ZOGBY POLL GOOFS ON CALIFORNIA .... OR PLAYS POLITICS?

[AnAmericanCitizen]

I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
reasons....pulling for Obama? Show poll numbers favoring Hillary so Obama voters get
out to vote. Same for the republicans....McCain not showing so well?....put out a
poll saying Romney is leading. Isn't there too much power in the hands of pollsters?
Particularly when so many polls are done by major media outlets that are known to be
anything but non-partisan?

I remember a few years back, I think it was Rush that interviewed Zogby who freely
admitted he leaned left. I've never trusted his polls since.....AAC


Zogby poll goofs on California

February 8, 2008

Super Tuesday may have lacked a runaway winner in either party, but when it came to
anticipating the outcome of both primaries in California, there was one clear loser
-- the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll.

"We blew it," pollster John Zogby said.

He pointed out that the polls he supervised got the victors right in six other races
Tuesday (impressively, his had Barack Obama winning narrowly in Missouri, unlike
other last-minute surveys).

But in California's Democratic face-off, based on interviews conducted Sunday and
Monday, the Zogby poll gave Obama 49% of the vote, Hillary Clinton 36%.

The 13-point margin was close to the mark, but there was that little problem of who
ended up on top. Although the vote tabulation isn't complete in California (and won't
be for days), the count as of now gives Clinton 52%, Obama 42%.

In a news release, Zogby International explained: "It appears that we underestimated
Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters" (i.e.
far more Latinos, especially older ones, cast ballots than anticipated, and those
voters went heavily for Clinton). Also, African American turnout was "overestimated."

What about the GOP race?

The findings in the final Zogby poll: Mitt Romney 40%, John McCain 33%.

The almost-complete actual results: McCain 42%, Romney 34%.

Zogby told us that his staff still is vetting the GOP goof.

"This is not one of our happier moments," Zogby said.

-- Don Frederick


Save over 50% off the newsstand price. Subscribe to The Times now!

 

[DeserTBoB]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:27:29 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
<NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
>wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
>reasons....pulling for Obama? <snip>

First, despite all his protestations to the contrary, Zogby's
"polling" enterprise has been, from day 1, a GOP shill polling device,
and Zogby was under the control of Karl Rove for ever since he got
going, fueled by GOP under-the-table funding. Convincing evidence
supporting that claim is the archive of data collected since he
started out.

I've done enough statistical analysis over time in different
disciplines to know phony stats when I see 'em, and Zogby's just
aren't Kosher. It's when you see his raw polling data that things
seem to start stinking in Denmark...there are too many repeated trends
and "planted" anomalies for his stuff to be reliable. Zogby's also
VERY reticent (especially lately) to publish any raw
data...hmmm...wonder why?

Of course, EVERYONE got New Hampshire wrong, because the polling
regimen lagged actually upswing for Clinton by about 48 hours. Due to
"instant media coverage" out on the stump and on any event, the time
lag between actual polling, and data computation, and final release,
is getting a mite long for polls to be accurate on polling day, hence
the use of inaccurate "snap" polling has come to fore, and they can
have a much wider margin of error than standard methodologies.

The big name polls are generally pretty good, and have tracked actual
voting patterns pretty closely. The ones that routinely stunk in the
past have been Rasmussen, Zogby and FAUX News/Opinion Dynamics. Pew
Research's results have generally been closest to the median of all in
comparison to actual results, at least in my casual analysis, as has
the old standby and original, Gallup.

But Zogby? He's finished as a credible pollster. I think he and his
buddies reached a little TOO much with that one. I no longer factor
in any Zogby results into my averages, and prior to banning him
completely, he only got a 40% weighting due to suspected
"inaccuracies." FAUX News/OD has actually improved more toward the
median of late, after flagrant swings for Bush over the last few years
in approval polls and in state polling on GOP candidates. They still
only get a 40% weighting from me, however, due to, as with everything
with Rupert Murdoch's FAUX operation, there being the continual shadow
of political agend

 

[Bret Cahill]

> First, despite all his protestations to the contrary, Zogby's
> "polling" enterprise has been, from day 1, a GOP shill polling device,
> and Zogby was under the control of Karl Rove

I told you a couple weeks ago that he wasn't partisan, just as dumb as
a plate of ramen noodles but you wouldn't listen.


Bret Cahill

 

[DeserTBoB]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:19:53 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

>> First, despite all his protestations to the contrary, Zogby's
>> "polling" enterprise has been, from day 1, a GOP shill polling device,
>> and Zogby was under the control of Karl Rove
>
>I told you a couple weeks ago that he wasn't partisan, just as dumb as
>a plate of ramen noodles but you wouldn't listen. <snip>

Well, one has to reason...how does a box o' rox like him get a
national polling organization off the ground but for the help of
financially and politically well connected benefactors, eh?

Ramen noodles are pretty dumb...and very high in sodium and
cholesterol! Methinks his day hath come and gone....

 

[Steven L.]

AnAmericanCitizen wrote:
>
> I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
> wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
> reasons....pulling for Obama? Show poll numbers favoring Hillary so Obama voters get
> out to vote. Same for the republicans....McCain not showing so well?....put out a
> poll saying Romney is leading. Isn't there too much power in the hands of pollsters?
> Particularly when so many polls are done by major media outlets that are known to be
> anything but non-partisan?
>
> I remember a few years back, I think it was Rush that interviewed Zogby who freely
> admitted he leaned left. I've never trusted his polls since.....AAC

There's an old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."

You must pay attention to the dates on which the polls are taken.

