.44% 25.56% +48.87

Southwestern Michigan 64.11% 11.15% +52.96 75.96% 24.04% +51.91 Thumb Region of Michigan 60.53% 14.47%

+46.06 73.30% 26.70% +46.61

Central Region of Michigan 60.91% 17.26% +43.65 75.01% 24.99% +50.02




Michigan 60.00% 17.50% +42.5 76.54% 23.46% +53.07


Summation

The data suggested that State ballot Proposal 2 was trending towards a statistically

significant victory. Proposal 2 had wide margins of support among most voter groups and

was on track to perform above 60% among voter categories across the State. Voter

sentiment seemed to reflect a mood to make all persons in elected and appointed office

accountable for in office actions that violate the public trust and misuse public funds for

personal benefit in all levels and areas of government.





(Vote YES for Proposal 2): 62.11%

(Vote NO for proposal 2): 14.18%

(Undecided): 23.30%

(Will not vote for this ballot proposal): 0.42%

The “Yes on 2” margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 47.93 points.


______________________________________________________________________________________

18



Total Vote YES for Proposal 2 74.91%

Total Vote NO for proposal 2 25.09% (Another Candidate or undecided): 0%

The Yes side’s margin of victory in the November General election was 49.82 points.

Our polling findings were within a two point variance for the overall victory margin and

three of the six geographical margins. We correctly projected the “Yes on 2” side would

win all six geographical regions of Michigan and the Major 17 counties cluster group.


______________________________________________________________________________________

19

Michigan 14th Congressional District Democratic

Primary Election Exclusive Polling Study for

Fox 2 News Detroit

July 23, 2012

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 August 2012 primary election voters in the 14th

congressional district to determine their voting and issue preferences on the Democratic

Congressional nomination. 685 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin

of error for this polling sample is 3.74% with a confidence level of 95%. We have made

no weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses. Our respondent

demographics matched our PBVA demographic models with a variance ratio of 5%.

(FMW)B polling analysis for Fox 2 News Detroit on the Michigan 13

th and 14

th

congressional district campaign and U.S Senate primary was extremely accurate and

identified the key trending factors that allowed Congressman Peters, Conyers and former

Congressman Hoekstra to defeat well financed serious competitors in their districts. Our

analysis starts with the 14th

Congressional District.

We found that Congressman Peters had a significant lead over all five candidates, who

are or have been elected officials themselves. The aggregate results for all five candidates

are listed below:

The 2012 Michigan 14th Congressional District Democratic Primary election will be held

in August. Who are you most likely to vote for in the primary for US House of

Representatives?

District - Wide Aggregate Results – 685 Respondents MOE +/- 3.74%

Current Democratic Congressman Hansen Clarke: 26.72%

Current Democratic Congressman Gary Peters: 45.11%

Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence: 9.64%

Former State Rep. Mary Waters: 1.17%

Retired Magistrate Bob Costello: 0.29%

Undecided: 17.08%


______________________________________________________________________________________

20







Undecided: 0%

27%

45%

10%

1% 0%

17% Hansen Clarke

Gary Peters

Brenda Lawrence

Mary Waters

Bob Costello

Undecided

35%

47%

13% 4%

1% 0%

Hansen Clarke

Gary Peters

Brenda Lawrence

Mary Waters

Bob Costello

Undecided


______________________________________________________________________________________

21

As reflected in the final results, Congressman Peters support was consistent across the

new 14th

Congressional district. Despite last minute negative attacks from the Clarke and

Lawrence camps, Peters was able to add to our polling data level of support by picking

up 1.92 points from the undecided voters (45.11% to 47.03%). Congressman Clarke and

Mayor Lawrence were able to grow their individual bases of support with their more

aggressive posture against Peters, but not enough to put the race in jeopardy. Clarke

picked up the biggest share of undecided voters, gaining 8.46 points or 49.53% of the

undecided voters. Mayor Lawrence gained 3.65 points or 21.37% of the undecided voters

from our July 23rd

poll. Mary Waters and Bob Costello were non factors in the aggregate

polling universe and with the Election Day voters.

