Dan Hirschhorn at PA2010 points to some more detailed data about the questionable poll on the PA-8 Congressional race commissioned by the SEIU and far-left VoteVets.org, claiming that the data show the poll’s results are “more than kosher.”
Now I’m not sure what “more than kosher” is, but if this poll is an example of “more than kosher” polling, I think I’ll pass on it. What Hirschhorn finds “more than kosher” is actually pretty much the textbook definition of “push polling.”
I’m not sure if Dan actually read the information he linked to or if he feels he has an interest in going to bat for this poll because he originally published the results as fact, but doubling down on what is obviously a push-poll even after reading the questions and methodology is incredibly odd.
First, no reputable public opinion poll works from a sample culled from a voter list. None. Reputable public opinion polls work from totally random sample.
Second, no reputable public opinion poll gives biased takes, either favorable or unfavorable, on a candidate’s position on issues and then asks a respondent how troubling or convincing it is. None.
Third, no reputable public opinion poll just accepts that they wound up with a respondent group that doesn’t accurately reflect the makeup of the target group and then uses that flaw to convince you the poll’s results are even more extra-special great news for a candidate (“if anything this survey skews a bit more conservative than the overall electorate.”). In my polling days, we would continue calling for days just to get that one married female between the ages of 30 and 40 who made under $50,000 a year and lived in a specific ZIP code that we needed to make our results accurately reflect the community because that’s what you do to get accurate polling results.
Fourth, common sense. 14 point leads don’t turn into 5 point deficits in 5 days unless a candidate is found screwing an under-aged boy in the back seat of his limo and beating a dog with an aborted baby while doing blow off a hooker’s back.
19-point swing in five days? “It’s legit!”
Here’s how the push-poll works:
The pollster reads from a list of reasons you should vote for Patrick Murphy and asks you to rank them in order of their importance. No reasons you should vote for Fitzpatrick are presented.
Then the pollster reads from a very short list of Murphy criticisms (each respondent hears only two) and asks you to rank how troubling each is. This is the dupe question, to assure voters that this is an actual poll and not a campaign call.
Then the pollster reads from a laundry list of Fitzpatrick criticisms, asking the voter to rank how troubling the respondent finds it. EACH VOTER HEARS 11 OF THESE.
Here are some “more than kosher” takes on Fitzpatrick’s positions which “aren’t designed to sway respondents one way or another”:
Fitzpatrick wants to do away with
Social Security as we know it. He’d
privatize Social Security and risk our
retirement benefits in the stock market.
Many people already lost their individual
retirement savings because of the stock
market – now Fitzpatrick wants to risk
the only guaranteed retirement benefit
that we have leftEven though we
must stop the outsourcing of American
jobs overseas, Fitzpatrick REFUSES to
end the unfair special tax breaks for big
corporations who out-source our jobs
and hide their profits in secret offshore
accounts
After the laundry list of Fitzpatrick criticisms, the voter is asked “thinking about everything we’ve discussed” who they would vote for.
What’s sad, even considering this, Murphy can only pull a 5% lead among likely voters.
Dan declares: “It’s legit!”
You were duped into publishing the results of a push-poll as fact, Dan. Cut your losses.
Like That? You'll Probably Like These.
- OUSTING MURPHY: Poll Shows Fitzpatrick Ahead By 7%
- SEIU Push Poll Can Only Put Murphy Up Slightly
- Fitzpatrick Bests Murphy By 10% In Latest Poll
- Franklin & Marshall College Poll: Fitzpatrick Leads Murphy By 14%
- Larry Sabato Changes PA-8 To “Leans Republican”
Tagged
Mike Fitzpatrick, PA-8, Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional District, Polling Data5 Responses to “PA2010 Goes To Bat For Questionable Poll”
Comments posted are the opinions of the individual poster and do not reflect the views of Bucks Right. Comments are only moderated to prevent spam. No legitimate opinions are altered for content, although we reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. VALID e-mail address required.
These are my entries on Dan’s site, composed prior to having read yours…and consistent therewith:
http://www.pa2010.com/2010/10/more-on-that-8th-district-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-28213
#
#
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Oct 1st, 2010
This rationalization was composed by relying upon a retrospectroscope, and it is embarrassingly flimsy…particularly when one recalls the presumed sophistication of “Pa2010.” The inherent duty to define what is obvious IN THIS SPECIFIC REGARD [the inserted description of a sponsoring entity as "third-party"] was not honored and, thus, the responsibility to maintain the readers’ TRUST was shirked…raising concern when OTHER postings have not been fact-checked.
