home

Zogby: Romney Leads In California

By Big Tent Democrat

My title is deliberately provocative. Why? Because you are reading a lot about this Zogby poll result that shows Obama ahead by 4 in California. Not much about the Romney result. I do not believe a Zogby poll NO MATTER the result. In my opinion, Zogby is NOT a honest pollster, he is a disingenuous pundit. An anti-Clinton pundit in particular. There are other polls that show a close race in Cali. The Rass poll and the gold standard Field Poll show it within 2 points. Others, such as Survey USA and the Mason Dixon poll, show a much wider lead for Clinton.

But what about Romney? We have proclaimed that he is done in this race. But he won Maine last night and most polls show him close if not leading in California. Maybe reports of his political death are greatly exaggerated.

< Super Sunday And Super Tuesday | A Leap Of Faith >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good post (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:08:27 PM EST
    Please read this:

    I think DMR poll not measured, but CREATED a surge for Obama. It had a very high turnout for NEW voters which didn't materialize.  But good polls generate lots and lots of good news for a campaign, and therefore create actual results for them.  I think a 7% fudge in a poll may be worth an actual 3 points at the voting time!!

    I am still mad at what pollsters did BEFORE AND AFTER New Hampshire.  I've written a couple of diaries, and commented on how it has been obvious from Rasmussen's results before the NH that there was a huge surge for Hillary.  Rasmussen HAD large samples, but they chose to average 3 days (instead of the usual 2) on the last report before voting.  So they gave the spread as 7 points, not as 3-4 points which it should have been.  Furthermore, the last day results itself should have shown Obama leading only by 1 point and with a huge wind behind Hillary.  In fact, if you extrapolate, Rasmussen's numbers, you get EXACTLY what the NH results was.

    Rasmussen hasn't said PEEP about their methodology and averaging in New Hampshire, nor has it said, gee we had it, but decided to fudge the numbers.  My beef is just about their reporting. IMAGINE how much leeway they have in choosing a turnout model.  That's where the real FUDGE is.  

    Well, unfortunatly we have illiterate media pundits who just repeat this crap over and over and it becomes conventional wisdom.

    We really have to go back to discounting Iowa (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    caucuses.  The more I read (living next door to that state), the more it amazes me how it runs those caucuses.  Same-day registration is fine with me; we have that in my state.  Open caucus, okay; we have an open primary in my state, with similar craziness at times owing to organized Repub crossover to pick the Dem candidate that they want to beat. . . .

    But residency rules in Iowa are just too loose to give it the importance it gets.  All you really have to do is say "I am an Iowan" that day.  And my state is considered loose! but at least it requires (a) six months' residency and (b) real evidence thereof.

    Parent

    Exactly!! (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    The obama camp had a strategy on blogs. I am more and more inclined to think that the supporters on dkos just have talking points and stick to them.  In the case of Iowa, you know what they did? Someone wrote a reasonable diary, and brought the issue of students voting, and how it wasn't clear they were residents of state.  (To put it bluntly, if you look at the map of Obama victories, he's got a big margin in counties neighboring Illinois, So they obviously bussed in supporters).  Both the residency rule and the age proof were very loose.  

    So Obama supporters gave more than 50 Troll ratings to the writer of the diary.  Why?  They shouted that the Clinton camp was going to disenfranchise voters (yes, which brings race to mind, doesn't it?).  Obviously, their mode of operation has been and is to this days to call out commenters, not to engage them.  They just repeat their talking points.

    Obama campaign looks more and more like Bush's 2000 campaign.  Yes, Bush ran an effective campaign, but never told you what to expect once he was elected. He avoided substance. The similarities between that campaign and Obama's scare the crap out of me.

    This time, unfortunately, it's the democrats who are going to choose a president to have a beer with.  I really can't understand their stupidity (pardon the expression) after the last 8 years.

     

    Parent

    Zogby Doesn't Like Me (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by KevinMc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    I usually stop by this site when I need a break from the MSM bias.  For the past year or more I had been participating in the Zogby online polls and had never skipped even one whenever they would send an invite.  Suddenly about two months ago I stopped receiving anymore invites and I wonder if it's because I wasn't giving the desired responses?  I find/found it odd they, Zogby, would drop someone who was a reliable and active participant.

