Skip to comments.Parsing the Plethora of Polls: Even Axelrod agrees that there are too many suspect polls.
Posted on 10/08/2012 6:51:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The political obituaries for the Republican nominee were rolling in prior to the first big debate.
William Saletan of Slate: He is toast.
Lawrence O Donnell of MSNBC: Its over.
Eric Alterman of The Nation: Barring extraterrestrial intervention, the elections over and [Democrats] won it.
The problem for Democrats is that all those baseless predictions were made in September 2000, when pundits were predicting that George W. Bush was a sure loser. Gallups polls in mid-September had Al Gore beating Bush by four to six points. Another poll released in mid-September by Newsweek showed Gore leading Bush by 14 points among likely voters. The Newsweek poll proved to be spectacularly wrong, in part because it surveyed only 580 likely voters over two nights. One of them was a Friday, when pollsters say more Democrats are at home.
This year pundits cited pre-debate polls, such as Gallups, that showed President Obama leading Mitt Romney by six points. But even then the polls margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 points. The race was still very much up for grabs.
Now the polling shoe is mostly on the other foot, because Romney has picked up momentum in the wake of his strong debate performance. According to the Real Clear Politics average of public polls, he trails Obama by only one point nationwide, hes tied with Obama in Colorado and Virginia, and he trails him by only three points in Ohio.
The seesaw nature of the endless number of polls using a variety of methodologies spurs the poll-obsessed nature of campaign coverage. Such an obsession on polls may be insalubrious, helping to freeze public perceptions of the candidates and contributing to the low voter turnout that everyone in the media claims to lament.
This year, two national organizations are doing daily tracking polls. Gallup, the granddaddy of pollsters, now has Obama leading by 49 percent to 46 percent. But, in 2008, the most accurate of all major polls in predicting the outcome of the presidential race was that of Scott Rasmussen. His Rasmussen Reports nightly tracking poll now shows Romney leading Obama by 49 percent to 47 percent.
Rasmussen uses a telephone prompting system rather than live interviewers to survey respondents, a controversial technique in the eyes of traditional pollsters. But an analysis by The Progressive Review found that Rasmussen polls were the most accurate overall during this years primaries, and his lower costs allow him to survey more people and reduce his margin of error to 2 percentage points, significantly below that of other pollsters.
In recent years, many election polls have overestimated the Democrats share of the vote. People like to tell pollsters they plan to fulfill their civic duty and vote. In reality, about one-third of the people who say that wont show up on Election Day. The best polls figure out if people are engaged enough to be likely voters. Even with those efforts, polls often oversample groups such as blue-collar women, who end up not voting in high numbers. Turnout, which has fallen below half of all adults in some years, does matter.
There are other reasons that polls may tilt slightly toward Democrats. The late Warren Mitofsky, who developed exit polling for CBS News in the 1960s, believed that Democrats are more likely to respond to media polls than are Republicans, who may distrust the media because of their liberal bias. In addition, more than 90 percent of the people pollsters try to contact initially hide behind voicemail or otherwise refuse to answer. This makes survey results more uncertain and should cause concern, caution, and, above all, humility in reporting the results, Leo Bogart, a former president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, once concluded.
Unfortunately, polls help dictate media coverage. Reporters overemphasize certain elements of a candidates performance Obamas shaky handling of the economy or Romneys verbal flubs if the polls turn against one or the other. Then, until the polls turn again, coverage conforms to the stereotype. ABCs George Stephanopoulos, a key strategist in Bill Clintons 1992 campaign, once said that political scientists talk about the bandwagon effect, that once a candidate gets in the zone, all of the coverage is good, almost no matter what happens, and when youre out of the zone, even when you do things right, it goes against you.
The polls are a prime mover in this bandwagon effect. But before they drive a candidates supporters to despair or allow the media to beat a stereotype to death, some basic consumer reporting would help. Reporters should tell us which polls have a good track record, which have been clunkers, how much pollsters push the undecideds to a candidate, and how much less reliable some individual state surveys are. To do anything less risks heightening the cynicism of voters who increasingly feel that theyre being manipulated by both parties and not told the whole story by the media.
I sat in the green room with David Axelrod, President Obamas chief strategist, at CBS News in Washington yesterday before we both appeared on Face the Nation. One thing we heartily agreed on is that there are too many suspect polls and too little independent analysis of how polls come to their conclusions. Ive seen polls that show us up more than we really are, and polls that wrongly show us down six points, he told me. Ill say what I said months ago: This is going to be a very close race. When the Axelrod Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago opens next January, one of the things he hopes it studies is the impact of never-ending polling on our elections.
Sadly, the evidence from the 2012 election so far is that the publics suspicion of polls, the media, and the political process in general is only being heightened by what we are seeing and hearing.
John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
No surprise here. Axelrod is a pro. Political professionals may be evil, wrong-headed on policy, and ideological blinded (check on all three in this case), but they are not stupid about their profession. Axelrod knows that 9% response-rate polls, not matter how large the sample size, are unreliable and that polls that need to be weighted to get decent demographic balance are only are reliable as the assumptions in the weights even with an adequate response rate.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Don’t forget, Axelrod’s kid, Ethan is a pollster tied to ARG
now, he has a problem with the polls. he was fine with them when they were wildly inaccurate and biased in his favor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.