A. Congressman Hansen Clarke positive cross tabular results.

Our findings reflect a limited range of support for Congressman Clarke across the cross

tabular groups. As we review the Election Day findings, we will assess Congressman

Clarke’s actual performance against his geographical bases of support. Our voters cross

tabular comparisons are as follows:

July 23, 2012 poll findings

Cross Tab

Grouping

Hansen

Clarke

Gary

Peters

Brenda

Lawrence

Mary

Waters

Bob

Costello

Undecided

Detroit region

Respondents 39.65% 28.42% 7.37% 1.05% 0% 23.51%

Wayne County

Cities Cluster

38.33% 33.06% 6.11% 0.83% 0% 21.67%

Actual August 7, 2012 primary election results

Cross Tab

Grouping

Hansen

Clarke

Gary

Peters

Brenda

Lawrence

Mary

Waters

Bob

Costello

Undecided

Detroit region

Respondents 54.18% 29.19% 10.77% 4.88% 0.84%

Undecided

gain

+14.53 +0.77 +3.40 +4.83 +0.84

Wayne County

Cities Cluster 51.29%

33.53%

9.43%

4.44%

1.30%

Undecided

gain

+12.96 +0.47 +3.32 +3.61 +1.30


______________________________________________________________________________________

22

In our poll findings, Congressman Clarke’s biggest margin of support was with

city of Detroit voters. He led Congressman Peters by 11.23 points. The data

suggest that Clarke is underperforming with Detroit voters. 91.52% of Detroiters

believe it is important to continue Detroit representation in Congress, yet only

39.65% of Detroiters would vote for the Detroit Congressman. Clarke was able

to improve his performance in Detroit winning by 24.99 points over

Congressman Peters and taking 61.80% (14.53 points) of Detroit’s undecided

voters.

Clarke also was able to improve greatly in the Wayne County region of the 14th

Congressional district. He gained 59.81% (12.96 points) of the undecided voters

in Wayne County. The results show that Congressman Clarke’s campaign

messaging change after our Fox 2 News polling did help him with his primary

base and secondary base voters. The data also shows that his messaging change

was too late to reduce the base that Peters built up in the Detroit and Wayne

County. Peters had 28.42% of the Detroit vote and 33.06% of the Wayne County

vote via our poll findings and he finished with 29.19% of the Detroit vote and

33.53% of the Wayne County vote. This reflects his efforts to build and retain a

solid beachhead of voter support in opposition regions worked. In spite of the

dual plank of negative attacks, neither Clarke nor Lawrence was able to move

voters away from Peters.

Additionally, the data suggest that Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence and

former State Rep. Mary Waters did not impact Congressman Clarke campaign in

Detroit or the Wayne County portion of the district. Lawrence and Waters have a

combined 8.42% of the Detroit vote and 6.94% of the Wayne County vote in our

July 23rd

polling study. They finished with a combined 15.65% of the Detroit

votes and 13.87% of the Wayne County votes. The results confirm the data

findings that Clarke’s challenge is not vote splitting by Lawrence or Waters; it

may be messaging and resource deployment which would have provided a wider

margin and reduced Peters’ beachhead of support.

B. Congressman Gary Peters positive cross tabular groupings:

Our voters cross tabular comparisons are as follows:


______________________________________________________________________________________

23

July 23, 2012 poll findings

Cross Tab

Grouping Hansen

Clarke

Gary

Peters

Brenda

Lawrence

Mary

Waters

Bob

Costello

Undecided

Near Detroit

Suburbs

Region-Wayne

Respondents

31.94% 52.78% 1.39% 0% 0% 13.89%

Southwestern

Oakland

County Region

Respondents

10.57% 73.98% 4.07% 0.81% 0% 10.57%

Southeastern

Oakland

County Region

Respondents

16.37% 46.78% 22.22% 2.34% 1.17% 11.11%

Central

Region of

Oakland

County

Respondents

12.90% 61.29% 3.23% 0% 0% 22.58%

Major

Oakland

County Cities

Respondents

13.43% 58.58% 12.31% 1.87% 0.75% 13.06%

Oakland

County Region

Respondents

13.85% 58.46% 13.54% 1.54% 0.62% 12.00%


Cross Tab

Grouping Hansen

Clarke

Gary

Peters

Brenda

Lawrence

Mary

Waters

Bob

Costello

Undecided

Near Detroit

Suburbs

Region-Wayne

Respondents

39.46% 50.82% 3.70% 2.46% 3.32%

Undecided

vote gain

+7.52 -1.96 +2.31 +2.46 +3.32

Southwestern

Oakland

County Region

11.12% 77.77% 8.02% 1.55% 1.47%


______________________________________________________________________________________

24

Respondents

Undecided

vote gain

+0.55 +3.79 +3.95 +0.74 +1.47

Southeastern

Oakland

County Region

Respondents

21.78% 46.47% 28.87% 2.09% 0.71%

Undecided

vote gain

+5.41 -0.31 +6.65 -0.25 -0.46

Central

Region of

Oakland

County

Respondents

11.04% 75.30% 9.65% 3.21% 0.64%

Undecided

vote gain

-1.86 +14.01 +6.42 +3.21 +0.64

Major

Oakland

County Cities

Respondents

15.22% 64.09% 17.78% 1.86% 0.98%

Undecided

vote gain

+1.79 +5.51 +5.47 -0.01 +0.23

Oakland

County Region

Respondents

16.04% 63.04% 17.87% 2.01% 1.02%

Undecided

vote gain

+2.19 +4.58 +4.33 +0.47 +0.40

Congressman Peters had significant number of cross tabular groups where his

support is above 49% of the most likely voter universe, what we define as a

“Super Majority”. The cross tabular groups that Congressman Peters has a

FMWB defined “Super Majority” are as follows:

Near Detroit Suburbs region of Wayne County (Detroit, Hamtramck,

Harper Woods and the 5 Grosse Pointes) voters.

