Polls at this point

[Brian_Expat]

As a market research statistician, I can tell you most of these polls are a joke. Some of them, particularly the CBS ones favoured by the Clark and Kerry folk, are now being put out with a SIX PER CENT MARGIN OF ERROR! That's pathetic.

I mean, with a six per cent margin of error, you're saying:

"Kerry is somewhere between 2% or 14%."

"Clark will lose to Bush by 11% or beat him by 1%."

"Dean will lose to Bush by 12% or lose by 2%."

That degree of confidence in the polls is near-meaningless, and the sample sizes (under 1,000) are much too small.

None of the polls looking at candidates are serious. I mean, does anyone REALLY believe that John Kerry has less support amongst Democrats than Al Sharpton or Carol Moseley Braun? Yet that's exactly what some of these polls are saying.

Also, consider the HUGE disparities between polls being conducted simultaneously. One says that Clark and Dean are tied against Bush. Another says that Clark loses, Dean loses even more. Another shows Dean ahead of Clark by six percent and barely losing to Bush. All were taken at the same time. Which one is right?

Probably none of them.

There are two things to consider when looking at polls:

1) Sample size -- is it large AND representative of the voting population?

2) Margin of error/degree of confidence -- any poll with a larger margin of error than 2 to 3 per cent is utter junk that would get you flunked out of a uni statistics class.

Even better polling services get it wrong. Zogby showed Clinton and Dole "neck in neck" before the 1996 election (where Clinton pasted Dole). Gallup showed Bill Clinton at 25% to Bush's 60% at the time of the Democratic nomination (assuming Perot wasn't in the race). We all know how that went.

[Bucky]

1. Yeah, I've worked in market research too. They're not quite junk, per se

But they're not chiseled in stone either. But I do wanna quibble with one thing you stated.

"does anyone REALLY believe that John Kerry has less support amongst Democrats than Al Sharpton or Carol Moseley Braun"

Other than gender and pigment, I can't imagine why you'd assume that Braun and Sharpton must have less support than Kerry. Each of them pretty consistantly pulls even with or exceeds Kerry's totals across several polls. That should not be taken lightly.

It's important to realize exactly what the survey is asking and what the limitations are of those questions. The question is not "would you be supportive of Candidate X if he or she got the nomination. It's asking who is your first choice among the candidates. Kerry is clearly not doing that well in regard to that particular variable and I don't find it incredible to believe that Mrs Moseley Braun is beating him there.

[Brian_Expat]

2. Most polls I've seen ask. . .

"Who do you support for the Democratic nomination."

If Al or Carol really do have more support than Kerry, it means that money isn't all that important as part of the political process. It also means, based on Kerry's strength in major primaries like NH, IA and SC, that CMB and Al Sharpton must have states where they're the #1 or #2 candidate in order for the overall numbers to balance out.

I find that to be suspicious, that's all.

I love Carol and hope she gets a role in the next Dem administration, too.

[mikehiggins]

3. No doubt

As a long time political guy (volunteer division since 1961) I have no trust left for polls. I can't tell you how many times my guy was leading in the polls and got trounced in the voting booth (I really can't tell you. I'm old and my mind is melting).

As far as I can tell, the only polls that are useful are the exit polls and even they can be tricksy.

I was watching that show with Bob Novak and he made some sort of ludicrous claim about a poll, and Carville made him come out and admit it had an MOE of 8. Even Novak looked embarrassed when he said it.

Ignore polls. Work the streets and phones and stuff envelopes. Wait to see how the votes add up.

Then we'll know.

It won't be long now.