More About Polling And The Media

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

While I think this Wall St Journal blog post Jeralyn pointed out to me is right that ARG is a lousy pollster, I do find it ironic that Survey USA's poll ranking survey is referenced, but its Pennsylvania poll showing Hillary Clinton ahead by 18 is not. Instead, this strange comment from the Quinnipiac pollster is featured:

I don’t see that much movement in Pennsylvania myself,” Mr. Richards said by phone from Harrisburg on Monday. . . . Both pollsters agreed that Sen. Obama hasn’t been hurt much by his remarks about small-town Pennsylvania voters last week. . . . Mr. Richards said, “My hunch is [the remarks] won’t make much of a difference because most voters who might feel insulted by his comments were already Clinton voters or [R]epublicans who weren’t going to vote for him, anyway.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I never trust a pollster who is providing me with punditry. Mr. Richards lost a lot of my trust with that. In addition his expectations of what tonight's polling is going to be also is bothersome. SUSA is the world's greatest pollster right now based on the record and based on behavior. Maybe the Media will notice some day.

< More on the Indiana Poll Showing Hillary Up by 16 | The Philly Jefferson Jackson Dinner: Hillary vs. Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

More About Polling And The Media | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I hope they continue to underestimate (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by Teresa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:53:57 PM EST

Hillary in PA. The win will be that much more significant. Knock on wood.

I see a business (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST

in figuring out SUSA's method and cracking it. Imagine running Rasmussen's business, but doing it better and basing revenue on ads.

I know that you generally don't think much of polling BTD, but SUSA's method is clearly good enough that it could put most of the traditional pollsters out of business if you knew the right software and statistics people.

: SUSA will never get the media's (none / 0) (#32)
by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST

attention as long as they keep publishing polls that don't fit the media narrative.
The media keeps telling us Hillary can't win.
SUSA says otherwise.

What a strange argument (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by stillife on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:01:42 PM EST

by Richards. Isn't the whole idea of a campaign to expand the candidate's base?

He's basically writing off Hillary supporters and Republicans (nice how he lumped us in together). I guess we're the bigoted, xenophobic gun-toters.

This was my favorite part (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:31:45 PM EST

most voters who might feel insulted by his comments were already Clinton voters

You know, the ignorant and bitter folks Obama was talking about.


: They were bitter about losing jobs (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:35:09 PM EST

that "fell through" both the Clinton AND Bush presidency. But despite that bitterness of losing these supposed jobs under Clinton, they were are "already Clinton voters" anyway!
The genius of the pollsters and the pundits is one to behold. /snark

You don't have to be a Clinton supporter (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by PennProgressive on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:06:25 PM EST

or a republican to be insulted by what Senator Obama said. It is insulting to anyone who lives in a small town. It may be particularly insulting to Clinton supporters because it seemed that the remark by Senator Obama was not made casually. I may even remind the Senator and his supporters what he had said some time back "these are just words!" Those were not just mis-spoken words. For example, someone may say that" I did not meet Mr. X on Monday," when he actually did. I am willing to overlook that because sometimes people may not exactly be able to recall a fact. That may be a mis-statement. Whether that is serious or not, it depends on the context. But if someone says, "I know Mr. X and he is a vile man," that is an opinion and the speaker may have thought about it for sometime to come to that conclusion. So when someone states an opinion like that, it reflects what they think and is very difficult to discount it as a mis-statement. There are two possibilities here. First, Senator Obama thinks that people from small towns are bitter and they turn to guns and religion, become intolerant towards immigrants annd other things that they may not be familiar with. We frequently here that his supporters are well-educated, Starbucks going and wine-loving, whereas Clinton's supporters are not very educated, Walmart shopers and beer drinking public. Senator Obama was in his comfort zone in San Francisco and decided to come up with a rationale for not doing very well in small towns and rural areas and came up with a put-down to describe Clinton supporters. This is his opinion. I have to believe that some one like Senator Obama who believes in the power of words, meannt these. He and his campaign must believe this otherwise he would not have said so. There is a second possibility. In order to raise fund from wealthy donors from the wine country, he decided to insult the little guys from the small towns in coal and steel country. Senator Obama and his campaign has been divisive, contrary to their claim. As a resident of a small town, I am deeeply offended by it. I met manny of my neighbours over the last few days. Most of them don't care about politics.Many of them, I think do not even vote But almost all of them told me that they were insulted. The only people that I have seen dismiss this as unimportant are the Obama supporters. I am sure that this is not going to affect Senator Obama's nomination. But his remark, which I believe to be deliberate, has diminished him and his candidacy. The Democratic party will pay a huge price for this in November. But then what do I know ? I don't buy the hope stuff. I am bitter. I am from a small town.


