HuffPost and Pollsters: Why We're Just Not That Into Them

Just under two weeks ago, inspired by the polling debacle in New Hampshire, we launched HuffPost's Say "No" to Pollsters campaign with a petition urging people to hang up on the pollsters who, in tandem with those polling addicts in the media who treat poll results as if Moses just brought them down from the mountaintop, are polluting our political environment.

That initial post sparked a heated discussion among our commenters, so I want to take this opportunity to address some of the main questions raised and clarify our editorial policy when it comes to reporting on polls.

But before I do, I want to thank everyone who commented on my post or emailed me your take on the subject. The ability to have this kind of back and forth is one of the things I love most about our site and the blogosphere in general.

The feedback fell into four main lines of discussion:

1) Why this sudden desire to take on pollsters?

Actually, this is nothing new for me. I've been writing and speaking about pollsters (and calling for action against the dominance of polling in our politics) for a dozen years. In that time, I've written some 18 columns and blog posts about the unreliability of polls, and the media's over-dependence on them. I was even invited to address the annual conference of the polling industry to discuss my criticisms. Here is just a partial list of my columns and posts on polling:

Ignoring Iraq: Why Has it Become the Forgotten Issue of the '08 Race? (January 14, 2008)

Premature Prognostication: Presidential Polls Come Two Years Too Soon (December 18, 2006)

Brainstorming in Aspen: Pollsters Pretend That Pols Don't Listen to Polls (June 30, 2006)

Bogus Polls: Meaningless Farce Or Looming Tragedy? (October 06, 2004)

Focusing On Undecided Voters: Not A Very Swift Idea (August 25, 2004)

The 77 Percent Solution (May 07, 2003)

The Pollsters Can't Hear The Silent Majority (November 14, 2002)

Some Things Never Change: The Unbearable Ludicrousness Of Polling (October 18, 2001)

Commissioned Polls: Is That Your Final Answer? (April 20, 2000)

How to Rid Your House of Annoying Pollsters (May 24, 1999)

Pollsters: Margin Of Error Or Credibility Gap? (November 16, 1998)

Investigating The Pollsters (October 12, 1998)

Profiles In Poll-Watching (August 27, 1998)

Hang It Up (May 21, 1998)

Hard Facts And Bogus Poll Results (April 2, 1998)

The Most Admired Man in America: Par for the Course (January 5, 1998)

A Modest Proposal (October 3, 1996)

Oracles And Demographers (April 29, 1996)

2) What about exit polls? Without exit polls, what kind of oversight will the public have on our elections? If we do away with exit polls, what will keep political dirty tricksters from stealing elections?

This campaign isn't directed at exit polls (although it is always troubling how exit polls are misinterpreted by analysts looking for a hot angle or explanation. Remember how the 2004 outcome was falsely portrayed as being a referendum on "moral values"?). But the focus of the Say No to Pollsters campaign is the predictive polls that have come to define and dominate the media's horse race coverage of political campaigns.

This coverage both drives the political discussion and can have a profound effect on a campaign. The sense that a candidate is "tanking" or "on a roll" can make the difference between a potential donor making a contribution or not, and a would-be volunteer deciding whether to give time to a campaign or not. Voters like to back a winner and are reluctant to "waste a vote" on someone who the polls tell us has no chance of winning.

In this way, polls become self-fulfilling prophesies that end up making more likely whatever results they predict while, at the same time, undermining the debate essential to the democratic process.

3) Aren't polls actually more accurate than you give them credit for? Wasn't what happened in New Hampshire an aberration?

There are many reasons to question the accuracy of polls. For starters, thanks to voice mail, answering machines, caller ID, and the desire to avoid telemarketers, response rates have plunged abysmally low -- often dropping below 25%. So more and more people are refusing to take part in polls, raising the question of who are the people not being polled, and how their refusal to respond is distorting polling results.

Yet pollsters, whose craft is all about the power and significance of numbers, ferociously guard their response rates and refuse to publish them. It's long past time that the public -- and the media outlets that rely on polls -- demand that pollsters publish their response rates as a matter of course, as they do sample size, question order, and the time frame over which the poll was conducted.

There is also the matter of that pesky "margin of error" -- a variable that is rarely accurately explained or understood but which, in fact, is more significant than how it is presented. More on this here.

But my main problem with polls is not their accuracy. It's how they are treated by the media, and how they have come to dominate our obsessive minute-by-minute "who's up, who's down; who's hot, who's not" political coverage -- and how this information has become a media crutch, an easy-to-obtain and highly addictive drug that allows reporters to pretend that the latest snapshot of the electorate (however accurate or inaccurate it may be) is real news.

