Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Repu

Source: TPM and Horse's Mouth w/Greg Sargent

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite

(snip)

Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.

A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.

I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?

(snip)

Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.

Read more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/media_lavishes.php

---

not that this will stop those gleefully celebrating Hillary's "unelectability", but for those interested in fact without hyperbole, fiction or wishful thinking, I thought I'd Post.

I'm not a fan of hers but that was just insulting. Wonder if it was a fishing expedition of some kind.

The corporate-owned media use bogus polls to influence public opinion. I think yesterday was a dry run.

how supporters of one candidate will overly-promote a Poll that favors said candidate while ignoring the many other Polls saying the exact opposite. And they do this after claiming Polls don't mean anything!

The only Poll that's important is Election Day and, until then -- if they're smart --, the Candidates won't be sidetracked by these sometimes dubious snapshots of opinion. Just get out there and explain to anyone who'll listen why YOU should be shouldered with the responsibility of fixing the horrific mess * has made of everything.

salivating at the thought that REPUBLICANS were "beating" a DEMOCRAT...thanks for pissin' on "their" parade..

K&R

I am interested in polls, I follow them, but I would only rely on them if all else were equal.

All else among these candidates is not equal.

Thus a poll that shows relatively little difference in performance among the big 3 Dem candidates is not a reason to change one's vote.

And if one poll were to cause that, then this poll would be outweighed by the others that have been consistently showing Hillary to be the strongest. But I don't think that should make your decision either.

My maxim:
You pick the candidate who is most likely to do what you want done and that includes getting elected to get it done.

I'm really getting sick and tired of polls predetermining the outcome of elections that are up to the voters. Speaking of voting, hillary better start addressing issues as her points for election rather than her and her supporters constantly crying 'poor me, everybody just picks on me'. That doesn't get anybody elected and shouldn't and by the way things are going that if she doesn't get nominated you'd still cry poor her that all of the voters just pick on her. Hillary herself is a nonissue to me. I don't care if she's married to an ex-democratic president or a woman or whatever. Run on issues and argue the issues and if you can't do that don't cry poor me when you lose. I believe she will lose because she can't address her voting record without shooting the feet out from underneath herself and is why her supporters and her do not address real issues as they are contradictory to what the people want.

Polls aren't intended to predict who will win at some point in the future. They are just an indicator of the way things are now.

But you'd never know that to be so by the way hillary supporters talk and that was a point I was making.

We all do it to some extent...

That needs to be said over and over, to the point that everybody needs to wear a placard with that statement on it, positioned so the wearer can read it. Confirmation bias is likely the most bloody tool in our arsenal.

a known fake poller...

in an attempt to facilitate a peaceful transition as opposed to forceful intervention?

but I'll tell you there is nothing defensible about US imperialism in the former Yugoslavia, including fake polling there. That was just another in a long string of unjust imperial wars started by the U$A.

Our war machine wanted and did commence violence there after stoking domestic ethnic hatred much the same as the Belgians did in Congo, although with less fanfare. It's amusing to me that folks try to defend that "intervention." Obviously, some study is in order for those who are still sipping that koolaid.

I don't know, they've done this to every other candidate. Why are people so worried about the one time this happened to Hillary. I guess people aren't used to it.

Why is she running anyway? I really don't think it's as much to benefit our nation as it is to boost her ego, and "her legacy in history as the first woman president" :thumbsdown: . Maybe in 2000 she thought she was in the best standing to win a presidential election because of her name recognition. I mean, come on, out of nowhere, she ran for senator in New York, where she didn't even live, probably to set the stage for a presidential bid - the people of New York don't even like her, she does a horrible job. . .

Again, is she running for president mainly for her own benefit and more recognition or actual for the good of our country? I don't know.

I wonder if Zogby got what he really wanted, more attention and coverage as opposed to an accurate and sound poll, which is what he should have wanted instead, but would not have garnered him the coverage he wanted.

Good ole lefty Gallup!

