Red flags: Maybe the Star Tribune CD8 poll is a joke

Earlier today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published their poll of CD8 showing Rick Nolan ahead of Congressman Chip Cravaack by 7 points. Later, David Brauer of MinnPost.com explained what “red flags” went up for him with the methodology used by Pulse Opinion Research, the polling firm commissioned by the Strib.

First, POR polls on a single day — Tuesday, Oct. 16 in the Nolan-Cravaack case — compared to three for SUSA and four for Public Policy Polling (which also has a good Minnesota record).

Though pollsters refer to their results as a “snapshot in time,” single-day polling is not a best practice. It is too susceptible to a one day’s news or advertising. It doesn’t allow for callbacks, which some pollsters attempt to mitigate low response rates, perhaps the biggest trap door in this year’s numbers. If POR’s methodology box is gospel, they reached all 1,000 voters in just four hours.

Lesson learned: Polls, like baseball playoff series, should not last one day.

Second, POR only calls land lines, even though a quarter of Minnesotans are cell-phone-only, according to Census Bureau estimates. POR says it augments landline respondents with cell phone panels, but Star Tribune digital editor Dennis McGrath says “that proved difficult at the [Congressional District] level, so it’s land lines only.”

Though there’s some evidence Democrats are underrepresented when cell phones are excluded, that might not be the case in the 8th. This is a split district, with a more DFL north (Duluth, Iron Range) and a GOP south (what I call the Emmer Exurbs). Cell phone coverage is spottier in the more remote north, so POR might have missed a lot of young Republicans.

Lesson learned: Mobile phones exist on the Iron Range.

Then there’s using POR in the first place. Fivethirtyeight.com polling analyst Nate Silver gave Pulse Opinion Research remarkably low marks for the 2010 cycle, noting they “missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters.”

Lesson learned: If a lefty stat nerd can’t trust your polling firm, why should we.

The Star Tribune already has a terrible track record with their polls; you’d think they’d want to be accurate one of these elections.

Is Cravaack in danger of losing CD8?

The Minneapolis Star Tribune released a poll this morning showing Rick Nolan ahead of Congressman Chip Cravaack by 7 points. Conservatives love to tease the Strib over their liberal-leaning polls, but let’s compare the internals to a KSTP/SurveyUSA poll conducted last week.

Both polls had a Voter ID of Democrats +7. The Strib poll was D 37, R 30, I 33; KSTP/SurveyUSA was D 35, R 28, I 32.

The Strib poll interviewed more people (1,000 likely voters vs. 578), so they have a smaller margin of error: ±3.0% vs. KSTP/SurveyUSA’s ±4.2% margin of error.

KSTP/SurveyUSA had the race Nolan 46, Cravaack 45 between October 7 and 9. The Star Tribune has the race Nolan 50, Cravaack 43 from their October 16 phone calls.

With independents, Cravaack has a lead in both polls, but the lead shrank in the Strib poll. KSTP/SurveyUSA independents: Cravaack 53, Nolan 36; a 17-point lead. Star Tribune independents: Cravaack 48, Nolan 41; a 7-point lead.

It’s easy to ignore Star Tribune polls, but conservatives should use this to get extra motivated to keep that important seat.

For perspective: in 2010, the only poll listed by Real Clear Politics, a SurveyUSA poll conducted about five days before the election had Jim Oberstar up by 1 point (±3.9% MOE). Cravaack would end up winning by 1.6%.

To Vikings columnist, I’m a “simple-minded” stadium opponent

On Wednesday, Star Tribune sports columnist Jim Souhan wrote an entire column based on a question Rep. Dean Urdahl asked in House Government Operations and Elections Committee testimony:

“Why should the state of Minnesota contribute to a stadium for a billionaire owner?”

Souhan then attacks the question saying that it’s “as old as Jamie Moyer” and that those who ask such questions “shamelessly pander” to “simple-minded people” and “should not be taken seriously”.

Are you against corporate welfare? According to Jim Souhan, you’re a moron who should keep your opinions to yourself.

The funniest part of Souhan’s screed? He never mentioned that Urdahl voted for the stadium in committee!

Rep. Urdahl defended himself today by submitting an op-ed to the Strib, saying:

It appears that Souhan neither attended the meeting about which he wrote, nor listened to the audio from it, nor reviewed the transcript before penning his column. He also did not contact me before taking great leaps in asserting what my thought process was.

But that’s alright. Justifying corporate welfare is too important of an issue to bother with silly things like research.

With journalism this bad, how can I trust Jim with NFL Draft coverage?

The Strib later appended Souhan’s column with the following clarification:

This column did not mention that Rep. Dean Urdahl voted in favor of the stadium Monday night as a member of the House Government Operations and Elections Committee.

If you get a key piece of information like that so badly wrong, you shouldn’t clarify the column, you should redact it.

I’m a Vikings fan, but I want Zygi Wilf to pay for his stadium. It’s not because I don’t care if the team moves, but because I hate corporate welfare more than I hate the Packers.

It was wrong for Best Buy to build their headquarters on eminent domain land. It was wrong for the U.S. Government to buy General Motors. It would be just as wrong to have taxpayers build a shrine to the most profitable sport in American history.

And I couldn’t care less about what benefits would result in a gleaming new gridiron park. The ends should never justify the means.

The risk of losing the Vikings to stand up for my principles is really hard to face. I love this club and I don’t want to lose them. I’m just tired of teams owners using our love of a game to extort money into their wallets.

But don’t listen to me; I’m simple-minded.

Our Symbolic Governor

Jennifer Brooks in the Star Tribune:

The governor, who admitted his action would do nothing to keep the amendment off the November ballot, said he was issuing the symbolic veto because the Legislature sent his office a copy of the legislation that passed the amendment.

This is ridiculous. Is Governor Dayton going to be filling up his calendar with other powers he’s not able to actually use? Will he symbolically allow electronic pull-tabs? Or just symbolically build a Vikings stadium?

(Although, I’d rather have him symbolically raise taxes then actually do it.)

Governor Dayton seems to want to have the final say on all Minnesota political policy. The Governor’s veto of Voter ID at the polls was checked with a constitutional amendment. The Governor’s plan to unionize independent child-care providers was checked down by the court on Friday.

It’s called checks and balances, Mr. Dayton. If you don’t understand that, you won’t be a governor, you’ll be a symbolic governor. You get to have a vote on Voter ID the same time I do: on this November’s ballot.