Another Zogby poll

[cujothekitten]

Paul Less than 1%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1316

 

[JoshLowry]

They should record all 400 phone calls. I want evidence if it's scientific. I can no longer blindly trust any entity that reports on political events.

Once again, what percentage and what is the profile of the people who still pick up their house lines when ambiguous 1-800 numbers appear on the caller id?

MsDoodahs was right, we need a hurl icon.

 

[TheDuke]

Who are they calling???

 

[ksuguy]

I got a poll call back during the 2004 election. Almost every question was written with the assumption that I was going to vote for Bush or Kerry. There were a few with Nader as an option.

They didn't even consider the fact that I was going to vote for Michael Badnarik.

 

[Razmear]

From their methodology page for this poll at:

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1190

This is a telephone survey of Republican Primary likely voters nationwide conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is 378 interviews with approximately 125 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample.
....
Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 5.1 percentage points.
---

So if no one answers the phone, they use his neighbors answer, or some other white guys?

The sample on this poll is way too small to be accurate, and their weighting the results for non response make the poll irrelevant.

eb

 

[Bradley in DC]

We need to do what we can to boost Dr. Paul's name ID. Letters to the editor in local papers is a great way to do this. CHARGE!

 

[burnice]

I think we need to be more patient with these polls. It is awfully early in the race.

 

[slantedview]

Really, any poll that has Paul lower than Tancredo, Brownback and Thomson is likely garbage.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Yep.

Garbage intended to sway the audience.

Anyone know if Zogby did any polling in Minnesota the year that Ventura came "out of nowhere" to win the governor's race?

 

[jcbraithwaite7]

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that many people do not have LAN lines anymore? The only people pollsters reach is little old ladies and uninformed couch potatoes. Not that I want people calling me on my cell phone but it has to skew the statistics- just as the internet doesn't reach the couch potatoes and little old ladies. Doesn't that make both of them unreliable?

 

[burnice]

Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that many people do not have LAN lines anymore? The only people pollsters reach is little old ladies and uninformed couch potatoes. Not that I want people calling me on my cell phone but it has to skew the statistics- just as the internet doesn't reach the couch potatoes and little old ladies. Doesn't that make both of them unreliable?

Lots of people have mentioned this, on other threads about the national poll topic.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Here's a little about the Ventura win here in MN in 1998, where the polls predicted him to come in third, from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9901.schier.ventura.html

Through September, most observers viewed Ventura as an amusing sideshow. The victors in the party primaries, Democratic Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey (son of the famous Hubert) and Republican St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, are both life-long government employees and officeholders. Each was personally cautious and "button-down" in demeanor. They provided a nice gray background for Jesse's campaign antics. Every act needs a straight man, and Jesse had two of them. The great mistake during the fall came from the Humphrey campaign. Hopeful that Ventura would draw "angry white male" voters away from Coleman, they insisted that Ventura be included in each of 10 debates. Jesse had his stage. In the debates, he stated his views in a blustery, candid, and disarming fashion. For instance, when asked whether he favored state aid for college students, Jesse disapproved and called on students to "get a job!" It became clear that he knew little about policy, but he did speak sincerely and displayed a commanding, charismatic presence. Coleman and Humphrey largely ignored Jesse and sniped at each other during the debates, allowing Jesse to seem appealingly anti-political.

The clueless cooperation of Humphrey and Coleman, however, was not enough to propel Jesse to victory. Several other forces helped push him over the top. Polling in October fired Ventura's momentum. His support rose through the teens in October to 27 percent (with Humphrey at 35 percent and Coleman at 30 percent) in the last published Minneapolis Star Tribune poll, taken the week before the election. Such late polls made it clear that Jesse could win, encouraging his supporters and prompting many voters to view him as a serious alternative.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

And here's something about polls in general, essentially that they're very often wrong, EVEN WITHIN 10 DAYS of an election, to say nothing of a year out: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=19

To get a picture of what the polls showed and why they may have gone wrong, the Pew Research Center gathered information about 34 independent polls conducted for the news media in key Senate and gubernatorial races. All of the polls were published within 10 days of the election, and only races that were close or predicted to be close were considered.

Looking at the spread -- that is the difference between the Democratic and the Republican candidates -- 10 of the 34 polls missed the mark. They missed the spread by over 8 percentage points, more than the margin of sampling error for these polls. Eight of these polls also missed the victor. Another 14 polls missed the spread by between 7 and 4 percentage points, a fair showing, and 10 were on the money, calling the spread within 2 percentage points.

No identifiable methodological patterns emerge to separate the better polls from the rest. Nearly all had adequate sample sizes for an individual state (600 or more) and almost all looked at likely voters.

I'd argue that they don't know who is a "likely voter."

 

[vertesc]

Sample size for telephone polls is not intuitive. Studies have demonstrated a significant increase in reliability up to 500 people, and then a smaller improvement as your sample size rises to 1000 people. Beyond 1000 people surveyed, the improvement in accuracy is negligible.

