Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zogby was NOT the most accurate in 2000 Presidential poll
National Council on Public Polls (NCPP) ^ | January 3, 2001 | National Council on Public Polls (NCPP)

Posted on 11/01/2002 1:14:58 PM PST by for-q-clinton

January 3, 2001


The accuracy of the election projections based on the pre-election polls of 2000 was surpassed only by the polls of 1976 and 1960, according to a study release today by the National Council on Public Polls. This year's final polls had an average error of 1.1 percentage points on the estimates for George W. Bush and Al Gore. The error on the third place finisher, Ralph Nader, was 1.3 percentage points.

These results were based on the work of 10 polling organizations that used traditional methods for conducting their polls.

Poll Bush/Gore
Harris Poll 0.0% 2.0%
CBS News 0.5 1.0
IBD/CSM/Tipp 1.0 1.0
ICR/Politics Now 1.0 4.0
Gallup/CNN/USA Today 1.0 1.0
Pew Research 1.0 1.0
Zogby/Reuters 1.0 2.0
ABC News/Wash Post 1.5 0.0
NBC News/WSJ 1.5 0.0
Battleground 2.5 1.0
Average 1.1 1.3

The 2000 election was a tie between Bush and Gore and was the closest election since the Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960. Democrat Gore had a slight edge in the CBS and Zogby polls, while seven of the other polls leaned to Republican Bush. The Harris poll had it tied. Four years ago, all 9 polls erred in favor of overstating Democratic Clinton. Challenger Nader was overstated by 7 of the 10 polls this year. Two got the Nader vote correct. All other polls overstated Nader's vote. Third party candidates typically get less support in the election than they do in the final pre-election polls.

Two other organizations used methods that previously had not been used. Harris Interactive conducted its polls on the Internet among a panel of e-mail users and forecast a tie. Rasmussen's Portrait of America poll was off by 4.5 percentage points on each of the top two candidates. Rasmussen had its interviews conducted by a computer playing a recorded voice with no live interviewer intervening.

Method Polls
Harris Interactive 0.0% 1.0%
Rasmussen 4.5  

The ten traditional polls used random samples of telephone households and live interviewers to obtain vote intentions from likely voters. Screening questions that were unique to each poll identified likely voters. More detailed methods statements are available from the individual polling organization.

2000-Preliminary Gore Bush Nader Undecided Other
Election Results 48% 48% 3%   1%
Zogby 48% 46% 5% 0% 1%
CBS 45% 44% 4% 5% 2%
Harris (Phone) 47% 47% 5% 0% 1%
Gallup/CNN/USA Today 46% 48% 4% 0% 2%
Pew Research 47% 49% 4% 0% 0%
IBD/CSM/TIPP 46% 48% 4% 0% 2%
ICR/Politics Now 44% 46% 7% 1% 2%
NBC/WSJ 44% 47% 3% 4% 2%
ABC/WashPost 45% 48% 3% 3% 1%
Battleground 45% 50% 4% 0% 1%
Alternative Methods          
Harris Interactive 47% 47% 4% 0% 2%
Rasmussen 49% 40% 4%    

For this election, 2 of the 10 polls overstated Gore's vote while 7 overstated Bush. In the 1996 election, 8 out of 9 polls overstated Democrat Clinton. One poll each year neither under- or over- stated the winners' percentage.

Presidential Poll Performance 2000 Error Calculator

Final National Presidential Poll Results, 1936-2000

For more information about this and other polling issues, contact NCPP Polling Review members:

Harry O'Neill (Chairman)
Roper Starch Worldwide
609-921-3333 x228 (office)

Warren Mitosfky
Mitofsky International
212-980-3031 (office)

For more information, please contact us at:

TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: accuracy; election; polls; zogby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
I know this is old and has been posted in other threads (That's where I grabbed it from), but due to all the zogby talk in so many threads I wanted to bring this to the forefront.