Southwestern Oakland Region communities (Farmington Hills, West

Bloomfield, Orchard Lake City, Keego Harbor and Sylvan Lake) voters.

Central Region of Oakland County (Pontiac) voters

Major Oakland County Communities (Southfield, West Bloomfield,

Farmington Hills, Pontiac) voters

Oakland County Region voters


______________________________________________________________________________________

25

Congressman Peters took Oakland County out of play for Congressman Clarke and

Mayor Lawrence campaigns. (FMW)B predictive voter behavioral analysis model

projected Oakland County communities would make up 44.92% of the net voter turnout

for the August 7th

primary. Oakland County communities actually comprised 45.70% of

the net voter turnout for the August 7th

primary. Congressman Peters won 63.04% voter

support to Congressman Clarke’s 16.04% and Mayor Lawrence’s 17.87%, a margin of 47

and 45.17 points respectively.

(FMW)B Polling Accuracy

The (FMW)B polling model was extremely accurate when comparing the aggregate and

geographical cross tabular groups.


(Current Democratic Congressman Hansen Clarke): 26.72%

(Current Democratic Congressman Gary Peters): 45.11%

(Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence): 9.64%

(Former State Rep. Mary Waters): 1.17%

(Retired Magistrate Bob Costello): 0.29%

(Undecided): 17.08%

Congressman Peters’ margin in the (FMW)B poll was 18.39 points.

The General election was held on August 7, 2012. The final results are listed below:






Congressman Peters’ margin of victory in the August Primary election was 11.85 points.

Our polling findings were very exact for Congressman Peters’ aggregate support

percentage and key geographical cross tab groups. Our poll findings found that

Congressman Peters’ had the following support:

Southwestern Oakland County region – 73.98% poll support to 77.77% actual

election voter support

Southeastern Oakland County region – 46.78% poll support to 46.47% actual


Near Detroit Suburbs communities – 52.78% poll support to 50.82% actual


Wayne County region – 33.06% poll support to 33.53% actual election voter

support


______________________________________________________________________________________

26

Detroit region – 28.42% poll support to 29.19% actual election voter support

We also correctly projected that Congressman Peters would win all Oakland County

voting regions and the Near Detroit Suburbs voting region of Wayne County and that

Congressman Clarke would win the Detroit region and Wayne County region of the 13th

Congressional District.


______________________________________________________________________________________

27

Michigan 13th

Congressional District Democratic

Primary Election Exclusive Polling Study for

Fox 2 News Detroit.

July 21 and July 22, 2012





Michigan registered and most likely August 2012 primary election voters in the 13th

congressional district to determine their voting and issue preferences on the Democratic

Congressional nomination. 643 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin

of error for this polling sample is 3.84% with a confidence level of 95%. We have made

no weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses. Our respondent

demographics matched our PBVA demographic models with a variance ratio of 5%.

Our polling study reflected a strong likelihood for current Detroit congressman John

Conyers to retain his congressional seat. The overall results for all five candidates are

listed below:

The 2012 Michigan 13th

Congressional District Democratic Primary election will be held

in August. Who are you most likely to vote for in the primary for US House of

Representatives?

District - Wide Aggregate Results – 643 Respondents MOE +/- 3.84%

Current Democratic Congressman John Conyers: 48.21%

State Senator Glenn Anderson: 20.68%

State Senator Bert Johnson: 2.33%

State Representative Shanelle Jackson: 4.51%

Westland School Board member John Goci: 2.02%

Undecided: 22.24%


______________________________________________________________________________________

28







48%

21% 2%

5%

2% 22%

John Conyers

Glenn Anderson

Bert Johnson

Shanelle Jackson

John Goci

Undecided

55%

21%

10%

13%

4% 0%

John Conyers

Glenn Anderson

Bert Johnson

Shanelle Jackson

John Goci

Undecided


______________________________________________________________________________________

29

As reflected in the final results, Congressman Conyers support was consistent across the

new 13th

Congressional district. Despite representing a district with a majority of voters

being non-Detroiters, Conyers was able to add to our polling data level of support by

picking up 7.07 points (31.79% of the undecided universe) from the undecided voters

(48.21% to 55.28%). Senator Anderson actually lost ground in his base, dropping from

20.68% in our poll to 18.14% of the actual vote (12.28% of Anderson’s base).

