Zogby Defense: 'My Polling Was Very, Very Good'

(CNSNews.com) - Pollster John Zogby Thursday defended his company's participation in a left wing forum on Capitol Hill where liberal special interest groups and Democratic House members alleged that the 2004 election had been marred by fraud and malfunctioning voting machines.


And while Zogby erroneously cast Democrat John Kerry as the winner of the presidential election in his Election Day projection, the pollster insisted Thursday that his polling in the just completed presidential cycle was "very, very good."


As for the presence of his communications director at Wednesday's liberal forum on Capitol Hill, Zogby said it "was only to utilize a forum to call for a respectable commission" to address the complaints of Election Day fraud and disenfranchisement. "I rue the day when in this country one is guilty just by simply being inside a room," said Zogby, the president of Zogby International. The pollster telephoned CNSNews.com Thursday following the publication of an article detailing his firm's participation in the earlier forum.

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200412/POL20041210a.shtml

a liberal special interest group before. This is interesting.

were wrong, but Diebold was right. :eyes:

</sarcasm>

That's who they are quoting, an article from CSN. They are not what one would call a "reliable source." They are the Faux News of the Internet.

the title "Zogby Polling Seeks Damage Control After Election Day Flub" and that was the way they covered the Forum!!! So their twist was that Zogby's calling for a blue ribbon commission to check into the discrepencies between exit polls and vote tallies was just a CYA move on his part to point the blame anywhere but where it belonged -- at his doorstep, they implied. Check out the article... it'll make your blood boil.

Here's an excerpt:
"It is with this intention that we recommend that a blue ribbon bipartisan panel be developed to investigate the allegations discussed here today ..." Walcott added.

Later, another noted political observer questioned the wisdom of Walcott attending the partisan event at the Rayburn Office Building.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said Zogby polling may have crossed a line in its call for an investigation of the election results.

"It's highly unusual for a pollster who claims not to be partisan to issue such a call ," Sabato told CNSNews.com.

When asked whether he thought Zogby might be trying to spread the idea of voter fraud to explain his mistaken pre-election prediction, Sabato responded, "I can't comment on motives. I have no idea. But I can tell you this. This whole hullabaloo is malarky."

Pollsters should not do that.

He did well in 1996 and in 2000, but there is no guarantee that such success would be repeated.

the election fraud riddled election was correct?

but I tend to agree, Zogby was a little cocky leading up to the election.

That aside, the results of the fraud election just made him look worse. Hopefully he can lend expertise to the evaluation of the results.

Never underestimate the determination of a statistician wronged to clear his name!

said the election was Kerry's to lose months ago.

He should have stuck to oatmeal answers like "a poll is just a snapshot in time,..."

Once you publicly make a prediction like thaqt you leave yourself open to people thinking your polls are just trying to show your prediction coming true.

He was talking more about the fact that the current position that Bush was in historically (with right track-wrong track, approval, etc.) when he made that statement brought him to the conclusion that the race was Kerry's to lose.

For the most part. OTOH, there are some inherent limitations in polling, and the results should always be viewed as what they truly represent- a range of possible outcomes.

i.e. a poll showing Kerry with a one point lead was only marginally better for us than one showing a Bush one point lead. Neither one actually suggested with any confidence that a particular candidate was ahead.

and to deny the reality of what happened because up is suddenly down is more incredible than the most twisted of opinion poll results.

single voter, and the weighting is based on the experience of past elections, as I understand it. So the outcome can be affected if there are unusual circumstances operating in a particular election, imho.

I have no use for commonplace polling which "news" organizations use as a substitute for real and/or honest information/journalism/reporting. Exit polls dont have the luxury of manipulative terminology, and in contemporary elections are our only defense against rigged elections. it is no coincidence they shut down VNS exit polling after 2000.

wasnt he off in 2002 as well?

he was waaaaaay too cocky. he also did a bunch of internet polls that he would release that would show some odd results every now and then (like tied in Arkansas after Kerry people publicly said he couldnt win the state b/c he was too far behind). i would also wonder whether he got the partisan breakdown right, which where for the first time, we were tied with the R's

i know realclearpolitics.com collects and posts compilations of all the pollsters, and from what it looked like, the only wrong call on battlegrounds from the averages on the election was Wisconsin, which the avg. put for Bush but where Kerry won

actually count people that have already voted.

were fine.....until 2000.


They are used around the world to disuade fraud.

The evidence is staring us in the face guys.Don't question yourself just because "THEY" the criminals are acting insane.

Its right there.Its the truth and nothing can change those numbers.OR the history if exit polling.

:think: :eyes:

In the clutch, he ALWAYS comes through for the GOP! He's much like "independent" pollster Frank Lutz.

:puke:

and the conservative application of facts and logic

it seems that he got a bit to cocky this time around. And, I noticed that in this election he appeared to want to play both sides of the field a tad. It would have been a lot better to remain completely objective publicly- even tho he is a liberal at heart, I believe.