|
|
| |
| Thu, Nov. 20, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Upon further reflection Sunday, Nov 20, 2005 By David Sanders It was nothing more than too much inside baseball, one of those useless stories that points out how political journalism can fall prey to the horse race and a game of cat and mouse. A little less than a year away from the general election, the great poll controversy of 2005 proved to be a big story for those of us who aren't "normal" - you know, people who cover politics for a living. The facts are straightforward. For the first time in a couple of decades, Arkansans are presented with an incumbentless governor's race. The upcoming election should have far-reaching consequences. The day after the general election ballots are counted, we should know if the state has moved more toward the GOP column, like its neighbors, or if the Democratic Party has solidified a dominant position in a Southern state. Clearly there is a lot at stake, which explains why the recent polls proved to be such a popular subject. The Arkansas Poll had Democrat Mike Beebe up a few percentage points on Republican Asa Hutchinson. Days later a Wall Street Journal/Zogby International Poll was released. It showed Hutchinson leading Beebe. Things were made interesting by the fact that the WSJ/Zogby poll included Democrat Bill Halter, the former Clinton administration official who has perfected the practice of exploring a possible candidacy. This was not just a case of dueling banjos between the respective campaigns. Campaign workers were busy touting the various results in e-mails and press statements in an effort to gain something from the news about their candidate's perceived strength. The campaigns were not alone. They were joined by a full symphony colored by the sounds from print reporters, radio correspondents, television anchors, and the vilest of them all - Internet bloggers, and, of course, opinion writers - including yours truly. What's amazing is that both polls were inside the margin of error. Frankly, that fact alone should have ended the discussions about the polls. It was always going to be a close race; these two polls prove it. Under the guise of offering a service to my readers, I offered my analysis, expressing concern that the Arkansas Poll had overrepresented Democratically dominated congressional districts. Critics of the WSJ/Zogby poll raised very legitimate questions about how the poll used Internet participants. These criticisms, of course, cast doubt on the validity of both polls. What followed was nothing less than a glorified spitting contest, where innocent people, who heard or saw any of the poll stories, were treated to a hodgepodge of unfamiliar terms: sampling methodology, oversampling, undersampling, weighting, likely voters and registered voters. But for what? I'm still asking myself that question. I, of course, wrote about the great poll controversy of 2005 twice. I can only surmise that I participated in this particular travesty so that when a period of mental clarity presented itself, I could laugh at my own expense. There is something comical about a columnist who finally decides to come up for air only to realize that he has been run over by a bus and is wrapped around its axle. Mental clarity finally showed up shortly after writing Wednesday's column. Two simple questions bounced around in my mind. Do normal people really care about comparing and contrasting polls for an election that is 340 something days away and should they? No and no. Sticking my columns on the subject into a newly created "lessons learned" file seems like the best thing to do. So what's the lesson? It's pretty simple. Inside baseball can be a very dangerous game, especially when you whack yourself in the head with the bat. ------- David Sanders writes twice weekly for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com. |
