When Barbara and I sat down to prepare these remarks, I glanced at some notes from earlier campaigns and earlier presentations and found that about 50% of the things we predicted for those elections came to pass. Today’s comments will probably be equally as helpful. So, feel free to discard half of everything we say. You just don’t know if it’s my half or Barbara’s half.

As the ‘ol perfesser Casey Stengel used to say it’s very difficult making predictions, especially about the future. This certainly applies to political fortune telling and probably campaign 2002, as well.

Nonetheless, we are very pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you this morning. This is a very unusual election cycle and we wanted to share our take on how the campaigns are shaping up as we enter what are probably the middle innings at this point. This is my half of the talk.

Barbara will wade in with what we will be looking at as things heat up this summer and later in the fall, and in the process offer some observations about media coverage of polls.

The Marist Poll of last week highlighted Governor Pataki’s re-election prospects; the central finding was his all-time high approval rating since assuming office in 1995. 72% of voters statewide rate the job Governor Pataki is doing in office as either excellent or good.

His support extends across the state regionally where 81% in the NYC suburbs, 69% in NYC, and 69% upstate view his handling of the job positively, and across party lines where 85% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, and even, 58% of Democrats approve of his job performance. Pataki’s support reflects his non-polarizing image. Most rate him as either good or fair, the middle scores, not excellent or poor, the more extreme categories.

When paired against either Andrew Cuomo or Carl McCall, Pataki enjoys a 2:1 lead, having the support of 60% of voters at this point. He runs even or better than even against both of his potential rival Democrats in NYC, an unprecedented number for a Republican seeking statewide office. These are serious inroads he has made into the Democratic base including 40% of support among Democrats statewide.

When Independent Tom Golisano is put into the mix, Golisano garners 6% of the vote. Although things can change with the Golisano factor down the road once major money is spent and a targeted message is unfolded, at present, the gap between Pataki and his rivals is way beyond what Golisano can bite off.

Underneath these electoral numbers, and most significantly, there is a continuing sense among nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers that the state is headed in the right direction; the best news you can have if you are a two-term incumbent governor seeking re-election.

72% of those who say the state is headed in the right direction tell us they plan to support Governor Pataki. Less than 40% of those who think the state is headed in the wrong direction intend to support him.

Just a few more numbers.

This factor of right direction/wrong direction is very important. Looking at it over time, we see how these figures translate into electoral realities. Today, as noted, 65% think the state is headed in the right direction and 28% disagree. In 1994, when Pataki was trying to unseat then Governor Mario Cuomo, the numbers were reversed 24/62. The electorate then was in a far grumpier mood than it is today when it sizes up the way things are and what it wants from its political leadership.

Some of Governor Pataki’s electoral strength is owing to his campaign strategy. He has successfully positioned himself in the center of the political spectrum and is forcing the Democrats to defend their base. When Pataki first came on the political scene, 49% viewed him as politically conservative. Today, only 33% see him that way. In its place, the number of New Yorkers who view Pataki as a moderate has increased from 33% then, to 56% currently.

Second, Pataki has successfully targeted elements of the Democratic base. In the Latino community, for example, his support for a halt to the bombing of Vieques and work with the health care workers union and Dennis Rivera have paid off. Likewise, he has tried to broaden his appeal to environmentalists thru his support of dredging last year. He is presenting himself to the electorate in a very different light than being just the tax cut, pro-death penalty non-Cuomo of eight years ago.

The other major factor shaping these numbers to be considered for campaign 2002 is the impact of 9/11. A year ago, way before the tragic events of last fall, Governor Pataki and Andrew Cuomo were closely matched (3 points), and Governor Pataki led Carl McCall by about 10%. These numbers have certainly changed.

First and foremost, there has been a shift to a more general acceptance of executive leaders. This has resulted in the improved standing for incumbents. Governor Pataki is, like others nationally, a beneficiary of this. Voters are looking for leadership they can trust.

My sense of it is that voters are expressing a preference for calm, steady, consistent, feel-good candidates and less for the aggressive, flamboyant style. This works for Pataki in the present but not necessarily in the long run if the economy and public sentiments shift down the road, and people start looking more for a candidate to shake things up.

Second, there has been a growing concern with economic matters and finances. We saw this during the NYC mayoralty campaign last fall and Michael Bloomberg cashed in on this. Expect a good deal of campaign discussion to deal with the economy and jobs generally, and rebuilding the NYC business district specifically. It is unclear which candidate will corner the market on this issue.

