We don’t know how the Minnesota gubernaturial election is going to turn out yet. I have my predictions in; you are welcome to do your own.
But one thing is for certain; it’s not going to be a 12 point race.
Which would provoke a curious person to ask; what is with the “Star/Tribune Minnesota Poll” and the “MPR/Hubert H. Humphrey Institute Polls”?
This week, they showed results for the gubernatorial election (MNPoll had Dayton +7, HHH had Dayton +12) that, I assert, may not actually be intended as DFL morale-builders – but if they were, it’d be hard to show how they’d be different. Their oversample of Democrat “likely voters” may or may not be built on experience in Minnesota elections – but it doesn’t take a keen-eyed journalist to see that their methodology is drastically wrong. Indeed, there are those who are taking that look; Jake Grovum at PIM does a good job of BS-detecting; he covers ground Ed and I have covered on the show as well as our various blogs over the past few months; it’s well worth a read.
And it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to look at the record of both of these polls and at least suspect that they smell a rat. The Minnesota Poll has a 20-plus year record of showing DFL gubernatorial and Senate candates faring an average of 7.5% stronger on the eve of the election than they actually perform. I need to go over the figures for the Humphrey poll, but off the top of my head I do know that the HHH showed Mike Hatch leading by six points at this time in the ’06 campaign; somehow, Tim Pawlenty did seven points better than that.
It’s not that I’m qualified to bag on the inner workings of the statistician’s game; I dropped the class after one week in college.
But when you have…:
- a twenty year history with the Strib/MNPoll, and a growing history with the HHH poll, of…
- …errors in methodology in polling that consistently result in 6-7 point polling errors…
- …just happen to consistently – as in, without exception – favor the DFL candidate in close, important elections (forget about the 2006 Senate race), and which are…
- …lavishly publicized at the beginning of the elections’ “get out the vote” phases…
- …by the respective sponsoring news and academic organizations, both of whomcan be accused – perhaps unfairly but definitely rationally – of having group cultures that favor, implicitly or explicitly, the party that is the consistent (invariable!) beneficiary of the statistical error, cycle after cycle after cycle…
…well, that strikes me as an interesting story.
Now, it’s been made clear to me in this election cycle that the elite of the Twin Cities political media establishment – the Rachel Stassen-Bergers and Tom Schecks and Bill Salisburys and Pat Kesslers and David Brauers and Erik Blacks and Tim Pugmires who do the heavy lifting at political coverage for the major regional media – don’t like mere peasants with blogs kibitzing about how they do their jobs, to say nothing about their story timing and selection.
But if I were a journalist (pardon the blasphemy – tis a silly thought), this woudl strike me a subject worthy of some scrutiny.
Perhaps even…investigation!
But I suspect that job will be left to us mere unlettered peasants, in our spare time, over the next two years.
Just saying.
HHH Institute? Princeton Research? Strib? MPR? Expect a phone call in early December.
Thanks for this. I’ve been looking for precisely this kind of analysis of these polls today.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » A Not Remotely Modest Proposal -- Topsy.com
“Now, it’s been made clear to me in this election cycle that the elite of the Twin Cities political media establishment – the Rachel Stassen-Bergers and Tom Schecks and Bill Salisburys and Pat Kesslers and David Brauers and Erik Blacks and Tim Pugmires who do the heavy lifting at political coverage for the major regional media – don’t like mere peasants with blogs kibitzing about how they do their jobs, to say nothing about their story timing and selection.”
So…..are you claiming ‘it’s been made clear to me’ because one of these individuals contacted you personally and told you so? Just curious.
I rather doubt these individuals know or care what blogs do or don’t do.
Gosh, do you think that fool Kersten at the Strib cares when Pen or I or others rag on her feeble reasoning and lack of facts? Do I care what she thinks? No, on both counts.
DG,
The point is that there is a story there. Can you imagine if the opposite was happening? A poll consistantly showing the GOP candidate doing 6-7 points better than the actual final result? Personally I would want answers and you would think the political reporters would too. The fact that they are leaving an obvious story sitting on the sideline shows political malpractice at best and outright indifference at worst. Polls, all of them, need to be analyzed and challenged because there is no perfect way to poll.
So…..are you claiming ‘it’s been made clear to me’ because one of these individuals contacted you personally and told you so? Just curious.
There was one rather piqued in-print note about a challenge I issued to the media, and there’s been some other off-line communication from traditional and new media; some of it civil, enquiring and professional, some of it not so much.
I rather doubt these individuals know or care what blogs do or don’t do.
And on what do you base this doubt?
I am both under no illusion that my blog is a heavy hitter, and yet also have been greatly gratified by some of the impact I’ve been told this blog has had in this election (in conjunction with MDE, True North, Let Freedom Ring, Activist Next Door, Freedom Dogs and other good conservative blogs); we’ve shamed a few reporters into taking some action; some of Dayton’s answers in debates have shown that we’ve drawn blood; it was we bloggers who pointed out ABM’s funding, and the gaping holes in Dayton’s budget when the media would not, and helped focus attention on that fact so that Dayton had to re-submit his “plan” (and then we shot that one down too).
Gosh, do you think that fool Kersten at the Strib cares when Pen or I or others rag on her feeble reasoning and lack of facts?
The ad hominem is oddly misplaced. Kersten – who is far from a fool, btw, and has the track record to show it – has an incredibly thick skin. She needs it given the enemies she makes for – this is important – differing from the dominant media culture in this town.
Pingback: The 2010 Shootie Awards! | Shot in the Dark