Zogby is crap

I'm not the first to say it. To the best of my knowledge, the first official such proclamation came from Jim Geraghty at TKS after the 2004 election.

But I certainly believe it, and his latest offering only confirms it. The professionals started weighing in on it yesterday, and it's not pretty.

Mystery Pollster goes into detail (minimal at best however) as to the super-double-secret methodology Zogby employed to get this survey done:

So in short, I can tell you that Zogby found a creative solution to the difficult problem of polling troops in Iraq, but I promised to say no more than that. I asked Zogby what advice he would offer data consumers who find this all puzzling. In this case, he said, "you have to trust me."

Trust a guy who hasn't gotten anything right since 2000? Trust a guy who butchered his 2004 Presidential polling with his on-line panel? I don't think so (I was working for a research firm in Phoenix at the time, and while I am not an expert in the field,--I only play one on TV--it seemed plainly obvious to me that there was no possible way that his on-line sample was sufficiently randomized and his results proved it).

Mystery Pollster also reveals that this study was commissioned (paid for) by partisan dollars. Combined with his...interesting choice of methodologies and the fact that it can't be tested because it's locked behind a super-double-secret wall of protection for the sake of the interviewer's life.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell, or any other kind of test. It's crap.

Democracy Project looks at it with a critical eye as well: Even from those sympathetic toward the reported results, I've found no knowledgeable argument for accepting the [sic] Zogby's reliability.

Also a reader emails with a very good question that I probably should have put to Zogby:

What is the problem with releasing the demographics on the poll? Were it truly representative, it would have a breakdown of service branches proportional to the military in Iraq. Same with the breakdown for gender, age, etc. I can't imagine any security risk in releasing the demographics, or motive for keeping them hidden other than they would expose the lack of validity of the survey.

Neither the poll release nor (I'm told) the full report available for sale provides statistics on the demographic composition of the sample.

Hugh Hewitt posted military reactions to the poll. They thought it was crap. And today, Hugh follows up with his aborted interview of Zogby who finally relented and agreed to be interviewed for today's program.

He hangs up. Of the interview Hugh says: The "poll" is quite obviously crap when one sees the questions, and Zogby's refusal to answer basic questions that do not go to security underscores his defensiveness. The survey instrument is shot through with absurd choices while missing obvious questions, such as "How important is success of this mission?" and "Describe your morale?" It would have been interesting to ask if the troops have heard of Cindy Shaheen, or their opinion of the antiwar activists, though of course an antiwar activist paid for this circus.

I doubt it would be appropriate to ask for opinions on the president or Secretary Rumsfeld, but given that Zogby didn't ask for permission from the Pentagon, he might want to answer that down the line.

In the interview Zogby complains that his PR director told my producer he wouldn't discuss some things on air. Fine. I didn't ask any of those things, like base location or identity or methods of the "poll" takers.

But Zogby flew off the handle at one point exclaiming he was a patriot, a fact with which I don't disagree and haven't raised.

I think he's a shameless self-promoting pretend pollster, that's all.

And I think the smoke about "security" is just that. And refusing to tell me which military man wanted a briefing was the giveaway.

It's crap.