11.18.2008

An Interview with John Ziegler on the Zogby "Push Poll"

I had the chance this afternoon to speak with John Ziegler, a documentary filmmaker and former radio talk show host who built the website HowObamaGotElected.com and is promoting a forthcoming documentary of the same name.

Ziegler was responsible for commissioning a Zogby International survey of Barack Obama supporters, which took the form of a multiple choice political knowledge test, stating a "fact" to the respondent and asking them which of the four major candidates (Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin) the statement applied to. Because I believe that many of the statements on the survey are questionable or false but are misleadingly presented as factual to the respondent, I characterized the survey as a "push poll" in an article posted early this morning.

Ziegler had contacted me by e-mail, asking if I'd like to interview him; the interview itself was conducted by telephone. Ziegler asked, among other conditions, that I post a full transcript of the interview, which I have. The transcript below is intended to be representative as possible from my shorthand transcript, with the exception of two or three rapid-fire ad-hominem exchanges being edited out. The transcript, however, is not safe for work.

Nate Silver [NS]: Were only Obama supporters interviewed for the [Zogby] survey, or was everyone interviewed?
John Ziegler [JZ]: The reason why I interviewed Obama supporters only is because I’m doing a documentary on the media coverage of the campaign and how the media coverage of the campaign impacted what Obama supporters knew or thought they knew about the campaign. I had planned from day one because I knew that no one would take seriously any random sampling of interviewees that I was going to commission a scientific poll of these questions. I also knew that it would be a lot cheaper for me to do a nationwide survey of Obama voters than the nation as a whole because basically I’d only have to do half the number of people to get a representative sample. When I went on FOX last night, I made a deal that if anyone on the left -- you're more than willing to take me up on this -- wants to ask the exact same deal of the McCain supporters and you get examples that are equal to or worse than the Obama supporters, then I’ll pay for your expense. The point here was not to show that Obama supporters were idiots -- there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the aisle -- but what information they got from the media that they were able to consume.

NS: Do you stand by all the statements in the survey as being unambiguously true?
JZ: I stand one hundred percent by the notion that there is absolutely zero ambiguity as to what the right answer is to any of the questions. With the one exception of the Palin-Russia-Alaska question which we asked the way we did for a very specific purpose which was to try and gauge the Tina Fey Effect which I think we did in a very effective manner which was what was actually said by Tina Fey, everyone attributed to Sarah Plain. But for purposes of scoring Obama supporters’ answers we counted Palin as a correct response.

NS: What was the right answer to that [Palin] question?
JZ: The technically accurate question [sic] is that none of the four people said that, but we counted it as correct if they said Sarah Palin.

NS: Why would you commission a survey question with no correct response?
JZ: The purpose of the question, you pinhead, was we wanted to determine the Tina Fey Effect.

NS: Were the interviews conducted by telephone or online?
JZ: How can you ask a question like that and pretend that you have any clue what you're writing about! That's unbelievable that someone could write what you did! That is unbelievable that you wouldn't know that it's a telephone or an online poll and that you went on my summaries of the questions before the questions were even released!

NS: We’ve heard reports from our readers that very similar questions had been asked in an online format. There was no online component at all?
JZ: That is correct, which you would have known if you had looked at the information. Before you called this a push poll -- you don't seem to know the definition of a push poll. How do you have this website?

NS: Is the complete interview available anywhere -- complete results for the interview?
JZ: Yeah if you had done your research it is all online, every question, all the cross-tabs. Man, you're never going to post this [transcript], are you?

NS: Were the respondents informed of the 'correct' response during the telephone interviews?
JZ: No.

NS: Did Zogby have a chance to preview the questions before agreeing to accept your business?
JZ: John Zogby himself or the company?

NS: Either/Or.
JZ: I am quite certain that if I asked a question they deemed inappropriate they would have not allowed the question to be asked.

NS: What questions were removed from the survey?
JZ: We didn't remove any, we edited some.

NS: What questions were edited?
JZ: Nothing was substantially edited but there was some wording on some that we went over with them. For instance, I think I had inadvertently said “See Russia from my home” instead of “See Russia from my house”. There was a distinction about Obama talking about energy prices versus electricity prices so we corrected that. That’s all that I can recollect.

NS: What did Zogby charge you -- what did you pay for this survey?
JZ: I'm not going to tell you that, I'm not a fucking idiot.

NS: Did he charge you at his usual rates or did he ask you for extra?
JZ: You'll have to ask them. I'm not going to respond how much money I paid for this. It was substantial but I’m not going to say anything more than that.

NS: In the Youtube video, how were the Obama supporters identified for the Youtube video?
JZ: I had nothing to do with it. I had a person who was working with me who happens to be a black female since you seem to think I’m a racist who was the one that chose all of the respondents based on conversations we’d had prior, people who were well-spoken, thought they were informed, willing to come on camera and [who] voted for Barack Obama.

NS: What was the location of the polling place where the interviews were conducted?
JZ: They were both in Los Angeles.

NS: Okay, that's what I kind of guessed. How many Obama supporters did you speak with in total?
JZ: All twelve we spoke with are in the video.

NS: Was there any significance to the fact that in the YouTube video, seven of the twelve Obama supporters were black?
JZ: [Laughs]. The reason why we had more black supporters – that might surprise some of the people that we spoke to -- if we go by your apparent ability to determine race -- the first location happened to be in a black section of town and we were able to get our interviews faster there because of they way that was set up, because of the logistics. We had a second location but it got dark and we didn't have any lights. So, that's it, it was no grand racial conspiracy.

NS: How did you represent yourself to John Zogby?
JZ: As private company, Death-of-Free-Speech-dot-inc which is the name of a book that I wrote.

NS: Did Zogby give you sign-off on the press release that he released on his website?
JZ: I'm not sure what you mean by sign-off. The press release I had input into, yes.

NS: Did you have financing for the project or was it paid for out of pocket?
JZ: It is not self-financed.

NS: Who paid for it?
JZ: You think I'm going to tell you that? When you've already shown yourself to be the enemy?

NS: Was it paid for by the RNC?
JZ: [Laughs]. In your world, the question that I would ask you is what question [in the survey] is there any ambiguity as to what the answer is?

NS: Well, that Obama 'launched his career' at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground --
JZ: That happens to be one of the questions that Obama supporters did the best on! They did better on that question than on any other Obama-related answers! And here you’re telling me that it’s not true?

NS: What do you mean by "launched his career"?
JZ: The first campaign as told by the person whose position he took in the State Senate, as told by her admission, his first campaign event was in the home of Bill Ayers and his wife. [Laughs] Unless you live in the Obama kool-aid world! That is astonishing to me that you would not accept that! And by the way, when you're given four responses to that question, what else was the response going to be? Sarah Palin?

NS: Well, her husband was a member of a secessionist party.
JZ: You are such a hack! That's a very good analogy.

NS: Do you think that certain types of voters are less well informed?
JZ: I think anyone that looks rationally at these poll results would have to conclude that Obama voters are incredibly poorly informed about major issues that occurred during the campaign -- my guess is because McCain voters got their information from different types of media than Obama voters did.

NS: What types of media would you consider credible?
JZ: I think you need a variety of sources, but I do not accept the notion that if it's not in the New York Times it's not true and if it is in the New York Times it is. Just because Sean Hannity says something doesn't mean it’s not true.

NS: What is Barack Obama’s religion?
JZ: You'll have to ask him. But I do know that he never claimed to be a Christian until he met Reverend Wright. And I do believe -- and I’ve never held this against him -- that it would have been highly unlikely for him not to have been registered as a Muslim as a child in Indonsesia but who cares. He did change his website based on that reality –- he was far more ambiguous about that issue on Fight The Smears. I’m an agnostic so I couldn't care less what his religion is. I just care that he lied about it.

NS: When do you think Obama was a Muslim?
JZ: I think he was likely -- registered as a Muslim between the ages of 6 and 10 while he was going to school in Indonesia. It would have been highly unusual for him not to be.

NS: But would you personally consider Obama a Muslim?
JZ: No, because he was a child. We're talking about two totally different things. There's what religion you're born into and there's what religion you become because of your own decisions

NS: Would you consider Obama a Christian?
JZ: You'd have to ask him. There was never any evidence that he was a Christian until he decided to join the church of a racist hate-monger for political purposes.

NS: Would you not believe Barack Obama if he told you he was a Christian?
JZ: Does he believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who died and was raised from the dead later?

NS: Do you think he’s a believer in Jesus Christ?
JZ: I have no way of knowing that. I don't think there's any evidence that he is, either.

NS: Do you have doubts about Barack Obama's birth certificate?
JZ: I couldn’t care less about that. I accept he was born in Hawaii.

