As reported by FAIR, a new poll issued by Zogby Interactive on behalf of the conservative website The O'Leary Report poses the following question:
Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?The question, obviously, is somewhat self-evidently incendiary, although it doesn't come completely out of the blue. Rather, the question refers to a set of remarks made in 2005 by Lloyd, the FEC's Chief Diversity Officer:
"There's nothing more difficult than this because we have really truly, good, white people in important positions, and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions," he said.I'm not going to do anyone a favor by linking to their write-up of Lloyd's remarks, since none of the publications that refer to them make an honest effort to provide the full context, such as the question to which Lloyd was responding. But obviously, even based on these clipped remarks, there is a large gap between Lloyd's somewhat amorphous response and Zogby's uncritical and unattributed statement of fact that "Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions."
"And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. But we're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
In November, Zogby polled on a series of misleading statements about Barack Obama and Joe Biden on behalf of conservative media personality John Ziegler. In the face of criticism at FiveThirtyEight and other websites, Zogby issued a partial apology, implying that their quality control process had broken down, and declined to do further polling for the client.
It seems clear, however, in light of this new poll, that Zogby has made a decision to become the bottom-feeders of the polling marketplace, a one-stop-shop for wingnuts of all stripes, who will make no particular distinction between fact and innuendo in the questions they poll. To be clear about the issue at hand, there is a distinction between a merely leading question -- merely couching a statement of fact in favorable terminology -- and a misleading one -- reporting a highly questionable statement as fact to the respondent. To imply from Lloyd's statements that the FCC is considering pursing a policy of forced resignation for white broadcast personalities seems pretty far over the line. That the question as posed is highly racially charged is somewhat tangential to the ethical issue at hand, although it arguably raises the stakes and may certainly further indict John Zogby's judgement.

80 comments
Holy crap.
Anybody - any politician, any group, any pundit - who cites the results of this poll to support or oppose any policy action whatsoever needs to crucified in the national media.
Thanks for your commentary, Nate. I am a little confused about your choice not to link the full comments. I can certainly see where context would help enlighten, no matter how obnoxious the righties will be with further comments to slant and abuse.
I need to start taking screenshots of the Zogby Interactive polls when I get them because this wasn't the only incredibly misleading question on that particular poll. That particular question was the worst, but the whole poll was like that.
"Chief Diversity Czar" isn't actually Lloyd's position either. They threw in a made-up Czar title along with the race-baiting question. How...sleazy.
Lordy, this stuff makes me ill.
Gotta agree with Nate here, just a miserably worded and explicitly partisan poll here from Zogby. Things like this can destroy a Pollster's reputation. If it's one of Zogby's "Online polls", it's already flawed.
As an aside, I'm not FAIR's biggest fan, given their total emphasis on finding right wing bias, while ignoring left wing bias. Wish they'd go back to clearly indicating that on their website.
So, even if this happened, how would removing "good white people" in favor of gays and minorities be a threat to free speech? Perhaps the idea is that "good" white people have a fundamentally different set of views than the blacks and gays who would replace them... so if you agree with blacks and gays (ie Democrats) you aren't a "good" white person?
Okay, I'm kind of stretching here, but I'm honestly at a loss as to how this is a free speech issue. Are they saying that the diversity issue is just a cover for removing conservative/Republican voices?
45 40 46 43 51 41 42
Which one of these numbers seems out of whack?
If you saw these numbers, would you think 51 was a mistake and throw it out?
If you were basing news off of these numbers, would you question the number 51?
51 is the most recent Rasmussen Disapproval rating for Obama.
Now, I'm not a statistician so I don't know if a LV model is appropriate when discussing approval ratings of a President.
Next question is this.
Here are four numbers.
51 37 46 46
Once again, you've got Rasmussen LV hitting the low mark on generic congressional Democratic vote.
Does it make statistical sense to compare various models as sites do?
Isn't there some sort of scientific standard to this or can anyone use whatever method they want any time they want? If not, should there be a standard as to when certain sampling methods are used?
Liberal,
Amusing that you would post that particular rant on 538....
Click the "Pollster ratings" tab at the top.
Also, 538 has a few articles specifically mentioning Rasmussen, summarized briefly as "you can criticize their methods, but they tend to be closer to the actual election results than most other major pollsters..."
Pat.
You missed the point.
I'm not a statistician. I'm asking a question to the statisticians.
Is there not some standard to follow when evaluating certain points of interest?
I guess I just didn't expect a discipline such as statistics to not follow standards.
Maybe a standard should be created so there is not so much variance?
