Poll scandal shocks campaigns - Daily Kos: "Don't Trust Our Polls!"

[PJABBER]

When you look at the range of political polls that come out you will generally see the Daily Kos (Research 2000) results to be outliers. That is, they seem to find that their "random" polling is very often more favorable to the liberals/progressives/Democrats than most, if not all of the others.

As polling is used to formulate opinions and quoted here to back up arguments, it might be worthwhile for those few who have relied on Daily Kos (Research 2000) to revisit their thinking.

Myself, I generally rely on the RealClearPolitics average of polls as it offers the full range of available measurements rather than just one source.

The progressives have just lost one primary source of information measuring the mood of the country, but the rest of us have been cautioned.

You can get the full story from Daily Kos here, below is a summary from management.

More on Research 2000

by kos

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

I have just published a report by three statistics wizards showing, quite convincingly, that the weekly Research 2000 State of the Nation poll we ran the past year and a half was likely bunk.

Since the moment Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman approached me, I took their concerns seriously and cooperated fully with their investigation. I also offered to run the results on Daily Kos provided that they 1) fully documented each claim in detail, 2) got that documentation peer reviewed by disinterested third parties, and 3) gave Research 2000 an opportunity to respond. By the end of last week, they had accomplished the first two items on that list. I held publication of the report until today, because I didn't want to partake in a cliche Friday Bad News Dump. This is serious business, and I wasn't going to bury it over a weekend.

We contracted with Research 2000 to conduct polling and to provide us with the results of their surveys. Based on the report of the statisticians, it's clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don't know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can't trust it. Meanwhile, Research 2000 has refused to offer any explanation.

Early in this process, I asked for and they offered to provide us with their raw data for independent analysis -- which could potentially exculpate them. That was two weeks ago, and despite repeated promises to provide us that data, Research 2000 ultimately refused to do so. At one point, they claimed they couldn't deliver them because their computers were down and they had to work out of a Kinkos office. Research 2000 was delivered a copy of the report early Monday morning, and though they quickly responded and promised a full response, once again the authors of the report heard nothing more.

While the investigation didn't look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we've written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling.

I want to feel stupid for being defrauded, but fact is Research 2000 had a good reputation in political circles. Among its clients the last two years have been KCCI-TV in Iowa, WCAX-TV in Vermont, WISC-TV in Wisconsin, WKYT-TV in Kentucky, Lee Enterprises, the Concord Monitor, The Florida Times-Union, WSBT-TV/WISH-TV/WANE-TV in Indiana, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Bergen Record, and the Reno Gazette-Journal. In fact, just last week, in an email debate about robo-pollsters, I had a senior editor at a top DC-based political publication tell me that he'd "obviously" trust Research 2000 more than any automated pollsters, such as SurveyUSA. I didn't trust Research 2000 more than I trusted SUSA (given their solid track record), but I did trust them. I got burned, and got burned bad.

I can't express enough my gratitude to Mark, Michael, and Jonathan for helping bring this to light. Sure, our friends on the Right will get to take some cheap shots, and they should take advantage of the opportunity. But ultimately, this episode validates the reason why we released the internal numbers from Research 2000 -- and why every media outlet should do the same from their pollster; without full transparency of results, this fraud would not have been uncovered. As difficult as it has been to learn that we were victims of that fraud, our commitment to accuracy and the truth is far more important than shielding ourselves from cheap shots from the Right.

Soon, we'll have a new pollster (or pollsters) to work with, helping us to fulfill our vision of surveying races and issues that are often overlooked by the traditional media and polling outfits. As for Research 2000, the lawyers will soon take over, as Daily Kos will be filing suit within the next day or two.

 

[PJABBER]

Oh, and Research 2000 denies the charges.

Research 2000 chief Ali rejected the charge that anything is amiss. "I will tell you unequivocally that we conducted EVERY poll properly for the Daily Kos," Ali told the (Washington) Post's polling director, Jon Cohen.

