Which Polls to Watch, Which Polls to Ignore - According to the Horserace Blog...

[TBBT]

Just a public service announcement about which polls to focus on...

[TBBT]

So...what does this mean? Essentially, it means that the reliable polls are, roughly speaking, Time, Battleground, Gallup. All of the rest skew toward Democrats, and should be viewed with caution. A surprising number of the rest are either using questionable methods or are using unadvertised methods. This is absolutely taboo among social scientists. Methodology is the only element that the researcher can control, and thus it is critically important -- indeed it is an ethical responsibility -- for the researcher to make his/her methods avaiable.

About the Zogby poll and why you should ignore it:

Zogby: Drummond seems to think that Zogby simply fell ass-backward into his present notoriety. Zogby predicted 1996 accurately and came close in 2000. However, his track record is generally lousy. Zogby has a devastating methodological problem -- his polls are not conducted randomly. He uses regional quotas. He is the only one of all these polls (that make any methodology known) that employs this technique. Furthermore, Zogby does not conform his data to industry standards. Rather, he uses -- among other sources -- his previous data. Neither of the standard-setters in the polling industry accept this practice. Zogby also weights his polls to strictly conform with the 2000 partisan turnout results -- a result that BC04 has spent tens of millions of dollars to change. Zogby, a supposedly independent pollster, also called the race for Kerry...IN THE SPRING! Zogby is also one of the chief practitioners of the internet poll, which is really quite unacceptable. Because I have (unfortunately) used Zogby here at this site, I will quote the very estimable Drummand at length (consider it part of my pennance): "All in all, Zogby’s habit of confusing his personal opinion with data-driven conclusions, his admitted practice of manipulating the respondent pool and his demographic weights, by standards not accepted anywhere else, along with mixing Internet polls with telephone interview results, forces me to reject his polls as unacceptable; they simply cannot be verified, and I strongly warn the reader that there is no established benchmark for the Zogby reports, even using previous Zogby polls, because he has changed his practices from his own history."

All the other polls, including the WP/ABC, TIPP, Rasmussen, AP/Ipsos, etc. are all discussed here: http://jaycost.blogspot.com/2004/10/scoop-on-polls.html

[stockpirate]

Poll ping

[stockpirate]

Workable link. Go to here for poll info

[Jose Roberto]

I agree. Forget ZogBS, Rasamusing, Democratic Crooks err...Corps, AP (Amnesiac Press) and penile TIPP.

[LOC1]

The most recent of each of those three polls (Time, Battleground, Gallup) show Bush up by 5% in a three way race.

Go here to see the results of those polls and others:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

[TNCMAXQ]

As Zogby has good news for GWB in many states, including MI, I hope he is right sometimes at least. ;-) Zogby also has Daschle behind but as we know his '00 and '02 Senate polls were way off sometimes.

[Republican Red]

Very interesting. I bookmarked for future use.

I am surprised at the write up on some of the pollsters. I always thought TIPP was pretty good and I thought Time was skewed toward the left.

[TBBT]

As Zogby has good news for GWB in many states, including MI, I hope he is right sometimes at least. ;-) Zogby also has Daschle behind but as we know his '00 and '02 Senate polls were way off sometimes.

Frankly, his state polls have been all over the place since he started tracking them daily a week or so ago. It's impossible to make heads or tails out the battleground states by look at his polling...

[Cincinatus]

Thanks for calling our attention to this piece -- fascinating stuff!

[moose2004]

I don't particulary trust Zogby either, but he did change his opinion of the race two days ago and said he thought Bush was going to win.

[Moby Grape]

WHAT? Batteground had Bush with a 9 point lead on Nov 7 2000....How can they say Battleground is a poll to watch?

[snarkytart]

What about HARRIS? I know their traditional phone poll has Bush up but their interactive internet poll has him behind.

Harris was very accurate in the 2000.

[ground_fog]

What the h*ll happened to Ohio-have we totally blown it there? All the polls show Kerry pulling away. Bush didn't visitthere for a while and now it is showing.

[Josh in PA]

Zogby state polls in 2000 were HORRIBLE!! They were among the worst.

Mason-Dixon were among the best..

[cbkaty]

Here is my suggestion....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

[snarkytart]

http://www.tarrance.com/files/BG_Poll_%20Vote_Projections.pdf
^From another post. History of Battleground track record.
I am not sure where you get the 9% information.

[MEG33]

Wednesday, October 27 2004
THE HARRIS POLL: Lots of emails regarding the new Harris Interactive Poll released today showing John Kerry leading George Bush by one point among likely voters, 48-47.

Just to clarify, this is an ONLINE poll, not a standard telephone survey, which is why we do not have it included in our average. - T. Bevan 1:24 pm
http://realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

[Moby Grape]

Sorry, my bad. Battleground had Bush by 5 points on Nov 7 2000, the last poll before the election (according to Newmax web site). Portrait of America had Bush by 9 points.

The closest to right on Nov 7 2000 were Zogby and Harris.

[TBBT]

Harris - If you follow the link you will find that the Harris polls is not viewed so favorably because they wont disclose their methods or internals...

[Dane]

Uh none of the polls show kerry pulling away with Ohio.