If we're going to base approval ratings off of LV, I would like to see what all the pollsters say on LV models. Same goes if they choose A or RV. I'd like to see comparisons of the various voters.
I've seen what you are suggesting but it doesn't address my concerns.
I don't see a benefit of comparing apples to oranges.
Not only is this poll question a crazy way to try to sus out people's feelings on such a matter...it is a PUSH poll, written is seems, to be trying to make people freak about what govt is planning to do.
I'm sure this possible policy change is freaking some people out, but Fox and Rush got that covered, no need for a poll to do it too.
Would an honest pollster try to figure out what people think of the public option by asking the question "Pelosi, Congress Czar, wants the HHS to force good, profitable companies that have achieved success by years of hard work to step down to make room for an inexperienced, un-qualified, new, government run bureacracy?" Seems completely ridiculous for a poll question, even if Pelosi had once said something kinda like and my example isn't even playing at the racial emotions.
I also think the question is funny because its like "gay" is a race, remove white people and replace with "gay" people, guess no whites are gay.
This question may be based on original quote, but really, they are supposed be trying to fuss on questions to get the best idea of what people really think.
Are these people just stupid, or politcal hacks?
The original quote does not at all give me the feeling that the quoted guys thinks racial minorities or gays are less qualified than whites (presumably straight whites)but rather simply that many of those whites in power are qualified, which does not necessarily mean removing them for more diverse people would be a step down in quality just a difficult thing to remove existing, good people.
However, in the poll question it DOES seem as if the questioner is implying, assuming that the good people removed will be replaced by unqualified bad people, you know gays and blacks who can't do anything as good or better than whites.
The thing that drives me nuts is that in this country with such a large and growing pool of people of color (not just African Americans) and "out" gays and lesbian, with all kinds of great experience, education, and talents, why are all these positions filled with white straight people? T
The only answer is that qualified gay and black people, asian, latinoes, native americans etc.. have been already forced out by discrimination. IF you say that's not true, that it is not due to racial bias, discrimination; then you must think white, straight people are superior, and are the only ones with necessary education, skills, and talents to do these jobs. You must thus then believe only reason that minorities don't have these positions is because they are so inferior as group that not even a few of their best and brightest perform as well as the many whites in these positions.
You do not have to pass a new policy or write a new law to get people to choose straight white men over women, gays, people of color. At a minimum, people like to hire people like themselves, people they feel comfortable around. Even if they don't really have an issue with people's gender, race, sexual orientation, just the comfort factor alone will cause hugely biased and dscriminatory behavior.
So discrimination happens automatically, stopping it requires action, and there in lies the rub. White people get preference automatically without asking for it, everyday in many subtle and not so subtle ways.
@Cricket:
"Chief Diversity Czar" isn't actually Lloyd's position either. They threw in a made-up Czar title along with the race-baiting question. How...sleazy.
That's just the response I would expect from Obama's Chief fivethirtyeight.com Commenting Czar.
Why don't you go fire some white people and give their jobs to gay illegal immigrants, you communist?
@ Pat:
Those quotes about Rasmussen come from 2008 when they were doing some very respectable work. These days, their results are highly questionable. Look at their party ID numbers. They are way out of whack with everyone else's. And since Rasmussen weights by party ID in all their polls (and presumably uses their own ID numbers), that bias gets put into all their other polls as well.
But here's what I want to know:
Is it a push poll???
Rassmussen did OK in the presidential Election, but in the primaries in 2008 they were in 19th place - with an average deviation from final accuracy of over 6%.
Hardly anything to be proud of or to use as an advertising point for ones product.
Zogby, on the other hand, has never been a poll anyone with an IQ in 3 digits ever paid any attention to. His prediction of an easy KERRY victory in 2004 stands as one of his shining mistakes - one of many.
Liberal,
It's not that there are no "Standards", it's that there are 3(+) different standards. "All", "Registered Voters" and "Likely Voters".
Of course, if one uses "All", the math is quite simple and it's more "democratic". Unfortunatly, ultimately, those who don't vote, well, their choices aren't seen. In a "Generic Congressional Vote"...in general politicans and pundits are better off looking at Likely voters, because those will be closer to actual results.
In terms of voter profiles? In general Likely voters (and Registered Voters), tend to be older, whiter, and richer than non-likely/registered voters.
@shma,
I hesitate to knock Rasmussen. They were accurate in 2008. Accurate in 2004. Accurate in between. Notably, here are the final polls of 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008
Compared to the ACTUAL results of 52.9 versus 45.7%, Rasmussen was closest, within a percentage point for each candidate.