Even some specific issues will carry greater salience in this election cycle. The effort to close the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Westchester County has attracted far more attention in the current security-minded electorate than it otherwise would.

The third lasting impact of the events last fall is that 9/11 itself is just too politically sensitive in the short run. As Andrew Cuomo saw when he called into question Governor Pataki’s leadership during the crisis, the topic is entered into only at great peril. Cuomo’s lead over McCall narrowed and there has been an increase in his negative ratings statewide.

Cuomo’s comments were not ignored by the Pataki side either as evidenced by Rudy Giuliani’s prominent place at the GOP state convention in NYC last month and his emphasis on the help and leadership Pataki provided last fall. Expect the Pataki campaign to continue to feature Giuliani this way.

One additional impact of 9/11 on this campaign will be reflected in how candidates deal with NYC. Often times in New York State elections, we see candidate strategies that pit upstate vs. downstate. This time it will be very different. Governor Pataki, for example, will look to attract an unusually large share of votes from NYC for a GOP candidate seeking statewide office. The Republican strategy of elections past of contrasting upstate and downstate will not be used this go around.

For their part, the Democrats will try to offset Pataki’s gains in NYC by pursuing an upstate strategy in the hopes of continuing to make inroads into the traditional Republican stronghold. How this is accomplished is still anybody’s guess, but Cuomo’s initial TV ads called for upstate businesses to get some of the contracts targeted to rebuild NYC. Stay tuned.

One final immediate impact of 9/11 is that the Democratic primary will occur on 9/10, the eve of the memorial to last fall’s tragedy. Expect the public to be thinking more about the anniversary and less about the Democratic nominee. No bounce there.

Now, I’d like to turn the discussion over to Barbara.

Thank you. Good morning.

There are several points I’d like to make about the things we will be looking at as campaign 2002 unfolds, specifically what polls will tell us about possible shifts in voter sentiments and also to touch upon how the media communicates poll results to voters.

This is a topic dear to our hearts not only because of Lee’s role as President of the National Council of Public Polls, but because, in this era of poll poll-iferation, polls often drive campaign coverage. When it comes to public polls, not only is there coverage of independent organizations such as ours, but the media also often sponsors its own polls, thereby shifting from its traditional role of covering news to creating it.

In the extreme case, we can get what happened in Florida in the last presidential election when exit polls done by the Voter News Service can cause all kinds of havoc.

First, back to NY and 2002.

One element we will be watching closely during the campaign is how Governor Pataki’s voter appeal might carry over to Republican candidates for Attorney General and Comptroller – the so-called coat-tail effect. Clearly, the GOP has made an effort to offer voters a balanced ticket by gender (two women) and ethnicity. If Governor Pataki is doing well, will this help his ballot mates?

In politics, for quite some time, coat-tails have not been in fashion. So, while Republican Pataki is clocking 60% in the polls, Attorney General Democrat Spitzer is also attracting 60+%. Unless Pataki’s appeal drives up Republican turnout, then it’s likely to be each candidate largely on his or her own.

A second area I want to get into is the cues we will be taking as the campaign progresses from the Governor’s numbers to assess his standing. Does the Governor’s wide lead indicate a potential landslide victory?

In any contest, including this years, that pits a well-known incumbent vs. a challenger the key barometer is the incumbent’s approval rating. The election is, in effect, a referendum on the incumbent. Rarely is someone with a high approval rating tossed from office. As Lee mentioned, the approval rating may be a reflection of the sense voter’s have of the direction the state is headed in.

When looking at tossup questions like "if the election was held today whom would you support if the candidates are…" the telling number may be where the incumbent is rather than the spread between the incumbent and his rival. Pataki’s 60% is strong because not only is he ahead 2:1, but 60% is a winning number – way over the magical mid-field stripe of 50% - and gives him plenty of room to spare. Undecided voters at present are not so numerous as to change the character of this race.

Looking at this a little differently. Take the case of George Pataki versus Cuomo – 1994 variety.

Early in the campaign Governor Cuomo lead Pataki by 25%, but the contest was roughly Cuomo’s 45% to Pataki’s 20%. Poll readers knew that, despite Cuomo’s big lead, the numbers pointed to an incumbent in electoral jeopardy. Cuomo was below 50% meaning that half of the electorate was voting for the other guy or was undecided. After 12 years in office for Governor Cuomo to be below 50% was a danger sign despite his wide lead..

