Should we really trust Zogby as an indicator for Iowa?

[mot78]

Zogby polls have had a reputation of being wrong before, like in the 2002 midterms where several of the Democrats who lost were ahead or tied with their Repug opponents. Zogby's polls are also typically skewed by a few points. Also, Dean and Gephardt have the strongest GOTV groups, and there are still a lot of undecideds. Anything can happen on monday.

[West Coast Democrat]

1. I'm also reminded that Zogby showed Hillary behind in New York

in 2000 polls. Zogby is better a nationwide pollster than a statewide pollster.

[R3dD0g]

2. Zogby has been remarkable

about finding the lost voters that other polling firms miss. That's why his polls are sometimes so different from others.

And about those Dem leaders in 2002, I think it only confirms what Bev Harris has been saying about 'black box voting'.

[rainy]

19. Should we worry about bbv in the primaries?

Afterall the Republicans who control the machines can manipulate this outcome. Which states will be using these machines in the primaries?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. Polls from any polling organization should be taken with a pound of salt

[Melodybe]

5. I agree the polls aren't really a good indicater of the actual voter turn

out.

[Nederland]

4. Not just Zogby

No pollster will ever claim to have an accurate picture of what will happen when the number of undecideds is as high as it currently is in Iowa. In truth, abuse of polls usually comes from people who are trying to read in a meaning that isn't there. Everytime I've ever seen a pollster on TV I'm impressed by their impartiality. They are merely collecting data and reporting results. Nothing more.

[West Coast Democrat]

6. Have you ever seen Frank Luntz on TV?

not all pollsters are impartial

[Nederland]

10. True

I should have specified non-party affiliated pollsters like NYTimes, Zogby and Gallup, etc. Luntz was a pollster for the Republican party, and therefore should not be trusted (any more that a pollster that used to work for the DNC for that matter).

[West Coast Democrat]

12. Yes, he is affiliated with the RNC

yet MSNBC has him on the air during elections talking to focus groups

[NewHampster]

27. I think Zogby plays tennis with Rove

Not really but who the heck is Zogby? A republican owned pollster? I wouldn't doubt it and this article at The American Prospect makes me wonder more. He seems to always be on the Wrong wing side of issues but since he's a pollster everybody thinks he must be honest and telling the truth. Bull Hockey

[IADEMO2004]

7. Does anyone with caller ID answer poll/unknown/out of area calls?

[sandnsea]

No, Dean actually has 45%

And everybody else is down around 9%. Feel better?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. lol

[molly]

13. LOL!

[oasis]

29. Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry.

:nopity: Tee he he

[phillybri]

8. Wasn't Zogby the only one that had Gore taking the popular vote???

:shrug:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

15. Yes it was! ONLY Zogby detected the final weeks momentum in...

favor of President Al Gore! He had him two (2) points ahead while
other polls such as the GALLUP "POLL" had GOVERNOR Bush leading by six (6) points and the NBC Wall Street Journal had it at
44% Gore and 48% Bush!

Trust Zogby!

[West Coast Democrat]

16. Zogby has a better track-record with nationwide polls

rather than statewide or local polls. Yes, he picked Gore in 2000, but as I stated before, he also picked Lazio over Hillary by 5%.

[ModerateMiddle]

9. No, I don't think you should take them seriously

Polling for a caucus just doesn't work.

;)

[Cheswick2.0]

14. the list they are using is from people who caucused 4 years ago

It is very unreliable, anything could happen. I don't beleive Kerry has a better following in Iowa than Gephardt and Dean. If he does it is because of dirty campaign tactics.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Did you make that up or what? It conflicts with what it says on the site.

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/index.cfm

[9119495]

17. I think Zogby is actually pretty accurate

but it is a good point that caucuses can be unpredictable. Kucinich voters could swing the count as they can switch groups if they don't have 15% of the room. He will have it in a few places but not all.

[Iverson]

18. trust? balderdash and nonsense!

We should trust the posters on DU forums, the shriller the better. There's even a soap opera about it, I think called "Search for Polemic." That's what to believe.n

[Hoosier Democrat]

20. Caucus polling is VERY unreliable!!

Because of th unique nature of the caucus process, it is almost always very difficult to determine the winner, especially in a race this hotly contested. Caucusing usually brings out the most committed candidate supporters, not just casual "voters".

Remember, in 1988, NONE of the pollsters saw Jackson upsetting Dukakis in the Michigan caucuses, let alone by a large margin.

One question I do have about this polling, and please correct me if 'm wrong. I think that Zogby and the others are polling based on lists of prior caucus attendees. This could under-report the numbers for candidates with a large "Youth" base, like Dean and Edwards and be "Overreporting" numbers for Gephardt. Just a thought

[mastein]

22. You have something

As a former (and hopefully future resident) of the Hawkeye State, I have been through a couple of these long cold Iowa evening with friends and neighbors. Its my understanding that this is probably going to be the best turnout ever in Iowa for caucus night by raw numbers and largest in percentage terms also. What I have not seen in any of the polling is "None" and "Undecided" both of which have previously been allowed as alternatives to candidates in the caucuses I went to.

[Clark4VotingRights]

23. I say don't trust any of the damn polls.

The media is behind most of them.
The media is not our friend.

[arewethereyet]

24. its just an indicator, not Gospel, think that way

and they're useful even if its Zogby.

That it has indicated a statistical dead heat is helpful. They probably are all rather close.

If negativity becomes a caucus issue in all those auditoriums and dens then it could wind up not so even.

Just an indication.

[Exgeneral]

25. many news reporters

refer to Zogby as "Crack info for the weak"
FWIW

[isbister]

26. No, don't...

... Kerry's going to come in last... Clark, Lieberman and Sharpton will beat him.

[Lobo_13]

28. No, for a couple of reasons

First, you don't always end up voting for your first choice. If Kucinich has 8% turnout and they break for Dean, there goes any polling lead.

It overlooks an intense round of horse-trading where the field is narrowed on the spot.

Besides, organization is everything because just saying you are going to vote doesn't make you go vote. People who are likely to vote can be dragged out. And independents can and will show up to skew the results.

Polls at this point mean nothing. Organization means everything.

[MIMStigator]

30. No

crazy polls

[stickdog]

31. He's not even close. (nt)