"Wouldn’t responsible journalism require news outlets to a) note why professional pollsters discount Zogby Interactive data; and b) also highlight the Gallup numbers with equal enthusiasm?"

You'd think, wouldn't you?

dont let this go away C and L. Post this again first thing in the morning.

"Wouldn’t responsible journalism require news outlets to a) note why professional pollsters discount Zogby Interactive data; and b) also highlight the Gallup numbers with equal enthusiasm?"

oh, you are a dreamer, aren't you?

Responsible journalism ... do they teach that anymore ?

Oh the poor Hillary supporters had to bring it up themselves while on national television or syndicated radio shows...oh how ever will they get their message out about how wonderful life would be under a democratic war-monger.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. My candidate won't even get to bring up issues at an actual debate...forum...whatever.

Zogby is literally bought and paid for...I mean how else could they pay their staff?

Kucinich!!! Forever simone!

As absolutely worthless as all polls are, we are constantly bombarded by them in the MSM, Fux and the left. Somebody finds enough people to say they would vote repug rather than vote for Billary. Why does anyone find that surprising? I'm sure I can find enough people to tell me they think chimpy and darth are aliens to make it seem statistically significant. We see polls every day that 80% of Americans want the war to end, but hundreds of billions more will be spent and hundreds of thousands more lives will be lost. Those polls don't mean shit.

Just because a poll "shows" something doesn't make it a fact. And why should anyone be surprised that a controversial poll gets attention? Our country is full of complete and utter morons who don't comprehend enough statistics let alone reality to understand that a poll doesn't mean shit. The only polls that makes any difference are the elections we have every two years, and they seem to be rigged as well.

God knows I am not a Hillary fan, but I can say this in her defense as well as any Democrat running for the office of President of the United States.

There is not one republican, including this idiot Ron Paul, who just thinks he is fooling the hell out of American people, that has a snow ball chance in hell, to even come close to winning this election.

This media will stop at nothing to get some traction for these ass holes, whom have simply destroyed what many of us always felt was the greatest country in the world and if any of these flea bags think that they will come close enough to even smell the white house to finish the bull shit that Bush will leave behind, they are going to simply start a mutiny in this country. This is real

Even they could not steal enough votes to do that. Folks are angry as hell at all of these bastards, but there is complete revulsion for ALL the republicans.

Just looking at these bastards, you can feel the vile build up in your system and the urge to somehow violate what ever laws they left in this country.

No I am afraid that Hillary wins this one.

Responsible Journalism... hmmm .... Don't think this is the week for that

The media, and I am not defending it, latches on to the Zogby poll because it is more newsworthy than the Gallup. The News is no longer about what is actually News; it is purely for entertainment purposes. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and Faux it us with a headlines like "Hillary Behind in Latest Polls," because it will render more viewers than "Hillary Still Ahead in Polls," it isn't new News.

I hate to blame the internet, but I am going to blame the internet for the media as we now know it. Anybody and everybody can be connected to events at all times now; many in real time. On top of that we can read blogs, such as this one, who feed our political leanings. I read Crooks and Liars because I am a die-hard liberal and they report the stories that I keep tabs on; it makes perfect sense but perspective has been lost.

No longer do we need to look at issues for ourselves; we can feed our own needs by reading online publications that feed our political needs. I won't stop at politics. Music, Art, Film and Sexual Desires can now be fed through specialized sites. What ever happened to discovery? The world is at our fingertips but many of us choose to put our blinders on. When did we lose our way?

Yes of COURSE real media outlets should report on real polls, not voodoo ones. However, since we don't actually GET real news in America anymore, it's no surprise that the major INFOTAINMENT outlets would dwell on a sensational and unexpected poll result.

However, DON'T KNOCK IT! For the last 15 years the Republicans have made a specialty out of creating their own 'faith-based' political world, and then selling it to the public with talking points, which proved to be easier than dealing with a 'reality-based' world. Like the price of WORLDCOM STOCKS, this only becomes a problem when you run head-first into a reality that can't be ignored. In the case of WORLDCOM, the $200 stock finally banged into its reality-based price of $0.13 when somebody actually looked in the books.

By the same token, the Republican rhetoric-based view of the world, rating Republican shares at $200 based on bumper-sticker slogans and facile 'family values' ran head-on into the reality of the Iraq war, and plummeted to its true value of $0.13, once their hypocracy and incompetence was exposed. However, if Republicans think it's STILL a good idea to live in a faith-based view of the world, and believe their own fake polls that say Hilary Clinton would lose to Mike Huckabee, and think that all they have to do is sell it to the public, and it doesn't actually MATTER if it's true or not...who are we to argue!?

