Posted on 10/28/2004 7:16:37 PM PDT by Scot1458
Internal vs. exteranl polls
With all the talk of internal polls vs. external polls, I must ask. What really is the difference? Why would those who poll for the campaigns actually have a different or more accurate account then say Zogby?
Internal polls are the real numbers, no spin.
One word: money. Internal campaign polls not just for horserace but also for turnout. They know what the turnout is going to be, who really is going to vote, and their sample sizes are very large. They are also very expensive. Lots of campaing money is burned in internal polls because they tell you precisely where you need to spend your time and money.
Because the market works. Vote BUSH!
I have read plenty of posts where people say they were polled by Zogby or Gallup and, apparently, knew the outfit questioning them. If campaigns have better polls, I would think they make frequent phone calls. Has anyone ever been polled by either the Bush/Cheney or Kedwards campaign that you know of?
putting enough real reporters throughout the world to get meaningful news is too costly for tv stations to turn a profit.
The internal polls measure more than the pure horse race. They test how hard or soft the support is, the specific geographical and demographic nature of the support, the likelihood of voting, etc. Internal polling also has a lot of history in that you can compare what you are getting now against previous races on a precinct by precinct basis. It is very sophisticated, but the info is only slightly better than what the public is getting from the press. There usually aren't any real surprises.
It's like most marketing research in that the candidates spend a whole bunch of cash to verify what they pretty much already know.
In spite of the sophistication of the research, when you are in the trenches during the last few weeks you are always groping around in the dark with one eye open. The info will always be imperfect. If anything, today's campaigns over-rely on research to the detriment of good old fashioned nuts and bolts campaigning.
Good comments.
The intuitive campaigners go with their gut feelings. And core values. Reagan had that quality.
I think W has a better feel for what people want to hear. He is just not an impressive speaker, usually. Though he does have his moments.
Kerry seems to run in the back room and check with his pollsters to get talking points [frequently]. So, now matter how well he might say it (and truly, I can't see him as a good speaker either) he comes across as insincere.
May God have mercy on your soul. That is one evil, bigoted, and terrible person.
P
Is Cheney in Hawaii due to internal polling? What gives? Ah-LOWWWW-ha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.