After 5 or so years of lurking, and less than a year of having an account, I'm finally posting my first diary! Yay!
So anyway, pollster John Zogby came to my school (located in upstate New York, near Zogby's home base of Utica) today as he always does every semester to talk politics, namely about Obama's first days in office. Zogby is known amongst the blogosphere (at least the left side of it) for his notoriously inaccurate polls, as documented in this 538 post from today and this diary from earlier today. I had to attend this talk for a political science class entitled Survey Research Methods. I knew about Zogby's infamy, but didn't know what to ask him until seeing his poll today putting Obama at a 50% approval rating.
Of course, if you read Nate Silver's takedown of Zogby previously posted, you'll see why this is fishy. So I posted in the thread asking for help asking questions and got a few responses. Using Nate's post, I came armed with questions to grill Zogby.
Zogby was introduced (the introducer, I believe, was Curt Smith, a former Bush I speechwriter and professor at the University) as (I'm paraphrasing here) "being despised by both political extremes". Indeed, one of Zogby's first remarks was to compare us Kossacks (and Freepers as well) to "fetal alcohol babies with nothing to do between 1 and 5 AM". (This is pretty much a direct quote, although he didn't call blogs out by name.) He began by discussing the poll and how he counts "fair/poor" rating as disapproval of the president's job. He said that the country was split about his performance, although his approval rating was twice that of the national Republicans. He argued that Obama was elected by appealing to centrists with a bold vision for the country and with the goal of breaking the polarization of the political parties with regards to all issues (with the exception of global warming, according to him)...
He went on to state that the euphoria created in the wake of Obama's inauguration disappeared when Obama designated the shaping of the economic stimulus package to "hyper-partisan" Democrats in Congress (which we all know from Harry Reid's performance alone is a steaming pile of bullshit) who loaded it with earmarks. He did note that Republicans were just as guilty when it came to earmarks, and that they made more mistakes than Obama has in his first two months in office by just "saying" no to his policies. Zogby noted that Obama suffers from high expectations and that he gets a 6-month period of goodwill. The "decline" in his approval ratings (Zogby had him at 52% after his inauguration) was gradual, because (according to Zogby) people want a problem-solver and Obama wasn't really solving problems. While he did state that it was too early to judge Obama, he noted that tonight's press conference (at 8 PM Eastern) was important to improve his public standing. If he can set concrete, realistic goals during it, he can rebound. That being said, he needs to be bipartisan and extend an olive branch to the Republicans, who he needs to help pass his agenda (again, we know that this is bullshit; he's tried and the Republican Party has no interest in helping him succeed). He did note that the Republican Party needs to cooperate with him for THEIR survival as well. With redistricting on the line, they need to do well in the 2010 mid-term elections or risk becoming irrelevant, since they can't win with Limbaugh fans alone.
That was the basic content of his speech. Then came the question-and-answer portion, and my hand quickly shot up. I was a bit nervous (this was my first time really confronting a public figure like Zogby--I've talked to Stephen Colbert and Barack Obama himself in friendly situations and this was far more intimidating) and so I spoke fast at first. In retrospect I also should have not worn my Stanford shirt (gotten to impress my friend who goes there). I rattled off the statistics that Nate Silver posted and asked whether or not he was aware that his internet polls violated the principle of random sampling that is essential to good survey design, and wondered how we can take his internet polls seriously considering that they violate this principle (with terrible results, as should be expected).
He was quite taken aback, as he paused for a second or two before answering. He told me to grab a pen and write down what he was about to tell me, for I was "horribly misinformed" about his polls.
According to Zogby, he recruits panelists for his online polls by placing ads on political websites such as Daily Kos as well as from large lists of consumers his company purchases (Geico was one company he cited). He has 1.1 million online panelists with 30-40 data points per panelist. Panels are equal with regards to demographics and weighted towards likely voters, 91% of whom have internet access (higher than the 60%-70% of the adult population that has internet access). He typically invites 50,000-100,000 panelists to participate in a poll. He then told me that with regards to random sampling "if they're teaching you about its value in class, you need to transfer." (paraphrasing here) He claimed that he weighted the polls and that the results were fairly representative of the general population. He claimed that the argument made by blogs as 538.com (which he doesn't read) that the polls could be gamed is a "lie"; that it is impossible to game his online polls. Only 1% of the panelists take six or more of his polls a year; a majority (98%, from his descriptions) take 2-3 polls a year. The panelists are not invited to take all polls, and they can only take a specific poll once. He claimed that Zogby International was ranked #1 in national polling accuracy, and highlighted his technology that allowed him to poll states. He admitted to his numbers not always being right, but that "we get them out for discussion" and that his polling technology was "cutting-edge". He also told me to disregard his 2008 performance in specific states as the last polls he did on the state level were done October 16.
His seeming anger at my disputing the promotional materials' claim that he was "America's top pollster" quieted me and so I didn't say anything more. He made a few more derisive references to me (such as saying that the ones who complain the loudest about his polling cite the most statistics "with a snap of their fingers"). In retrospect, I should have mentioned today's CBS News poll showing Obama with a 64% approval rating and asked him why his results for Obama's approval ratings were lower than the national average (according to Pollster.com) of 58.4%. But he would have probably spouted off about the "cutting-edge" nature of his polls. I have a feeling that like most people of influence he possesses an inability to admit wrongdoing or error--look at all our politicians (sans Obama), for example. (Obama is the rare power figure who admits to his mistakes, which is why I like him so much.) Hence why he was so angry at me.
After my question he went on to answer some other questions. Highlights included him admitting that "Rush Limbaugh likes my polling" (in response to a question about who has the real power in the Republican Party), that prosecuting Bush II Administration officials for war crimes would be "political suicide" since it would further "polarize the nation" as the Clinton impeachment did, some more blather about Obama needing to be bipartisan and stand up to the "hyper-partisans" in both parties, and that Sarah Palin was "a compelling political persona" (in response to a question about her national political future), which his wife vehemently disagrees with him about.
Overall it was an interesting experience, and I now have experience in confronting major public figures. The President's press conference is now on (which shows you how long it took to write this diary!), so I'll wrap it up here and add a poll. Thanks for reading!