Hillary up or down in the polls doesn't matter in a rigged system. The candidates that can make a real difference in this country, e.g., Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, have been ignored or played down by the media and leaders of their own political parties. As a result, we pretty much have a system in which the "acceptable candidates" are forced upon the public because the public accepts the false premise through herd mentality that no one else can win. The Democratic and Republican leadership control which candidate wins by not giving other certain candidates the same public attention and forcing the primaries to be decided by a few small early states which allows them to control the process. In addition, those parties do all they can to keep Independents out of the political system. The polls are another tool to make the process seem democratic by reinforcing our thinking that there is really a free and fair electoral process.

zogby polls are full of shit.
the questions are literally steered toward some predetermined conclusion.
why are the questions never revealed and have to be hunted down?
fuKKK zogby.
the last zogby poll I read about had americans in favor of attacking Iran.

no credibility whatsoever!

Here's how they think...hmmmmmm...which one will sell more tickets....this one will get more attention...so they go with that one,right,wrong,truth or morals do not apply. "It's all about the money", a very slimy ex friend of mine said.

Bill @ 24:

The same polling methodology that predicted President Alf Landon.

I loved that show!

Chris Matthews made these questionable poll results his centerpiece Big Number of the Day. "FIVE GOP candidates are leading Hillary in a national mach-up... EVEN HUCKABY, by a small margin..." WHAT A BUNCH OF BUNK!

When I saw that this evening, I thought to myself... "That is f...ed up! Can't be right." Guess I was right and Tweety was wrong... AGAIN."

Chris Matthews shows his obvious Republican bias over and over again, like his question for Buchanon tonight: (to paraphrase:) "If you were on a mid-evil RACK, writhing in pain, with your arms being pulled off... being forced to vote for Obama or Hillary...(laugh, laugh, laugh, big joke...) which one would it be?" I was insulted. What a bullshit way to carry on a discussion about politicians and issues ON NATIONAL TV. Here's my response:

If someone held a gun to my head, telling me I had to vote for Guiliana or Romney... they were my only two choices and I have to pick one or the other... Which will it be?

I would say: "PULL THE TRIGGER."

What's so wrong with the "methodology"?

Ok, they didn't call people on their land line phones or stop them in the mall. They e-mailed their respondents from a random list of demographics and had them take an online poll. (Uh, oh...Thems usin them new fangled compooters.) Oooo. "questionable" It wasn't self initiated...like the Ron Paul polls.

In the study you cite (Actually I had to go through three sites just to get to it...here...from those "responsible journalists" over at the WSJ, no less.) Ok...Zogby's Interactive missed by 8.3% while the other polling firms missed by 3.4, 4.8 and 4.4. in one gubernatorial race. They all picked the winner but missed the numbers.

Look, polls are polls...they are transient, changable and not scientific. Paleeze. If you're going to slam one...slam em all...not just the ones that piss you off.

Wouldn’t responsible journalism require news outlets to a) note why professional pollsters discount Zogby Interactive data; and b) also highlight the Gallup numbers with equal enthusiasm?

You want responsible journalists?

Yeah...

So do i...

Let's not get too carried away with this. Hillary actually ties with Giuliani and McCain.

Clinton -- the dominant front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- would appear to have at least a slight advantage over any Republican candidate among registered voters if the election were held today. She has a five-point edge over Giuliani (49% to 44%) and a six-point edge over McCain (50% to 44%), but neither lead is statistically significant. Clinton runs much more strongly against the lesser-known Thompson (53% to 40%) and Romney (54% to 38%).

Part of their statement by the way, is a load of horsehockey. If the difference is within the margin of error ("not statistically significant), it is not a difference. If they took the poll over agin, the results could be reversed. The entire poll is baloney since they are asking only 800 people to represent the entire USA. Even a candidate who actually had a statistically significant ead would only be able to claim that they could win the popular vote -- and we all know how much that means.

The whole poll thing is a charade. Hillary's hope was that strong poll numbers would "suck the air" out of the race for all of the other candidates, and thus the otherwise meaningless polls would become a self-fufilling prophecy. Obama's impressive fundraising killed that idea, so now she is kind of up a creek.

Really... since when is Zogby so disreputable? It's no winger poll outfit, that's for sure. So, is it just disreputable because it's harshing on Hillary's buzz?

A quick google search hasn't enlightened me to why you think Zogby is unreliable? Maybe you can offer some evidence...?

rekroc @ 31:

The MSM is a disgrace.

you obviously are a fakenewscrap (to help you that's fnc) fan

I'm sorry. I know it suits the narrative of many of the people here, but 90% of the polls have Hillary beating every Republican since the summer. Obama, too, to some extent, but Hillary across the board. And that's, you know, real polls. Has been, still is. Zogby "Interactive" is about as good as the mail-in to Literary Digest, a conservative magazine, that showed Alf Landon in a landslide.