: Very well said (none / 0) (#40)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST

I'm also from a tiny town, although in Vermont, which tends to be a bit different. But the folks here, dairy farmers mostly, are in terrible economic trouble and more and more people are giving up and selling their herds and their equipment to fewer and fewer buyers.
As far as I can tell, they're not the least bit bitter. They're sad and in pain. And they love their church and their guns, and they're so idealistic, they actually voted for Obama in the primary.
So as far as Im concerned, what he said makes no sense. I think your two alternatives are the right ones, maybe it's both combined. And both of them are really, really unattractive.
I'm not bitter, either, but boy, am I pissed off!

I wish they would take their big (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by athyrio on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST

fat foot off the scales and let this be a fair election.....

why is he telling us what his (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by english teacher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:24:54 PM EST

"hunch" is? why not just conduct the survey and tell us the results? based on this statement, my hunch would be this dude is concocting a set of biased poll questions which will validate his view, rather than producing an unbiased poll with reliable results. but that's just my "hunch" and i don't have any evidence to back it up.

QED (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM EST

Pollsters who pontificate are untrustworthy.


: pollsters can manipulate the results (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:56:15 PM EST

in the questions.
Clearly Survey USA has been the one to pay attention to this election cycle.

The pollster might want to rethink things (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Universal on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM EST

after they see Clinton's new stomach-punch of a TV spot for "Pennsylvania:"

http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=444#444

It's too bad they've waited so long to take Obama on like this, but better late than never.

Maybe they finally realized (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:09:02 PM EST

they are damned if they do and damned if they don't with the media and if they don't they are only guaranteeing that the issue will get swept under the rug by his apologists.

This is the moment and the Clinton campaign is seizing it.


: Just wanted to say sorry, diplomatic (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Universal on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST

About being tardy in responding to your email.
I don't use that account much but I put it out there so that people could contact me w/o giving out the email I use frequently.
My apologies. I have been flying around the last week or so.
Hope you're doing well.
Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"
:)

They finally have an issue... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by ineedalife on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST

where they won't be branded as racists for pushing. Even so, the woman used most in the ad is AA.

It's about time Hillary took the gloves off.


That's actually a fantastic ad... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by reynwrap582 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:29:05 PM EST

The problem with attack ads is they're usually so lacking in a genuinely positive message (obviously)...usually they just tack on the candidate's voiceover at the end with some pictures to try to take the sting off the attack. That ad was great simply because how well balanced it was with negativity/positivity. Negative attack, impact on voters (who you can't blame for being offended), then a change of gear for the voters to talk about how she's different in a positive light. Not playing it up too much, just letting the words carry. It takes a lot of the bad vibe off the negative part without taking away its impact.

No swirling blue clouds of Godly light necessary.


check (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by sas on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:40:48 PM EST

it out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ss1cloCv-9w

BTD you have the wrong link (none / 0) (#6)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:26:13 PM EST

that's not an L.A. times blog post in your current post but a link to a Wall Street Journal blog.

This is the L.A. Times link:

http://tinyurl.com/5ouoqj

That L.A. Times article... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:55:07 PM EST

get this...

Regardless, the New Hamphire-based ARG poll, may have identified a tactical worry for the Obama camp above and beyond the current controversy. Dick Bennett, head of the poll, told us today that even before the furor erupted, it appeared many Pennsylvania Democrats began to turn against Obama because they are simply sick and tired of seeing and hearing his ads.
Much as campaign consultants would be loath to agree, Bennett opined that a candidate "can spend too much money" on an ad campaign, and the saturation of Obama spots ...
in Pennsylvania appear to be a classic example of "overkill" that ultimately does harm.
Bennett also reported that some of the Pennsylvanians who his company contacted went on to complain about the substance of the ubiquitous Obama ads. They are "about him, not voters or what their concerns are," Bennett said. And Obama's comment on attitudes in small towns served to reinforce that feeling.

How come we're not discussing this?


Because it's equally stupid punditry (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:59:58 PM EST

and anyway his polls tend to stink.


: Plenty of discussion about stupid punditry (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM EST

that never stopped anyone here.

I have posted 3 times about it (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:04:54 PM EST

Earlier today I mentioned I found it interesting that Obama's ad buy may be backfiring. Potential over-saturation effect according to the owner of ARG.