    No, Romney is still toast. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    McCain's leading in virtually every other state--including NY and NJ by wide margins.

    More likely (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    ogby's poll is a joke.

    But if Romney wins California no way is he toast.

    That is absurd.

    Parent

    Gotta agree with you on Zogby (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    but I also have to say that, the longer the Romney candiacy continues, the better for the Dems.  McCain cannot move to the middle until Romney's out of the race.  He has to keep making pronouncements about how he'll appoint Scalito clones, etc.  Moreover, for as long as he's in the race Romney (or his surrogates) will not allow Clear Channel (distributor of Limbaugh and so much other wingnut hate radio), owned by his Bain Capital outfit, to start working the Wurlitzer for McCain.

    Since I'm an Edwards voter who can live with either Obama or Clinton, I may switch over for the primary to vote for Mitt the Dog Torturer, just to lend my one vote's weight to keeping him upright and walking the campaign's earth.

    It's actually a decision which is keeping me occupied with "Should I/Shouldn't I" worries, particularly since I decided to vote Edwards back in, oh, 2004 or 5.

    Parent

    interesting standards (none / 0) (#3)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    Both Obama and Romney are poised to win about three states. Somehow, I think you'll be singing a different song if Obama wins California.

    Parent
    Just three for Obama? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    Illinois, Georgia, and Alabama... and then (so I hear at least--can't trust the MSM/polls these days, true) Kansas, Deleware, Utah, Tennessee, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, California, Arizona, and Alaska are all well within his reach. I think he's poised to win a lot more states than Romney, who's significantly out of the MOE in most of these states.

    Parent
    In order to win Mo he would have (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Grandmother on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:31:30 AM EST
    to garner a lot of votes between St. Louis and Kansas City.  It isn't going to happen.  Outstate Mo is very, very conservative and Obama doesn't play well to that crowd. And neither K.C. or St. Louis is a given for Obama. Also I predict Claire McCaskill will pay dearly for her support of Obama.  She has pissed off a lot people, particularly women who supported her and worked hard to get her elected.  

    Remember Mo is the state that has given so much to this country:  John Ashcroft, Roy Blunt, and the Limbaugh family.  Don't see Obama's future here.

    Parent

    I wondered how (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM EST
    McCaskill's Obama support was playing out.  I gave so much money to her campaign (and others) to help the democratic cause.  I was nervous about the whole democratic-light thing, but I gave anyway.  Never again.  I don't think it helps the party to have people who are  actually republicans taking democratic resources.  I will funnel my donations into NARAL and healthcare for the working poor next time around.

    Parent
    That is true (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    except Tennessee is not within reach for Obama.

    Parent
    Ah. Oh well. Kinda weird, Tennessee. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    By the way, what do you guys make of Arizona Hispanics going completely against the trend according to most of these polls? Obama leads like... 3-1 among Hispanics there, and leads a bit in New Mexico as well amongst them. Why the disparity?

    Parent
    Got a link? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    I have not seen those polls.

    Parent
    SUSA is consistently the best (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    We'll just have to see, though.

    Agreed in general (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by spit on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    they've been surprisingly good, I say as somebody who had some doubts about their methodology years ago.

    For CA, the Field Poll is almost always the best you'll find anywhere. They're extremely well respected here (which is not to say they're never wrong, mind you).

    Parent

    romney (none / 0) (#5)
    by tek on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    I hadn't really thought about it until I saw this, but there are lots of Mormons in CA and they are probably not his only base of support. Course, I don't really know much about Republicans in CA and what they are looking for.

    Romney is the media darling of (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    am talk radio.  Got to help his cred with the religious right.

    Being the darling is rather easy (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    for Mitt, since his company, Bain Capital, both owns Clear Channel (i.e., owns a lot of the stations) and, through Clear Channel, distributes a lot of the right-wing shows.  Like Limbaugh's, for instance.  Clear Channel is his self-proclaimed "Excellence in Broadcasting Network".

    Lackeys and contractors dependent on the owner's good will tend to do what pleases the owner.  