Gallup and ABC both overestimated Obama's strength, while underestimating McCain by a few points. Nearly every other polling agency underestimated McCain's support, some quite a lot.
By your logic, well, "Rasmussen would be wrong, because it's the outlier"... One problem. They were right. Same could be very well true today. Ramussen's party ID numbers are off everyone else's. It doesn't mean Ras is wrong. Could be, like before, everybody else is.
@shma
holy scheisse!
Rasmussen doesn't have one poll in the last 6 months where GOP ID is BELOW 32, and all the other polls have them between 17 and 29!
Btw, it is easy to jigger the numbers as you get close to an actual election, which is why Rasmussen numbers start falling in line with the other national pollsters so as to save face. In off years, when there is no way to actually check the numbers, Rasmussen doesn't just put a thumb on the scale, they put the whole hand on there.
I know many have called Nate out on the pass he gives Rasmussen, but this is starting to get ludicrous. My guess is he can only take on so many shoddy pollsters at one time and also had (has?) an alliance of sorts with good ol Scotty Rasmussen.
Zogby is an easy target because you don't need to know jack about polling to recognize his laughably illegitimate methods. Rasmussen is a harder nut, but clearly his party IDs do not pass the smell test at a time when GOP brand is as low as it has ever been historically.
Could anyone give me the cliff-notes version regarding the questions about Zogby's and Rasmussen's methodology?
Anyway, Zogby's race-baiting is shocking.
The US polling industry is a zoo. Over on this side of the pond, I think such a company would be done were it to do something of the sort.
But then, the whole media-politics complex in the US is a zoo.
"Rasmussen doesn't have one poll in the last 6 months where GOP ID is BELOW 32, and all the other polls have them between 17 and 29!
Btw, it is easy to jigger the numbers as you get close to an actual election, which is why Rasmussen numbers start falling in line with the other national pollsters so as to save face"
Yeah, Rasmussen falls in line with the others, sure thing. That must be why Rasmussen called the election perfectly last year and all the others were off.
The other polls are the ones that change their samples closer to the race. The CBS poll last month was the perfect example when Dems had a 16% edge in the poll sample, a situation in which RealClearPolitics joked hadn't been the case in this country since 1936. Larry Sabato, one of the most respected names in politics called the Washington Post Party ID sample "ridiculous".
http://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/5025867837
Rasmussen is one of the most highly respected pollsters in politics. As for no other having ID above 29%, I guess you ignore the Gallup Poll. Which is understandable, because it is not the most well know poll out there. Oh, wait....
Gallup has the Party ID the closest it has been in years, with the Dems only having a five point edge. Independents favor the Republicans over the Dems in many polls, so even if the ridiculous (as Larry Sabato so eloquently stated)ID numbers were true, it wouldn't matter if Independents vote Republican during the election.
And Rasmussen is well within the range of other polls on Obama job approval. As with Party ID, the Washington Post poll is the outlier on that one too. There is not a single LV poll taken since the summer that does not have the Republicans up in the generic ballot, at least not that I know of, and I am going all the way back to the NPR poll.
And even outside of the way the statement was repeated - doesn't it border on being a push poll to say something like "Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?" That's basically planting an idea in the responder's mind, rather than actually finding out what's in there.
And, based on this Kos diary, some other gems from Zogby:
Do you agree or disagree that this is an attempt by the Obama administration to silence dissent?
Do you agree or disagree that Pelosi is using the power of congress to try to limit the free speech of private corporations?
These are not responsible questions for a pollster to be asking.
@Pat:
I was a defender of Rasmussen myself based on their stellar record in 2008, but when they are constantly the single outlier in poll after poll, something is going on.
I think attributing the problem to their party ID weighting is probably the simplest explanation as to why the results they get on a variety of questions tend to be skewed favourably toward Republicans. And it's one which doesn't attribute malice either.
@michael:
Party ID is rather volatile number (you'll notice that even though Rasmussen is a consistent outlier, the range of the other pollsters is still pretty large). So perhaps it's a question of playing it safe? Anyways, as I said to Pat above, I'm not sure this is a case of clear malice. If there's a problem with the way Rasmussen collects party ID, then it infects all his polls through his weighting procedure.
What I find so interesting about this is, if you look through the poll numbers, you see the Rasmussen has a sample size of 15000 for his party ID polls (that's right, 15 THOUSAND). That's huge. Gigantic. And according to Rasmussen, it's done by telephone
Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based on telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002. The margin of error for the full sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence.
