March 5, 2026 • 45 mins
The legendary pollster talks about the war in Iran and more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome, welcome, Welcome back to the Bob Left Sets podcast.
My guest today is the legendary pollster John Zogby. John,
we scheduled this podcast a couple of weeks ago, and
in the interim the Iran War started and your schedule
got crazy. So when a crisis like this happens, tell
me how your world changes.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Well, for starters, this media media calling around the clock
literally New Zealand, Ireland, Malaysia yesterday. But you know, good
bit here in the United States, so that takes some time.
And then secondly, a little less so these days because
much more of our work as private sector and you know,
(00:55):
not non governmental agencies and so on. But in the
day it was not uncommon for one of my media
clients New York Post, Reuters, NBC News, Hey, can you
get on the phones right away or can you get
us a poll in twenty four hours?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Okay, these media outlets are calling. What are they going
to ask and what information do you have to give them?
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, my expertise is not to discuss presidential strategy or
any of those sorts of things. Public opinion, what do
the American people think? And I am fortunate that I
can go beyond the guys at the barbershop or the
folks in the grocery line. I can take samples, which
(01:41):
I did. Interestingly, my son and I are together, and
we pulled the American people after the State of the
Union message, remember that one.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
That was oh yeah last week.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, And so we pulled Wednesday and Thursday night then
and released a on Friday morning. We asked a question
about Iran. Do you support the president's handling of Iran?
And it was tied forty five percent supported, forty five
percent opposed. And then we went to bed Friday night
(02:17):
thinking that, hey, there's some movement in the negotiations, right,
and the negotiations are going to start again today when
reality intervened and we went to war. There is a
poll out, but it's not by us, and the poll
is far different than you would find normally when a
(02:40):
president announces a war. This time, twenty seven percent support
going to war with Iran a military action in Iran,
and forty nine percent the pose. The rest are not sure.
That's Reuters and a company called Ipsos based in France.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Okay, State of the Union happens, You're doing a pull.
What questions are you asking what information are you trying
to clean?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, for starters, we tried to stick close to the
president's speech, and so we want to know overall, do
you support or oppose his job as president, the job
he's doing as president. And of course we ask it
with a scale, so strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat opposed,
(03:31):
strongly opposed, so we can get levels of intensity to
which are very important, not just majorities or pluralities. But
then how about is handling an immigration, crime and public safety, healthcare,
the environment and so on. And what we found, not
surprisingly at all, because this is the state of our world,
(03:56):
is that the president is upside down. In all of
his numbers these there are more people who are opposed
to him than support him. The one exception this time
was on immigration, where this time he was forty seven
percent support and forty five percent oppose. We have been
(04:22):
seeing him upside down, but close like that. But the
nation is not simply split or hyper polarized. It is
divided in a way that we have not seen before
in our lifetime.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Go a little deeper. How is it divided in a
way we haven't seen before?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
So you know, there used to be some flexibility you
know there were conservative Democrats. There were Believe it or not,
I'm here in New York and here in California.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
There were liberal Republicans Rocketype, Yeah, Rockefeller is the first
name that comes to mind. There aren't, make no mistake
about it. There are no conservative Democrats, there are no
liberal Republicans, and so essentially we have a partisan split
and little to no flexibility on those numbers. We are seeing, however,
(05:24):
that the president's support among Republicans is that about in
our last poll last week eighty three eighty four percent.
Usually could expect ninety to ninety two percent. That's a
drop that we're watching. By the same token, there are
growing numbers of independents, and independence are very difficult to
(05:48):
pigeonhole as a unit. There are so many different sources
and grades of independence, but as taken as a whole,
President has about mid fifties who oppose him on every
issue among independence, although on some issues, notably immigration, crime,
(06:15):
and public safety, it's upwards of sixty sixty one percent
among independents who oppose him.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
So tell me about methodology In the old days, Well,
I'm sure people stopped at people's doors at one point,
but it was phone. Now people don't pick up their landlines,
then people don't pick up their phones. Then there's text,
there's other companies use polls at the bottom of websites.
How do you do it?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Okay, so I do go back to the days when
we used everybody had a landline and sixty five percent
we're happy to do a poll. That was a response rate,
and we evolved, not surprisingly due to technology and social
change in this country, to single digit or low double
(07:01):
digit response rates. And so we were among the pioneers
in developing online polling. And it was a long slog. Basically,
we would gather as many email addresses and a coalition
of the willing as possible, that is, those who would
tell us in our telephone surveys back twenty five years
(07:23):
ago and so on, that they'd be willing to take
a poll. We gathered internally at the turn of the
millennium about a million one point two million.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
At the.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Within a couple of years of email addresses that were
validated demographically and behavioral characteristics.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
How do you validate them by telephone?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Interestingly, so when it was one or the other, we
would either use our usual telephone surveys and at the
end ask if they would be willing to take a
survey online and give us an email address, And so
we plottingly collected that way.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Or the other way around.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
We would purchase tons of email addresses and have four
servers going at the same time inviting people at random
to sign up to take surveys. And today we have
fifteen million.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Okay, So then you called them and asked them what.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Well if the online surveys, we would send out a
random sampling of the email addresses that we had, and
we would ask them, well, beyond political surveys, but you
know our registered de voter, they're likely to vote, what's
their party identification? And then we'd get into politically the
(09:01):
president or the governor, whatever our universe was, the mayor,
job performance, job performance on a number of issues, personal
favorability of them, and possible candidates running against them. In
proprietary a private polling for candidates, individuals or retail brands.
(09:25):
We would ask what would move them, what drives you,
what would make you more likely to support, what would
make you more likely to oppose? And if you knew
this about that, would it make you much more likely
somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely to
support or purchase or whatever. But a typical poll could
(09:48):
be forty fifty questions.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Okay, I have never answered a pull. I remember before
people meeters, they once mailed a form to us and
you filled out what you watched. So in the people Meter,
of course, being Nielsen in television, the question becomes there's
always a margin of error, But how do you ensure accuracy?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So you start with the sampling procedure. So today talking
about online polls as an example, but the same principles
will hold true for those who are still doing telephone surveys.
Is that we have a list of fifteen million Americans
(10:36):
and who have been validated, and in their entirety they
are representative of the American people demographically. If we're doing
a poll, say we want a thousand likely voters, we
will take what's called a random stratified sample of about
(10:56):
ten thousand email addresses from that fifty million. The keyword
there random. Everybody has to have the same chance of
being selected from that pool as everybody else. And secondly, stratified,
we don't draw them nationally. We draw them by region.
So if thirty percent of our sample is from the south,
(11:21):
a thirty percent of the population or the electorate is
from the south, as an example, then thirty percent of
our pool is from the south, twenty five percent of
the northeast twenty five, twenty six per and so on.
