If only it was that easy:

In the 13 years David Moore worked for the Gallup Poll, he learned that media polls are not used to uncover the "will" or thoughts of the public, but rather to manufacture a "public opinion" that grabs the attention of journalists and can be used to fill media news holes. Now the founder of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and former managing editor of the Gallup Poll draws on first-hand experience as well as the history of modern media polling practices - focusing particularly on the four most influential polls: New York Times/CBS News, Washington Post/ABC News, Pew Research, and USA Today/Gallup... "Media pollsters will do everything they can to beat such an undecided voter into oblivion, so they can begin horserace coverage long before the race track has even opened," he says. Analyzing pollsters' problematic methodology, such as shrinking and skewed samples (for example, the difficulty of reaching a broad base of people on landline phones) and "forced-choice format" in which respondents are forced to pick an answer even if they don't know or don't have a strong opinion, Moore reveals how polls distort voters' election preferences as well as the public's support for or opposition to government policies.

I'm not sure how much this helps with the soul-crushing Presidential polling from the last few weeks. His critique is mostly about how pollsters create the impression of public sentiment where none exists, which is actually kind of ho-hum. We've known for decades that you can put fictional legislation in front of respondents and they'll still report having very strong opinions. People don't like to seem uninformed, but the reality is that many Americans care so little about day-to-day politics that they don't even know what they don't know. Which is fine: apathy is a little-d democratic birthright.

But more to the point, Presidential politics is the one place where people do have strong opinions by post-convention time. That there's a gradual upward climb in "how certain are you that you will vote for X" among likelies hints that polls are reflecting real, gradually solidifying public sentiment. I suppose that as the election gets closer people might also believe that they should be more certain than they actually are, which might be confounding the data. Still, everyone knows who's running and everyone knows what party they belong to: if nothing else, unenthusiastic voters will just vote according to party ID - a real enough "sentiment" to track.

That's just the last few weeks of a Presidential election though. The rest of the time...

His analysis underscores how early national polling of the electorate actually reveals nothing about the dynamics of what is a state-by-state nomination contest. "Even though most in the media know they shouldn't use national polls as primary contest predictors, many do, often negatively affecting lesser known candidates' ability to raise money, attract volunteers, obtain media coverage, and in the end,stay in the race," Moore says. Moore calls for polling reforms, including ending reliance on fictitious national primaries, measuring and reporting the percentage of undecided voters and the intensity of respondents' opinions, and recognizing bias in question wording and question order. "Eventually, the many conflicting and nonsensical results should shame pollsters and the news media into reform"

Yeah, I dunno if that's ever going to happen. Zogby still exists, right?

References:
* Polls: McCain loses two points in Rasmussen, three in Gallup and Hotline [Hot Air]
* Former Gallup Pollster And Founder Of UNH Survey Center Unveils Secrets And Shams Of Political Polls In New Book [UNH Media Relations]

Previously:
* Stupid Polling Tricks
* Democrats Outraged Over Jewish-Issues Poll Questions That Are... Umm... Demonstrably True
* Palin Speech Now Online, Liberal Jewish Groups Reach New Heights Of Pro-Obama Denials, Fabrications, And Smears