Dem Strategist: Polls -IGNORE THEM

There are dozens of reasons why you should ignore polls.

For one, how much did the primary polls tell you about Kerry's chances?

For two, polls are the media's best tool to spin Kerry (as in, a four point lead is a "slight" lead for Kerry or "within the margin of error," whereas a three point lead for Bush is an "edge" or an "advantage.") Why play into the media's game?

For three, from a strategic perspective, and taking into account voter psychology, media spin, and the nature of human nature, would you rather Kerry be ahead or behind at this point?

For four, polls are a distraction - there's a job to do and polls don't change that job. The job is to focus, focus, focus, and win.

(Caveat: I'm referring to the use of polls for you. If strategists do internal polling for tactical purposes, that's a different matter)

based on polls is futile. I particularly love the people claiming that the polls "prove" that a Kerry win is nearly guaranteed. Or the opposite.

So much can change between now and November.

We waste *so* much time arguing about/fretting over/debating polls that could be so much better spent helping Kerry and our local candidates get elected!

You're stepping into my area of expertise with that statement, and i completely disagree that any analysis of these data is futile.

The snapshot information may be useless, but trend analysis, done the right way, and with sufficient data, can predict just about anything to within a narrow margin for error.

You're mind is already made up, so i won't try to convince you, but i just wanted you to know there's an expert in this field that disagrees with you.
The Professor

Did you predict he'd win the primary?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=617678&mesg_id=617678


Any comments?

I'm guessing that you "won't try to convince" me, because you can't.

Let's see one shred of evidence that you called the primary race for Kerry based on trend analysis early in the primaries, preferably from the time period when he was in single digits and everyone was declaring his candidacy dead.

Otherwise, take your overinflated ego and go waste someone else's time. If you're going to post condescending crap like this, you better be prepared to back it up.

there is some meaning in the trend lines.

it's better for the perception to be that Kerry is in a close race so his voters are more energized?

You make a number of very good points about accuracy and spin re: polls. But I did notice an AP story yesterday where Kerry aides pointed to states polls showing Kerry leading in states worth 316 electoral votes, so they aren't totally ignoring them. It is interesting that the state numbers seem to be even better for Kerry than the national figures.

Still nice to hear though.

If you can a large sample of many polls, not just one poll - and you don't listen to the media spin on the poll, just look at the poll data yourself, you can get a feeling for the direction things are going.

For example when 15 out of 16 national polls put Kerry in the lead, that to me is an interesting and informative sample.

For another example: about three weeks ago CNN reported that Bush had the lead in Florida. But then later, some brave CNN reporter (who probably doesn't work there) interrupted the news anchor to say that this isn't really truthful, because despite the fact that CNN's poll shows a 5 point lead, there are six polls in Florida: two showed Bush leading, two showed Kerry leading and two were too close to call, so in truth Florida is a toss up. Then sure enough, a week later, its starts being universally shown in Florida polls that Kerry was leading...

So I agree that turning to CNN and seeing their poll and letting that be the basis for what you think is going on is a mistake. But looking a many polls and looking for trends is still telling.

That doesn't change the fact that there's work to do for sure, but it still gives an indication of how that work is going.

Like for money? With business cards, a sleep debt measurable in centuries, 27.3 Rolodexes and all that? ;-)

I think you just summed up my life in a few short words.

Perfect! :)

"sleep debt measurable in centuries" is a great line. :)

This election ain't my first goat rodeo. I know how it works. ;-)

to have the answer to everything.

Well, this democrat will continue to model and analyze polls and gain insight in the process.

I know CNN/Gallup is bogus. That's why I incorporate many polls in my model.

And mathematics tells me that Kerry is ahead of Bush. That's a good thing to know when the media would only fool you into thinking that Kerry had a negative bounce, as per that ONE stinking gallup poll.

To say polls are worthless is a monumental error on your part. You have lost some credibility with me. And I am not breathlessly waiting until Nov. 3 for you to identify yourself.

It makes one lose confidence around the sample mean of your "expertise".

