Poll Shows Fahrenheit 911 Will Impact Presidental Election

[WillyT]

A national survey of an online panel of 10,000 respondents by research firm, e-FocusGroups, reveals impact of controversial film.

<snip>

(PRWEB) July 8, 2004 -- David Van Nuys, Ph.D., President of market research company, e-FocusGroups, and professor of psychology at Sonoma State University reported the results of an ongoing online poll today. Currently, over 1,500 respondents from across the U.S. have taken the brief survey which can be found at www.e-focusgroups.com/farenheit911.htm An invitation to take the poll was sent out to approximately 10,000 members of a national online research panel maintained by e-FocusGroups.

With more than 1,500 responses already in, the major findings are not likely to shift over the next couple of days, according to Dr. Van Nuys, who reports the survey to be accurate within plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The most salient findings are:
33% have seen Fahrenheit 911.
29% are still planning to see the movie.
18% say they intend NOT to see the movie.

Of the 33% who have seen Fahrenheit 911:
About 3.5% who were going to vote for Bush say they will now NOT do so.
9% say they were undecided but now will vote for Kerry.
52% say they are more likely to vote in the upcoming presidential election, as a result of seeing the film.
72% say they are are more likely to seek out additional information about issues and candidates as a result of seeing the film.

<snip>

Link: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw139500.htm

Don't know much about these guys, but I'm liking what they're finding!!! All on-line though.

:shrug:

[lovedems]

1. I took the survey. Thanks for the link!

If Bush just lost 3.5% of his likely voters because of those who participated in this survey, think of the ramification nationwide!

[Cha]

2. Yeah, sounds good...like a fair poll instead of

a freeperized version.

I know a lot of People who haven't seen it yet who are going to and that will help the gross and, of course, people like me who are going to see it again and buy the DVD! }(

[neebob]

3. I like it, too, but you know what?

I think a lot of people say they're going to vote and then don't.

[AirAmFan]

11. More would actually make it into the polling place if the threshold

were not so high.

First of all, unlike virtually every REAL democracy, the US does not make Election Day a national holiday. Poor people get little flexibility in their hours and few if any paid days off. Because they get paid so strictly by the clock, often they must choose between getting to the polls or getting all their income.

And then in most places, "voter registration" closes at least 30 days before a General Election. Busy people who finally get motivated to vote in the crescendo of hype a few days before Election Day find it's too late to register. Except in a small handful of states (including Minnesota) where there's same day registration.

Both these facts are the result of careful planning and hard work by strong foes of genuine democracy throughout US history. See Alexander Keyssar's eye-opening history, "The Right to Vote" (2000), partly online at http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465029698/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-6464808-8415011

Here's a snippet of Keyssar's summary of the history of suffrage in the US, from http://ni4d.us/library/keyssarpaper.pdf :

"(I)t is not a coincidence that nonvoters come disproportionately from the same social groups that in earlier decades were the targets of restrictions on the franchise itself. Despite the Motor Voter bill, there remain procedural obstacles to registration that have a heavy impact on the poor and uneducated. ... THE EFFECTS OF A RESTRICTED SUFFRAGE CAN BE REPLICATED, or at least approximated, by cleverly unequal districting or by complex registration requirements. ..."

What we REALLY need from somebody like Michael Moore is a lively documentary on high barriers to voting in our supposed "democracy".

[Spangle]

4. 72% is the one I'm most intrested in

It means that people are learning that the news is for entertainment reasons only.

[cliss]

5. Thanks Willy, for the good news.

The same thing is happening at my office. Several people have gone to see it. The typical comment is, they had NO idea their government was up to these things. They expressed surprise.

I'm beginning to see a really big change in peoples' attitudes. Of course, mine was already made up a long time ago, but it is nice to see the average American waking up.

[WillyT]

6. You Are Welcome !!!

Hi all!

:hi:

[WillyT]

7. You Are Welcome !!!

Hi all!

:hi:

[WillyT]

8. Shit... How Did THAT Happen ???

:shrug::scared::shrug:

[oscar111]

10. Flaws sink poll

a third of his panel has actually seen the film?

only 60 million dollars, a few days ago.. so only 6 million viewers tops. 200 million adults here. 3% have paid to see it, yet ten times that are in his panel. hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe they all saw bootleg online copies? hmmmmmm. Maybe his panel is all educated film fanatics yet balanced LW AND RW.?

that last is his only hope for claiming a representative panel.

[AirAmFan]

13. This survey is no more flawed than any other online marketing survey, IMO

You sound SERIOUSLY confused. Online survey statistics can be tricky. Are you sure you really understand this survey? I think I do

Did you click all the way through to the webpage with results so far? You can submit blank forms at level 1 and level 2 if you don't want to fill out the survey but just want to see the results.

Evidently there were TWO main purposes for this marketing survey

(1) To determine the level of interest in the movie among the website's visitors
(2) Among those website visitors who have seen the movie, to explore political intentions and how they might have been altered by F911.

1500 (now 1935) had answered questions at level (1) wehn Willy T posted this.
About 500 (now about 736) of the respondents had actually seen the movie.

Since Willy T ONLY REPORTED RESULTS AT LEVEL (2), he might have avoided confusing you by just saying about 500 responded.

