Or at least the New York Times interactive 2006 Election Guide is. While the Flash-based tool has some great navigation and layout features, it’s a little bit lacking in one area: accurate poll numbers and candidate listings.
Now it’s no secret that I’m pretty interested in politics and I’m very interested in the Texas gubernatorial race. We’ve been covering the insurgent campaign of Kinky Friedman and the drive for Libertarian candidate to get some respect from the establishment. So naturally, I checked the Texas governor page in the handy-dandy interactive map. You know what it said?
The New York Times welcomes feedback at email@example.com, but have yet to correct the page after two emails from me. Perhaps they need some more feedback from our readers.
Update by Nicholas Sarwark: I just received a reply from the New York Times, excerpted below.
Thanks for your notes. I meant to write back before but the reason we don’t feature those other polls is that the Times has very stringent requirements for which polls that we use and Rasmussen doesn’t measure up because its methodology is unreliable. I’ll keep watching for other polls as they come out.
Good to know they listen to feedback, but I’m surprised that nobody has done a poll they consider “reliable” since February.
Update 2 by Nicholas Sarwark:
Ben Werschkul emailed me to clarify:
the reason we don’t use Rasmussen is that they use “interactive voice response” polls, also known as “robo-polls,” which employ an automated, recorded voice to call respondents who are asked to answer questions by punching telephone keys. Anyone who can answer the phone and hit the buttons on the keypad can respond to the survey.