Ali's attorney, Richard Beckler of Howrey LLP in Washington, told TPMmuckraker in an interview, "This guy is completely all wet. This allegation of fraud is absurd." He added, "These guys are basically ruining Mr. Ali's business."

Beckler promised to take "some kind of action soon against all of them" -- referring to Kos and the three authors of the analysis calling R2K's data into question. He declined to elaborate. Beckler also questioned the credentials of the three authors -- who Kos called "statistic wizards" -- Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman. They are respectively described in the Kos post as political consultant, a retired physicist, and a wildlife research technician.

Kos' lawyer, it's worth noting, told Greg Sargent that they also consulted other polling experts who agreed that there were problems with R2K's data.

Beckler claimed that Kos "wont even pay his goddamn bill. He owes [Ali] $50, $60, $70,000 dollars, something in that neighborhood."

 

[PJABBER]

A further twist in this tale - the Daily Kos polling led many political operatives of the Democratic Left astray and put a lie to the claim that Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas was going to lose her election to a vaporous "progressive" surge.

Poll scandal shocks campaigns

By: David Catanese July 1, 2010 04:39 AM EDT

In the final weeks leading up to the June 8 Democratic Senate runoff in Arkansas, no data proved more pivotal in shaping conventional wisdom than a pair of Research 2000 polls showing challenger Bill Halter holding a lead.

And those surveys—which fueled the narrative that Sen.Blanche Lincoln was a goner—may have been bogus, according to the blog that commissioned them.

The prospect that polling data in a Senate contest of national consequence may have been faked has sent shockwaves across the campaign world, raising disturbing questions not only about the reliability of suddenly ubiquitous public polls, but about a new media environment where polling numbers are accepted without question even as they threaten to influence the outcome of campaigns.

The episode marks the second time in less than a year that a pollster’s results came under serious questioning—the Atlanta-based polling firm Strategic Vision, was also accused of falsifying data, and its failure to disclose information about its methodology led to a rebuke from the American Association for Public Opinion Research for violating its ethics rules.

The troubling developments involving Research 2000—which began when Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas alleged that the pollster, Research 2000, “fabricated or manipulated” at least a portion of its data over the last year—served to highlight the ever-increasing role that publicly released polls are playing in the life cycle of campaigns, as well as their drawbacks in an era of ever-shortening news cycles and an atomized, hyper-competitive political press.

“It influences races, it drives decisions, the number of volunteers, the number of donors, how much they give,” said longtime GOP strategist Charlie Black. “Part of the problem is, you don’t know about them, many of them do not have a track record you can judge by.”

Nowhere was it more obvious than in the closely-watched Senate race in Arkansas, where late May and early June Research 2000 surveys showing Halter in the lead over the vulnerable incumbent helped stoke a media frenzy. The polls were cited by nearly every media outlet covering the race – from POLITICO and MSNBC to Reuters and the Arkansas Times.

The data single-handedly catapulted Halter – who trailed Lincoln by three points after the May 18 primary– from insurgent to perceived frontrunner, which in turn helped advance a sky-is-falling, anti-incumbent narrative in the print and broadcast media.

“The progressive push is on fire ahead of the primaries," asserted MSNBC's Ed Schultz to a national audience, the night before the election. "Bill Halter is surging against Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas."

“Poll: Bill Halter Should Beat Blanche Lincoln Tuesday,” blared a Salon headline.

“Halter Ahead of Lincoln,” read the story on the website of Little Rock’s ABC affiliate, KATV.

Part of the problem in Arkansas was that the Daily Kos/Research 2000 polls were the only public surveys available for consumption in a race of great interest nationally, a contest that seemed to offer important lessons for incumbents everywhere.

Yet even as the Halter campaign publicly touted the last Research 2000 poll in an attempt to build momentum, in private, top aides were perplexed by some of the findings and didn’t put much stock in it.

“I will admit that some of the published cross-tabs from the runoff survey done by Research 2000 didn't make sense to me and were a cause for suspicion when the runoff poll was released,” Halter adviser Bud Jackson told POLITICO.