Cuomo would have been in better shape politically if the early polls showed him ahead by 55% to 40%, a much smaller margin (15% vs 25%) but a score that placed him over 50%.

Expect in this race as in others that undecided voters will split more for a challenger than an incumbent. This is a natural occurrence when an incumbent is matched with a challenger. Therefore, the margins separating the candidates is likely to get closer down the road. But if we keep an eye on Pataki’s numbers, it will tell us whether it is just the undecided moving in expected directions or significant slippage for the frontrunner. If Pataki’s number approaches 50%, you’ve got a horserace.

A third factor to watch in campaign 2002 is the intensity of support for each candidate. This is especially important for the McCall/Cuomo primary but also comes into play for the general election in November.

In an era of declining turnout, only 15% of Democrats showed up in the 1998 Senate primary - when Schumer won to face D’Amato – supporters who are more firmly committed to a candidate are more likely to vote and that can make all the difference.

Polls can capture this phenomena in several ways. First, questions can directly measure the intensity of a candidate’s support by probing voters about their depth of commitment. In the Democratic primary for Governor, Carl McCall has a slight advantage over Andrew Cuomo is this area. If the pattern continues, it could tip the primary. Candidates whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep don’t fare well in low turnout races.

Intensity of support also shows up when polls switch to look more at likely voters. In polls, unlike the theory of democracy, not all opinions are created equally. A candidate whose voters are more likely to show up, as measured by polls that accurately gauge a likely voter, has an advantage.

It is too early to measure likely voters with precision for this race, especially when most voters are not following the race closely, but whom likely voters prefer becomes increasingly important as primary day nears, for example. Will party activists annoyed by Cuomo’s boycott of the Democratic state convention be extra motivated to turn out for McCall? Will Democratic primary voters, the group who shows up for primaries and are most likely to want to oust Governor Pataki, turn to Cuomo because he is running the more aggressive campaign? Will Republicans rally behind Pataki in November as he seeks his third term?

Poll watchers will also zero in, in the closing days of the primary and general election campaigns, on late deciders and how they are trending, and on how the handful of remaining undecided voters view each candidate.

If there are more than two candidates vigorously competing for votes, what is happening to the minor party candidate can be important, especially if the race tightens. In NY, as many of you are aware, the election for governor determines whether minor parties maintain ballot status. They need to corral 50,000 votes in November, or risk becoming extinct.

In 1994, Independent Tom Golisano’s support fell in the closing days as some of his potential voters felt that a vote for Golisano, was, in fact, a vote for Cuomo.

This time, there is the Independence Party line and the Conservative Party endorsement – with Pataki and Golisano in competition. There is a Right-to-Life candidate. Andrew Cuomo has the Liberal Party endorsement. Carl McCall is the candidate of the Working Families Party. You get the idea. Scorecards are available as you leave he room. Bottom line, with the breakdown of party loyalty, there are a growing number of voters who might choose to vote on the minor party line. This all creates a tinge of uncertainty to the election.

Finally, in looking at the September primary or general election in November, a few comments on the need to separate out campaign polls from public polls when keeping track of how the candidates are doing.

Campaign polls – done for and by the candidates – are the basis of candidate strategies and the ads that we eventually get bombarded by. Campaign polls are commissioned to influence voter choices by targeting messages to subgroups of the electorate – upstate/downstate, or along generation, gender or specific issues lines.

The public is generally kept in the dark as to what these polls show, save for the shape of the campaigns that emerge from these polling efforts.

On the public poll side of the ledger, the public is inundated with campaign coverage that is increasingly driven by the horserace numbers… who’s ahead, who’s behind, by how much, who’s the frontrunner, who’s the underdog, is there momentum/slippage.

In this environment, poll watchers are best advised to compare one organization’s numbers against its previous poll. Comparisons of poll results among different organizations often reflects differences in poll methods and essentially amounts to comparisons of apples and oranges. This can be misleading.

Public polls can provide the media covering campaigns with an independent check of what the campaigns are telling them, offer a context to better understand why candidates are acting the way they are, and let the public in on the secret about why they may be seeing what they are in the way of ads.

One final note of caution. Daily, overnight trackings monitor the short-term movement in a race and are often reported in the closing days of a campaign as interest in the horserace peaks. Because they usually involve small samples, suffer from the lack of callbacks, and are often undertaken by several organizations using different methods, they can be inaccurate and misleading, and can present a picture of an electorate that is much more volatile than it really is.