July 24, 2007
Poll accuracy: It’s all in the eye of the, er, candidate
I learned two things this morning from reading about the City Paper’s recently conducted mayoral poll: One, the mayoral race is very much in play for at least four candidates, though it may be headed toward a Bob Clement-Karl Dean runoff. Two, a poll is only valid if you like the results it generates. Well, at least that’s what seems to happen every time one is released:
“You can do these polls any way you want to — unscientific and random polls are of little concern to me and my campaign,” [Buck] Dozier said. “We are going after the likely voters who vote in this kind of election — not just people who are registered,” he said.
[David] Briley’s campaign said the race is far from clinched. “Our internal polling continues to show that this is a wide open race. We believe this race will be won on the ground,” said spokeswoman Emily Passini.
In a race where five candidates have significant support, I think there is an element of truth in both Dozier’s and Passini’s comments. I definitely see scenarios where Dozier and Briley can make the runoff. At the same time, though, what else can you say when you are trailing in a poll a week before Election Day except that the poll isn’t accurate?
This may be the first time during the campaign, but I definitely agree with Ben Hall on one thing: “While not directly addressing the poll, Clement spokesman Ben Hall said, ‘The only poll that matters is the one on election day.’” Is anyone else ready to stop pontificating and see how it turns out?









