Who P***ed In Your Cheerios?
Here’s DJ Drummond’s reaction to Patrick Ruffini’s straw poll:
At best, this poll was meaningless, because of the myriad errors in its development. At worst, it was a cheap shot at qualified candidates. That’s too bad, because the poll could have been run to some good effect. If, for example, Ruffini had paid less attention to meaningless statistics, but asked his voters to detail what made their candidate qualified, he could have helped draw out what voters are looking for in the next President. By asking them to specify what worried them about candidates they didn’t choose, Ruffini could have helped these candidates address those concerns early on. It’s just too bad that Ruffini chose a poll which has no effective meaning for the campaigns ahead, and that a false image was created this early. After all, at one time when people didn’t look too deep, a lot of people thought Howard Dean looked Presidential.
For the record, online polls are not scientific; if Patrick insinuated otherwise, he was wrong to do so.
Still…it’s an interesting way of gauging interest in various candidates from people who frequent right-of-center blogs. That’s all…and that’s perfectly valid, and quite a bit of fun.
Here are some other highlights(?):
I have said several times that I found the Presidential Candidate poll being run by Patrick Ruffini to be invalid. There are a number of reasons for this, and now that Mr. Ruffini has begun to announce “results” , it’s important to go into the matter in order to avoid mistakes.…The first mistake is the biggest one. Ruffini calls his poll for Giuliani, but Rudy, as much as I like him, only pulls 30.0%. That’s not a win, folks. John Kerry cleared more than 30% last year, and Al Gore cleared over 30% of the Electoral Vote. While certain Aluminati may claim otherwise, neither “Magic Hat” John nor Mr. Internet has signed any bills into law. Giuliani took the most votes in an informal, non-binding, non-scientific poll, with no ramifications beyond providing points for discussion…
So, for all you people who thought 30% beats less than 30% in a primary, I guess you’re wrong…(will we have to retroactively revoke the results of all previous nominating conventions?)…I think the “results” are interesting, myself, and I plan to “participate” in the future, knowing full well that I’m not actually casting a “real” vote in an actual “primary”.
Sheesh…
(By the way, I like DJ’s work, and I like Patrick’s, and I plan to continue to enjoy both of them – just my way of saying, “Chill, dude”)…
You said it all in the title, Mark. It seems rather petty to yammer on about how an online poll is not perfect. Heck, as we know from last year, traditional “professional” polls don’t have all that great a track record of late either.
I think the poll was useful if only to see the divergence between the two presumed frontrunners, McCain and Giuliani. Since they both have potential problems with the GOP base, it’s fascinating to see how McCain is nearly extinct among us political junkies. I guess it shows if you’re going to piss off the social conservative wing of the GOP, it doesn’t pay to turn around and spit on the libertarian wing too.
Yeah, Dennis, I debated pulling the post, because I don’t want to seem overly critical of DJ, who is one of the good guys…but I’m really puzzled by the harshness of his reaction. As you say, it’s interesting to see the McCain-Rudy G. results; McCain remains a formidable candidate, but he better start mending some fences…
i like dennis’ use of the word yammer….as in yammering chowderhead…..i believe.
i’ve always heard you refer to blog poll participants as the die hards. i’ve never thought of myself as a die-hard. i’ve also seen you refer to your commenters here as “the best looking” and i know for shur that is “chomsky”.
brief off topic reflection:
watching your cowboys compete against your texans, i think i’d see more talent if skyline played grand praire. as i’m not from texas, but read the dallas morning news, i just picked those names. i probably should have included odessa permian. as i am watching the game i would like to say your texas women are HOT!!!!!!!!
louielouie, you win the prize for best use of ‘chomsky’…
This is what Patrick said about statistically valid sample:
“(If enough people vote) we’ll have a statistically valid sample of online activists not just nationally, but in most of the fifty states.”
Patrick was very clear he was trying to make the poll a statistical valid sample of online activists ONLY, not the general public. And given how narrowly he defined his sample, he may have very well achieved it. I think DJ needs to post a correction.
You know, Ruffini’s poll is only “wrong” if it is used and interpreted to predict things beyond its statistically valid intent.
So when Rudy polls 30%, and that is the highest of all those represented in the poll, then we can say he leads or won the poll among (insert poll respondant description here). We can also say that winning at 30% tells us his support is not particularly strong, right?
I put all that in the fun and interesting, if not wholly predictive, category.
I suspect someone either woke up on the wrong side of the bed or had his own poll that he planned to run but was beaten to the publishing punch by Mr. Ruffini.
[...] …we find Rudy G. This weekend, in an eloquently titled post, I examined the strangely vehement denunciation of Patrick Ruffini’s straw poll by DJ Drummond of PoliPundit. Patrick himself responded here: I’ve never claimed to be George Gallup here. As I laid out a few months back, a poll of self-selected blogosphere activists will never mirror a general media poll, or a screen of Republican voters. I don’t make any claim to measure opinion beyond the blogosphere. That’s not a bug – it’s a feature. To the extent that those who pay attention to Presidential politics right now are a leading indicator of opinion, polls like this can help tell us who’s over- and undervalued in the political space. It’s a tool that’s more akin to Tradesports than to any media poll. Drummond, oddly, felt compelled to strike again: I believe you meant well Patrick, but the bottom line is, you blew it. And not just once. I wrote this article because it’s become apparent that rather than correct errors on the matter of your “poll”, you choose to reinforce them, and I cannot in good conscience let that pass. It certainly seems a forceful position to take regarding what was an online poll, essentially, that a lot of folks had a bit of fun with, and one that reveals what folks who frequent conservative blogs are thinking, no more, no less. [...]
Patrick’s poll is a statistically valid one. Its essential findings are supported by the recent Gallup poll, and by others.
The problem is that people are making the rather large and obvious boo-boo if uncritically assuming that 30% in August of 2005 necessarily even translates into double digits the night we in Iowa convene for our 2008 caucuses. Hint: it doesn’t!
Rudy is where he is in the polls because (with good reason) he is widely admired for his leadership in NYC after 9/11, and because he’s better known than most of the other candidates. The second circumstance will change as soon as the campaign begins in earnest, and the other guys get a little exposure. And while the personal admiration may well remain, any inclination on the part of the Party’s base to support Rudy will evaporate as soon as the rank-and-file become aware of his positions on social issues.
It doesn’t matter if he soft-pedals his positions on abortion and other such matters. They are a deal-breaker for enough of the rank-and-file that not only will they prevent his campaign for the nomination from even getting off the ground once it begins in earnest, but to deprive him of the remotest chance of winning the election even if he were nominated. Reaching out to independents and Democrats is great- but it doesn’t do you any good if you can’t deliver your own base.
And Rudy can’t.