The proportion of level-1 respondents who've seen the movie would approach 6 million out of the scores of millions of potential movie-goers only had this been a telephone survey. But YOU KNOW it is an online survey. What group of website respondents would be a simple random sample of a population?

Most likely, responding visitors to the website surveyed by e-focusgroups are younger and more likely to go to the movies than the general US population. But that bias in sample recruitment would affect mainly results at level (1) rather than at level (2).

And the fact that the number of respondents has grown 30 percent without changing the percentages Willy reported very much means it's not being DUed or FREEPed.

IMO, your main observation makes very little sense to people familiar with marketing surveys. Do you have the background and knowledge to be the spoiler on this thread?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the survey results now (about 10:45 pm Saturday July 10 Pacific time):

Which of the following is true for you in regard to seeing Michael Moore's movie, Farenheit 911? (chose one)
Count Percentage
731 37.78% I have seen the movie
543 28.06% I am definitely planning to see the movie
319 16.49% I might see the movie
309 15.97% I intend NOT to see this movie
33 1.71% I have never heard of this movie
1935 100.0% Total

As a result of seeing Farenheit 911 (choose the one that fits you best)
Count Percentage
34 4.62% I was going to vote for Bush and still plan to do so
26 3.53% I was going to vote for Bush but now will NOT vote for him
506 68.75% I was going to vote for Kerry and still plan to do so
2 0.27% I was going to vote for Kerry but now will NOT vote for him
22 2.99% I was going to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry and still plan to do so
6 0.82% I was undecided but now plan to vote for Bush
56 7.61% I was undecided but now plan to vote for Kerry
9 1.22% I was undecided but now plan to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry
2 0.27% I was not going to vote but will now vote for Bush
16 2.17% I was not going to vote but will now vote for Kerry
5 0.68% I was not going to vote but will now vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry
12 1.63% I am eligible to vote but will not do so
40 5.43% other
736 100.0% Total

As a result of seeing Farenheit 911 (choose one)
Count Percentage
371 50.54% I am more likely to vote in the next presidential election
10 1.36% I am less likely to vote in the next presidential election
353 48.09% this movie has no impact on my likelihood of voting in the next presidential election
734 100.0% Total

"As a result of seeing Farenheit 911, I am more likely to seek out additional information on the issues and candidates."
Count Percentage
529 71.97% True
30 4.08% False
176 23.95% No impact
735 100.0% Total

[AirAmFan]

14. Oops! The URL for direct access to F911 online survey results is

http://www.e-focusgroups.com/farenheit911results.htm . Last night, I left it out of the post just above.

Also, here are short and long explanations of the differences between quick "quota" samples used by market researchers and costly more careful survey research using random samples:

Short version: "The top 10 FAQs about on-line research", by Bill MacElroy, at http://www.quirks.com/articles/article.asp?arg_ArticleId=354

Long version: "Research Methods Resources on the WWW: Internet Research Methods", at http://www.slais.ubc.ca/resources/research_methods/internet.htm

Finally, a URL Willy T supplied in his lead-in attests to the reputation of the people who carried out the survey, and has contact info for the lead person (a psychology professor).

From http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw139500.htm

"e-FocusGroups is a market research firm that has served a long list of corporate clients, including Fortune 500 companies, such as The New York Times, IBM, Hewlett Packard, and so on. (See http://www.e-focusgroups.com/clients.html ). The survey reported here was not sponsored by any group and was carried out as a public service.

For more detailed information, contact David Van Nuys, Ph.D., [e-mail], [phone]."

[SpiralHawk]

9. You bet your Dang Tootin that F9/11 is making a difference

That sound you hear is the gurgling and burping as America tries to digest what the film has told them about. It will be followed by Projectile Vomiting -- of BushCo.

The observation below was part of a thread I started this AM. The thread promptly died, but I think the observations are worth posting again.
-----------------------------------

"...this might be the most patriotic film ever made." - F9/11

For your consideration: the final sentence of a column in the Santa Fe New Mexican (7/9/04) headlined:

'Fahrenheit 9/11': The temperature at which dissent burns

I make special note of this article because it was written by "Generation Next" columnist Sean Anderson-Branowitzer (Class of 2004 - Santa Fe HS). His voice is one of many beginning to arise from the current generation of teens and early 20s.

I know from conversations with other people in this generation, that they are going to see F9/11 -- and they are being electrified by what they are learning. They can see the handwriting on the wall.

I know also -- in my circle of acquiantances -- that a spirit of deep concern is afoot in this generation, not just here in Santa Fe, but also in Greater Boston. I love to hear the observations about this phenomenon -- awakening Generation Next -- from other DUers in other parts of the US of A.

At any rate, at long last, here's the concluding paragraph from the column -- a review of F9/11:

"It is a film that is best felt, not talked about. It's hard to leave the theater gabbing or laughing, and even harder to leave without thinking. If being patriotic means starting a debate about what's best for the country, this might be the most patriotic film ever made."

- eom -

[Swamp Rat]

17. HAHAHAHA!!!

"It will be followed by Projectile Vomiting -- of BushCo."

Thanks for the laugh!

[WillyT]

12. Nite Kick !!!

:kick:

[AirAmFan]

15. End-of-weekend kick!

[oscar111]

16. reply air america

the orig post said nothing about 2 surveys, or "levels".

I was not confused, the orig. post was confusing. Who has time to dig thru referenced sites to find if there are errors in a post here?