11.18.2008

Zogby Engages in Apparent Push Polling for Right-Wing Website

UPDATE: For additional context about the survey and an exclusive interview with John Ziegler, please see here.

The conservative website HowObamaGotElected.com reports that it has commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of 512 Barack Obama voters as part of what can best be described as a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters.

The website, created by former radio talk show host John Ziegler to promote a forthcoming documentary, features a YouTube clip of interviews with 12 Obama voters who "were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience". The clip portrays the Obama supporters as giving "incorrect" answers to political questions such as "which candidate said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket". Of the 12 Obama supporters interviewed for the clip, 7 (58%) are black; nationwide, about 23% of Obama supporters were black according to the national exit poll.

In connection with the YouTube clip, Ziegler describes that he "also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results." Partial results of the survey from among 512 Obama voters are reported on the website. It is not clear if voters for non-Obama candidates were screened out by the survey, or Ziegler has chosen not to report their results.

Most of the questions on the survey take 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 applies to. Questions include the following:

"Which of the four [candidates] said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"

"Which of the four [candidates] started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?"

"Which of the four [candidates] quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism?"

"Which of the four [candidates] won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot?"

As should be obvious, the veracity of several of these claims is -- at best -- debatable, yet they are apparently represented as factual to the respondent. It is not clear whether the respondent is informed of the "correct" response after having had the question posed to him.

Not all of the items in the poll are intended to apply to Obama or Biden. Several apply to Sarah Palin, although the items about Palin, while probably unflattering ("which of the four [candidates] has a pregnant teenage daughter?") are nevertheless apparently true. The exception is a "twist" question about Palin in which the respondent is asked "which candidate said that they can see Russia from their house?". Ziegler claims in the video that none of the four answers is correct because the statement was made by Tina Fay rather than Sarah Palin. (In her interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin said that "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska", not that she can see Russia from her house.)

To my mind, this survey meets the definition of a "push poll", which the Random House Dictionary defines as "a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent." That (i) several of the items on the survey contain information which, in addition to being negative, is arguably also untrue; (ii) Ziegler brags that the survey includes a trick question to which no correct answer can be provided, and that (iii) apparently only Obama voters were targeted by the survey (although this is not 100 percent clear), also inform my opinion that the survey can fairly be described as a "push poll".

In an item on his personal website dated today, 11/18, Ziegler claims that Zogby will officially release the results of the survey tomorrow. Ziegler also appeared on Fox's Hannity & Colmes news program yesterday (11/17) to promote his documentary, on which clips from the YouTube video were shown.

Why Zogby International has decided to accept this client and conduct a survey in this fashion is not clear. I would hope, however, that any and all clients that need legitimate polling work conducted would take their business elsewhere. These clients include C-SPAN and Reuters, two organizations with longstanding and well-deserved reputations for accuracy and neutrality; contact information for C-SPAN and Reuters can be found at their respective webpages.

288 comments

MEC said...

Duuuude!

Michael said...

I am a disgruntled Democrat here who refused to vote for Obama. I just think that he doesn't have the experience to accomplish tasks.

Fred's Shorts said...

and the web wars rages on.

WV polloged: And Zogby was polloged

Troy said...

snap!

Juris said...

"can see Russian from their house?"

Russia, not Russian


wv: momsy

Mrs B said...

so that is what Zogby is reduced to?

Blueman said...

This "survey" concept is a rip-off of a pre-election Howard Stern Show segment. However, there's one notable omission: Stern's staffer interviewed at least one McCain supporter, and the McCain supporter was at least equally uninformed.

How many McCain voters still think Obama is Muslim, for example? Or think Saddam Hussein attacked the U.S. on 9/11? Ignorance knows no partisan bounds.

drinhouse3 said...

I hope this is an April fool's day joke

samfrye said...

I guess Zogby's in a contest with Drudge to see which can have the least amount of credibility.

Nick said...

There's actually a really interesting article about John Ziegler, written by the late David Foster Wallace. You can read it here. Strange, I was just reading it the other day.

Sergeiy said...

Did Zogby acknowledge they actually did make this poll? Ziegler might simply be lying, in which case you attacked the pollster for no reason.

WV: e-diot(self-explanatory)

Matt said...

Lame.

proudfoot said...

I'm quite surprised John Zogby is willing to sink to this level.

I've always thought of him as a piss poor pollster who didn't recognize that self selected samples in Zogby Interactive made for a poor poll, but it seems he's rather immoral as well.

Ah well, he won't be getting any legitimate business after this.

StaceySue said...

first of all, it's great that Nate's up late so those of us with term paper induced insomnia can have something new to look at in the wee hours of the morning.

second, love the strategic use of pronouns. All "his" for the ones supposed to represent Obama/Biden and "they" so as not to give away the ones about Palin. If you're designing survey questions, isn't that the first in many signs that your questions have serious problems? This is a disgrace.

Blame said...

Nate,

Sadly push polling is not limited to crap polsters like Zogby. Your hero Rasmussen engaged in a fair bit of it over drilling.

While you are right to bring the news as it comes in, abuse of polls is a perenual problem. All polsters suffer from it, wise polsters take precautions.

If Zogby didn't have a contract that required the disclosure of the full poll, or he set the poll up as a push poll then his reputation deserves to suffer. We will no doubt learn more shortly.

tateri - iregular version of "taters" used when describing damaged reputations in bulk lots. Example: republican politicians' reputations' are tateri.

homunq said...

Isn't this jumping the gun just a little bit? This guy could be totally lying, and he could have just contracted "Zoghy" or something. I mean, he has shown he has no ethics.

I agree, if Zogby did this, they suck. But wait until we have confirmation to call for a boycott.

Sam said...

I actually watched the whole youtube video to get an idea of what this all about.

I can just visualise this going viral on all the conservative blogs and in chain emails. It definitely is mainly full of fallicies and was the biggest waste of my time.

What concerns me is that some people might believe this, and any attention given to these sorts of things is wasted.

Also, as for the "twist", there were four candidates to choose from. And what we learnt from college was to choose the BEST answer, which is Sarah Palin.

Sigh

Sam said...

From the website:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

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

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

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)

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).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

THEY ONLY HAD FOUR CHOICES, TINA FEY WASN'T ONE OF THEM!!!






For some reason, I have a feeling that the margin of error is slightly greater than +/- 4%.

Cyril said...

Nate, this is not technically push-polling. It's what is known as message testing, whereby a polling organisation is commissioned to "test messages", as the name would suggest. In this case, Zogby has been commissioned by an anti-Obama entity for the purpose of testing messages that give a highly negative impression of Obama. The fine line between push-polling and what Zogby is doing is not to do with the type of message sent out: it is to do with the way that the poll is taken. Push-polling is done with volume in mind: well-organised push-pollers will try to contact tens of thousands of people, sometimes even hundreds of thousands. In this case, it would seem that the poll has been taken from a few hundred people, not tens of thousands.

This is not the first time that Zogby has been accused of push-polling; John Zogby has previously made rather irate responses to these controversies by highlighting what I've just said, except in a rather more rude manner.

On the other hand, the issue here is perhaps not whether this we should be calling this push polling or message testing. It is whether it is ethical for organisations like Zogby to be participating in this sort of polling for entities with questionable and arguably malicious motives. John Zogby has been involved in this sort of message testing on numerous occasions now, and one might suggest that he is harming his already low reputation even further by engaging in these practices.

JR said...

Here are some questions I recently received on a Zogby poll. Very similar idea....I don't know if the volume qualifies it as a push poll, but I don't particularly think it's an ethical approach.

-----------------
If you knew Barack Obama supported a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms - where a $500 rifle would now cost $875 with tax, would that have made you...

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for national legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states, would that have made you...

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for Congressional legislation that would overturn abortion restrictions, such as parental notification, gender selection abortions and requiring doctors to have local hospital certificates when performing abortions, would that have made you..?

If you knew Barack Obama supports repealing legislation that currently prevents non-government organizations, which receive federal funding, from providing abortions in other nations, such as China where coercive abortions are performed based on the gender of the fetus, would that make you...

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included, would that have made you...

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%, would that have made you...

If you knew about Barack Obama's support for a Congressional bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections, would that have made you...

If you knew that Democrat Congressional Leaders plan to cut defense spending by 25%, would that have made you...

Do you agree or disagree that an increase in taxes on wealthy Americans and businesses will further hurt an already shaky economy, or do you think it will make no difference?

Barack Obama said during a campaign stop that redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans, was good for everybody. Do you agree or disagree with Obama when it comes to redistribution of wealth?

Barack Obama has said that while the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans. Others say the Second Amendment does not permit infringements such as gun registration, licensing etc. Do you agree or disagree that Second Amendment permits infringements such as those described by Obama?

Do you agree with Barack Obama's interpretation of the Second Amendment, where gun control is permissible, or do you think the Second Amendment is an absolute individual right that shall not be infringed?

Barack Obama said he would make signing the Freedom of Choice Act one of his very first acts in office. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify every legal limit on abortion, federal, state or otherwise. Do you support or oppose Obama's signing of the Freedom of Choice Act?

Did you hear about the book "Audacity of Deceit," or the website, www.barackobamatest.com by author Brad O'Leary during the course of the general election, either on the Internet, talk radio or in print ads?

If restrictions on abortion are taken away by Congress, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment that allowed states to enact laws such as parental notification, prevention of gender selection and third term abortions, and medical requirements for doctors to be registered at local hospitals?

Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment that banned abortions except in cases of rape, incest and where the mother's life is endangered?

Should Congress pass a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to restore that right?

Should Congress pass a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to protect gun owners and manufacturers against such liability?

Should Congress pass a law outlawing concealed carry laws in 40 states, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to allow concealed carry for individuals if approved by state law?

samule said...

Honestly, although it is honorable for Nate to monitor the behaviour of polling agencies and such manipulation attempts, who cares?

Barack Hussein Obama will soon be the 44th President of the United States of America (including the red states that got even more red) and the rightwingnuts can come up with as much disinformation as they want, in the end it's them suffering while we're celebrating and looking forward to be productive; Let them be destructive so it will take them even more time to recover :-)

MotherHoose said...

Ah

If John Ziegler got professional help for his pedophile tendencies, would that make his persona more credible?

Mike said...

John Ziegler is a typical Republican nut-job. I live in Kentucky where he was fired for wondering about the genital grooming habits of his station's rival news lady. He's not to be taken seriously. He just likes to be outrageous.

fullbodytransplant said...

These people remind me of The Purifiers:

http://fullbodytransplant.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/marvel-evolution-previews-purified-by-the-purifiers/

They would be frightening, except the election proved that they are becoming more powerless every day.

phil said...

My partner got substantially the same questions as JR's, in an Internet poll. The "Should Congress..." language is especially awkward.

phil said...

Questions like "Should Congress pass a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to restore that right?" or "Should Congress pass a law outlawing secret ballots in labor union elections, would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to guarantee that right?" were bizarre.

It would be useless as a push poll, since it was a self-selecting Internet poll. It would be useless for generating legitimate survey results, since the questions were so shittily written. The only purpose seemed to be eliciting wrong answers from supporters of one candidate in order to generate results convenient for propaganda purposes.