So now my questions are
1) How does he manage to conduct such a large poll every month?
2) Is there any possibility of a selection bias because of the way he does the polling?
3) How does he go from raw party ID numbers to party weightings in his other polls?
@mansaf:
I wanted to respond to you specifically in a separate post.
Yeah, Rasmussen falls in line with the others, sure thing. That must be why Rasmussen called the election perfectly last year and all the others were off.
Their 2008 performance has little to do with what we're talking about now.
Rasmussen is one of the most highly respected pollsters in politics. As for no other having ID above 29%, I guess you ignore the Gallup Poll.
Which Gallup poll, their most recent one? It shows Republican identifiers at 27% without leaners, which are the numbers we have been discussing.
Gallup has the Party ID the closest it has been in years, with the Dems only having a five point edge.
The Democrats have an 8 point edge without leaners (again, what we were talking about) and a 6 point edge with leaners according to the Gallup poll.
And Rasmussen is well within the range of other polls on Obama job approval.
Rasmussen's latest poll is at least 6 points below that of every other pollster on Job Approval and 9.7 points below the RCP average. Even your hated Washington Post is only 9.3 points above the RCP average.
There is not a single LV poll taken since the summer that does not have the Republicans up in the generic ballot, at least not that I know of, and I am going all the way back to the NPR poll.
Every single recent non-Rasmussen poll shows Democrats leading on the generic ballot. The NPR poll you cite is the ONLY ONE since the summer, other than Rasmussen, to show Republicans leading on the generic ballot and even then it was only R+1. But that's a nice little sleight of hand you made there. I almost didn't catch it. The reason you haven't seen 'an LV poll' that puts the Democrats out front is because, besides Rasmussen and the partisan Democracy Corps, no one does LV generic ballot polls this early. So yeah, excluding the two Democracy Corps polls, you're right. There hasn't been a non-Rassmussen LV poll showing Democrats in the lead since the summer. That's because there hasn't been a been a non-Rassmussen LV poll since the summer. There has, however, been lots of other polling, all of which contradicts Rasmussen.
In conclusion, most of what you have said is wrong or misleading. Next time, take a look at the numbers before you make claims about them.
@shma: To answer your first question, Rasmussen can do a lot of polls because he conducts robocalls -- he doesn't have to pay his interviewers (and interviewer costs are generally the biggest cost of doing polls).
Not having live interviewers cuts his expenses for healthcare, retirement, recruiting, and rental (space).
Not having interviewers really makes for consistency in how questions are asked, and thereby probably gets rid of a lof of random noise that interviewer-administered polls create.
Another cost factor in Rasmussen's favor is that he probably makes few if any callbacks if nobody picks up the phone. Especially in his political polls that are literally one-day polls, he doesn't do what many other survey researchers do and that's to call multiple times in an effort to get the originally sampled respondent to participate.
So Rasmussen's costs per completed interview are very low compared with most other organizations.
@Juris:
Thanks. I knew he did Robocalls, but didn't follow that logic through.
That raises another question, though. Why don't other pollsters that use robocalls try for these monster sample sizes?
...Or do they?
@shma: I might have added to my last post by saying that Rasmussen is probably not the lowest-cost polling operation. If what many of us suspect is true -- that they make up many of the numbers -- then Strategic Vision LLC has the lowest cost structure (and highest profitability) of any pollster.
Even besides the obvious racial implications behind the wording, am I the only one who noticed the use of the word "good" to make what would appear to be the implication that gay people are not good?
I'd like to know not just the context of Lloyd's 2005 comments, but the inflection. Is it a sinister
"But we're in a position where you have to SAY who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
or is he calling for his audience to begin the revolution:
"But we're in a position where YOU have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."
or is it a rhetorical, almost Yiddishe
"But we're in a position where you have to say 'WHO is going to step down so someone else can have power?'" [implying the answer, "no one"]
A whole lot more is communicated by inflection and body language than in the written word.
I've heard Zogby is selling his company to an international firm. Maybe they'll have more sense choosing clients than he does.
I remember a while back maybe a year or so ago I wrote off zogby as a tool when i read a poll on their site that they did in some south american country(I've forgotten since but it was one of the more stratified ones economically) where the summary said,"of the 30% of respondents who understood the political issues at stake 61%(some number like this) support the IMF's economic reform proposals.
I loved that "of those that understood" like who defined that lol?
What's wrong with the question? I don't get it. The white incumbents in those positions are presumably good at their jobs and under Obama policies would only be supplanted because they are of the the disfavored white race. It's an interesting question.