"I made a speech about this in 2002" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:09:15 PM EST

haha! Actually, a bunch of us (maybe you!) were talking about this a while back when the record breaking ad spend numbers in PA came out--more spent than ever in the history of the state.

I was so sick of Obamads in GA that I stopped watching local TV. I just couldn't take it anymore. I can't imagine what it has been like in PA. It's interesting what they say about the ads--how they're all about him, because of course, that strategy has worked time and time again for Obama. He is the ultimate brand.

Freakanomics: money doesn't always win.

Hint to future candidates: don't give your campaign advisors a cut of the media buy.


I mentioned this a couple weeks ago - (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Anne on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:21 PM EST

the law of diminishing returns.

And I was remembering that he did the same thing in Ohio and it didn't help him there, either.

When he was advertising here in MD, I had to hit the mute button, because one of his ads had him saying "tuh" instead of "to" about three times and it just made me want to throw something at the TV.


: On annoying diction (none / 0) (#50)
by cymro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:53:49 PM EST

OT, but I sympathize with your reaction to the use of "tuh" instead of "to." Personally, I don't even notice that one, but I find commercials in which the speaker says "een" instead of "ing" especially annoying. Obama does not seem to suffer from this, however.

Horrible (none / 0) (#27)
by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM EST

It's been horrible. Sometimes (particularly in the mornings) there's an Obama political ad at every commercial break. There are a few Clinton ads here and there. I've actually noticed them more on the radio during my commute. I'm not a big fan of political ads anyway but now I'm just getting totally fed up. Between that and the phone calls (!) I'm ready to scream. But I still don't think it's as bad as 2004.


swing states (none / 0) (#29)
by Nasarius on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:27:43 PM EST

Have fun in September/October :-)


Like Water in a Desert (none / 0) (#30)
by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST

Like a movie that shows too much of itself in trailers, people are going to be underwhelmed - and already are getting tired of 'Me Me Me' Obama.

Hillary knows that a few ads to remind people of who she is ought to do just fine.


And it was the same ad (none / 0) (#33)
by joanneleon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST

over and over and over. Obama in front of the gas station, saying he doesn't take any money from oil companies.

I was sick in bed two weeks ago and I saw the same ad 15-20 times on three different networks and I wasn't watching tv all the time (just more than usual).

This was weeks before the actual primary. All I could think of was how much worse it would get as the election day approached. At the same time there were no Clinton ads. I thought it was odd and excessive. Just throwing money away, IMHO.


You'd think with all the hip kids... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by reynwrap582 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:15:53 PM EST

behind him, with their Macbooks and their Final Cut Pro, he'd have a million and one different commercials to choose from. It doesn't take a marketing genius to know that after someone has seen the same commercial a few times, it's lost any further impact it may have. Sad that they spend so much money airing commercials but so little producing them.


he's not throwing money away, (none / 0) (#38)
by english teacher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:10:40 PM EST

he is buying his media darling status.


: So (none / 0) (#39)
by joanneleon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:12:15 PM EST

whoever buys the most ads gets the best treatment?

I think sometimes (none / 0) (#25)
by waldenpond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:10:13 PM EST

a candidate will saturate but then pull up just before the voting. Get the name out, but then give it time to cool off. I wouldn't have expected him to run the ads up to election day. If he does, it would be unusual.


New polls coming out tomorrow (none / 0) (#8)
by hungrywolf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:33:53 PM EST

BTD -
There are two significant, usually reliable polls coming out tomorrow. One, to which you referred, is a Quinnipiac, and the Wall Street Journal is reporting it shows Hillary ahead by 6. The comments you have referenced are the results comment from this poll.
The second poll is by RealClearPolitics, and shows Hillary ahead by three in PA.

that was already out (none / 0) (#10)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST

Hillary is up by more than 3 in Pennsylvania. But let's let the media push those numbers if they want and let her win the expectations game yet again.


Remember how freaked folks were (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST

(including me!) when Bill Clinton said she had to win OH and TX?

I think that the candidates have really, really good internal polling where they don't d*ck around with the questions or insert their hopes and dreams into the resulting data, but just get hard numbers. It seems to me it comes down to the basic science of demographics, and punching the numbers in on what the turn out will be.

If Obama thought he was winning, he wouldn't be sweating so badly right now. I guarantee they are getting internal polls that are a lot more honest than the ones we get. O's last FEC filing showed he outspent Clinton on polling by a great deal. That would actually explain a lot of the desperation we're seeing in his campaign now.


