I've limited my discussion to his record in Presidential races. So we have here a guy who was first and in the top 3 in the past two presidential elections. Yet we still have some here claiming he's inaccurate? What gives?
| 2000-Preliminary | Gore | Bush | Nader | Undecided | Other |
| Election Results | 48% | 48% | 3% | 1% | |
| Zogby | 48% | 46% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
| CBS | 45% | 44% | 4% | 5% | 2% |
| Harris (Phone) | 47% | 47% | 5% | 0% | 1% |
| Gallup/CNN/USA Today | 46% | 48% | 4% | 0% | 2% |
| Pew Research | 47% | 49% | 4% | 0% | 0% |
| IBD/CSM/TIPP | 46% | 48% | 4% | 0% | 2% |
| ICR/Politics Now | 44% | 46% | 7% | 1% | 2% |
| NBC/WSJ | 44% | 47% | 3% | 4% | 2% |
| ABC/WashPost | 45% | 48% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
| Battleground | 45% | 50% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
Here is my point about Mr. Zogby. Any dufus out there can claim the race is a "dead heat", i.e. within the margin of error, because it most likely is at this point. So I believe he is in a "holding pattern" until he is forced to show something one way or another. IF he is so sure that John Kerry is going to win this election and the underlying job approval numbers and people who want a new president show this, then why is Mr. Kerry not doing better than the 45-46 level in almost any poll that I have seen. A fair analysis of his own data, if he cared to do so, would involve him discussing in his editorial comments that it appears voters are not at all sold on Mr. Kerry for some reason (for which he could be polling on other questions if he wanted) etc.
But no, his editorial comments just say things like "boy this looks like 2000 all over again", "Kerry is incrementally chewing into the Bush lead" and "he shows a big advantage in new registrations" and on with the Democrat talking points.
Having said all of that, I will NEVER completely discount Zogby because I believe he is so biased and intimately familiar with the Democrat machine and the likely fraud that he may be showing a legitimate "fraud factor" in his results. He carped about "minority undersampling" in 2000, which I believe was the 2000 election cover for their fraud attempts. Now I tend to believe the "massive new voter registrations" are the cover this time.
In the 2000 race his polling was consistantly tilted to Gore and was out of line with the other polls as it went along. The reason he finshed close was that his results were already skewed toward Gore at the time of the Bush DUI disclosure in November of 2000 and Bush stupidly was campaigning in California(a lost cause) when he should have been in Florida. The DUI thing hurt a point or two and Zogby was positioned to benefit.
As to the State polling example. You cannot separate the polster from polling. It proves he does not get lucky every time he pulls numbers out of the air. I could criticize Zogby's methodology, but he does not disclose it. Other polling organizations and pundits have critcized the lack of disclosure.