Some time ago readers of phrigndumass' daily widget began to notice a widening discrepancy between the daily polls of Gallup and Rasmussen and the composite picture that he provides:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6805429Part I: Raised the Issue of how are the Pollsters weighing when the demographics are changing so quickly
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/133Part II: Detailed Plouffe's statements at the convention that parralleled some of the points above and also indicated that they use polling to pinpoint movements in particular groups and that the national daily tracking polls are useless:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6820061
Part III: The controversy about the validity of the Daily Tracking Polls Continues
More support of the Plouffe position and more criticism of Gallup
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gallup_daily_the_worst_thing_i.php
Gallup Daily - The Worst Thing in journalism in 10 Years?
By David Moore
In Mark Blumenthal's post on how David Plouffe is polling for Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee's communications director Dan Pfeiffer is quoted as saying that "the Gallup Daily is the worst thing that's happened to journalism in 10 years." Gallup's Frank Newport predictably rejected the comments, claiming that Pfeiffer's comments "are the same types of sentiments that have been expressed since George Gallup's first presidential polls in 1936."
I don't think Frank is correct in his boiler plate response. It is not useful to dismiss all criticisms of polls these days as the same old tired comments of seven decades ago that have long been discredited. If I understand Mark's blog correctly, Pfeiffer and Plouffe object to the Gallup Daily because it does not, contrary to Frank's assertion, provide an accurate description of where the presidential race stands today.
According to Mark's post, Plouffe claims that the topline polling data aren't especially useful (they "don't tell you anything"). Instead, the campaign focuses on who are the "true undecideds," and what messages will persuade them to vote for Obama. Knowing how many undecided voters there are is an integral part of understanding the presidential race. That's true for the campaigns, and it is no less true for political observers and the public.
But Gallup refuses to measure the undecided vote, and instead gives a hypothetical description of a presidential race, "if the election were held today" - showing us that 95 percent of voters have already made up their minds. But the election is not being held today, and the
Gallup Daily does not tell us the truth about how many voters are - at this point in the campaign - committed to a candidate, and how many voters have yet to make up their minds. From Plouffe's and Pfeiffer's point of view, the Gallup Daily is useless - even in understanding the national sentiment.
Frank claims that the public needs "independent polling" so that it doesn't have to rely on "campaign operatives' self-promoting insights on where the race stands." I couldn't agree with him more.
But the public needs accurate independent polling, which gives the public a full picture of where the presidential race stands. Gallup Daily does not do that. But it could
Joseph Marshall: Plouffe is right about particular numbers
When you read the rest of the briefing you can also see why Plouffe has a point about the irrelevance of daily polling. If thousands of white women voters in Texas, Alabama and Utah make a break to McCain because of the "role model" of gun-totin', moose-eatin' Sarah Palin, Plouffe couldn't care less. His opposite number in the McCain campaign couldn't care less either .
On the other hand, if Palin's anti-abortion stance starts gaining ground among Hispanic Catholics, this will have every insider's attention. In other words, Plouffe's business is with the right voters in the right places.
It probably should be a larger part of the business of pollsters and news pundits, too. But pollsters are paid to poll, pundits are paid to pund, and Plouffe is paid to elect Obama.
If the pollsters started to merely cherry-pick their samples the way Plouffe does, their integrity and judgment would be questioned. And if the pundits didn't dutifully ponder any mass movement of women voters toward McCain in the terminally red states, all hell would break loose--and some of those fine voters might also tote guns and like pundit for dinner on the days when they don't eat moose.
The Gallup Daily is not the worst thing to happen in ten years. It's a fine poll and a great help to pundits and reporters doing their jobs. But Plouffe may be pardoned for hyperbole, since it's a hindrance to his job, if only to waste his time answering questions about it.
Brambster: The problem is the way that the numbers are being reported
brambster:
I think we're mistaking what the statement really said. He said it was the worst thing that has happened to journalism and not polling.
The focus then was on the undecideds, and I don't believe this was completely a reflection of whether or not they were tracked, but rather the focus of the media on the decided vote which is fairly static until very late in the cycle, while the campaign's focus is on their message and what is best for bringing the undecided voters over to their side.
So for every minute of coverage on the horse race and those that have already made up their minds, that is a minute less that might be used to spread their tested messages to undecided voters.
National polls also focuses too much attention on the national numbers which do not track the expected electoral vote advantage at a given point in time.
If polls were tracking EV's instead of national popular votes, the Obama campaign would have been largely trouncing the McCain campaign by up to a 2:1 margin for much of the last 3 months, but instead the race is being characterized as a dead heat by some when you just simply take the national poll results.
So maybe this really boils down to the polls drowning out the message to undecideds, and also not giving what the Obama campaign believes is a proper characterization of the race as a whole which I'm sure they believe is anything but a dead heat. If the media reported it as being a full on drubbing, it would surely impact the strength of the second place candidate.
What is increasingly evident is that phrigndumass' 360 degree look of trends and broad use of indicators is one of the most effective chroniclers of where this race is at. It's use of different indicator measurers, compilation of multiple electoral vote indicators, popular vote based on state and not national polls, and various methods of showing electoral vote status, strength and trending make it the best daily update on the internet, more comprehensive and accessible than the other more well known sites like fivethirtyeight.com.
Sometimes the closer something is and the more accessible it is the less it is appreciated by those that see it every day. Its like the neighbor of the Eiffel Tower that remarks "Its nice but I really would like to see the Grand Canyon".
As the pollsters continue to light up their analytical columns with methodological detail it is nice to see the hard work that phrigndumass puts in that gives us a clearer and unbiased work on the great event that we are building to.
Nothing Gallup does can meet the sublime simplicity and clear presentation of this simple chart that he updates daily:
thanks phrig your no dum ass
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
