Research 2000 gets the "Zogby Award" 2008

There's a post by Markos made while I was on vacation-- basically a chest-thumping post of his about how right Research2000 was for the GE match-up in his tracking poll.

Markos points out that I was one of the detractors of the Research 2000 poll, but unfortunately for his pointed finger, everything I pointed out that was flawed in the poll turned out to be the case:

To believe the Research2000 prediction for 2008, you have to believe that latinos & blacks will vote in equal numbers to their populations as whites do, that Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 9% and Independents/Refused will be nearly 40% of the voting day population, and to assume that older people (60+) are going to be less of the voting population (even though the trend says they will be more).

*R2K said voters above 60 years of age would comprise 22 percent, I said higher, and it was at least 24 percent.

*R2K poll said blacks and Latinos would be 27 percent of the electorate, I said lower, and it turned out to be 22 percent.

*R2K projected that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 9 percent, I said lower, and it turned out to be 7 percent.

*R2K projected that Independents/refused would numbered 39 percent, I said lower, and it turned out to be 29 percent.

But all that said, Research2000, amidst their weeks of showing it a 11-12% race, put in two days of McCain only having a 4% lead in the final four tracking days, for a 51-46 final projection, which wasn't too bad, being off by a little less than 2 percent. But even Markos didn't believe his own poll, predicting a Obama win by 9 percent. So, I will give R2K the "Zogby Award" for 2008. This is the award that goes to the pollster that, given the final result, is consistently off until the final days before the election, when they poll to make it more in line with the other poll projections. So congratulations, Markos, on your R2K success.

Tags: Research 2000 (all tags)

Comments

61 Comments

Ok

Hmmm.

What was the point of this?

by PSUdan 2008-11-20 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

There was none.

by Jess81 2008-11-20 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

nevermind, just markos and i having some funfill jabs. its our own meta stuff that spills over from obnoxious and funny emails we send eachother.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 06:20AM | 0 recs
OK, then...

Thanks for letting us in on the joke. Sometimes, Markos does need to be brought back down to earth. hehe ;-)

by atdleft 2008-11-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Excellent response, Jerome!

Yeah, as you probably know, I was following this in my diary(ies), and I was wondering when I'd see this "counter-jab!"

I guess Markos'll have to shop somewhere other than  Kmart for polling services for the next cycle! LOL!

Ya' get whatcha pay for...

What I tell all my clients:


"You want it well done? You want it cheap? You want it fast? Pick any two!"

Clearly, Markos opted for fast and cheap! And, with Zogby's "seal of approval," you only get to pick two out of two options! LOL!

Yeah...smack his butt! ROFLMAO!

by bobswern 2008-11-20 06:52AM | 0 recs
Better funfill jabs, please

It's not like R2K didn't do a flock of state polls as well, both for the Presidential race and for Senate and whatnot.  How'd they do with those?  (That's an honest question - I haven't looked.)

If you're going to equate R2K with Zogby, then do your homework.  Zogby sucks across the board.  I've yet to see any evidence that the same is true of R2K.

by RT 2008-11-20 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

Ahh, ok.

I thought you were genuinely criticizing him and that you guys actually had a falling out, which would be unfortunate.

Now that I know you guys are messing each other, I get it. Now I can appreciate the point.

by PSUdan 2008-11-20 07:26AM | 0 recs
We are all regressives now

When this thread plays out, it will be time to discuss the 2006 polling and so on.

by Ottnott 2008-11-20 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok

I think the point is that Jerome is intent on looking like an ignorant and bitter man in public.

To claim that a completely transparent poll with its unaltered internals fully on display was somehow "cooking its books" is, frankly, ridiculous.

by Justin Alexander 2008-11-21 08:59PM | 0 recs
Cat fight

Netroots blogger cat fight!

by newms 2008-11-20 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Cat fight

When I think "blogger cat fight", I think of lolcats and pictures of pets.  This is something far beneath that.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-20 06:19AM | 0 recs
Ouch!

Go Jerome!

by Scan 2008-11-20 06:02AM | 0 recs
Research 2000

Very petty posting. Guess you guys aren't friends anymore.

by dtaylor3 2008-11-20 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Research 2000

lol, I let him know you feel that way.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Research 2000

Ha!

by dtaylor3 2008-11-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Research 2000 gets the "Zogby Award"

Surprising that you couldn't make a better case against the accuracy of R2K tracker.  Candidly, the fact that you were relegated to making these ticky-tacky points about the cross-tabs speaks well for the poll.

