Post-Debate SLOPs

A SLOP is a self-selected opinion poll, usually conducted online at some web site, and are excellent examples of crappy polls based on biased samples. The only people who participate are those who frequent a site, and if it's partisan you know the direction they'll lean, and those who bothered enough to take part. A real sample is random, or as close as we can get it, with people having a more-or-less equal chance of being included.

That brings us to last night's first presidential debate and the subsequent polls -- legitimate, and less so -- that quickly emerged.

CNN/ORC is usually first with these snap polls and it showed Clinton "won" the debate. OK, no surprise there to the casual viewer, especially as Trump unraveled a bit at the end. But what also emerged was a reliance by Trump supporters on a host of SLOPs that showed -- shocker -- Trump won. See a tweet below.

Does it shock anyone, for example, that folks who visit Drudge thought that Trump overwhelmingly won? Or Brietbart? Some more legitimate sites like CNBC, Time, and Fortune have it closer, but these are still SLOPs. They may measure enthusiasm, or a fanbase likely to bother voting on such things, but they don't measure by any stretch of the imagination public opinion about who "won" a debate.

Never pay attention to SLOPs. And news orgs should never use them and, if they do for the hell of it, should never report on them as being meaningful.

Was the CNN/ORC poll biased? It does include more Dems than Republicans, but it reflects the population it's trying to describe -- people who reported watching the debate. Maybe more Trump fans were watching NFL football. I dunno. A later poll, using real methodology, also found Clinton won (though not by quite as big a margin). In other words, real polls find Clinton won. Polls with absolutely no methodological rigor find Trump won. You decide which to believe.

Most Admired Men and Women

Hillary Clinton edges out Sarah Palin as the most admired women in America, according to a Gallup poll.  Can I get a big duh?  Barack Obama easily won most admired man -- again, no real surprise -- but what's scary and fascinating is Glenn Beck being tied at third.  Glenn Beck?  I guess tearing up on air works better for guys whose name is not Tim Tebow.  Beck had a helluva year, also finishing second place finish in biggest political lie of 2009.

Most Admired

Part of what people know is what they feel, or what they think of others. Hence, my attempt to tie the "most admired man and woman" into this blog and fill some white space. Yeah, shameless.

Okay, so the Most Admired Man of 2008? Easy. You guessed it -- Barack Obama, according to a USAToday/Gallup poll. Nailed 32 percent, followed by George W. Bush with 5 percent. Down a couple of places, tied for the same spot, is an ironic combination of the Pope, Billy Graham, and Bill Clinton. Gotta love a good juxtaposition, or what sounds like the beginning of a damn funny joke: "The Pope, Billy Graham, and Bill Clinton walk into a bar ...".

Most Admired Woman? Again, almost anyone could predict this -- Hillary Clinton with 20 percent, followed by Sarah Palin with 11 percent. Oprah comes in third, followed by an unsurprising cast of characters except perhaps Margaret Thatcher in sixth place. Haven't thought of her in years. No Tina Fey.

By the way, "W" has dropped steadily from year to year from 29 percent in 2003 to his 5 percent this year. Still, every year but this one he won among men. The "most admired" is more a function of publicity than anything else (though Margaret Thatcher?), media coverage and agenda-setting at work.

Hillary and the Pollsters

Although my title sounds a little like the name of a mediocre rock band, and although it's misleading since this seems to be from a handful of Clintonaholics and not the senator herself, there is something going on. I'd mentioned in a post yesterday after hearing for a few days about some of these emails to pollsters wanting them to include Hillary Clinton in their presidential horserace polls.

Someone at the Huffington Post has picked up on this, which means if there is any gas in the tank it'll trickle to the big boys in a day or two.

I'd be tempted to blame this on a crazy or two out there, refusing to accept defeat. Or maybe Rush Limbaugh is behind it since he pushed Republicans to vote Hillary and keep things stirred up. There are rumors of Clinton's name being put in nomination at the convention, so this dovetails nicely with that, if you happen to be a conspiracy buff.

I'm not.

But it's fun as hell.

Favorite Songs and Super Heroes

As has been breathlessly reported over the last couple of days, we now know the favorite songs of McCain and Obama. The results are disturbing.

John McCain has two ABBA songs in his top five and Obama has no ABBA songs. Obama includes a song by the Rolling Stones and Bruce Springsteen. Winner: Obama

Obama likes Spiderman and Batman. McCain lists only Batman. Marvel Comics always beats DC Comics. Winner: Obama.

ABBA? Sheesh.

Now the journalist part of me suspects the two camps played a role in picking these songs. ABBA's Dancing Queen opens a whole new demographic for McCain to pursue, and I'm not going any further with that one. Springsteen is known for thoughtful, working class stuff, so picking a song from The Boss makes good sense for Obama(though he picked "I'm on Fire" instead of something really kickass, like "Thunder Road." Go figure.). And anyone who picks "Gimmer Shelter" by the Stones can't be all bad. Helluva tune.

What people know is in part issue stances, in part character, and in part when it comes to presidential candidates a sense of the person. I'm not sure ABBA was the way to go for McCain.

Later today, if possible, I want to blog about a quiet movement by some folks to get pollsters to include Hillary Clinton in pre-election polls, at least until the conventions are over. It's fascinating stuff, these emails to pro pollsters asking them to include her name, suggesting that maybe it's not so over after all. They note Obama's poll numbers against McCain seeming to slip. Again, fascinating. Hopefully will have more later.

CNN vs Fox vs The World

As I mentioned in an earlier post some time back, CNN's recent ratings success had more to do with the Democratic nomination battle and network audience demographics than it did with anything they were doing right.

Today in the AJC, an article noting that cable news viewership has significantly declined (hey, it's summer! there's beer to drink!), including CNN as it drops back to its usual 2nd place behind Fox News.

Here's part of the article that I believe deserves comment:

"I think (Sen. Barack) Obama's nomination and his winning the primaries has changed things dramatically for cable, and I think that's one of the reasons why Fox hasn't been doing as well," said Paul Levinson, chairman of Fordham University's communication and media studies department. "People who support Obama don't watch Fox much."

Absolutely. Dems tend to watch CNN more than Fox and they were caught up in the race between Obama and Clinton. And then there's this bit of nobraindom:

Richard White, a spokesman for Fox News, disagreed. Noting Fox regained the lead in a key prime-time demographic, White said, "It's surprising that a chairman of a communications and media department could be so out of touch and ill-informed."

PR flaks need to learn when to shut up, especially when they (1) can't read data and (2) have no common sense and (3) just because they're PR people and should shut up anyway, especially on topics like this. I know PR guys are paid to spew crap like this but come on, grow a conscience.

So CNN slips back into second place. As I said it would, months ago when they were bragging about moving ahead of Fox. I love being right, mainly because it happens so rarely.