Skip to comments.Pollsters And Media Bias
Posted on 11/02/2012 11:59:01 AM PDT by goldstategop
RUSH: Earlier this week, Gallup came out with that 9,000-plus sample poll, with a margin of error of only plus/minus 1%. Nine thousand people. It was a poll that asked partied affiliation, party ID.
It came up with plus-three Republican. As of now, party ID... I don't know if it was likely voters, registered voters, adults, whatever. I don't remember what it was, but it was some classification of voters. Now, in 2008 the same poll had Democrats plus 12. Exit polling had Democrats plus 12. The polling data that everybody's going by, all these polls that show it neck and neck, they have something in common.
Except, I think, Rasmussen (there's always an exception), they're all using the 2008 turnout model. If you look at Rasmussen and one other, all they do is poll. Gallup. Rasmussen and Gallup, all they do is poll. The other outfits, they're attached to universities. What's the bias there? They're attached to news networks. What's the bias there? And we know that objectivity is not possible, especially these people.
I've always believed there's media bias, folks, and objectivity? Objectivity is not really possible. If you have people as interested in this stuff as you and I are, we all have desired outcomes. We all want certain things to happen. So do the people doing the polls. So do the people paying for the polls. Marist, Quinnipiac, these universities, we know the slant. Everybody there is engaged. Nobody is ambivalent about the result.
They all have a vested interest in the outcome.
Some have a political preference. Some have a business interest or what have you. But there isn't really pure objectivity here. So factor these things in. The two outfits that do nothing but poll, that are not attached to universities, not attached to networks or other liberal bastions... Unless they might be self-contained at Gallup. You've got Rasmussen and Gallup. The others all have associations with predominantly liberal institutions.
None of them want to stick their necks out. None of them. None of them. The idea that the election's tied, it's close, that none of what happened in the campaign has mattered, that none of what happened in the debates has mattered?
Whatever Rush. You get millions to cheer-lead. You were dead wrong in 2008 when you pimped out the same exact BS about polls ALL BEING WRONG.
Really? ALL of them?
Just get out and vote people. This is close as can be right now.
The election was never “too close to call” in the press the following years:
Whenever the Dem candidate was always ahead, the press had never played the too close to call game. This also occurs during off-year elections. 1994 was completely out of the blue to the press. 2002 was “too close” as well. 2010 was equally shown to be a “surprise”. 1998, and 2006 were not portrayed as anything other than “of course the Democrats are poised to make gains” elections.
In 1984 polling was just sorta glossed over. Cant imagine why.
Looking at archived issues of MSM rags from 1980 on they have always portrayed the race as close leading up to a good year for the GOP.
1. We were told the Wisconsin Recall was TOO CLOSE TO CALL by all media outlets (including Fox) on the day of the election. That was a load of @)#$*!
2. The days before the 2004 election we were told that Kerry was leading in OH by 5 points. Bush won OH.
3. NOT A SINGLE one of the media outlets or pollsters predicted the republican TIDAL WAVE of 2010. Not a single one.
4. Even with over-sampled Dim polls, the internals clearly show Independents abandoning Zero and going for Romney.
5. Zero’s people are having to cancel venues due to ‘weather’ concerns (the real reason is they can’t get enough people there to fill the venues). Romney/Ryan are due to appear in an outdoor stadium tonight in Ohio that seats 50,000 (think the lame-stream will show the footage?).
Romney 48% - Obama 48%.
That makes me worry, since I trust Rasmussen most of all.
Gallup came up with +3 GOP in its latest national sample.
I still remember when CNN’s exit polling declared a massive Republican Party sweep in 1994.
CNN anchors Judy Woodruff and Bernard Shaw were so stunned they could barely speak.
Judy Woodruff finally found her voice and said, “Are voters demanding a bi-partisan government?”
18 years later I still shriek with cold blooded delight when I think of that moment!
That's the number of Democrats who had voted in the 2008 presidential election who didn't bother to vote in the 2010 congressional election.
The closest number to it accounts for the number of Republicans who voted in the 2004 presidential election who didn't bother to vote in the 2006 congressional election. That was 26,365,802 voters.
Those particular numbers are huge drops that become portents overhanging the very next Presidential race. That's because they are EXCEPTIONS to the rule that about 25% dropoffs are normal. These things were 40% or higher!
It is highly unlikely a Democrat can win the Presidential race in 2012.
When your peeps are POd you turn into toast.
It’s easy to throw any poll by choosing where you poll. In Oregon, polling only Portland and Eugene results in an Obama landslide. Polling in the rural areas results in a Romney win.
“In 1984 polling was just sorta glossed over. Cant imagine why.”
I never read or heard about a single poll during the Reagan-Mondale race, except one in March showing Mondale or Gary Hart beating Reagan. That one was front page news.
I hear a lot about Rasmussen. He was considered most accurate for the “2008” election. How did he compare to other elections then? The University of Colorado prediction of the electoral college is said to be very accurate numbers wise for all elections since 1980. They are leaning Romney. Dick Morris says he knows a pollster that has been accurate for the last 40 years. He didn’t name that person. Then there’s Zogby (biased for Democrats) whom I remember had made some outrageous statements when W ran that were untrue in hopes of swaying that election. Newsmax.com lets him have a column and he’s at it again this year.
Here’s a fun read. I got the link from another free republic member’s post:
I'm not quite as optimistic as the guy in Vegas, but I do think Romney will pull it out.
One interesting anecdote from here in Seattle...
I see Obama ads on cable TV channels here all the time.
People tell me that's because those ads are run nationally.
I'm not so sure.
I have not seen one Romney ad in Seattle since he won the Republican Primary.
Obama beat McCain 70%-28% in Seattle in 2008.
If the Dems really are paying for ads here, that's completely amazing, and perhaps there will be a Romney landslide.
Rasmussen was ranked most accurate in a couple of preliminary reports done in early November 2008 by Intrade(?) and Fordham University.
There is a major problem with the validity of these reports however, because all votes and not been tallied at the time they were compiled. As it turned out, the final popular vote numbers were significantly different from those used in the reports. Thus, the findings were incorrect.
Fordham later released a complete analysis using the final election outcome and Rasmussen’s ranking plummeted. Eight pollsters were found to be more accurate than Rasmussen.
Bottom line is:
Obama won by a 7.2 spread, 52.9/45.7 (FEC verified)
Rasmussen had only a 6-point spread, 52/46.
CNN/ORC and Ipsos/McClatchy were more accurate with a 7-point spread, 53/46.