A person running for office would have to be a fool to not want to know how he's doing at any point in time and which issues he is strong on and which issues he is vulnerable...


Where you are incorrect is that you use polling data to prediction election results far into the future....

Look, when will it sink in? I am getting quite tired of your snide commentary.

The reason I do the analysis is to see where we are, based on the polls, at any given point in time. And that means voting percentages, national, state EV's and win probabilities.

Lots of people do a similar analysis. Why do you have a problem with that?

You should grow up and think about this. Your criticisms are getting very old. No matter what I say, you spout the same old same old.

If you want to talk polls, assumptions, methodology, be my guest. But for God's sake, do me a favor and cut the crap. You are just making a fool of yourself.

There are a lot of professionals who have there own blogs and do essentially what I am doing. Professor Sam Wang of Princeton for one. Or the Votemaster at electoral-vote.com.
Or Chris Bowers at mydd.com

I am going to call you on your bonafides. I don't know what your work/education background is. But if you never took Prob/Stat 101, you have no business questioning my model. The same goes if you never have written a model.

If you do not respond to these questions, I will assume you have done neither. In which case, you are out of your league.

Bulletin Board....


I ignored it the first time....


I have done post grad work in Government at Florida State University so I think I know a thing or two about polls and politics....


All the polls can tell us is how a candidate is doing at any point in time... And the more polls you have the better picture you have of how that candidate is doing.... These polls can not predict how a candidate will do in November....


I'll give you a vivid example to demonstate how poorly a poll taken today can predict what will happen on Novermber 2nd.

Kerry has a small lead over Bush but if there was undoctored videotape of Kerry or Bush fellating a dog that candidate would be toast regardless of how he is doing in the polls today....


P.S. Several members of this site have questioned your methodology.


Sincerely,


Democrat Since Birth

So you have been hoisted on your own petard.

William Pitt vouched for him on his maiden thread.

tactical folks - even a "Strategist" - on this board.

:-)

Indeed we grade everyone else.

Indeed this board has the classic Democratic Party structure that I love (As was said in the 20's - I belong to no organized party - I'm a Democrat)

But your point is well taken.

It is the volunteering - the ground game - that will put us over the top!

:-)

I know you can't answer every question, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how and why the media became Kerry/democrats #1 enemy. What co-opted them? It's amazing to me that 30 yrs ago the media was protecting sources in order to uncover WH crimes whereas now the media is protecting sources in order to COVER UP a WH crime (Plame leak).

in a culture that promotes free trade, commerce, MBAs, and gluttonous wealth along vacuous image. The media is voting with their checkbook. R's have not only bought the media through access to power but have literally bought it(I believe that even Poppy's buddies at Carlyle have been busy buying media). Can we say Ruper Murdoch or Clear Channel here. That's why AAR has been so important to us. Our voices truly rarely filter through the managed show that is being produced everyday in the media. Since the media is "dancing with them that brung 'em", they will spin and cover and willingly dissemble. I do know that some have been intimidated, but journalism has become a profession without honor or integrity. It is part of the GOP production that occurs daily creating a false image of the nation that needs to be shattered. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS AS A NATION. Someone on another thread was talking about Atrios' article on his frustration with spokespersons for the Kerry campaign. I endorse those criticisms. You need people who are fearless AND knowledgeable as spokespeople. They need to understand that Rs shoutover, interrupt, and whine about not being allowed to speak. They need to come prepared with facts and able to counter the current trash talk that the Rs have started for the day. Ever notice that the R talking points are always guttertalk and not issues? Redirecting to issues is great but slapping down a liar and smut monger needs to occur too. How do you stand up to bullies? You get in their faces then educate them when you have their attention.

are 50% or below, correct?

I always understood that an incumbent below 50% will have trouble getting re-elected.

Do you think this is still true?


On edit: spelling

by the media to flog voters and create narratives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2209481

Try to spread the word that no other poll has Bush above 50 percent? Gallup is supposed to be reputable.

.

It's a hard habit to break, though, checking out http://www.pollingreport.com every day with bated breath. :evilgrin:

Thanks for the insight.