What's up with Obama's frat house White House? To confound the image he actually played gof with a chick over the weekend. A bad time was had by all.
The Stalinist take over of the Presidency remains in full flower: The Pretender has taken soooo much heat over over his stupid and misplaced attax on FOX News. It got so bad last week that the MSM actually staged a coup and made the WH reverse course on the pay Czar interviews.
Say what you like about Obama and his policies, but he is clearly anti-democratic.
Inteesting races this Tuesday. NY COngressional race the most fascinating. Combined the GOP and the Conservatives will kick the shins of the Democrat Candidate. That's a good thing, even if the Democrat wins as it shows that the Democrats remain a minority party in terms of ideological allegiance. For the GOP the risk, the issue is whether the party will fracture if there is a third party or independent movement in 2012. Candidily, the GOP lacks a central leader and this is hurting it, despite the natural advantages it should have in terms of ideological support and the nascent harsh criticism of Obama, the Democrats and their policies.
NJ will be a litmus test as to how enthusiatic and organized the opposition to Obama is. My bet is that Daggett fades at the end and Christie wins by a surprisingly comfortable margin. I mean, where is the enthusiasm for a bloated, failed ex-Goldman Sachs executive who spent over 20 MM of his own money on the race (90% of his total spend). Corzine (who looks fat and unfit to me) is part of the problem and certainly not the solution. The Right is upset and looking for validation, I think those are the Garden State voters who will come out in force and turn Corzine and Obama aside.
VA, of course, is out of reach for the Dems. Regression to the mean, I suppose.
Have a nice day!
One last question: Where does Obama stand on the public option?
He still sucks at being President and is not, it appears, much of a man.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Nate:
Is there a reason why you are wasting your time on a website push poll question?
If the point was that Zogby is a whore who will adjust his methodology to come up with results more acceptable to his clients, any conservative could have told you that. It appears now that Zogby is now more of a bipartisan whore pushing trash for the right as well as the left.
The person's title is "Chief Diversity Officer". The poll question referred to him as "Chief Diversity Czar". "Czar" is a pejorative term compared with "Officer". (Maybe Zogby or someone should do a poll to verify that.)
I'm not in favor of discrimination against qualified white people, but the question is clearly, obviously slanted and biased. It is worded in a way that is designed to get negative responses from the people who are polled.
The question certinaly could have been worded better, but based on Lloyd's comments, it is certainly a legitimate issue to poll about. How should it have been worded? I assume that you all aren't just saying that Lloyd was 100% correct in how and what he said? I mean, come on, show some credibility!
"The question certinaly could have been worded better, but based on Lloyd's comments, it is certainly a legitimate issue to poll about. How should it have been worded?"
Based on the rest of Zogby's poll, it's clear he didn't use this as a legitimate issue to poll about, but rather one in a large number of blatantly misleading questions in what is an obvious push poll.
But sure, a legitimate wording - here's a quick crack at one:
FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd has noted that nearly all important FCC positions are held by whites. Do you feel the FCC should emphasize diversity in such positions, or do you feel the status quo is acceptable?
I would hope the ways in which this differs from the original question are immediately obvious.
HWPixHend, it's pretty simple actually.
What Lloyd said was not what the question said. What Lloyd said was, in short, "This is a conundrum that we need to consider."
What the question said was, "This is what the FCC wants to do."
Totally different things. The poll inferred a lot of implications that may not have been there, effectively putting words into the entire FCC's mouth based on one executive's description of a problem. He didn't even say that's what he wanted to do, just that it seems like that's the solution.
You are right about ONE thing, it is simple. You are splitting hairs (which again, does major harm to your credibility), Lloyd IS the FCC under Obama.
I said the question was poorly worded. My point is the fact it is still a legitimate issue based on WHAT Lloyd said. To say otherwise is preposterous and just plain denial.
FWIW, Adam's wording would work fine for the question, though I might also quote, with context, what Lloyd said.
@HWPixHend
"I might also quote, with context, what Lloyd said."
Doing so could skew the poll in EITHER direction. As I noted earlier, which word you emphasize and the inflection of his words can either make Lloyd's statement seem to be a call to radical action or an explanation why there's no practical way to change the status quo.
What if, for example, the pollster quoted Lloyd saying:
"But we're in a position where you have to say 'WHO is going to step down so someone ELSE can have power?'"
See?
No, actually, I don't, as WHAT he said (and HOW he said it, as you point out) is/are the issue(s). NOT doing it takes almost all of this overall issue away.
