THE WHITE HOUSE: Those Puzzling Public Polls

Gerald Ford, father and husband, received four turtleneck sweaters of various hues for Christmas last week as he vacationed with his family at the posh ski resort in Vail, Colo. Gerald Ford, President and politician, received an even more warming present: the latest Gallup poll, released just before Christmas, showed that 46% of those surveyed approve of the way he is doing his job—a sizable spurt of 5% in two weeks.

Ford had a particular reason to be heartened by Gallup's findings. Early last month, Gallup showed Ronald Reagan moving up fast as a contender for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, outpolling Ford among Republican voters. Then Louis Harris reported that the President trailed Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, 52% to 41%, when they were matched in a head-to-head race for the presidency. Finally Gallup plunged the entire polling business into question by finding that Ford was ahead of Humphrey, 51% to 39%.

Dramatic Shifts. Harris and Gallup were as taken aback as anyone by their contradictory findings. Usually, the two longtime and respected rivals agree with each other. They got their conflicting results by using almost identical techniques: Harris' sample consisted of 1,214 people and Gallup's 1,078—an insignificant difference; each used face-to-face interviews instead of relying on the telephone; and their questions were similarly worded. Trying to explain what happened, both concluded that the discrepancy must have been caused by an accident of timing. The Harris poll was conducted after the President shook up his Cabinet and Reagan announced his candidacy, but before Ford went to China. The Gallup poll, taken right after Ford left Peking, may have produced what Harris calls a "euphoric blip" for Ford. Says Alec Gallup, the son of Polling Pioneer George Gallup: "Even though nothing much happened, the China trip apparently had more effect than people thought."

Assuming that Gallup and Harris are right, the fact that a non-event like the China trip could have such a drastic effect says something important: that Ford has so far failed to establish himself solidly in the mind of the electorate. What is more, no candidate in either party has managed to make much of an impression on the voters. "We've never seen it this soft," says Gallup, and Harris adds that most Americans "are not absolutely committed in blood" to any one man. As a result, the Gallup organization now expects that there will be many dramatic shifts in future polls, certainly until after the early primaries are over.

Should the pollsters bother at all when so many Americans seem so apathetic about the candidates? Gallup argues that the surveys provide "an instant slice of the electorate," a reasonably accurate reflection of the national mood even if that mood is vague. Some pollsters maintain that success in the surveys can help a candidate raise money, as well as create the image of a winner. Gallup has doubts on both points. As past experience has shown, a poor performance in the early season polls is not always fatal to a presidential candidate. Four years ago, only 7%, or less, of the Democrats surveyed by the pollsters were picking George McGovern as the man they wanted on their ticket.