One could hardly argue with Brauer and Brandt on the issues of an editorial/polling link, timing and dearth of polling, and an increasing lack of concern for core city issues.
But Steve's alternative explanation regarding undecideds breaking for Rybak in 2001 actually reinforces concerns that undecideds may well have broken to Rybak so to be seen as having sided with the winner. To suggest that polls do not influence voter behavior means a head-in-the-sand misunderstanding of the importance people place in associating themselves with winning sides absent overwhelming merit for doing otherwise. That is, "when in doubt...go with the winner." I would guess that between 10% and 20% of voters for whom the choice, if they've waited this long already, is Tweedledum or Tweedledee, settling on the likely winner feels best - or they stay at home, remaining undecided past poll-closing. This stuff is old hat. Newspaper defend their polling as reflective when most of us who have been on both sides (candidate and media) for several decades believe we have a fair grip on voter behavior and know damned well that late polling (esp., as Brauer says, in the absence of early trending) can affect undecided votes. It also depresses turnout when preference gaps are running as widely as they are now in both mayoral contests. Polling is absolutely unnecessary, especially in later days, except for the egotistical need of editors and reporters to be seen as seers of all truth. It's a waste of money and a degradation of the democratic process. Worse, they are solidly unreliable when races are close. They should be stopped. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 11/7/05 1:47 PM, Steve Brandt wrote: > Several views have been expressed on the Minnesota Poll printed yesterday on > the Rybak-McLaughlin contest. > One argument made is that the poll supports the editorial endorsement of the > newspaper. This is what a statistician would call an association, but not > causation. [clip] > Another correspondent argues that the election-eve poll in 2001 showing a 20 > percentage point gap for Rybak caused a 30-point victory by depressing > turnout. That's one explanation. But another possibility considers that 12 > percent of the likely voters surveyed in the election eve poll were undecided. > It's possible that that most of them broke toward Rybak. > > Still another person says that the polls are not scientific; perhaps she could > post further to explain for us with which law of probability she takes issue. > > I would agree with Brauer, who faults the newspaper for cutting back > substantially on election-year polling in both Minneapolis and St. Paul. In > the last two city elections, there was an extensive early-summer poll that > essentially took the temperature of voters on issues like crime, whether the > parks and schools were better or worse, and so on. That was lost to budget > cuts. But I think that the increasing suburban focus of the newspaper also is > to blame. REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
