Skip to comments.Why Are So Many Pollsters Oversampling Democrats?
Posted on 07/14/2012 7:59:44 AM PDT by mandaladon
My regular correspondent Number-Cruncher checks in, groaning about the latest Pew poll and that organizations strange habit of including an unrealistic percentage of Democrats in their sample.
The latest one from Pew poll is a shining example of why our side gets so frustrated with polls. Every time a Pew poll comes out, the numbers appear out of whack. Of course if you are a number-cruncher and look to the cross-tabs, the results are clearly flawed. Pew, to its credit, tells us its history since 1988. Basically in 1988 they did a good job, calling the race almost perfectly, possibly even overestimating Bush support by 0.4% (keep in mind they round so 50-42 could be 7.6%). But since then, their results have been downhill.
Starting in 1992, EVERY Pew poll appears to lean to one direction always towards the Democrat, and by an average of more than 5 percentage points. Worse this is a reflection of the final poll which even the Democratic firm, Public Policy Polling, usually gets right.
October 1988 Bush 50 Dukakis 42; Actual Result Bush +7.6 (Call this one spot on.)
Late October 1992 Clinton 44 Bush 34; Actual Result :Clinton +5.5 (Skew against Republican candidate +5.5)
November 1996 Clinton +51 Dole 32; Actual Result Clinton +8.5 (Skew against Republican candidate +10.5)
November 2000 Gore 45; Bush 41 (Skew against Republican Candidate +3.5)
November 2004 Kerry 46; Bush 45 (Skew against Republican Candidate +3.4)
November 2008 Obama 50 McCain 39 (Skew against Republican + 3.8)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
They always do until a week or so before the election so they can say “voters broke for” and save their reputation.
You need but look at what team Obama is currently doing to know who is really leading.
Why do Democrats, blacks and minorites fight so vehemently against voter ID with pictures? One is cheating before the election; the other is cheating during the election.
Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy...
Remember most pollsters are part of the narrative and are commissioned by the candidates.
Wonder why "internal polls" cost so much and we never get to see them? It's because the truth would change the narrative.
They have to rig the polls so that when they steal the election through electronic voting machine hacks and other election fraud, people will not be surprised that Obama “won.”
If we really knew how wide the gap is between the majority in this country who despise Obama and his administration and his senseless supporters, I would bet we’d be amazed at how very disliked the commie in the White House truly is.
When’s the last time you (and most conservatives) picked up the phone when a pollster/unknown caller was on the other end? I avoid those calls like the plague and am guessing most other conservatives do too. Libs don’t have much better to do than inaccurately influence polls so they answer... :)
I suspect it’s harder to get Republicans to participate in polls. Pollsters always call me at one of two times: 1) when I’m getting ready to leave for work, or 2) when my family is sitting down to a meal. Since many liberals neither work nor spend much time with their families, it’s not hard to see why their opinions might be overrepresented.
There are many studies which suggest that having MSM on your side is worth about five percentage points. By skewing their polls in one direction major MSM outlets are attempting to create bandwagons.
I just did and it was GREAT fun.
After giving him very spirited answers to three questions he hung up on me.
I doubt that the Dems will be calling me again.
“They don’t care they just want Zero to win. “
Yes, while that’s true, I could make the case that by cooking the numbers, they give the average RAT voter ( you know the ones with single digit I.Q.s) a false sense of security about Obama winning re-election and so they stay home, because besides being stupid, they are lazy!
I maintain the Obama campaign will use this card BEFORE the election to scare the independent votes to go with “The Won”.
Republicans/conservatives/libertarians tend to have lives, and tend to spend their time living their lives, and not sitting by the telephone with the shades drawn waiting for a call like Democrats do.
Democrat voter registration is down, especially for blacks. Independents are on the rise. There’s approx. 10% that are undecided. Undecideds historically vote against incumbents which portends a landslide for Romney.
Things will get worse for Obama because he has chosen to get nasty so his personal image will be degraded.
On another thread, a FReeper said that he was seeing tons of Obama ads on Bain/outsourcing in Western Washington. (BTW, Western WA is the blue side of the state.) Should already be in the bag for Obama.
1) To prop up the democratic doners and give them a reason to pour more money to the democrats
2) To cover up the rampant cheating in urban precincts. By being on the high end of the polls, they can say that any result is within the bracket of polling.
Accurately sampling discourages liberal voters from turning out while inaccurately sampling discourages conservatives. Socialists aren’t particularly big fans of democracy, so... what’s the harm?
It is manufactured propaganda intended to discourage our side.
NBC has been using a +16 Dem Advantage in some of it’s recent polling, to show Obama up by just 4 in some states.
ABC just used a +8 Dem advantage to show Obama/Romney TIED in it’s polling last week.
Both are justifying it based on “Democrat Enthusiasm”.
But, as a Dem Pollster was quoted after the Wisconsin Recall Debacle, “We underestimated the amount of voter anger out there.”
“Do you have time for a political survey?” Part of the bias is toward those who do not work, those who have 15 minutes generally in the middle of the day to answer questions. When I get a call and I’m at work, the answer is “No”. If I’m at home, I choose to contribute to give them a conservative data point. But the stay at home never working mothers, those on unemployment and many retirees and faux disabled can answer these surveys all day long.
There is no doubt that partisans manipulate polls to influence the electorate. Therefore, it’s not unlikely that the pollsters themselves are being lobbied to provide manipulated results.
However, the party affiliation numbers appear to me to be a result of the method used to determine party affiliation.
Rasmussen, I believe, uses current survey results simply asking people to self-identify at any given point in a campaign. Since people adjust their self-identification that should be more important than how registration or census or historic trends indicate.
Going to records that say Joe Smith registered as a democrat in 1980 is absolutely useless in determining where Joe Smith stands today. Better to poll Joe Smith and ask simply: Do you see yourself as a: democrat, republican, or independent? Your info is then current.
If you’re watching a football game and the score is 40-0 in the fourth quarter, do you still watch it.
The fraudulent media polls can and do manipulate numbers to prevent anything like that happening during ‘their game’.
Your response is excellent. Did you forget reason No. 3? You only had two reasons.
I completely agree that if they didn’t fudge the polls those $1 million campaign contributions to Obama would stop. No one would donate money to what is a slam-dunk losing proposition. It’s all about the benjamins. But isn’t it always?
to depress the conservative vote
The final Pew poll had Obama leading by 6%. Obama won by 7.2%.
Some polls from July 2004:
CBS News (462 RV), 6-Jul Kerry +5
NBC News (504 RV) 6-Jul Kerry +11
CNN/Gallup/USAT (706 LV) 8-Jul Kerry +4
Dem Corps* (1,010 LV) 10-Jul Kerry +5
CBS/NYT (823 RV) 7/11-7/15 Kerry +5
IBD/TIPP (842 RV) 7/12-7/17 Kerry +3
LA Times (1,529 RV) 7/17-7/21 Kerry +2
NPR - POS/GQR (800 LV) 7/18-7/20 Kerry +1
Quinnipiac Univ. (1551 RV) 7/18-7/22 Kerry +3
CNN/Gallup/USAT (709 LV) 7/19-7/21 Kerry +2
IBD/TIPP (883 RV) 7/19-7/24 Kerry +3
Fox News (767 LV) 7/20-7/21 Kerry +1
They must like the taste of ass.
I immediately hang up without saying a word as soon as they tell me who they are.
To excite the glass chewers...
Which proves that Messina is going to simply checkmark his election clipboard and walk right off the cliff with the other lead lemmings Axelrot and Jar-Jar Jarrett, so he can't be blamed for Bobo's loss...
"Look, I did everything that we agreed to! I ran Bain ads in a blue state in July and we were out of money by October! Don't blame me we got pwned..."
Interesting perspective. Never though of it that way, but, I can see it now. Thanks!
To subconciously manipulate. Notice how often so-called news is reported as “many say” or “some think” and then go on to spew their talking points.
The fact is, more Democrats receive handouts. That also means that they are more likely to be available to the pollers who are trying to contact them.
It’s kind of like the unemployment numbers. They are calculated from questionaires sent out to a very small sample of people (0.02% of the population). So, who’s more likely to respond? The long term unemployed who are suffering from depression because they have been out of work so long that they are no longer receiving benefits or people in a better mood?
You keep right on telling yourself those things.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Oh! I know!!
It makes Zero look better.
They hope the fake “poll” results will engender a bandwagon effect.
And they’re right.
Pollster called me up the other night, I kept asking “which one is the democrat” and then when they said I said “I am voting for them”.
I hold pollsters in contempt so much I give them nothing but garbage data.
I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question.
They are just adjusting for voter fraud. Dems tend to vote more than one.
Polls have been skewed for a long time.
I remember the polls for Reagan & Carter as a dead heat until the very end. When I saw the cover of Newsweek the week of the election, it looked like it would be a close race. I never thought Reagan would win in a landside.
Cover of Newsweek Nov. 3, 1980: http://www.tias.com/11804/PictPage/1922502015.html