We’ve been discussing the MPR\/Humphrey Institute and Minnesota polls for the past two weeks. \u00a0Indeed, it’s been one of the ongoing “go to” subjects of this blog for almost eight years now.<\/p>\n
Why?<\/p>\n
Because while \u00a0the polls themselves are risible, they have an effect on elections in Minnesota.<\/p>\n
Part of it is in terms of people – “undecided”, “independent” voters – going to the polls at all. \u00a0I’ve related on this blog several stories of people who’ve pondered not <\/em>going to the polls this past year. \u00a0Part of it was \u00a0because of the overwhelming negativity about Tom Emmer<\/a> portrayed by the media – negativity, partly driven by the “Alliance For A Better Minnesota’s long, Dayton-family-funded, largely dubiously-factual smear campaign, but pushed hard in the media via the “polling” that they, themselves, commissioned.<\/p>\n Larry Jacobs at the Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) Institute is the most over-quoted person in the Twin Cities media. \u00a0And during the campaign, Jacobs was seen as relentlessly as always in the Twin Cities media, flogging the Humphrey Institute’s polling first during the primaries (where the HHH’s polls showed Dayton with a crushing lead<\/a> even though Dayton won the primaries by a margin not a whole lot bigger than the one we currently have in the governor’s race) and, finally, during the run-up to the election<\/a> when the HHH poll showed Dayton winning with a 12 point blowout.<\/p>\n We’re still working on the recount for the 0.4% race.<\/p>\n Jacobs defended the poll (quoted in LFR<\/em><\/a>):<\/p>\n JACOBS: Well, you know, a poll is nothing more than a snapshot in time. We\u2019ve begun the interviewing nearly 2 weeks before election day. Barack Obama visited and we talked openly about the fact that this would likely change. There are, of course, all kinds of other factors that happened at the end, including the fact the almost 1 out of 5 undecided voters in our poll started to make up their mind.<\/p>\n The other thing to remember is that there were alot of other polls being conducted that showed the race closing at the time, something we were watching at the time, also.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s right, Dr. Jacobs. \u00a0There were a lot of other polls.<\/p>\n And except for the HHH and Minnesota polls, all <\/em>of them showed a “snapshot in time” that was something close to the reality that eventually emerged on election day.<\/p>\n All of them.<\/p>\n So what?<\/p>\n Because opinion polling has an inordinate effect on media coverage and, less directly, the money and effort that people put into campaigns.<\/p>\n As to the media? \u00a0The New York Times has absorbed Nate Silver’s “Five Thirty Eight” stats-blog for its election polling coverage. \u00a0And throughout the race, the Times ran with the idea that Dayton was overwhelmingly likely to win<\/a>.<\/p>\n And that supposition was based entirely <\/em>on a statistical tabulation of opinion poll results. \u00a0And the stats were heavily based on the Minnesota and Humphrey polls, especially through the middle of the race, when the tone of the campaign was being set. \u00a0All together, the crunching of the opinion poll numbers led Silver to claim the stats showed Minnesota would be a convincing 6.6 point victory for Dayton; since political statistics are an essentially weaselly “science”, Silver also ran with an eight point margin of error<\/em>.<\/p>\n Naturally, the media ran with the 6.6 points; a little less with the margin of error.<\/p>\n Now, there’s some <\/em>media attention – the Minnpost<\/a>, the City Pages<\/a> – to the ludicrous nature of the polls. \u00a0Jacobs:<\/p>\n \u201cIf a shortcoming is identified, we will fix it. If not, we will have third-party verification that our methods are sound.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Dr. Jacobs: \u00a0take it from this third party; it’s flawed. \u00a0Flawed to the point of illegitimacy.<\/p>\n More on the Minnesota Poll later…<\/p>\n ———-<\/p>\n \\The series so far:<\/p>\n Monday, 11\/8: Introduction<\/a>. <\/strong><\/p>\n Wednesday, 11\/10: Polling Minnesota <\/a><\/strong>– The sixty-six year history of the Strib’s Minnesota Poll. It offers some surprises.<\/p>\n Friday, 11\/12<\/strong>: Daves, Goliath<\/strong><\/a>:\u00a0 Rob Daves ran the Minnesota Poll from 1987 ’til 2007.\u00a0 And the statistics during that era have a certain…consistency?<\/p>\n Monday, 11\/15: Hubert, You Magnificent Bastard, I Read Your Numbers<\/a><\/strong>!:\u00a0 The Humphrey Institute has been polling Minnesota for six years, now.\u00a0 And the results are…interesting.\u00a0 In the classic Hindi sense of the term.<\/p>\n Wednesday, 11\/17: Close Shaves<\/a><\/strong>: Close races are the most interesting.\u00a0 For everyone.\u00a0 Including you, if you’re reading this series.<\/p>\n Monday, 11\/22: The Hay They Make<\/a><\/strong>: So what does the media and the Twin Cities political establishment do with these numbers?<\/p>\n