:freak:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1064

...."As the election drew near, Pollster Zogby was quoted widely saying that he believed the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives would pick up between 25 and 30 seats, and that Democrats would almost certainly pick up three or four seats in the Senate, and perhaps get as high as six. As in earlier elections, Zogby’s estimates turned out to be right on the mark.


Another bright spot for Zogby came from its online polling division, Zogby Interactive, which correctly identified the winners in 18 of 19 Senate races. And the only race that Zogby did not pick correctly – the McCaskill/Talent race in Missouri – was still well within the margin of error. Zogby Interactive had Talent winning re–election by a single percentage point, instead of losing by 2%.


This separate polling methodology, under research and development at Zogby since 1998, showed particular value in mapping close contests – it correctly identified the winners in four of the five races that were won by single digits (the McCaskill race being the exception). Taking into consideration the last–minute twists and turns that took place in that race after the Zogby Interactive poll left the field, its result was remarkably precise...."

I think it is a cheap shot to dismiss this poll as if it were the type of "internet poll" we see on CNN, etc where people can vote multiple times. The methodology is way different, and apparently it has had a good track record so far.

Zogby is a respected pollster. I think it is deplorable how people have jumped to the conclusion that this was a "bogus poll". I suspect that is because some don't like the outcome.

So, go ahead and flame me. But at least read the methodology you are talking about....

group. They are not independent. So you never pay any attention to a Zogby Poll.

I'm one of those registered members of Zogby. I joined at the request of Buzzflash, a number of years ago.

But I haven't been able to submit the last few polls. Something goes wrong at the last step.

Been too busy, so, I don't know if they would work the same for me.

If anyone here wants to get on their polling list, Go to
http://www.zogby.com/ and sign up.

They have nothing Positive to say so they resort to FOOLIN PEEPS...

Despicable and Dirty too....

Thats how the GOP Rules...by BSing the peeps....is that a way to rule?? The GOP Sucks Big Time...

That has no bearing on the reliability of his firm's polls.

as seriously as a telephone survey. To call him bogus is to call all online polls bogus. They are two completely different things. And to call his telephone surveys bogus is stupifyingly stupid. The pugs would like nothing more than to destroy this polling co. and call their own Gallup poll which skews 7-10 points to the pugs superior and is a wet dream for them.

I am simply pointing out that the fact that he is a liberal Democrat does not make his polls more reliable. If anything I would expect that to skew his polls in the Democrats' favor. I didn't say Zogby vouched for the poll either. No serious pollster would ever vouch for an online poll - they're crap, there's no way to get a representative sample. The "Clinton losing to Huckabee" poll was clearly crap - it's just not possible. In fact I'm surprised that the firm even bothered publishing it. I further didn't say anything about telephone polls.

...is concerned about is the extent to which Hillary's candidacy is already dead on arrival in the deep south and midwest.

I agree, and if this becomes an Electoral College slugfest, she's gonna lose. That's how Republicans win.

She would need to have a safe Electoral margin if she expects to win. I don't see it.

Gore's not getting in, so I'm beginning to think Obama would be a better choice. They'd blow him away in the south but he stands a decent chance of winning Ohio and Pennsylvania. That's all he would need.

People like Obama. That means a lot.

just recently -- here on DU -- state-by-state polls were posted showing Hillary doing much better (in head-to-head matchups with Repugs) than Obama. I think Kentucky was one mentioned. So, although I'm sure she has some ground to cover in the South and the Midwest, I suspect that'd be true with any Democrat in any State that's trended Red in the last few elections.

Because he is the only genuine person on all sides of politics. He can really heal the division in this country right now and alot of people are starting to listen to the politics of Hope and change. It is a strong message. Your probably correct about the south but it doesn't matter if he gets OH and PA...

The only obstable in his way to POTUS is Hillary and she knows it that is why she is going increasingly negative on him. Get ready for the politics of Hate from the Clinton campaign as they see their chances dwindling in IA.