And then we begin the invitation process knowing that we're
targeting regions and knowing after all these years that those
(11:46):
responses will come back within those levels of stratification and
be somewhat somewhat representative of people in those regions by ray,
by age, by educational level, by gender. It's not a
perfect world, so that when those numbers do come in,
(12:11):
there may be some groups that are slightly underrepresented, normally Blacks, Hispanics,
poorer people, normally men, young men. And what we do
is we apply waiting, just simple waiting, to bump them
up to what the expectation is for voter turnout or
(12:36):
for retail shopping the adult population in general. But you never,
let's say, you hardly ever get a situation where you
have way too many women, or way too many whites,
or way too many of any group. The waiting generally
(12:57):
is slight.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Okay, you do a lot of market research. Steve Jobs
famously said he didn't believe in market research because people
didn't know what they wanted until he gave it to them.
Other people say market research will tell you where you've been,
but not where you're going. How would you respond to those?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Well, for starters, I've got an Apple phone, so sorry, Steve,
what was the other the other question?
Speaker 1 (13:29):
People say that it will tell you where you've been
but not where you're going.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
No, Now, we believe in and we do projective polling. Now, look, Bob,
nobody sees the future, at least clearly. But there is
a way of using analytics, and I might add some
good artwork involved too, to ask questions about how would
(13:55):
you respond to a certain situation, and from the tabulation
of those responses on how folks would respond, or how
they would anticipate, or how they would behave or how
their minds would change, you get a a reasonable reading
of what people will do under certain circumstances. However, there
(14:21):
are other variables in our world, and so look, I
could have done continued my poll through Friday night about
how do you feel about Trump's handling of Iran? I
did not know that we'd be bombing the hell out
of Iran Saturday morning.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
So you're not the only Polster. You have a high
profile amongst the small quadre. What is the special sauce
that you bring to the table?
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Indititionally, it was accuracy. That's where I gained my fame.
I got races on the gubernatorial level here in New
York that no one even came close to. I was
hired by the Murdoch Empire, Liberal Democrat that I am.
I'm polling for the New York Post and Early Fox
(15:24):
in ninety five and ninety six. Then I was hired
by the largest news agency in the world, Reuters, and
the Reuter Zogbee Pole was born in nineteen ninety six.
And it did not hurt me at all that my
colleagues at the networks and at the universities were attacking
(15:45):
me because I was standing alone saying that the Clinton
Dole race is a lot closer than people think. And
when the numbers came in and the attacks continued, I
got that race right to anywhere between one to three
tenths of a percent. I'd already gotten some other high
profile ones right and that at.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
That point things just soared.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
But then I went on to get other races right
and ones that no one else got right in Mexico,
in Israel, in Albania. And now I'm a strategic planner,
and I know that you cannot keep a reputation as
(16:31):
the most accurate polster in the world forever. So that's
when we started to focus on our strategic thinking and
on thought leadership, and a number of books that came
out talking about the future and what we see from
(16:51):
at that point, twenty years of polling, thirty years of polling,
and so on, why.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Were you more accurate than your competitors.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
There were you know, ninety plus percent of what I
did was like everybody else. But some of the things
that were different was that I would apply a slight
weight for political party identification. Many of my colleagues don't
believe in that. They called it a trailer variable, something
(17:25):
that's very soft. So look, if I'm for George W.
Bush today, I'm a Republican. If I'm for al Gore tomorrow,
then I'm probably a Democrat. I believe that party is
a lead variable. Many of us are born with it.
(17:49):
Most of us filter our information through our party identification.
And so I found that some of my colleagues were
actually getting much larger fluctuations even on a day by
day basis in their samples. Too many Democrats, too few Republicans.
(18:13):
I had noticed early, and again I'm a liberal Democrat,
but I noticed early a tendency for Democrats to answer
the phone more than Republicans. That's why I feel that
to a great degree. That's the one thing that I
did differently that helped propel.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Me in the last ten years. Nate Silver has gotten
a lot of notoriety for pull averaging, pull balancing. What's
your opinion on that.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Well, he kind of bounced me out, and so they're
a little bit of bias.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
But my sense.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Is I pull people, I don't poll numbers. I get
a feel for polls. I mean, when when I had
a call center, I would visit the call center during elections,
and what did you hear? What were they really saying?
(19:17):
These are the the telephone callers that I would talk to,
and they would tell me, you know, there were people
who were really soft, there are people who were not
paying attention but intended to vote. There are people who
are very hard. But I got a sense that those
numbers were really an aggregation of people not simply an
(19:40):
aggregation of numbers.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I think with Nate.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
There was too much emphasis on analytics and an algorithm.
That are algorithms that he used that could be applicable
sometimes and not so applicable. I'm sorry at other times,
and then I do feel and you know, I wish
(20:07):
him all the best he's had, all the best. In fact,
that he was a bit too much like Icarus in mythology.
He flew with wax wings too close to the sun,
and that sooner or later, just like Zogby, you get
one wrong and people start looking at you funny. And
(20:29):
I'm not sure he handled it all well.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
That well, good analogy. Okay, many people were surprised by
Trump in twenty sixteen. There was less surprise in twenty
twenty four. But were you surprised based on your numbers?
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Well, surprised, yes, of course, But on election night, no,
And you'll find I didn't poll in twenty sixteen. We
had just started a transition new company after a non
compete for a few years. I sold the original company,
so we were not in the polling loop. But I
was analyzing the trend lines in the well, the whole election,
(21:15):
but particularly in the last ten days, and there was
clearly a momentum against Hillary Clinton, a momentum towards Donald Trump.
And I published a piece on Forbes in the early
afternoon of election day saying, if anybody knows, if anybody
(21:36):
claims that they know what's going to happen, they're lying
because we don't know what's going to happen. There's a
trend line here that I'm watching.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Okay, couple of questions in twenty twenty four. You may
not have done research, but you're an expert in this area.
If Biden had stepped decide would a Democrat, if there
was a primary process, would they have won? Secondarily, was
Kamala af flawed candidate from minute one?
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Those are two very good questions, and we will be
asking them for years. If Biden had stepped aside, and
most importantly, had allowed for a primary system to develop
and for candidates to be out there and for Democrats
(22:29):
to have a real choice, it could have been a
far different election. Was and in fact, we didn't see
since a final break of those battle ground states, and
many of them until the very end, you know, until
(22:49):
a few days before those were competitive. Secondly, I thought
she was a good candidate. But she had one hundred
and seven days. Now, those of us who follow politics
very closely, you know, knew Kamila Harris. Anew of Kamala
Harris had followed her career. Yes, there were flaws that
(23:13):
liberals would would not identify with her. Yes, there were flaws.
