Zogby is crap: Overall 49/44, but with men McCain +4, with women +14 for Obama

[CreekDog]

The only way I can get 5% lead out of that is to weight men/women turnout at 50/50.

In 2004, turnout was men/women 46/54

[FVZA_Colonel]

1. He really expects us to believe McCain has that large a lead amongst women?

After his dismissal of "women's health" at the third debate, amongst any number of things?

[Zuiderelle]

51. No, it's the opposite, Obama has +14 among women. The subject is worded strangely.

[dennis4868]

2. Every time a poll goes in the wrong....

direction we call the pollster a hack and find every little thing wrong with the poll. But when the poll goes in favor of Obama we don't do this. I believe Zogby is an Arab and is probably not a McCain hack.

Listen, a 5 point lead is still huge and if Obama has this lead on election day it will most likely turn into a blowout!!! Nothing to worry about here....let's see how the other polls come out today.

[CreekDog]

3. i have never said Zogby was a good poll, even when we were up 10+ points

and it's one thing to criticize on the basis of the results, quite another to criticize their likely voter screen...50/50 women/men turnout is a bad screen, i don't care whether it produces a 10 point Obama margin or a 5 point margin --a good pollster does not create that screen at all.

[johnnydrama]

4. i can look at numbers

and see that the poll is a hack poll.

if you are polling 1/2 women and 1/2 men than your poll is bad.

just like in the other stat, if independents are for obama by 14%, then Obama isn't leading by 5.

[dennis4868]

8. what were the % breakdown...

in 2004 regarding female and male voters? I know it was not 50-50.....

[CreekDog]

11. 54% women/ 46% men

[dennis4868]

12. now that is....

a huge difference...

[dennis4868]

13. Do you know what %...

of the women vote Obama is getting in the current Zogby poll?

[CreekDog]

22. 55/41

[GrizzlyMan]

5. Who is "we"?

I haven't celebrated a single Zogby poll. Sorry, got burnt once with this guy won't happen again.

[MadBadger]

31. "I believe Zogby is an Arab and is probably not a McCain hack"

Wow, did you really just say that?

[Abacus]

49. My only posted criticism of Zogby was on a thread where his results were favorable to Obama.

Even excluding his "Interactive" polls, he's a below average pollster: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings

Good news or bad news, I don't trust anything that guy puts out.

[Fluffdaddy]

6. Monday when he has Obama up +8 Zogby will be our fair-haired son again

He plays people here like a cat :(

[melody]

7. I think it was his enthusiastic cheerleading for McCain that's annoying

Looking at his data, he clearly cooked the data to come up with the analysis he wanted. He always does that.
I never pay attention to any of his polling data -- good, bad or indifferent. He's just trying to be unusual
so his name gets into the press.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Have Been Calling Him Zo(m)by For Years

But I was even liking him again...


"Fool me once , shame on you... Errrr.... Won't get fooled again..."

-George Bush


I am ignoring Zo(m)by...


He's a pundit not a pollster...

[CreekDog]

10. people HERE have been criticizing Zogby, whether Obama is up or down

I think you are stuck in the wrong election cycle.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. He's A Clown

Honest truth...

The day before the California primary he had Hillary losing by ten points... I tried to log onto intrade to bet her...She was at 13%...I was set to bet two grand and get fourteen grand back but for some reason I couldn't log on...Zo(m)by's poll primarily (and others) had driven the odds down that much...


It was probably for the better because most gamblers end up losers in the long run...

[Fluffdaddy]

16. OK guys, Please name me a poll you guys respect?

[dennis4868]

17. Gallup

[Fluffdaddy]

18. What you think of .....Rasmussen ?

[dennis4868]

19. Rass....

seems to be in the pocket of the Repubs although he has been somewhat accurate over the years....I still like Gallup better...they are one of the few polls that you can say does not have a dog in the fight.

[Fluffdaddy]

20. Thank you

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. The Ones That Have Us Most Ahead

Seriously...

I like Gallup, WAPO-ABC,SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, WSJ-NBC, LAT, Newsweek, Time, CNN, FOX,Hotline, Pew, and CBS-NYT


If they are wrong , imho, it's random error and not because of deliberate bias or shenanigans...

FOX and Rasmussen have an agenda but they are "business people" and it's more important for them to be right...

Zo(m)by has an agenda...It is not a Republican or a Democratic agenda...It is a contrarian agenda and he wants his polls to stand out...

[CreekDog]

23. Of the majors, I respect almost all of them more than Zogby

and anyone who puts their full internal data out there for folks to evaluate the results of the poll.

i'm a bit annoyed at you for characterizing criticism of this poll, which we have legitimate basis for doing, as simple cheerleading. it's not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Agree

I trust most of the polls but most does not mean all... I do think in the majority of polls if there are errors the errors are random and not deliberate...