One of the good things that they did was air all of the dirty laundry of their cross tabs.  You point to cross-tabs that were 2, 2, and 5 points off.  On the racial breakdown, R2K nailed AA turnout, but overestimated Hispanic turnout.  The only point you make that is compelling is the independents/refused cross-tab, which always seemed incongruously high and ended up being so.

Also, the tracker fell down into the 5-8 point range well before the election, and so it did not fall in line at the last minute like many of the others, including Zogby.  On balance, the poll did pretty well.  The comparison to Zogby is not fair.  I suspect that if you had access to the cross-tabs of most other polls, you would come up with much better fodder to attack the poll.  

One thing that HAS been refuted is your prediction that turnout by party affiliation would be roughly even, with perhaps a small +2 or so edge to the Democrats.  R2K's +9 was much closer than your prediction.

by SpideyDem 2008-11-20 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Research 2000 gets the "Zogby Award"

Jerome's whole post reads like its so obvious how flawed the poll was. Off by 2 points and that's bad?? Is that a joke? Even off by 5 isn't that bad.

And the funniest part was Jerome saying, "I guessed higher/lower" as if its a fair comparison to make between a pollster who must make an actual numerical guess and Jerome who gets to say whether he thinks something will be higher or lower. It pretty damn easy to choose between higher and lower and pretty damn near impossible to get the number exactly right.

As for the independent/ refused number, which you correctly point out is the only legit point he makes in the post, it wasn't that bad either. That number included "refused" meaning that people did not say what party they belonged to. Perhaps they refused to answer that question before the election, but after going in and voting for mostly dems/ reps, they had no problem answering the question in the exit poll.

Overall, Jerome's argument is shit. Zogby is a bad pollster with wildly inconsistent poll results. R2K had a slight Dem house effect, but that's it. Its cross-tabs were fairly on the mark, i doubt many pollsters came so close in many of them.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-11-20 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Research 2000 gets the "Zogby Award"

Your comments are ironic given the way you're cherry picking what was wrong in the R2K sample and ignoring or dismissing everything that was right -- including the accuracy of the last poll.

You're making a whole lot out of being two points off a number of groups, which is unusual given that the margin of error in polling is 3 points and higher in subsamples.

Lumping blacks and latinos together to ignore how the black sample was just 1 point off is also pretty conspicuous. The same goes for independents.

by Nautilator 2008-11-20 06:06AM | 0 recs
oh man.

By god, I'm going to be right about something this year!!!

actually, R2k wasn't far off at all.  They were much closer than, say, IBD/TiPP, at least until that poll decided to mysteriously jump 8 points on the last day.

by Jess81 2008-11-20 06:07AM | 0 recs
True...

But Rasmussen still gets the prize for being the closest tracker. For all our past complaints (I'm even guilty as charged!), they nailed the final party ID breakdown (D+7) & came within 1% of Obama's margin of victory (Ras had O+6, the final results look like O+6.7).  

by atdleft 2008-11-20 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: True...

Wrong, CNN had it at 53-46 which is going to be the final margin. Nate/R2k/Ras were very close though.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-20 01:04PM | 0 recs
That wasn't a tracking poll

He said the best tracker, not the best poll.

by Davidsfr 2008-11-20 06:49PM | 0 recs
Congrats to you too Jerome

Your pessimism and doomsday scenarios for the Obama campaign for the last year were downright prophetic.

You said that you only supported Hillary because you were pragmatic and simply thought she was more electable. But you never wasted an opportunity to bash Obama during the course of the campaign for his every move. You are so full of it.

by ChrisG7 2008-11-20 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Congrats to you too Jerome

Yes, I still remember JA's post during the primary about how Obama had no path to winning the electoral college.  

And the one about Obama being the worst Democratic candidate since...

Didn't see that Indiana pickoff coming, did ya fella?

by SpideyDem 2008-11-20 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Congrats to you too Jerome

It's difficult to say how the election would have played out absent a) the financial meltdown, which didn't occur until September and b) the Caribou Barbie meltdown as Palin became exposed.   Remember, McCain was leading in the polls through the summer and the bounce and counterbounce of the conventions were still playing out when the financial meltdown hit.  

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-20 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Congrats to you too Jerome

McCain was not leading in the polls through the summer.  Obama led every day from mid-April through September 6, when McCain took the lead while basking in the glow of Palinmania.  Obama re-took the lead on September 18 and never looked back.  