I believe with Democrats and independence and public opinion about
Gaza shifting that Kamala Harris may have done a bit
better if she had shifted, and probably gotten more younger
(23:36):
voters in the process and more.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
Black voters as well.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But with that said, no, I don't I don't think
that there were any built in flaws that in her
persona or her career that may that pointed her out
to be a loser.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Well, I would say her fear failure in the previous
presidential primary circuit to get even one delegate was indicative
of me. But let me jump forward. Bill Clinton selected
in nineteen ninety two, it's a disaster in nineteen ninety
four congressional races. Then he famously triangulates based on information.
(24:22):
My question here is not specific to Bill Clinton. To
what degree do politicians make their decisions based on the polls?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
To what degree eighty.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Plus.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
You know, no leader can afford to be.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Totally ignoring the public. Will the vox popular.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
That's where you know, I think our president today has
been playing very successfully to that hardcore base of MAGA.
But there is evidence in the Reuters poll today that
there's a chipping away of that built in you know,
(25:19):
forty two percent that he Trump just gets for showing
up and for continuing his style of campaigning. So I
think that you know, it wasn't invented with Bill Clinton.
George H. W. Bush, to be sure, had a briefing
(25:39):
book with the latest polling numbers from the night before
every single day of his presidency, and if Ronald Reagan didn't,
then Jeffrey Deaver, is behind the scenes image maker and
communications person, certainly was reading the polls.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Now, these may be so questions compared to your statistics,
but what do we know. You have these polls that
are starting to lean against Trump. He does not seem
to be changing his behavior. And in addition, there have
been authoritarian tendencies we've never seen previously. So traditionally we
(26:22):
might say the polls are against them, the person's in decline.
But we have a unique situation with the way he's behaving.
I could go through all the facts, but you know them.
So is this a different thing or the poll if
the public ultimately is such that he's going to lose out,
(26:44):
his party, his mission, etc. Or can we say that
this is a different landscape. You know, they're talking about
him controlling the elections. There are all of these things,
those supersede poles.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
There are other variables. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Now, just by way of context, let's understand that Barack
Obama won with majorities in two thousand and eight and
twenty twelve. In between, he lost almost record numbers of
seats for his party in twenty ten in twenty fourteen,
(27:23):
his success did not translate into his party's success. In fact,
he lost numerous state legislative seats and majorities during that
time period. So back to President Trump. If the election
were held today today, the Republicans would probably take a beating.
(27:45):
What do I base that on? For starters, that semi
artificial reading that we take the congressional generic who was
to vote for in your district today?
Speaker 3 (27:58):
The Democrat of.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
The Republican We know that Democrats in the polls need
to have a four and a half to five point
lead that's the threshold, and from there we can translate
that into gaining seats in Congress. Today they hold about
a five and a half point lead. But we also
(28:21):
know that in eleven fifteen special elections for state legislature
or Congress, or mayor or courts throughout the country, that
Democrats have won every one of those seats, and that
(28:42):
there are other elections that have taken place where Democrats
have outperformed Republicans in solid or outperformed their previous election
to that seat or the president's vote count in that
state or district. And so evidence is pointing to if
(29:03):
the election were held today, we'd be looking I think
at solid Democratic victories that in fact, there are a
number of states that weren't even on the radar screen
that are now on the radar screen as possible Democratic
pickups in the Senate and also the House. But Bob,
the election is not today, and one miscalculation that may
(29:30):
very well hurt the president is not only that Reuter's
number that, instead of basking in the success of killing
the Ayatola and numerous other leaders, only twenty seven percent
support the president forty nine percent oppose, but it's it's
(29:50):
also in the sense that what are Americans talking about
the prices at the grocery store and the prices at
the gasoline pump, And interestingly, the prices at the gasoline
pump had actually come down and been coming down. Projections
are very soon we're going to see the cost of
(30:13):
oil barrel going up dramatically, and probably at the gas
pump as well.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Let's go back. Why did Democrats need that four and
a half percent margin.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Oh, that is the way.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
That districts are reapportioned or gerrymandered. You know that in
states every ten years, the mandate from the courts are
that those seats have to be reapportioned basically on demographics
and so on. And that Republicans have controlled state more
(30:51):
state legislatures than Democrats have for the last twenty some
odd years, certainly the last two censuses that have been taken,
And so there are many more solid red congressional districts
than there are solid blue congressional districts. And so if
(31:16):
we're trying to extrapolate that onto a national vote, that's
the average that Democrats need. That's kind of the threshold point.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Let's pull the lens back a little bit. Talk about
the populace at large. Is I supposed specifically Trump? Okay,
there are some people say that we really agree on
many things and it's only the the number that we
don't agree on. Then other people say, no, there's a
real battle between the elites and the not as educated.
(31:55):
Shall we say? Then they say, well, you know, it's
almost like the Mason Dick line. There's a different mentality
in the South than there is in the north. What's
the temperature of our country? How does it break down?
Is any different than it used to be?
Speaker 2 (32:10):
It's very different than it used to be. Now, I'll
go back to the twenty twenty election if I can,
and very close election, let's call it a tie. But
in a poll that I did in late two thousand
and three, I did a national poll on cultural values,
(32:31):
you know, God's guns, that sort of thing. And what
I discovered when I broke down my polling sample into
those who were from red states those who were from
blue states, I found, no matter how close those state
(32:52):
votes may have been, that in a red state, sixty
one percent said that they possessed a firearm. Thirty five
percent of those in blue states possessed a firearm. You know,
seventy plus percent identified God in red states as an
all powerful, all loving God who's watching over me. There
(33:15):
was about thirty six thirty seven percent of those in
blue states. We had real differences red and blue. That
would include at that point in time New Mexico that
that Gore had won by about two hundred votes, or
New Hampshire that Democrat won by a few votes, and
(33:41):
so even closely contested. So yes, there are real differences.
And now the two sides have nested, and that has
been enabled by our political leaders in this sense that
(34:03):
we elect good people, but those people have to serve
their party and balance that somehow with serving their district.
And but when they balance their party, that mitigates against
crossing the aisle. We've gotten real hostility taking place, the
(34:28):
kind of hostility inside the Congress, inside congressional staffs that
we haven't seen since the eighteen fifties and that ended
up in a civil war. So yeah, there are reasons
politically to fear. However, fundamentally, there are many things that
(34:49):
Americans can agree.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Upon, and.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
You know, national leadership can address that, or they can
take advantage of the divisiveness. We just happen to have
leadership right from the very top. That's taking advantage of
the divisiveness.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Well, it's clear what's going to happen for the Republicans
the next presidential cycle. It could be Trump, even though
the Constitution says else other things. But there are a
couple of very clear people Vance, Rubio, whatever. Democrats, it's
more wide open. My question here is not the specific
candidate or what's going on with Newsom. My question is establishment.
