Sorry to be harsh in the headline, but this is important to note. With regard to their caucus numbers, the MPR poll out today is fatally flawed for several reasons:
- It has no likely voter screen. This alone makes the poll worthless. Minnesota is a caucus state. Less than 20% of eligable voters will participate in the caucuses. Polling the general population is worthless because the general population is not voting in the caucuses.
- It didn’t include indpendants when determining the caucus numbers. Minnesota has an open system and no party registration. Independants and Republicans are free to caucus in the DFL caucuses.
- Its old. Its before Obama’s win in South Carolina. Its before the Ted Kennedy endorsement. Its before Clinton’s win in Florida. Its before Edwards departure. Its a political lifetime ago.
Whats more, Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Center (who sponsored the poll) admitted its worthless:
Jacobs cautioned the poll is not a prediction of Tuesday night’s precinct caucuses. The interviews did not identify likely caucus participants. Gary Puffett of Minnetonka said he doesn’t plan to attend his caucus, but he supports John McCain.
MPR, the Star Tribune, the AP and any other media outlet that covers this poll with a headline like “Clinton leads Obama” is being totally irresponsible.
Loading ...
Uh oh, first a post challenging the Clinton attack machine, and now a post challenging the validity of a poll conducted by a liberal media outlet in the state. Careful, you might be onto something here…because you’re beginning to think like a Republican.
This totally reminds me of your partaaaaaaaaaaaay post! Get all hot and bothered predicting a Hillary stumble and prematurely celebrate. You will once again have egg on your face if she beats Obama in MN. Oh and by the way, funny that Obama is focusing so heavily on MN when NO DELEGATES WILL BE AWARDED!
gopgal -
Delegates will be awarded Tuesday night. The Presidential Preference Ballot will determine how the DFL national delegates are apportioned. If candidate A gets 50% of the vote then 50% of the delegates elected at later Congressional and State conventions have to be pledged to those candidates, most likely out of sub-caucuses.
It’s all here … http://www.dfl.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={F9E73B63-D5C0-4980-B03A-2DF6729F01D8}&DE={B670C978-429C-4579-B701-4CB5202F18E8}
No poll should be considered to have predictive value. That’s the mistake the GOP made when they challenged the Strib’s polling efforts. Bill Cooper would hold up a poll before the election, then hold up the results of the election and say, “see? It’s a bad poll.”
Actually, it was a bad definition of what any poll is.
Thanks for commenting Bob. I guess my question is, do you disagree with our analysis? Sean
I’m not familiar with the methodology of the poll. I saw it the same time you did and I haven’t really read it. I assume your points are all truthful.
Keep in mind, though, I have a real problem with the horse race nature of political coverage anyway and polls play into that.
I would prefer to read, for example, how all of the candidates feel about the versions of the mental health parity bill, for example.
But nobody is REALLY interested in issues anymore, despite what they say.
I was on Talk of the Nation on NPR the other day talking about Select A Candidate with some columnist from the Chicago Tribune and he said the problem with it is “it’s only about issues.” Well, duh…. it’s like he thought “how will people ever be able to factor in non-issue, superficial, factors.
How, indeed.
Your analysis might be right, but I read that activities on Tuesday involve more like 6% of the voting public, not 20%. That is a pretty tiny slice of Minnesota to be determining candidates. But I probably won’t be there so have no right to complain.
But everyone is invited. If only 6% show up, doesn’t that give them the right to voice opinion and affect policy? If you have a problem with 6%, you need to work to make that percentage higher.
True - but caucuses always draw way less than a primary. I’d prefer to see candidates in a primary, not a caucus whose format dates back to 1795 and has a 77 page policy-and-procedure manual.
You’d get way more independents out in a primary. Funny thing is that they will decide the General, but hardly are noticed in a caucus.
A good turnout for the New Hampshire primary is around 50%. A good turnout for the Iowa caucus is around 6%.
But technically you are right, everyone is “invited”.
I do think the poll is misleading, or at least representing it without the pile of caveats, is misleading. All the factors you cite change the race dramatically since the sampling was done and since it wasn’t even of likely voters much less likely caucus-goers, it gives us no sense what that small group will do.
Polls are snapshots of particular things, in this case how some average Minnesotans felt about the race a week ago. But I think you can have polls that at least give you a faint sensse of what’s going to happen.
A poll of folks who’ve gone to the last two caucuses seems a much better barometer of how “the deciders” (like that one?) on Tuesday will vote.
DantheManless -
How lazy can you get? For the DFL, you may show up and cast a presidential preference ballot anytime up until 8pm. No going through resolutions or selecting delegates. If you don’t stay, you won’t have a voice in the Senate race, but you can express your preference for president, and the vote is binding. Pretty much as easy as voting in a primary, huh?
You’re asking Bob Collins for a political opinion? The guy doesn’t even vote, for chrissakes!
Heh heh. I don’t vote for top of the ticket races that I cover. Fortunately, I no longer cover races.
Oh, and I don’t vote for candidates who don’t EARN my vote.
I know a lot of people disagree with that, but I’m pretty old school. I think the voters should set the agenda, not the candidates, their machines, media, or blogs.
So shoot me. (g)