Steve said...

Can I recommend removing the hyperlink to the "how Obama won" website?

That website getting a link on a popular website such as this one will cause Google search algorithms to view that site as credible and give it a higher ranking in search results.

You can give the address; just don't hyperlink it.

hardcle said...

I got the same poll as JR. It started out like any other political poll, then it started in with the questions that JR listed. I didn't finish and sent Zogby an email about it. I never heard back. It's sad that a reputable pollster would engage in such tactics.

matador said...

"The conservative website HowObamaGotElected.com reports that it has commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of 512 Barack Obama voters as part of what can best be described as a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters."

#############
Upsy Daisy really ?
Despite the fact that I have been in US dozens of times and I know a little about you as a people,I am still a foreigner,but if I may judge from the blogger's post I heve been reading in this and others blogs...well Obama's voters are the best part of the country by far.
The part who cares,who gives a shit.
Keep on walking this way guys.
aloha.
:)

matador said...

oh,
I forgot:
good morning America !
:)

matador said...

Juris said...
"can see Russian from their house?"

Russia, not Russian


wv: momsy

November 18, 2008 3:07 AM

##########

oh,I realize you like grammar correction.
please,let me out of this,as I said before,I am a foreigner and english is ONLY my 4th language,I think you can forgive me.
:P

fred said...

The Nate-ster chooses to wield his power, but he will only use his powers for good.

Zogby is in financial trouble, I hear, and stuff like this could end him.

As an added note the "Zogby minute" and "Zogby's Real America" on XM radio both had a nice right wing bent a bit too often to be considered unbiased.

tony said...

So Obama won, and won well.

This doesn't mean that the loopy far right will go away. Like the Taleban they will re-group, reorganize, and come back fighting.

This Zogby push poll is just a small foretaste of what is to come: a full-scale battle to de-legitimize the Obama presidency.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

fred said...

I agree, the nuts will not even listen to fact. I posted a few corrections on a blogger site and they were quickly removed.

The good news is that tactics like this will continue to drive independents away from the far right - who wants to be associated with nuts - and thus could actually lead to further gains for democrats.

matador said...

fred said...
I agree, the nuts will not even listen to fact.
November 18, 2008 6:43 AM

###########

I agree too.
in fact,it works the same in every country.

J said...

How is this push polling? The number of respondents is small and the results were tabulated. Isn't this just bad methodology in pursuit of a desired result?

Vince said...

I got this survey. I started filling it out and began to realize what it was doing so I stopped before I submitted it.

akoolromeo said...

Blueman said...
This "survey" concept is a rip-off of a pre-election Howard Stern Show segment. However, there's one notable omission: Stern's staffer interviewed at least one McCain supporter, and the McCain supporter was at least equally uninformed.

How many McCain voters still think Obama is Muslim, for example? Or think Saddam Hussein attacked the U.S. on 9/11? Ignorance knows no partisan bounds.

***********
A recent poll found that 25% of Texans thought Obama was a Muslim. That is all one needs to know about the average intelligence of McCain supporters. Besides a poll earlier this year found that the avergae Obama supporter had a college degree, while the average McCain supporter only had a high school diploma. You don't need a study to determine whose supporters are dumber. I saw some Youtube footage of Palin rallies, where the person shooting the video was asking the attendees questions about whether they thought Obama was a terrorist, and all the ones he interview either said they thought he was, or by their body language and reluctance to answer the question, indicated they thought he was. There is a reason why towards the end of the campaign, Palin's staff were preventing people with video camera to interview the people at their rallies. (On a side note, the people interviewed at the Palin rallies ALL looked like rednecks)

MysticLaker said...

What a joke...

Swing and a miss...

The right fails again by mocking the same people who they should try and get to vote for them.

PseuMdoYnym said...

That's insane! Why can't people accept the election is over and Obama won fair and square? Sheesh. Besides, one of the statistics on Gallup's site showed that Obama supporters were more likely to have a college education or better when compared to McCain supporters. If any group is less informed than the other my money is on the gun toting Bible thumping Joe Six Packs out there who think Obama is a Muslim who frolics through the woods with Bill Ayers and Khalidi, tossing bombs and cursing Isreal. Ugh.

I guess, since Sarah Palin was completely ignorant of the issues, that it goes without saying her supporters would also be totally clueless so there's no need to make a poll to demonstrate that fact?

Alpha.dk said...

the 'Getting all his opponents removed from the ballot' question; is that about Jack Ryan? Or are they referring to the democratic PRIMARY for the Illinois State Senate?

Either way, that's a very, very specious argument.

wv: queds: Quod un-erat demonstrandums

Beth in VA said...

Thanks so much to Nate for covering this. The commenter who asked "Who Cares?" perhaps doesn't imagine the very likely situation where someone is pointed to the racist "How Obama Got Elected" right-wing site, and then searches for a response.

This post, (on a now popular blog!), throws much-needed light on the subject by showing exactly how the Zogby poll is connected with this right-wing effort to distort the public perception of Obama and those who voted for him.

Brandon said...

This only proves that the Obama supporters were more ignorant than we could have ever thought.

The next four years will be scary.

Anthony Burns said...

1- Isn't Zogby supposed to be in the tank for our side

2- Who conducts a push poll after the election

andrew said...

Wow. This sort of stuff just makes me sick to my stomach. In the short term, this won't be going away. I just hope we have a counterweight to it on our side; in other words, I've always hated Fox for its blatant politicking, but now that Olbermann is on the air, I at least feel that there's some parity.

In the long term, I certainly hope America "grows up." You remember hearing those statistics that 80% of Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, etc. Despicable. If the arc of history is for greater levels of education, greater reflection on the world and self, and a more thoughtful citizenry, then maybe a day will come (in our lifetimes?) where politicians just say what they mean and we actually debate the issues.

I applaud for Obama for actually valuing education: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/07/want_better_schools_hire_better_teachers/

This has got to be our number 1 issue going forward, or the 21st century is not going to work out real well for America.

polls_apart said...

I think that 512 McCain supporters could be "polled" on a different set of tilted questions and give answers just as skewed as in this poll.

CommieChemist said...

I've seen demographic polling data on just about every subset except that of Atheist/Agnostic/Spiritual.

I wonder what percent of this bloc voted for Obama? I would assume that it would be pretty high...this would seem to be an above average education and intelligence minority.

Anybody have anything on this?

MysticLaker said...

I also can't wait to see zogby's reaction to this.

I sure once it's on huffpost, olbermann, etc, it will be great.

Don't mess with Nate, John Zogby, you loser!!!! I thought your polling was just bad, but after you started to release early to drudge I realized what a LOSER you are.

Pssst said...

Zogby is crap.

If Nate hadn't included Zogby polls in his pre-election predictions, he might have correctly forecast the narrow Obama win in Indiana. Three Zogby polls showed McCain with a 5-6 point lead there (and Zogby Interactive gave McCain a 10 point lead)...

samule said...

Beth in VA said...

Thanks so much to Nate for covering this. The commenter who asked "Who Cares?" perhaps doesn't imagine the very likely situation where someone is pointed to the racist "How Obama Got Elected" right-wing site, and then searches for a response.

---

the person who asked "who cares?" also thanked Nate for his vigilance and added context to the "who cares?" explaining what he meant by it, namely that ultimately such polls should be considered as sad for the people who make them and believe the message that they try to push and not for people who are educated enough to see through such strategies. Unless you want to believe what the poll says and think Obama supporters are dumb.

So please Beth in VA don't oversimplify other people's comments!

STepper said...

Interesting. After watching John Ziegler, the failed talk show host, on Sean Inanity last night, I went to his howobamagotelected website, nosed around a bit, and then wrote him this at 9:51 PM:

Pathetic website. Push polling without the polling. And your characterization of the president-elect as having "extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances" continues the meme of the Kool Aid drinking right. Just keep it up. Come 2012 most people will realize what bullshit you guys have pedaled. And I suspect people will be less likely to get suckered in and vote against their interests. But you can continue to preach to the solid 25% of the country that's behind you, no matter what. But I encourage you to marginalize yourselves and keep preaching to the ever-diminishing choir.

The politics of division appears to be alive and well among the right wing nuts such as yourself and Sean Hannity. Which rhymes with inanity.

I won't be returning to your site as it doesn't deserve the traffic. It's little more than an empty waste of electrons.


I didn't know that the right wing hack John Zogby was involved.

In 2010 I would suggest you not use Zogby as he basically tailors his polls to his wing nut customers' demands.

Ed M. said...

This only proves that the Obama supporters were more ignorant than we could have ever thought.

I'm laughing my ass off at you. Like the problem was you didn't throw enough bullshit at him.

E.M. said...

JR, I got that same poll a week ago (I think) and amid all that post-election anti-Obama push polling was two pages of questions about office copy machines. I had screen shots but they got deleted.

Peephole said...

Zogby lost his credibility a long time ago, when he started conducting push polls for 9/11 conspiracy theorists:

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
http://tinyurl.com/2gwlz5

Shap said...

I'll bet I can guess the results of the survey:

87% of Obama voters have not memorized right wing talking points?

aria said...

All of the questions stem from one fallacy: Loaded question or false dilemma.

The rest are marinated with nit-picking the pedantic which semantically lack any pertinence and significant as to why one should or shouldn't vote for a particular candidate. The majority of the questions are what I would like to call a "soap opera" type inquisition which reveals no meaningful information about the subject.

Ziegler is a guy who has been fired so many times from various radio stations for his rabid comments and out of the line antics that he actually made a career out of it. This guy was sued for defamation by the former ex-girlfriend when, after she dumped him, he went on the "air" talking about her breast implants and how she "grooms" herself around the private part! Ya, a typical smarmy sycophant. These people are not here to inform; they just after their 15 minutes of fame and dance around on a podium of attention-whores to make a few misery bucks here and there.

The state of media is a joke.

buzz maxwell said...

If you inform yourselves you will see this poll was not to show how ignorant the voters were. This poll was to show how influential the media was and still is in forming public opinion about Obama and anyome who opposes him. Tina Fey is shown on video to be the one who claimed she could see Russia from her house, while Palin is shown on video to say one can see Russian soil from Alaska proves the point very clearly..It was not the idiocy, but the subject the voters knew little of that is important and it would not really matter if they are Obama or McCain supporters if you look at the questions at howobamagotelected.com

CommieChemist said...

Thanks Sedi!

As a humorous aside...I've spent some time recently over at some of the Sports Blogs where the debate over Pujols vs. Howard for MVP has been taking place. The anti-Pujols supporters have talking points that don't revolve around statistics for the reasons why he should not be MVP...such as alleged steroid use, comments taken out of context, etc.

As an experiment, I started rebutting these smear tactics by comparing them to what the GOP did this past election, even going so far as to accuse the smear Poster of being Sarah Palin in disguise. No one on these sites has yet been able to (or had the desire to) have a decent come back to this. I think it is hilarious. Anecdotally, it goes to show what a low opinion people (men) have of dear Sarah and the GOP tactics.

tkk13above said...

This is really gross. Many of those statements aren't even true. Personally, I would LOVE to have Obama supporters go head-to-head in an information and/or intelligence contest against McCain supporters. From my perspective it is the McCain folks who on average are extremely misinformed and/or stupid. How would they answer to "Is Barack Obama muslim?" I think you see my point. The only question from their survey that made Obama people look somewhat dumb was "who controls congress" because a lot of people didn't get that one right. But the others were terrible "questions" with "facts" that weren't even true most of the time.

I also got a Zogby interactive poll with questions like JR mentioned, that seemed incredibly push-poll-y to me. I felt pretty crummy afterwards, like I had been used for something dirty. For a question like this one: "If you knew Barack Obama supported a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms - where a $500 rifle would now cost $875 with tax, would that have made you..." I thought I was damned if I said "less likely to vote for him" (buyer's remorse!!!) and damned if I said "more likely to vote for him" (Obama supporters are such crazy liberals!!!)

Zogby is on my black list.

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

All the comments on technique/methodology and how to characterize it are quite amusing.

The two plain take aways from this incident are 1) The Far Right will never accept that anyone with a brain could support Obama (like the Far Left could never accept either 2000 or 2004) so all the Obama folks who read sites like this need to pace themselves and chill so they don't wind up having more heart attacks than Cheney in the next 4 years; and

2) Zogby is a commercial vendor who only really cares about filling his coffers and will trade on his perceived accuracy every 4 years to get paid in between. Honestly, polling firms are like the winter Olympics - almost no one is watching Ice Dancing the other 3 years and 50 weeks, so they do whatever they have to in order to get paid (Ice Capades, anyone?). Pollsters are the same way - taking the shadier, paid work when fewer people are watching.

I'm glad Nate's calling shenanigans on Zogby, but he'll probably claim to balance it out by polling for some fringe Left group next week.

fred said...

Buzz Maxwell-

These "issues" were ancillary side issues and the questions were chosen to confuse.

Ask them about the real issues they votes on:

Iraq

Taxes

Trust

I bet they get those answers right. This was a push poll, designed to get a particular answer. More proof that:

"Somewhere in America, a conservative is lying"

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

I FIGURED IT OUT!!!

Nate's glasses are like Sarah Palin guy glasses.

OK..back to my coffee.

Dan G. said...

Nate,

I received this survey from Zogby in my e-mail a couple weeks ago and forwarded it to you. Thank you for covering it on your website! I hope this helps spread the word.

I was absolutely disgusted by the questions. The ones you touched on in your post were only the tip of the iceberg. There were about 100 extremely biased questions that asserted as truths what were actually outright lies about Obama's history and record.

Robbie said...

The inbred conservatives will never stop, will they? Even after an electoral landslide they want to talk about Bill Ayers. Absolutely amazing. Hopefully they continue to push moderates away until they're just a bunch of bigoted old white guys (and Alan Keyes).

Jen said...

"As an added note the "Zogby minute" and "Zogby's Real America" on XM radio both had a nice right wing bent a bit too often to be considered unbiased."

___________________________________

Zogby's brother is very active in the Dem party. In fact he was a convention delegate this year. I bet this might make for an uncomfortable Thanksgiving.

Jen said...

"This only proves that the Obama supporters were more ignorant than we could have ever thought.

The next four years will be scary."

___________________________________

Maybe you could get a Bushie doll made and snuggle it for comfort every night and have Sean Hannity sing you a lullaby?

Antmatic said...

Anyone else surprised that Obama ran better in Wisconson (56-42) than he did in MN and IA? Wisconsin approached Pacific Northwest territory in this election...

Wa7th said...

Be a friend indeed: Point out Zogby's idiocy to him. Maybe he doesn't know.

http://www.zogby.com/contact/index.cfm


Re: Push polling for Ziegler

Dear Mr. Zogby,

So you've made it obvious that you'll do absolutely anything for money, but why? Are you trying to prove a theory that your credibility cannot drop to less than zero?

musicman said...

Here is a rebuttal of this argument that Obama supporters are less educated. This is from MSNBC's first read on November 11th

The Graduate(s): Number crunchers have already unpacked the college split for this election cycle to show Obama's gains among grads. (In 2004, 42% of voters nationwide were college graduates, and they split equally for John Kerry and George W. Bush. This time, that number was boosted to 44%, and the vote broke 53%-45% in the Democrat's favor.) But consider this: In 2008, college-educated voters outnumbered non-college grads at the polls in eleven states (CO, VA, NH, PA, NJ, CT, MD, NY, MA, VT, and DC). Barack Obama won all of them -- by an average of more than 24 percentage points. In states that McCain won, on average, 42% of voters were college grads. In states that Obama won, on average, 47% had a college diploma.

Christopher said...

Nate, the solution is to exclude Zogby from your model for the next election (at least!).

If they ask you why, give them a multiple choice test with no correct responses.

WV likey: An excited or childish way of experiencing happiness, i.e. "me likey bouncy".

Plutarch Yinzer said...

It's funny that fivethirthyeight.com presents facts as they are received through tried, tested and proved scientific method, discloses Obama support from the contributors and still allows open comments. howobamagotelected.com presents less than scientific methods- really akin to a 6th grader collecting information for a civics paper- does not acknowledge support of any candidate and yet there is no way to post a comment.

Are they afraid that the millions who are online in support of Obama will attack the website with facts and point out the obvious questionable nature of their methods? Probably.

This is what the rightwingnuts of the country are reduced to. Having said that, we leftwingnuts are willing ready and able to move forward and leave partisan politics behind. That is what we should do. Leave these nuts to their own devises. I'm sure it helps them sleep at night and if it does, I won't deny someone a good night's rest.

Steven said...

As Zogby missed projections in five states in this last election...FL, IN, MO, NC and NE...maybe this rightwing thing is at about their prime speed. 3BlueDudes site tracks 92 polling operations (just about everyone in existence) and Zogby only out performed 17 of these. Maybe the new owners are selling the brand and not quality.

GaMeS said...

Let's not get too caught up in the terminology here: It doesn't matter if this is technically "push-polling," "message testing," or what have you.

The bottom line is that it is grossly unethical.

By providing statistics, margins of error, and so forth, Zogby is providing a veneer of scientific credibility to what is essentially a rigged questionnaire that is designed to produce the desired result.

If someone in the real scientific community did this, their careers would be over. The fact that it also disseminates misleading and/or false information is in addition to this fundamental ethical breach.

This, in addition to previous questionable behavior -- e.g. leaking partial data to Drudge so he can make a headline, sending that other questionnaire quoted in the comments above, and his penchant for turning random statistical noise into a narrative -- leads us to one inescapable conclusion:

He is a fraud.

I, for one, am writing C-SPAN and Reuters. They deserve better than to risk having their reputations tied to him.

eve said...

Some people will do anything for money. Apparently Zogby is one of them.

AxmxZ said...

If you had learned that John Ziegler is wanted in two counties in Texas and in one county in Georgia for sodomy with a pig, would that change your opinion of John Ziegler?

...Not really, no.

Bilbo Hussein Baggins said...

There are websites that have been created for the dissemination of totally fallacious quotes and information. These sites are in the guise of a legitimate source and many, many people are fooled by this info. They are mainly used as smears against your opponent...both political and sports.

This Youtube/Zomby creation seems to fall into the same category...a deliberate attempt to mislead the public rather than enlighten it.

*alkill* What a Minnesota politician/comedian will be doing during his upcoming Senate victory speech.

MotherHoose said...


thanx Wa7th!

I copied/pasted your note and sent without my info..

hope more people send them the message!

Palympset said...

The far right has been using these "pseudo-science" and "push poll" techniques against gay people for ages. It's interesting to see them start going after Obama voters with the same kind of propaganda - Obama voters are a 52% majority of the country.

Soon, these wingnuts will be a tiny minority all to themselves. At that point, when they come out with their manufactured pronouncements, we can all get a good laugh.

Jen said...

"Anyone else surprised that Obama ran better in Wisconson (56-42) than he did in MN and IA? Wisconsin approached Pacific Northwest territory in this election..."

___________________________________

Not really. Obama performed very well there in the primary and the Repub convention was in MN. As for IA, it was red (and more evangelical in general) in 2004.

I was more surprised with how close WI was in 2004.

Seiji said...

long time pollster, first time poster.

as despicable as that is, that wouldnt fit our (aapor's) definition of push polling. the purpose of the poll was not to misinform. it may have been malicious - making obama supporters seem stupid - but it was not trying to convince anyone of untruths

Bilbo Hussein Baggins said...

CommieChemist said...
I've seen demographic polling data on just about every subset except that of Atheist/Agnostic/Spiritual.

I wonder what percent of this bloc voted for Obama? I would assume that it would be pretty high...this would seem to be an above average education and intelligence minority.


I also haven't seen any polling data on the white supremiscist / aryan skinhead / kkk dixie brotherhood subset. I wouldn't think an assumption of below average education and intelligence to be out of line in this group.

grinder said...

So this is how it ends, huh Zogby?

chronosynclastic infundibulum said...

This is fun...how about a few questions of my own:

Which of the four candidates ditched his first wife when she became a quadriplegic?

Which of the four candidates was a member of the Keating Five? What about the Jackson Five?

Which of the four candidates stated that being able to see a foreign nation from a distance adds to his/her foreign policy credintials

Now I'm a pollster!

Michael said...

I don't know who the hell that other Michael is here but it's sure not me. Gotta find some less common name./mbw

twopack said...

Those questions were piss-easy to answer. Come up with something tougher, Zogby- I don't like my intelligence insulted this way!

Dog Knows said...

.

Dear Brandon,

Here's the Complaint Desk ... I'm all ears . . .

> Brandon said @ November 18, 2008 7:29 AM

> "This only proves that the Obama supporters were more ignorant
> than we could have ever thought. The next four years will be scary."

.

Cugel said...

I'm not sure exactly what this "poll" is supposed to achieve.

A push poll is only "useful" shortly before an election to influence short-term voting behavior. But, Obama won't be running for anything for 4 more years, and by then his record in office will determine whether he is re-elected. This poll won't even be a distant memory.

Plus, they polled what? 500 people? If every one of those supporters became fanatical Obama opponents as a result of this idiocy, what difference would it make? And of course, that won't happen.

If it's not a push poll, then as a technique to smear Obama's supporters what use does it have? Well, perhaps it could be used as a fund-raising technique to frighten Fundies into sending more money to whatever organization ordered the poll.

Then there's the possibility that they might try and put this into the media to support the idea that Obama's supporters are extremist? But he just won a landslide victory by nearly 7 million votes. Demonizing a MAJORITY of the American people doesn't appear to be such a great strategy!

You have to wonder exactly what use this poll is to anybody. A LOT of the questions were designed to scare gun owners and abortion opponents.

That makes me think it's really a fund-raising technique.

VW: "Mistiest" -- "I haven't the mistiest notion what on earth these wing-nuts expect to gain from this crap."

AaronSw said...

Come on, Nate. As bad as this may be, it isn't push polling. Push polling is when you execute a robocall that appears to be a poll. This obviously isn't that because, a) the election is over, b) they only talked to 500 people, and c) they actually analyzed the result.