Look. Most political polling hardly rises to the level of pseudo-science. I have done some political calling, and over %80 of the people I called were not home. Even smaller numbers wanted to hear what I had to say. The number of people who have landlines, happen to be home, take calls from strangers, and are willing to waste 15 minutes talking to a pollster has to be miniscule. The people who do take such calls are unlikelyl to represent the general population. The reported margin of error is always a joke -- it is just a crude mathematical approximation that makes so many assumptions of perfect method that it has no relationship to the real world.

Whenever you see a political poll, the first thing that you should do is look for the sample size. (In the gallup case, it is 800). Then take any of the "points" and multiply that by the sample size (which is often exaggerated in ways beyond the scope of my discussion.) Now rewrite the poll in actual people units rather than percentages.

{Consider: it looks really impressive if I tell you that my recent polling shows Obama leading Hillary by 75 points. It is less impressive if I tell you that I talked to four people.}

So the Gallup poll was 897 registered voters.

Hillary "leads" Giulani 49 to 44. What that really means is that 439 people said "Clinton" and 394 people said Giuliani. Her "lead" is a WHOPPING 45 PEOPLE! Out of almost 900. Representing the entire country.

Does that make my point clear? It is the same point if my guy (Obama) is ahead. The polls are crap.

Zogby's pools are Pravdaist in nature

Phone numbers are chosen purely by random

We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults.

BWAHHAHHAHHA! Crap, I tell you, pure crap. As soon as you start trying to figure out who is a likely voter, the jig is completely up. You may as well just make up the numbers. I also loved the little Hawaii/Alaska dance.

Chris Matthews did an entire segment on "Clinton's demise" as though he can't judge the accuracy of various polling techniques. But a month ago, he shot down a guest for citing Rasmussen:

MATTHEWS: You really see him in double digits in a national poll?

Which poll is that?

BACON: I think it was a Rasmussen survey.

MATTHEWS: Rasmussen? Let‘s MoveOn.com here. We‘re not doing Rasmussen polls here. Come on. The polling average in Iowa shows Huckabee trending up. What do you think?

Wondering @ 44:

:lol:

See, if Hillary Clinton was a lock (which poll after poll says she is...although she still has to be officially nominated and elected), it wouldnt be good for news reporters (i guess). Its like some ridiculous reality TV show.

These are "two polls" are reflective of our two party (Dem/Repub) presidential race. The poll numbers all depends on which party paid for the polls. Both will show the best poll showing for a price. They (polls and party) share several things in common .

1. They are paid for profit poll corporation.
2. They are supported by political party.
3. Too much hype are put in that; they seem to think they already know who will win the election.

Only rely on your objective observation when making a vote. Don't let the media or polls tell you who will be the winner. They are out there to manipulate your natural way of thinking.

CoIntelPro @ 50:

Planet B @ 36:

Really... since when is Zogby so disreputable? It's no winger poll outfit, that's for sure. So, is it just disreputable because it's harshing on Hillary's buzz?

A quick google search hasn't enlightened me to why you think Zogby is unreliable? Maybe you can offer some evidence...?

maybe you should read zogby's questions before typing that. and yeah, they are reliable if you ask the question on a tuesday in front of a fish market with four clams singing the somali national anthem a capella while sitting on top of an iranian IED.

Nice snarky comment. Still no answer.

I find it interesting that people question the methodology of Zogby's Interactive poll without bothering to read the details on Zogby's website. Yes, people do indicate their interest in signing up for the poll, but a small fraction of those who indicate such an interest are actually contacted for the poll. Every person who signs up is contacted over the phone and is registered on the panel only after being authenticated. All standard criteria for ensuring representativeness are followed. Yes, the sample tends to skew towards the more partisan, but that should be reflected in both the Democratic- and Republican-leaning groups. It is also likely more representative of people who actually vote (the uninvolved rarely vote). No one here seems to mention that the same methodology that is being questioned also seems to show that Obama and Edwards are beating all the Republican candidates. If the sample were skewed Republican (resulting in people like Huckabee getting ahead of Clinton), wouldn;t this also show up for Obama and Edwards? Oh, and by the way, the Interactive survey has a sample size of 9150 voters, compared to 1000 or so for most telephone surveys. Yet, Steve Benen is willing to place greater faith in the Gallup poll which has 1/10 the sample size of Zogby. OK, so let's assume that Zogby is not as "reliable" as Gallup. How much would a larger sample (Zogby's Margin of error is +/- 1% compared to Gallup's +/- 4%) compensate for errors due to skewed samples? We don't know, but I don;t think the Zogby sample skews so much in one direction as to bias the results to the extent of 3-4%.
I do not hold any brief for Zogby nor am I employed by them, but it is amusing that people just jump at the slightest chance to question polls when it does not suit their interest and cite the very same polls when the numbers are rosier for them.