 

[Bossobass]

The results of the Bosso poll have just been released, and I'm posting the resuts here exclusively:

Of the 25 people polled,

Have you ever heard of Zogby? 0%

If you had heard of Zogby, would give a flying rats backside what he thinks about anything?:

YES 0%
NO 100%

If ever RP supporters have spammed anything, we should absolutely, with malice of forethought FLOOD Zogby with calls and e-mails

Bosso

 

[MsDoodahs]

lol...

love it, Boss!

 

[mesler]

The results of the Bosso poll have just been released, and I'm posting the resuts here exclusively:

Of the 25 people polled,

Have you ever heard of Zogby? 0%

If you had heard of Zogby, would give a flying rats backside what he thinks about anything?:

YES 0%
NO 100%

If ever RP supporters have spammed anything, we should absolutely, with malice of forethought FLOOD Zogby with calls and e-mails

Bosso

What good would this do? The first Zogby had Paul at about 3%, it's not their fault he came in less than 1 on this poll, and they obviously aren't 'holding him down.'. They state up front the MoE is 4%. Flooding them would be a mean thing to do, and I fail to understand why fellow Paul supporters would be advocating such a thing on an undeserving poll company.

It is my opinion, and I know i'm not alone, that doing this, and in fact even speaking of it, would hurt Paul more than it would help him.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What does "MoE" mean? And how do they figure out the "MoE"? I know what it stands for, but that's all. Margin of Error.

 

[ronpaulitician]

125 questions?!

 

[Bossobass]

What good would this do? The first Zogby had Paul at about 3%, it's not their fault he came in less than 1 on this poll, and they obviously aren't 'holding him down.'. They state up front the MoE is 4%. Flooding them would be a mean thing to do, and I fail to understand why fellow Paul supporters would be advocating such a thing on an undeserving poll company.

It is my opinion, and I know i'm not alone, that doing this, and in fact even speaking of it, would hurt Paul more than it would help him.

You seem a bit uninformed, IMHO.

The results of the Zogby Iowa poll released May 16, the day after the SC debate, did not include Ron Paul. This was mentioned in many other forums that were basically RP neutral, with posts like:

"A Zogby poll was released today that showed Romney now leading an Iowa poll. If you'll notice, Ron Paul wasn't even given as one of the choices.

What is it about people not wanting to mention this guy?"

This post was accompanied by the Zogby poll charts with all candidates as well as the undeclared possibles like Thompson, Gingrich, not sure and even Condi Rice!

A disclaimer in small print accompanied John Zogby's blog...see if you catch it (hint: I enlarged the font and emboldened it):

"Giuliani the big loser, while McCain remains steady; Hillary, Obama remain strong in tight Dem contest

Zogby International polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and nationally, always include all of the declared candidates - including such candidates as Ron Paul - and even a couple who are reportedly thinking about running - including Fred Thompson. However, we don't always include all the data for candidates who register at the very bottom of the list.

Republican Mitt Romney has pushed from a distant third place into a small lead in Iowa, the continuation of progress he has shown since the first of the year in the Hawkeye state, while Arizona Sen. John McCain has has remained steady and one-time front-runner Rudy Giuliani has slid substantially, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The telephone survey also shows that on the Democratic side of the aisle, the race in Iowa is remarkably stable – former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards continues to hold a small lead over Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

The poll, conducted May 14 and 15, 2007, included 511 likely participants in the Democratic caucus next January, which carries a margin of error of +/– 4.4 percentage points. The survey of likely Republican caucus–goers includes 478 respondents and carries a margin of error of +/– 4.6 percentage points.

Romney, who is also on top of the heap in the GOP race in New Hampshire, has nearly doubled since the last Zogby Iowa polling in March and has nearly quadrupled since January. Meanwhile, McCain has held steady over the same time period, while Giuliani has returned to where he was at the beginning of the year after a solid bump up in March. The percentage of undecided in the GOP race has remained constant at 22% throughout.

Romney’s jump comes as his organization in Iowa develops, and as Giuliani has wrestled with the abortion question and reports that he might downplay corn-fed caucus-goers in favor of GOP voters who will choose their favored presidential candidates in the weeks immediately after the Iowa caucuses. Romney is performing quite well among the very conservative and the conservative, while Giuliani has lost significant support among those likely voters – this coming after Romney’s strong performance on the CBS newsmagazine program 60 Minutes."

I have read interviews with John Zogby in which he has summarily dismissed RP as having no chance. I don't like John Zogby, I think he's a wank. Please keep in mind that the cited poll was released the day after the SC debate, yet Zogby has decided that RP should not ber included in the reported data, but Condi Rice should be????

Think this may have some bearing on RP's slide in Z's Iowa poll? I do.

Bosso