How reliable/useful are Zogby Polls?

[kang]

I stumbled across this Zogby poll paid for by the DraftClark people. My question is (for people who have studied polling) how reliable are these polling results? Do professional pollsters shade their data to tell their customers what they want to hear or is this unlikely?

There's full pdf file of the polling results and analysis at this link:

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/poll.htm

I'm still undecided (yes, I'm the silly guy advocating another Bob Kerrey run), but if this info is solid it does seem to suggest that Clark isn't as much of a long shot many people think.

[meatloaf]

1. As a whole I really don't know, but at the end of the

2000 campaign they were the only major poll that I know of that showed Gore with a slight lead that manifested itself with his win at the polls if not in the USSChouse.

[papau]

2. Info is solid - but was question asked on point - a "blind bio" is

not what folks base their vote on.

[dofus]

3. In any kind of polling,

in any kind of research, the first question you should always ask is, "Who paid for it?"

That said, Zogby is considered fairly reliable. However, look at this particular methodology. "Blind bio", meaning people didn't know WHO was being described, although they seemed to prefer the person whose bio was Clark's.

In 2000, a very clear majority of people agreed with the Democratic/Liberal point of view, and yet only a bare majority voted for Al Gore. People don't vote for a blind bio, but for the actual person, or what they perceive that person to be. Or they cast a vote against the guy they don't want elected.

If we were all required to understand the issues and vote rationally, a lot of us wouldn't make the cut to vote. And a lot of us would probably be surprised to learn we "ought" to be voting for someone else.

[eyesroll]

7. Also with a "blind bio," consider who's writing the bio.

I didn't see the Draft Clark bios on Clark or his opponents, but one could write them in such slanted language that of course Clark would win.

Not saying they did that, but they could have, as could any organization who wanted a poll in their favor.

[kang]

4. Thanks for the responses

I must say that I hadn't heard of a "blind bio" poll until now, so I wasn't sure whether it was SOP for polls trying to gauge potential voter support for a candidate. I wonder whether they did that because Clark's pitch/appeal will be his bio and they're banking on the hope that the media will get his name out there since they're hungry for a hot new story.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. In the mid-term elections...

Zogby was the only poll to detect a surge in support for the Republicans in the last weeks on the campaign cycle.

Just as in 2000 they detected a surge for Al Gore!

[LynneSin]

6. And they just detected Bush below 50% in their most recent polls

http://www.zogby.com

[ButterflyBlood]

9. as I explained below

that's only if you count ever "fair" vote as disapprove, which isn't always true.

[ButterflyBlood]

8. Zogby tends to rate lower than other polls because

rather than simply asking if people approve or disapprove they are given 4 categories to rate, Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor. The first two are counted as approving and the last two as not approving. Problem is not everyone who says "Fair" neccesarily disaproves. This was true during Clinton too, Zogby was always lower. However the fact that Bush has fallen this low is a very good sign as it shows other polls will soon drop as well.

[CMT]

10. Zogby was one of the few pollsters

who put Gore ahead of Bush in his final poll in 2000. He also predicted a Gore victory in Florida which did happen had all the ballots been counted/ the butterfly ballot not occured.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

11. I do not think they are too accurate

Excited as I am about the Zogby polls that have shown Dean crushing Kerry in NH, leading nationwide and the president's approval ratings below 50%, it seemed to me that Zogby was wrong about a LOT of the 2002 races, so I am a little skeptical. Any polls that show such drastic swings each time and are way off from other polls are kind of suspect. But it is a respected company, so I do take them somewhat seriously.

New products in my Dean stores:

[Lexingtonian]

12. generally pretty good

They do seem to have a better question-asking strategy and demographic modelling than other polling operations. And they did catch the late Republican surge last November- criticism on that is wrong because their privately paid for polling showed it building during the last few days before Election Day, when (for pretty obvious business reasons- they are for-profit) they stopped releasing data for public access. Democratic candidates just hoped their turnout data was wrong, but it wasn't.

I would put their general numbers as usually within 2% and quite often within a quarter of that. Other outfits skew fairly predictably, in that sense they're almost as useful. For example Gallup tends presently to overrepresent conservative numbers and turnout, so if you correct their numbers by 5%-7% you get the actual number that all of the polling out there converges upon. But, back on topic, no other polling operation has released any numbers contradicting Zogby's- that is usually the way competing campaigns show up bogus claims of great polling numbers.

The problem with the Clark numbers is that the man is already substantially more than the biography in the public mind. Sure, as he is known at the moment he appeals to certain categories of Democrats and swing voters, but there are many others out there who lean the other way. (I, for example, don't agree with the coyness he has shown all along and the obvious lack of insight into the domestic political big picture he had during and after his salad days directing the Kosovo operation. I don't take his bio at face value, knowing that he and Clinton needed and helped each other out/ahead then- which is both impressive of and diminishing to Clark to me. I wish I could see the insight-requiring adeptness and potential for principled political courage to him, and the insightfulness into the Culture War required for a successful Democratic President, but I don't.)

Btw, I guess you already know that Kerrey and Kerry were good friends during the time they shared in the Senate.

[kang]

13. Question about Clark Comment

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand the part where you talked about Clinton and Clark helping each other out. Could you elaborate? I understand that they are on good terms and were so when Clinton was in office, but did something inappropriate happen? I do know Clark was one of the few senior brass advocating intervention in Rwanda and Bosnia. This issue is important to me since a President will have to be a real leader in order to stop the next genocide. It's not like popular support/awareness will come first (no time and too many excuses for inaction).

And yes, I've heard that Kerrey and Kerry were friendly (as are most of the Vietnam vets in the Senate). The difference btw the two men though is that Kerry has wanted to be president since he was in college (or perhaps earlier) while I don't think Bob Kerrey has ever had a master plan like that. He was governor, then he walked after one term, then he was Senator, then he retired to start a new family and take the New School post. I kind of like a guy who doesn't think of his political career as the most important thing in his life; it suggests that they'll make the right choice even if it costs them.