Maybe a video clip of what he said? I know that is not generally done, but in this case, maybe it is needed. We certainly have the technology. The question is not, IMO, worth asking, if what/how was said is not included.
If the comment was made in 2005 why is it being polled now? Because there is a black guy as president?
No, but nice attmept to throw the race card to stop the debate, though I will ignore it.
It is a legitimate issue now becuse Lloyd is in a position to follow through with what he siad then. A pretty "simple" reason if you ask me......
Pete Kent said -
What's wrong with the question? I don't get it.
And that is why your opinions are steadily being flushed out of mainstream American politics.
Pete Kent said -
What's wrong with the question? I don't get it.
The idea behind the question: "is this kind of hiring preference something you agree with" is a legitimate question to ask.
The wording of the question is terrible. Totally biased and designed to get one answer, not designed to get an honest measurement of people's opinions.
It is shocking how much a poll can be slanted any way you want using a variety of means:
1. State a "fact" as an introduction that is perjorative, misleading, or fraudulent (or all three).
2. Ask the question part in a very non-neutral way by making it semi-rhetorical, using a leading question, or a very emotive term. Things like "Should he be allowed to destroy X industry?" vs. "Should he regulate X industry?" is very different because of "allowed" and "destroy". That is all it takes to get a strong shift.
3. By using the above two techniques, you will get many respondents who disagree to refuse to answer what they perceive as a "push poll"; so, even if the original sample was "random", it is made non-random by these techniques.
4. Modify the "party ID" question or "leaner" percentages to select more of who you want but making it look like it is a proper distribution.
5. Use concepts like "likely voters" to skew whose opinion you are getting. Likely voter filters are good for pre-election polling for candidates, but not meaningful when talking about what 'the people think'. Equally, you can use the "likely voters" for a non-presidential election to further skew it.
All in a days work for those who are selling their polling services to get the results someone wants.
Race card? You are using words that you do not understand.
I should clarify on "Party ID". You can ask questions like:
- Are you now a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or other?
- Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or other?
- Are you registered as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or other?
- Do you generally vote Democrat, Republican, Independent, or other?
Each will give a different percentage. If you want to avoid the currently disaffected from lowering ID numbers for a party (e.g. GOP), you use the "registered" question since people generally do not change that until the next big election. The "generally vote" question works well for areas where the local politics and the national politics do not match as it can skew the answers.
Of course if you want to use the Zogby question style, you could say:
- Are you a Republican; that is, the party of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter? Or, are you a Democrat; that is, the party of Barak Obama? Or, are you an Independent; that is, unable to make a decision?
J said...
Race card? You are using words that you do not understand.
You nave NO clue what I do or do not understand, but nice deflection.
Yeah it's pretty clear what you don't understand and that was no deflection. If you had any understanding you'd understand that "race card" is the ultimate deflection.
Not that you'd understand what I mean by that.
However, your whole premise is flawed since he isn't in a position to do what you fear.
Wow! Isn't Zogby Jewish? Wouldn't one think that would make him at least superficially a person who think before asking a clearly biased and incindiary question like that?
Wow, and I thought Rasmussen's questions showed bias, Zogby reaches for, and finds, the absolute low point of polling.
As I said, you have no clue......
@Bradford
Zogby is an Arab-American, in fact the founder and president of the Arab American Institute.
@HWPixHend and @J, you two need to chill out.
The question is playing the race card as it is contrasting "good white people" against "African-Americans and gays".
Whether the timing of the question is related to having a black president is not clear, but it is a fair question. It has to be a fair question because some on the right have latched onto us vs. them; for example, Glenn Beck ("Obama is a racist and hates white people"), Rush Limbaugh ("open season on white kids on buses"), and the like.
But, the timing is not really the issue. Every minority party/ideology looks for exploits; they look for exploits in terms of perceptions, fears, emotions, etc. The left went to some extremes during the Bush years. The right is going to extremes now. Push polls are used by both.
What is important here is that a legitimate pollster is using very sleazy push questions. Push polls are intended to not only elicit misleading results (which can be quoted out of context of the original question) but to change the minds of the respondents. They are political ads disguised as scientific polling.
"Maybe a video clip of what he said?"
I agree, THAT would be illuminating, HWP. My guess is it would be impractical to do that with a sample size large enough to be significant, but I'm neither a statistician nor a pollster.
At the very least, they could play the audio clip when doing a phone poll. Body language does say an enormous amount, so the visual would definitely be better, but the audio is vastly better than nothing.
Unless, of course, getting the correct answer was not the point of the poll.