It is not hard to tell what would have happened without Palin.  On August 28, when Palin was announced, Obama was rising in the polls and had just made a historic and incredibly well-received speech at the Convention.  The next day, the announcement of Sarah Palin took that event from the news.  For a few days, Obama continued to do well as the Palin choice was ridiculed, but still the speech and the Convention was erased from memory.  Then Palin's performance at the Convention turned it around for McCain and by the end of the next week, McCain was in the lead.  McCain took the lead because of Palin, and not in spite of her.

Had McCain made a more conventional choice for VP like Pawlenty, Obama probably would have broken away right then and there based on the successful Democratic Convention.  The Republican Convention would not have been a dynamic event, and would not have produced a significant counter-bounce.  The Palin Hail Mary bought McCain a couple of weeks of good polling, and then she was exposed and the polling came back down to Earth.  Either way, Obama would have won.

As to the economic crisis, Obama had the momentum before the crisis hit, and the economy was always the number 1 issue even before the crisis.  If the economic crisis had an impact, it was mostly because McCain's response to it was assinine and Obama's was reassuring.  That's what we call a superior candidate.

by SpideyDem 2008-11-20 06:45AM | 0 recs
BS, McCain was not leading most of the summer

go back and check the polls throughout the summer, maybe he had a small lead in a few of them, like the highly suspect Gallup LV model that had him up by 4 when he was behind by 3 in the RV model.

by Davidsfr 2008-11-20 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Congrats to you too Jerome

Actually, I don't remember McCain leading in the polls through the summer. Nobody else seems to remember that either. Pollster.com doesn't seem to remember it either.

by Justin Alexander 2008-11-21 09:03PM | 0 recs
gets the "Zogby Award" 2008

Hehehe... Jerome, I do believe you stirred up a Kossack nest.

by Vox Populi 2008-11-20 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: gets the "Zogby Award" 2008

Nah, we're all regulars here.

by Jess81 2008-11-20 06:16AM | 0 recs
What can you expect?

When Markos is trying to boost the MOST FLAWED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE EVAHHH!!!!1!

by JJE 2008-11-20 06:13AM | 0 recs
Kos did start the catfight

but R2k's transparency so that people like Jerome could parse its crosstabs, and the results of their polls give Kos' arguments the edge here.

Survey USA had wacko crosstabs on racial demographics in many states, but whose bottom lines were seen as the gold-standard through this election. Call them out too.

by magster 2008-11-20 06:17AM | 0 recs
sour grapes

So R2K's demographic breakdowns were off by a few points. Big deal. So Ds outnumbered Rs by 7 instead of 9. You're conveniently omitting the fact that your predictions/expectations/personal biases were much further from reality than the demographic breakdown of the R2K tracker. I seem to remember you writing a lot of diaries insisting that the party ID breakdown would be the same as 2004, i.e., roughly equal numbers of Rs and Ds. And throughout the campaign, you were among the most pessimistic on Obama's chances. And you repeatedly called the GWU/battleground poll the "gold standard", but they were showing the race much more favorable to McCain than anyone else until very near the end of the campaign, so they appear to be just as deserving of the Zogby award as R2K, if not more so.

This really isn't a whole lot to hang your hat on, considering how many readers you alienated when MyDD became PUMA-ville for a while after Clinton lost the primary. Your writing since the end of the primaries betrayed a palpable desire on your part for Obama to lose, so you could say I told you so. Get over it, man. Obama knew what he was doing, you were way off base about his chances. He won states Hillary probably couldn't have, like VA, NC, CO and IN, and he won all the big swing states that Hillary won in the primary (OH, FL, PA, and MI), that Clinton supporters argued Obama couldn't win. They were wrong.

So R2K slightly overestimated minorities and Democrats and slightly underestimated old people. Considering how far off-base much of your analysis was, well, if this is what it takes to nurse your damaged ego, then so be it, but will you ever stop sulking? Geez...

by ajpuckett 2008-11-20 06:31AM | 0 recs
Come on...

So no one's allowed to critique Markos any more? Puh-leese. Jerome's just having some fun with R2K's errors. You know, he & Markos are friends. And yes, Daily Kos isn't perfect & MyDD isn't Satan. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-11-20 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Come on...

Of course kos can be criticized. But this critique is lame. And don't get me wrong, I like MyDD and I never stopped coming here during the primaries. But some of the commentary here went a long way toward pushing me from agnosticism on Obama vs. Clinton to full-blown enthusiastic support of Obama ;), right around the time of the VA primary in which I voted.

by ajpuckett 2008-11-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
Remember when

Jerome "reweighed" the R2K internals when he decided they didn't measure up to his standards?