“I don't think Lincoln's win was a complete surprise to those who took the time to dig into projected runoff turnout figures and to then superimpose that data with where each candidate's strengths and weaknesses were as shown by the primary results. There was always a pathway to victory for her. If anything, her victory was mischaracterized as an upset,” he said.

Research 2000 President Del Ali told POLITICO Tuesday, “I will tell you unequivocally that we conducted every poll properly for the Daily Kos.”

While campaigns typically base most of their strategy and tactics on private polling, the current plethora of publicly available survey data has nevertheless forced them to adapt and respond—even if it’s produced by a polling outlet they believe is suspect. Because whether it’s the mainstream media writing about the latest uptick or freefall, or the dozens of highly-trafficked blogs or ideological websites that are equally obsessed about dissecting the results, few campaigns can afford to ignore the buzz generated by a fresh infusion of polling results.

When Research 2000 published a May survey showing former Rep. Tom Campbell pulling ahead of Carly Fiorina by 15 percentage points in the California GOP Senate race—at the same time his cash-strapped campaign was pulling ads off television—the Fiorina campaign noticed the poll’s effect immediately.
"The true impact was on the perception that things were more influx than they actually were. It allowed Campbell to raise money, it further confused reporters and political observers about what was happening in the race,” said Fiorina adviser Julie Soderlund.
“Our tracking had the exact opposite. We knew the whole thing was bogus, because they’d rather run against Campbell than Carly.”

Soderlund said there will likely be healthy skepticism going forward when different polls contradict each other.

“It adds fuel to the fire that it’s not on the up and up,” Soderlund said.

For its part, the Fiorina campaign said they always suspected Research 2000 numbers were “fixed” and, after defeating Campbell by a staggering 34 percentage points, they remain unconvinced it wasn’t intentional.

The press, however, failed to pursue that angle, reporting uncritically on the polls in both Arkansas and California.

“You should not ignore the trends. If you have an outlier poll, it’s always whether you cover it as the newest trend or the outlier and frankly, the press goes for the newest trend because that’s the better story,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. “When the media are reporting on polls, they need to be more circumspect.”

Black agreed, saying the media needs to do a better job of deciphering between the top tier pollsters and those that he says “fly by night.”

Lake, who received her fair share of criticism as the pollster on Martha Coakley’s unsuccessful Senate bid in Massachusetts earlier this year, said she was shocked by what the Kos investigation found and thinks it should give political observers pause.

GOP pollster Glen Bolger said increased scrutiny on polling going forward might make the media’s job harder. But, he noted, the audience would be the beneficiary.

“The amount of public polling out there is stunning compared to when I first got into this in the 1980s, but that’s the nature of politics,” Bolger said. “Just because somebody plagiarizes an article, doesn’t mean all media outlets are bad. Proliferation of polls isn’t a problem, it’s just when bad actors get involved.”

 

[Craig234]

So, DailyKOS, when presented with evidence of its information being wrong in the liberal directions, 'takes the info seriously', investigates, agrees and publically says the problem happened and takes corrective action. Now, I'd like for the right who have screamed against DailyKOS with such 'attacks' as one user's post being said to represent an official DailyKOS position, to name one right-wing group on the other side who has handled anything the same way.

"Today Fox News announce that it has fallen short of its fair and balanced slogan, and its news has been biased to the right, and it has taken corrective action."

 

[Sclamoz]

I don't think much of KOS but it speaks highly of them that they'd go public with this. Most organizations would try and shovel this under the rug and try and pretend it never happened.

 

[PJABBER]

Now, I'd like for the right who have screamed against DailyKOS with such 'attacks' as one user's post being said to represent an official DailyKOS position, to name one right-wing group on the other side who has handled anything the same way.

Why should they? The errors were only found in the DailyKOS/Research 2000 polling.

Lots of liberals/progressives, including yourself, used that polling to justify their positions, campaign strategies were affected by it, people donated monies to support candidates based on their surveys.

I would think the entire far left that put so much faith in it have a case to join the suit, but it is a stretch to say that because this outfit may have cooked the books that others have as well.