Posted on 05/24/2004 5:34:37 PM PDT by KQQL
Zogby 16 state polls
May 18-23
Bush and Kerry may be speaking to all of America, but their campaign advisers are focusing on a narrower slice of the population and targeting the candidates' messages to voters in particularly contentious states. Zogby Interactive is conducting polls in 16 of those states chosen by WSJ.com. See the latest results.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Almost everything was in the margin of error, and when it wasn't he actually overstated Bush's results more than Gore.
Also, some of your numbers below are wrong (such as California, where the final Zogby poll had it tied.)
Link.
Zogby's accuracy record is subpar.
To wit:
Coleman (R) 45% Mondale (D) 51% Zogby 11/3-11/4 (Mondale did not even come close)More.Allard (R) 46% Strickland (D) 51% Zogby 11/2-11/4 (Allard won comfortably)
Cornyn (R) 50% Kirk (D) 46% Zogby 11/3-11/4 50% 46% (Cornyn won huge)
Chambliss (R) 47% Cleland (D) 50% Zogby 11/3-11/4 (Cleland lost comfortably)
Thune (R) 52% Johnson (D) 47% Zogby 11/3-11/4 (It was a Johnson win by less than 1)
Talent (R) 53% Carnahan (D) 45% Zogby 11/3-11/4 (It was a 1 point race)
And also:
Let me provide some details. If his polling methodology was superior to his competitors, this would have translated to success at the state levels (especially since to get a good national picture, one would have to have a good geographical balance in the sample). Mr. Zogby was all over the place on the state battles.More
- Mr. Zogby totally had New York, his area of most expertise and experience, wrong. The following was reported on election day:
"Lazio has been closing the gap since last Thursday," Utica, NY pollster John Zogby told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly. Zogby's Monday tracking poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a two point lead. But the polster said she's losing ground steadily in the final hours before the voting begins Tuesday morning.Mrs. Clinton absolutely crushed Mr. Lazio.
- In the largest state, California, Mr. Zogby's poll released Monday, November 6, 2000 showed Mr. Gore with all of a one point edge over Mr. Bush. As Mr. Goeas of the Tarrance Group pointed out, that is particularly nonsensical in light of the fact that Mr. Zogby had Gore up by a few points nationally at that time. This was not just an "outlier" (a poll that is just plain off, which is to be expected statistically about 1 in 20 times). Mr. Zogby had Gore up by only 3 in California on November 3.
Mr. Gore won California by 12 percent.
- In the final Zogby national poll, which is the one which supposedly "nailed" the election, we see the following demographic breakdowns:
"Gore continues to lead in the East (53% - 37%) while Bush is ahead in the Central/Great Lakes (Bush 50%, Gore 46%). Gore and Bush are in a virtual tie in the South (Gore 48% - Bush 47%), while there also continues to be a virtual tie in the West (Bush 47% - Gore 46%)."Mr. Gore did not carry a single southern state, and in most he did not even come close. And while Mr. Gore did win four western states (California, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico) so as to make it likely that he did cause the west to be a push overall, since Mr. Zogby was overstating Mr. Bush's support by about 11% in California, this means that he was understating Mr. Bush's support by a comparable amount in the rest of the west in order to get to that virtual tie.
- On 11/3, Mr. Zogby had Ohio showing a lead for Mr. Gore. On 11/5, Mr. Zogby had Ohio showing a 10 point lead for Mr. Bush. That is a tremendous swing, one that defies credulity, especially when one considers that nationally, Mr. Zogby was showing the trend moving away from Mr. Bush and towards Mr. Gore. Mr. Bush won Ohio by 4 points.
Not a single other poll showed any major change in voter sentiment in Ohio during this timeframe.
- On October 31, 2000, Mr. Zogby had Mr. Gore leading Florida by 11 points. Mr. Gore campaigned non-stop in the last few days in Florida while Mr. Bush did not. The race in Florida, as we all know all too well, was a dead heat.
Not a single other poll showed the swings in Florida voter sentiments that Mr. Zogby was showing.
- From 10/29 to 10/31, Mr. Zogby showed Mr. Bush increasing his lead in the national level, from 3 points to five points. But what was he showing on the state level? Here is a chart to demonstrate:
In other words, while his national poll was showing movement towards Mr. Bush, nearly every one of his battleground state polls were showing movement towards Mr. Gore. His own polls were inconsistent with each other.State 10/29 10/31 Change Florida Gore +5 Gore +11 Gore +6 Tennessee Bush +11 Bush +5 Gore +6 Pennsylvania Bush +7 Gore +3 Gore +10 Michigan Tied Gore +1 Gore +1 Missouri Gore +2 Bush +1 Bush +3 Ohio Bush +3 Bush +5 Bush +2 Wisconsin Gore +6 Gore +8 Gore +2 Illinois Gore +7 Gore +7 No Change
- Mr. Zogby gets credit for being the first to show the late movement towards Mr. Gore. In reality, Mr. Zogby's polls showed a big change from Mr. Bush leading on 11/5 to Mr. Gore leading on 11/6. Since his poll was a rolling sample, to get such a marked change in one day, either a very good day for Mr. Bush had to fall off the rotating sample, or a very good day for Mr. Gore had to be added. Since Mr. Zogby's numbers had been pretty steady for the week preceding, we can infer that the former was not the case. In order for a four day tracking poll to make a 4 point swing in one day when the day falling out of the sample was not an outlier, the day coming into the sample must have been tremendous for Mr. Gore, on the order of a 10 point lea for that day's sample. Unlike the Gallup poll, in which the one day sample sizes were so small that days where the numbers would jump that much were statistically feasible, Mr. Zogby was sampling over 400 people per day, which makes such swings difficult to explain by statistical chance.