Maybe he'll share his weighs with everyone so we can compare his own assumptions with the final results?

It's kind of funny seeing Jerome crow about R2K being a point or three off in its internal assumptions. And it's funny seeing the weird cherrypicking that allows him to make the poll look worse.

For instance, R2K had the independent sample at 30 percent. It was 29 percent in the exit polls. There was an "other/refused" category in the R2K poll for respondents who, well, refused to state their partisanship. But that's not the same as "independent".

And in the racial category, the bigger question was the white vote, since that would, in large part, determine how well Republicans did. Ethnic and racial minorities were heavily Democratic, whites leaned Republican. And on that front, R2K predicted 72 percent white sample, the final result was 74 percent. Jerome's gold standard, Battleground, thought it would be 77 percent.

Finally, on age, Jerome makes an assumption unsupported by the data (regarding older voters), while ignoring that R2K nailed the youth sample on the dot (18 percent).

In fact, if you look at his gold standard of a poll, Battleground, you'll see that they thought that the over 65 group would be 22 percent of the sample. That group ended up being 16 percent.

So anyone can play, "nitpick the internals of the poll you hate".

Fact is, R2K was one of the top four performers on election night. Of the three polls Jerome held up as the gold standards -- Battleground, Gallup LV, and Rasmussen -- only Ras had a good night. And I bet if we got a chance to look at his demographic slices (which he never made public), we could find plenty to nitpick there as well.

by kos 2008-11-20 06:52AM | 0 recs
p.s.

But even Markos didn't believe his own poll, predicting a Obama win by 9 percent.

That's because I understand there's a thing called a "margin of error", not to mention intangibles, like ground games, that affect the final score.

by kos 2008-11-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
Kmart's having a sale...

...on polling data for the next cycle.

"Offer good while supplies last. Rebate expires 11/4/08."


You want it done well? You want it done cheap? You want it done fast? Pick any two!

Tell me, how do you explain the reality that R2K was one of the most consistent/notorious outliers virtually the entire time you engaged them, except for the final 48-72 hours of their work?

Is this merely a coincidence? A fluke, as it were?

by bobswern 2008-11-20 07:00AM | 0 recs
Here are the

numbers for the poll's entire run. Not only was the poll always within the MoE of the other daily trackers, but it often matched up with the non-trackers (ABC, CBS, etc). And the trendlines all make sense -- tight race, then the financial crisis, and a final rightening in the end as Republicans came home (and you can see it in the daily internal samples).

The poll actually had surprising consistency with Obama's numbers. It was McCain's numbers that moved around a bit, and that was probably due to the poll's large independent sample size. My theory is that many "independents" this cycle were embarrassed Republicans, and as they wrestled with whether to vote for McCain, his numbers fluctuated. In the end, you had the "coming home" effect, and the race tightened. R2K nailed McCain's numbers on the dot. (Okay, off by one-tenth of a percent.)

But that's just a theory. It could all have been just float in the MoE.

I think in four years I'll want results to the tenth of a percent. More fun that way.

by kos 2008-11-20 07:48AM | 0 recs
I don't think this really...

...acts as an answer to my question, however.

If you compare R2K's nos. with most "poll-of-poll" results, up until a few days before the election, R2K was a consistent outlier. (And, in terms of its outlier status, it consistent came in above the avg. general results for Obama, and below the avg. general results for McCain. In other words, there was a definite consistency to R2K's outlier nos. [positioning] and status, too. Some would, and  did, say there was a certain bias in their results, at least until just a few days before the election. The odds of that [consistently high results on an outlier basis for Obama; and consistently low results on an outlier basis for McCain] happening--without bias self-evident in R2K's methodology--on such a consistent basis are pretty astronomical. It's to the point where it appears there was a definitive shift--I am being kind here--in R2K's methodology over the last few days of the campaign.)

And, with 4,6,8 (or more) MOE's, citing that as something that affects this comment/observation seems to be a bit of a stretch. Technically valid, but a stretch, nonetheless.

by bobswern 2008-11-20 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think this really...

Wrong, in the last 2 weeks R2K's numbers were between 5-8 consistently while while gallup and zogby showed vast fluctuation and double digit leads in the same period.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-20 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Remember when

Markos missed the post where they were public:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p 2ZS4mT7aM2Y89fi1Hj0kQg

As I told him, I didn't rewieght either R2K or Gallup in the end, as the former's 'fixed' its outlier and the latter merged its EV and TV models (so they were both wrong).

