Should Media Be In The Polling Biz?

Of the many links available via this Instapundit to Rasmussen link - I took a look at this round up of poling results for 2008 from Fordham. (pdf) While Gallup and Marist were bad, the worst polling accuracy clearly belongs to virtually every media network, both large and small.

Given their reach, is it time for the media to get out of the polling business given that all they seem to accomplish is to misinform?

6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Comments

[mark l.]

the thing that jumps out at me from the current polling...

obama's disapproval.

rassmussen has him hovering at 40%,
today is actually the worst day for obama by their numbers,
56% approval, 43(!)% disapproval.
(1% undecided).

the rcp average has obama at 60.9 approval, 27.8 disapproval.
average undecideds, more than 10%.

even if people are truly undecided, rassmussen is pointing out which way the wind is blowing.
I tend to believe rassmussen's numbers, as his accuracy is undeniable.

[anon]

This may be why he's moving so quickly on all of his big ticket items, he knows the window is very short.

I'm on the fence as to whether anyone in the Obama Administration actually believes the stimulus will do what they've said it will, or if they really care.

But once the stimulus doesn't turn out to be what was promised, and if the banking collapse continues to go unchecked, then his numbers will take a huge dive.

Only liberal Democrats are going to get misty eyed about millions spent on homeless programs and affordable housing, the rest of the country will go "huh? I thought it was jobs"

Democrats have always been their own worst enemies. And I don't think he's going to have the Clintonian quality of remaining popular no matter what...outside of his core cult followers.

He does have some good ideas, but the intellect is blighted by the need to be Robin Hood for the poor.

It's also possible though, that the public will continue to blame Bush for the economy and Obama will be able to float on this negativity into a second term and the Dems will float on it to retain or increase their majority in 2010...

[mark l.]

"I'm on the fence as to whether anyone in the Obama Administration actually believes the stimulus will do what they've said it will, or if they really care."

the house provided the structure of the stimulus package. obama's economic team hadn't even been put together when the bill came out. They are governing purely on ideology, without any regard for the economy. Obama outsourced everything to Rahm, and Rahm is more obsessed with cutting the nation's nose off, to spite the gop's face. Obama should ditch Emmanuel and get a chief of staff who is going to protect and secure his legacy. Emmanuel has no commitment to obama, outside of signing policies that the democratic party advances.

there is no coherent policy on the economy, aside from treating the symptoms as the arise. It would be a good way of treating the common cold, but our nation is suffering from leprosy. Their growth projections are pure fantasy. they have unemployment at 8%, at the end of the year! They are clueless. They have no idea what they are dealing with, with the one exception of rush limbaugh. They have a plan for him.

[anon]

I hate to say it, but isn't that what Bush did? Isn't Rahm just another version of Karl Rove? The Bush budget forecasts were lies, the same as Obama's budget is full of lies and fairy tales. Bush used 9/11 to enact a bunch of GOP pet policies, the same way Obama is using the economic crisis to enact his pet policies.

This is what happens when a country becomes corrupted all down the line and the public votes for whoever tells them the best lies.

I'll tell you something else, Carter was a bad president, but he told the truth. The time for hard choices and hard decisions was THEN, in the 1970s, when it first became apparent that the rest of the world had caught up to U.S. manufacturing standards and capabilities. When it became apparent that uncontrolled energy consumption was not sustainable. Jimmy Carter asked the country to make some sacrifices, and we turned him into a laughing stock.

All this free market bs that both parties have been spouting for 30 years is, was and will always be nonsense. Smart countries protect themselves and their key industries, however they have to do it, tax incentives, gov. loans, wage freezes. Smart countries don't let the guts of their economy be taken out and sold off to the highest bidder and watch millions of jobs migrate to other countries and be happy about it, because it means radios/t shirts/coaches will be a couple of bucks cheaper.

At this point, Obama is only going to accelerate the decline that Bush already accelerated that has been fundamentally going on for 25 years.

[WBestPresidentEver]

I never believe in the polls. Exactly who are they polling ? Democrats, rebublicans, age groups, race, rich, poor, middle class. Unless you can prove to me it is done evenly, I never have thought they meant much of anything.
JMO of course.

[LOL]

are you an idiot?

From your own linked article:

"For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote."

Are you just stupid or do you intentionally mislead your readers?