More fun and fascinating facts on polling with specific focus on the NV Senate race....
Jon Ralston: The consequences of flawed public pollingBy Jon Ralston (contact)
Friday, Oct. 8, 2010 | 2:02 a.m.
Polling is arcane to most laymen — and, alas, to most media folks. But public polling, which is as flawed this cycle as any I have covered, can create and drive a narrative.
If you think I am alone in my observation about public polls, consider what the inestimable pundit Charlie Cook wrote a couple of weeks ago:
“More than in any previous cycle that we’ve witnessed, perceptions of the ebb and flow of races are being driven by state- and district-level polling. This does not mean that there is better polling, just more … Probably 90 percent of the public polling in statewide and district races is mediocre at best, and much of it is very close to worthless.”
Exactly. And why? Because it is done on the cheap and the internals of the poll often expose, as Cook and others (including yours truly) have pointed out, why they are worthless.
Cook made another key point — that polling done for news organizations often is less than reliable:
“I should echo an argument made several weeks ago by my good friend and competitor Stu Rothenberg. He scoffed at those who mistakenly believed that polls conducted independently from the candidates and parties were inherently better or more reliable than campaign polling. My view is that most academic polling, as well as the polling sponsored by local television stations and newspapers, is dime-store junk.”
Mason-Dixon, driving the Las Vegas Review-Journal narrative in this contest, has used an array of samples and ballot tests, without much consistency. But it’s not just local news organizations that are doing a disservice and driving a narrative — let’s look at the polls released this week:
• CNN: 42-40, Angle. The survey did not poll anyone under 35 — some of those young ’uns do vote — and even worse, it gave independent voters (only 15 percent of the electorate here) comparable weight as Democrats and Republicans, who have twice the registration of nonpartisans.
• Fox: 49-46, Angle. These are push-button polls by an offshoot of Rasmussen Reports. This one surveyed more men than women (no one thinks that will be the actual composition) and more Republicans than Democrats (even Republican strategists don’t think the enthusiasm gap will make up for a 5 percentage point deficit in registration).
• Rasmussen: 50-46, Angle. Rasmussen, another auto-dialer company, has long been thought to skew GOP, although it has had some success in calling races. But the ballot test here is off by not having a “none of the above” option and not listing the other candidates.
As Cook put it: “The far more sophisticated polling is done by top-notch professional polling firms for campaigns, parties and major business and labor organizations. These polls are considerably more expensive and the methodology is more rigorous.
“Most of these surveys are not made public, but insiders can be made aware of them.”
So, as Cook points out, there are two separate conversations, the public and private. And the private one is that Reid is slightly ahead, not Angle. I would bet a lot of money both campaigns think he is slightly ahead.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/08/jon-ralston-consequences-flawed-public-polling/ And this is the CNN poll to which I'm referring...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore