June 15, 2006
My apologies for the slow rate of posting this week. I had a number of non-blog deadlines all fall within about week's time and they have taken their toll. Among other things, I have not been able to finish my final installment of the RFK Jr./Exit Polls series, but will get to it soon.
Meanwhile, two quick updates on news about polls:
- Charles Franklin updates his Bush job approval rating charts to include new releases from NBC/Wall Street Journal and Fox News. The regression estimate based on all public polls now shows a clear though modest upward trend -- a roughly two percentage point increase since mid-May.
- The RealClearPolitics blog has a noteworthy apology regarding an article they had run earlier this week by MP friend Tom Riehle of RT Strategies. Riehle's article cited survey results from a recent RT Strategies poll to argue that Democrats would be foolish to attack Wal-Mart during the 2006 elections. Riehle inexplicably failed to disclose that the data he cited came from survey questions paid for by a client, a pro-Wal-Mart group known as Working Families for Wal-Mart. A post that appeared earlier tonight on the RealClearPolitics blog apologized for the omission and noted that Riehle has "acknowledged and apologized for the mistake" as well.
Whatever one thinks of polls sponsored by partisans or interest groups, the issue of disclosure is quite simple. Anyone -- pollster or not -- who cites numbers from a poll sponsored by an interest group should disclose the nature of that sponsorship. A pollster who cites numbers paid for by a partisan client, absolutely positively needs to disclose both the sponsorship and their economic interest in it. This is not a close call.
RealClearPolitics deserves credit for posting a speedy and complete clarification and linking to it from a prominent spot on their front page.
"RealClearPolitics deserves credit for posting a speedy and complete clarification and linking to it from a prominent spot on their front page."
I agree. While I disagree with much (not all) of the political analysis there, it certainly is a site I respect.
As for the always excellent Prof. Franklin, he notes that in addition to being a small change since mid-May, it is both an 'end of bottoming' and too early to say much else. This is hardly a bounce and anything less than 40 is just dreadful. But that's boring old news, so we've stopped saying so. That doesn't make it any less dreadful.
Based on everyone's work on this, it appears to me that the poll drifts are wavering Republicans who might come home but might not stay home, especially if and when violence in iraq continues. Therefore, the significance, if any, of a two point change is unclear.
But Fox sure is a volatile poll compared to, say NBC/WSJ.
Posted by: DemFromCT | Jun 18, 2006 2:45:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.