Representative Jackson benefits the most in the shift of undecided voters, picking up 8.02

points or 36.06% of the universe. Representative Johnson gained 7.65 points (34.40% of

the undecided universe) and School Board member Goci gained 1.82 points (8.18% of

the undecided universe) from the undecided voters.

C. Congressman John Conyers’ positive geographical cross tabular results.

Congressman Conyers’ positive voter tabular variances are as follows:

July 21 and 22, 2012 poll findings

Cross Tab

Grouping

John

Conyers

Glenn

Anderson

Undecided Shanelle

Jackson

Bert

Johnson

John

Goci

Detroit region

Respondents 65.00% 1.88% 21.88% 7.81% 2.81% 0.63%


Cross Tab

Grouping

John

Conyers

Glenn

Anderson

Shanelle

Jackson

Bert

Johnson

John Goci Undeci

ded

Detroit region

Respondents 69.14% 3.64% 15.68% 9.73% 1.60%

Undecided

gain

+5.14 +1.76 +7.87 +6.92 +0.97

The polling data suggested that Representative Jackson and Senator Johnson

were not able to connect with voters that were their base in past elections or

communicated a clear message to sway these voter bases away from

Congressman Conyers. The actual results proved the polling data to be accurate.

Congressman Conyers was able to win Detroit by 53.46 points over

Representative Jackson basically matching his 57.19 point margin lead in our

polling.


______________________________________________________________________________________

30

What is additionally surprising is the lack of impact that Senator Anderson is

having on the City of Detroit. Twenty and eleven hundredths percent (20.11%)

of the Detroit’s most likely voter population for the Congressional district

primary is non African American and Anderson was only receiving 1.88% of the

Detroit vote. After our poll was released through Fox 2 News, Senator Anderson

bombarded Detroit voters with 4 mailings and 7 automated calls. He also

deployed suburban African American leaders to help validate him with Detroit’s

African American voters. The last minute rush of cash and validators only

moved an additional 1.76 points for Anderson. His campaign has missed a strong

opportunity to capitalize on the diversity of the electorate in the City of Detroit.

D. Senator Glenn Anderson’s positive geographical cross tabular

groupings:

Anderson’s positive voter tabular variances are as follows:

July 21 and 22, 2012 poll

Cross Tab

Grouping

John

Conyers

Glenn

Anderson

Undecided Shanelle

Jackson

Bert

Johnson

John

Goci

Western

Wayne

Region

Respondents

28.52% 43.64% 21.99% 1.03% 1.37% 3.44%

Major 14

Wayne

County Cities

Respondents

24.12% 49.75% 20.10% 1.01% 0.50% 4.52%

Cross Tab

Grouping

John

Conyers

Glenn

Anderson

Shanelle

Jackson

Bert

Johnson

John

Goci

Undecided

Western

Wayne

Region

Respondents

35.59% 39.42% 8.43% 7.66% 8.68%

Undecided

vote gain

+7.07 -4.22 +7.40 +6.29 +5.24

Major 14

Wayne

County Cities

Respondents

29.29% 47.21% 7.44% 8.13% 7.59%


______________________________________________________________________________________

31

Undecided

vote gain

+5.17 -2.54 +6.43 +7.63 +3.07

Even through Senator Anderson is a Westland native, he was not able to build a

political firewall to counter his failure inside of the city of Detroit. Anderson lost ground

in both the Western Wayne region of the district and the major 14 cities (Westland,

Redford and Dearborn Heights). Anderson lost 4.22 points from our poll with actual

voters in the Western Wayne County cities. He also lost 2.54 points among voters in the

major 14 cities, even though he won 63.06% of the vote in Westland.

(FMW)B Polling Accuracy









Undecided: 22.24%

Congressman Conyers’s margin in the (FMW)B poll was 27.53 points.







Congressman Conyers’s margin of victory in the August Primary election was 37.14

points.

Our polling findings for Congressman Conyers’s lead over Senator Anderson and his

opponents and their individual percentages of voter support were all consistent with the

actual election results. We correctly projected that Congressman Conyers would win the

Detroit region and Senator Anderson would win the Western Wayne and Major 14 cities

in the district. We also correctly projected the order of finish of all five candidates in the

Democratic primary.


______________________________________________________________________________________

32

Michigan’s U.S. Senate General Election matchup,

Republican Primary, and State House of

Representatives Exclusive Polling Study for

Fox 2 News Detroit.