:eyes:

avowedly so --- seeking to INSURE a win for Bush ---

Can we suppose that Repugs also stopped at fixing polls --- ????

Naturally.

I was going to say that until now, that is the poll that was getting the attention from the Hillary haters at DU as well. Anything at all that suggests Hillary "can't win" will be blared from the rooftops.

but in this particular case, it doesn't make sense. That is, unless, the Zogby poll is spotting a trend that the other polls may later verify. In any event, the gut just says the Zogby poll isn't right.

Let's see how far up the Greatest page this one gets... heh, heh!

unless I'm A) bashing Hillary or B) referencing something that's bashing Hillary. A clear-minded, lucid offering of factual information just isn't sexy enough to get the attention of most DUers.

Now, if I was bashing Hillary ... oh wait, I already mentioned that. Sorry. :evilgrin:

many of us routinely recommend posts that are interesting and that bring new facts to light regardless of which candidate might benefit.

it's the first time ever I've hit the Greatest Page! :bounce:

Thank you.

:thumbsup:

and I love your pic. Regardless of which side of the playground you're throwing the dodge balls from, we have two amazing, intelligent, dedicated Public Servants in the top two spots for the Dem nod. I couldn't be happier about that.

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

Even telephone polls sometimes all of a sudden have a candidate polling very different than before (far ahead or behind).

..the response to hillary on DU stuns me

Hillary
There are alot of negatives to Hillary. She voted to fund the war
every single time. Her health plan is now a watered down version
of universal single payer not for profit health care. IF she were to
get elected this country will have had a Bush or a Clinton in office
since 1980. 8 years of GHWB as vp, 4 as President, 8 of Bill and
8 of the idiot. This country is supposed to be a Democracy, not a
Bi Monarchy.
My fervent hope is that the group of people running for the
democratic nomination tie themselves in knots, create the need for
a brokered convention, and the party drafts Al Gore, and we have
a Gore / Richardson or a Gore / Feingold or a Gore / Kucinich ticket.

is my wish

with her corporate masters but i guess that is not to be mentioned.

If you are Hillary or Bill you don't really need to be in the WH to get a BJ you can just come on over to DU.

Though there aren't that many Hillary supporters at DU. They just make a lot of noise.

:kick:

fer sher dooode because you say so. I'll pit Zogby's reputation against Horses mouth any day of the week and "the more reputable" polls (all republican) is also a bunch of propagandistic booolcheeet. Calling Zogby bogus is totally off the wall and absurd. Gallop is the farthest right of most all the polls. Zogby did not call it anything but what it was, an on line poll. That does not make it bogus and to call it bogus is in my opinion libelous. To say that internet polls are less reliable than telephone polls is one thing, to call internet polls bogus is quite another.

As far as I'm concerned, Zogby committed fraud against the American public as he attempted to pass this poll off as statistically legitimate.

were pushing the Zogby poll today. Isn't that just great? NO!

All they had to do is see the word "online."

and Ed is VERY anti-Clinton.

the zogby poll is obviously an outlier when you compare it to the others that are out there. who, in their right mind, could believe that huckabee would be leading clinton? the man does not believe in evolution. he wants to outlaw abortion. neither of those are mainstream positions.

i think just about any of our candidates can beat whoever the republicans nominate. the glee that some on DU demonstrate whenever there's anything negative about hillary's electability has become pretty amusing. it's like hoping one of your star pitchers gets bombed whenever they take the mound just because you don't like him. it doesn't matter if the TEAM loses as long as you gain satisfaction from the pitcher's misfortune.

i'm happy with ANY poll that shows ANY democrat beating ANY republican.

In fact I think Huckabee might be the most electable candidate in this race right now.

If 70% of regular church-goers turn out for him, he wins - no problem.

Saw him on CNN last Sunday he gave some great answers. He is a real pro.

If the GOP is smart enough to go with Huckabee, 2008 will be a tight race.