That the polls, especially the ones that come out of major media corporation alliences, are...ahem..."massaged", to create the illusion that a race is closer than it is.

Why?

Eyeballs, and those eyeballs are delivered by the tension of a close race.

Case in point: I have a good friend who used to work for NBC News. Did the on-screen graphics. He heard, many times, that news was supposed to pump the stories that kept people home, during the holiday seasons. Accidents, weather, cops on the roads. Anything to keep them home and watching the commercials(Shows are merely commercial delivery mediums, almost ancillary). Scared to go out. Tension. Uncertainty.

Do I think a variation of this is in play with the polls and the campaign reporting. Yup. Sure do. In fact, I am certain of it.

Then expect a Kerry landslide.

can you click here and reply to my NO-DRAFT Plan for JK and for a Kerry Times newspaper delivered to Undecideds in swing states. (I was hired by the Dean campaign to create the Dean Times, which I can send you on PDFs)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=613558&mesg_id=613558

Thanks!

Dems Will Win

Weird questions; very simplistic. I suppose those who think in black and white have an easier time with it.

I kept wondering as I did it if his computer had been hacked and this survey was one big joke. Tin Man vs Cowardly Lion? WTF? This is the first one where I just refused to answer some of the questions.

some of the questions were just too stupid.

At our county Dem meeting last night, our president said he is becoming really frustrated by people coming in to the HQ looking for Kerry-Edwards yard signs. It is frustrating b/c we don't have any, and, the president said, the people in Little Rock are saying we WON'T have any for another month. Do you have any suggestions for our local club other than trying to get donations to buy them ourselves? Our club doesn't have the money right now b/c the HQ and local elections is taking all we raise. We would have to all donate some extra to get the signs to hand out. Is that what we should do?

Try to find an union printing shop in town, and ask them if you can get those signs printed for a discount.

But, I have no experience. Someone reported last night that we can by the signs from the website for $1.55 each for 100. I forgot how much they are if we buy 1000. Do you think a local shop would make some for us for less than that?

We are wanting these to keep at the HQ and hand out to citizens who come in looking for them. We have plenty of bumper stickers and other items - just no yard signs. I am assuming the ones from the website come with the wire stands as well. And they are plastic and durable.

Campaigns usually like to not get them out too early. They are most effective in the last month. Then it is good to have hundreds of signs all coming out at one time in each neighborhood.

If signs are up too long they lose their impact and sort of fade into the surrounding environment and no longer attract attention.

Look for signs to start getting distributed around mid-September.

For now, distribute bumper stickers and buttons.

that says 'Bush polling over 50% again?'...I was scrolling down and saw your post just three or four below that post. Glad I scrolled down BEFORE I read it. This post saved me from torturing myself and saved me time!!! :hi:

Edited for sloppy spelling!

(or close to that) the mood is down in general. I can feel it, can't you? (Ignore CNN, ABC and Fox especially)

There's nothing we can do about the polls, either, so they don't help us as activists.

Polls are good for professionals, but not for us plebes?

Professionals will not be distracted by polls, but we morons in the rank and file will be distracted? Thanks for your respect. Gee, we're only voters who are on your side. Why should you worry about insulting us?

The media announcing valid corporate polls showing Kerry in the lead won't have an effect on the fence-riders creating the standard bandwagon effect? Since when? Any documented theories showing that this type of bandwagon effect no longer applies? Didn't think so.

Sheesh! You might think you're helping, but you're just pissing me off.
The Professor

Thanks to the polls we all "knew" Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, and Papa Bush were toast long before the first ballot was cast...

I think we'll need to set up election rehab centers,

In fact, I posted a thread on that topic not too long ago... dropped like a rock. :)

Only possible justification for responding is if it is an internal organizational poll by some group like Move-On.

Way too many people have gotten sucked into surfing the net answering them for their issue or their candidate, and mistaking this for actual political work.

It's like an addiction, even though I know most are biased and flawed to some extent. Working for the campaign is the best antidote for poll obsession!

or articulate, or at least added to the discussion in some way.