In the case of California, the pollsters should have reminded us that
half the ballots were already cast (by absentee ballot) a week
before Super Tuesday.

Thus it was ridiculous for the pollsters to still be polling
Californians right up till Monday, because half the voters had already
voted. Any last-minute "surge" for Romney or Obama was meaningless;
because once you vote by absentee ballot, you can't revote even if you
change your mind afterward.

So for California, the only polls that mattered were the older ones
taken the previous week, which had Hillary and McCain ahead. And those
were the final results.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

 

[Governor Swill]

AnAmericanCitizen <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand
to babble
>
>I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
>wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
>reasons....pulling for Obama? Show poll numbers favoring Hillary so Obama voters get
>out to vote. Same for the republicans....McCain not showing so well?....put out a
>poll saying Romney is leading. Isn't there too much power in the hands of pollsters?
>Particularly when so many polls are done by major media outlets that are known to be
>anything but non-partisan?

Historically polls have been generally correct or at least close. I
suspect the big difference this time is far higher primary turnout
than expected among Democrats including under polled demographic
groups (like Hispanics who turned out at much higher than expected
rates for a primary) and lower than expected turnout for Republican
voters.

Another point is the lightning speed at which public opinion can
change owing to the lightning speed at which their words can get to
the public.

For example, for most of the past year I was convinced that McCain (or
whoever the GOP nominated) needed to be elected this year to ride herd
on the Congress and prevent any radical agenda from being passed
whether left or right. I watched the debates through Super Tuesday
and decided that any Democratic President and Congress was essential
because task number one will be to rollback, repeal or weaken as much
of Bush's/the GOP's legislation as possible and I preferred Hillary
based on her likelihood of having contacts with the movers and shakers
domestically and abroad who can actually get the job done.

But after watching Obama speak in Virginia yesterday, I've become an
Obama booster. **** the Republicans and the Clinton they're riding.

Obama all the way.

Swill

 

[Governor Swill]

DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:27:29 -0800, AnAmericanCitizen
><NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
>>wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
>>reasons....pulling for Obama? <snip>
>
>First, despite all his protestations to the contrary, Zogby's
>"polling" enterprise has been, from day 1, a GOP shill polling device,
>and Zogby was under the control of Karl Rove for ever since he got
>going, fueled by GOP under-the-table funding. Convincing evidence
>supporting that claim is the archive of data collected since he
>started out.

But the problem isn't just Zogby. It's every poll from CNN/Time to
Fox and everybody in between. The voters have pulled off coup after
coup and I'm seriously thinking that at least some are deliberately
lying to the pollsters in advance of election day, that is, using the
same spin tactics on the politicians that the politicians have
historically used on them.

There is however a fully logical reason for the skewed results. Polls
include "undecided". Ballot boxes do not and those undecideds who go
out and vote are the number one reason the pollsters and pundits are
blowing their predictions.

Swill

 

[Governor Swill]

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> I'm beginning to have less and less confidence in polls. In addition to their being
>> wrong so often, I have to wonder if they are wrong purposefully for political
>> reasons....pulling for Obama? Show poll numbers favoring Hillary so Obama voters get
>> out to vote. Same for the republicans....McCain not showing so well?....put out a
>> poll saying Romney is leading. Isn't there too much power in the hands of pollsters?
>> Particularly when so many polls are done by major media outlets that are known to be
>> anything but non-partisan?
>>
>> I remember a few years back, I think it was Rush that interviewed Zogby who freely
>> admitted he leaned left. I've never trusted his polls since.....AAC
>
>There's an old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."
>
>You must pay attention to the dates on which the polls are taken.
>
>In the case of California, the pollsters should have reminded us that
> half the ballots were already cast (by absentee ballot) a week
> before Super Tuesday.
>
>Thus it was ridiculous for the pollsters to still be polling
>Californians right up till Monday, because half the voters had already
>voted. Any last-minute "surge" for Romney or Obama was meaningless;
>because once you vote by absentee ballot, you can't revote even if you
>change your mind afterward.
>
>So for California, the only polls that mattered were the older ones
>taken the previous week, which had Hillary and McCain ahead. And those
>were the final results.

Good point.

Swill

 

[AnAmericanCitizen]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:58:58 -0500, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>But after watching Obama speak in Virginia yesterday, I've become an
>Obama booster. **** the Republicans and the Clinton they're riding.
>
>Obama all the way.

I think you're going to be disappointed. Rush mentioned today that Obama will most
likely win the most delegates but not be the nominee. Not hard to figure out what he
meant. Those seven-to-eight-hundred super delegates. The corrupt Clinton machine
will buy them in any way possible...remember the free trips to the White House and
other promises made by the Clintons to win Hillary her seat in the Senate? We've
probably not seen anything yet. These people have no intention of losing....AAC

 

[AnAmericanCitizen]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:58:58 -0500, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

>But after watching Obama speak in Virginia yesterday, I've become an
>Obama booster. **** the Republicans and the Clinton they're riding.
>
>Obama all the way.

I think you're going to be disappointed. Rush mentioned today that Obama will most
likely win the most delegates but not be the nominee. Not hard to figure out what he
meant. Those seven-to-eight-hundred super delegates. The corrupt Clinton machine
will buy them in any way possible...remember the free trips to the White House and
other promises made by the Clintons to win Hillary her seat in the Senate? We've
probably not seen anything yet. These people have no intention of losing....AAC

Correction: As an addendum (and correction to the above)...I heard tonight that the
800 super delegates can only be put into play if the people haven't elected a clear
choice for the party's nominee in the primaries and caucuses. The "supers" can't be
used to erase the people's choice.