Obama's Trip Bounce: The Media's Obsession with Polls Leads to a Bad Case of Premature Pontification
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/New York Times.
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 +/- pi divided by Schrödinger'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.
For more polling absurdity, check out this terrific Seth Colter Walls piece.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama's big trip will end up helping him.
McCain had to set himself up to look bad and hurt his brand to block it, short-term.
Maybe some of the polls are skewed, ask the wrong questions or ask the wrong people. And certainly the media is biased against Obama and in favor of McCain, as shown by recent analysis.
But the real bottom line is this: the Democrats have a nominee who is young, good looking, extremely smart, educated, charming, terrific wife and kids, great American up-from-the-bootstraps story, clean as a whistle, no scandals of the financial or personal nature, and he should be double-digits in front of McCain.
McCain is old, but has only "allowed" the press 20 minutes to see his entire medical history. He has personal scandal (dumped his first wife after she had an accident, to marry a rich woman; current wife is a former drug addict) and of the financial nature (water-boy for the Keating 5 and S&L corruption and theft scandal who could have been wearing an orange jump suit instead of grey pin-stripe). He is reportedly ill-tempered, surrounded by lobbyists and other corrupt Washington insiders, and is not only making no effort to distance himself from the most unpopular president ever, but is campaigning on a platform of No Change.
Yet the polls are close. Which means that we may have a really big chunk of idiots among the voters in this country. If people who are losing jobs, homes, and teeth can be convinced to vote for the people who put them there, then it's hopeless.
I think there's a sensible reason why 'most Americans' pay no attention to this stuff: It's a soap opera, bred & designed by the media to keep conflict alive, to keep numbers up, to keep us intrigued. It's summer - most people aren't paying attention. Many people won't pay attention until fall, because this is just summer theater, & we know it. That's why we get the oscillating 'Obama is up! Obama is down' It's just 'Will Drake ever learn that Celeste is really her evil twin sister Simone??? And who is the REAL father of Tiffany's alien baby?
I hope people are modern and bold enough to elect Obama. If not, we still have a long way to go to catch up to the ideals inherent within our country. I don't need the media's lure of 'up/down!!' to pester me about that any further.
Polls are like Religions. Control mechanisms spawned at times by truth twisted to their own design, and pure lies.
15 Yards For "Abuse of Polling"
- Using more than one poll to track results
- Accepting polling data of dubious sample size (i.e. under 1,000/and I'd argue 3,000 for national results)
- Playing games on TV crawls and captions (I'm sure we've all seen a TV caption showing "new numbers at the same time a crawl is showing different results from 2 or 3-days ago. The news nets can't be that stupid - they do it on purpose to support whatever point they're trying to make).
I'll accept Gallup and Rassmussen as decent (but not perfect) national trend indicators. Rassmussen seems to do the most state polling and keeps its sample size at or around 1,000. I've never been a Quinnipiac person (not crazy about the accuracy of their results and, if i'm recollecting correctly, they work with smaller samples.
The main thing is that polling data should be used to assess how the wind is blowing and not to split hairs.
Thank you Arianna, for creating the best blog on the web!
I don't pay attention to the MSM anymore thanks to blogs! Their polls don't take into account all the young and AA newly registered. I see a landslide coming!! Or Canada, here I come!
All the conventional wisdom about the trip being a bit too grand, too...presumptuous and voters are wary of that" were idea planted into the public conscious by MSM. What has received less attention is how adept Obama is at judging foreign policy. His international intuitiveness put McCain’s strong suit in check.
The Euro photo op tour was a complete bust for Obama. A very bad idea. It hurt his campaign. No poll bounce, either.
Could very well ending up being looked at as the turning point in the campaign for McCain.
The best part of your post is how you backed up your blanket assertions with facts.
You didn't even bother with sketchy, contradictory polling data! Why bother, right? You must be a big fan of the MSM and its "if we say it, it's true" philosophy.