This isn't supporting the tactic, just supporting the use of accurate names.

ucprof said...

Zogby's speaking on the UC Irvine campus in southern CA this afternoon as part of the "Chancellor's Distinguished Fellows Series." More information is available at:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/newsevents/event.php?eid=1028

bjfan82 said...

Yes exactly!! I got one of their surveys and started to fill it out. They were asking right wing talking points about Obama being communist. I sent Zogby a nasty email telling them never to email me a survey again. I was so disgusted at Zogby's lack of professionalism.

susan said...

AxmxZ said...

If you had learned that John Ziegler is wanted in two counties in Texas and in one county in Georgia for sodomy with a pig, would that change your opinion of John Ziegler?

...Not really, no.

WELL SAID!

I agree Zogby should no longer be legitimized by being included as a real poll.

We can only hope that the national obsession with uncensored access to high-performance guns doesn't enable some ignorant fearmonger.

Cugel said...

The more I think about it the more it looks like the same old right-wing crap. Attack Obama's supporters as a bunch of extremists.

Well that didn't work very well during the election did it? All those "celebrity" ads were designed to convince voters that Obama supporters were just a bunch of fanatical worshiping idiots.

It just violates a cardinal rule in politics NEVER to attack the voters. It can work to attack voters ONLY IF THEY ARE A SMALL AND EASILY ISOLATED MINORITY!

So, demonizing Black voters worked for years. Demonizing "liberals" worked great -- at least in states where "liberals" were a small and despised minority.

But, Mark Udall just won the Senate seat in Colorado despite a massive ad campaign that said things like "Boulder Liberal Mark Udall is a dangerous Boulder Liberal. Tell Boulder Liberal Mark Udall to support our troops!"

(I'm not exaggerating much. About every other sentence was "Boulder liberal."

Udall won by 10% going away. So much for the "scary Liberal! Be afraid!" ad campaign. That crap just isn't working anymore.

Rep. Mark Shaffer bitterly complained that Udall "bought" the election because he raised more money. That was even more hilarious! Seeing a Republican complain about his opponent having "too much money" and "buying the campaingn!"

Why doesn't that bastard know that only Republicans can do that? The gall of him raising more money than me!"

oct said...

Exit polling shows that Obama voters have more college and post-college graduation education on average.

The South was strongly for McCain, where the uneducated, mega-religious, anti-science, faith-herd seems to flourish.

Now George W. That man is real smart--a genius. Palin is an intellectual midget. LOL. Is this the best the Republicans have? What a bunch of cry babies and cowards. Come up with real logic instead of smear and lies.

Zogby is a liar and a cheater.

Can we remove his polling data from the site now?

Juris said...

@Cugel: you are right about attacking voters.

I have a sense that in general, however, most people are not responding to efforts to label candidates (liberal, socialist, neocon, right wing) as opposed to a focus on their specific actions or words. Even words taken out of context aren't having as much of an impact.

We also seem to be moving more in the direction of "don't tell me what you think, show me what you do" -- as people see their financial underpinnings collapse. Roll-up-the-sleaves pragmatic decision-makers are going to be rewarded in this environment.

oct said...

@Brandon

This only proves that the Obama supporters were more ignorant than we could have ever thought.

I believe Obama schooled your ass on how to organize and execute a successful campaign.

McCain and Palin ran a schoolyard stunt to make Obama look bad and well that wasn't too smart. All those morons that voted for him are likely as base and idiotic as the McCain-Palin campaign. LOL.

John David said...

Zogby was also conducting push polls during the campaign season.

Link

livemild said...

i am beginning to feel as dumb as has been suggested.

just saw reid and lieberman laughing it up.

i thought i voted, worked and donated for change. i am an idiot.

Buckeye said...

Whats with this story that Al Sharpton may get Hillary Clinton senate seat?

Buckeye said...

i thought i voted, worked and donated for change. i am an idiot.
-----------------------------------
You did, if it was the same old same old. You will have them throwing out lieberman, lieberman bitter and voting against any democratic initiatives. Now that he is still on Lieberman would like a fool to go against Obama after he got a lifeline. McCain bring him instead of holding grudges to make the needed numbers to get things passed easier instead of the deadlock we have had for several years. Get out of your outdated thinking of holding grudges and bring people together and get things done.

Juris said...

"Politics is the art of the possible." -- Lyndon Johnson

To add to my comment above, I think that we can hold to our values but inaction and political stalemate are not an option.

Whatever you may think of LBJ and the Vietnam War, he played critical roles in pushing Medicare, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As Senate majority leader and as president, he sought to get as much as he could out of the particular configuration of political (partisan) forces in Congress. But he did not brook stalemate. Of course, with the Democratic landslide in 1964 he had opportunities that were not availabele just a year earlier.

I think that in the current environment, Obama is looking at things in the same way. He's got a partisan advantage in Congress, but he also values pragmatic compromise and moving things forward, especially because of the multiple crises we're facing now. He's focusing especially on what he can do as executive (via executive order, for example), but in Congress he's going to compromise when it's needed to bring about practical legislation rather than allow stalemate to continue.

As a pragmatist he's also realistic that we don't have all the answers written down already. Some experimentation and learning-as-you-go is essential. But he's going to restore the rule of law which, to me, is the number one priority of this presidency.

Voice of the Midwest said...

Push polling is despicable, but not illegal.

That being said, could you imagine the numbers of McCain/Palin voters who STILL thought Barack Obama was Muslim when they voted Nov. 4?

Or how many GOP voters like the Joe the Plumber types who actually thought they were more exposed to taxes at $40,000 a year income after it was clearly explained they weren't?

Or how many of them ACTUALLY think Sarah Palin was qualified to take over the office of President?

Oh, and let's not forget the poor souls who were told by McCain/Palin surrogates that Israel would be destroyed Nov. 5 if Obama was elected.

The Zogby poll is not worth the paper it is written on if the push poll is exposed. However, it goes both ways. The results of the McCain/Palin voters under the same standards would expose more than a push poll...it would expose the ugly nature of how the GOP gets votes and a testament to our poor educational standards in this country.

Yeah, I'm elitist. If that means I'd prefer a country that thought things out to even the most basic level of truth and didn't fall for lies. I guess that would make me an elitist...sure.

Antoine Clarke said...

Zogby's a farce. And I speak as someone who would not have voted for Senator Obama if I qualified to vote in the USA.

2004 predictions anyone?

I assume Zogby polls are very cheap.

livemild said...

buckeye-
lieberman has investigated NOTHING of the bush years from torture to Katrina.

it is not a "grudge". the guy is NOT a Democrat. he worked for down ticket republicans, insulted the party, the candidates- except for palin whom he said was ready to lead. he donated money for republicans...

he does not deserve that chairmanship, but no- the democrats in the senate rewarded
the creep.

sounds like old boys club garbage to me. and definatly no change i can beleive in.

Kennyb said...

Push polling is illegal in some states for some period of time before some elections.

livemild said...

sorry for spelling errors-believe and definitely
im just furious...

Kennyb said...

Mule rider said:

"I'm glad you're able to interpret how he will govern with the vast reams of information we have on him and his incredibly thick resumè of serving in government."

Oh, come on. We had lots of information of how McCain would govern based on his positions he took on issues in his time in the Senate, like his belief that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, his opposition to off-shore drilling, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support of an immigration amnesty bill. Good thing we knew how he was going to govern. What's that? He no longer held those positions in 2008? Track records are overrated.

Kennyb said...

I agree with Mule Rider on one thing: It is no news flash that there are uninformed, even dumb, voters of every political stripe out there.

Juris said...

@kennyb: Zogby Interactive, of course, technically doesn't operate within states. I'm in their database and receive requests every couple of weeks or so. One of the first questions they ask is what state I live in. If I encounter offensive or intrusive questions, I close the session. The whole approach that they use is suspect, but I don't mind answering questions if it takes just 5 minutes or so.

(Since I also do some survey work of my own, and analyze surveys by others a lot, I feel some responsibility to contribute to polls, even when they are poorly designed, if they might contribute to public knowledge. But if I'm being abused or pushed or sold something, I'm outta therre in a New York minute.)

wv: suosym (seems like Finnish to me)

Another Mike said...

I wouldn't call this push polling. But, it definitely is bullshit, gotcha polling with questions containing false premises to promote a misleading and divisive message for hacktacular rightwing pundit. Shame on Zogby for associating himself with it. He's definitely tarnished his already diminished reputation and is obviously a pollster whore willing to do anything for money. Hopefully, legitimate media will disassociate themselves from him.

wv: unfecto, name of a new anti-virus software program.

goatdan said...

While I actually agree with Mule Rider (*gasp*) that there are morons of all persuasions out there, I don't agree that this is necessarily a good way to identify them. The biggest problem that I have with is the trick question.

If you are going to be polled by someone who is asking you questions, when would you ever think it appropriate to include a trick question? That would be like if I called you up and said:

Which location has giant panda bears on display?

- The Chicago Zoo
- Wal*Mart

...Obviously, it isn't Wal*Mart, but you assume that the pollster isn't purposely trying to trick you, so you go with the logical answer and answer the Chicago Zoo. Except! Ha! The Chicago Zoo doesn't have pandas either! The San Deigo Zoo has pandas! Stupid person!! (I have no idea if the Chicago Zoo or the San Deigo Zoo have pandas, but you get the idea.)

If I was given the choice of four people and asked which said that comment, I would have said Palin even though I knew it wasn't her since those were the options given.

Regardless of the other questions, having a question like that and then using it as a "gotcha!" question invalidates everything else in the survey.

And, since it appears they cherry picked their Obama voters, might they also have cherry picked which ones they used, and only used those that answered at least 50% or more of the questions incorrectly?

When you go down the slippery slope of one of these types of polls, it is very difficult to have any credibility if you really look into what is said. Of course, the ones who will believe it are the stupid McCain voters, and it will just piss off the Obama voters and intelligent people who pay it any mind, so at best it will backfire.

mperk2000 said...

According to the Economist, the GOP is the party of morons. Let someone do a documentary on that!
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12599247

Juris said...

@goatdan: I agree with your analysis.

There are other issues when polls ask direct "political knowledge" questions.

(1) If people think they're being not so much tricked but rather "tested," they sometimes take offense and do what you or I might do: end our participation.

(2) When a survey includes questions on political knowledge, and if it does so early in the session, it runs the risk of conveying the idea that there are "right" or "wrong" answers to every question, including those that are only asking for the respondent's own opinion.

Another Mike said...

The biggest problem that I have with is the trick question.


I have more of a problem with the questions that contain false premises. No candidate stated "his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket." That's a rightwing distortion of what Obama actually said. It is a fact that he did not say what was asked. Same problem with the Weather Undergroud question.

Rich Rifkin said...

The New York Times and others are reporting that Joe Lieberman will remain in place as chairman of governmental affairs:

Mr. Lieberman, who had angered many Democrats by campaigning for Mr. McCain, his longtime friend, emerged from the private session looking pleased. He called the result “fair and forward-looking” and one of “reconciliation and not retribution.”

“Basically, what it came down to,” Mr. Lieberman said, “was I had to get down on my knees and perorm some very serious violations of Leviticus 18:22 on a Mormon putz. It didn't taste good. It wasn't kosher. But hey, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.”

Buckeye said...

buckeye-
lieberman has investigated NOTHING of the bush years from torture to Katrina.

it is not a "grudge". the guy is NOT a Democrat. he worked for down ticket republicans, insulted the party, the candidates- except for palin whom he said was ready to lead. he donated money for republicans...

he does not deserve that chairmanship, but no- the democrats in the senate rewarded
the creep.

sounds like old boys club garbage to me. and definatly no change i can beleive in.
----------------------------
you looking for major changes 2 weeks out from an election and the man has not been sworn in yet, then all I can say is that you are delusional.

Dr. Killjoy said...

You'd get the same results with McCain voters. I guarantee it.

The sad fact is a great many voters are ignorant of all but the most basic, surface-level issues.

Think about it. If your big issue, to the exclusion of everything else, is ending abortion, who are you going to vote for? More than likely, you'll vote Republican. Decision made. You could disagree with - or be completely ignorant of - the rest of the GOP platform, but they nailed that one plank and, so, you're a Republican.

goatdan said...

@ Another Mike -- "I have more of a problem with the questions that contain false premises. No candidate stated "his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket." That's a rightwing distortion of what Obama actually said. It is a fact that he did not say what was asked. Same problem with the Weather Undergroud question."

The thing about those particular questions though there is at least a question that they have which is the 'correct' one. Even if the poll is clearly pushing an agenda like this one was, giving a question without providing an actual answer to it is incorrect. Distortions of the questions are also wrong, but there they can at least point to Republican talking points.

Now, an interesting way to have done this would have been to ask participants which candidate had been involved with each or none of them, and then which they believed. So, the Weather Underground question could have been 'which candidate was accused of this?' and then 'Do you believe the accusation?'

That would have actually been an interesting poll to see come to light.

Another Mike said...

@ goatdan, what is the correct answer to the coal industry question?

Mrs B said...

this wasn't a poll, it was a desperate attempt to get some attention by some useless headbangingly right wing bloke. It's only conceivable purposes are a) to annoy liberals b) get himself some publicity and c) raise the spirits of the right wing, who have just massively lost an election. The results aren't useful for anything because the methodology is so bad - from selection of pollees (is that a word?) to questions - but he doesn't care about that, he's the equivalent of a madder right wing version of Michael Moore.

The sad thing is that Zogby went along with it. Sad for him, that is. It seems to have made most people on this site happy to think Zogby has prostituted the art of polling in this way.

That's my twopennyworth, anyway.

Dave said...

goatdan, you're panda analogy is even better than you realize. There is, in fact, no such place as the "Chicago Zoo." There is the Lincoln Park Zoo and the Brookfield Zoo, but no Chicago Zoo! :)

PJQ49 said...

Did you ask Zogby for comment? From my reading, you haven't verified the facts here.

markymark said...

I am actually not sure what point the 'Howobabamgotelected' website is trying to make? Americans are stupid? Well fair enough they voted for George W Bush twice, so we sort of already accepted that, that the media was unfair? Because Tina Fey made a joke out of the reasonably widely used defence of Sarah Palin's foreign policy credentials, that Russia was right next to Alaska, because people couldn't connect William Ayers to the 'Weather Underground'?

Honestly I just didn't get there point from a quick view of the website.

Andy JS said...

McCain's lead is Missouri is down to 4,412 votes.

homunq said...

Nate - any chance we get a Lieberman thread?

The whole Lieberman thing is yet another proof of the weak power of voting. Obviously, CT voters regret electing him, but they have no recourse until 2012. Yet recall elections, as traditionally practiced, are silly: whoever has the money to pay signature-gatherers can call one, and then it's a months-long circus of 100% negative ads, and then the replacement election is rarely too democratic either.

So here's a crazy proposal. Use government-funded polling instead of petitions to determine when it's time for a recall. Every 3 months, the government polls voters; if 60% or more agree with "A special election should be called, with the purpose of immediately removing (name) from office and naming their successor", on two polls in a row, then it goes to a real vote. I can't think of any president but Bush or any non-indicted senator but Lieberman who would have anything to fear from such a process. It would be much cheaper and less biased than the current recall process, for instance for CA gov.

Obviously, implementation of this idea would pose legal issues, to put it mildly (to hit at president or even senator level, it might have to be an amendment). But I'm wondering about the practical issues first. Nate, do you think that this would be a valid use for polling? Why or why not?

(The special election would have to be some system other than plurality, such as IRV, Range, or Condorcet, to avoid the need for primaries or runoffs).

Another Mike said...

I am actually not sure what point the 'Howobabamgotelected' website is trying to make?

Primarily, I think they're trying to say the media is biased against Republicans and in favor of Obama. Their argument goes: See these reults? Everyone knew inconsequential details and even misinformation about Sarah Palin, but didn't know these important facts about Obama. It's because the media smeared Palin and swept Obama's dirty secrets under the rug.

It's a form of working the refs. Constantly trash the media as liberal biased and they'll keep leaning right in an attempt to correct this misperception.

And, as an added bonus, perhaps you can undermine Obama's mandate by suggesting that it was provided by ignorant, stupid people.

Joel said...

I'm glad you're able to interpret how he will govern with the vast reams of information we have on him and his incredibly thick resumè of serving in government.
---

Thank God for patriotic Americans like yourself that keep this country on the right track!

Antmatic said...

Regardless of whether the poll is a push poll or not, the guys who bought the poll are touting it as a "Zogby" poll confirming their thesis. Regardless of what you think of the guy, Zogby is a brand name in polling, and therefore Zogby is lending his name to the right wing group's work. They are saying "Obama's supporters are uninformed, and Zogby polling confirms it!" That's misleading, and Zogby should have known his name and work would be used in that manner.

K-a-political-junky said...

Any researcher worth their paycheck would have foreseen that some of those claims were bound to cause some respondents to select the only options they had other than one of the candidates: the don't know or the refusal.

If the intent had really been to get at recall of negative campaign material, proper question wording would have been something like this:

"I'm going to read you a list of claims made against candidates during the recent presidential race. Some of these claims may seem dubious or debatable. Regardless of whether you agree with the claim, please identify which candidate it was made against. How about.."

Another Mike said...

@homunq

1. As you point out, there are major legal issues with your idea. Currently, there is no such thing as a recall election for federal offices because it is not provided for in the Constitution. So, your idea is unconstitutional and would require an amendment.

2. I cannot imagine any sitting politician who would be in favor of expanding the ability of people to recall them. Don't see how this idea will ever get the necessary political support.

3. I'm not sure I totally even like the idea. I don't want politicians to be poll testing every vote. It would be good to have leaders instead of pols who twist every which way the wind blows. I know it is undemocratic, but I like our representatives to have some insulation from public opinion. I think the framers were wise in this regard.

homunq said...

@another mike

1. Sure, there are legal issues. Start with local and state offices, to try out the idea. To get recalled at that level, you'd need to be even worse, given the low name recognition of local officeholders.

2. How did term limits grow common, then?

3. This is not poll-testing every vote. You'd need to have an overall disapproval rating of over 60% for 3 months running to get bitten. That is a high threshold for a recall - as I said, I can't think of any non-indicted federal officeholders besides Bush and Lieberman who'd even have to worry.

Antmatic said...

Drudge is saying "ZOGBY UNDER FIRE FOR POLL"

102415 said...

I just lurk here and I'm in a hurry but I want to say that I got the poll from zogby mentioned up thread about obama and after finnishing part of it ironically said yes no matter what outragously negative thing was asked. I cut it short at about 72% done and sent an email rant to Zobgy accusing them of seding out what I considerd a hate filled push pole. I also said I would after 5 years of answering their polls never do another one. I'm glad that someone with some authority on polling is letting this out into the open.As you can see I am still mad and considering the terrible threats and throwing kids off the school bus for saying Obama is President and so forth that is going on I think quite a big deal ought to be made of this. Thanks for being here for us.

Vinny said...

Haha, Zogby just lost all his credibility. What an inept douchenozzle. And the guy who did the video is even more dumb. As if it's that hard to weed out people you think are dumb Obama supporters to answer questions. You think ANY voters, McCain's or Obama's, were informed? I doubt it.

Devil's Advocate said...

This is NOT a push poll. A push poll is when you ask a question, "If I told you Barack Obama was a child molester, would that impact your impression of him? Yes or no."

This is a REAL poll. Asking people which Party controlled congress is a factual question.

Biden did drop out for plagiarism.

Ayers just admitted Obama was in him home to launch his career a week ago.

Everything was true.

Another Mike said...

2. How did term limits grow common, then?

Good point. I don't think incumbents much cared for term limits, but if there's enough public support for it, then I suppose it's possible.

Ginny in CO said...

This is an extension of the meme that Obama supporters are robotic, gullible, emotional thinkers instead of knowledgeable, rational thinkers who were thrilled to have a capable candidate with the oratory skills that only occur about 4 or 5 x in a century. Dems are going to have to accept we aren't likely to be this lucky for a generation and support the candidates who follow him despite not having the charisma.

Anyone remember the spats in '04 and maybe '06 about the differences in knowledge between the GOP and Dems? One of them started with O'Reilly as I recall. Making some kind of statement that The Daily Show audiences were ignorant. Stewart or the procucer actually had some kind of survey done that showed, rather dramatically, it was quite the opposite.

There was also one by either Quin or a major university on the differences between Kerry and Bush voters. I think it was even more impressive.

There is also the English headline from '04 on "How could 59 million Americans be so stupid?" Sort of a CW from the furriners that only counts for those of us who actually care what they think.

Following Palin's comments about liberal bloggers being adolescents working from their parents basements in their pajamas, one liberal blog had quite an interesting response from the regular commenters regarding their advanced degrees, jobs, and all the places BUT the basement their computers are in.

It comes down to what the RW always falls back on: projection. We do that so you must do it too. Except they always present it as though they would never do such a thing, it's only the Dems who do it.

Malarkey.
(not wv, just my Dad's favorite response to any stupid, asinine, or delusional idea.)

Another Mike said...

Everything was true.

How about a link to where Obama stated "his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket ?"

Or, a link that the meeting in Ayers's home "started Obama's political career?"

Put up or shut up.

justin32099 said...

Devil's Advocate--
"This is NOT a push poll."

I agree with this statement, although the rest of what you say is wrong. The difference between this and a push poll is in the AIM of the poll: rather than to obtain information (like a real poll), the goal is to change people's votes.

The goal of this poll was to try to show that Obama voters are stupid. They weren't trying to change how people vote (since the election already occurred). It's not science, and it's totally invalid, but it isn't technically a push poll. And I agree that there's no reason for Zogby to be involved with it, and it kills in my eyes whatever might have been left of his reputation as a pollster.

Devil's Advocate said...

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ


Ayers admits that Obama started his political career fundraising out of Ayers' home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieGhzZgaj8c

Joe Prime said...

Zogby's defense of the poll:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641#Anchor-37902

They obviously are not denying anything.

Devil's Advocate said...

Even assuming arguendo that we removed all the 4 questions that 538 posted....it doesn't explain nobody knowing about Nancy Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, which Party controlled Congress, etc.

Joe Prime said...

"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby

WV: unsin

Something we all wish we could do??

STepper said...

Zogby, the fake pollster. responds to Nate's criticism:

Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll




"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby


He completely ignores the loaded -- and mostly inaccurate -- nature of his questions. What an embarassment he is to professional pollsters.

Mark said...

I emailed C-SPAN to alert them to this and suggest they consider using a better firm for their polling needs in future.

Another Mike said...

@ devil's advocate, thanks for providing the links, but they do not support the poll questions.

Obama most definitely does not say in the link the statement attributed to him in the poll question. Choosing to build new coal plants is not the same thing as the coal industry. And, there's absolutely nothing in Obama's statement about skyrocketing energy rates.

Here's the two side by side so people can judge for themselves:

Your quote: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

The poll question: "Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"

As to the Ayers lie, I listened to the whole video you linked and there was absolutely nothing there about Obama's early political career. You totally whiffed on that one.

kevin626 said...

Another Mike - i was just going to make pretty much that exact same post. You beat me to it!

Devils Advocate- Basically the questions were stretched beyond what was actually said.

Sandy Salt said...

The point of the poll and the Zeigler's site is that the media sold Obama to the public. The fact that the vast majority of all voters are morons has never been in question. It is really just sour grapes that Obama did a better job of fleecing the flock.

Glenghis said...

I can just visualise this going viral on all the conservative blogs and in chain emails. It definitely is mainly full of fallicies and was the biggest waste of my time.

What concerns me is that some people might believe this, and any attention given to these sorts of things is wasted


Oh, I do hope that the freepers and their ilk will jump upon the easy answers that this wifebeater poll will give them (Obama got elected because the Amercun peeple is IGNORANT) because it'll stop them from looking for the real reasons.

Shoot yourself in the foot time, anyone?

goatdan said...

@ another mike -- "what is the correct answer to the coal industry question?"

Obama, if you take things completely out of context.

Like I said, I wasn't defending the other answers for being fair or not (they would have actually shed an interesting light on what smears worked versus didn't), but to have one question with no correct answers is completely and utterly stupid.

DrFeelGood1 said...

No matter how anyone feels about this poll, the fact remains that a large majority of the electorate was (and still is) clueless about the facts. The poll inarguably demonstrates that the people did not know the truth about their candidates.

It is only appropriate that every voter should have to demonstrate an understanding of each candidate and each proposition on the ballot before he/she is allowed to vote for that specific elected position or issue. We cannot allow people who have no idea about the ramifications of their vote (which at this point is the majority) to be allowed to vote and determine the outcome. A simple test at the polling locations can solve this problem. It doesn't matter on which side you stand, just that you understand what will happen if your side wins. I guarantee that most Obama voters don't know that the Obama tax plan will lead to increased prices of goods and services (food, fuel, textiles, stuff at Wal-Mart, etc.) due to higher taxes on the producers of these goods and services. Nor do most know that the McCain tax plan would lead to increased wages and more jobs (due to lower taxes on the businesses and more money to spend on employees). Therefore, only a voter who could have shown an understanding of this fact should have been allowed to vote. Obviously, the ramifications of many issues cannot be predicted, but voters must be able to understand the ones that follow basic economics and which have been tested in the past (such as tax plans) before they can be allowed to vote. Otherwise, the future will be determined by the uninformed masses.

Jeff said...

Umm, It's not a 'push poll' because it was post election, so the results could obviously not have been to influence either candidate cause there are no longer candidates. Quit crying. Also, these survey covers what was covered by the media. The basis, is who paid attention to what? The questions were valid because the concept was what is the media putting out overall. Not, 'this is as it is!'. Before you get your little tool liberals whining make sure you have something valid to approach with. Oh yeah, by the way, Obama specifically spoke the coal controversy himself. He will bankrupt the coal industry by hugely taxing emissions so that he could reduce emissions of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. This will, in fact, sky rocket the cost of electricity. This was for the support of the environmentalists. The big question isn't "did he say it or not?" It's, "will he follow through on it?"! - Said it himself, for all of you people who just rejected that thought the first time. He said it with his own mouth and then stated the consequence of it. PS: Palin's clothing $150,000 - donated to charity. Obama's campaign? $720,000,000.00! stfu

goatdan said...

@ drfeelgood1 -- So your answer is to propose a question about trickle down economics -- an economic theory that is questionable at best -- and use that as your basis for if people can vote or not?

And in your world view, what is the level of intelligence that you believe should be reached? I agree that a large part of the voting public is uninformed about a lot of issues, but how much do they truly need to be informed of. Would your line of questioning include "How many children does this candidate have?", something that makes no difference to how they will govern, but something that is important, or would it ask more difficult questions like, "On 2/13, Barack Obama mentioned one of McCain's tax policies that he disagreed with. What was it?"

Even if the voting public is uninformed about a lot of issues, they ultimately choose something to vote with. And the fact that they are there and voting is information enough to me that they know enough to make up their minds.

Yes, some of them are morons who believe that the trickle down theory holds water, and maybe we shouldn't let them vote, but who am I or you to decide what is important enough? Yeesh.

Darío said...

The election is out, don´t insult the voters.

Jeff said...

<3 Cora, I don't even know how I got to this site. I need to get back to work >.>

goatdan said...

@ jeff - Your post, broken up into bits, with replies in line...

"Umm, It's not a 'push poll' because it was post election, so the results could obviously not have been to influence either candidate cause there are no longer candidates."

You're right about this. Someone else mentioned that it was really a message poll, which is probably a more accurate label for it.

"Quit crying. Also, these survey covers what was covered by the media. The basis, is who paid attention to what? The questions were valid because the concept was what is the media putting out overall. Not, 'this is as it is!'."

This part you're wrong about. In reading the wording of the questions, a well phrased question would have been something like:

"Did Sarah Palin actually say that she had foreign policy experience because she could see Alaska from her house? Yes or no?"

That would have got the reply to be if the media influenced their thoughts on her. Asking which person said that quote and giving only Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin as choices does not present a balanced picture.

"Before you get your little tool liberals whining make sure you have something valid to approach with. Oh yeah, by the way, Obama specifically spoke the coal controversy himself. He will bankrupt the coal industry by hugely taxing emissions so that he could reduce emissions of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. This will, in fact, sky rocket the cost of electricity. This was for the support of the environmentalists. The big question isn't "did he say it or not?" It's, "will he follow through on it?"! - Said it himself, for all of you people who just rejected that thought the first time. He said it with his own mouth and then stated the consequence of it."

BUZZT! Wrong.

Obama had stated that he wanted to make it so that it was economically not feasible to build coal plants any more -- not that he would bankrupt the coal industry. This is where this question gets skewed. I'm still more okay with it than the Palin question, since there is sort of a correct answer, but if you actually read or listen to Obama's clip he said nothing about current plants.

As a matter of fact, I think that the whole concept behind what he was attempting to say, even if he did it poorly, was that he wanted to make it so that there was a tax to pay on greenhouse gases which would make figuring out environmentally sound ways to produce electricity the better way to go. And, if it comes down to it, if you as a power company want to install a coal plant or 10 wind turbines, he wants to make it a better choice all around for the wind turbines. Which, as he has said before, are things that he wants to give people tax credits on.

So he won't ban the creation of new coal plants, but he will tax them extra high while making sure that other electricity sources are cost effective enough to more than take their place.

So, like I said, skewed question completely and not really aimed at educating anyone, but there is sort of an answer to it. The second part of it though is hearsay at best.

"PS: Palin's clothing $150,000 - donated to charity. Obama's campaign? $720,000,000.00! stfu"

As someone else said, $720,000,000. Think of it as his own economic stimulus plan. It wasn't like he was keeping that money in his closet or something. The Palin clothes arguably would have been if no one had pointed it out...

blakely said...

You claim that John Ziegler made his video to show how unintelligent Obama voters are. He very clearly stated that it was to show how bad the media coverage of the election was. He is pointing out how ridiculous it is that more people know about Palin's pregnant daughter than know which party controls congress. But by all means, continue to be dishonest while you are attacking others for dishonest practices.

Another Mike said...

Did the Whitey Tape finally come out? LOL

I'm amazed at the delusions some on the right clung to--the Whitey Tape, the Bradley Effect, Obama's Birth Certificate.

han solo said...

haha - you jokers are real whack jobs. Lost in denial, you are missing the fact that most of the folks voting for Obama really were not informed at all and were motiviated by a fascist mania - in others they are idiots, morally bankrupt, and have no real intellectual understanding of their candidate (and you guys went after Bush, unbelievable)

Truth about media bias really bugs you guys, huh - afraid your bankrupt ideas and accomplices in the media might become exposed?


...and Nate, that was a really sorry article highlighting your lack of bias in making this an issue at all. Its perfectly responsible to scientifically evaluate and document that media fascism exists as we on the right already know. It makes the point and, no, its not push polling, particularly as it was done after the election. Stick to the Monte Carlo stuff and leave the attacks at home. Something tells me you are jealous of Zogby.

keep eating from within my lib friends-its only a matter of time.

SandraK Designs said...

Wow... apparently the media got to you too, because you all have no freakin' clue about the issues either. Obama is BAD for you, Joe the Plumber and every other person living in America. Obama voted AGAINST legislation to ban live-birth abortions - 3 times, Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry which will raise energy prices, Obama wants to tax businesses which will in turn will pass that increased tax hike onto its customers. Obama has been associated with people who are anti-American and with a man who if he had been elected would have created a safe-haven for Al Qaeda in Kenya. Be afraid for yourself and for your country... Obama was elected because the media skewed the facts and only presented you with what it wanted you to know... you've been snowed people... and unfortunately EVERYONE will have to pay for the deception during the election coverage

Howie said...

Newsflash: most american voters are idiots, no matter whom they vote for. But of course people will exploit that fact to make politicians look dumb. It's sad that they have to go this far to make Obama look bad. Bush needed no help.

Shap said...

SandraK-

OK, I'll bite (heh)

How is Obama bad for Joe the Plumber? Please be specific.

Extra credit - please explain how Obama is bad for Han Trollo, who posted immediately before you did.

Jeff said...

goatdan: First off! Yes! You rock! Seriously, I'd given up on getting awesome debates over politics like months ago.

OK, I'll give you the Palin point - but I am with the Zogby's intent on the idea that the media actually effected a change of events in the minds of people. As in, those people literally remember Palin saying those words. Which is a moderately 1984-esque concept that should be brought to light. Even if the question was biased, the media's ability to shape history and use of that is still arguably wrong.

Point also to you for the breakdown of Obama's coal plans for the huge taxes on emissions applying to NEW plants. However, the second part was directly spoken by Obama so I'm not clear on what you mean when you call it "heresay". It's "He say" ;)

As far as Palin's clothing verses Obama's stimulus package. Palin's clothing was purchased from companies I believe, which means those companies got boosted financially. Also, she lives in Alaska. What can she do with those clothes in Alaska? I honestly believe she would've donated them anyway, cause Alaska isn't exactly friendly to the clothes she campaigned in. Where as Obama's money went too... Well, it's really hard to distinguish what he paid for, considering his decisions and how he distributes the actual 'bail-out' packages actually keep a lot of the media floating. However, I really doubt that Oprah needed any of that money, if he paid her. I doubt that Family Guy was persuaded by money, maybe yes? How much does a Justin Timberlake jingle cost? Or what about the chick from Hero's? Did anyone really care about her piece of mind, but how much did it cost? See my point. Clothing is easy to price, and follow. Which is why McCain's campaign was really easy to financially follow. Obama's money line and actual use of money? Throw me some clarity?

Publius said...

Republican trolls and post-election sour-grapes push polls are GREAT NEWS!!! For John McCain !!!

wv: aiiness. How I feel after reading a 538 post infested by trolltards.

Fr. Peter said...

Of course your organization is free to contract with Zogby to conduct a similar poll of McCain voters with these questions and/or ones you would like to ask.

For the record I voted for McCain and I would have gotten every question correct and I would also have responded that Obama is a Christian based on his testimony that he is baptized and up until recently was a member of a Christian Church community.

sirrebral said...
This post has been removed by the author.
sirrebral said...

Nate,

Thanks for the heads-up.

In this election, you have done a lot to educate people about polling. I see this story as an extension of that work; now that we know a little more about which polling practices are acceptable and which polling practices are questionable, we should hold pollsters up to high standards.

I've already emailed C-SPAN and Reuters, politely asking them why they associate their organizations with a company that engages in this kind of shady practice.

Thanks for all the work you do!

BarleyMan said...

The biggest problem with the poll is that these "questions" are all so biased. For example. BO never said he would "bankrupt" the coal industry. He was referring to people who wanted to develop coal fired plants that generated excessive greenhouse gasses. Since we have lots of coal plants in existence, and potential sources of "clean coal" it certainly would not bankrupt the whole industry, just folks who want to build new "dirty" plants.

The Sarah Palin questions were more binary. She has a pregnat daughter, and lives in Alaska (near Russia). Easy.

Mike in Maryland said...

Fr. Peter said...
I would also have responded that Obama is a Christian based on his testimony that he is baptized and up until recently was a member of a Christian Church community.

And you would have been wrong on that statement.

As to your statement that you 'would have gotten every question correct', you're also wrong. It is admitted that one question could not be answered correctly, and if you skipped the question, you would have been marked as answering it incorrectly.

Look up the facts before you spout what you think is your right-wing superiority.

Dog Knows said...

.

Just a quickie to enlighten those here to some background on Mule Rider:


After reading this comment, you will never again be able to trust Mule Rider and you will see with crystal clarity the way that this clown, loud ignoramuses, and a few decent but occasionally sniffish people are engaged in a desperate struggle for the soul of society.

First and foremost, for the nonce, Mule Rider is content to sensationalize all of the issues. But as soon as our backs are turned, the bonzo will repeat the same mistakes of the past. This clown likes to cite poll results that "prove" that once the Mulehead has approved of something it can't possibly be inarticulate. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of Mule Rider's quoted pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that this Mulehead's brethren get a thrill out of pissing, moaning and whining. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against any specific issue, unless Hannity or Limbaugh clues 'em. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Mule Rider, and meeting some other self-centered, overly self-important dipsticks is merely a social event, as long as someone brings a few longnecks. They're not even aware that if society were a beer bottle -- something, I believe, that Mule Rider holds in high regard -- the ding-a-ling would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the Joe the Plumber types like to drink.

Although the themes in Mule Rider's modes of thought are limited, I don't know which are worse, right-wing tirades or crying babies with stinky diapers, it's a close call. But I do know that I oppose Mule Rider's warnings because they are vapid variations on a myriad of the most miniscule of malarkey. I oppose them because they are divisive and distracting. And I oppose them because they will muzzle critics when you least expect it.

What does Mule Rider have to say about all of this?

The answer, as expected, will be nothing.

~DG~

.

cvv said...

Do anyone see this on zogby's site:

We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby

Jeff said...

Shap:

A little more depth into why "Obama is bad for you".

Taxing corperations - Corporations won't pass the taxes onto the customer. Not with online distribution in existence. They will simply not make locations in America. Which kills the jobs for Americans. Small business tax increase means that those of us who are not able to open business outside of America would have to shoulder these absurd increases, on top of individual employee coverage for health care assuming he gets this socialistic pipe dream up and running. This is all on top of our current crap economy that seems to already be bringing huge corporations to their knees as it is.

"But Obama didn't do anything to the economy yet! How could you imply his involvement!! Bush anger rabble rawr!" ;)

Here is the correlation: The economy every four years hits crap town based on the lack of stability perpetuated by change - of any kind, not just Obama's. Based on the different outlooks of both candidates, markets have to adjust, but since they can't tell which way to adjust just yet, they stagnate for a bit. When the election is over, the markets are aware of 'how the wind blows' and continue.

In this case - Obama's policies have added up to just about nothing throughout his entire campaign. Hope and Change can buy a vote, and a tear and a smile, but when it comes to hardcore money talk, it doesn't cut it. The fact that all Obama has talked about has been taxing the hell out of those who make the bread, and giving it to those who need some bread has been reason enough for business to already start shaking or shifting to warmer waters. Circuit City declared Bankruptcy, Construction projects have halted and stopped leaving a lot of people with their necks out, many of them chopped. GM is going down. This is due to stocks and instability. Obama or not, America needs a plan. Since it doesn't have one, and America is the only huge purchasing tool for the entire world pretty much, EVERYONE gets to suffer. The world needs our lack of common sense purchasing power to maintain their own exports, without us, no one makes money.
Including Obama's currently fuzzy plans for our economic future, well, for the first time in half a century, our economy continued to drop after election year. That IS Obama's fault. Yes, he hasn't done anything yet, but he also doesn't have a plan yet, and the ideas he has had.. are bad for you ;)

Oh yeah... dead babies >.>

fredbill said...

You all should read the full results before you keep casting these stones. Oh sorry if that sounded to close to a biblical quote for the superior brained non-religious types on this board.

Regardless this was about MSM impact on the election and things they did or did not cover during the election. As such I find it pretty revealing. Some of the answers in the written responses were Repubs. Some or most actually got it right that he said he would spread the wealth around so that one got a lot of coverage and in the video that I saw they all agreed with it.

It's called socialism, not liberalism, or progressive the new favored word of the left but taking from one who earns and giving it to one who doesn't. You can claim all the crap you want about a shrinking conservatism but I suspect you will find in a couple of years you may be a little shocked.

Remember '92, Clinton with a majority of nut jobs in Congress could not get a darn thing done and in '94 the other party won a sweeping victory to turn over the Congress for the biggest win in 30 years.

robert said...

Strange how far we've come from the Clinton supporters arguing that Obama was only winning because he was popular with the voters Begala called "the eggheads." But maybe this is just a sign of being a winner in an American election - which requires you to get lots of poorly informed people to vote for you, as well as lots of well-informed voters.

In 2004, on the eve of the election this PIPA poll found that:

"mericans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. ... Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). ..."

J said...

"The Path to 9/11" guy? Gimme a break!

goatdan said...

@ jeff -- Again, bits and pieces, only the pertinent ones to make this shorter...

"OK, I'll give you the Palin point - but I am with the Zogby's intent on the idea that the media actually effected a change of events in the minds of people. ... Even if the question was biased, the media's ability to shape history and use of that is still arguably wrong."

I wasn't saying that it wasn't, but when you give someone a question and you say "which of these answers said this" it is deliberately misleading, especially if the answer is "none of them!"

Otherwise, the coal question was clearly also none of them.

I wouldn't be against a poll that actually showed what people remembered, but you can't use minor Republican talking points versus extremely obvious binary answers. Think about these as two questions:

"On a clear day, what color is the sky?"
"Which astronaut stated that the sky doesn't look blue during the day from space?"

That's how you can compare those.

"Point also to you for the breakdown of Obama's coal plans for the huge taxes on emissions applying to NEW plants. However, the second part was directly spoken by Obama so I'm not clear on what you mean when you call it "heresay". It's "He say" ;)"

No, it wasn't. The second part that was directly spoken was, and I quote:

"But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. . . If we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, we can allow the market to determine, and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what's the best approach to take."

If you don't believe me, find it and prove me wrong. You won't be able to because the original quote isn't nearly as "horrible" as the Repubs claimed it was.

"As far as Palin's clothing verses Obama's stimulus package. Palin's clothing was purchased from companies I believe, which means those companies got boosted financially. Also, she lives in Alaska. What can she do with those clothes in Alaska? I honestly believe she would've donated them anyway, cause Alaska isn't exactly friendly to the clothes she campaigned in. Where as Obama's money went too... Well, it's really hard to distinguish what he paid for, considering his decisions and how he distributes the actual 'bail-out' packages actually keep a lot of the media floating. However, I really doubt that Oprah needed any of that money, if he paid her. I doubt that Family Guy was persuaded by money, maybe yes? How much does a Justin Timberlake jingle cost? Or what about the chick from Hero's? Did anyone really care about her piece of mind, but how much did it cost? See my point. Clothing is easy to price, and follow. Which is why McCain's campaign was really easy to financially follow. Obama's money line and actual use of money? Throw me some clarity?"

Uhm... But advertising money is paid to companies somewhere. Money spent is money spent. If it goes to advertising, and then that means more money for more television shows, it means more actors and writers hired, and more sets constructed and stuff like that. Hell, unlike the clothes industry that is mostly offshore, the entertainment industry is nearly completely dominated by the United States which means that theoretically *more* percentage-wise of Obama's advertising funds stayed in the US economy than Sarah Palin's clothes funds did.

You can be angry that Obama was able to raise as much money as he did, and you can be angry that he won, but it is absolutely ridiculous to act like his money was all put into a pit and *didn't* help the US economy in any way.

Mike in Maryland said...

homunq, on your post about using polls to determine recalling candidates, where you stated: I can't think of any president but Bush or any non-indicted senator but Lieberman who would have anything to fear from such a process.

The Founding Fathers didn't want a mob-ruled electorate. Thus the disparate election cycles for the various offices.

Harry Truman was extremely unpopular at various times in his Presidency. In fact, his approval ratings were in the low 20s for months at a time, then would rise, then fall again. Now, almost all honest historians would place HST in the Top 10 of Presidents, and some would place him in the Top 5.

As to Senators long terms, the Founding Fathers designed it that way. House members face the voters every two years, so they must be at least somewhat responsive to their concerns, whether those concerns are short-sighted or not. Since Senators face voters every six years, they can be a bit more reluctant to sway in the prevailing wind, especially if they believe the prevailing wind is good for the short term, but disastrous for the long term. Eventually the voters will have an opportunity to evaluate the Senator. If that evaluation is positive, they will reelect him/her (if the Senator runs for reelection), or vote for some other person for the position.

goatdan said...

@ fredbill -- "It's called socialism, not liberalism, or progressive the new favored word of the left but taking from one who earns and giving it to one who doesn't."