Do you have anything of value to say? We're listening...

person in his/her other thread that has not gotten a response yet, like most people that have responded. This sort of "advice" is so pedestrian that this person cannot be for real.

in and respond to the posts he (or she) wanted.

I posted a long message for him/her at the bottom of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=616672&mesg_id=618158

There are dozens of reasons why you should ignore strategists.

For one, how much did they tell you about who was going to win the primaries?

For two, they are pretentious windbags, who generally only state the obvious, are partisan hacks, have no more insight than anyone else, and in general don't tell you anything you haven't already figured out for yourself.

For three, they are usually wrong.

Caveat: This only applies to strategists who try to cloak their pedestrian indentities with an aura of mystery and importance, leading everyone with any sense to realize they are simply fakes who wouldn't be able to get anyone to read their posts otherwise.

Words of wisdom.

"Either,lead, follow or get out of the way"--Lee Iococca. That's even better advice. ;-)

Hmmmm... This courteous post seems inarguable, if a bit vague, but it lead me to an interesting examination of the philosophical underpinnings of the quote attributed to Lee Iacocca.
(I doubt it's his, by the way, although it's corporate enough.)
Let us imagine a world where all followed this creed. This world would be divided into leaders, followers, and getters out of the way.
It would further be divided into opposing camps headed by the leaders, with a certain portion of apathetic bystanders.
The camps would go at each other as per their leaders' bidding, proselytizing among the bystanders, who would also suffer most of the collateral damage. A scarey world, all too familiar.
This, I propose with sincere and kindly disposition to the poster, is bad advice, even very bad advice.

Perhaps a better advice would be Shakespeare's, "To thine own self be true, and as night follows day, thou canst not be false to any man."
or Burke;
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
or even Leary; "Do your own thing."

Ideas can come from bottom up or top down, but a winning strategy requires adherence to a plan put forward by leaders.

I'll get out of the way. You might hear me carping from the sidelines occasionally, though.
Oh, and I will vote when I have the chance, since I have that right. Most likely I'll do some other things as well. As far as following a plan, though, I'm just not very good at that. Some are, though, and I wish them the best.

:thumbsup:

Are you really "The" Whitney Brown, or merely "A" Whitney Brown? (He is one of my favorite comics, and that was one of his standard jokes.)

...you'd have come off a lot better. Instead, you just wasted more of your credibility with people like myself. See ProfessorGAC's post #29, below ("How Convenient") for a pretty good synopsis of my initial reaction to your post.

Had you simply listed the four reasons why you think polls should be ignored, we'd have all debated and agreed and disagreed and batted ideas around, and life would be good. :P But then you just had to add that last paragraph -- "I'm referring to the use of polls for you. If strategists do internal polling for tactical purposes, that's a different matter". In other words, "don't worry your purty l'il heads about polls, leave them to us perfessional strateegists".

Okay, I'm getting sarcastic. But if you can't see it, maybe you need to be knocked upside the head a couple times. :spank:

C'mon guy, get with the program. You're talking to a very politically savvy board, including people who have worked on campaigns and even some who eat statistics for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So, did you come here for dialog and exchange, or to pontificate??? To strategize among equals, or just to talk down to the rubes?

Sorry if I seem testy, but a Professional Political Strategist ought to know how to talk to their own political base without alienating them. I mean it's just basic manners, like your mom should've taught you. Know what I'm saying?

:grr:

I noticed you have been a member for a while from your profile but that you have not posted very much. You should speak up more. You're very impressive.

Thanks

:wtf:

I can't believe some of the posters in this thread...

?


SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

for five, poll results are intrinsically linked to the wording of the questions asked, which can be loaded to shape desired outcomes.

Are you going to vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket or the Kerry-Edwards ticket is really a loaded question...

like that's the only poll question that ever gets asked.

Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere for your argument, you didn't bring anything interesting to this one.

The original poster said to ignore the horserace question...



Maybe's he right....


I just think it's difficult to load a "who are you going to vote for" question...