David-
Sorry, my comment reamins the same. Maybe we should get him to ask the same type of questions with "Arabs" in them or Arab terrorists".
To give you insight into Mark Lloyd's thinking, please see my interview with him for Public Interest Pictures' media reform film, Broadcast Blues. http://www.broadcastblues.tv . 92% of broadcasters are owned by white men; that's the paradigm he is trying to repair.
@David, playing a clip out of context would be just as misleading and confusing. The problem is that if you have an intro statement (on the assumption that most will not know the details the question is about), it needs to be as neutral as possible.
It would have been simpler to note that the diversity officer had raised the question of how and if the FCC should try to force more racial balance in broadcasting. Then, ask if the FCC taking any action would negatively affect free speech.
The question can never be completely neutral by nature, but can be made much much better than it is.
Are you sure this isn't a hoax? It's just too ridiculous to believe.
What I find most interesting in many of these modern polls is how over the top they are. In the old days, the technique was to use code words to elicit responses. So, for example, in swaths of this Country, there are many highly emotive coded words and phrases. For example:
- "immigrant" is taken to mean "illegal immigrant", whereas everywhere else it just means immigrants.
- "end of life" care is now synonymous with "death panel" for some.
- "Czar" used for some presidential adviser (just as Bush had) means "socialist".
- "Government run" means higher taxes (even if paid for completely by use fees).
- "Government bureaucrat" means evil government thug who controls your life based on whims.
There are many of these. So, why would something so overt as the Zogby poll be used?
I assume this is Nate's source.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910280022
Zogby…
Well, let’s just make room for Zogby alongside Raspublican in the GOP push-poll pigsty.
In 2008 Zogby was a suspicious outlier (always discounting Democratic strength) and then the Ziegler affair put all sensible people on high alert. Now the wording of this blatant push-poll should cement Zogby’s position as just another PR functionary for the GOP.
WARNING: This post is puerile, drags down the discourse of FiveThirtyEight more than Mule and Pragmatus in a cagefight, and is generally something I should feel bad about.
Unfortunately, I don't. You have been warned. If you still dare, read below the line.
----------------------------
It's rare that I agree with anything that Bart says, but I must say - I do like the ring of "bipartisan whore." If I ever make a rock band, I might call it that.
And then name the first album "Olympia Snoweball," after the first single. Other songs might include "In The Baucus Door," "Blue Dog, Blue Balls," "Giant Stimulus Package," and "Pubic Option."
Clearly, I spend far too much time here. Though, somehow I'm still surprised that within 3 posts we got a "B-b-but Rasmussen!"
That said: Oh Zogby, you wacky loon. I can just imagine the breathless tone he wrote the poll report in, probably with his pants around his ankles.
Album name should be "Snoweball's Chance" with the art in a "hell" motif. :)
BTW your post wasn't anywhere near bottom till the last paragraph. :( Then you solided bounced onto the bottom. Could have been worse though, if you'd linked a graphic supportive of your assertion, with John working up a sweat you would have broken clear through the bottom. ;)
They polled 3544. That's low for a push poll, but pretty high for an opinion poll.
@PaulK
I've got some more for your list:
"Obama dissenter" means you're a racist.
"Tea Party attendee" means you belong to the KKK.
"Pro Capitalism" means you only care about the rich.
GROG said...
"Obama dissenter" means you're a racist.
"Teabagger attendee" means you belong to the KKK.
"Pro Capitalism" means you only care about the rich.
~~~~~~~~~~
... and the truth shall set you free!
I can always count on shiloh to prove my points. Thanks buddy.
Nate is always sooooo sexy when he gets a mad on at a faux pollster.
GROG said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Paraphrasing the de-facto leader of your party of No!, Limbaugh, who recently got punked because he's a big, fat idiot lol:
Good sarcasm, must contain an element of truth!
btw, all of my sarcasm is based on the truth! ;) and yes Virginia, the current discombobulation of the dwindling Rep party almost makes it too easy ...
@GROG, good point on the left having code words. Some of your examples are probably too strong though. I would say maybe:
"Teabagger" probably viewed as extreme and someone who yells, not KKK. But, racism probably comes to mind in the right context for some/many since so many Teabag rallies had racist signs.
"Pro capitalism" is someone who cares only about the rich and big business.
Not sure about "Obama dissenter", that seems too mild. I think the Teabag one is more emotive. Ditto-head could be used here perhaps, but not sure.
"Good sarcasm, must contain an element of truth!"