And the poll addicts are more than willing to twist and spin the numbers to get a better story (however misleading it may be). Take the recent Los Angeles Times poll that, according to the page one headline, found "In California, it's Clinton and McCain." Here's the opening of the poll results story: "Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a commanding lead over Barack Obama in California as the Democratic presidential contest heads toward the Feb. 5 primary..." Wow, sounds pretty definitive. (Quick, get those potential West coast donors and bandwagon riders on the line!).

But read on and you discover that, "six in 10 Republican primary voters said they might change candidates in the next three weeks. Among Democrats, four in 10 said they could still change their minds." In other words, the majority of Republicans and nearly half of Democrats really hadn't decided who they'd be voting for. That should have been the headline: "In California, Millions Still Undecided."

4) Does this mean HuffPost will stop reporting on poll results?

No, we will continue reporting them but treat them as lightweight diversions on par with horoscopes and political betting lines.

To this end, we are introducing a new feature today: HuffPollstrology. It will keep you up to date on the latest poll results, along with the candidates' latest horoscope predictions, the latest online political betting lines, and the latest weather forecasts for key primary states (and we know how accurate those often turn out to be!). Pollstrology is a great way to see who is hot and who is not -- and which candidates' stars say they might be lucky in voter love today.

So you can feed your poll habit every day, but in the right context -- the way people who check their horoscopes every day know (unless they've checked their sanity at the door) that they have to take them with a large pinch of salt.

This way, you'll be well-armed with the fun ways to start a conversation that polling and astrology provide: "I hear Hillary is ahead in California... What's your sign? I bet you're a Scorpio."

And If you haven't already, please sign our Say No to Pollsters petition and pass it around to everyone you think would be interested. It could act as a citizens' intervention, forcing the polling junkies in the media to change the way they approach polling.

Comments

[maddashell-womaninj]

I've been crying out to Congress and Bush for 2 years that they demand companies give raises to their employees to help the economy. I've asked Congress to take action themselves with CEO's and Boards of Directors for this purpose. No changes made!I suppose there won't be until Congress is threatened with their very jobs. Our country has got to take a unilateral stand against CEO's and Boards of Directors whose greed has all but toppled our economy. The President and much of Congress is a part of the good ole boys club who has been complicit in the lies, the greed, and I dare say even the stealing Americans blind. Who is it that still believes our country should be run like a corporation? Sure as hell not me. Is anyone listening out there? Is anyone calling and writing to their Congress and to the President, other than me? Come on America. Get real. We're all going to go down because of these rich bastards' greed, and if we do, it will be because Americans sat idly by, doing nothing to stop it. I work for a company that promised excellent raises, excellent bonuses. I've out-performed my colleagues again and again. If you're not on their list of "pretty people" that they specifically want to promote and give raises to, you can kill yourself and it won't matter one iota. They don't even give cost of living raises. Many, many jobs have been given to Mexico and to India. Our CEO has been named the best of the year by a certain Money/fortune magazine. Weighing what a CEO has done for a company is merely based upon the massing of millions of dollars for their bottom line. It's time keeping businesses functioning holistically, meeting the challenges of saving jobs, saving families was valued. Is Congress, the President to be LAST to see the light? We've become sick with riches, determined to lose our souls for the making of the dollar. God help us all to take a stand.

[Political Guy]

I have just been informed by Carville and Begala that the Clintonistas will be gathering in New Hampshire to hold hands and breakout in to a spontaneous cry in protest of the far left media conspiracy and their treatment of Our lady of Experience. Of course, campaign donations will be accepted.

[hardrain77]

Hey, Arianna, why don't you start a "say no to Diebold and ES & S campaign?"

Aren't they WAY more important to get out of out political system than stupid pollsters?

Pollsters don't determine elections, crooked voting machines do.

[nice2blucky]

As usual, beautifully written.

In addition, saving excessive and unwarranted criticism of exit-polling, because of its function as indicator and gauging tool for election outcomes, is important.

Exit polling is somewhat of a last defense, on the side of transparency and accountability, against election fraud, and for this reason it will certainly be a target of election criminals.

[RoseMerry]

So quick to jump on the pollsters. I wonder, what is the result of the New Hampshire recount? Does anyone know? Where is the press when you need them???

Just like, who came in second in the Nevada Democratic caucaues????

[imsosure]

Boring!!!

[janvoght]

i really did not appreciate the mistakes made in regard to racial and gender suggestions. keeping the focus on the vision, and choosing to lead rather than stoop to "old school" political tactics. we need to realize that this countries' future depends urgently on a strong desire to provide hope for keeping the message on how we can work together and build on new energy, reaching for the innovation and creativity that a free country excells in. we need to embrace the entire age demographics paying close attention to those participating in the election process as a new experience. these young men and women have been living with serious concerns regarding their environment, their social security, terror fears, and a government that provides no answers. this is their future they will be voting on...and to be engaged into the process of making the changes our country needs by a leader who knows this concept innately, is of real importance. i'm proud of the congressman clyborn being influential in counseling the participants of their behavior, and hopefully these wise, positive, tempered and strong suggestions will be taken seriously by all those concerned.

[semorg]

Ariana,
How come you are not reporting the number of women voters in SC. I believe 60% + of voters were women voters. Whey are you making this a racial issue and not talk about how he won the gender vote.

[StatsGeek]

Ariana, I understand the media rush to slam polls, this is not wise. What was lost in NH was the math. You must consider margin of error, and the number of undecideds. Also consider that accuracy of polls themselves are normally distributed, they will vary in accuracy from election to election. Sometimes greatly, as in NH, but only rarely. So slamming is all fun and good, a better approach would be make more effort at understanding the math behind the polls. But then again, understand mathematics or become a victim to it (care to wonder on the relationship between strong math skills and wealth--it would scare everyone back to school).

[kjg25171]

What is the purpose of election polls? So often they become self fulfilling prophesies. They demean the electorate and we fall for it.

[fcrooster]

I'm very skeptical of polls, period. And, I'm a libran here in Coloraod who supports Barack Obama! Finally those network political analysts on MSNBC or CNN who keep saying Bill Clinton is credible"or popular--are full of it!

[javamso]

I am an immigrant, native of Costa Rica. After few years of being a Permanent resident in the United States I became a Citizen. Part of the process of becoming a Citizen of this great nation included among other things, learning about my rights and responsibilities, one of the things I love the most is for me to have the opportunity to be part of this great democracy and actually have a say on election day. I will vote for the very first time and I am felling really proud, really happy, and excited, that's what I pledge. Some immigrants, just like me, come from places where the ideal of democracy stops short, and many do not have the freedom that we enjoy here.
I wanted to take a minute to invite you to think about our civic duties, as citizens of this great nation, never take for granted your chance to have a say in this democracy, never take for granted the freedom and abundance that we enjoy in this America the beautiful. Many people consider politics a personal matter, so it is, however, it is important to remember the impact your participation or lack of can have on the direction of our country. I extort you to stop and reflect, count your blessings and get out and vote, make this nation proud, just as I am proud of be part of it now.
I work at the front line for families that actually need assistance and services, Children with special needs, I just wanted to say it again, think and vote, get informed, and vote.

I know who I am voting for. John Edwards, he will fight for me, John Edwards represent me the best.

Thank you for your pledge to this great nation that I love and I call home.


Javier

[lastams]

Ariana mentioned this idea on Olberman last night and I applaud her initative.
Keith has sought to minimize the symbiotic relationship between media and the polls with his patented "Keith number", no doubt with mixed results.
Keith has also been one of the very few newspersons treating Edwards as a genuine candidate. When his parent company NBC refused to mention Edwards on the evening news after the Iowa caucus, Keith interviewed Edwards on his show.
So now that Ms. Huffington has agreed to step back from the media run away train, at least to some extent, perhaps she will also consider more postings which mention the fact that John Edwards is still a candidate for President of the United States.
I think that we've analyzed Barak and Hillary to death. How about we analyze our options as well?

[lvogt]

Exit polls are crucial indicators of election fraud.

HuffPo should be much more aggressive with it's efforts to expose black box voting and eliminate computer fraud to steal elections. This should be the first item on the agenda of all political coverage.

[tfrancke]

I think people should routinely lie as a matter of principle to political pollsters prior to an election. No one has a legal, ethical or moral duty to tell the truth about his or her political views or inclinations to an organization with whom they have no prior or future relationship and no present relationship other than as a source of information for professional campaign strategists to use in targeting niche audiences, making efficient media buys, and otherwise bringing the techniques of corporate marketing to the art of political manipulation. Unreliable polls might also make fundraising easier for less than media-anointed front runners, at least in the sense of tending to encourage contributions to candidates for reasons other than that they were already measured as the best investments.
As for exit polling, I think voters should simply tell the media and others asking how they voted that it's none of their business. How many times do we have to hear that a candidate may have lost because early exit polling handed the victory to their opponent by projecting it and discouraging a later turnout? Under the First Amendment, no law can prohibit exit polls. But no law requires cooperating with them, and respect for the value and weight of every person's vote counsels against it.
Besides, without reliable polls, wouldn't the suspense be more fun?