NS: Would you consider yourself well-informed
JZ: I’d consider myself extremely well-informed.

NS: Who are the two senators from South Dakota
JZ: Thune and, uh, Johnson.

NS: Very good. South Carolina?
JZ: Go fuck yourself. I'm done with this interview if you're going to ask me stupid questions like that. Obviously I know who Lindsay Graham is.

NS: Well, since you’re running a website calling people misinformed, I’d like to see if -- there are certain things you’ve said that I would consider misinformed.
JZ: Misinformed? You're a piece of work! You are never going to have the guts to post a representative transcript on your website! I thought you actually ran a legitimate website!

NS: Thank you, have a good day.
JZ: Go fuck yourself.

691 comments

J said...

Wow.

Sensitive type, eh?

SNED said...

Awesome nate, you have shown yourself ot be a true journalist!

Been a fan of this site for months and you continue to live up to all the good press!

Quentin said...

What a charming fellow!

Mark Adams said...

NS: Why would you commission a survey question with no correct response?

Nate,

Indeed if you had looked at the full results of the survey you would have seen that there were four choices given to the "see Russia" question and one of the answers was "None." The correct answer was provided.

Sean Quinn said...

I got the privilege of reading this in draft format and have been laughing hysterically for the last fifteen minutes.

bd said...

"The enemy!" You've made it!

dbrane said...

This is off topic, but is Nate going to predict the number of EVs that Sarah Palin gets from faithless Republican electors?

MelloVelo said...

Good job, Nate, even got the guy to end the interview with a Cheney!

I think this guy's aim is to be our generation's Linda Thompson, only with less tinfoil.

Franco said...

Nate, you get better every day...WOW...Bravo

Rambling in Florida said...

Uh... Wow.

It's pretty amazing that this guy wants to be taken seriously. It's even more amazing that (if you take him at his word) someone paid him for this work.

Fortunately, IMHO, this kind of thing is good for the Democrats and (ultimately) for the nation. It will continue to polarize the Republican party and (I hope) result in the extreme right (a big chunk of the 'social conservatives') being marginalized right out of significance.

I firmly believe that 'real' conservatives have valuable contributions to make in the debate as to where we want to go as a nation. Until they stand up and reject the extremists and marginally crazed individuals on the fringe of their party they will not be heard. That's a loss for everyone.

Let's all root for Palin to run in 2012, right?

As always, Nate, thanks for your work. It's been an outstanding resource through the campaign and I look forward to your insights and analysis over the next 8 years until the next serious campaign.

Danny said...

Poor Jim DeMint...

WV: carive- What a dyslexic would say that Nate did to that douchebag Ziegler

Rufus T. Firefly said...

This guy has a very strange definition of an 'informed' voter. I would have asked him why he thought the questions he asked were at all relevant in casting an informed vote.

Not, of course, that I can criticize the comic masterpiece that resulted from the questions you did ask.

Princess Sparkle Pony said...

Haw, this is hilarious. Glad to see somebody's doing all they can to "raise the level" of discourse.

Cpt. Robespierre said...

Jim DeMint got the short end of that stick.

Anyway... that attack came out of nowhere near the beginning... what made him so angry?

JRoyale said...

you pinhead,

HAHAHAHAHA, outrageous interview... loved it. I can't believe he had any doubts you'd post this interview.

PaulK said...

If there was any question about whether he is trying to be an unbiased journalist, this interview clears that up!
What is strange is that many of his "facts" are not valid (e.g. Obama did not kick off his campaign at Ayers house, he only visited one of their 'coffees' a few weeks in, along with many other such 'coffees'), so why would Zogby accept those?

Robert said...

I find it hard to believe his 12/12 comment being the entirety - especially with the cuts in the video.

Per other folks admission in their similar productions they worked over HOURS to get a few fools, yet this guy is trying to claim he found a full dozen without coaching/bribing/ignoring informed folks/etc.

Not to mention the ridiculousness of the questions.

It's a good thing he's agnostic though, I think if he touched a Bible he'd get a free tattoo of the cover inscription.

Timmy said...

I was hoping this was satire, and then I read the post more carefully. Wow. He's both a jackass and a dumbass, and that's a neat trick.

kleppin said...

This is absolutely incredible. Well done.

Loralee said...

So, I'm watching the NewsHour, and who should appear? Just wanted to say that I think you have really improved your media appearances. People here have given you such a (well-intentioned) hard time, and maybe some of their advice ha borne fruit. You looked and sounded great. Way to go!

Phillip said...

Wow - what's really funny is his belief that posting the full transcript of this interview is somehow going to make you look bad! No wonder he lost his talk show gig...never thought I'd see someone too unstable for AM radio.

Long Island Democrat said...

I can't believe he had any doubts you'd post this interview.

Of course he didn't think he would. The far right generally thinks they sound like the smart ones in these conversations. O'Reilly, etc. do nothing but scream over people, and yet they think that they came out of the interview looking better. As if arguments were decided by who was angriest.

Mark Adams said...

You all aren't being very objective about this.

Quite simply, Nate dropped the ball big time on this one - regardless of how rudely Ziegler conducted himself.

Nate failed to do basic research on the poll (number of people surveyed, questions asked/answers given to choose from). He misidentified it as a push poll. And he misunderstood the basic purpose of the poll (not to show voter ignorance but to show that McCain/Palin "scandals" were much more widely known that Obama/Biden scandals).

Camofrog said...

Why are these guys such assholes? I don't suppose his next "film" is going to be an examination of the dirty racist cavepeople who flocked to Palin rallies.

For the record, you CAN see Russia from Alaska, but only from an island in the Bering Strait populated by Inuit fishermen, and you need a helicopter to get there, and the Russia you can see consists of another island.

Oftentimes Putin's head rears up over these islands and where do you go from there? Nowhere, unless you have a helicopter.

Rebecca said...

"go fuck yourself?" is that really an appropriate interview response? Who is this guy?

Adam Olson said...

Granted he was really stupid, I'm not sure he is familiar with, well, any of the literature on political knowledge as it relates to who someone votes for. There is a -lot- of it, and I think if he is going to claim that Obama voters are less knowledgeable than McCain voters, he ought to know the research on that question.

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

"Just because Sean Hannity says something doesn't mean it’s not true." No, but it does make it much more likely to be a steamin' pile of just this side of libel per se. Not exactly a stirring defense of Hannity's veracity.

Seeing as how he defended multiple questions with flat out lies or manipulative statements (we apparently can't trust Obama or anyone in his campaign's own statements on anything, which makes it awfully easy to claim smears are facts), I expect this clown to become the "new Rush" of the moment.

jackie said...

If you go into comedy i will have no hobbies to myself anymore

ihop said...

Although a very longtime devotee of this site, I have never before been prompted to post a comment.

But, Nate? That was awesome.

As Rufus said above, the only thing I would have asked that didn't seem to get a mention is "Please explain why you feel knowledge of these 'issues' is more crucial to a voter being informed or misinformed than, say, knowledge of substantive policy positions, which was not questioned in your polling." He probably would've just sworn at you some more, but it's worth pointing out to these right-wing nutjobs.

Apparently I share an alma mater with this idiot. I am duly ashamed.

Eli Blake said...

I'm surprised HE wanted it posted.

I listened to John Ziegler a couple of times on the radio driving home late at night, and he actually sounded like one of the more reasonable right-wing hosts (especially when he is going up against Michael Savage.) But now that I've read this transcript I have to admit that it brings out 'his best' (might as well be Michael Savage) so next time I'm flipping through the stations and catch Ziegler I'll keep going.

Thanks for giving me a heads up on what kind of creep he really is.

Nick said...

"Obama voters are incredibly poorly informed about major issues that occurred during the campaign"

Because anything related to Ayers was a "major" issue? Because seeing Russia from anywhere was a major issue?

This guy's a nobody. He'll get his 15 minutes on Fox news and then fade back into obscurity. Funny interview, though.

Is "pinhead" a right-wing word? I've never actually heard of anyone using it except this guy and O'Reilly.

JudiK said...

Another reason why I can't stop coming to this website five times a day.

I thought I could level off on 11/5, maybe once a day, do some 12 step approach to stopping, but no, here we are again, able to view with ruthless clarity what's being generated in the fringes of America and then published and replayed for Fox News, et al.

MysticLaker said...

Just awesome!!!

The best yet.

nathan said...

What he is trying to do here makes little sense. If he's trying to gauge the media effect, he should be interviewing the people who swung the election. African Americans vote for the democrat regardless of situation. The media wouldn't matter to that voter. The ones I'd have interviewed would have been the mothers in the 30's and 40's. These women swung the election and did so because of McCain's poor showing on the economy leading up to the election. I don't know if he asked this following question in his surveys or not, but I would have. "which of the following said in summary that he/she did not know much about the economy and would likely rely on his/her vice president for that".

adrian mckinty said...