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 07:21AM | 0 recs
You're saying the internals were wrong

so what part of the internals did you shift? Or did you just randomly change the numbers to suit your own idea of what should've been "right"?

by kos 2008-11-20 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You're saying the internals were wrong

What I'm saying is they zogbyed their poll two out of the four days to not be an outlier.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-11-20 07:57AM | 0 recs
I like it when people don't miince words! n/t

by bobswern 2008-11-20 08:14AM | 0 recs
And that's a serious

accusation without any evidence to prove it.

Look at the internals. R2K didn't change its sample composition one whit. It stayed constant the entire two-month-run, unlike other pollsters who (for better or for worse) were constantly fiddling with composition. If you want to talk about cooking the books, look at the pollsters who suddenly decide to rearrange their sample composition at the last minute.

So what happened? Republicans came home, and Obama bled some independent support. That's it. It's right there in the data, and is fully explainable by 1) history, which always shows partisans coming home, hence last-minute tightening, and 2) the fact that Republican partisan identity was way down this cycle, having moved over to the "independent" category. Some of those lean-R independents, who had remained undecided, came home as well.

Oh, one last thing -- third-party support dried up the last week as well, as YOU yourself (as well as me) had argued would happen.

Nothing too nefarious. With pollsters like Zogby and IBD, who don't bother sharing internals, you have no fucking clue why things shift and move around. Here, with full transparency, the data has the obvious answers.

I mean, compare the last results on 11/4 to the pre-McCain tightening numbers 10/26.

If you want to accuse R2K of cooking its numbers, you'd have to explain 1) why it's not rational for Republicans to come home, 2) for McCain to pick up undecided independent voters, and 3) for people claiming to vote third party to give up that fantasy and vote for one of the two real candidates.

by kos 2008-11-20 08:17AM | 0 recs
the exit polls...

don't reflect the approximate 5% national swing toward McCain in the last week that R2K showed (more like a 1% swing assuming that Obama was up by about 10% on 10/26 per R2K):

Decided in last week (10% of total vote)- O-48, M-48  

Decided in last 3 days (7% of total vote)- O-49, M-48

Not enough people decided in the last week and decisively enough to McCain to move the national numbers by 5% in the last week.

Having said that, a 5% final poll result was probably the most accurate and it was the ground game that squeezed out the last 2% to get it to actual final 7%.

Latino turnout was a significant miss by R2K.  This could be because TX and CA were not competitive and Obama had minimal ground game in these two States.  And/or, we have not figured out how to maximize outreach and GOTV to this community.

by mboehm 2008-11-20 09:39AM | 0 recs
Latino turnout

was down from the primaries, when competitive contests in Texas and California kept interest high. R2K assumed that interest would remain high, but taking California, Texas, and even Arizona off the board probably cost that community several points in support. So yeah, R2K should've probably factored that in. That was the poll's biggest miss.

And you're right -- while R2K had most undecideds swinging McCain, the exit polls had it pretty much 50-50. Then again, in the R2K poll, Dem-leaning constituencies were more solid in their pick than R-leaning ones, so that probably had an effect in how the poll picked up "undecideds". There are so many moving pieces in a poll, when you have that many internal splits with tiny samples and astronomical margins of error, that it could all be statistical noise.

Not to mention that the exit polls themselves are just that -- polls. So who the f' knows. All I know is that looking at the overall picture, R2K did really well and captured all the big trends.

And I also know that if you look at the internals, the final tightening makes sense in a way that can't be explained by simply claiming the poll cooked its numbers.

by kos 2008-11-20 11:10AM | 0 recs
When bloggers attack.

*R2K said voters above 60 years of age would comprise 22 percent, I said higher, and it was at least 24 percent.

Hmm, I seem to recall Markos claiming the 60+ result was lower.  Will look this up.  I'll bet it's the difference between 60+ and 65+.

In the meantime, let me do a little Frist-like diagnosis over a blog.  Anyone else find it curious that Jerome mentions:

1) That this blog is not his primary source of income?

2) That Markos is "chest-thumping" and "pointing fingers"?

3) That the poll Markos paid for, because Markos rakes in so much dough on dKos, deserves to be conflated with a poll many bloggers and especially Markos has disdain for?

Methinks Kos' blogfather has grown a little jealous of the blogchild's success.

by corph 2008-11-20 06:56AM | 0 recs
Here it is:

R2K model for 60+: 22%

Actual result for 65+: 16%.  So the question is how many voters fall between 60 and 65. BRB.

by corph 2008-11-20 07:08AM | 0 recs
older voters

The 60+ age cohort comprised 23% of the total vote per the Edison Mitofsky exit polls (which admittedly might be off).  The 65+ age cohort comprised 16% of the total vote, leaving the 60 to 65 cohort at 7% of the total vote.  

