<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pollster John Zogby Hangs Up on Hugh Hewitt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:10:31 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75518</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75518</guid>
		<description>I would have hung up on Hewitt, too, but I think Blumenthal makes some good points.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would have hung up on Hewitt, too, but I think Blumenthal makes some good points.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75430</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:29:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75430</guid>
		<description>Anderson,

This is probably a case where blogging formatting and practices is not best for the discussion.  I led with the Hewitt interview because that&#039;s where the trail started rather than the Blumenthal stuff and the good cites (esp. Mooney) Hewitt provides.

Hewitt gets around the point that Blumenthal makes both much better and in a more balanced way:  That Zogby&#039;s poll on military attitudes employed methodologies that aren&#039;t legit. 

The Mooney article--complaining that Zogby is a whore who lets right wing groups buy his reputation, ironically enough--explains that in some good detail as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anderson,</p>
<p>This is probably a case where blogging formatting and practices is not best for the discussion.  I led with the Hewitt interview because that's where the trail started rather than the Blumenthal stuff and the good cites (esp. Mooney) Hewitt provides.</p>
<p>Hewitt gets around the point that Blumenthal makes both much better and in a more balanced way:  That Zogby's poll on military attitudes employed methodologies that aren't legit. </p>
<p>The Mooney article--complaining that Zogby is a whore who lets right wing groups buy his reputation, ironically enough--explains that in some good detail as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75420</link>
		<dc:creator>Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75420</guid>
		<description>Hm.  It&#039;s disappointing to compare OTB&#039;s post with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008338.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kevin Drum&#039;s&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;blockquote&gt;here&#039;s Hugh Hewitt doing his usual ambush interview schtick in an interview with Zogby on Thursday:

&lt;i&gt;HH: [After lengthy hectoring about the poll&#039;s methodology, which Zogby had already said he would only discuss off the record for security reasons.] Why were no demographics released?

JZ: All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh.

....HH: John, I&#039;ve got your entire thing here. You have not released the demographics.

JZ: You are clearly uninformed.

HH: You have not released the demographics.

JZ: (click)

HH: You have not...he hung up. He hung up. That&#039;s John Zogby, not a pollster.&lt;/i&gt;

Guess what? &lt;strong&gt;Zogby had indeed released the demographics&lt;/strong&gt;. Here is Hugh&#039;s excuse for not knowing this:

&lt;i&gt;In fairness, his office had sent the demographics info (which had not been released yesterday and still isn&#039;t on the web) but did so in a PDF file that we were only able to read after downloading a new version of Adobe. When we were talking, we didn&#039;t have the demographics. Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;strong&gt;Could Hugh possibly be any more pathetic?&lt;/strong&gt; Zogby did send a copy of the demographics directly to Hugh&#039;s office &lt;em&gt;but had the gall to do so in the latest version of Adobe&lt;/em&gt;. Hugh&#039;s crack staff was apparently stymied by this, and Hugh thinks that Zogby should have performed some mind reading to figure this out. Telling him that &quot;all the demographics were indeed released&quot; wasn&#039;t enough. Instead, he should have told Hugh that &quot;the demographics were now out after previously being withheld.&quot; Right.

&lt;strong&gt;The entire right wing choir, of course, is now crowing about how Zogby was too gutless to answer Hugh&#039;s questions and hung up on him&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Present company included?

N.b. that Drum remains agnostic on the merits of Zogby&#039;s poll.  But unfortunately for me, I let my axiomatic contempt for Hewitt be outweighed by my respect for OTB&#039;s take on events.  Oops.

Also, last time I checked, Adobe was free, &amp; it was pretty much impossible to get through 24 hours without being invited to download same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm.  It's disappointing to compare OTB's post with <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008338.php" rel="nofollow">Kevin Drum's</a>:<br />
<blockquote>here's Hugh Hewitt doing his usual ambush interview schtick in an interview with Zogby on Thursday:</p>
<p><i>HH: [After lengthy hectoring about the poll's methodology, which Zogby had already said he would only discuss off the record for security reasons.] Why were no demographics released?</p>
<p>JZ: All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh.</p>
<p>....HH: John, I've got your entire thing here. You have not released the demographics.</p>
<p>JZ: You are clearly uninformed.</p>
<p>HH: You have not released the demographics.</p>
<p>JZ: (click)</p>
<p>HH: You have not...he hung up. He hung up. That's John Zogby, not a pollster.</i></p>
<p>Guess what? <strong>Zogby had indeed released the demographics</strong>. Here is Hugh's excuse for not knowing this:</p>
<p><i>In fairness, his office had sent the demographics info (which had not been released yesterday and still isn't on the web) but did so in a PDF file that we were only able to read after downloading a new version of Adobe. When we were talking, we didn't have the demographics. Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine.</i></p>
<p><strong>Could Hugh possibly be any more pathetic?</strong> Zogby did send a copy of the demographics directly to Hugh's office <em>but had the gall to do so in the latest version of Adobe</em>. Hugh's crack staff was apparently stymied by this, and Hugh thinks that Zogby should have performed some mind reading to figure this out. Telling him that "all the demographics were indeed released" wasn't enough. Instead, he should have told Hugh that "the demographics were now out after previously being withheld." Right.</p>
<p><strong>The entire right wing choir, of course, is now crowing about how Zogby was too gutless to answer Hugh's questions and hung up on him</strong>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Present company included?</p>
<p>N.b. that Drum remains agnostic on the merits of Zogby's poll.  But unfortunately for me, I let my axiomatic contempt for Hewitt be outweighed by my respect for OTB's take on events.  Oops.</p>
<p>Also, last time I checked, Adobe was free, &amp; it was pretty much impossible to get through 24 hours without being invited to download same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Verdon</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75419</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Verdon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75419</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been ignoring Zogby ever since he hosted one of the stupidest and most slanted articles that proved, &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;PROVED&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; that Kerry won Florida.  From that point on I figured he was nothing more than a partisan hack.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've been ignoring Zogby ever since he hosted one of the stupidest and most slanted articles that proved, <em><strong>PROVED</strong></em> that Kerry won Florida.  From that point on I figured he was nothing more than a partisan hack.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75374</link>
		<dc:creator>Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75374</guid>
		<description>Useful links, thanks.  One would certainly like to believe that a large majority of our troops do NOT think that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

That said, I&#039;ve seen interviews with troops where they expressed just that view.  Statistically meaningless, but enough to make me wish for a decent poll.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Useful links, thanks.  One would certainly like to believe that a large majority of our troops do NOT think that Saddam was involved in 9/11.</p>
<p>That said, I've seen interviews with troops where they expressed just that view.  Statistically meaningless, but enough to make me wish for a decent poll.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurence Simon</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pollster_john_zogby_hangs_up_on_hugh_hewitt_after_tough_questions/comment-page-1/#comment-75372</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:35:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/13879#comment-75372</guid>
		<description>Can Zogby declare fatwahs?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can Zogby declare fatwahs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