OWNED!!!

...you should have asked him who the 9 members of the SC are. God I'd love to see someone ask O'Reilly or Hannity that.

sultan said...

So I've never posted here either, but just had to. Good for you - first for the solid interview and second for giving this guy a forum to hang himself.

This guy is a moron - I'm a little sad he's getting press out of this, but hopefully he'll just end up swinging in the wind at the end of this whole thing.

Nick Wright said...

Tomorrow's Worst Person In The World.

Bup said...

I want you to know that you and Cal, Ripken, Jr. are the only people I would ever go gay for.

And you only since this post.

Bob said...

I found your site in early summer and started to read it at least twice a day.
Thank You for keeping this website going!
I know it takes time..and money to do this.

To make some money, you might want to consider adding "google" ad sense ads.
I don't work for google, but I have placed them on my websites and they generate quite a bit of money.

Once again, all the best

Bob
North Smithfield RI

Briana said...

Wow, what a jerk. Leaving aside the fact that you disagreed, there was no reason for him to be so impolite.

d said...

Good job, Nate. Interesting to see how the right wing attack machine is still spinning out of control.

Christa said...

The most amazing part is how often he expresses his desire to have this published when it makes him look like a complete freaking moron. Awesome.

TTB said...

I'm nicknaming him "giggles".

livemild said...

of course palin can see russia from her house because she thinks the earth is flat-no curvature of the earth for her!
the earth is flat is the correct answer y'betcha!

Spitball of Fury said...

Nate,

This is truly one of the greatest things I have ever seen on the internet. Bravo. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar, and while I have been a fan of this site for months, I feel for the first time I can say you are a true journalist and a crusader against ignorance and spin. Thank you Nate, and for the love of all that is holy, make SURE Keith Olbermann knows about this interview.

Jane said...

Welcome to the new media world, Ziegler. Fivethirtyeight.com, the political security blanket for all us liberal Linuses.

Robert said...

The correct response after someone says "Go fuck yourself" is "Jesus loves you!"

I hope that interview was recorded.

McGillicuddy said...

I agree with Nick - the idea that his concept of a "major" issue is synomous with an important issue is entertaining at best. I suppose he could study the issues that received the most media coverage (which in itself raises quite a few issue of how to define what constitutes media coverage) - but what he thinks should be top of mind for voters is a value judgement, and isn't objective at all.

I certainly didn't think the Ayers issue was major, and while I knew a bit about it, the fact that I don't know all of the details doesn't mean I wasn't informed about the very real differences in platforms on things I consider major - civil rights (gay rights, women's rights), economic policy, energy policy, etc.

Basically he seems to think that right-wing pop culture should be top of mind for democratic voters. That's . . . well, absurd.

Listen to my Hype said...

I thought it was funny, and without knowing how the phone voices were, he came off rude, condescending and ignorant. I say that regardless of you doing your research or not, one thing is to ask a question you should know the answer too, another to be an idiot disrespectful asshole when answering. Yuck.

Bob X said...

Too, too funny! Publicly revealing the true nature of this "polling" exercise is GREAT NEWS!!! FOR ZOGBY'S REPUTATION!!! I bet Zogby is real sorry he agreed to let himself be used by this "ovedlivi" (that's an overly-livid wingnut).

sixfifty said...

Nathan has a good point. Ziegle seems to have sought out the wrong people if he was actually trying to test his hypothesis on the influence of the media. Or the right people if is just trying to do a hack job and make partisan points. Which he is.

Nate - well done on the interview and for posting this. It's leaving me with a smile to finish the day, after getting wound up by the Lieberman farce.

Zach said...

Wouldn't it have made sense to survey McCain voters as well in order to have a fair comparison of Obama and McCain voters' relative levels of misinformation? His methodology seems... insufficient.

benh57 said...

The interview is awesome, but i do agree with JZ at one point.

"quiz" or "gotcha" interview questions like "who is the president of xxx?" are considered very bad form, and extremely rude. Any hack reporter can come up with some random fact that a politician 'should' know just to make their interviewee look bad. If you notice, it's usually the local news reporters who ask these sort of questions - the national media know better.

Now JZ isn't a politician, so it's perhaps not as bad form, but still is.

Phiul said...

This is the greatest thing I've ever read. Brilliant!

Arthur P. said...

Mark Adams: if the "full results" you quote imply that "None" was an option verbally offered, then those posted full results are lying.

Zogby called me for this poll, and I can assure you that the only "none" answers I gave we UNprompted.

Joe said...

Haha

What a douche!

anthonyy said...

OK, I know this was funny, but stepping back from it, this 'survey' is just the right being sore losers, which is truly a road to nowhere. They actually know that, but they can't come to terms with it yet, and won't for a while.

Obama reminds me a lot of Tony Blair in the UK 11 years ago. And the Republicans remind me a fair bit of the Conservatives in the UK 11 years ago. I'm sure Obama will study Blair's successes and failures and learn from both. But the key point is that the Conservatives in the UK haven't been in power since 11 years ago, and although they're on the brink of it now, it's only after three failures and a huge positional move away from the right and towards the political centre. In the meantime, jerks like this guy have been put out to grass.

It may well be that the GOP will have to choose either to do the same or continue to be put out to grass itself.

Bryan said...

This is so good it hurts.

Isaac Klunk said...

Nate gives Ziegler enough rope to hang himself with. Incidentally, it isn't much. Wow, there's a guy that's all class!

dday said...

John Ziegler is America's most fired radio talk show host and a complete tool. If you think he's bad on the phone, be lucky you weren't set up with him through an online dating service with him like my friend Tamara. I could tell stories.

Shaun said...

What a stupid interview (not Nate's fault). That must have been painful for Nate; thanks for going through the trouble of typing it up and showing the rest of us the tripe this guy is spewing.

Chris said...

That's an awesome read. He starts off as coming off as fairly rational, and then immediately delves into paranoia and persecution-complex.

I can't really make a call on his personality type from this one interview, but this guy would be an study into the defensiveness of self-annointed experts, and also to examine the theory that those who consider themselves "well-informed" usually aren't -- if one could get him to agree to a non-profanity-laced, self-defensive conversation.

Scott said...

All you need to know about John Ziegler was summed up in an excellent 2005 Atlantic article by the late and much-lamented David Foster Wallace, back when Ziegler was still employed by KFI in Los Angeles:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/wallace

sfergus483 said...

AP just called Alaska for Begich

Alex said...
This post has been removed by the author.
John said...

i just finished reading david foster wallace's cover story on john ziegler just a few days ago. it is quite an interesting read. you can also find ziegler's take on dfw's recent on suicide on his (ziegler's) website.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/wallace

80/20 said...

Nate Silver's got balls.
Congrats on the book deals, congrats on the kick ass site. Congrats on the big balls!

Let's have a round of applause for everyone involved at 538!!!

TheRobbed said...

John Ziegler is?

a. A Loser
b. A Loser Paid by the RNC
c. A Hater Monger, Loser Paid by the RNC
d. Sarah Palin

eve said...

Way to go Nate!

The guy's own answers show what a pig he is.

Sure I believe there was no racial intent that he had the interviews conducted in a black neighborhood. Then it got dark so --oops!--- can't do other neighborhoods because they had no lights. What? Impossible to film interviews the next day, too?

Zogby, you should be so ashamed.

Ziegler should be embarrassed and ashamed, too. However, I doubt he has any shame.

Murphy said...

"I also knew that it would be a lot cheaper for me to do a nationwide survey of Obama voters than the nation as a whole because basically I’d only have to do half the number of people to get a representative sample."

Clearly, he's not qualified to do a poll. The error margin in a poll is dependent ONLY upon whether the respondents are truly a random sample (that's rarely true in the real world) AND the size of the sample. Eliminating half the population does NOT reduce the required sample size to say something relevant by even one respondent. All the elimination does is make it a sample about half the population.

There was a really good article at Real Politics a few weeks ago (I've forgotten who published it) on whether voters (in this or any election) are rational (that is do they vote in their self interest). It's been more than a little clear for many election cycles that even voters who do have a correct understanding of what is factual and what is not, fail to vote in their own interest (that is their grasp of how facts actually will impact what will hapen to them is poor).

Oh well. After 8 years of being governed by a 'C' student, we've finally elected someone really smart. The question is whether we've handed him a mess that's beyond fixing (or does he have a Congress that can stay focused on the objective rather than "acting to the crowd?").

bobnsj said...

New Alaska numbers

Begich 150728 47.76%
Stevens 147004 46.58%

Josh Drimmer said...