Bottomeline: Zogby was NOT the most accurate. In fact there were several others that were more accurate. Also Zogby completely screwed up the NY Senate race.

1 posted on 11/01/2002 1:14:58 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Thanks for the effort. I hear too that Zogby's alleged accuracy does not translate into state races either. Plus, I think too that he has sold himself to the Rats. And yes, come election eve, he'll have more accurate numbers based on "late trends" to keep his reputation. I don't trust him these days...
2 posted on 11/01/2002 1:18:11 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I'm not carping, but do you know WHICH polls these numbers represent? In the last few days before an election pollsters sometimes adjust their numbers. Sometimes they change them the morning of election itself. That way they can, if they choose, use earlier poll numbers to influence voters and then correct the numbers at the last minute so they look better on the record.

As I recall, Zogby massaged his numbers at the last minute, but I don't recall the details.
3 posted on 11/01/2002 1:23:24 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Until they start polling dead people, dogs, and people who vote multiple times, all key democrat voter groups, these polls are worthless. That is the real reason the polls were wrong in 2000.
4 posted on 11/01/2002 1:26:22 PM PST by Jaxter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Look at the numbers in the poll. Obviously they used the zogby latest "true" poll which had gore at 48% and Bush at 46%. Everyone sang the praises that only zogby got it right, but in reality he only hot half of it right. Bush finished with 98%. It was within the margin of error, but not dead on like everyone claims.
5 posted on 11/01/2002 1:26:27 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Always be very wary of a pollster who spends a lot of face time on television. Zogby has a true agenda, and he sides with Dems because of his heritage. There. I said it.
6 posted on 11/01/2002 1:31:21 PM PST by Galtoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Galtoid
and he sides with Dems because of his heritage.

You mean he's Jewish? Just kidding. I'm just pointing out that I never understood why the Jews vote RAT. The RATs have the most anti-semetic people at the core of their party--blacks and Arabs.

7 posted on 11/01/2002 1:33:47 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Zogby is an arab !

He admitted he guessed the black turnout and rat fixes better then most !

8 posted on 11/01/2002 1:39:22 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Could you post a link to the most accurate of these polls that has data on the various senate races?
9 posted on 11/01/2002 1:43:24 PM PST by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
I know he's an arab. I was just playing stupid (which isn't too hard for me to do)
10 posted on 11/01/2002 1:46:31 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Galtoid
Zogby has a true agenda, and he sides with Dems because of his heritage.
You mean Dems like John Sununu?
11 posted on 11/01/2002 1:52:31 PM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Zogby and CBS were the only polls that showed Gore winning the popular vote. That's what happened. The other polls showed Bush winning the popular vote. That's not what happened. He nailed Gore dead on, and missed Bush by 2 percentage points. That's well within the margin of error.
We all know that's not how presidents are elected, but as for polls, Zogby is pretty dang accurate. Those who argue otherwise when it comes to his presidential polls are using million man math.
12 posted on 11/01/2002 1:52:54 PM PST by GOPyouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPyouth
Did you read the data? What about Harris that had it at 47% to 47%. Well with in the margin of error and more accurate to boot.
13 posted on 11/01/2002 2:04:33 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Don't believe the public polls.They are very often wrong.

The internal party polls are right on the money.

ON election day 2000 Al Gore broke a long tradition of not campaigning on election day. Al Gore got on his plane in Illinois and went to a state to campaign on Election day itself.

What state was that?

The answer is Florida.

What little bird told Gore that on the final day in the final hour he should go to Florida to campaign? You don't suppose his internal polls showed that state would decide the race do you? You don't suppose the polls told him that if he could pick up a few of thousand votes, it might be enough to win... do you? He almost got it done.

And When they all called Florida for Gore .. how did Bush know it was not true? He called to tell them it was not true. How did he know? You dont' suppose that Bush's internal polls told him he had a tiny slim lead do you?