(35:35):
People have been saying you have to run to the center.
Those disillusions say no, we have to do something more
similar to Bernie. Let's Bernie's a lightning rod. The word
woke is lightning rod. But we have younger generations. Leaving
out the issue of celebrity, which way should the Democrats go?
Speaker 2 (36:01):
The way of problem solving and clarity that is pan ideological.
There are things that we agree on despite labels. And
the bottom line is you saw zorin Mamdani win on
affordability and with a plan for housing, a plan for childcare,
(36:25):
a plan for public transportation, something that appeared to New
Yorkers to be popular and addressing the issues.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
More and more.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Voters are younger, are forty five and less. That's the
cutoff point for millennials forty five to about thirty and
then under thirty gen Z. And those are people who
are saying, I don't care what you label it, just
show me the path of resolving it. And I think
(37:02):
what polls are showing today is, or what they showed
in twenty four was that people were tired of the Democrats.
They were tired of the preachiness, the wolkeness, they were
tired of a president who in effect should have stepped down.
(37:22):
I don't think there's any argument you'll find anywhere that
suggests that he should have stayed in the race. But
what it was tantamount to was somebody lying and a cadra,
a small cadre of people who were lying about the
president's health. What can work despite the label on the
(37:43):
left or the right, is the path of least resistance
to resolving issues.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
What do you say to people who have no faith
in polls the general public? Let's put it this way.
It was lawyers and Watergate, then politicians and polls. Many
people have no faith in the system, and they have
no faith in polls. Starting with polls, what would you tell.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Them, Well, if you're expecting a poll to be correct
to the one tenth of a percentile. Every time a
poll comes out, then don't you know we can tell
you the direction that things are heading. You know, some
folks don't poll past Saturday or Sunday night before an election.
(38:29):
That leaves Monday, Tuesday, and part of Wednesday where things
can change. And believe me, they have. You have up
to ten to fourteen percent who tell us in polls
that they've finally made up their mind for sure in
the polling booth or that day as they were heading
to the polling booth. So have reasonable expectations for polls.
(38:58):
That's for starters. Secondly, go beyond the horse race. Every
poll publishes many other things. Maybe all the media don't
pick it up.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Maybe they just.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Pick up that horse race only. But there's so much
to be gleaned, so much to learn, you know, about
the American people, or the people of anywhere, the people
of your city from poles, So they're very useful.
Speaker 1 (39:24):
Okay, So we saw resistance in Minneapolis, never mind elsewhere.
We have this war that based on your numbers, the
public doesn't favor. Can we anticipate something akin to the
mass protest of the sixties. Can we anticipate a rupture
(39:45):
which we have seen in other countries but not in
America for longer than a century. Or is the system
going to hold?
Speaker 2 (39:55):
Okay, I don't know that that's necessarily an either or Okay,
of the system is a broad term. But mass protests, Yes,
we've had mass protests in recent years. There are mass
protests actually going on right now. This war with Iran,
which is going to take President admits at least four
(40:17):
to five weeks. That doesn't play in his favor, but
it's going to be more than four or five weeks.
How do you build a new system? We're not good
at that. Incidentally, building new systems in different places. We
got our butt handed to us whenever we try that.
But that's going to coincide with the spring, and that's
(40:38):
when those mass protests really begin. This has been a
particularly cold winter witnessed Minneapolis, and look at the numbers
of people that came out in Minneapolis and in Portland
and in Memphis and so on, and so yeah, I
can anticipate this was a big one. Going to war
(40:58):
with Iran. There is no ayatola caucus in this country.
I said that before, but there is a sense that
you just can't go around decapitating a government. What does
Vladimir Putin have to say about that? Is there a
target now on Vladimir Zelensky? What is President she have
(41:26):
to say about that? With Taiwan just across the straits,
you know, this is a bad policy. It's not supported
by the American people. We will not tolerate. And I'll
give you some polling numbers in a second. We will
not tolerate anything that's protracted.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
Okay, those numbers, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
All right, So I'll go back for starters till late
September two thousand and one. That's when I got my
folks back on the telephone after nine eleven, and I
wanted something for the historical record. So we asked, do
you support a war on terrorism? I'm shortening these questions,
(42:13):
support or oppose a war on terrorism? Ninety one percent
said yes. What if that war on terrorism were to
last a year to two years? Seventy seven percent said yes.
What if it were to last more than two years?
Fifty seven percent said yes. Remember how numb we were
(42:34):
still in late September of two thousand and one, and
already there was a sense we're still in the post
Vietnam War era. If we go to war, win it
and win it quickly, we don't have any patients. And
of course that's what happened both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now,
(42:58):
we got a sneak peak on Iran last year. My
son and I we asked this was about taking out
Iran's nuclear reactor nuclear program, and we asked, do you
support the United States going to war to take out
the nuclear program? Only fifty percent said yes, they supported,
(43:22):
forty five percent of posed. What if it takes six
months to a year, it went down to forty two
percent support and a majority of posed. What if it
takes more than one year, thirty five percent support, sixty
percent opposed. So we have a strong sense from polling
data that first of all, this isn't even popular right
(43:48):
now after we've gone to war. But this will certainly
not be popular as you go down the road. And
what's the resolution, what's the what's the end? How do
we get out? Do we make things better? Those are questions,
Those are questions that are hanging in the air.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Well, I know that you have to go, but I
have one final question before we let you. We had
World War One based on the assassination of one person.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
We had the.
Speaker 1 (44:20):
Arab spring, we had an over educated fruit vendor. Is
it possible something like that could happen in America? A
match lights a small fire that nobody foresees and it
turns into a conflagration.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
You know, for most of my life, I've been the
optimist in the room, and I am the optimist in
the long haul. I have great faith and millennials in
gen z they're not steeped in our crap. You know,
they start with not tabula rasa, but they start with
a different culture and different.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Set of values. But yes, it is possible. It is possible.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Thanks for taking the time to speak with my audience.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
John.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I know you know we have this crisis and your
time is valuable. So thanks again. We've been speaking with
legendary pollster John Zogby in the middle of a crisis.
There's more information to get, but that's all we have today.
Thanks again, John, Thank you, Bob.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
I really enjoyed this.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Until next time. This is Bob Left SAIDs
Welcome, welcome, Welcome back to the Bob Left Sets podcast.
My guest today is the legendary pollster John Zogby. John,
we scheduled this podcast a couple of weeks ago, and
in the interim the Iran War started and your schedule
got crazy. So when a crisis like this happens, tell
me how your world changes.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Well, for starters, this media media calling around the clock
literally New Zealand, Ireland, Malaysia yesterday. But you know, good
bit here in the United States, so that takes some time.
