Zogby on Zogby Poll: "...not our finest hour." "...slipped through the cracks."

I thought they were interested in the truth, here?

Well see? There's your problem right there.

I've lost a heckuva lot of respect for a lot of people who used to be more rational than they've been over the last two or three months.

Well, I've only been here about 2 months, so I guess I only saw the irrational side of these people. I'm sure I know at least several of the people you're talking about, though. I think it was easier for them to take the high road and be respectful when their side was in power. The more they saw the tides shifting, the more quickly they abandoned rational thought as a way to explain the shifting paradigm. Christians became Muslims, acquaintances became domestic terrorists, and the mentally handicapped became viable Vice Presidential candidates. Just remember how they acted when the tide shifts back their way, as it inevitably will one day. Let's not sink to their level of crazy. We're better than that.

I've been keeping an eye on these too Brian and I share your concern for NV conservatives. 

Indeed, it's started to impact my page-views.  I miss the days when conservative voices on Newsvine were brave enough to pit their views and knowledge against their Liberal opposition. 

These days, it seems many just want to keep to themselves and congratulate each other on the quality of their posts.

These days, it seems many just want to keep to themselves and congratulate each other on the quality of their posts.

just like the other 80% of newsvine?  as a conservative here, i try to read all sides and not stick to just the conservative posts.  however, i get pretty bored with when discussions turn into bush bashing or repub bashing with no answer to my post. i find some debates just turn into both sides (i do it too) not willing to make any concession in the debate and it just comes down to repeating points over and over because they will not be discussed.  i'll discuss anything but usually require a response to what I actually wrote.

that was off topic obviously... so on to the poll.  if a documentary is being done on the media's influence, then it should be run on a full spectrum of voters.  However, there is still value to the poll as it was.  take out the obama supporter factor and it still shows the media did not get the message out on biden and obama as much as they trashed palin and mccain. overall it shows how uninformed voters are.  i bet you could find a bunch of mccain supporters who couldn't answer some of those questions either.

 I thought they were interested in the truth, here?  

You're kidding, right?   I mean, did you listen to even one soundbyte from a Palin rally? 

Truth?   These folks don't even know the definition of the word.

As for the apparent disappearance of all those rabid conservatives, many of them were never really planning on sticking around anyway.  There were several that I pegged as "plants", which I defined as a Viner who joined during the last few months of the campaigns, never wrote an article of their own, rarely or never seeded anything, and spent all their time visiting articles that supported Obama, where they posted the most outrageous rhetoric and allegations against Obama - and then disappeared again whenever one of his supporters debunked their claims. 

I found at least 6 of these individuals, and I'm sure there were more that I missed.  No matter what response they got to one of their outlandish anti-Obama posts, they would either come back with something even more ridiculous (without ever addressing the replies), or just move on to the next article on their hit list. 

It got to the point where any time someone posted an anti-Obama comment, I immediately checked their column.  If they'd been on the Vine more than a month without writing or seeding anything, and if their comment history was a litany of "hit and run" attacks against Obama and the Dems, I would just put them on my ignore list.   I would swear these folks were being paid to troll sites like this just to spread the lies and hate-mongering being promoted by the GOP during the campaign.

My supposition has been borne out by the fact that those I pegged as being "plants" have not been on the Vine since the election results were announced. 

take out the obama supporter factor and it still shows the media did not get the message out on biden and obama as much as they trashed palin and mccain.

I still beg to differ, but first let me say thanks for being a reasonable conservative voice. As a registered Republican myself (who voted Obama in this particular election), I think it's sad how the most shrill and illogical of our group seems to be getting so much attention lately. Gives the rest of us a bad name.

On to the point. Even if you remove the "Obama supporters" element, the poll was tainted by the bias of the polling source. Many answers relied on agreeing with a particular (conservative) viewpoint, so the question was less "do you know this fact?" and more, "do you agree with this talking point?" If the poll had been conducted using questions with straight, objective answers, I would agree with you that it still has merit even if the results were the same. But the taint of that is on it, and so none of the results can be trusted.

I've lost a heckuva lot of respect for a lot of people who used to be more rational than they've been over the last two or three months.

I find myself de-tracking some and just plain ignoring more and more. This election has been, and still is, a real eye opener into who has drunk the kool aid on both sides. Some have been taking serious drugs!

I will continue with my "wait and see" attitude, and be a little hopeful things might get better.

He won't poll one specific political party using biased questions with no control group? Amazing!

I've seen the questions and I can't see where the bias is, care to elucidate?

