Zogby is complete dog ****. Im just gonna what I posted in another thread about this **** poll.
"Zogby This is literally the same firm that has Clinton leading by 7 points in ****ing Kansas... Zogby polls are a ****ing joke.
"When reached by phone last week, Cliff Zukin, a political science professor and polling expert at Rutgers University, suggests that journalists should generally be wary of any Zogby interactive poll.
“The Zogby stuff, on scientific grounds, is quite questionable,” says Zukin. “Online, Internet, opt-in polling, where people volunteer to be respondents, doesn’t really have a basis in scientific validity. There are two kinds of samples in the world. There are probability samples, and there are non-probability samples.”
The Zogby interactive polls, says Zukin, clearly fall into the latter camp. “With probability samples, when everybody has a known chance of being selected, you can make pretty valid inferences about the population from which it is drawn,” says Zukin. “You can’t do that at all with self-selected surveys. That’s a problem.”
“As I have written repeatedly, the poll that I think is the least credible is Zogby/Wall Street Journal/Battleground States,” adds Burka. “I can’t believe the Journal allows its name to be attached to this so-called poll.” How Reliable Is the Zogby-Journal Poll? - Columbia Journalism Review
"Zogby, however, also conducts Internet-based polls. These polls are conducted among users who volunteer to participate in them, first by signing up at the Zogby website (you can do so yourself here) and then by responding to an e-mail solicitation. These Internet polls, to the extent they rely on voluntary participation, violate the most basic precept of survey research, which is that of the random sample. And as you might infer, they obtain absolutely terrible results.
All told, between 48 contests that he’s surveyed over the past two election cycles, Zogby’s Internet polls have been off by an average of 7.6 points. This is an extreme outlier with respect to absolutely anyone else in the polling community.
These Internet polls, simply put, are not scientific and should not be published by any legitimate news organization, at least not without an asterisk the size of an Alex Rodriguez steroidal syringe. But I’ll bet you that Matt Drudge already has the siren cued up by now."
The Worst Pollster in the World Strikes Again | FiveThirtyEight
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
"“Zogby Analytics has a track record of remarkably inaccurate preelection polls,” says Krosnick, noting that those inaccuracies are likely due to nonrandom sampling.
John Zogby, Zukin said, has “a poor reputation” in the scientific community. He described Zogby as “a marketer, and very good self-promoter, who has done some very poor work in the past.”"
How Scientific Are Donald Trump’s Favorite Polls? - The Atlantic
"Zogby polls surveyed voters who volunteered to participate over the Internet — a method considered less reliable by many polling experts than surveys that randomly contact voters and don’t exclude those without Internet access... Data guru Nate Silver has referred to Zogby as “the worst pollster in the world.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/donal...2016-campaign/
"However, he testified two-thirds of them were from firms he considered "ones we typically would not put a lot of credence in." Hickman put Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision, Insider Advantage, Zogby and Research 2000 in the "less reputable" group." http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...er-oath-137100"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...e-clinton-38-trump-36-a-2.html#post1066213499