And then secondly, a little less so these days because
much more of our work as private sector and you know,
(00:55):
not non governmental agencies and so on. But in the
day it was not uncommon for one of my media
clients New York Post, Reuters, NBC News, Hey, can you
get on the phones right away or can you get
us a poll in twenty four hours?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Okay, these media outlets are calling. What are they going
to ask and what information do you have to give them?
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, my expertise is not to discuss presidential strategy or
any of those sorts of things. Public opinion, what do
the American people think? And I am fortunate that I
can go beyond the guys at the barbershop or the
folks in the grocery line. I can take samples, which
(01:41):
I did. Interestingly, my son and I are together, and
we pulled the American people after the State of the
Union message, remember that one.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
That was oh yeah last week.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Yeah, And so we pulled Wednesday and Thursday night then
and released a on Friday morning. We asked a question
about Iran. Do you support the president's handling of Iran?
And it was tied forty five percent supported, forty five
percent opposed. And then we went to bed Friday night
(02:17):
thinking that, hey, there's some movement in the negotiations, right,
and the negotiations are going to start again today when
reality intervened and we went to war. There is a
poll out, but it's not by us, and the poll
is far different than you would find normally when a
(02:40):
president announces a war. This time, twenty seven percent support
going to war with Iran a military action in Iran,
and forty nine percent the pose. The rest are not sure.
That's Reuters and a company called Ipsos based in France.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Okay, State of the Union happens, You're doing a pull.
What questions are you asking what information are you trying
to clean?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, for starters, we tried to stick close to the
president's speech, and so we want to know overall, do
you support or oppose his job as president, the job
he's doing as president. And of course we ask it
with a scale, so strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat opposed,
(03:31):
strongly opposed, so we can get levels of intensity to
which are very important, not just majorities or pluralities. But
then how about is handling an immigration, crime and public safety, healthcare,
the environment and so on. And what we found, not
surprisingly at all, because this is the state of our world,
(03:56):
is that the president is upside down. In all of
his numbers these there are more people who are opposed
to him than support him. The one exception this time
was on immigration, where this time he was forty seven
percent support and forty five percent oppose. We have been
(04:22):
seeing him upside down, but close like that. But the
nation is not simply split or hyper polarized. It is
divided in a way that we have not seen before
in our lifetime.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Go a little deeper. How is it divided in a
way we haven't seen before?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
So you know, there used to be some flexibility you
know there were conservative Democrats. There were Believe it or not,
I'm here in New York and here in California.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
There were liberal Republicans Rocketype, Yeah, Rockefeller is the first
name that comes to mind. There aren't, make no mistake
about it. There are no conservative Democrats, there are no
liberal Republicans, and so essentially we have a partisan split
and little to no flexibility on those numbers. We are seeing, however,
(05:24):
that the president's support among Republicans is that about in
our last poll last week eighty three eighty four percent.
Usually could expect ninety to ninety two percent. That's a
drop that we're watching. By the same token, there are
growing numbers of independents, and independence are very difficult to
(05:48):
pigeonhole as a unit. There are so many different sources
and grades of independence, but as taken as a whole,
President has about mid fifties who oppose him on every
issue among independence, although on some issues, notably immigration, crime,
(06:15):
and public safety, it's upwards of sixty sixty one percent
among independents who oppose him.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
So tell me about methodology In the old days, Well,
I'm sure people stopped at people's doors at one point,
but it was phone. Now people don't pick up their landlines,
then people don't pick up their phones. Then there's text,
there's other companies use polls at the bottom of websites.
How do you do it?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Okay, so I do go back to the days when
we used everybody had a landline and sixty five percent
we're happy to do a poll. That was a response rate,
and we evolved, not surprisingly due to technology and social
change in this country, to single digit or low double
(07:01):
digit response rates. And so we were among the pioneers
in developing online polling. And it was a long slog. Basically,
we would gather as many email addresses and a coalition
of the willing as possible, that is, those who would
tell us in our telephone surveys back twenty five years
(07:23):
ago and so on, that they'd be willing to take
a poll. We gathered internally at the turn of the
millennium about a million one point two million.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
At the.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Within a couple of years of email addresses that were
validated demographically and behavioral characteristics.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
How do you validate them by telephone?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Interestingly, so when it was one or the other, we
would either use our usual telephone surveys and at the
end ask if they would be willing to take a
survey online and give us an email address, And so
we plottingly collected that way.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
Or the other way around.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
We would purchase tons of email addresses and have four
servers going at the same time inviting people at random
to sign up to take surveys. And today we have
fifteen million.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Okay, So then you called them and asked them what.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
Well if the online surveys, we would send out a
random sampling of the email addresses that we had, and
we would ask them, well, beyond political surveys, but you
know our registered de voter, they're likely to vote, what's
their party identification? And then we'd get into politically the
(09:01):
president or the governor, whatever our universe was, the mayor,
job performance, job performance on a number of issues, personal
favorability of them, and possible candidates running against them. In
proprietary a private polling for candidates, individuals or retail brands.
(09:25):
We would ask what would move them, what drives you,
what would make you more likely to support, what would
make you more likely to oppose? And if you knew
this about that, would it make you much more likely
somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely to
support or purchase or whatever. But a typical poll could
(09:48):
be forty fifty questions.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Okay, I have never answered a pull. I remember before
people meeters, they once mailed a form to us and
you filled out what you watched. So in the people Meter,
of course, being Nielsen in television, the question becomes there's
always a margin of error, But how do you ensure accuracy?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So you start with the sampling procedure. So today talking
about online polls as an example, but the same principles
will hold true for those who are still doing telephone surveys.
Is that we have a list of fifteen million Americans
(10:36):
and who have been validated, and in their entirety they
are representative of the American people demographically. If we're doing
a poll, say we want a thousand likely voters, we
will take what's called a random stratified sample of about
(10:56):
ten thousand email addresses from that fifty million. The keyword
there random. Everybody has to have the same chance of
being selected from that pool as everybody else. And secondly, stratified,
we don't draw them nationally. We draw them by region.
So if thirty percent of our sample is from the south,
(11:21):
a thirty percent of the population or the electorate is
from the south, as an example, then thirty percent of
our pool is from the south, twenty five percent of
the northeast twenty five, twenty six per and so on.
And then we begin the invitation process knowing that we're
targeting regions and knowing after all these years that those
(11:46):
responses will come back within those levels of stratification and
be somewhat somewhat representative of people in those regions by ray,
by age, by educational level, by gender. It's not a
perfect world, so that when those numbers do come in,
(12:11):
there may be some groups that are slightly underrepresented, normally Blacks, Hispanics,
poorer people, normally men, young men. And what we do
is we apply waiting, just simple waiting, to bump them
up to what the expectation is for voter turnout or
(12:36):
for retail shopping the adult population in general. But you never,
let's say, you hardly ever get a situation where you
have way too many women, or way too many whites,
or way too many of any group. The waiting generally
(12:57):
is slight.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
Okay, you do a lot of market research. Steve Jobs
famously said he didn't believe in market research because people
didn't know what they wanted until he gave it to them.