 With the media coverage it's probably impossible to poll McCain voters now and get good results to compare to the initial one.

I've seen the questions and I can't see where the bias is, care to elucidate?

Were you intentionally trying to prove Brian's point?  If so, kudos.

I've seen the questions and I can't see where the bias is, care to elucidate?

Sure, thanks for asking. The questions might look innocent enough, but the bias was in the expected responses. Questions were loaded with the conservative viewpoint, and marked incorrect if a respondant couldn't give the proper conservative talking point response. Here's a good example:

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

Should we really count it as "incorrect" if someone says Obama isn't going to bankrupt the coal industry? It's a prediction at best, and a biased one at worst. That's not a statement of fact, it's one of opinion. Let's look at another:

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

Though the "Obama started his career at Ayers' house" meme was popular among conservative pundits, the campaign itself denied it. So then what should count as a correct answer, the conservative talking point, or where the candidate has said he started his political career? Let's take another look.

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

In the 80s. They didn't ask any similarly old questions about McCain, such as the Keating 5 scandal.

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

I don't think anyone needs me to point out why this is loaded.

Steve, good analysis. I would like to add that they didn't ask the questions the same each time, and they were biased and open-ended questions, they offered answers, and they tried to ask questions which might stump the respondee.

This is not scientific research, and I've said it on other posts but no offense, but if you don't know this, you don't understand research.

steve  the questions about who controls the goverment and such still show how un-informed voters are on basic civics.

maybe you don't agree obama started his career in ayers house.  but the fact that someone can't link Obama and weather underground, even in the same sentence is telling.

i think you do need to tell me why the last question is loaded?  didn't obama win his first election because of his actions to get other people off the ballot?  maybe those people didn't follow the rules or whatever, but he essentially got them kicked off the ballot.  none of the other candidates did that. 

i'll admit there was a conservative spin which is why a poll with all spectrum of voters on facts about the candidates would be interesting.

What you listed aren't questions, but a recounting of the results from a conservative point of view. The questions, or at least the ones I've heard, were fairly straightforward. A large majority knew all about Palin's preganant daughter but few even knew who Ayers was, for instance.

Waynester, here is the Zogby survey in its original form [warning: PDF]  Let's go through the questions shall we?

204. Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot?

This is contested.  Obama ran unopposed in a primary election after challenging signatures gathered by his opponents, but won the general handily.

209. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?

Even taken out of context, that's not what Obama said.  Here's the actual quote minus the context. 

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Taken in context it's very clear that he's just talking about pollution controls and the construction of dirty-coal plants without attempts to control emissions.

210. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute the wealth?

Bzzzt.  Wrong again.  Here's the actual quote:

If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

211. Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?

Contested and denied by the candidate.  Obama went to a lot of houses that day, most of which weren't owned by former members of the Weather Underground.  Suggesting that he started his career in that particular house (instead of the many others he visited) is disengenuous at best.

Taken in context it's very clear that he's just talking about pollution controls and the construction of dirty-coal plants without attempts to control emissions.

Wrong. New coal plants aren't built without emission controls. It's not allowed. He's talking about C02 emissions, not sulpur dioxides, etc.

 And I think when you spread the wealth around,

It's essientally the same thing and was described that way by some in the media ad nauseum. Wealth redistribution is a central tenet in the Dem party, has been for years, only they don't call it that.

Contested and denied by the candidate.  Obama went to a lot of houses that day, most of which weren't owned by former members of the Weather Underground.  Suggesting that he started his career in that particular house (instead of the many others he visited) is disengenuous at best.

From a blog post by by Maria Warren, a political liberal who attended the function:

When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.

204. Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot?

This is contested.  Obama ran unopposed in a primary election after challenging signatures gathered by his opponents, but won the general handily.

I don't get it. The fact in the question is true. If you challenge the qualifying signatures and your opponents are removed from the ballot as a result, isn't that getting them kicked off the ballot? And wasn't the primary Obama's first election?

See how we're having an argument over these issues though Waynester?  See how you've had to use "it's essentially the same thing," inferance about what Obama meant instead of what he said, and the opinions of a political blogger to make your points?

You have to agree with the premise of the questions to get them "right."

Now contrast that to the questions about McCain/Palin:

201. Which candidate could not say how many houses they own?

Ok, a little dodgy.  It would have been better to say "could not or would not"

205. Which candidate wore clothes that their political party reportedly spent $150,000 on?

Point of fact.

206. Which candidate currently has a pregnant teenage daughter?

Point of fact.