July 28, 2012





Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters to determine

their voting and issue preferences on the United States Senate potential general election

match-ups, the US Senate Republican nomination. 1,046 respondents fully participated in

the survey. 656 respondents filtered to the Republican US Senate Nomination ballot test

question. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 3.03% with a confidence

level of 95%. The margin of error for the respondents who filtered to the Republican

Nominating Ballot Test section is 3.83% with a confidence level of 95%.

We have made weighting adjustments to the aggregate baseline responses based on the

following four groups who were underrepresented in our aggregate polling respondents:

Male respondents – 41.18% of respondent universe versus 46% of (FMW)B

PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election.

African American respondents – 10.08% of respondent universe versus 17.5%

of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election.

Voters ages 18 to 30 years old – 2.77% of respondent universe versus 16% of

(FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election.

Voters ages 31 to 50 years old – 13.10% of respondent universe versus 25%

of (FMW)B PVBA model projections for 2012 November general election.

The 2012 Republican Primary for United States Senate will be held on August 7, 2012. If

you plan on voting or have already voted the Republican Primary, who is your choice in

this election? (Only for respondents to question 3, selection 1 & 2)

State-wide Republican Primary Respondents Aggregate Results (Weighted to

projected age, gender & ethnicity of electorate) – 656 Respondents MOE +/- 3.83%

(Former U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra): 39.76%

(Republican Cornerstone Schools Founder Clark Durant): 23.59%

(Another candidate): 15.31%

(Undecided): 24.04%


______________________________________________________________________________________

33

Another Candidate/Undecided


Former U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra: 52.06%

Republican Cornerstone Schools Founder Clark Durant: 32.31%

Gary Glenn: 9.36%

Randy Hekman: 6.37%

Another Candidate/Undecided

38%

23%

15%

24% Pete Hoekstra

Clark Durant

Another Candidate

Undecided

52%

32%

9% 7% Pete Hoekstra

Clark Durant

Gary Glenn

Randy Hekman


______________________________________________________________________________________

34

As reflected in the final results, former Congressman Hoekstra’s support was consistent

across the State. Even though Clark Durant did start to move closer towards Hoekstra, he

would have needed at least an additional month to build enough momentum to finish

closing the gap. Hoekstra was able to add to our polling data level of support by picking

up 12.3 points (51.16% of the undecided universe) from the undecided voters (39.76% to

52.06%). Clark Durant gained ground at a slower rate than Hoekstra, moving from

32.21% in our poll to 23.59% of the actual vote. Durant gained 8.72 points or 36.72% of

the undecided voter universe. Gary Glenn and Randy Hekman essentially split the other

candidate selection base from our July 28th

poll. They combined to win 15.73% of the

vote, which is an increase of 0.42 points from the 15.31% of poll respondents who

wanted another candidate.

Cross Tab Grouping Pete

Hoekstra

(July 28

Poll)

Clark

Durant

(July 28

Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Hoekstra

Pete

Hoekstra

(August 7

election)

Clark

Durant

(August 7

election)

+/-

Margin

for

Hoekstra

Southeastern Michigan

Region Respondents 29.22% 18.72% +10.50 45.69% 34.54% +11.15

Southwestern Michigan 52.50% 24.38% +28.12 63.61% 22.53% +41.08

Central Region of

Michigan 36.54% 25.00% +11.54 52.16% 34.11% +18.05

Thumb Region of

Michigan 31.94% 23.61% +8.33 49.47% 37.67% +11.80


Region 41.46% 26.83% +14.63 51.78% 37.14% +14.64

Upper Peninsula Region 42.11% 15.79% +26.32 58.89% 24.92% +33.97


Major Democratic 6

County Cluster 31.29% 22.09% +9.20 40.76% 31.33% +9.43

Major Republican 7 CC 50.00% 26.03% +23.97 60.20% 25.55% +34.65

Major Swing 4 County

Cluster 31.08% 18.92% +12.16 53.31% 36.27% +17.04

Next 7 County Cluster 50.00% 16.67% +33.3% 52.57% 33.89% +18.68

Other 59 County Cluster 40.80% 24.14% +16.66 53.22% 33.48% +19.74

Wayne County 23.19%

17.39% +5.80 32.42% 28.52% +3.90

Oakland County 27.03% 21.62% +5.41 53.20% 37.28% +15.92

Macomb County 32.69% 17.31% +15.38 50.88% 38.20% +12.68


______________________________________________________________________________________

35

(FMW)B Consulting Polling Accuracy




(Former U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra): 39.76%

(Republican Cornerstone Schools Founder Clark Durant): 23.59%

(Another candidate): 15.31%

(Undecided): 24.04%

Hoekstra’s margin in the (FMW)B poll was 16.17 points.