Rass and Fox have an agenda but even for them I think they feel it is more important to be right...

It's not that Zo(m)by has a right or left wing bias but a conrtrarian bias...He wants to be different...

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. You have to understand that Fluffdaddy wants Obama to lose

Once you process that fact, all the collected stupidities make sense.

[CreekDog]

32. it's the "DLC" avatar that throws me off

that's like being proud of the wood siding on your station wagon.

[Fluffdaddy]

35. You have us Blue Dogs dems/DLC'ers to thank for wining back both houses

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Do You Really Want McSame To Win?

He's turned to the right of Genghis Khan...

[Fluffdaddy]

38. Let me answer you like I'm talking to a 6 year old.........................NO

I supported HRC she lost. Now I support BHO...................Period

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. No Need To Get Upset

If you say you're a Democrat you deserve the benefit of the doubt...

My mom who passed away last month ,at ninety years old, God bless her, cast her last vote for Hillary in the Florida primary back in January...We both loved Hillary and Bill...I liked Bill because he was the only winning presidentiaL candidate I ever voted for... We were profoundly disappointed when she didn't get the nomination but neither of us had a problem voting for Obama; too bad she didn't make it... I used to ask her who she was voting for and she said "Obama"...The always angry McCain literally scared her...

I have no problem with the DLC, the Blue Dogs, or the Progressive Caucus or whatever...I'm an unhyphenated Democrat...I'm philosophically liberal, temperamentally conservative, and operationally pragmatic... I think that's where Obama is ...

PEACE
DSB

[CreekDog]

42. yeah but don't apply that strategy to the whole party

that's my issue.

if Heath Shuler has to be a blue dog to get elected, that's fine.

but Dianne Feinstein doesn't need to act like a tool here in California -though she does.

that's my problem with DLC/Blue Dogs that think the whole party should be just like them.

what's the point of that?

[Fluffdaddy]

33. You have to understand alcibiades_mystery and I have a pissing match going on

:spank:

He/she only wants to hear and read good news. I live in the real world where not all the news is good. ;)

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. I have no pissing match going on with you

I avoid getting close enough to unreconstructed racists posing as "realists" to get into pissing matches with them.

[melody]

30. If you're pulling for McCain (which you certainly seem to be), why are you here?

[Fluffdaddy]

37. I don't know where the hell you got that opinion.

I been a voter for 32 years and never voted for a GOP potus..............Period

[melody]

41. Well, you're DLC for one thing ... and you do sound a trifle disgruntled

If I'm incorrect, I apologize, but with the number of deeply entrenched, um, morans around here, I'm always suspicious.

[Abacus]

50. Survey USA, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Research 2000, & PPP are my favorites

Here are Nate's rating for them: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Did you enjoy Frank Rich's column today Fluffdaddy?

It seemed like it was written just for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26rich.html

[Fluffdaddy]

39. Thanks for the suggested article alcibiades_mystery. I will read the paper version

with my Sunday coffee. I pray we/you/us don't find out the hard way that the “The Bradley Effect” is real

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. The Bradley Effect is bullshit

You're here to pump it up rhetorically because you want Obama to lose. Everybody knows it, and your stupid game is not cute.

But I'll leave you to it.

[Fluffdaddy]

44. "The Bradley Effect is bullshit" We will see in just 9 short days.

[Occam Bandage]

46. Here I thought we saw in, you know, every election involving a black guy in the past 20 years.

Including, but not limited to, every primary involving Obama this year.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Fluffdaddy is a McCain supporter

You can't reason with these people. He's hooked into a very stupid idea, and plans to take any reputation he may have once had on this board down with the ship. What's sad is that this is old, primary anger carrying over. It's a despicable and pathetic display of petulance.

If you want an image of how utterly wrong and racist Fluffdaddy has always been, see "I don't think BHO can win the big game. God help me for saying this, but I don't think enough whites "nation wide" will vote for a Black Man as the POTUS. they give lip service that race don't matter, but I fear when that 20% we need steps in that booth they well pull that lever for the white old guy."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5156480

Basically, Fluffdaddy either doesn't know what he's talking about 99% of the time, or he iws just a plain olkd racist of the old school. There really is no other explanation for his behavior.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Be that as it may, I'm puzzled by

the widespread acceptance/fear of an "effect" that has absolutely zero statistical effect past 1996, and a 3-point effect from '86 to '96.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. I think Rich has YOU pegged too, by the way

Despicable, reputation crushing behavior.