The only other question about McCain/Palin wasn't really about McCain Palin but was about Tina Fey.  Of course, the survey didn't offer the correct answer as an option there.

It was a bull@!$%# survey Waynester and really only tested the extent to which Obama voters bought into the right-wing's talking points because, without that buy in, it's very difficult to answer the questions "correctly."

I don't get it. The fact in the question is true. If you challenge the qualifying signatures and your opponents are removed from the ballot as a result, isn't that getting them kicked off the ballot? And wasn't the primary Obama's first election?

When was "election day" this year?  Who won "the election?"  A primary race is usually considered part and parcil of the race for the actual position in question.  If they'd said "won his first primary" that might have been better, but even then you're inclined to look at the Presidential primaries. 

Again, a bull@!$%# talking point.  Obama won the election fair and square because he ran in a heavily Democratic district.

  Of course, the survey didn't offer the correct answer as an option there.

Wrong.

"None" was an option as it was on all the questions of that type. You don't seem to  realize it's not about what's a point of fact or not. The reportage is what this is about. Whether things are contested ot not isn't the point, the fact is if you are paying attention you know what the issues were and how they were framed by the opposing sides. I'll bet you knew the answers to all of them, didn't you? That's because you paid attention, unlike many in the poll. "Hope and change" was all it appears to have taken (that and a economic downturn) to win the highest office in the land and that should give us all something to think about.

maybe you don't agree obama started his career in ayers house.  but the fact that someone can't link Obama and weather underground, even in the same sentence is telling.

Maybe. Or perhaps the McCain campaign should've used the term "weather underground" a little more than "terrorist." The link was kept vague because the word "terrorist" is much scarier than actually naming a defunct and long-gone extremist group from an era when lots of people were upset with the government.

204. Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot?

This is contested.  Obama ran unopposed in a primary election after challenging signatures gathered by his opponents, but won the general handily.

I would also point out that besides simply being a half-truth, the phrasing of the question is engineered to make it sound underhanded -- which is a matter of opinion.

Whether things are contested ot not isn't the point, the fact is if you are paying attention you know what the issues were and how they were framed by the opposing sides.

So wait, now it doesn't matter that the poll was clearly biased, because the purpose was just testing the waters of whether people knew how the election was being framed by Republicans? That's strange, just a little while ago you said:

I've seen the questions and I can't see where the bias is

Interesting turn-around.

Like I said, the poll was driven by an agenda, and its "correct" answers were talking points. Even if people like Killfile could answer all the questions, it's unreasonable to expect the average Obama voter to be familiar with all of Limbaugh and Hannity's talking point smears. Just like I wouldn't run a poll expecting a McCain voter to be familiar with everything Olbermann or Huffington Post has said over the election cycle.

Besides, you're commenting on all this inside a news story about how John Zobgy himself threw the poll under the bus. That should be enough to tell you it's not something you want to rally your cause behind.

I should have said I've seen some of the questions as I hadn't seen them all. My bad. I'm not rallying anything around anything.

I found it interesting that in the question about the coal plants which has clearly a negative premise and the quote on which it was based wasn't widely deseminated, a plurality of respondents chose McCain. I guess that's natural for Obama voters to think, "if it's bad it must be about McCain". heh.

Regardless of this poll or whether the questions were biased or not , I think it is indisputable that the media was instrumental in the Obama victory. You could have asked some of these questions with entirely neutral premises or actual quotes and you would have gotten the same result. Of that I am sure. Too bad Ziegler or Zogby didn't but its too late now.

I guess that's natural for Obama voters to think, "if it's bad it must be about McCain". heh.

Well I would think McCain supporters would think the same, no? It's probably fairly natural to think the worst of the opposition, and if you don't know the answer, guess. Unfortunate but true.

I think it is indisputable that the media was instrumental in the Obama victory.

I think so too, though probably for a different reason. Obama was a good marketer, plain and simple. I work in a marketing department, and everything from his logo to his Web site, his slogans, and staying on-point with his message, it all helped "sell" him to the American people. The trouble comes when conservatives assume that's all he had going for him. There was substance behind the message. That's how marketing works. The message piques people's interest, and then they investigate further.

It's easy (and common) enough to pitch sour grapes, as I've seen around Newsvine, and claim Obama somehow "swindled" people by being slick. He was slick, I'm not about to deny that, but it's insulting to assume other intelligent, grown men and women were led blindly and didn't care whatsoever about the issues.

it all helped "sell" him to the American people.

