Is it really time to end political polls?

Maybe, but let's think about this

I’m always surprised that The New York Times and ABC News don’t contact me more often to get my opinions. I have lots.

Since they are apparently not speaking to me at the present, here’s one for free.

The New York Times and ABC News (and the Washington Post and other media biggies) should get out of the political polling business.

The reasoning is obvious. They are not very good at it.

Evidently, based on the last two elections, none of the pollsters are. There’s even a school of thought that this year the polls did more harm than good.

I could make that case. Because I was tracking polls religiously in the run-up, I was pretty Sure Sen. Susan Collins was going to lose in Maine and that Joe Biden had a better than average chance to win Florida.

When neither of those happened — and didn’t happen early — it was a gut punch. What if all the polls are wrong. What if those early Donald Trump numbers hold up?

We already doubted the polls after 2016. They seem even less trustworthy now.

Second, NYT and ABC (and other major outlets) should realize that being associated with a weak poll isn’t helping your brand. There was a time when you could say, “Well, The New York Times poll says . . . ” and it would sound authoritative. Now, with your partner Siena College, you are as off the mark as everyone else.

Pollsters are understandably defensive. Nate Silver of ABC’s partner, FiveThirtyEight, was asked on the site’s podcast about people attacking pollsters.

“If they’re coming after FiveThirtyEight, then fuck you, because we did a good job,” Silver eloquently explained.

And you have to feel for the pollsters, with their graphs and demos and trends. This has to be the hardest time to conduct a meaningful poll in the history of the world. Or at least the last 20 years.

First, I don’t know about you, but I don’t even pick up a call if I don’t recognize the caller ID. Nor do I return texts from the guy who says he was walking by my house and wondered if I wanted to sell.

Simply put, random people are harder to reach and speak to on the phone than ever.

And even if you reach them, they may be less likely than ever to answer questions.

This is the second election in which the polls have underestimated Trump supporters. One suggestion is that they are hard to reach because they are Trump supporters.

Having been told that the “deep state” is controlling Washington, or that you can’t trust the election system, do you think they’re eager to open up to some stranger who is doing a poll? Especially from, say the fake-news Washington Post, which is the enemy of the people?

Let’s go out on a limb here and say the entire polling process is broken. You’re not getting a reasonable cross-section of the voting public and the people you are getting are tending to skew the results.

Somebody has to fix polling.

It would seem like the obvious answer is the internet. Everybody’s on line, people are eager to engage and fill out questionnaires.

The problem is the internet is waaaaaay ahead of us. Why go to a neutral site and take an unbiased survey, when you can go to one that whole-heartedly supports your candidate and beliefs? And then you vote like crazy, over and over, to make it appear support is through the roof.

Nope, the internet may be the answer, but there are a ton of questions to answer before it can produce polls that are fair and accurate.

So, you say, let’s just get rid of polls altogether. They are virtually useless.

I’m not ready to go that far yet. Remove the polls and you have a vacuum. And as you know, nature and social media abhor a vacuum.

We’ve already seen the fake Facebook groups and the sophisticated dump of conspiracy theories. It is incredible that these whackadoodle groups get traction.

Just to quote from QAnon’s Wikipedia page: “QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global sex-trafficking ring and plotting against President Trump.”

So no. I wouldn’t trust the internet to give me a credible snapshot of how a political race was going.

I think we still need polls. They may be imperfect, but they are striving to get it right. And they have incentive to do so. After all, the only way they are influential is if they nail the data. It is possible that some bright, young folks are coming up with a better way to poll right now.

Also, candidates and campaigns react to the polls. They see issues, like the economy, as important to 2020 voters and tailor their message. That part is actually helpful.

So if I am The New York Times or ABC News, I announce that we are no longer in the polling business. Instead, we intend to contract with independent polling firms and publish their numbers as a matter of record, rather than a New York Times exclusive.

And then I’d suggest that all those major news outlets go back to reporting the news and delivering thoughtful opinions.

Because you’re really good at that.

If you are like most of us you, you wish you had more entries coming into your inbox. Well, problem solved because if you click this button, this newsletter will be delivered, free, once a week.

The 49ers won one last week. Cost? $3 million

It is no secret that the city of Santa Clara and the 49ers have been at odds for years. Levi’s Stadium is now officially in the category of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Team owner Jed York and the Santa Clara city council have sparred over all kinds of issues. It all started back at in 2014, when the 49ers wanted to take over some youth soccer fields to create one of the venues for hosting the Super Bowl, and has only gotten more contentious since.

The two have tangled over maintenance costs, rent and — famously — a 10 p.m. curfew for weekday concerts. The 49ers have literally lost bookings because of the early quitting time.

This year as I wrote in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat York took direct action. He contributed just under $3 million to fund the campaigns of four candidates for city council.

And it seems to have worked. Three of the candidates won, which diminished the majority on the council for Mayor (and 49er opponent) Lisa Gillmor.

So now we will see if the 49er-friendly council members cut the team some slack.

Spoiler alert: One newly elected councilman has already said he thinks they should take a look at loosening the curfew.

Stay tuned.

It is the season of sharing. So . . . why not share this? Click the button and you’re done.

Football doesn’t know what to do with COVID. Obviously

In a strange way, the Bay Area represented the good, the bad and the ugly of football’s response to the Coronavirus.

If you weren’t convinced that the protocols for football are all over the map, we give you last week.

We begin with Cal, which had one player who tested positive for COVID-19. But it was determined that there was contact with several other players, who might be infected but not testing positive.

After long, careful discussions, the game with Washington last weekend was canceled.

And then, as I wrote in the Press Democrat, we have the 49ers. They had one player, Kendrick Bourne, who had a positive test, and three other players who were in such close contact with him that it was determined that they should sit out.

In addition, the opponent, Green Bay, had a positive test. So both teams were potentially exposed.

And they played anyhow.

It was wrong on so many levels. It would have been simple to delay the game to the weekend, giving the teams a chance to see how widespread the infect was.

And, in a twist that must have had Kyle Shanahan shaking his head, after the game Bourne tested negative. So if it had been put off a few days, those players could have played. (Bourne has since tested positive again. Hard to keep up.)

But the 49ers went into that game with essentially four starters suspended. (Actually only three, one was injured.) That’s a big loss, especially with a lengthy injury list.

But they went ahead a played anyhow. After all, do you know how much money the NFL makes on Thursday Night Football?

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Suggestions and comments welcome. Criticism, not so much. Twitter: @cwnevius