Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
October 2014
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Massachusetts Conservatives Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly

Mass Video Blogs Catch of the Day Video

Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Hester Prynne
Mass Marrier

Non-Partisan Massachusetts Blogs
Preti Minahan
Mass Politics Profs

Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Worcester Herald

Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy
WGBH.org's "The Scrum"
WGBH's Adam Reilly
WGBH's "Beat The Press">
WGBH's "Greater Boston">
David Bernstein at Boston Magazine
NECN's "Broadside: with Jim Braude"

National
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State





This Week in Polling: Memo-ries Past and Biased Attacks.

by: Vincent Errichetti

Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 20:10:49 PM EDT


(Foreword: I am a Baker supporter, but I am also a fair scientist. We must hold everyone to the same standards, lest we act like Democrats)

If the Baker Campaign and their pollster, POS, want to refuse the Suffolk University Poll, it is disingenuous to just release a memo. They should release their cross tabs, weights and methodology to the media; the same standard they would demand of any other poll reported as news.

To my knowledge, POS has refused to do so. This makes the validity of their numbers suspect. A good scientist is never afraid to defend their work by releasing their data. A good scientist is also not afraid to be proven wrong if it means they will learn something. And yes this works both ways, but that conversation cannot occure if one side is afraid and only releases a memo......

In addition to this, POS has a history of releasing internal polling numbers that turnout to be less than consistent with Election Day results. In 2006, Tim O'Brien stated that Kerry Healey was within single digits of Deval Patrick.  She lost by 21%. Michael Graham was even on the record as suspect.   http://www.bostonherald.com/bl...

Even still, I only bring it up to clearly illustrate a pattern of behavior, not to shade quality of work. Work can be judged based on methodology, if and when it is ever released.

Beyond this, campaigns need to be likeable. Everyone on a campaign directly represents the candidate.

If Tim O'Brien thinks the best way to represent the Baker Campaign and refute an independent media poll is to release a comment demeaning Suffolk University's polling, and David Paleologos' methodology, he may need more than a history lesson.

Tim O'Brien may need a math lesson.

Suffolk University is a school serving as alma mater to roughly 70,000 Massachusetts voters.

No, Suffolk University is not as prestigious as Catholic University. No, it isn't situated in a location that can benefit from having a back yard of Washington, D.C.  In fact, up until ten years ago, Suffolk was mainly a middle class commuter school, attended by people like me, because we could afford it.

The fact is; polls are snap shots. No one knows which poll is right or wrong, with certainty, until Election Day. But if you are going to directly attack one poll, with your own, you have to be willing to put up or shut up.  

To take a cheap shot and run away is the act of a coward, and makes you look suspect.

But to act arrogant or dismissive simply because you do not like the results, and to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself, well that is defined by one word.      Hypocrisy.

I hope this explains my position, and why it matters that we are fair.

PS Spending time debating polling, in terms of who is right and wrong, is a waste of time and energy. Focus on campaigning, and the poll numbers will take care of themselves.

Vincent Errichetti :: This Week in Polling: Memo-ries Past and Biased Attacks.
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Baker's Weak Polling (0.00 / 1)
Suffolk University polling is the same polling source that predicted Scott Brown's win. Now, the same people who cheered on that poll are trashing this one.

They were aided by Howie Carr who continued to hype Baker's bogus poll.

Face it Charlie Baker is a terrible candidate and that is accurately reflected in the Suffolk University Poll.


We've got a great candidate for a president. (0.00 / 0)
Too bad he sucks at governing.

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld


[ Parent ]
Suffolk's track record (5.00 / 1)
SUPRC wrote  a response as well.

Somethings really wrong with his NJ defense (0.00 / 1)
Sorry David. I like you, I respect you. But if to make your point you need to invent your own facts there is something wrong.

At the time of our poll we were certainly not alone with our numbers - 7 out of the 10 polls taken during that same period also showed Corzine winning, including Zogby, Rutgers, Quinnipiac, and Democracy Corps, to name a few.  It is possible that Corzine did lead 10 days prior to the election, before the Chris Christie wave hit.

That is just not true.

From Real Clear Politics the most comprehensive listing of election polls I've found, for the 11 polls including the 5 most previous to yours, and the 5 immediately after yours.  Corzine led in four of the 11.  Your poll at +9 poll was far and away the outlier.  Two polls showed Corzine with a 3 point lead and one showed Corzine with a 5 point lead.  

Daily Kos/R2000    10/26 - 10/28    600 LV    42    41    14    Christie +1
Fairleigh Dickinson    10/22 - 10/28    694 LV    41    39    14    Christie +2
Rasmussen Reports    10/26 - 10/26    1000 LV    46    43    7    Christie +3
Quinnipiac    10/20 - 10/26    1267 LV    38    43    13    Corzine +5
PPP (D)    10/23 - 10/26    630 LV    42    38    13    Christie +4
Suffolk University    10/22 - 10/25    400 LV    33    42    7    Corzine +9
SurveyUSA    10/19 - 10/21    674 LV    41    39    19    Christie +2
Democracy Corps (D)    10/20 - 10/21    604 LV    39    42    13    Corzine +3
Rutgers-Eagleton    10/15 - 10/20    583 LV    36    39    20    Corzine +3
Rasmussen Reports    10/19 - 10/19    750 LV    41    39    11    Christie +2
Monmouth/Gannett    10/15 - 10/18    1004 LV    39    39    14    Tie


Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
You didn't include Zogby? And you Cherry picked. (0.00 / 0)
Fairleigh Dickinson was a tracking poll, you took only part of it, the final was:

Fairleigh Dickinson*   10/22 - 11/1      1119 LV 41 43 8    Corzine +2

And while I like Real Clear Politics alot, they dont include every poll.

But nice try trying to change the topic from Opinion Dynamics and POS not releasing their cross tabs, while critisizing someone else's credibility.

Either judge everyone equally or not at all.

Like how consistent Kerry Healey's internal polling was.  


[ Parent ]



Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox