Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Obama's Trip Bounce: Media Obsession With Polls Leads To A Bad Case Of Premature Pontification
By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services
Isn't it strange that Barack Obama didn't get a bounce from his wildly
well-received overseas trip? Oh wait, maybe he did. But, hey, it was
just a small bounce. Or was it more of a bump? Perhaps a bouncelet? A
hop? A ricochet? A swelling? Or was it a rash? In which case, if it
persists for more than two weeks, should he see an electoral
professional, or just declare victory?
Of course, almost all of this analysis is based on polls taken before the end of Obama's trip -- a serious case of premature pontification.
But that didn't stop many in the media from weighing in, building edifices of soaring opinion on the shakiest of data.
By July 23 , four days before the end of the trip, U.S. News and World Report's Michael Barone had seen enough to render his bounce-analysis: "The assumption among most observers seems to be that Barack Obama will get a bounce in the polls from his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Middle East, and Western Europe. But it's not apparent in the polls that have come in to date."
He doesn't say who the "most observers" are that made this "assumption." And while he cites several polls and lets us know that he puts "more weight on the Rasmussen poll," he doesn't say why. Perhaps he likes that Rasmussen polls "likely voters" while others, such as Gallup, poll "registered voters." He does however advise: "Stay tuned. I don't think the voters' decision-making process is complete yet." I'll make a note of that.
Fox News' poll, meanwhile, taken over the two days Obama was in Jordan and Israel, revealed that "the significant news coverage Barack Obama is receiving on his foreign trip has not translated into a bounce in his numbers." You can hear their disappointment in every word, can't you? This lack of bounce translation (perhaps it was done by Maliki's interpreter) was based on 900 registered voters willing to answer the phone and talk to Fox's pollsters "in the evening."
Over at Time, also four days before the trip was over, Joe Klein bypassed the question whether Obama did or didn't get a bounce -- why bother, it had already been decided by the conventional wisdom board of directors that he didn't -- and got right down to laying out the theories of why he didn't:
"Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama's foreign trip -- a slam-dunk success substantively and in photo-op terms (Obama laughing with Petraeus in the helicopter was the best) -- hasn't resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too . . . presumptuous and voters are wary of that."
Klein doesn't buy the conventional wisdom explanation (trip was presumptuous) of why the conventional wisdom about the trip (no bounce) was right. He's got an unconventional explanation of why the conventional wisdom is right:
"People may be thinking, what on earth is Obama doing over there when we have so many problems back home? Why isn't he talking about the economy?"
Perfectly reasonable -- if Obama didn't get a bounce. But not if he did. Comparing two sets of daily tracking polls -- Rasmussen and Gallup -- taken before Obama's trip started and (hey, here's a novel idea) after the trip actually ended, we see that Rasmussen shows a gain of 5 points for Obama, while Gallup shows a gain of 7. Doesn't that sound like a bounce to you?
Media insiders now talk about polling brands the way average Joes talk about their favorite beer. "My producer is a Quinnipiac person, but I'm more into Gallup." I suppose if they married, they'd have to raise the kids CBS/
Not surprisingly, most journalists' favorite polls are the ones that legitimize their favored campaign narrative -- which they've often simply pulled out of their Rasmussen.
After all, nothing is more fun for journalists -- and better for ratings -- during campaign season than constantly changing the narrative: "Obama is up!" "McCain is surging!" "Obama is coming back!"
Fortunately for the new-narrative seekers, polls in America have the shelf life of bread in France. They get their freshly baked daily baguettes; we get our freshly baked daily polls.
And now we even have superpolls -- polls of polls. The CNN Poll of Polls has Obama with a lead of 44 to 41. The Real Clear Politics poll average has Obama leading 46.7 to 41.7. And pollster.com has him up 44.7 to 41.5.
Maybe what we need is a Huffington Post Poll of Polls of Polls, which will have a margin of error of plus or minus pi divided by Schrodinger's cat.
In about 13 weeks, the only poll that really matters will be taken -- among 142 million registered voters, and not 900 people so bored with life they are willing to interrupt their dinner to talk to a pollster.
But until then, since the media will no doubt continue to subject us to day after day of polling results and highly suspect analysis, can they at least make it clear precisely what kind of polling data they are basing their analysis on? What is the response rate on the poll? Is it a poll of "likely voters" or "registered voters"? What is the breakdown of Democrats, Republicans and independents?
I'm fine with people using polls as an amusement or as a fun way to start a dinnertime conversation, but to run around making grand statements based on dubious data is the height of foolishness. It's beyond time to break the cycle.
========
Arianna Huffington's e-mail address is arianna@huffingtonpost.com.
(c) 2008 Arianna Huffington. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
This news arrived on: 07/31/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
08-06-2008 03:50
ed wrote:
Best set of emails I have read to date. I too don't understande why anyone whould vote for Obama.
08-01-2008 22:30
Pitbull wrote:
Obama the messiah
Why would anyone vote for this lightweight socialist? He does NOT stand for change. He's just another left wing twit and will be a disaster if elected. In Europe he didn't even sound like someone running for President as much as for secretary general of the U.N.
08-01-2008 12:44
Chris wrote:
Obamania
Obama-siah and his faithful followers (the media) are desperately trying to convince us of the need for the changes he has in mind. Truthfully speaking, they are dangerous. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily good, and hope founded upon empty promises is no hope at all.
Obama is at best naive and at his worst a one world government socialist, as evidenced by his effort to rob the US taxpayers for the sole purpose of slopping the hogs at the UN. The intention is to end world poverty. While it sounds noble, the end result is disastrous. Redistribution of wealth does not make the poor richer. It only makes the rich poorer and punishes diligence while rewarding laziness. In this case, international redistribution of wealth will only fill the coffers of two-bit dictators while keeping their subjects in slavery and want.
Obama is at best naive and at his worst a one world government socialist, as evidenced by his effort to rob the US taxpayers for the sole purpose of slopping the hogs at the UN. The intention is to end world poverty. While it sounds noble, the end result is disastrous. Redistribution of wealth does not make the poor richer. It only makes the rich poorer and punishes diligence while rewarding laziness. In this case, international redistribution of wealth will only fill the coffers of two-bit dictators while keeping their subjects in slavery and want.
08-01-2008 11:45
hosea wrote:
two things
According to God's true word the people chose to have humans instead of God as their government, and God allowed this to happen, only to show them how foolish they all were. If we were to let God run the show, the most likely first thing He would do is bury all the lying politicians in the same hole with Satan. The second thing is that if it is about race then there should not be an election period. If you are a citizen of the United States you are an American, Not and African American, Mexican American, Chinese American etc. etc. etc. Jesus plainly proved that anything divide against itself cannot stand, so if we choose not to be just plain Americans then there really and truly is very little need for an election since we are already doomed in the eyes of God.
08-01-2008 10:12
Dawn wrote:
Obama
How dear you compare Obama to Jesus and how God brought him back, that paragraph angers me more then anything I have read in two years. God is not ordaining Obama and Obama is not even remotely close to being like the Son of God, as far as I am concern you are boarding on blaspheme and should be ashamed of yourself for the comparison. I am a true believer of the Bible and God would never condone anyone who wants to opress people with socialism.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Arianna Huffington ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
Body Mass