National polls are irrelevant, it is not the popular vote that counts. If you look at the state polls and their electoral votes Obama has a much bigger lead. It benefits the media to keep this a horse race and that is why they do it.
The problems are not just with the obsession and conversation about polls in the election, but that there is very little real policy content at all discussed. After David Gergen and others guilt tripped the MSM into recognizing they weren't giving equal time to McCain, then they become obsessed with overcompensating the other way. Unfortunately, if you took the Obama trip week as an example, you'd see that there was very little time spent on what Obama actually said, but there was a hell of a lot of emphasis on perceptions about his trip, about orchestration and all the reasons why success was really a problem, and on what goofy remarks McCain was making (without challenge) to divert people's attention. In any case, real content was lacking for everyone except those who went to CSPAN or the internet to actually view the news conferences, events and speeches. No wonder there was no bounce. People saw no substance. Tragically, if network and cable news don't raise our understanding of the issues, we are left competing in the perception game that is more representative of old politics than something which can translate into progress.
Thank you Arianna! The media hyped him so much, they let Obama get away Britney-style with cute sound bytes in Berlin, and did not mention that he used the word "security" eight times in his Berlin speech. That is very Bushly of Barack, isn't it? Security is a Bush buzz-word. FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Bush and Cheney have made careers Machiavelli-style out of their shock and awe fear-mongering. Fear erodes logic. Fear-mongering is therefore anti-democracy. The security I want to hear about is securing markets! The security I want to hear about is securing the value of the US dollar. Shame on Barack for his Bush mimicry in Berlin. And shame on the mainstream media for ignoring what he said, and focusing only on the "moment".
So... talking abut world security somehow turns one into a Bush clone? As if Bush cornered the market on talking about security. Listen, FDR also took the U.S. into WWII... not to secure the market, but to stop Hitler from establishing a hellish empire. Security is important if we want to prevent the growth and allure of terrorist ideologies.
24 hour cable news has to fill space for the advertising. So we are left with endless "analysis" of polls and political ads.
The solution is simple: view it as entertainment, but think for yourself when you go to vote.
Thank you so much! I am glad someone with a voice is calling these idiots out. Before this election, I thought some of these writers/columnists/analysts had some reporting integrity. I see now that I was mistaken. So many of them are so obviously determined to create the news until they don't have any time to report the news. Time Magazine's new cover has obviously altered Obama and McCain's pictures. But they are swearing no alterations have not been made. McCain looks younger and Obama looks older and darker. Please keep up the great work. America is clearly at a turning point and if somebody doesn't rein these people in, Freedom of the press will become a weapon, without any of the public interests ambitions envisioned in the Constitution.
I have been so caught up in this campaign, but by now I am totally worn out by it. I do not know how polls taken EVERY day can mean anything! It will be better to just ignore all of them, and wait to be surprised on election day. The campaign has gotten so dirty and infantile, and I am so tired of listening to Sen. McCain's boring, monotonous, santimonious talking points. I am a Democrat who was for McCain in 2000, mainly because of the dirty politics about him from the Bush people. It is wierd to see his people perform exactly like the Bush team against Obama. He is old and he is acting mean and dirty. I am actually terrified at the thought of his being elected President.
Polls are so easily crafted to fit what ever out-come a person wants, I have taken some encouragement from the lead that Sen. Obama has held in most polls but I am always aware that it really doesn't mean much in the long run. Obama supporters must stay focused and commited to getting the Senator elected. Don't forget to contribute finanically every chance you get and keep reaching out to friends, neighbors, co-workers and relatives and sharing the message. If we make sure that we get every possible voter to the polls on election day it will not matter how people manipulate polls and news cycles. Just make sure that you cast that vote for Obama on November 4th. It should be at the top of your Priority to do list on that day. Stay excited and motivated and do not fall prey to the hate-mongers that are out there.
Those polls are rigged just like the last two elections.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