Yeah, JZ has no case whatsoever without polling the other side. It's poor polling, poor science, and poor ethically, since I think it points to the desire to create results before.

Mark Adams wholly misses the point here. Let's say I'm doing an interview with him:

JD- Mark, did the GOP finance or commission your 538 comments?

MA- Fuck you! Fuck you! Suck goats in hell! Fuck you!

The first thing one would think upon reading this interview would not be, wow, Josh did not do his research. The first thing would be, wow, Mark is a little bit, um, brusque.

My impression on JZ's inability to reply to questions he doesn't entirely like is that he is an unfathomable douche, if Nate was as Nate normally is in tone: nothing but level. I have doubts that all the information JZ claims is available is. But like you, I'm guessing.

Fielding said...

Nate:

Well played. You are the man.

Very, very impressive.

andrew said...

This is astonishingly lolarious. Seriously, just hysterical. I am blown away.

Nikola said...

I must say I found the interview very interesting, although Nate, you didn't contribute to it much.
To people from the left, the questions/answers in the polls were obviously linking Obama to what is seen as lies or gross misrepresentation. That's not (or shouldn't have been) what the interview was about. I must say, from where I'm sitting, Mr. Ziegler's stance seems valid. I don't agree with it, after all it's a Right perspective, but it's valid in the sense it can be discussed in a sensible way, not dismissed as outright hackery.
Mr. Ziegler, if you agree with him, made sense. And if you don't, you have to admit consistency. If he was mad, and used swearwords, that has nothing to do with the poll itself or his views. I found some of the questions in the interview very stupid, to be honest, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, Nate, if you had them all written down and just wanted to go through them all. If not, you were grossly underprepared.
As it stands, knowing nothing about Mr. Ziegler except the fact he commissioned the poll, and this interview, my view is he is one of the more reasonable conservatives out there.

Dale Petrie said...

Is there a picture of this guy in the dictionary next to fucktard?

Cardinal Jozey Pete Sweemus said...

John Ziegler has just enshrined himself in the Self Humiliation International Temple For Angry Conceited Erroneous Douchebags.

Angle said...

So this wasn't a taped interview?

I will always tend to trust Nate over Ziegler, but Z-man's so not going to agree that he said half of this stuff.

scottandwtb said...

Can we all show a little respect? On his website it does say: "In 2007 John was named the 54th most important talk host in the country by Talkers Magazine."

I mean, 54th!! That's saying something people.

Tony said...

"I made a deal that if anyone on the left -- you're more than willing to take me up on this -- wants to ask the exact same deal of the McCain supporters and you get examples that are equal to or worse than the Obama supporters, then I’ll pay for your expense."

I think John Ziegler just made himself an example. You should ask for payment for your expenses.

willdenow said...

Typical neofascist. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

marathon said...

He thought you'd be afraid to post this interview, when he's the one that comes off so poorly in it?

Josh Drimmer said...

There's a Talkers' magazine? Is there a I Can Chew! magazine?

Nikola, there are interviews where the interviewer takes center stage, and those where the subject reveals itself. Regardless of the preparation question, which is still a question until someone shows me where all of this was available, this is an interview where the subject revealed himself. And it was better for it.

Tony said...

Nikola: my view is he is one of the more reasonable conservatives out there

Nikola, while I appreciate your review of the interview, I think you're wrong. JZ was trying to paint Obama's supporters as mis-informed by the "left-wing" media.

However, most of JZ's statements were very overreaching tidbits from the right-wing media. It's pretty hypocritical, and adding to the fact the asinine demeanor makes him look stupid.

Sedi said...

"Nate failed to do basic research on the poll (number of people surveyed, questions asked/answers given to choose from). He misidentified it as a push poll. And he misunderstood the basic purpose of the poll (not to show voter ignorance but to show that McCain/Palin "scandals" were much more widely known that Obama/Biden scandals)."

Mark Adams,
You are either clueless or have an agenda, probably the latter. First, how do you know that Nate didn't do his research? There is no mention of the number of interviewees in the transcript. And there is nothing wrong with asking questions to which the answer is known, since Nate might want to gauge how well Ziegler knew the survey and its results. Also, there is no information on the survey results document about how the poll was conducted, and given that many posters here said they received a similar survey online Nate wisely asked about the method of the interrogation.
Second, the question of whether this is a push poll depends on how broad one's definition of a push-poll is. In a narrow sense, no, this was not intended to sway potential voters in an upcoming election. In a broader sense, though, this was VERY obviously not intended merely to uncover information but to make a particular point. That is, the poll was skewed to produce an outcome to be used for political purposes, and is therefore not legitimate. If you look at the survey, several of the questions have all the candidates listed as possibilities while others don't. Many of the questions are intentionally worded in a way to produce ambiguous results while others are clearly worded to produce much more obvious results. This doesn't even come close to approximating a survey that an unbiased pollster who simply wanted to know about media influence would ever create.
Third, the purpose of this study does not seem to have been simply media bias, but that the media that Obama supporters rely on gives them a biased view. If the purpose was only to gauge which "scandals" (and I did notice that you used this term in quotes for McCain/Palin but not Obama/Biden, which is quite telling) then there would be no reason to only interview Obama supporters. Even then, it doesn't make much sense since if this was his purpose why didn't he ask where the interviewees got their information from. That is, he didn't ask the one crucial question that you'd really want to ask if you were interested in media coverage and its influence on voters.

Ziegler is clearly an idiot. Your defense of him and your attack on Nate doesn't do much for your credibility either.

k said...

Do you have an audio of this?? I don't expect you to post it, but I wonder if ziegler will deny this conversation existed, and its just a leftist liberal enemy who wanted to paint him as crazy....

Islandgirl45 said...

Re Mark Adams' comment: "And he (Nate) misunderstood the basic purpose of the poll (not to show voter ignorance but to show that McCain/Palin "scandals" were much more widely known that Obama/Biden scandals)."

No, I think Nate nailed it, Mark. Go watch the You Tube video posted by Ziegler at HowObamaGotElected.com. It's painfully obvious many of the questions, such as those asking voters if they knew of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank were asked to make the respondent look ignorant.
Others, such as the "bankrupt the coal industry" question, were simply questionable or false.
For example, McCain and Obama both support cap and trade policies that would affect coal plants, and the entire context of that question is that old-style, high-pollution coal plants, (not clean coal technology,) are the ones that would be too expensive to operate under cap and trade.
It's a pity Mr. Zeigler's GOP financier didn't do the same sort of interviews that bloggers and other non-mainstream media did with votes attending Sarah Palin's rallies. Or perhaps he could have contacted the woman at a Town Hall meeting who famously told McCain that Obama was an Arab.
No doubt the results from such "low information" voters would have been similar.

Hans said...

Printing the entire transcript as brilliant; he's a complete ass.

Donsnyc said...

John Ziegler is such a class act!

Mark Adams said...

ihop said: the only thing I would have asked that didn't seem to get a mention is "Please explain why you feel knowledge of these 'issues' is more crucial to a voter being informed or misinformed than, say, knowledge of substantive policy positions, which was not questioned in your polling." He probably would've just sworn at you some more, but it's worth pointing out to these right-wing nutjobs.

McGillicuddy said: I certainly didn't think the Ayers issue was major, and while I knew a bit about it, the fact that I don't know all of the details doesn't mean I wasn't informed about the very real differences in platforms on things I consider major - civil rights (gay rights, women's rights), economic policy, energy policy, etc.

Rufus T. Firefly said: This guy has a very strange definition of an 'informed' voter. I would have asked him why he thought the questions he asked were at all relevant in casting an informed vote.

Once again, all of you are missing the point.

Do you think the number of houses McCain owns is a major issue? Do you think an informed voter needs to know the cost of Palin's wardrobe? Do you equate knowledge of the pregnancy status of Bristol Palin with knowledge of substantive policy positions? Because the Obama supporters all knew the answers to these questions quite well.

Do you think Obama's opinion on the effects of his energy policy on the coal industry is an important policy question? Most Obama supporters apparently don't.

Nathan said...

Wow, this dude is crazy and stupid. What a winning combination.

Matt said...

John Ziegler is America's most fired radio talk show host and a complete tool. If you think he's bad on the phone, be lucky you weren't set up with him through an online dating service with him like my friend Tamara. I could tell stories.

OK, dday, spill it.

BlackGriffen said...

John Ziegler doesn't know enough about polling to be commissioning a poll, as demonstrated by this: "I’d only have to do half the number of people to get a representative sample."

When the population is really large compared to the sample size it doesn't enter in to determining the errors. The 95% confidence limit on a poll with two choices is literally just the square root of the number of respondents. If you want to turn that into an error on a percentage you just divide that by the number of respondents. Try it yourself, sqrt(1000)/1000 = 3.2%, which is why that's about what you always see quoted as the margin of error. The pattern is the same whether the pollster called Utah or the whole U.S.

Nikola said...

Tony:
"JZ was trying to paint Obama's supporters as mis-informed by the "left-wing" media."

That is very likely. It's even probably true, knowing the gall of Right wing ideologues.
But the fact the statements in the poll aren't "true", whatever the definition, it's fact that all those facts permeated the media for quite a while. After all, the poll is about Obama voters and the media, why shouldn't the question be about what the voter could have picked up from the media?
When viewed in that light, regardless of what Ziegler may have "wanted" it to show, I think the poll itself is legitimate.
And when seen as a product of hard work, I can see why Ziegler would be mad at Nate for dismissing him so easily, then trying to bait him with simpleton and outright stupid questions. Which was either deliberate, or came from being unprepared, no?

eve said...

Thanks for posting the interview, Nate.

Informative and hilarious.

Mark Adams said...

Josh Drimmer: Mark Adams wholly misses the point here.

I'm not missing the point at all. Nate asked questions which indicated he'd not done the most basic research into a poll about which he had made some rather serious accusations. Ziegler response was not, "Fuck you! Fuck you! Suck goats in hell! Fuck you!" He said, "Yeah if you had done your research it is all online, every question, all the cross-tabs."

I readily admit that Ziegler was vulgar and unprofessional but there was actual substance to his (crude) response.

Nick said...

Nice. I feel like maybe we're seeing Lee Atwater's last gasp here. Citizen journalism rules again, like back in the days of Tom Paine. Great interview. Love how the anger comes in waves.

Howie said...

That guy is his own worse enemy. He defeated himself several times in the interview. He believes himself to be well-informed because he "knows what others don't." The problem with people that "know what other people don't" is that what they think they know is far from true. Plus he was rude. Why did he even offer the interview? Why wouldn't he believe you'd post that crap? Because he thinks he would come out looking like the better, or more intelligent, man?

Jeff said...

Pinhead, eh?

Why not just call you Senor Poopypants? About the same effect.

Well done, Nate. As several others have mentioned, I hope this hack continues to imagine up this divisive drivel, and continue to divide the GOP.

WV: imorapt. As in "Imorapt you upside the head!"

ronbailey said...

Charming fellow, that one.

mullibok00 said...

Brilliant deductive work by Ziegler about only needing to poll half as many people. By that logic, to find out what Alaskans think, you'd only need to talk to two people. Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin, perhaps.

Sam said...

Notice people, the Wikipedia entry for JZ has been updated with references to this interview.










On the interview itself, it is pure genius. I'm amazed he actually agreed to this and didn't specifically accuse you of being a left-wing nut or something like that.

Oh, yeah, there are many fallacies in his argument as well. Not only the ad-hominem ones.

greg said...

This was the greatest post in 538 history.

nathan said...

mark adams,

Those points, that knowledge, likely didn't have an effect on how people voted. Asking about whether people were informed on doesn't matter unless you ask the question of what effect it had on your vote. Energy policy is important to me. The effect though that the coal industry has is not. I don't see coal as important to the future of the American energy problems and wouldn't care about the answer to that question whether true, ambiguous, or false.

Drofats said...

Shame I don't have a pile of cash sitting around, or I could start my own documentary on how uninformed McCain voters were.

I think I'll ask:

Which candidate said they wanted to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

Which candidate confessed to war crimes?

Which candidate is a first-term senator?

Which candidate was saved from expulsion in college by his father's influence?

Which candidate promised not to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 per year?

Which candidate started out as a community organizer?

Which candidate opposes abortion, even in cases of rape or incest?

The Lone Star said...

Great Stuff Nate!!!!

Keep them honest!!!!

Olon97 said...

People with existing political leanings generally more readily accept information that adheres to their beliefs and apply a steep smell test to information contrary to their beliefs (if they register/remember the information at all). This is well established by reputable neuroscience research.

The stated purpose of the poll, if you take it at face value, does nothing more than provide another data point verifying this generally accepted neuroscience theory.

Someone with Republican leanings probably knows very few (negative) facts about John McCain's military record as well. Doesn't mean the LA Times' reporting on that taboo topic was not accurate.

Whether Obama having coffee at the "terrorist's" house happened at the very start of his senate campaign or three days after the start is immaterial. It presumes you buy the guilt by association BS to begin with, making the secessionist followup very parallel.

We have all we need to know about the "ignorance" of Obama voters vs. McCain voters in the college educated demographic splits from the exit polls (margin on those breakdowns is far beyond error margins), and it doesn't fit Mr. Ziegler's narrative.

Cliff said...

this guy is such an asshole.... this is going on digg ASAP and on facebook and on twitter. OMG.

Darian said...

Mark Adams = John Lott. I'd bet money.

Nigel said...

Mark Abrams: Do you think the number of houses McCain owns is a major issue? Do you think an informed voter needs to know the cost of Palin's wardrobe? Do you equate knowledge of the pregnancy status of Bristol Palin with knowledge of substantive policy positions? Because the Obama supporters all knew the answers to these questions quite well.

Wow, so the plan all along was to put Palin on the sinking ship so that the media could be blamed later for focusing so much on her "soap opera" life?

craigw5 said...

Nate, I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but... you're in a position to collect some really insightful data for a FILMED DOCUMENTARY on this particular cultural phenomenon: the in-HANNITY of the cultural right.

Scrap that book deal and call Michael Moore. I would pay money to watch you taking that guy apart.

Either that or put a tip jar out here somewhere. This is getting pretty entertaining.

Josh Drimmer said...

Mark, I'm skeptical, but I'm just as skeptical of claims that NS was underprepared as claims that all of these materials were available. My point about tenor remains. I'm sure prep questions will be cleared up in days to come, but like I said before, we're just speculating until then.

Matt said...

He didn't think you'd post this? Why, because it made him look so friendly, calling you a pinhead on the third question?

Heck, now that it's posted, I think that people should spread the word. Particularly to John Zogby.

Andrew said...

The interview was mostly solid. Two things I would put out that show you're clearly being stupid though...

1. The Todd Palin point. Not a point at all...

2. To show he's not well informed, you're going to go ahead and ask him who all the senators from each state are? That's ridiculous. There are so many other legitimate ways to show he is ill-informed.

SunDog said...

Seriously, and this guy is doing some "documentary" about how Obama got elected? Good god, I hope no one bites on airing it. What a piece of shit Ziegler is.

FWIW, I get Zogby online "polls" all the time--I signed up awhile ago and answer "not sure" to about 90% of the questions just to screw with them.

Bob X said...

Nikola said "...But the fact the statements in the poll aren't "true", whatever the definition, it's fact that all those facts permeated the media for quite a while...
When viewed in that light, regardless of what Ziegler may have "wanted" it to show, I think the poll itself is legitimate."
But Ziegler is taking any responses along the lines of "NOBODY started their political careers in Ayers' apartment" as indicating that the Obama voters "were uninformed", when of course, such responses might well mean that they did hear these stories and did not give credence.
"saguat": a cross between a sasquatch and a lolwut?

interstices said...

One thing I thought curious in the interview is the statement by JZ, "I think he was likely -- registered as a Muslim between the ages of 6 and 10 while he was going to school in Indonesia. It would have been highly unusual for him not to be."

The Muslim school thing was debunked, wasn't it? According to Media Matters (assuming they got it correct), "the AP reported on January 24 that '[i]nterviews by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it's a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s.' Moreover, Obama attended that school for two years, according to his autobiography, after which he went to a Catholic school."

I was aware of the Catholic school. I am surprised JZ would make such allegations without knowing his facts. For someone who commissioned a "gotcha poll" I would think he would be careful with his allegations so that he not be hoisted on his own petard.

He also uses an awkward "registered as a Muslim" phrase which I've never heard of before. Perhaps in Indonesia one must register by religion, including minors?

Robert Mittman said...

ROFLMAO
Nate, this is brilliant. Ziegler is a toad and reveals it fully here.

WV=canli def. The main qualification for being a Republican candidate. Reminds me of Adlai Stevenson's comment about the Republicans in response to smears from Hoover, McCarthy, and Nixon: "I would make a proposition to my Republican friends...that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

davidteich said...

AP called Alaska for Begich.

Marc said...

Nate. I got interviewed on the phone on Saturday. The caller said she was from Zogby International. I answered all the questions and really wondered what the hell was going on with the Russia question and the Weather Underground one. I gave the right answers however. What a shit this guy is. Not to worry though. We won and they lost.
Marc

Brandon said...