We need a credible and qualified ticket like Gore-Obama or Biden-Obama.

I don't think there's any way in hell Huckabee wins the GE. I would love for Gore to win, but I don't think he's going to.

to be polling this well against a well known candidate that is winning in other polls.

in other words, this poll seems to be polling a different universe of people than all the other polls. This universe of people seems to have heard of Huckabee much more than the average registered voter --does that suggest that this was a more Republican or conservative universe? It does to me.

the question is...is this poll more or less representative of the population of registered voters than other polls?

I think less representative, for one, because it is not a random sample, the others aren't purely random, but this one is much less so --you "opt in". Further, political activists are much more represented online than in the general phone-answering population.

Thus, more activists in this poll would skew support towards the more liberal candidates on the Democratic side (among Zogby's polling of Democrats) and skew support towards more conservative candidates on the Republican side (among Zogby's Republicans).

That's what I think is going on and it amounts to a less representative and less useful poll, but like they said, it was the one that got reported "Man bites dog".

I guess my point is: let's not underestimate this Huckabee guy.

If he wins the Iowa caucuses on the GOP side, then he will have a shot at winning the nomination.

If he becomes the GOP nominee, then he will have a shot at winning the Whitehouse.

My gut tells me that he would have a good chance - especially if we nominate Hillary.

For every Christian fundamentalist vote he gets, there will be a fiscal conservative that will shun him. Huckabee's administration in Arkansas generated a huge amount of spending and subsequent taxation. He also has Willie Horton-esque baggage to contend with.

a majority of Americans don't believe in evolution, and many support abortion only to save a woman's life.

That makes Huckabee a lot more mainstream than you think. I know very little about him but I can't see the GOP taking Rudy or Mitt or McCain to the dance, not if they want to win. Thompson hasn't done well so Huckabee might end up being their man.

It's all speculation at this point.

I love a democratic website that literally wants to devour its own


:sarcasm:

has been a very unreliable poll for a number of years now, but, hell, if it's unreliable but supports all the anti-Hillary hysteria on DU, who cares, right?

All the anti Hillary blooie spent here is only for getting blood pressures up and media entertainment.

many folks on DU were among those parroting this poll like it was gospel, just because they don't prefer Hillary in the primary.

either

A) Hillary loses due to energizing GOP base against her

or

B) Hillary wins and does 99% of what big business wants anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just a guess.

My comment is appropriate for this thread and the general quality of the pro-Hillary threads.

I've had rice cakes that were more substantial.

Sometimes, they just hit the spot.

wants to talk to you.

Don't get hysterical on us. LOL.

The Obama groupies jumped all over it, ending up messing themselves and had egg on their face. After it was proven to be a "really flawed" poll. But then it doesn't take much for them to crap on themselves when they even have a whisper that Obama MIGHT be out in front.

SILLY ME FOR ONCE I THOUGHT THAT HERE IS A POLL I CAN BELIEVE. WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK HILARY IS OTHER THEN CORPORATE AMERICA. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT THE HAND FULL OF CLINTON SUPPORTERS OUT THERE MUST GET 100 CALLS WEEK FROM POLLSTERS. I ONLY PRAY THAT WE CAN END UP WITH A PRESIDENT WITH SOME VISION FOR THE COUNTRY AND NOT THE CONTINUATION OF THE BUSH/CLINTON MONARCHY

over 50 of my friends across this nation that belong to the Zogby International in which this poll came from. To our amazement of the 50 I sent and received emails from only 5 reported they had received the zogby polling in their email. I find that rather strange, but I do have a conclusion. In prior polling they ask are you a Democrat? Then they ask are you a strong Democrat? I am under the conclusion they ran this poll with it front loaded with republicans and right leaning independents, and thus you have a bogus poll.

Now I do know there was a Gallup poll out that showed HRC winning over all the republicans and that Obama was tied with Rudy.. I understand how the game is played and I would not be to hyper on this Zogby poll....