You have to be connected in oder to get polled these days.

People who've lost their jobs and can't pay the phone bill don't get polled.

People who are homeless don't get polled.

People who are suspicious of strangers don't get polled.

People who were under-aged on the last election don't get polled.

But they can and do vote.

that the horse-race polls taken in August mean next to nothing. But what else would we have to talk about if there were no polls? LOL

The poll question that DOES mean something and is the best predicter of the outcome of a presidential race is the one that asks, "Do you think the country is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?"

When the number of people who say the wrong direction hits 50 percent, the incumbent is screwed.

Polls are constantly touted around here - especially if they have Kerry even or ahead.

I happen to enjoy seeing positive signs, especially the trending posts that offer the work of talented number crunchers, analysts, etc.

Bad news is hard to take, especially when the stakes are high and the passion is great for our candidate.

However, could Dem Strategist be subtly warning us that the trend is turning, don't worry, we have it under control?

Smear Boats working . . . *w on attack. . . RNC bounce coming up . . .Kerry on defensive on Iraq . . .media ignoring Iraq . . . more terra alerts. . .

If *w is way ahead in a majority of polls in mid-September and his job approval rating is at 55% and climbing, will this thread be repeated by Dem Strategist - POLLS - IGNORE THEM!

actually that's just one reason. The point is no matter what we still have a job to do.
We must win in November and not accept any signs of either defeat or victory as reason for lessening those efforts.

I'm in my mid-50's, a registered voter, lived in the same place and had the same phone number since 1979. I have been called only once for a poll. I do the online Zogby poll quite regularly but that's the only one. I'm curious as to how they choose their sampling of people to poll. I somehow made it to the list of polls for what brand of toilet paper we use and what radio stations we listen to, but my family seems to have fallen off of the political polling radar.

Here's an experiment to do at home.... Flip a coin five times you might get four heads and one tail but flip that coin one thousand times and I'll bet you get damn near five hundred heads and five hundred tails...



If my poll is a true random sample I can get an idea of how the nation will vote interviewing 1,000 people... And even if Iinterviewed 500,000 people I couldn't get much closer to a true result....

Constantly fretting over the polls - and particular over media interpretation of the polls - is useless.

The polls serve some purpose because they provide a snapshot of a point in time. But, that's all it is - a snapshot.

There are so many other aspects and activities in this election that are far more worthy of our time.

and MOE's are debated like they are the end-all of this election.
We got better things to do then fret.

And those small swings are treated like major events, particularly by the media.

Interpretation is a huge part of it. I agree about the MOE, as well - swings within the MOE are approached like earth-shattering events, when they could mean that absolutely nothing changed.

Reason being.........I've yet to be polled and Im a registered voter.

Nobody likes to pick a loser. So the media, often having decided who they want the next president to be YEARS before the election, will create false polls to prod the undecided toward the candidate of their choice. For the undecided swing voter, polls often will convince them, at the last moment, to play the odds..to pick the winner. They're like gamblers at the race track playing the odds, watching polls and waiting for an apparent winner, waiting for which bandwagon to jump on and decieve themselves that they picked a winner..that they are "part of the herd".

Having been to a Kerry Rally, I can tell you there is no shortage of enthusiasm for getting Bush out of office! While Bush is preaching to the choir in invitation only rallies designed solely for the photo-op, Kerry is reaching out to EVERYONE with rallies open for ALL to see. So explain, realistically, how Bush can EVER be gaining new voters as a result of his campaigning?! Since he speaks to only the converted, HOW can he be reaching out to those precious swing voters like Kerry is doing?! So how can Bush's approval rating be INCREASING? Did thousands of people suddenly find jobs and decide that Bush is the way to go? I DOUBT THAT considering July was one of the WORST months for employment this year!! So the weak jobs report from last month has INCREASED Bush's approval rating?! American troop deaths are about to hit the 1,000 mark and Bush's approval rating is increasing?!

Once again, polls are simply cattleprods to drive uninformed and undecided voters toward the candidate the poll has chosen to win..it's using the human herding instinct for political purposes!