The General election was held on August 7, 2012. When all of the ballots were counted,

the final results are listed below:

Former U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra: 52.06%

Republican Cornerstone Schools Founder Clark Durant: 32.31%

Gary Glenn: 9.36%

Randy Hekman: 6.37%

Hoekstra’s margin of victory in the November General election was 19.85 points.

We correctly projected that Hoekstra would win all of the geographical regions of

Michigan and the political region clusters. We also projected within the margin of error

Hoekstra’s margin of victory statewide and across most of the geographical and political

region clusters of Michigan.


______________________________________________________________________________________

36

Michigan February Presidential Primary Election Polling

Study for

Republican Nominee

Automated Poll Methodology and Statistics

Aggregate Results

Cross Tab Results

February 27, 2012

Foster McCollum White & Associates, a Political and Governmental Affairs and

Organizational Development consulting firm based in Troy Michigan and Baydoun

Consulting, a political communications consulting firm based in Dearborn, Michigan

conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and

Most Likely Republican Primary voters to determine their voting preferences for the

2012 February Presidential Primary Election. This 5-question automated poll survey was

conducted on the evening of February 27, 2012. Of our 1,496 Respondents who

participated, 1,359 self-identified that they were certain or likely to participate in the

Primary election and 137 self-identified that they were not likely to participate in the

Primary election. We disqualified the not likely respondents from our reporting pool.

The margin of error for this polling sample is 2.66% with a confidence level of 95%.

Our polling study reflected a very close race between Mitt Romney and Rick

Santorum. The overall results for all four candidates are listed below:

Question 1: If the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary was held today, who would you

vote for, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul or are you undecided?

State - Wide Aggregate Results – 1,359 Respondents MOE +/- 2.66%

(Mitt Romney): 37.90%

(Newt Gingrich): 8.31%

(Rick Santorum): 35.76%

(Ron Paul): 9.12%

(Undecided): 8.90%


______________________________________________________________________________________

37

The primary was held on February 28, 2012. The final results are listed below:

Mitt Romney: 41.10%

Newt Gingrich: 6.53%

Rick Santorum: 37.87%

Ron Paul: 11.63%

Other candidates: 2.88%

Mitt Romney 38%

Newt Gingrich 8% Rick Santorum

36%

Ron Paul 9%

Undecided 9%

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum

Ron Paul

Undecided


______________________________________________________________________________________

38

As reflected in the final results, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum’s support was

consistent across the state. Their voter support from our polling was consistent with their

final tallies, along with the margin between the two candidates. Ron Paul’s last minute

push into Michigan provided him with a slight bump in support (9.12% in our final poll

to 11.63% election voter support). Newt Gingrich completely disappeared from a State

that he had been competitive in as late as December 2011 polling on Michigan.


Rick Santorum benefited from the wide geographical reach of the evangelical Christian

and Conservative voter base across Michigan. Santorum was in position to win Michigan

if he could maintain his geographical advantages. On Election Day however, we found

that Rick Santorum was not able to maintain his leads in the Northern Lower Peninsula

and Central region’s of Michigan. These defeats along with Santorum’s narrow victory in

the Thumb region of Michigan were significant factors to his narrow lost. The key cross

tab findings are listed below:

Cross Tab Grouping Mitt

Romney

(February

27 Poll)

Rick

Santorum

(February

27 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Romney

Mitt

Romney

(February

28

election)

Rick

Santorum

(February

28

election)

+/-

Margin

for

Romney

Southeastern

Michigan

46.30% 30.74% +15.56 45.05% 32.58% +12.47

Southwestern

Michigan

30.31% 40.77% (-10.46) 37.28% 44.40% (-7.12)

Mitt Romney 41%

Newt Gingrich 6%

Rick Santorum 36%

Ron Paul 12% Undecided

3% Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum

Ron Paul

Undecided


______________________________________________________________________________________

39

Thumb Region of

Michigan

34.04% 46.10% (-12.06) 38.38% 40.13% (-1.76)

Central Region of

Michigan

33.95% 36.28% (-2.33) 39.95% 38.84% +1.11

Northern Lower

Peninsula Region

34.53% 37.41% (-2.88) 40.88% 38.73% +2.15

Upper Peninsula

Region

31.15% 26.23% +4.92 32.57% 44.71% (-12.14)

Major 17 County

Cluster

41.00% 33.70% +7.30 42.66% 36.15% +6.51

Major Democratic 6

CC

40.69% 34.14% +6.55 41.02% 35.80% +5.22

Major Republican 7

CC

33.73% 34.92% (-1.19) 39.28% 41.83% (-2.55)

Swing 4 County

Cluster

46.13% 32.53% +13.60 46.54% 32.28% +14.26

Next 7 County

Cluster

37.74% 47.17% (-9.43) 37.78% 41.86% (-4.08)