But the media will use this poll just like they did the abc poll and repeat it over and over again and disregard all other polling showing hRC in the lead from 2 to 10 points.

I like the game of politics but I do not like to play when the deck is already stacked against your candidate.

Ben David

surveyed. That's amazing.

You'd think he was doing samples or something.

Because he knows how to do statistically accurate polls.

This poll is only biased in that not every likely voter is registered with Zogby. I would think that people who sign up for Zogby's online polls are more likely to actually vote, probably more so than those who tell phone pollsters that they plan to vote.

Phone polls tend to lean toward the GOP because they depend on people being at home, answering the phone, and being willing to answer poll questions. Such people are more likely to be older and to be Republicans, so phone polls have bias built in.

There are no perfect polls but the pollsters do well in predicting election results. Polls this early can't predict who people will vote for in November 2008 since there is still a wide field of candidates

Nor was it the first.

The first was WaPo's numbers for Iowa showing Obama in the lead, despite no other polling agency has ever showed him in the lead. Yet the M$M trumpets this result as if it is the only result that matters.

Taking this into account, the CT inside me tells me the M$M is scared of Clinton getting the nom.

but I think you're right about the M$M being afraid of Hillary getting the nod.

The people who responded to the Zogby poll?

Zogby himself?

Or the media who reported on the findings?

Zogby's online polling method has proved reliable in the past. It seems strange to me that Mr. Zogby would risk his reputation and that of his company by using an unreliable methodology. On the Ed Schultz Show today he stood by his methodology and his results. He quickly admitted that there is over a month to go in Iowa and this poll was just a snapshot. He did, however, suggest that Hillary's earlier poll successes were based on name recognition, and that the contest in Iowa is starting to get serious. I suspect that Hillary's campaign is taking this poll very seriously.

...a week or so ago, Kos talked about how unreliable Zogby was and how many of his clients are right-wing shrills. Do a search all you Hilary-haters, you might actually learn something.

:rofl:

This was the only poll that had her losing to all the Republicans, it just didn't make any sense. Any poll taken online is questionable.

Not that the mouth frothers will ever allow facts to get in their way.

When it comes to polls - you must ask yourself the following question = "Who is paying for this poll?". What I think is this - Hillary is paying 4 Gallop and Obama is paying for Zogby. Yes America -PHONEY polls DO exist.

So how come they only take issue with a Zogby poll when the result is not favorable for Hilary?
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394


Released: November 27, 2007
Mark Penn: Buckling Under the Pressure of an Unfavorable Poll



All is fair in love and war, the centuries–old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern–day America, maybe it should be. That’s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)

Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever – a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn’s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.

Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.

Fritz Wenzel
Director of Communications
Zogby International

(11/27/2007)

Zogby is being maligned by HRC's supporters for ONE poll that doesn't show her winning.

What I've heard Ed Shultz talking about for a long time (long before these latest polls) is the *difference* between HRC vs. various Repukes and the OTHER Dem candidates vs. those same potential opponents. (The other Dems always polling better than HRC against each Republican, often double-digits better. And Edwards doing better than Obama.)

It would seem to me that this is the real story the MSM is burying. Why? Of course, because they want this to be an HRC vs. Everyone Else story. HRC vs. Obama. HRC vs. Gulliani.

They want us to think that there ARE no other Democratic candidates. Maybe Obama. But certainly not Edwards. Even though he has polls higher against the Republicans. Even though his positions on the issues match those of more Americans than either HRC or Obama.

So, DUers, how's about we talk more about how the MSM is distorting OUR nomination process, in effect trying to DENY us a nomination process, and less about how F'd up one or another Democratic candidate is or isn't. Let's talk more about whose positions on the issues (remember those?) are better and why, instead of who likes which polls, or is "positioning" themselves better or "won" the last debate or whatever.

Then we might be actually adding something to the debate that's not there, at least not in the MSM.