Suresh @ 58:

I find it interesting that people question the methodology of Zogby's Interactive poll without bothering to read the details on Zogby's website. Yes, people do indicate their interest in signing up for the poll, but a small fraction of those who indicate such an interest are actually contacted for the poll. Every person who signs up is contacted over the phone and is registered on the panel only after being authenticated. All standard criteria for ensuring representativeness are followed. Yes, the sample tends to skew towards the more partisan, but that should be reflected in both the Democratic- and Republican-leaning groups. It is also likely more representative of people who actually vote (the uninvolved rarely vote). No one here seems to mention that the same methodology that is being questioned also seems to show that Obama and Edwards are beating all the Republican candidates. If the sample were skewed Republican (resulting in people like Huckabee getting ahead of Clinton), wouldn;t this also show up for Obama and Edwards? Oh, and by the way, the Interactive survey has a sample size of 9150 voters, compared to 1000 or so for most telephone surveys. Yet, Steve Benen is willing to place greater faith in the Gallup poll which has 1/10 the sample size of Zogby. OK, so let's assume that Zogby is not as "reliable" as Gallup. How much would a larger sample (Zogby's Margin of error is +/- 1% compared to Gallup's +/- 4%) compensate for errors due to skewed samples? We don't know, but I don;t think the Zogby sample skews so much in one direction as to bias the results to the extent of 3-4%.
I do not hold any brief for Zogby nor am I employed by them, but it is amusing that people just jump at the slightest chance to question polls when it does not suit their interest and cite the very same polls when the numbers are rosier for them.

The problem with interactive polls is self-selection. Only those who have said that they want to be polled can be polled. It's much like the self-selection you see on political blogs. Notice that on very few blogs is Senator Clinton the favorite candidate of the posters. Yet the traditional polls show her as the leader in most states, some by huge margins. The likely reason is the political blogs only attract the most rabid political junkies. Among that population, Senator Clinton is clearly not favored. An interactive poll like Zogby's also attracts the same most rabid political junkies to sign up to be polled to a greater degree than traditional (more random) selection methods because those political junkies have a high desire to be polled and will sign up with Zogby. But that overabundance of political junkies in the Zogby pool versus a random pool of registered voters makes the Zogby results match what you see on the political blogs more closely than a random sample of registered voters would. Zogby recognizes that he has a self-selection problem with his methodology and he tries to mitigate it by doing larger samples but it is far from clear whether larger sample sizes really helps with the self-selection problem. If everyone who registers to vote were made available to be polled interactively, then interactive polls would likely fare much better.

One should take all polls with a grain of salt because it is easy for errors to creep into them, but interactive polls have a built-in self-selection error so even if the rest of their methodology is perfect, the results are still dubious, in my mind.

The MSM is NOT interested in news or informing the public. They're all about entertaining and profit. And frankly, the broadcast news media is hurting the country. Americans could do their country a ginormous favor by tuning them out. They corrupt the whole election process, and ultimately have sway over the elections. Is it any wonder we end up with an idiot like Bush? It's all misinformation and propaganda all the time. They choose and spin every story for maximum hype and mileage. It's gotten ridiculous. I refuse to watch it anymore. You're better off sticking to written material or even the evening news, which although watered down, pretty much sticks with a brief synopsis of the facts. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans aren't smart enough to sort out fact from fiction, and are easily manipulated by propaganda. Who can ever tell what the truth is anymore? It's really a form of brainwashing, which is kind of frightening. The right wingers figured that out a long time ago. If you control the media, you control the message, and therefore you control everything. People are easy to fool.

rob (formerly) in toronto @ 15:

Responsible Journalism... hmmm .... Don't think this is the week for that

Don't think this is the CENTURY for that.

Strange, as a professed liberal/progressive, the Zogby poll wasn't offered to me though I am regularly polled and a member of their data base. My partner, identified as moderate, got his usual poll invitation.

The Media is probably instructed to make the races look like they are closer than they are or tied, so that the election system administrators can throw the election one way or the other. Are these elections all really 51% or 53%??

Polls...Schmolls!
I could give 2 shits about polls.

You can put a lot of the blame on HuffPo as well.

Check Ariannas blog every day, and you'll see this same type of anti-HRC spin puked all over her front page. It's gotten to the Drudge levels over there, and I don't see why anyone gives her credibility any longer.

sadly in many people minds. polls like that add to the credibility of what is a poor lineup in the GOP.
people think..."maybe there is more to the GOP lineup then I thought"....

brainwashing 101

msm still trying to bring down clinton. For the most part obama gets a free ride. But its not just the media that is biased.
many so called liberal or progressives what ever they want to call themselves bash clinton constantly. Clinton is getting alot of flack for CONSIDERING USING POWELL. OBAMA HAS ALREADY USED HIM. BUT LITTLE WAS SAID IN THE BLOGS ESPECIALLY DAILY KOS.