Other 59 County

Cluster

30.34% 37.64% (-7.30) 37.04% 42.22% (-5.18)

Wayne County 42.62% 24.81% +17.81 41.45% 33.24% +8.21

Oakland County 46.26% 29.44% +16.82 50.39% 29.01% +21.38

Macomb County 43.12% 34.86% +8.26 43.28% 34.56% +8.72

Michigan Congressional Districts

Michigan’s Republican Primary will award its delegates through a combination of

individual congressional district winners and overall State winner. This hybrid model will

allow a second place or third place state-wide contestant to pick up delegates by winning

one of Michigan’s congressional districts.

Cross Tab

Grouping

Mitt

Romney

(February

27 Poll)

Rick

Santorum

(February

27 Poll)

+/-

Margin

for

Romney

Mitt

Romney

(February

28

election)

Rick

Santorum

(February

28

election)

+/-

Margin

for

Romney

1st Congressional

District

33.80% 30.99% 2.81 38.85% 39.79% (-0.94)

2nd

Congressional

District

30.25% 36.39% (-6.14) 35.49% 47.24% (-11.75)


______________________________________________________________________________________

40

3rd

Congressional

District

33.03% 35.78% (-2.74) 39.85% 41.83% (-1.98)

4th

Congressional

District

31.13% 40.57% (-9.44) 38.49% 41.91% (-3.42)

5th

Congressional

District

41.77% 41.77% 0 39.79% 38.98% +0.81

6th

Congressional

District

23.53% 46.08% (-22.55) 36.90% 43.14% (-6.24)

7th

Congressional

District

37.07% 37.93% (-0.86) 38.93% 40.10% (-1.17)

8th

Congressional

District

42.20% 33.03% 9.17 44.44% 33.13% +11.31

9th

Congressional

District

48.39% 33.33% 15.06 43.83% 32.26% +11.57

10th

Congressional

District

33.62% 42.24% (-8.62) 40.26% 37.78% +2.48

11th

Congressional

District

50.00% 29.03% 20.97 50.84% 29.44% +21.40

12th

Congressional

District

42.37% 33.90% 8.47 40.24% 36.65% +3.59

13th

Congressional

District

36.67% 30.00% 6.67 30.21% 36.04% (-5.83)

14th

Congressional

District

57.14% 16.07% 41.07 46.87% 27.37% +19.50

The last week of the Republican primary showed the continual fluidity in the Republican

field. In our initial poll on February 16th

, Rick Santorum was in the lead in 8

congressional districts and in a statistically relevant position to win 12 of Michigan’s 14

Congressional districts. Our next poll on February 23rd

found that Mitt Romney has

regained the advantage in 10 of Michigan’s 14 congressional districts. Based on our final

poll data, Romney was leading in 7 congressional districts. Santorum is leading in 5 and

two are in a statistical tie. We projected that the following districts could have change

hands on Election Day:

1st district

2nd

district

3rd

district

13th

district

Our polling model correctly identified two of the four Congressional districts that swung

based on Election Day turnout, the 1st and 13

th Congressional Districts. Both of those

districts swung from Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum. We also correctly identified the

battleground important of the 5th

Congressional district. Our final poll found that the


______________________________________________________________________________________

41

district was tied at 41.77% for Romney and Santorum. Romney won the 5th

Congressional District by 452 votes. That margin ultimately prevented Rick Santorum

from winning the majority of delegates in Michigan by having won 8 of the 14

Congressional districts.





(Mitt Romney): 37.90%

(Newt Gingrich): 8.31%

(Rick Santorum): 35.76%

(Ron Paul): 9.12%

(Undecided): 8.90%

Romney’s margin in the FMW & Baydoun Consulting poll was 2.14 points.

The primary was held on February 28, 2012. The final results are listed below:

Mitt Romney: 41.10%

Newt Gingrich: 6.53%

Rick Santorum: 37.87%

Ron Paul: 11.63%

Other candidates: 2.88%

Romney’s margin of victory in the February Primary was 3.23 points.


______________________________________________________________________________________

42

We correctly projected the following election occurrences:

Eleven (11) of the 14 Congressional Districts.

Southeastern Michigan, Southwestern Michigan and Thumb Region of Michigan.

The major 17 county cluster and each sub group (Major Democratic 6,

Republican 7 and Swing 4 counties).

The Next 7 County and Other 59 County cluster.

Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties

Our polling findings for also identified the gap of support among Catholic voters for Rick

Santorum. The Republican Catholic voting base is heavily centered in Southeastern

Michigan. This gap proved to be fatal to the Santorum campaign. Our analysis below

highlights the missed opportunity for Rick Santorum, a Roman Catholic, with catholic

voters. If Santorum had been able to move 8 points of support among catholic voters in

Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties, he would have been able to potentially win

Michigan by 1,142 votes.