[CreekDog]

55. why do you think the Bradley Effect might be real? Deukmejian and Bradley's campaigns didn't

(Deukmejian pollster) V. Lance Tarrance, Jr.: (10-17-08)

He calls the Bradley effect "a pernicious canard," Tarrance speaks with some authority—he was the pollster for Bradley's opponent, George Deukmejian. Tarrance argues the effect was merely a result of bad data: the poll declaring Bradley a prohibitive favorite ignored Deukmejian's advantages among absentee and early voters. To give credence to a Bradley effect in this year's election, Tarrance argues, "is to damage our democracy, no matter who wins."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1851287,00.html


The "Bradley Effect": Myth or Maybe? (10-17-08) (passages from the interview)
(from an interview with Dan Walters, longtime Sacramento political reporter and who covered that campaign)
Prejudice, Polling, and the Election

In California political circles it is well known that the Bradley Effect was dreamed up after the fact to explain away polling and campaign strategy errors.

And the Bradley folks jumped on the theory as a rationalization for the simple fact that they had blown the election by taking victory for granted, stopping campaigning more than a week before Election Day, and being "outhustled" by the Republicans on absentee voters. It was their way of sidestepping recriminations within the Democratic Party for such a narrow loss.

Bradley was so confident that he had won he actually stopped campaigning about ten days before the election. Ahead of the election, Bradley, had a lead of something like 5 or 6 percentage points. The polling that was being done at that time was based on an understandable assumption that all of the votes would be cast on Election Day. Mervin Field, declared—based on exit polling of Election Day voters—that Bradley had won the election. Everyone was crazy with excitement. And Tom Bradley did win that night. But once they counted the absentee ballots, he had lost by about 94,000 votes.

A few years earlier, the legislature had liberalized voting rules, making it much easier to vote absentee, thinking it would help the Democrats. But the Republicans saw this and decided to use it to their advantage. They had lists of people who were gun owners and other conservatives and organized a vote-by-mail turnout campaign to mobilize them to vote against a gun control measure also on the ballot and vote for Deukmejian at the same time, believing that the mailed ballots could be decisive in an otherwise close election.

I would point out that Bradley's fellow Democrat, then-Gov. Jerry Brown, lost a bid for the U.S. Senate that day by about a half-million votes, so Bradley actually did much better than Brown, another indication that there was no appreciable anti-black sentiment working that day. A lot of moderate Democrats and independents voted for Bradley, but did not vote for Brown, shifting to his Republican rival, Pete Wilson.

After the election, Mervin Field promulgated the theory that the pre-election polling was wrong because voters had lied to poll-takers about their intention to vote against a black candidate, even though there was never any statistical evidence, as Tarrance has observed.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/441/prejudice-campaign.html

[Occam Bandage]

45. Has anyone here actually ever praised Zogby?

[Curtland1015]

14. So really, we should be feeling pretty good about this.

Poll is skewed... it's a WEEKEND poll... and we still end up +5.

I'll take it.

[nickn777]

27. C'mon folks, this is crap for many reasons....

55-41 among women, but McCain only up 4 among men....Obama leading independents by 14....yet, Obama up only 5 overall....

Also, Zogby has Obama dropping 7 points in 4 days......LOL.....this is not backed up by ANY OTHER poll currently being published.

Zogby pumped up Obama's lead to +12 so that he could create a headline.....he now is creating a big comeback to once again give his poll another headline, even offering his "analysis" as to why Obama is tanking....Even Comcast had picked it up yesterday with a banner headline to the likes of - Obama's lead narrowing -

This type of attention whoring, "Story of the day" polling should always be taken with a grain of salt. If you ONLY looked at the Rasmussen poll, you would have seen almost NO CHANGE in this race for the last 6 weeks.....this is one reason why I do respect Scott Rasmussen as a pollster, although he seems to lean a bit to the (R) side, he doesn't try to grab a headine each and every day with a new poll....

[CreekDog]

28. this is my issue with Zogby, that he is manipulating results to get attention

he floats between being an outlier to get attention, but moves to the middle of the pack to keep his credibility and then back again to outlier.

and he doesn't release his internals, or only very selectively so you can't check his work.

it's a sketchy poll when it was up 12 points and sketchy too at 5 points because of the methodology and the legitimate suspicions about his credibility.

[nickn777]

29. Since polls CAN influence public opinion....

giving them headline status is irresponsible journalism at its finest...

[S_E_Fudd]

34. It's ONE day..

There is a very good reason these polls are tracked over 3 days. One day's polling is not reliable...

There is no macro trend that would explain a 2 point drop and 3 point gain for McCain in one day...

Rasmussen saw no drop, and R2K though they had a slight uptick for McCain still have it at +9...

[mvd]

53. Rasmussen still +8 with McCain's lowest favorable ratings

Even though he's a Repuke, Ras's poll is better than Zogby's.