Few care, but there appears to be an anomaly with the 60 to 65 vote.  Obama lost the 60+ vote by 4 and the 65+ vote by 8 (70% of the 60+ vote).  This would mean that Obama won the 60 to 65 vote (30% of the 60+ vote) by 12.  That seems odd and I'm still trying to figure out how that happened, if it is true.  The 60 to 65 age cohort is interesting to keep an eye on because it represents the first wave of Baby Boomers.  The Boomers will continue to have a disproportionate effect on elections for at least the next 20 years.    

by mboehm 2008-11-20 08:02AM | 0 recs
Thanks.

I couldn't find any results on the 60+ demo anywhere.

So, if your poll is correct, R2K was off by one point on the senior demo.  Why Jerome uses this to trash R2K is beyond me.  A victim of confirmation bias, maybe?

by corph 2008-11-20 11:24AM | 0 recs
That was fun to read

Clearly jerome and kos are not best of friends. But i sort of agree with jerome here, R2k was a bit too volatile (like Zogby) in the final stretch. I think that was probably because a) their sample size was small and b) this was their first national tracking poll.

On the other hand, their  state races were okay (except of course Alaska).

by ann0nymous 2008-11-20 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: That was fun to read

R2K had the numbers tighten for the last TWO WEEKS averaging between 5 to 8 (very close to final margin), Zogby had the numbers WINDEN in 3 DAYS (including a day actually having McCain UP one point in the last 5 days!!). there is a big difference.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-20 01:22PM | 0 recs
Faith

Chest thumping aside, I think that for it's flaws in the sample, the R2k poll was the only one that has any sort of a Democratic lean.

For Years, we have been bemoaning the fact that most of the polls we see have the Republican Bias (as they did in this cycle).  What Kos's poll did was to: (a) Force the methodology of the other polls out into the open.  (b) have a poll to counter the Right leaning polls to give the troops hope.  

Every day, if there was an R talking about how McCain was ahead, we could point to a National Poll and brag about Obama.  The methodology was transparent and that was when the McCain bots just grumbled and walked away (the bystanders listened though).  

More than a poll with some Dem bias built in, it became a flag to rally under that could chip at the VRWC and the MSM theme of how the race was such a 'tossup'.  It gave the undecided an unbiased faith in our candidate. It gave it a national counter punch to the MSM themes.

by NvDem 2008-11-20 07:33AM | 0 recs
Did you two just get together at the begining

of the primary and flip a coin to decide who'd get to be the devil's advocate(support Clinton) and you lost?

by Skex 2008-11-20 08:02AM | 0 recs
Markos, you did good well with R2K
We who thought in the spring and summer thought that it would be a close election and base would be most important for turnout, ate our crow..
You can read it into who We are...
by louisprandtl 2008-11-20 08:42AM | 0 recs
Say Jerome

how the hell do you know how "off" R2K was in the days preceding the election?  Could it not simply have been tracking late deciders or vacillators?

As far as I know, they didn't tweak their methodology just before election day.

by corph 2008-11-20 11:27AM | 0 recs
If R2K gets the "Zogby" Award...

...the Jermoe certainly gets the "Rich Lowry" 2008 award for "massive failure to predict presidential races without letting your own biases get in the way".

After all, according to Jerome, Obama couldn't win, he was the "worst nominee in a decade".

Then after Obama won by an extremely comfortable margin, Jerome disappeared for days. Only to return and let everyone know that blogging just ain't that important, ya know?

But hey, when you insult the intelligence of your audience, your audience goes elsewhere. As evidenced by the fact that it now takes only one single rec to get a diary on the rec list.

I'd say all my pissing and moaning about Jerome will probably get me banned, but seeing as how posters here can post racist comments without repercussion, you don't think I'd get banned just for being honest, do you?!?!  ;-)

by John in Chicago 2008-11-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
Jerome is a piece of shit

Jerome rooted against Obama, now he's picking fights with Kos. He's not even a Democrat. I think he should go run Alegre and Texas Darlin's crap blogs for them.

I would shame rec this garbage if I could.

Jerome, stop acting like a 12 year old with a skinned knee!

by blue2008 2008-11-21 06:38AM | 0 recs
Jerome: jackass

Shame recced!

by blue2008 2008-11-21 06:39AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads