High Quality Pollsters warn about Automated Polls

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

From Political Wire:



A bi-partisan group of campaign pollsters issued an open letter blasting the "sometimes uncritical media coverage" of the "proliferation" of public pre-election polls that fail to disclose basic information about how they are conducted and that "have the capacity to shape media and donor reactions to election contests," Mark Blumenthal reports.

First Read: "These pollsters zeroed in on -- correctly -- the BIGGER problem with public polling these days: the narrative-setting polls released (mostly by robo-pollsters) very early on in campaigns. Nobody can ever "check" the accuracy of these polls; pollsters only get graded toward the end of the campaign when, frankly, many of them can weight their way to semi-accuracy. The bottom line: The flooding the zone aspect of these dial-a-pollsters has ruined the study of public opinion and made pollsters who spend the money to do it right look obsolete. At NBC/MSNBC, we advise all our platforms against using many of these unreliable pollsters. What the industry needs is an agreed-upon grading system that ALL major media would follow."


The pollsters are basically saying that the automated polls are low quality, give bad results, drive a national media narrative in the key early part of a political campaign, and worst of all, they do not release their methodology, so the accuracy of their polls cannot be determined until after the campaign is over. The pollsters are calling on the media to not use these polls until they start revealing who sponsored the polls, the questions on the polls, on which people were the polls conducted and the methodology of the poll.

I think this is an interesting story when combined with Nate Silver's recent finding that the Rasmussen automated polls were highly inaccurate, biased towards Republicans, and also the story of the loss of Republican candidates who seemed poised to win (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Dino Rossi).

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/227377.asp

[Mike]

The pollsters are basically saying that the automated polls are low quality, give bad results, drive a national media narrative in the key early part of a political campaign, and worst of all, they do not release their methodology, so the accuracy of their polls cannot be determined until after the campaign is over.I agree the story is interesting. Of the issues mentioned, the most significant in my mind is the question of whether automated polls drive the media narrative.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I agree the story is interesting. Of the issues mentioned, the most significant in my mind is the question of whether automated polls drive the media narrative.

I know that the polls in Florida definitely impacted what I thought about Meek and Crist and if I were a Floridian, strategic voting based on polls would have been a major factor. I think it will be a major factor for the GOP too in the upcoming primary.

[Mike]

I suppose it's not really a "new phenomenon" that the some entity in whatever form or from whatever source (automated polling, biased coverage, corporate "rights" to spend on campaigns, and lately secret campaign funding with mass advertising) drives the narrative. The wealthy and the powerful have always had the edge in channeling public opinion. But I think it is a phenomenon that grows more powerful and sweeping with every passing campaign and with every technological communications advance. I think the GOP (compared to the Democratic Party) has the tactics down cold, it's a talent, I guess. It's also a science, and the GOP seems to have a corner on access to the money AND on fox-like cleverness (pun) required to drive the narrative. The observed GOP co-opting of the Tea Party movement(s) demonstrates this.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I suppose it's not really a "new phenomenon" that the some entity in whatever form or from whatever source (automated polling, biased coverage, corporate "rights" to spend on campaigns, and lately secret campaign funding with mass advertising) drives the narrative. The wealthy and the powerful have always had the edge in channeling public opinion. But I think it is a phenomenon that grows more powerful and sweeping with every passing campaign and with every technological communications advance. I think the GOP (compared to the Democratic Party) has the tactics down cold, it's a talent, I guess. It's also a science, and the GOP seems to have a corner on access to the money AND on fox-like cleverness (pun) required to drive the narrative. The observed GOP co-opting of the Tea Party movement(s) demonstrates this.

I don't think the pollsters are trying to drive the narrative on purpose. The real fight going on here is the professional pollsters vs the cheap knock-offs. The professional pollsters do this stuff manually; they have humans making the calls and they carefully design each poll, who they will call. They do this scientifically. The robo-calling works like, you can literally go to Rasmussen's website, order a poll and an automated system does it. There's a huge difference in the approach there, and perhaps the quality as well.

As for the GOP, well basically the Dems are screwed. I thought it was really interested how the negative ads (and I mean negative ads, not just trash talking by the Republican National Senate Committee) have ALREADY started against Manchin and the next election is not for two years for him! I think it really is the purchase of democracy by corporations as I think you would agree with.

As for the Tea Party, I think they want to co-opt the Republican Party as badly as the Republican Party wants to co-opt them. Jim DeMint said he would rather have 30 purists than 50 moderates several years ago. On the grassroots side, there was never any possibility that the Tea Partiers wanted to start a third party. They knocked out that establishment Republican Schozofava (sp?) in NY-23 (I believe) last year and put in their own guy.

[Mike]

I don't think the pollsters are trying to drive the narrative on purpose.I anticipated that observation. No, I don't think there is a universal drive to drive, so to speak. At the same time, however, even professional pollsters reveal bias in their questions from time-to-time. It's only human, and even though it's a science, professional pollsters are in business which has it's own set of subtle biases. But that's a minor point, I think. Yes, the real fight IS between two business models, or at least two camps in the polling industry.

As for the Tea Party, I have to wonder whether that "movement" will fade in the next couple years--Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Yeah, there will always be Libertarian-minded voters, and yes, the GOP will continue to use the mantras for as long as they last. A while back in another thread I expressed wariness about the Tea Party movement's potential in the election just past. I think we all agree the sentiments and the momentum propelled some of the winners into office. But the "movement" is a fractured composite and I've not seen any evidence to convince me that aside from the GOP co-opting there is sufficient mass in terms of new ideas--Sarah Palin has used up most of the material that has any anti-Democrat joke value--for any sustained independent momentum. But, I've been wrong before, so we'll see.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I anticipated that observation. No, I don't think there is a universal drive to drive, so to speak. At the same time, however, even professional pollsters reveal bias in their questions from time-to-time. It's only human, and even though it's a science, professional pollsters are in business which has it's own set of subtle biases. But that's a minor point, I think. Yes, the real fight IS between two business models, or at least two camps in the polling industry.

I think that pollsters, especially Democrats, have an incentive to be honest. Democrats, moreso than Republicans, have to build their majorities out of a coalition of voting groups, so they really do need accurate polling data. As for Republicans, you have a simple strong message: less taxes, strong defense, stick to traditional values. It automatically draws in a large amount of people.

As for other groups, I don't think everyone has as strong partisan beliefs as people who post on the internet. Maybe some people really just don't care if Republicans or Democrats take control and they just want to ask questions in a neutral way.



As for the Tea Party, I have to wonder whether that "movement" will fade in the next couple years--Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Yeah, there will always be Libertarian-minded voters, and yes, the GOP will continue to use the mantras for as long as they last. A while back in another thread I expressed wariness about the Tea Party movement's potential in the election just past. I think we all agree the sentiments and the momentum propelled some of the winners into office. But the "movement" is a fractured composite and I've not seen any evidence to convince me that aside from the GOP co-opting there is sufficient mass in terms of new ideas--Sarah Palin has used up most of the material that has any anti-Democrat joke value--for any sustained independent momentum. But, I've been wrong before, so we'll see.

The Tea Party was just the base of the Republican Party coming out to play. In the Tea Party's mind (or the conservative base's mind) they're real Americans and us dirty liberal, ghetto-dwelling negro, illegal Spanish-speaking Mexicans are not. Therefore, they just strongly emerged and protested, since it's their country after all. ;) lol

I think the Tea Party will hang around for a while, but since it's mostly older folks with dated attitudes, they are actually biologically limited to how long their movement will last.

[Mike]

In the Tea Party's mind (or the conservative base's mind) they're real Americans and us dirty liberal, ghetto-dwelling negro, illegal Spanish-speaking Mexicans are not. Therefore, they just strongly emerged and protested, since it's their country after all. lolHahaha. Hmmm, I wonder what that makes me--another moron laboring under effects of the Stockholm Syndrome?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Hahaha. Hmmm, I wonder what that makes me--another moron laboring under effects of the Stockholm Syndrome?

Well you're white, so I guess you're a dirty liberal. ;) LOL I'm racially mixed, so that makes me anti-American, like Obama of course. ;) (I have had a Tea Partier tell me in real life that Obama is "anti-American".)

[Mike]

Actually I'm beige, hahaha.