Bill Clinton also said (none / 0) (#21)
by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST

that if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and Indiana, he thinks she will be the nominee.


: I do love him so... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:09:47 PM EST

Dang, Kathy (none / 0) (#42)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:17:29 PM EST

you did it again! This is exactly the brilliant point I was about to make, and you beat me to it.

I agree completely. If you want to know what the real polling says, watch the behavior of the candidates. Hillary's serene performance at the dinner tonight and Obama's flailing around over the last few days I think tells the story of what both candidates are seeing from their own polls.


I agree. Team Obama likes to (none / 0) (#51)
by BlueMerlin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM EST

talk UP their chances with a kind adolescent "trash talk" hoping to demoralize the opposition. This means they tend to overestimate their chances. While this may work in the locker room or on the sports field, it's not clear that it works in politics.

For one thing -- if I may express a stereotype ... apologies in advance -- half the voters are women and women don't necessarily buy into locker room rules. To the contrary, they are likely to render assistance to the victim. Silently, perhaps, but with great conviction.


Huh, RCP doesn't do polls itself (none / 0) (#15)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST

from anything I've seen on its site, where I go daily. Maybe I missed it, but what it does is compile many polls (and much other info).

So what is your source for this?


I thought RCP (none / 0) (#28)
by Andy08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM EST

only averaged others polls. Do they do their own as well?


I thought (none / 0) (#26)
by Andy08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:20:53 PM EST

they cared about teh 10% or so that are still undecided.

Aren't they, the people who the pollsters should worry about re. a potential fallout of Obama's remarks?

Love the (none / 0) (#35)
by sas on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST

Ad!

It puts the screws to him and doesn't let him spin his way out of it.

The Super D's better look at the popular vote.

This guy is unelectable.

His hunch? (none / 0) (#36)
by joanneleon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:04:31 PM EST

What? So the guy representing the polling organization is making statements based on his hunch?

Wow. I always considered Quinnipiac to be one of the most reputable polling organizations.

I would hope they aren't happy about one of their people making statements like this. But he's one of only five people listed on their web site as the leaders of the organization:

Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Polling Institute and chief spokesperson for the New Jersey and Pennsylvania polls can be reached via e-mail at clay.richards@quinnipiac.edu.

Methodology
Interviewing for the Quinnipiac University Poll is conducted from the facilities of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Professionally trained students and non-students conduct the interviews using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing system). For a typical public opinion survey a randomly-selected sample of about 1,000 adults aged 18 and over are interviewed over a 5-6 day period.
For a sample of 1,000 adults, the sampling error is 3.1 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. This means that 95 percent of the time, the results obtained should be no more than 3.1 percentage points above or below the figure that would be obtained by interviewing the entire population.
Mission Statement
The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute conducts timely and accurate public opinion polls on politics and public policy in Connecticut, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and nationally as a public service and for academic research.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2010.xml

His hunch (none / 0) (#43)
by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:20:41 PM EST

does not strike as far off though. I think that opinion is largely calcified among supporters of both camps. Obama's supporters will go down with the ship, it is hard to see what can get them to change their minds. And so will many of Clinton's. No doubt there are both undecided voters and a group of swing voters and these I think will make the margin of difference. If Clinton can capture the lion's share of these then I think she win by strong double digits. The tide does seem to be breaking in her direction having withstood the ad onslaught Obama had the past month and now buoyed by his gaffe.

The key now seems is getting turnout and the demographics relevant in each of the remaining primaries. Granted 20 point victories could lead to a collapse of support down the line.

I always thought... (none / 0) (#44)
by reynwrap582 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM EST

That a good chunk of the voting block was not all that involved in politics and could be swayed relatively easily one way or another if their was a substantial enough event. To simply write it off as "only people who were voting for someone else would care" is a little shortsighted. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are not completely in the tank for him but planned to vote for him, who will take pause from this and reconsider...either by voting for someone else or by not bothering to vote at all. You don't have to get a voter to switch sides in order to win, you merely need to make them a tad more apathetic. This is the kind of thing Obama can do to make his supporters more apathetic.

By all means though, Obama's people should downplay it as much as possible. No skin off my back. ;)

Speaking of the media, BTD... (none / 0) (#46)
by Dawn Davenport on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:34:03 PM EST

...did you see that Howie Kurtz quoted you on the first page of his column today?

: wow! (none / 0) (#48)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:51:34 PM EST

I wonder if I can get his otty-graph!