And finally:
In 1998, Zogby was out on a limb by his lonesome, predicting an Al D'Amato win in New York and a Carol Mosley-Braun win in Illinois. The limb broke.More.
You would be hard pressed to find a single pollster who has had so many high profile races so completely wrong from 1998 onward. He's been right sometimes, and he's been wrong sometimes. He just happens to be wrong more than most pollsters. Throw on top of it doing online sampling, where people have to choose themselves first, and thanks but no thanks.
So does CBS
The numbers I gave were not the Zogby International figures but rather the Zogby Interactive figures from 2000.
You are correct, the final Zogby International figure for California on 11/4-6 had Bush and Gore tied at 45%-45%; the final Zogby Interactive poll on 11/3-5 had Gore leading Bush 47%-44% as I posted.
It is entirely your prerogative to dismiss Zogby's polling as you deem fit, but simply keep in mind that his 2000 record suggests you do so at your 'peril'...
* leaving aside partisan polls.
Oh, and having said that I should also add that I have no great problem with rejecting this particular methodology out of hand. Like I said, I just think one should be mindful of the record in the course of doing so.
There will be plenty of polls to work with from these states even excluding Zogby's tracking, so whatever!
"Released: March 18, 2004LinkThis Zogby Interactive poll is a test and reflects only the opinions of those registered online users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot nor should be assumed to represent the opinions of U.S. voters in general or the public as a whole. We hope to be able to provide statistically reliable interactive polls in the near future."
His 1998 and 2002 records beg to differ with you about "at your peril".
And his 2000 tracking polls were not the online polls he is doing now- and I still suspect that you have the wrong numbers for a few of those states although I do suppose it is possible Newsmax does.
And I stand by my assertion- his 2000 accuracy was nothing to write home about. He completely blew California. He blew New York. His polls were making wild swings beyond the margin of error that no other pollster was seeing. He had more states outside the margin of error than can be explained by random chance-- and that was in a year he was doing well. In 2002, he missed most of the key races. Not one or two- most.
What a sad commentary on our country.
I believe Zogby was the only poll that had Cuomo losing in 94. Others had him winning comfortably. (Now there was a good year in politics).
I went back and doublechecked the numbers and I did post the wrong ones for Wisconsin. The 46%-46% tie was Zogby International. This was the tracking poll:
Zogby: Bush 47%; Gore 44%
Actual: Bush 46%; Gore 46%
Once more, I haven't any problem with dismissing the methodology out of hand. It is not widely accepted and so is certainly subject to discretion. I haven't any problem with accepting it either. My personal approach is to include everything with the assumption that outlier polls will be superceded by other polls quickly enough. If Zogby gets it wrong, then that's fine by me. It's his reputation that will suffer accordingly..
In my personal approach to things, Kerry is currently winning with about 320-327 EVs to about 211-218 EVs for Bush. The president's reelection campaign would be wise to behave accordingly rather than follow a faith-based approach....
Opps! On Wisconsin make that:
Zogby: Bush 47%; Gore 44%
Actual: Bush 48%; Gore 48%
Later. Time for bed.
My bias is this: undecideds tend to break almost entirely for the challenger. This is the average of Bush's recent poll numbers (last month and a half) in battleground states from your very own blog.
Arizona: 43%
Arkansas: 48%
Florida: 46%
Iowa: 46%
Michigan: 43%
New Hampshire: 46%
New Jersey: 42%
New Mexico: 46%
Oregon: 45%
Pennsylvania: 43%
Wisconsin: 45%
West Virginia: 48%
In all cases where Nader is an option those figures are preferred. If you think these are the numbers of an incumbent president headed for reelection, you are probably in for a rude awakening if they keep up.
Assigning all other states to their 2000 results and switching only those indicated above (Bush 2000 states polling under 50%) gives Kerry 332 EVs. Assuming that either AR or WV will slip through for Bush gives 326/327 playing around with other states on the cusp (AZ, MO, NV, WI) centers Kerry EVs somewhere in the 320s. This Zogby poll implies 320 EVs, so for the time being I'm content with a 320-327 projection if the election were held tomorrow.
If you want to keep pretending as many do that this election is an open contest, then be my guest. I will assume that it's following the 'rules' of past incumbent reelection efforts until I have reason to think otherwise (i.e., Nov 3rd). You may think it's good news for GWB when he's tied with Kerry or slightly leading with numbers in the mid or low 40s, but I don't. Sorry.
And to clarify part of what I said, here's the difference between assuming you're behind and taking action according or going with a 'faith-based' approach.
The 'faith-based' approach in my estimation is the one that says: Iraq will improve after the June 30 transfer of power and voters will give more credit to the economic recovery and this will lift GWB to victory. Also, Kerry is not that charismatic or trustworthy and the more voters get to know him the less willing they'll be to take a chance on him.
The course suggested by exceedingly weak polling is the one that outlines a broad and detailed agenda for the second term that amounts to more than 'stay the course' when 'stay the course' is obviously not resonating.. Then again, perhaps they're waiting for the general election campaign before they take that route (if it still seems necessary).
I guess we'll see. There's also the debates which can be more pivotal than anything else.
Oh, and let me interject one final point as a note of optimism. In terms of polling, this 2004 election to me seems more like 1976 (as I've mentioned before) and 1948 (which I didn't experience, but based on the pattern) than it does 1980 or 1992 - to which it's more frequently compared. Therefore, to me at this juncture, this suggests a come-from-behind surge for GWB much more so than a downward spiral.
What it definitely does not evoke is 1972, 1984, or 1996.
WSJ.com actually paid for the CRAP!
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.