Other people say market research will tell you where you've been,
but not where you're going. How would you respond to those?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Well, for starters, I've got an Apple phone, so sorry, Steve,
what was the other the other question?
Speaker 1 (13:29):
People say that it will tell you where you've been
but not where you're going.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
No, Now, we believe in and we do projective polling. Now, look, Bob,
nobody sees the future, at least clearly. But there is
a way of using analytics, and I might add some
good artwork involved too, to ask questions about how would
(13:55):
you respond to a certain situation, and from the tabulation
of those responses on how folks would respond, or how
they would anticipate, or how they would behave or how
their minds would change, you get a a reasonable reading
of what people will do under certain circumstances. However, there
(14:21):
are other variables in our world, and so look, I
could have done continued my poll through Friday night about
how do you feel about Trump's handling of Iran? I
did not know that we'd be bombing the hell out
of Iran Saturday morning.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
So you're not the only Polster. You have a high
profile amongst the small quadre. What is the special sauce
that you bring to the table?
Speaker 2 (15:00):
Indititionally, it was accuracy. That's where I gained my fame.
I got races on the gubernatorial level here in New
York that no one even came close to. I was
hired by the Murdoch Empire, Liberal Democrat that I am.
I'm polling for the New York Post and Early Fox
(15:24):
in ninety five and ninety six. Then I was hired
by the largest news agency in the world, Reuters, and
the Reuter Zogbee Pole was born in nineteen ninety six.
And it did not hurt me at all that my
colleagues at the networks and at the universities were attacking
(15:45):
me because I was standing alone saying that the Clinton
Dole race is a lot closer than people think. And
when the numbers came in and the attacks continued, I
got that race right to anywhere between one to three
tenths of a percent. I'd already gotten some other high
profile ones right and that at.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
That point things just soared.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
But then I went on to get other races right
and ones that no one else got right in Mexico,
in Israel, in Albania. And now I'm a strategic planner,
and I know that you cannot keep a reputation as
(16:31):
the most accurate polster in the world forever. So that's
when we started to focus on our strategic thinking and
on thought leadership, and a number of books that came
out talking about the future and what we see from
(16:51):
at that point, twenty years of polling, thirty years of polling,
and so on, why.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Were you more accurate than your competitors.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
There were you know, ninety plus percent of what I
did was like everybody else. But some of the things
that were different was that I would apply a slight
weight for political party identification. Many of my colleagues don't
believe in that. They called it a trailer variable, something
(17:25):
that's very soft. So look, if I'm for George W.
Bush today, I'm a Republican. If I'm for al Gore tomorrow,
then I'm probably a Democrat. I believe that party is
a lead variable. Many of us are born with it.
(17:49):
Most of us filter our information through our party identification.
And so I found that some of my colleagues were
actually getting much larger fluctuations even on a day by
day basis in their samples. Too many Democrats, too few Republicans.
(18:13):
I had noticed early, and again I'm a liberal Democrat,
but I noticed early a tendency for Democrats to answer
the phone more than Republicans. That's why I feel that
to a great degree. That's the one thing that I
did differently that helped propel.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Me in the last ten years. Nate Silver has gotten
a lot of notoriety for pull averaging, pull balancing. What's
your opinion on that.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Well, he kind of bounced me out, and so they're
a little bit of bias.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
But my sense.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Is I pull people, I don't poll numbers. I get
a feel for polls. I mean, when when I had
a call center, I would visit the call center during elections,
and what did you hear? What were they really saying?
(19:17):
These are the the telephone callers that I would talk to,
and they would tell me, you know, there were people
who were really soft, there are people who were not
paying attention but intended to vote. There are people who
are very hard. But I got a sense that those
numbers were really an aggregation of people not simply an
(19:40):
aggregation of numbers.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I think with Nate.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
There was too much emphasis on analytics and an algorithm.
That are algorithms that he used that could be applicable
sometimes and not so applicable. I'm sorry at other times,
and then I do feel and you know, I wish
(20:07):
him all the best he's had, all the best. In fact,
that he was a bit too much like Icarus in mythology.
He flew with wax wings too close to the sun,
and that sooner or later, just like Zogby, you get
one wrong and people start looking at you funny. And
(20:29):
I'm not sure he handled it all well.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
That well, good analogy. Okay, many people were surprised by
Trump in twenty sixteen. There was less surprise in twenty
twenty four. But were you surprised based on your numbers?
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Well, surprised, yes, of course, But on election night, no,
And you'll find I didn't poll in twenty sixteen. We
had just started a transition new company after a non
compete for a few years. I sold the original company,
so we were not in the polling loop. But I
was analyzing the trend lines in the well, the whole election,
(21:15):
but particularly in the last ten days, and there was
clearly a momentum against Hillary Clinton, a momentum towards Donald Trump.
And I published a piece on Forbes in the early
afternoon of election day saying, if anybody knows, if anybody
(21:36):
claims that they know what's going to happen, they're lying
because we don't know what's going to happen. There's a
trend line here that I'm watching.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Okay, couple of questions in twenty twenty four. You may
not have done research, but you're an expert in this area.
If Biden had stepped decide would a Democrat, if there
was a primary process, would they have won? Secondarily, was
Kamala af flawed candidate from minute one?
Speaker 2 (22:09):
Those are two very good questions, and we will be
asking them for years. If Biden had stepped aside, and
most importantly, had allowed for a primary system to develop
and for candidates to be out there and for Democrats
(22:29):
to have a real choice, it could have been a
far different election. Was and in fact, we didn't see
since a final break of those battle ground states, and
many of them until the very end, you know, until
(22:49):
a few days before those were competitive. Secondly, I thought
she was a good candidate. But she had one hundred
and seven days. Now, those of us who follow politics
very closely, you know, knew Kamila Harris. Anew of Kamala
Harris had followed her career. Yes, there were flaws that
(23:13):
liberals would would not identify with her. Yes, there were flaws.
I believe with Democrats and independence and public opinion about
Gaza shifting that Kamala Harris may have done a bit
better if she had shifted, and probably gotten more younger
(23:36):
voters in the process and more.
Speaker 3 (23:39):
Black voters as well.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But with that said, no, I don't I don't think
that there were any built in flaws that in her
persona or her career that may that pointed her out
to be a loser.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Well, I would say her fear failure in the previous
presidential primary circuit to get even one delegate was indicative
of me. But let me jump forward. Bill Clinton selected
in nineteen ninety two, it's a disaster in nineteen ninety
four congressional races. Then he famously triangulates based on information.