There is an obvious contradiction when it is simultaneously recognized it was an “internal” poll–which is OBVIOUS when the entities financing it are noted–and that it still could receive the appellation of having been acquired at arm’s length from the two campaigns.
Therefore, REGARDLESS of the results/methodology, it cannot be portrayed as having been commissioned by a “Third-Party.” And there was no effort to convey the alleged “skepticism” with which it was said to have been met.
Having been given the opportunity to have acquired more information is irrelevant for, at the very least, the INITIAL report should have characterized these two entities…which most EVERYONE knows are hardly neutral.
It is said that “we’re in the business of reporting this [sic] results.” But it is assumed that a politics-oriented site is ALSO in the business of quality self-scrutiny, for the CREDIBILITY of its journalistic professionalism is now ADMITTEDLY flawed.
Therefore, the “clarification” that I repeatedly sought only compounds the error that was committed, for it appears the Editor still doesn’t “get it” for, if nothing else, the non-”junkie” may be unduly swayed by the instant-description of obviously-biased financiers as “third-party.”
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Oct 1st, 2010
Illustrative of how WRONG “Pa2010″ has been, note:
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100930115026.aspx
Here, another psuedo-journalist [Ed Schultz] treats another “Third-Party” poll [by The Nation] uncritically, as legit. The contrast with other polling notwithstanding, the key-concern IN BOTH INSTANCES is that the author be FORTHCOMING instead of simply glossing-over the OBVIOUS.
I know Dan wouldn’t want to be viewed as performing in the same league in which Ed plays, but there is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE in how they performed in THIS INSTANCE. In Ed’s case, it is sadly to be expected when the obvious 180-degree misquote (by Grayson) is being defended. In this case, it is even-more-sadly NOT to be expected when an allegedly-close race is being handicapped.
Dan, confront the essence of your error, if for no other reason than to convey awareness that it won’t be repeated!
I think the obvious sign something is wrong with this poll is that Murphy is the only Dem in America who gains a lead with likely voters. I asked someone whose opinion I respect immensely about this poll. His take was not that it was a push poll but a poll designed to test attacks against Fitzpatrick and also to gain some sense what attacks hurt Murphy. The sample is not representative because it probably was targeting specific segments of voters to find which arguments are most effective. Notice too that they were quite reluctant to release all this information. They were hoping they could put out a memo saying Murphy has a lead and everyone would just buy that.
The poll is probably legit for its purpose – to test arguments. It is highly suspect as a representative sample of the likely voters in PA08 in my opinion. Murphy sorely needed something to swing some momentum his way so he hoped releasing the initial “results” would be enough to create an appearance the race is at least a dead heat. In a poll that shows Obama with 61% job disapproval though, Murphy has a deep hole to climb out of and he knows it. The best thing about this poll though is we get a heads up on what attacks are heading Fitzpatrick’s way and confirmation that tying Murphy with Obama’s agenda is a big winner.
The poll is certainly not designed to be an accurate reflection of the electorate or which way they’re going to vote in November, which is the way it was reported not only by Murphy and PA2010 but also by the Courier-Times. Not one of them mentioned the messaging questions when that was clearly the focus of the poll.
There is nothing – zero – scientifically defensible about the poll’s methodology as it relates to gauging the status of the race between Murphy and Fitzpatrick, and I don’t know how anyone can read the document and the questions and think there is.
I was using the term “push poll” to indicate a poll where one particular outcome is pushed, although I realize that the term in its strictest sense means massive calling where campaign messages are disguised as poll questions. This poll has elements of strict push polling, too, though. It’s half push-poll and half propaganda.
I agree with you completely, there is nothing scientifically defensible about this methodology as a measure of the current state of the race. Excellent point too, that none of the messaging questions were mentioned either.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant with the term “push poll” as well. The person I asked said it wasn’t a push poll per se which is essentially what you describe here. It was clearly not intended to give the respondent the best argument for Fitzpatrick or any argument for Fitzpatrick for that matter. If the race was a dead heat I would certainly rather know but as you mentioned in your next post the analysts aren’t giving this one too much weight, neither should we.
The only poll mentioned at RCP is the only reputable poll that’s ever measured the race:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/pa/pennsylvania_8th_district_fitzpatrick_vs_murphy-1278.html