What an idiot. That guy is a complete embarrassment.

Andy JS said...

The Alaskan elections website has updated further. Begich leads by 3,724 votes. That's definitely 58 Senate seats for the Democrats.

J said...

WE need to reach across the aisle to these people like Ziegler; certainly we should be very careful to not do anything to offend them. We wouldn't want to start up uncivility again. You remember how awful the 90s were when we on the left started the whole concept of uncivility and pushed those nice rightwing people into their reluctantly defensive posture.

Mason said...

I imagine he sees the clips as offering a balance to the parade of news segments airing the questions and rejoinders of ignorant bigots at McCain/Palin rallies. The questions are just his form of ammunition for a very warped form of hunting. I will bet that the questions were more carefully written than we would like to believe.

I am concerned about the impact any further publicity about this partisan stunt could have on exit poll participation.

What has been the response of the Zogby organization? Other than posting a synopsis of the results.

Mark Adams said...

Sedi: There is no mention of the number of interviewees in the transcript.

Because a push poll to 500 people (after an election no less) makes no sense. Given Nate's clear intelligence and extensive knowledge of politics I'm assuming he thought the sample was much larger otherwise he wouldn't have made the accusation.

Also, there is no information on the survey results document about how the poll was conducted,

But there is on the Zogby press release (linked on Ziegler' site).
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642

"UTICA, New York -- Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama . . . a new Zogby International telephone poll shows."

this was not intended to sway potential voters in an upcoming election. In a broader sense, though, this was VERY obviously not intended merely to uncover information but to make a particular point.

Right. Not a push poll.

It quite obviously is trying and was crafted to make a particular point.

and I did notice that you used this term in quotes for McCain/Palin but not Obama/Biden, which is quite telling

That was unintentional on my part and I apologize. I typically try to maintain stylistic consistency in blog comments so that was an oversight on my part. I had intended to place the word scandal in quotes both times.

BigJoe said...

You Go Nate!!

But...remember we are the class act.

professor darkheart said...

JZ solicits questions on his website; I think we should ask them! I just sent the following:

Putting aside the issue of your questions' validity, without a comparison between Obama voters and those who supported other candidates, it's obviously completely impossible to differentiate between what you call "how Obama got elected" and "how anyone gets elected in this country." Since anyone with even a basic grasp of standards of evidence can see that your "data" is completely meaningless with reference to a particular candidate, isn't it an irresistible conclusion that you are attempting to convince the non-Obama-voting public of Obama's unfitness for office by assuming that their ignorance is at least equal to that of the people you've interviewed?

Mark Adams said...

Nigel asked: Wow, so the plan all along was to put Palin on the sinking ship so that the media could be blamed later for focusing so much on her "soap opera" life?

No.

SalP7 said...

Good stuff. I love the "Baseball Prospectus style" debunking. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Ziegler rates hitters by RBI. That is, assuming he likes America's pastime. One can't be sure with these Republicans after seeing them refer to the fist bumps hitters do after home runs to terrorist fist jabs.

Andy JS said...

Eric Holder to be attorney-general:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7736639.stm

Howie said...

I can't believe the gall of these people to say that Obama won because the media didn't report these "scandals." For the entire primary and the first month of the general election, the media did nothing but replay the thirty-second clips of Wright and seriously consider every rumor, whisper campaign, and questionable email about Obama on the air. The american people decided those things didn't matter and that despite all that Obama was still the better choice. If anything, Obama won *in spite of* the media, not because of. In your own words, Mr. Ziegler, go fuck yourself and your up-coming book.

Ryan said...

Someone needs to get to work on getting this post on Digg and Reddit.

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

Mark Adams,

If you are defending Ziegler, exactly what is the point of his story? To show that people who supported Obama were less aware of what Fox News felt were "burning" issues than what they saw on SNL? Does that really say anything worthwhile about media coverage and its effect on the electorate? Sorry, but to me it shows (at most) that the GOP's attempts at certain negative storylines didn't sell as well as Palin and McCain's self-inflicted wounds.

Ziegler picked marginal storylines (the coal thing came out 3 days before the election and never really went national, the Biden/British MP plagarism is 20 years old and didn't really resonate), dressed up the language in a way that didn't mirror the way media and candidates covered it (the Ayers story was about Ayers, not his wife, so the question about two former members of the WU probably threw casual voters), all for the apparent reason to make Obama voters look ignorant of stuff only right wing kooks thought mattered. I bet if they asked who said people were bitter, cling to guns and religion, or have a minister who said G D America, the results would have been different. Those stories resonated.

moondancer said...

He sounds like every hate-filled wing nut I've ever talked to. I now understand the "ditto-head" thingy. One one set of talking points, twenty million pea brains.

Courtney said...

What a bizarre, angry man. While I realize John Ziegler's demeanor doesn't have any bearing on his methodology, it certainly speaks volumes for his ability to act like an adult. Any point he'd hoped to make is lost in his immature behavior.

Carl Zetie said...

Mark Adams: Do you think Obama's opinion on the effects of his energy policy on the coal industry is an important policy question?

You're still completely missing the point, aren't you? The interviewees were not asked about Obama's energy policy. They were asked to identify him with a right-wing caricature of his energy policy, abusing a quote taken out of context -- and then labeled as "uninformed" when they rightly refused or failed to do so.

I can't tell whether you fail to understand this distinction, or just pretend not to -- neither reflects particularly well on you.

Trebuchet said...

New theory:

Nate, how much did you pay Ziegler to do all those things? ;) It wasn't enough...

goatdan said...

@ Mark Adams -- "Do you think Obama's opinion on the effects of his energy policy on the coal industry is an important policy question? Most Obama supporters apparently don't."

Actually, lets read that question again. I realize now that the ambiguity of it may be at the root of it not being answered as correctly as others...

The question was, "Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?" Now, Obama most definitely did not say that. In fact, he was accused by the McCain campaign of having said those exact words, when that was a skew on the words Obama had said.

So, it depends on how you hear the question. If you hear it as "Which candidate said [the opposition's] policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?", which actually makes more sense, they may apply it to McCain's campaign, who did accuse Obama of having said that.

If you hear it as "Which candidate said [my] policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?" your likely response would be none, or if knowing the Obama "story" about this you might say him.

Regardless, the question is unclear enough that three of the four (or four of the five, if you include "none") answers are potentially correct ones.

And again, as I pointed out in the earlier thread about this, these simply weren't questions to get unbiased answers with. A correct way to find out how informed people were would have been to first ask what their biggest concern was as a voter, and then asking what their candidate's position was on that issue and seeing how correct they were.

After that, you could ask these questions as "Do you know who..." and "Would it have influenced your decision to vote if you had known this before the election?"

It's a crappy poll, obviously done by a crappy person.

I think someone should take him up on his offer to fund a study about McCain voters, but use different questions with left wing talking points. I think the result would be the same thing.

Mark Adams said...

the coal thing came out 3 days before the election and never really went national

No comment.

Harper said...

This is such a non-story. The push poll results are not surprising. Obama pulled mainly from the undereducated and overeducated. McCain broke even on the center, where most of the evangelical base lies.

John Zogby did a horrible job of predicting the election this year, so regardless of this behavior, nobody should respect his business because he failed to predict the election correctly. Frankly, I'm more interested in the pollster ratings than Fox News trying to divide the country.

dsalkovi said...

"Do you think an informed voter needs to know the cost of Palin's wardrobe?"

Oh this is so rich! Like the foaming-at-the-mouth Repubs needed to know the cost of John Edwards' haircut? Or whether President-elect Obama wore a flag pin? Or if he was Muslim as if all Muslim are pure evil? And countless other Republican/ignorant examples.

You sir, are a *major* hypocrite. Wow. A classic case of opening your mouth and shoving your foot in as far as possible. Congratulations!

Dave Dial said...

Everyone should write C-Span and Reuters to ask them to sever their relationship with Zogby. I have and here is my letter:

______________________

Subject: Reuters relationship with pollster John Zogby

I urge Reuters to terminate it's relationship with pollster John Zogby. When John Zogby accepted the job to "push poll" for racist right-wing ideologue, John Ziegler, he lost all of his waning credibility.

Reuters cannot continue to have a working relationship with Zogby and retain it's credibility and neutrality.

Please announce that you have severed all ties to Zogby International and John Zogby.

Thank you,

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

_______________________________

Lucas said...

I think my favorite part of this whole thing is his insistence that this transcript would not be posted.

This is the best thing I've seen all week.

RufusRules said...

From Nate's post: "...with the exception of two or three rapid-fire ad-hominem exchanges being edited out."

Now *that's* what I'd like to see! C'mon Nate, post those redacted ad hominem exchanges. We never see you get hot under the collar, and I'll bet you fired off some zingers.

JBBlogger said...

I never heard of this John Ziegler before. From the sounds of it he is just another right-wing talking turd in a long trail of them.

STepper said...

John Ziegler - failed talk show host, who couldn't even get along with freeptards on the LA station, KFI.

Once a failed talk show host, always a failed talk show host.

You, Nate, on the other hand, have distinguished yourself. No longer a statistician you may actually become (OMG) a journalist!

Ziegler - pwned!

Max said...

Holy shit Nate, nerves of steel!

o/\o

ozgur ogut said...

haha

"you pinhead"

edit:

"you pinhead, that called the national election's popular vote to a tenth of one percent."

rynato said...

Here is my Ziegler-ish poll for McCain voters:

1) Which candidate once called their spouse a 'cunt' in front of five witnesses?

2) Which candidate abandoned their first spouse after a disfiguring car accident, in order to marry a much-younger person with a great amount inherited wealth?

3) Which candidate completely changed their position this year on the Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling and deregulation of financial markets?

4) Which candidate repeatedly pulled strings to get ahead in their career?

5) Conversely, which candidate achieved their high station in life solely through hard work and dedication, without the benefit of powerful family connections?

6) Which candidate palled around with a celebrity who advocated the assassination of ATF agents?

7) Which candidate accepted vacations and private jet trips in exchange for giving preferential treatment to a man later convicted of felonies related to the 80s S+L crisis?

8) Which candidate championed public campaign financing and then tried to bend the rules to benefit their campaign?

9) Which candidate has maintained a consistent position on the Iraq war?

10) Which candidate has repeatedly changed their position on the Iraq war?

11) Which candidate does not know the difference between 'strategies' and 'tactics'?

12) Which candidate solicited the endorsement of a Christian cleric who is highly bigoted against Catholics and looks forward to the deaths of all Jews in the 'end times'?


...and if any of you think these questions are biased, you can go fuck yourselves ;-)

Kennyb said...

Begich wins Alaska Senate Seat

From Anchorage Daily News:

The Anchorage mayor widened his lead to 3,724 votes in today's counting of absentee and questioned ballots. The only votes left to count are approximately 2,500 special absentees from people living outside the U.S. or in remote parts of Alaska with no polling place.

The state will count those final ballots on Nov. 25.

Begich has declared victory; Stevens campaign has not responded.

ESI said...

Mark Adams: You've inspired me to comment for the first time. My issue with JZ's questions is not his methodology or its push polliness, or anything like that. It's that I can find out, without a shadow of a doubt, how many house McCain owns, how much money the RNC states they spent on clothes for Palin, and the state of Bristol Palin's womb.

I cannot find who said " his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket" because no one ever said those words. I cannot find who "started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground" because that is an issue that is up for reasonable dispute. To ask someone to answer those questions with the name of the one of the four candidates (and the phrasing of the questions does indicate you need to answer one of those four names) makes you an idiot in my eyes.

Rubrick said...

The notion that he assumed you wouldn't post the transcript because he thought it made *you* look bad is really quite remarkable.

Mark Adams said...

dsalkovi said: Oh this is so rich! Like the foaming-at-the-mouth Repubs needed to know the cost of John Edwards' haircut? Or whether President-elect Obama wore a flag pin? Or if he was Muslim as if all Muslim are pure evil? And countless other Republican/ignorant examples.

You sir, are a *major* hypocrite. Wow. A classic case of opening your mouth and shoving your foot in as far as possible. Congratulations!


Thanks dsalkovi. But my point wasn't that any of those thing mattered or didn't matter. It was that Obama voters knew these sorts of things about McCain/Palin and not Obama/Biden. (Which, once again, is the point of the survey.)

Kylopod said...

I've seen interviews between adversaries before. But I have never seen such a whiny, unprofessional interviewee, which speaks volumes about the quality of any survey he would conduct.

KurtTappe said...

@Mark Adams "if you had looked at the full results of the survey you would have seen that there were four choices given to the "see Russia" question and one of the answers was "None." The correct answer was provided."

OK, then what about the other questions? "None" was not provided on several of them when in fact that was also the right answer. The other questions were also purposely misphrased and inaccurate. Further (in response to your later post) it WAS a push poll, for the very reason I touch on above--the questions were leading and inaccurate. So basically your defense of Ziegler fail and fail rather badly.

Jason R said...

I can't believe this is a real. I mean why would someone that obviously couldn't tolerate being interviewed by you demand a transcript posted that make him seem like an angry idiot.

Nigel said...

Mark Abrams:
Thanks dsalkovi. But my point wasn't that any of those thing mattered or didn't matter. It was that Obama voters knew these sorts of things about McCain/Palin and not Obama/Biden. (Which, once again, is the point of the survey.)


And what reasonable conclusion can we draw from this?

Pete said...

That was a fantastic read, thanks for posting it.

I've been a fan for months, hooking a lot of friends up to the site, and I'm enjoying it as much post-election as I was beforehand. I even like this better than baseballprospectus, of late, where I've been a member for six years.

Abacquer said...

Nate is "the enemy"? It would be great if Ziegler could stop acting deranged long enough to realize we're ALL Americans. Democrats and Republicans are not "enemies" unless you're paranoid and delusional.

"Go fuck yourself"?

Classy.

platanoman said...

wow the guy was a real jerk.

Chris said...

Terrific!

Keep it up.

bobnsj said...

@Jason R

Most people don't PLAN on sounding like angry idiots even if that is the only way they ever come off. JZ probably thought he could twist Nate around his finger and come off looking the winner and then have the pleasure of forcing Nate to post his (Nate's) own embarassing interview on 538. Sure backfired.

Quadrivium said...

It's clear from Ziegler's website, not to mention the interview transcript, that he's a wingnut and a non-story--nothing to lose sleep over.

The story here, in my mind, is Zogby. That they'd take on a poll like this speaks volumes about their integrity.

goatdan said...

@ Ziegler... erm, Mark Abrams -- "Thanks dsalkovi. But my point wasn't that any of those thing mattered or didn't matter. It was that Obama voters knew these sorts of things about McCain/Palin and not Obama/Biden. (Which, once again, is the point of the survey.)"

So the fact that Obama voters knew indisputable binary facts about McCain / Palin, while they did not know vague statements about potential Obama / Biden stuff means what, exactly?

Howard said...

If you don't know the inane trivia that passes for "issues" on Hannity and Colmes, you're grossly uninformed.

Harry said...

Great job breaking the story this morning and the follow-up with this interview...you provided a great deal of information and unique insights throughout the election season. Your grace in this interview was the perfect balance to Ziegler's arrogance. Keep up the great work, Nate!

For a study of the pervasive lack of basic civics information on both sides the aisle, read Rick Shenkman's book: Just How Stupid Are We? Ziegler's premise of media failure are not at the root.

Eri said...

And he wanted THIS full transcript to be posted? LOL! Unreal.

Vinny said...

LOL, it sounds like you're interviewing a prepubescent school boy who just learned some bad words from TV. This guy is a joke.

Matt said...

What a piece of work this right wing 'thing' is. About as gracious as a rabid dog. Ugh. But good for you keeping your cool and then posting it all.

Brian said...

Zeigler's Zogby poll was paid for by:

A. The RNC

B. Rupert Murdoch

C. Focus on the Family

D. A loan from Madge Zeigler, John Zeigler's 78-year old mother. "Ma, I got this great idea how to get back on the radio, but it's gonna take some cash...."

Nigel said...

I gotta say his indignation at the weather underground thing has sold me on this being a huge issue.

Alexandar said...

Are you sure he invited you to give the interview?

"NS: Was it paid for by the RNC?
JZ: [Laughs]. In your world, the question that I would ask you is what question [in the survey] is there any ambiguity as to what the answer is?"

So, is that a yes?

Vinny said...

Also, I don't understand what the secret is about how much you paid Zogby or who asked you to do this. Did you have to pay extra for them to cook the numbers for you or something?

But from "the enemy" - enjoy President-elect Barack Hussein Obama! ;)

thesinjun said...