    Parent

    I just learned this today. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    Puts an entirely different "spin" on all that blathering.

    Parent
    I didnt know that he owned them (none / 0) (#13)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    clear channel has a bad rep with liberals.

    Parent
    Meet the Press OT (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:52:34 AM EST
    With time do you guys think Carville and his wife are morphing into each other. Sort of creepy, she has hair he does not, but it's the same face.

    I saw a hilarious contest (none / 0) (#17)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    on a blog for matching the celeb with an historial figure and morphing their face onto an old picture/portrait..Carville was Elizabeth 1. It was fabulous.

    Parent
    Rasmussen tracking (none / 0) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    It now has 49-38 to Clinton, as opposed to 45-37 yesterday. If that trend is confirmed in the Gallup tracking, she definitely has the edge going into Tuesday.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    The debate turned it around.

    Parent
    You and kos may have been right. (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Slightly OT: did you know that Mark Blumenthal cited  you for "all polls [stink]?]

    Parent
    Thank you for that link (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    The title itself (Toward an Open-Source Methodology) suggests that this may be required reading for all.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    And they do.

    Not so much for what they are but for what they are hyped as being able to do.

    Parent

    Gallup tracking shows the opposite (none / 0) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    A chink in my theory.

    Also a chink in the Clinton does best on weekends theory.

    Parent

    I think all theories are out the window. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    We don't know until we know.

    Parent
    I think exit polls (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    are pretty solid.

    Parent
    Those are, but those are ex post (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    polls.

    We won't know until Tuesday.

    Parent

    Replying to myself.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    Gallup tracking had a good day for Obama on Saturday, so it does not confirm the trend.

    Ah, polls. Who knows. The best thing is probably to stop looking at them..


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    that's because Obama does well on weekends . . .

    Parent
    Why do you say so? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    In my opinion, Zogby is NOT a honest pollster, he is a disingenuous pundit.

    What evidence do you have to back that up?  I hope you don't cite election results.  There is no way to verify THEIR accuracy.

    I have explained it before (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    But it does not matter. You WANT to believe he is an honest pollster so there is no reason discussing it with you.

    Parent
    I will freely admit (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    the polls that show my candidate doing well are the ones I want to believe.  Though, at least I'm aware of it.  It's like media stories--I pick and choose.

    I think this is fast becoming an American way of life.  We only believe the science that we want to believe in.  As with many things, I blame the Bush administration for tinkering with the results on everything from polling to global warming to No Child Left Behind.  We are Cheneys on the raw intelligence boat to hell.

    They have turned us into the very thing that we hate.

    Parent

    well I sure dont (none / 0) (#22)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    believe my ancestors were monkeys....do you?

    KIDDING!

    Parent

    actually... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    I've got some rather hairy uncles who haven't yet mastered the use of opposable thumbs...

    Parent
    I don't give a rats rearend about who does what (none / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    polling, but Didn't Zogby get the finishers correct in Iowa in both parties in the order of finish?  I think they also got the percentages pretty close also.  

    Parent
    And Zogby said Obama would win NH (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    by 13 pts!  (That was 16 pts off. . . .)

    Parent
    Did you see HOW Zogby came to that result? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    It is at the very core of why I think he is a dishonest pollster.

    Parent
    No I don't (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    I don't know much about Zogby except the infamous explanation of why the exit polls in 2004 didn't match the election results.  Sounded pretty dishonest to me.  I don't recall your reasons for disbelieving Zogby, although I read you pretty regularly.

    Without any snark, I ask again, what are your reasons?  Or, if you do not want to spend the time explaining, would you kindly supply a link?

    Thank you.

    Parent

    BTD and Zogby (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    I did a search on this site for "Zogby," and after re-reading about 17 or so of your posts, BTD, I found this from Dec. 30:

    I'll be honest. I do not trust Zogby at all. I believe he manipulates his polls.

    I may well agree with you, I don't know.  I am wondering, what evidence, if any, do you have that Zogby manipulates his polls?  Or is it an intuition, based on his results compared with other pollsters' results, and/or election results?

    Honest polls and honest elections are a critical issue for me, and I hope for everyone else here, too.

    Parent