(24:22):
My question here is not specific to Bill Clinton. To
what degree do politicians make their decisions based on the polls?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
To what degree eighty.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Plus.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
You know, no leader can afford to be.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Totally ignoring the public. Will the vox popular.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
That's where you know, I think our president today has
been playing very successfully to that hardcore base of MAGA.
But there is evidence in the Reuters poll today that
there's a chipping away of that built in you know,
(25:19):
forty two percent that he Trump just gets for showing
up and for continuing his style of campaigning. So I
think that you know, it wasn't invented with Bill Clinton.
George H. W. Bush, to be sure, had a briefing
(25:39):
book with the latest polling numbers from the night before
every single day of his presidency, and if Ronald Reagan didn't,
then Jeffrey Deaver, is behind the scenes image maker and
communications person, certainly was reading the polls.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Now, these may be so questions compared to your statistics,
but what do we know. You have these polls that
are starting to lean against Trump. He does not seem
to be changing his behavior. And in addition, there have
been authoritarian tendencies we've never seen previously. So traditionally we
(26:22):
might say the polls are against them, the person's in decline.
But we have a unique situation with the way he's behaving.
I could go through all the facts, but you know them.
So is this a different thing or the poll if
the public ultimately is such that he's going to lose out,
(26:44):
his party, his mission, etc. Or can we say that
this is a different landscape. You know, they're talking about
him controlling the elections. There are all of these things,
those supersede poles.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
There are other variables. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
Now, just by way of context, let's understand that Barack
Obama won with majorities in two thousand and eight and
twenty twelve. In between, he lost almost record numbers of
seats for his party in twenty ten in twenty fourteen,
(27:23):
his success did not translate into his party's success. In fact,
he lost numerous state legislative seats and majorities during that
time period. So back to President Trump. If the election
were held today today, the Republicans would probably take a beating.
(27:45):
What do I base that on? For starters, that semi
artificial reading that we take the congressional generic who was
to vote for in your district today?
Speaker 3 (27:58):
The Democrat of.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
The Republican We know that Democrats in the polls need
to have a four and a half to five point
lead that's the threshold, and from there we can translate
that into gaining seats in Congress. Today they hold about
a five and a half point lead. But we also
(28:21):
know that in eleven fifteen special elections for state legislature
or Congress, or mayor or courts throughout the country, that
Democrats have won every one of those seats, and that
(28:42):
there are other elections that have taken place where Democrats
have outperformed Republicans in solid or outperformed their previous election
to that seat or the president's vote count in that
state or district. And so evidence is pointing to if
(29:03):
the election were held today, we'd be looking I think
at solid Democratic victories that in fact, there are a
number of states that weren't even on the radar screen
that are now on the radar screen as possible Democratic
pickups in the Senate and also the House. But Bob,
the election is not today, and one miscalculation that may
(29:30):
very well hurt the president is not only that Reuter's
number that, instead of basking in the success of killing
the Ayatola and numerous other leaders, only twenty seven percent
support the president forty nine percent oppose, but it's it's
(29:50):
also in the sense that what are Americans talking about
the prices at the grocery store and the prices at
the gasoline pump, And interestingly, the prices at the gasoline
pump had actually come down and been coming down. Projections
are very soon we're going to see the cost of
(30:13):
oil barrel going up dramatically, and probably at the gas
pump as well.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
Let's go back. Why did Democrats need that four and
a half percent margin.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Oh, that is the way.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
That districts are reapportioned or gerrymandered. You know that in
states every ten years, the mandate from the courts are
that those seats have to be reapportioned basically on demographics
and so on. And that Republicans have controlled state more
(30:51):
state legislatures than Democrats have for the last twenty some
odd years, certainly the last two censuses that have been taken,
And so there are many more solid red congressional districts
than there are solid blue congressional districts. And so if
(31:16):
we're trying to extrapolate that onto a national vote, that's
the average that Democrats need. That's kind of the threshold point.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
Let's pull the lens back a little bit. Talk about
the populace at large. Is I supposed specifically Trump? Okay,
there are some people say that we really agree on
many things and it's only the the number that we
don't agree on. Then other people say, no, there's a
real battle between the elites and the not as educated.
(31:55):
Shall we say? Then they say, well, you know, it's
almost like the Mason Dick line. There's a different mentality
in the South than there is in the north. What's
the temperature of our country? How does it break down?
Is any different than it used to be?
Speaker 2 (32:10):
It's very different than it used to be. Now, I'll
go back to the twenty twenty election if I can,
and very close election, let's call it a tie. But
in a poll that I did in late two thousand
and three, I did a national poll on cultural values,
(32:31):
you know, God's guns, that sort of thing. And what
I discovered when I broke down my polling sample into
those who were from red states those who were from
blue states, I found, no matter how close those state
(32:52):
votes may have been, that in a red state, sixty
one percent said that they possessed a firearm. Thirty five
percent of those in blue states possessed a firearm. You know,
seventy plus percent identified God in red states as an
all powerful, all loving God who's watching over me. There
(33:15):
was about thirty six thirty seven percent of those in
blue states. We had real differences red and blue. That
would include at that point in time New Mexico that
that Gore had won by about two hundred votes, or
New Hampshire that Democrat won by a few votes, and
(33:41):
so even closely contested. So yes, there are real differences.
And now the two sides have nested, and that has
been enabled by our political leaders in this sense that
(34:03):
we elect good people, but those people have to serve
their party and balance that somehow with serving their district.
And but when they balance their party, that mitigates against
crossing the aisle. We've gotten real hostility taking place, the
(34:28):
kind of hostility inside the Congress, inside congressional staffs that
we haven't seen since the eighteen fifties and that ended
up in a civil war. So yeah, there are reasons
politically to fear. However, fundamentally, there are many things that
(34:49):
Americans can agree.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Upon, and.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
You know, national leadership can address that, or they can
take advantage of the divisiveness. We just happen to have
leadership right from the very top. That's taking advantage of
the divisiveness.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Well, it's clear what's going to happen for the Republicans
the next presidential cycle. It could be Trump, even though
the Constitution says else other things. But there are a
couple of very clear people Vance, Rubio, whatever. Democrats, it's
more wide open. My question here is not the specific
candidate or what's going on with Newsom. My question is establishment.
(35:35):
People have been saying you have to run to the center.
Those disillusions say no, we have to do something more
similar to Bernie. Let's Bernie's a lightning rod. The word
woke is lightning rod. But we have younger generations. Leaving
out the issue of celebrity, which way should the Democrats go?
Speaker 2 (36:01):
The way of problem solving and clarity that is pan ideological.
There are things that we agree on despite labels. And
the bottom line is you saw zorin Mamdani win on
affordability and with a plan for housing, a plan for childcare,
(36:25):
a plan for public transportation, something that appeared to New
Yorkers to be popular and addressing the issues.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
More and more.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Voters are younger, are forty five and less. That's the
cutoff point for millennials forty five to about thirty and
then under thirty gen Z. And those are people who
are saying, I don't care what you label it, just
show me the path of resolving it. And I think
(37:02):
what polls are showing today is, or what they showed
in twenty four was that people were tired of the Democrats.
They were tired of the preachiness, the wolkeness, they were
tired of a president who in effect should have stepped down.
(37:22):
I don't think there's any argument you'll find anywhere that
suggests that he should have stayed in the race. But
what it was tantamount to was somebody lying and a cadra,
a small cadre of people who were lying about the
president's health. What can work despite the label on the
(37:43):
left or the right, is the path of least resistance
to resolving issues.
Speaker 1 (37:49):
What do you say to people who have no faith
in polls the general public? Let's put it this way.
It was lawyers and Watergate, then politicians and polls. Many
people have no faith in the system, and they have
no faith in polls. Starting with polls, what would you tell.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Them, Well, if you're expecting a poll to be correct
to the one tenth of a percentile. Every time a
poll comes out, then don't you know we can tell
you the direction that things are heading. You know, some
folks don't poll past Saturday or Sunday night before an election.
(38:29):
That leaves Monday, Tuesday, and part of Wednesday where things
can change. And believe me, they have. You have up
to ten to fourteen percent who tell us in polls
that they've finally made up their mind for sure in
the polling booth or that day as they were heading
to the polling booth. So have reasonable expectations for polls.
(38:58):
That's for starters. Secondly, go beyond the horse race. Every
poll publishes many other things. Maybe all the media don't
pick it up.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Maybe they just.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Pick up that horse race only. But there's so much
to be gleaned, so much to learn, you know, about
the American people, or the people of anywhere, the people
of your city from poles, So they're very useful.
Speaker 1 (39:24):
Okay, So we saw resistance in Minneapolis, never mind elsewhere.
We have this war that based on your numbers, the
public doesn't favor. Can we anticipate something akin to the
mass protest of the sixties. Can we anticipate a rupture
(39:45):
which we have seen in other countries but not in
America for longer than a century. Or is the system
going to hold?
Speaker 2 (39:55):
Okay, I don't know that that's necessarily an either or Okay,
of the system is a broad term. But mass protests, Yes,
we've had mass protests in recent years. There are mass
protests actually going on right now. This war with Iran,
which is going to take President admits at least four
(40:17):
to five weeks. That doesn't play in his favor, but
it's going to be more than four or five weeks.
How do you build a new system? We're not good
at that. Incidentally, building new systems in different places. We
got our butt handed to us whenever we try that.
But that's going to coincide with the spring, and that's
(40:38):
when those mass protests really begin. This has been a
particularly cold winter witnessed Minneapolis, and look at the numbers
of people that came out in Minneapolis and in Portland
and in Memphis and so on, and so yeah, I
can anticipate this was a big one. Going to war
(40:58):
with Iran. There is no ayatola caucus in this country.
I said that before, but there is a sense that
you just can't go around decapitating a government. What does
Vladimir Putin have to say about that? Is there a
target now on Vladimir Zelensky? What is President she have
(41:26):
to say about that? With Taiwan just across the straits,
you know, this is a bad policy. It's not supported
by the American people. We will not tolerate. And I'll
give you some polling numbers in a second. We will
not tolerate anything that's protracted.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
Okay, those numbers, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
All right, So I'll go back for starters till late
September two thousand and one. That's when I got my
folks back on the telephone after nine eleven, and I
wanted something for the historical record. So we asked, do
you support a war on terrorism? I'm shortening these questions,
(42:13):
support or oppose a war on terrorism? Ninety one percent
said yes. What if that war on terrorism were to
last a year to two years? Seventy seven percent said yes.
What if it were to last more than two years?
Fifty seven percent said yes. Remember how numb we were
(42:34):
still in late September of two thousand and one, and
already there was a sense we're still in the post
Vietnam War era. If we go to war, win it
and win it quickly, we don't have any patients. And
of course that's what happened both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now,
(42:58):
we got a sneak peak on Iran last year. My
son and I we asked this was about taking out
Iran's nuclear reactor nuclear program, and we asked, do you
support the United States going to war to take out
the nuclear program? Only fifty percent said yes, they supported,
(43:22):
forty five percent of posed. What if it takes six
months to a year, it went down to forty two
percent support and a majority of posed. What if it
takes more than one year, thirty five percent support, sixty
percent opposed. So we have a strong sense from polling
data that first of all, this isn't even popular right
(43:48):
now after we've gone to war. But this will certainly
not be popular as you go down the road. And
what's the resolution, what's the what's the end? How do
we get out? Do we make things better? Those are questions,
Those are questions that are hanging in the air.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Well, I know that you have to go, but I
have one final question before we let you. We had
World War One based on the assassination of one person.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
We had the.
Speaker 1 (44:20):
Arab spring, we had an over educated fruit vendor. Is
it possible something like that could happen in America? A
match lights a small fire that nobody foresees and it
turns into a conflagration.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
You know, for most of my life, I've been the
optimist in the room, and I am the optimist in
the long haul. I have great faith and millennials in
gen z they're not steeped in our crap. You know,
they start with not tabula rasa, but they start with
a different culture and different.
Speaker 3 (44:59):
Set of values. But yes, it is possible. It is possible.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Thanks for taking the time to speak with my audience.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
John.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I know you know we have this crisis and your
time is valuable. So thanks again. We've been speaking with
legendary pollster John Zogby in the middle of a crisis.
There's more information to get, but that's all we have today.
Thanks again, John, Thank you, Bob.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
I really enjoyed this.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Until next time. This is Bob Left SAIDs
Host
Bob Lefsetz
Popular Podcasts
Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb
Joy is essential. And it's also elusive. You can't order it, borrow it, or simply hope it into life. But now, there's a new and exciting way to start your journey toward a more joyful existence: The Joy 101 Podcast with Hoda! Best known for her Emmy-winning work and co-anchoring Today, Hoda Kotb infuses her authenticity, curiosity, and warmth into conversations with the world’s most fascinating people. Entertainment legends, sport icons, wellness experts, and everyday folks will share how they find, allow, and experience joy. Hoda will offer her own tips and takes on seeking a more balanced, harmonious life. If you're craving inspiration, support, and useful tools to maximize your joy, tune in to these candid, uplifting, and moving on-air chats. Joy after a breakup, joy as an empty-nester, joy after loss, joy as a caretaker — Hoda's new podcast will speak to you. Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb, an iHeartPodcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com