And isn't that why a lot of us are here? To get something we can't get elsewhere.

Kumbya, free love, yada yada yada.

A recent Gallup poll testing hypothetical general election match-ups showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama edging out most of their potential Republican rivals in 2008.

The poll, conducted of 897 registered voters from Nov. 11-14, gave Hillary Clinton, who is leading the Democrats in most national polls, an advantage over everyone in the GOP field.

The hypothetical race was closest between Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Clinton and Arizona Sen. John McCain. The poll gave Clinton a 5-point edge in a match-up with Giuliani, 49 percent to 44 percent. In a race with McCain, Clinton received 50 percent, McCain received 44 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313224,00.html

- - -

I don't have any illusions about the inherent biases of outlets like Fox, or the desire by the mainstream outlets to push the "horserace" stories over more substantive issues, but I think too many people in both ideological camps allow their own biases to cloud the way they view the media world.

It was fun to see the anti-Hillary nuts with their panties/boxers all in a bunch the other day as they crowed about this fraudulent poll. I hear that humble pie is quite a bitter taste.

I noticed this story was getting a lot of attention all over the internet, even from reputable sites. One of the worst parts for Hillary is that she had a story out that day quoting her saying that she could win the GE against anyone. The poll made her look like a lier.

telephone polls aren't always reliable! :evilgrin:



:hide:

which contains a statement from a Zogby spokesman. People ae really comparing apples and oranges in this discussion of "the poll."

When you do polling properly, you can still get anomalies. The controversial poll may be an anomaly but it's not "bogus" and if TPM is saying it's "bogus,"
I'm disappointed in Josh Marshall because he should know better.

All polls depend on random sampling of a subset of the population. We never get polled now because we have our phone set to go to the answering machine and very rarely answer it. Our family members call each other's cell phones or send text messages. That's a trend in the US and it means many people have in essence opted out of being polled by phone, making phone polls less reliable than they used to be. This trend started with answering machines and Caller ID and has grown. People who respond to phone polls tend to be older and Republican so if they say they'll vote for Clinton, they may just be trying to skew the polls.

Zogby's online polls are not the sort where anyone can vote just by clicking a link; those are completely unscientific and unreliable because they're not random samplings.

Instead, Zogby has registered a large number of people willing to respond to internet polls and from that large number they take a random sample to poll each time they do a poll. If you're registered with Zogby, you shouldn't expect to be polled often; you may never be polled. Zogby polls probably include more people who actually will vote than phone polls do, because Zogby polls require you to register, while phone polls only require that you happen to be home and answer your phone, so their reliability may be greater than that of phone polls.

The controversial poll is not "bogus," the methodology seems fine, but the results of that particular poll may be an anomaly. When Clinton has done well in Zogby polls, Clinton supporters have loved Zogby. She does poorly in one poll and people want Zogby's head on a platter. It's silly. It's also silly to be saying that Clinton won't win, based on that one poll. It's ONE poll, people.

As the man said:

"Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach."

At this point, no one really knows if the poll in question is an anomaly or part of the trend for presidential races to tighten as primaries and caucuses approach. People who want HRC to win and those who don't should all get a grip and stop hyperventilating over polls.

I'm very disappointed in TPM for dropping the ball on this one and not understanding the difference between this Zogby poll and the kind that anyone can vote in.

It is a distinction without a difference

"Instead, Zogby has registered a large number of people willing to respond to internet polls..."

People of their own volition go to Zogby to "register", it does not matter one whit if from that pool there is a "random" sampling, as that pool itself is biased, non-random, and unrepresentative of the general voting population. It has no bearing on reality, and no meaning at all, other than to those who oppose Hillary to begin with.

It. Is. Not. Valid. Period.

As I didn't know what to make of the comments about Zogby and internet polling

You have cleared the matter up for me. And kept me secure in my respect for Zogby.

Thanks.

and I don't even bother to fill them out.

They take too long, and I'm too busy. Who are the people who have time to do it?