Replies

You should read up on the differences between Zogby International and Zogby Interactive polls. That's problem one with trying to take this as anything more than an interesting thing to note.

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)
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)

More.

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.
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:
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
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.
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.

More

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.

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'...

PS. I already mentioned that Zogby had some notorious misfires. I have no problem with criticizing Zogby to your heart's content. I am hardly a Zogby advocate per se. What I do have a problem with is people picking & choosing polls* at their convenience and then claiming objectivity.

* 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!

Zogby also likes to put out completely nonsensical numbers for an entire campaign, and then say there was a "last minute surge" during the last two days of polling... and he then goes on in the media talking about this "dramatic shift"... like clockwork... and people still fall for it everytime.

There are some pollsters that I respect who seem to stay away from playing games: TIPP, SurveyUSA, Mason-Dixon, Field Poll (California pollster). SurveyUSA has probably been the most accurate pollster since 2002.