That's exactly what the campaigns are all about, any and all of them. The higher the office, the more money and marketing involved. Anyone that's ever worked in advertising can point out the marketing tricks used by all of them. Obama was better at it, and by a large margin. He had to be, to beat two big name opponents in Clinton and McCain.

But you can't sell an empty box, all you can do is get people's attention to it. Once there, you have to show them what's inside. Obama showed enough for people to want to take a chance with him. 

I don't have a problem with Obama doing a superior marketing job, more power to him. It was the media helping him at every turn I had a problem with. Even Howard Kurtz has noticed it, after the fact, but still.

The funny thing is one of the questions Killfile and others had a problem with (the redistributing the wealth question) the Obama voters got "right"! By like, 82% 

the idea was just stupid

That's the key.  A moronic sophmoric circle jerk.  What an institiution Zogby is...and what a noble purpose.

You misunderstand the intent of the poll. It wasn't to make Obama voters look dumb, it was to show how the media failed to inform the voters of the facts. The poll was commissioned as a basis for the documentary How Obama Got Elected

Your implication that Conservative/Republican = dumb is pretty farcical itself, so I wouldn't be too proud of myself if I were you.

Your implication that Conservative/Republican = dumb is pretty farcical itself, so I wouldn't be too proud of myself if I were you.

I wouldn't be too proud of my reading comprehension skills if I were you. He said "someone, somewhere". That in no way implies that Conservatives/Republicans are dumb. If anything, it could be taken that those who created the poll with a specific agenda in mind are dumb. The fact that you got offended and took it as a personal attack says it all, really.

The poll was commissioned as a basis for the documentary How Obama Got Elected

I think that's the problem. Similar to a Michael Moore film, the documentary has an axe to grind, so naturally the poll itself slants a certain way. If a documentary filmmaker similarly wants to distort facts, he can go for it, but it's hypocritical for conservatives to criticize Moore's op-ed pieces (which I have) due to being non-objective and then rally behind this poll.

but it's hypocritical for conservatives to criticize Moore's op-ed pieces (which I have) due to being non-objective and then rally behind this poll.

Very good point.

I'm a liberal and I don't like Moore's films either. Although he does occasionally present some reasonable data. This poll, however, is not reasonable data.

I wouldn't be too proud of my reading comprehension skills if I were you

Perhaps if he could write a clear paragraph it wouldn't be an issue:

All they care about is that someone, somewhere, made Obama supporters out to be as dumb as them.

And since you feel compelled to answer for Steve, who did he mean by "they"? I took the someone, somewhere to be a reference to Ziegler, not Republicans.

Steve:

At least Ziegler, unlike Moore, actually made an effort to come up with something concrete to back up the thesis of his film. He hired a professional outfit to do the poll and spent 13k in the process. That's something that would never occur to Moore.

He hired a professional outfit to do the poll and spent 13k in the process.

And that professional outlet has now given a show of no confidence in the poll results, thus deflating the central thesis of his film - at least until he commissions another 13K for another, unbiased one. That's got to sting.

At least Ziegler, unlike Moore, actually made an effort to come up with something concrete to back up the thesis of his film. He hired a professional outfit to do the poll and spent 13k in the process. That's something that would never occur to Moore

Wayne, money doesn't matter. You can spend a million dollars on a research project that is invalid. Moore's data isn't this same kind of research anyway. Moore doesn't "poll" people. He does case studies, and uses information from census data, company data, and scholarly jornals. Polling costs more money than Moore's method.

I'm not saying I like Moore, but his researach is more grounded than Ziegler's. I'm sorry, but it just is.

And that professional outlet has now given a show of no confidence in the poll results

Given a show? Did he use dancers and singers? So it was OK with Zogby untill he had a crapload of heat come down on him from the leftists in the media (which is to say, the media) and then decided it wasn't kosher, huh? Sounds fishy to me.

Or, if he legitimately didn't realize he did something stupid, people brought up good points on why it wasn't a well-executed poll, and he had an open enough mind to see the other side.

Either way, Zogby's word is either reliable or it isn't. The same people who were standing behind this poll based on the strength of his word quickly backpeddled when he threw it under the bus. It ends up being pretty transparent as to people's motives when you see such a sharp turnaround. If you were critical of how much weight Zogby's opinion carried before he changed his tune, then sure, by all means, question him now.

No, he doesn't want to pay for it. He said the only way he would poll conservatives would be if someone would admit that this poll was sound and then reimburse him for his expenses.

Sounds like a real researcher to me!

I think he would still deny that it's a push poll, but these latest quotes show that he does have issue with how the poll was conducted. I would imagine his problem is, push poll or not, it didn't really follow proper polling techniques, such as objectively factual "correct" answers (see here), or having a control group present.

Considering what they were looking for, I don't think they needed a control group for this kind of research. Z wasn't looking for an affect that the respondents were unaware of. It was a simple qualitative poll that he just badly botched.

Not that I ever did, but I probably won't trust Zogby ever again.

For one thing push polls are done before elections as they are intended to affect the outcome. For another, although I have heard of control questions to qualify/disqualify respondents, I've never heard of a control group for a poll. Do you mean a group that are not neccessarily Obama voters, just random respondents answering the same questions?

Do you mean a group that are not neccessarily Obama voters, just random respondents answering the same questions?

I would suggest one group of McCain supporters, and one group of mixed third-party supporters. The central thesis of the documentary, and the one produced (conveniently) by this study, is that Obama supporters are uninformed. Ha ha! We got you, Obama supporters!

But wait... uninformed compared to who? That's why you need a control group. The conclusion is drawing a comparison between one group that was polled, and another group that's imaginary. The results just presume that, well, of course McCain supporters would quiz better. There's no results to back it up, so the jeering gets to come without any of that messy "data" getting in the way.

Of course, I have no doubt that McCain supporters would do better on this particular poll, seeing as studying for the quiz seems to consist mostly of watching FOX News. A balanced, poll, however? That might yield different results. I wonder how many McCain supporters would incorrectly say Obama is a Muslim.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if another, more objective poll crops up. The poll asks a decent question that would be interesting if it were explored in the right way. The problem is no one reasonable, including Zogby himself, thinks this one was.

I have to laugh at you two. There is no control group for polls!!!  =)  Basically what you're saying is that you would have a bunch of un-polled people that you would would then psychically guess what their answers might be?

Control groups are not the "other party."

Definition:

 

untreated subjects used as test benchmark: in an experiment, the group of test subjects left untreated or unexposed to some procedure and then compared with treated subjects in order to validate the results of the test

That's what I thought but I didn't want to sound like an idiot, always a struggle, lol.

Alright, you got me on a semantic point. Functionally, my complaint with the poll still stands. It's drawing a comparison after polling one group, which makes no sense.

Brian,

 What Steve is saying is simple, really. All *this* poll discovered is that when given sketchy questions, a group of proclaimed Obama supporters didn't do very well and were labeled uninformed. So, in order for that to *mean* something, you should *also* poll a group of McCain supporters and a group of independents, using the same dodgy questioning, to see if they are *more or less* uninformed than other groups. 

I understand what he means, and I think it's a good idea. I'm just saying it's not called a control group, and I was giving an example of what a control group would mean in a poll.

P.S. One could still determine that Obama supporters are uninformed without polling McCain supporters. One does not need to be relative to the other. We all assume, of course, that McCain supporters are just as uninformed, but that would not vindicate Obama supporters somehow.

Uninformed is uninformed.

P.S. One could still determine that Obama supporters are uninformed without polling McCain supporters. One does not need to be relative to the other.

In theory, you're right, but let's keep in mind the driving force behind this poll. It was commissioned for use in a documentary. The documentary's central thesis is that Obama was elected because Obama supporters were not informed, which has a vested interest in inferring that had they been informed, at least some margin would have voted for McCain instead. When you consider that as the conclusion drawn (and in fact, the conclusion the poll's creator was hoping for), a comparison is inescapable.

Brian/Steve--I am a scientist, so I am disputing the survey. Whether it's Obama supporters doesn't matter to me.

However, as a fellow Obama supporter (I assume!), I think the three of us can conclude that Obama supporters are obviously informed and this story does not speak for us.

A mystery, huh? Right of center folks get called (or it's cleverly implied) every vile name in the book and you guys wonder why we don't comment on your articles as much.

We all have weak moments and none of us are without sin in this regard, I'd wager. The point was not about me specifically, it was about the tone and tenor many of us are treated to when commenting. You folks seem to like to set up echo chambers and react in a not so civil way when someone dares to be a fly in the ointment (to mix metaphors) So don't whine and complain like little girls when we decide to stop beating our heads against the walls so much.

Waynester:

Surely you're not accusing me of doing anything but debating conservatives, are you?

Not you Scott, I assumed you would know that that particular shoe didn't fit and thus you wouldn't wear it. If I wanted to zing you I'd bring up Kentucky's football team, lol ;-)