Strange he would say that. Good sarcasm must only contain an element of what someone believes. In this case, Rush was punked specifically because it played to his hysterical beliefs and not the truth at all.
PaulK said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Limbaugh, like most of the wingers at 538, was just trying unsuccessfully to cover his ass! since his research staff let him down! lol
but, but, but his ditto heads ;) will follow him to the ends of the earth, regardless.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, Lie la lie ...
I can't believe people are stupid enough to defend Rassmussen. Yeah, within a week of any election that are accurate. The other 51 weeks out of the year he is a right wing outlier.
@Dwight: Have you ever read Zogby's poll reports, though? I may have been far more accurate than I intended. Or wanted, for that matter. :( (I figured that the last paragraph was probably traumatizing enough, so it stood fine on its own.)
Also, thanks. I was planning on going to sleep, but I'll be seeing that picture in my dreams now.
Also...you know what? I'm going to leave this thread now because I'm beginning to traumatize myself with the ideas I'm coming up with.
@Dwight: Have you ever read Zogby's poll reports, though? I may have been far more accurate than I intended.
Yes. It's stranger than fiction, no doubt. I didn't believe it till I saw the picture!
:D
Here's a fun game:
Google "chief diversity czar" (with quotes) and scroll through the results as the wingnuts struggle to decide where to put the scare quotes. Is he a Chief 'Diversity' Czar? A Chief Diversity 'czar'? A Chief 'Diversity Czar'?
I suppose a tally of quote placements could be used to determine whether diversity or czars is felt to be a scarier concept.
Unfortunately, diversity is a scary concept to southern white guys, and unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us) the U.S. is going to get more diverse over time, and the female helf of the race is already the majority of folks in law and medical school - the white guy 1950's are finally OVER!
@ Bradford:
Unfortunately, many of the people who want us all dragged back kicking and screaming to those same 1950's are still in power, particularly in the South. Just take a casual glance at the rogue's gallery of clowns running the GOP in Dixie. Too bad for all Americans, for a variety of respective reasons. The some 67 percent of the country not belonging to the 'heterosexual white male' category can thank all of the various civil rights movements for changing things and making America finally begin to live up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, that "all men are created equal".
We still have haters, though, like GROG and PeteKent and Bart de Palma, who have once again shown their true colors by not condemning the push poll for what it is.
A word of advice, righties...your conservative movement is IMPROVED by condemning racism. Is there no one in your party/movement with the stones to confront racist B.S. in the same manner that William F. Buckley once confronted the trash within his own movement? Apparently not, when not even conservative columnist Kathleen Parker(of South Carolina) can fully distance herself from the teabaggers.
It's tough to do that, especially when the extremists in real life are so many of your friends and relatives. Gotta wonder, though, what the conversation must be like around THOSE dinner tables.
@GROG:
Hey, you still don't get it. It's NOT racist to criticize a black president from a conservative viewpoint. It IS racist to continue questioning his ancestry/citizenship/constitutional right to be President. So you are saying to America's fast-growing Muslim polulation that it's a bad thing to have a Muslim father? Geez, you guys are brutal.
Good luck in 2012 with your girl Palin. Your best shot at 'taking back America' and once again making it safe for white people looks like Romney at this point, although you righties are gonna have to pretend that he doesn't belong to a Christian sect that most of you hate.
>> Is there no one in your party/movement with the stones to confront racist B.S. in the same manner that William F. Buckley once confronted the trash within his own movement?
Whoever the firebrand might be they are likely still in their 20's, maybe early 30's now. It'll take time. Not that they don't exist within the party but being able to really bring it up and not get culled from leadership is a very tough thing. Rush certainly wouldn't abide by it and right now, for better or worse, he represents the gatekeeper (it isn't him by himself but he's the voice of it).
P.S. Remember Meghan McCain?
A clear and thorough explanation:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1759
Can you please post the entire speech. It is difficult at best to support your grievance, when you fail to let us come to our own conclusions to opinions. I do not believe any thing that comes out of the mouths of politicians these days. Both right and left fight with hatred and tell our children to hate our Government. Imagine young adults trying to become more civic and active in the political process. All they see in hear is adults acting like children, name calling and attacks. I searched on Youtube and found the speech and it did sound infalamitory. However I would like to hear or read the whole context of the speech to see your point.
With so much secrecy, confusion and massive legislation happening without any transparency that was promised its no wonder we find so much honest grief.
To widen all of our perspectives please review this objective BBC doc on what America and Europe has evolved to with a very strange Freedom.
Trailer with links to full film.
The Trap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAluyt5_kic
Post a Comment