I would love to see him do the same poll in Texas and ask these questions;
Who is John Boehner?
(Republican Minority Leader in the House, counterpart of Pelosi)

Who is Mitch McConnell?
(Republican Minority Leader in the Senate, counterpart of Reid)

Who is Mike Oxley?
(Former congressman from Ohio's 4th District, elected the same year as Barney Frank (1981) and preceded him as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee)

Which party currently controls congress?
(Democrats)

Which candidate/s voted against funding for the troops with a timetable?
(McCain)

Which candidate/s voted against funding for the troops without a timetable?
(Obama)

Which candidate/s has a son in the military?
(Biden, Palin)

Which of the candidates was one of the Keating Five?
(McCain)

Which of the candidates had an affair and later divorced their spouse?
(McCain)

Which of the candidates have only been in their current elected position for less than two full years?
(Palin)

Which of the candidates was found to have violated their State/Federal Ethics Act?
(Palin)

Which of the candidates is a Muslim?
(Include none as an option)

Which of the candidates was ranked as the most partisan (either Liberal or Conservative) in their respective position (Senator or Governor) by the National Journal?
(Obama)

Which of the candidates sat on a board with a founding member of the Weather Underground?
(Obama)

Which of the candidates has held their current elected position the longest?
(Biden)

Which of the candidates called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell agents of intolerance?
(McCain)

Which of the candidates told a joke about a hockey mom and a bulldog?
(Palin)

Let's start with those and see how people who voted for McCain did? The majority of the voters in this country are not informed regardless of who they voted for. In addition, the reason everyone knows so much about Palin is because she was a rock star, everything she allowed the media to see or hear was eaten up. Finally, hardly anybody knows anything about Biden because he's boring and the Vice Presidential candidate, Palin was exciting. All of the Obama/Biden questions were either very specific or happened 10+ years ago. Every one of the Palin/McCain questions occurred in the past 6 months/1 year. Of course people are going to know those things. The four results they trumpet as proof of their assumption occurred in, 1. 1988, 2. 1996, 3. January 2008 (quick snippet of conversation), 4. 1995.
The three they mention about Palin happened, 1. 10/22/2008, 2. 09/10/2008, 3. 09/26/2008. Every one of those happened less than two months before the poll.

agcbj said...

Nate, great job once again! You keep us all sane!

Vinny said...

Also, you're agnostic, yet a right-wing nutjob? Those two usually don't go well together.

marabout40 said...

I have a sneaky suspicion "Mark Adams" is actually JZ.

rynato said...

I am left wondering, what is the point of that survey? To scientifically prove that Obama voters are stupid and ill-informed?

To what end? So Ziegler can demand Obama's impeachment? Petition the Supreme Court to nullify the election? So Ziegler can feel justified calling Obama voters 'poopyheads'?

I mean, jesus. Talk about carrying a grudge. If he's like this two weeks after Obama's victory, this guy is gonna give himself an aneurysm by 2012.

I hope.

Rich Rifkin said...

"So, I'm watching the NewsHour, and who should appear? Just wanted to say that I think you have really improved your media appearances."

If you want to watch Nate's segment on the News Hour, click here.

OHIO CITIZEN said...

Of course there are lunkheads and uninformed voters of every political persuasion but this interview allowed this Ziegler fellow to basically hang himself.

He appears a bit small-minded. Not actually committed to rational elevated political discourse, is he? Referring to you as a pinhead and using profanity and vulgar expressions throughout the interview, I am moved to ask how is it that his vocabulary is so limited as to have to resort to such profanity and vulgarities?

His documentary as though it will be merely another chapter of right-wing know-nothingness attempting to pass itself off as knowledge.

Where do these people come from? I am so grateful there is nobody like this in my social universe.

Howard said...

I just watched the video of his Hannity and Colmes appearance, where he also inexplicably and pre-emptively played the "race card" card. He told them that the poll cost him $13,000, unprompted.

S said...

That interview deserves a high-five from four scores of cheerleaders. Well done Sir.

Vinny said...

He payed $13,000 to prove a lot of Obama voters were idiots, even though everyone already knows 80% of voters are idiots? I mean America elected GEORGE BUSH...TWICE. What a tool.

bobnsj said...

"So, I'm watching the NewsHour, and who should appear? Just wanted to say that I think you have really improved your media appearances."

I'm afraid to watch Dancing with the Stars or even Monday Night Football because Nate might show up.

John McCain is my Love Child! said...

Nikola == JZ.

I'm too lazy to see if someone else already arrived at this painfully obvious conclusion.

Julie said...

I really wish someone would take him up on his challenge to ask similar (or the same) questions of McCain voters. He says his premise is that the "mainstream" media didn't do its job and therefore Obama voters were poorly informed. If he really believed that, why wouldn't he have A) asked those polled where they got their news from during the campaign and B) also polled McCain voters to use as a comparison? It's obviously because either he was afraid that McCain voters would poll the same way, meaning both Obama and McCain voters are equally ill-informed, or McCain voters would be better aware of the negative stuff about Obama and Biden, because their “non-mainstream” news is skewed in the other direction. These results aren't indicative of anything but a partisan jackass wanting to prove he's right by limiting any chance he’d be proven wrong.

KWRegan said...

IMO, the questions that need to be fixed are:

----------------------------------
"200. Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress?"

How much before? What matters most for people's lives is that the GOP held both in the past 14 years until Jeffords made a tie. Moreover, the 2006 Dem Senate control is only because 2 independents caucus with them.

203. Which candidate had to quit a previous political campaign because they were found to have plagiarized a speech?

This is just old.

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

Ditto. And tendentious, unprofessional.

208. Which candidate claimed to have campaigned in 57 states?

This is also mis-worded: Obama didn't "claim it"---from the transcript, he is tiredly doing the math in his head and fumbled the tens place. Correct wording, "Which candidate misspoke saying he campaigned in `57' states."

209 should similarly either qualify as "Which candidate is accused of having policies that would bankrupt...skyrocket?" or, to be factual about what was said, run: "...said their policies would make builders of new coal plants go bankrupt?"

211. "started their political career" is arguable.
----------------------------

Now Ziegler has a point, but the inputs are not equal. The GOP side simply made better negative memes. Likewise in the brouhaha over McCain-Palin getting far more negative coverage---they simply did more negative things. And from the get-go. In my opinion, the true verdict on Palin's convention speech (and much of the ones before it that day) is that it was mocking, insulting, pandering, abhorrent, and reprehensible. Ditto her debate performance---and I've judged high-school debate. That opinion was vastly under-represented in the media---and even I said in another blog that she did well in the debate given her purposes.

Brian said...

Thanks dsalkovi. But my point wasn't that any of those thing mattered or didn't matter. It was that Obama voters knew these sorts of things about McCain/Palin and not Obama/Biden. (Which, once again, is the point of the survey.)

So the point was that people can identify widely known empirical facts, but can't identify bullshit only spewed in the right-wing echo chamber? Mission accomplished.

WV: gentall- Zeigler was metaphorically kicked in the gentall in this interview.

KWRegan said...

Jeffords undid a tie, I meant.

John McCain is my Love Child! said...

After today, I fully intend to going back to not having a fucking clue who this asshat is, and being quite happy with that state of affairs.

Enjoy your 15 seconds in the spotlight you cretinous little malcontent.

Because, any dipshit this big is guaranteed to ply the comment section, glutton for punishment that he is.

Patrick said...

Wow. Just wow.

Only place you lost yourself was losing your temper and ending the conversation.

He *is* well informed, even if way oversensitive and partisan (speak as a Republican, I do).

Iam Empathy said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Franklin said...

Brilliantly done Nate! I especially enjoyed that just because he's a coward and would never publish the full transcript, he just assumed that you wouldn't either. Hoist on his own petard...

John McCain is my Love Child! said...

I'm struggling to see the evidence that he is well-informed. The only sense I managed to cull from his prepubescent little tirades was that he is conscious that some of the dross he peddles is exactly that. Having a pulse, and a neuron spared from the exigencies of breathing and drooling, does not a well informed pundit make.

Vinny said...

Oh, just so you know, you can't "see Russia from land in Alaska" you stupid dumbass. Even if you get out to the furthest island, you'd only see ocean.

So "I can see Russia from my house" is just as dumb!

Idiot.

Linda said...

Well done, Nate. I love the fact that he seems to believe interviewers never ask questions knowing the true answers in order to see what the proffered answers will be. "You're asking me a question you could have researched! You must have done no preparation!"

It's sweet justice that he dared you to post the transcript about six times. Here it is, fella!

BoE said...

John Ziegler is irrelevant

Rocksteady said...

John Ziegler is a stupid loser who seems to be constantly at war with himself.

Radical Garbage Man said...

wow. Advice for anyone feeling "trapped" in an interview like this: Hang up! You'll look better than having a transcript of your idiocy. If he'd hung up about 3 questions in, he'd look fine. By sticking it out, he gave himself the rope to hang himself. Insisting that this transcript be published makes him look far worse than a post that says "when I called him, he hung up on me."

NEVER ask for an interview you'll lose. Seriously. Has this man never spoken to a reporter before?

Bob said...

impressive work, nate.

scary how many ruined people there are out there. thanks for taking this one seriously - it would be so easy to blow him and his project off.