What do you consider the tax that is levied against gas companies who drill in the state of Alaska and then is sent to all of the citizens of the state? I know people who live in Alaska and who are getting a $3000+ check for living there, because Alaska taxes the oil companies earning the money and give it instead to the people who live there.

Last I checked, that is socialism. Check your sources about who put that into place, and increased it this year.

On the flip side, the US has had a progressive tax for over 100 years. There is nothing new about that. And I think if it was truly socialist, McCarthy would have figured it out with his Communism trials.

Jeff said...

9/11 shouldn't be a reference to anything here. The facts on that event are so screwed on all aspects that those who accepted anything at face value are simply doing a disservice to themselves and the country. So, in the meantime, don't be a tool and use that as a winning point one way or another here. It just furthers the ambiguity of the subject.

Butter Man said...

How on earth can you assume the poll is wrong or a "PUSH POLL"? Is it simply because you don't like the results? These results were obvious from the beginning and it shouldn't be a surprize to anyone. How about a bit more objectivity? Your article is proof that having no morals does not stop you from getting work. Zogby has a much fairer reputation that you. Learn something please!

Jeff said...

@goatdan:

Not angry about his win. That was done with pure strategy. His money? Whateva he's a lawyer, his job is to make everything as murky as possible so that those who want to believe it can, and those that don't don't have too. Kinda like what OJ's lawyer did for him during his prior trial :)

You know, as long as you said it yourself,

"Money spent is money spent. If it goes to advertising, and then that means more money for more television shows, it means more actors and writers hired, and more sets constructed and stuff like that."

I just kinda think of of the Orwellian, 1984, and how the government's control of the media was able to keep the people in their own little bubble; efficiently doing as they were suppose to, and never questioning their purpose in life.

How much money did Obama send through advertising and media channels? Wasn't MSNBC owned by GM? Wasn't GM suppose to be getting bailed out with that bailout plan that Obama believes is the nation's hope? How many more examples of this are there?

Mike in Maryland said...

fredbill said...
. . . spread the wealth . . . .

And I suppose that trickle-down doesn't 'spread the wealth', at least in theory? Make sure the rich stay rich, and they will allow some of the money to trickle down to the unwashed masses?

goatdan said...

@ jeff -- "How much money did Obama send through advertising and media channels? Wasn't MSNBC owned by GM? Wasn't GM suppose to be getting bailed out with that bailout plan that Obama believes is the nation's hope? How many more examples of this are there?"

Um, GE owns NBC. General Electric is not General Motors. Those are two different companies entirely.

So, unless you can tell me otherwise -- Zero examples of this.

Oh, and just for fun, look up how much money GE donated to George W for his election campaigns. While the company itself is a capitalist who will take anyone's cash to put up ads, shouldn't you be more worried that the parent of one of these media networks donates over a million dollars to the campaign of someone? Doesn't that seem like they might play favorites or *gasp* be in the tank for one particular client over another?

Mike in Maryland said...

Jeff said...
Wasn't MSNBC owned by GM?

If you don't know who owns NBC, and partially owns MSNBC, look it up.

BTW, it is NOT GM. And the actual parent of NBC is not a direct beneficiary of any of the bail out package, whether under the original terms, or the now revised terms, of the bail out.

With your demonstrated lack of knowledge and lack of concern about the veracity of facts, you don't deserve anyone telling you the time of day, let alone giving any respect in your opinions.

Ben said...

this post's in response to steven who posted at 9:17am today. since 538 is hung up on accuracy, not a bad thing to be hung up on, i thought i'd clear up some of steven's claims. by my account zogby's battleground polling was very accurate. to view his results follow the link: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1632

from there you can see final numbers posted for nov. 3rd, right before the election. i don't have the patience to construct a table for comparison, but just a sample. zogby had it 49%-49% in both mo and nc, both precisely right. zogby had obama winning pa by 10, obama won by 11. zogby had obama up 52%-45 in va, the final result was obama 52%-47%, just about perfect. as far as i can tell, the only state he botched was indiana, where he had mccain winning 50%-45%, mind you he had about 5% other/not sures there too. but if we're gonna call out zogby for his numbers in indiana, then we should call out all the pollsters that had pa and nv supertight, while zogby had double digit leads for obama in those 2 states. all in all, it seems this was a good election for pollsters, and zogby was at least as accurate as any of the major orgs., but probably much more accurate than most. i realize this post doesn't address the proclaimed push poll everyone else's talking about but i thought i'd suspend judgment on that before i read a bit more about it. instead, i wanted to take the time to scrutinize steven's claims of zogby's inaccuracy, claims that don't really hold up.

Ann said...

I take part in Zogby online polls and I actually received this last weekend. I just assumed that Zogby was being its right-wing self and answered the questions randomly. Now I know better and if I get any more polls like this, I'll cetainly bitch back at them

fredbill said...

@gotdan "What do you consider the tax that is levied against gas companies who drill in the state of Alaska and then is sent to all of the citizens of the state? I know people who live in Alaska and who are getting a $3000+ check for living there, because Alaska taxes the oil companies earning the money and give it instead to the people who live there.

Last I checked, that is socialism. Check your sources about who put that into place, and increased it this year.

On the flip side, the US has had a progressive tax for over 100 years. There is nothing new about that. And I think if it was truly socialist, McCarthy would have figured it out with his Communism trials."

The differences are critical individuals versus corporations. And I'm not in favor of our corporate taxes now the 2nd highest in the industrialized world. Want to know where those jobs are going? Where the taxed aren't.

You don't take directly from individual tax payers to support the great unwashed. It was called Welfare and even Clinton supported ending that.

fredbill said...

The founders also didn't want a government totally in control of the vote of the people and subject to their whims. Hence the electoral college and the US Senate as originally Senators were appointed by State Legislators who were to be trusted in their judgement about electing people with some sense.

It didn't take long for the logic and vision of our founders to be pretty much blown up. By John Adams term we had parties and attacks on the President that make this last election look mild. Of course we also had the sedition act put forth when Washington was in office and many so called journalists and even a few politicans were tried and put in jail for it. Of course that just made them martyrs in their own parties.

It only took for the election between Adams, 2nd term, Jefferson and Pinkney in 1800 before we had one with a tie btw Jefferson and Pinkney that went to the House where it went back and forth for days. God just imagine how the 24/7 media would do in that environment.

Mike in Maryland said...

Ben,

In your defense of Zogby, did you consider that maybe he polled in a partisan manner in September and October, then brought his polling average to a more accurate final?

Why would he poll in a partisan manner?

Maybe to influence the election, and the discussion about who's winning? This could partially explain why he released bits of polling information to Drudge during latter October. If people perceived that the election was going towards one candidate more than the other candidate, they might be more influenced to vote for the candidate favored by the pollster.

How would he poll in a partisan manner?

Distorting the data slightly. Oversampling by just a couple per cent the South and Plains; oversampling by just a couple per cent the over 60 voters; undersampling the African-American vote by just a couple per cent; tweeking the 'likely voter' screen just slightly so that it favors one candidate over another; etc., etc.,

Mike in Maryland said...

fredbill,

Your lack of attention to actual facts is showing again.

Pinkney?

It was Aaron Burr.

Carrie said...

I definitely got push-polled twice by Zogby Interactive, most recently a couple days after the election. Not this particular push poll, but things like "If you knew Obama wanted to let illegal immigrants get gay married and then have the government pay for them to partial-birth abort their gay babies, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?"

I conflated four questions there for comic effect, but in real life, they were all either blatant falsehoods or stated completely misleadingly. In the middle was a question about whether I'd ever heard of some anti-Obama book.

I marked "More likely to vote for him" to every question, just to mess with them. (Actually, if Obama actually held some of the positions that poll attributed to him, I really would have been even happier to vote for him.)

LV said...

Obama/Osama: the only difference is the BS.

Obama won the old fashioned way: bread and circuses, just like the old Roman emperors used to keep the people happy and compliant.

It's not a "push poll" since it was held AFTER the participants voted. That should be obvious even to Obama voters. LOL

This videotaped poll would be funny if it weren't so true; Obama voters didn't have a clue who and what they were voting for.

God help the USA!!!

A Difference said...

Oh no! How could Zogby possibly engage in any poll that was anything other than pro-Obama! For the sake of reason please take your business elsewhere everyone!

Jonathan said...

Did I accidentally log on to the DailyKos? Change.gov? Huffington Post?

Since when did 538 become an Obama fan boy page?

Jon said...

Memorable words from the election:

"Elitist"

"Over-educated"

(When asked by Katie Couric to back up claims of McCain backed legislation supporting financial regulation) "I'll have to get back to you on that"


Even if this is a completely legitimate poll, which is something I doubt but personally cannot comment on, it seems hypocritical for a campaign that prided itself on speaking for the regular Joes whom lack college education and make decisions from their gut, to be championed by a group that attributes Obama's win on massive voter ignorance. Obama was accused of being out of touch with the American people for pushing the belief that the leader of the free world should be among the most knowledgeable, while Sarah Palin was lauded for not knowing too much about the ways of Washington. I'm not going to deny that voter ignorance is something is a terrible thing, though none can deny that it afflicts bipartisanly, but it seems odd that those that once claimed legitimacy for it would later accuse their opponents of it.

John Ziegler said...

Called you out.

See my website...developing...

Nathan said...

It should be pointed out that the original poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf) used the gender neutral pronoun "they" for the questions. It appears that in this post the pronouns were mistakenly changed to "his" on every question not referring to Palin.

rv816 said...

crescat scientia, vita excolatur.

you're making uchicago proud, buddy. keep up the incredibly good work.

peter said...

For the definition-challenged "author" - Nate ur a "fool". Oh, and perhaps u should actually figure out what a push-poll is (b4 building an article around it)

ChicagoJohn said...

Its funny. If this poll said that Republicans believe that Obama is muslim, the very same people who are complaining here would be talking about how true it is.
Democrats want to believe that their party votes the way it does because they are truly well informed. Now you guys are shocked to find out that a lot of Democrats are uninformed? Really guys?

Read the PDF. I did. Its amazing mostly because over half the people surveyed were college democrats. How is it that they didn't know that the Democrats have been in charge of Congress?

Doesn't that bother you?

Criticize Republicans all you want. But for Obama's sake, be willing to look at your own party and educate them.

Corban Wells said...

Ummm, this supposed 'push poll' was conducted AFTER the election . . . it is an indictment of THE MEDIA not the voters who were all of adequate intelligence, they were just mis-informed. Also, the stats of the entire poll conducted by Zogby show that nearly all of the respondents were high school graduates, and over half were college grads. Again, not a slam on the voters, a very compelling example of how poor a job the media did in vetting Obama.

A further testament to this absurd argument that the poll is malicious towards the voter is that nearly every argument on this page says that the survey contained 'untrue' information. What the crap?!?!?! Are there people still today who think that Barack didn't start his political career at Bill Ayers' house? Do you still not believe that Barack intends to 'bankrupt' the coal industry? Do you still not know that Barack won his first election because there were no other candidates on the ballot?

All of this is completely true. Some of you need to open your mind to something other than the NPR/NYTimes/CNN/NBC and get a second opinion because all of the aforementioned organizations are obviously 'in the tank' for Obama.