Counties

Santorum

(loses

Catholic

Vote 43%

to 37& as

consistent

with

State

Average)

Romney

(Wins

Catholic

Vote

43% to

37& as

consistent

with

State

Average)

Margin

of defeat

for

Santorum

Counties

Santorum

(Wins

Catholic

Vote 45%

to 35% in

these 3

counties

only)

Romney

(Loses

Catholic

Vote

35% to

45% in

these 3

counties

only)

Margin

of defeat

for

Santorum

Shift

of

votes

Wayne 38,890 48,498 -9,608

Wayne 44,500 42,888 1,612 5,610

Oakland 42,465 74,030 -31,565

Oakland 49,340 67,155 -17,815 6,875

Macomb 30,218 37,838 -7,620

Macomb 34,293 33,763 530 4,075

Net total 111,573 160,366 -48,793

Net total 128,133 143,806 -15,673 16,560

Other 80

Counties 265,580 248,765 16,815

Other 80

Counties 265,580 248,765 16,815

Statewide

Total 377,153 409,131 -31,978

Statewide

Total 393,713 392,571 1,142


______________________________________________________________________________________

43

Statistical modeling and weighting methodology

Our polling call lists are 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.

An additional example for using historical election statistics is as follows:

Michigan has a historical Presidential participation variance of 18.4% from the baseline voter

model and has an -18.08% historical gubernatorial participation variance. The swing is equal to

2.3 million moderate and low performance voters in Michigan for every given Presidential

election who primarily leave the participation rolls for the gubernatorial election. The difference

between a Governor Snyder and Governor Bernero was the complete absence of the low

performance voters and a 15% participation rate among moderate participation voters. If Bernero

gets the participation rate of Granholm’s re-election in 2006 (85% moderate performing voters

and 25% low participation voters) He defeats Snyder by 200,000 votes and wins 40 counties. This

model allows us to help our political clients understand their election audience more clearly than

exit polling. We then use it in assessing our polling models to help us gauge data quality and

participation 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.


______________________________________________________________________________________

44

Based on the respondent universes, we will determine if weighting adjustment need to be made

for underrepresented demographic groups. If our respondent demographics match our PVBA

model, we will not make any weighting adjustments and will report our findings unweighted. If

respondent demographics do not match our PVBA model, we will make weighting adjustments

for the topline baseline questions and adjusted aggregate data findings.

Data Analysis Statement -

The data has been separated analytically into cross tabulation results that are statistically

significant with respect to Michigan General Election cycle statewide Any sectional analysis

within the aforementioned categories can be useful when inferring strengths and weaknesses and

possible strategy.

For the assessment of individual cross tabulation categories, we use a correlation

coefficient model based on the Pearson r correlation, also called linear or product- moment

correlation. Pearson correlation (hereafter called correlation), assumes that the two variables are

measured on at least interval scales and it determines the extent to which values of the two

variables are "proportional" to each other. The value of correlation (i.e., correlation coefficient)

does not depend on the specific measurement units used. Our proportional model for correlating

the statistical relevance of a geographical region, age grouping or congressional district is based

on the random proportionality of our respondent pool to the specific proportionality of the

group’s weight to the aggregate model. The correlation coefficient (r) represents the linear

relationship between these two variables (aggregate and cross tabular category).

We project that any review of the polling report can allow for the statistical relationship

between the aggregate and cross tabulation margin of error for the reported clusters. All polling

samples are pre-weighted for gender and ethnicity based upon Foster McCollum White Baydoun

Predictive Voter Behavior Analysis Model for historic General Election demographics throughout

Michigan. We strive to adhere to the principles and standards of the National Council on Public

Polls and the American Association for Public Opinion Research in the gathering and reporting of

polling data.


______________________________________________________________________________________

45

Methodology 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) conducts

telephone-automated and live telemarketing call polling random survey of Michigan and Florida

registered and most likely voters for primary and General elections to determine their voting and

issue preferences on specific and unbiased nature.

The population surveyed consisted of a sample of traditional Michigan and Florida high

participation registered voters and voters that fit Michigan and Florida Primary and General

Election voting patterns. The majority of these voters have participated in a significant majority

of the available primary and general election and odd year municipal and county elections in

Michigan since their registration. Additionally, our call file does allow for random moderate and

low participation voters to be included in the sample. Our call file was randomized to allow for

the maximum range of participation and randomization.

(FMW)B Polling Accuracy Analysis Report

Documents

Transcript of (FMW)B Polling Accuracy Analysis Report