Déjà vu: In 2004, John Zogby Admitted His Polls Numbers Were Suspect

[wyldwolf]

Right-wing puppet pollster John Zogby, whose polls are used by the likes of NBC and reported widely in the non-M/I media, made clear today in an interview given on a talk radio station in California that he knows his own numbers showing a virtual dead heat between Kerry and Dean are complete bunk.

Asked by the host why his poll results are so different from everyone else’s, showing Dean only trailing Kerry by 3 points, 28-25%, within the poll's margin of error, Zogby’s response made clear his poll should not be taken seriously but, in fact, is only trying to push a result he is trying to achieve.

Zogby told the KFWB host, “Well, I don’t see a scenario where Dean wins this, it just seems he will return to previous levels of support.”

In other words, his stand out, attention-getting poll which contradicts all the other polls (sound familiar?) - which say Kerry has a wide lead and Dean is only battling for second or third - is not to be taken seriously. Look at his comment. He just released a poll showing a dead heat, Dean gaining fast and now only 3 points behind Kerry, but he doesn’t “see a scenario where Dean wins this.”

If Dean really had gained as his poll says and pulled within three points of Kerry, Zogby would be saying Dean clearly has the momentum, Kerry is on the way down, and so Dean has a good shot at it....

... Notice the second part of Zogby’s comment: “…he will return to previous levels of support.” He repeated that again later in the interview. And, of course, when asked about third place, said he thought Edwards would overtake Clark. Remember, the question posed to Zogby by the interviewer was why his poll differed so much from all the others. Zogby completely avoided responding, instead said he doesn't "see a way" what his poll says could possibly happen in reality, and then, again, talked about what he thinks the results show - all without ever responding to the actual question: why are your poll results so different from the others?

The best part was that the radio host, who is a credible and generally non-biased reporter in this case, entirely let Zogby get away with this. He did not ask how Zogby can release a poll showing Dean with great momentum and tied with Kerry in one breath and say in the next not just that he still thinks Kerry has the better chance, but that he doesn’t see any “scenario where Dean wins this.”

So keep this all in your head – every time you see a Zogby poll referred to in this race, you know exactly what you are seeing: a right-wing push of the storyline.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2zogby.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. In The Lull Between IA And NH He Tried To Make It Look Like Dean Was Making A Comeback

That was a joke...

What was a bigger joke is that he was still polling the morning of Election Day 04 and still got it wrong...

In the interest of full disclosure here's the actual results and the final poll results from the 06 mid terms. Zogby-WSJ is the interactive, non probability, sample poll...Notice how the Republican almost, invariably, does better in the Zogby poll than in the actual results... I think it has more to do with his methodology than anything nefarious:


http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/SUSA2006ElectionReportCard.htm

[MethuenProgressive]

2. You'd think Democrats would have better memories regarding Zogby than they do.

Selective amnesia?

[wyldwolf]

3. Interestingly, Obamanation hasn't commented on this yet

[MethuenProgressive]

5. They're waiting for the mass email of talking points.

Or perhaps the next Zogby poll saying a Zogby poll of Zogby registered email accounts prefer Ron Paul over Clinton...

[jefferson_dem]

4. LOL! So now the cabal of Hillary apologists have taken to attacking pollsters?

Hop back in your Whammmbulance and move along now!

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FANxPxD4v3E

[wyldwolf]

6. LOL! So now Obamanation is denying quotes, stats, and facts? Wait... you ALWAYS did that

:rofl:

[SaveElmer]

10. Most did...Jeff was one of the few that didn't...looks like he has been sucked into it as well...nt

[karynnj]

7. It would be interesting to have the transcript of what was really said

Going to your link, the date of that article was January 26, the day before the NH primary. The author is not clear whether he is speaking of a national poll or a NH poll. The Iowa caucuses were on January 19.

The problem I have is that the author injects his own idea of the motives without any back up. A possible alternative view was that he was saying that he did not believe Dean's jump. It could well have been that that specific sample, by chance, produced an atypically high point estimate for Dean (and of course, an atypically low point estimate for Kerry - to be expected as the estimates are not independent.)

If it was a NH poll, I doubt he would choose the day before the election to put out a fake poll - getting the "wrong" result hurts his company. If he was being insidious, a fake poll a week or two earlier would be better driving people and if that didn't happen, at least it would not be proven that it was not so at that point in time.

[wyldwolf]

8. "The problem I have is that the author injects his own idea of the motives without any back up" ...

...happens numerous times daily on DU. :)

[karynnj]

9. True - but I was speaking of the "source" document

There was no way to know Zogby's comments or what the poll was of. It's not even clear who the author thinks the poll was manipulated to help. (from other articles it is not clear who he is for - though it may be Clark.)

[wyldwolf]

11. the point I took from it, regardless of the poll or who the author supports...

... is John Zogby released a polls that contradicted all of other polls at the time. Just like this week. However, in 2004, he discounted his own poll's results.

[karynnj]

12. Here, he likely should mention that it is out of line with other credible polls

That can and will happen - which is why it is useful to look at them all together. It is actually in his interest to do so - though less obviously than when the election is the next day. Even then, we are looking at something that can change as we get closer to the primaries - not to mention the general election.