The fact is the media polls told us in 1980 the race was way to close to call. But the night before election Hamilton Jourdan told Jimmy Carter there was no way he could win. The polls had for weeks shown a big Reagan win and the final poll showed his campaiging had made no change. Just a couple of hours earlier Lyn Nafziger and others had sat down with Reagan on his plane to tell him that nothing had changed.. He had a big lead and was on his way to a huge landslide. The media told us the polls said too close to call. Jimmy Carter tells about learning of his loss in his autobiography. Several people have written about giving Reagan the good news. I think the media did not want to hear it.

The same was true in 84, 88, 92, and 96. The internal polls told both sides what was really happening.

I believe both sides know exactly what is going to take place. Back in 1994 I was in the media. I talked to a Democrat chaiman of an important House committee a day before the election. He told me "The damned Republicans are going to win the house." I was surprised. All the wire and network stories said the Democrats would hold the house by 15 to 20 seats. I asked, "By 2 or 3 seats?" He said, "More like 16 to 20." It was very like 20.

I suspect the Repubicans knew it too. I know the Democrats did.

I really think from all the signs that this is going to be close election. The Repubicans will do well in the House and the Senate will be won by one or 2 seats.

I have no inside information. But Repubicans look happy. Democrats look worried. I am pretty sure both parties know exactly what the situation is right now even if the media pretends it does not.

14 posted on 11/01/2002 2:31:31 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
Thanks for posting this. Obviously one has to only look into the White House and see who is the President to see that Zogby was wrong. To think otherwise means you believe the lies of the RATS that Gore really won, which he did not.
15 posted on 11/01/2002 2:33:47 PM PST by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I think that because Zogby is very tight in only using proven voters who voted in the last two elections, his polls are suseptable to error when turnout is higher than normal. That's because Democrats are usually more likely to stay at home than Republicans. So when turnout is high, he tends to err in favor of the Pubs. That would also explain why he was off on the Nader vote. Many of those voting for Nader were probably not regular voters.
16 posted on 11/01/2002 2:33:53 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Now that you say that one of the heads of the RNC (I think) said we would win the senate by one seat. When Sean went race by race he was predicting a close win in several (but saying if the election was held today). When it went to Arkansas (I think), he was betting on a loss. He predicted MN as ours. I can't remember the other's he said we'd win or lose. He really didn't sound like he was trying to build support for his losing candidates. Rather, he was telling it like it probably is.

Anyone else remember what other races he said we'd win/lose?

17 posted on 11/01/2002 2:46:36 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
CT--Your comments regarding internal polls was very interesting. I also remember the comments you made the other day on Coleman/Mondale race where the Rats were not sharing internal tracking numbers with the presstitutes which you presumed meant they were not good. You also said that you presumed Coleman's were conversely and presumably good. That was borne true on Rush today where he talked about them.

I think that, under this analysis, the same would be true in California where the presstitutes will trumpet a Fields poll showing a Grayout 7 point lead, but nothing from Grayout or Simon's internal tracking numbers. It is for that reason that I think that Simon's hanging in there and Grayout is not the given that the press would make one think.

Another point you make that is very valid, IMHO, is the impression we as outsiders get from what is going on. The Rats are turning to the courts at every opportunity and becoming shriller in their attacks. This is a good sign. I agree that the GOP is the happier of the two parties and only hope that they realize the war is on and not to stop until the last vote is cast. I don't think they will. One or two seats for the GOP in the Senate is definitely a realistic assessment, to this untrained eye.

Thanks again for the comments and have a great weekend....

18 posted on 11/01/2002 2:46:42 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Sorry, meant to say it was on Hannities radio show.
19 posted on 11/01/2002 2:47:28 PM PST by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Bingo! Zogby's MO is to produce phony influencing polls before the election and then release a "final" poll which count towards the "accuracy" statistics. We've seen that this year.
20 posted on 11/01/2002 2:58:18 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson