Sharyl Attkisson Ping!
Amazon link to Sharyl's latest book.
Good news! Sharyl is now hosting "Full Measure," a half-hour Sunday morning talk show on the Sinclair network. More info.
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.
Posted on 08/19/2016 5:48:47 AM PDT by xzins
Democrat-heavy sample nets better news for Trump
Among the same Democrat-heavy sample: 26% say they voted for Romney in 2012. 42% say they are leaning toward Trump in 2016.
The following is a media news analysis
Another poll; another way to spin.
Earlier this week, I showed how the reporting on a Bloomberg poll could be skewed to make results look more or less positive for a given candidate.
Today, we look at a Washington Post/ABC News poll that also purports to show a widening Clinton lead over Trump – by 8 points: 50% to 42%. This may well be the case. However, looking at the poll sample numbers, there’s some relevant context not reported in news stories.
Read the Washington Post/ABC News poll
The poll interviewed 10% more people who identify as Democrats (33%) than Republicans (23%), with the largest group (36%) calling themselves independent. So with 10% more Democrats than Republicans questioned, Clinton leads Trump by 8-points.
Even more interesting, the same Democrat-heavy sample favored Obama by a larger 10-point margin over Romney in 2012: 36% Obama to 26% Romney (with 32% saying they didn’t vote). We know this because the poll asked respondents how they voted in 2012. So today, Trump is outperforming Romney with the exact same Democrat-heavy sample of voters.
In other words, the same Democrat-heavy sample of Americans that gave Obama a 10-point edge in 2012, gives Clinton a slightly smaller lead, 8-points, in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.
Further, this particular sample has not proven to be representative in the past. Of those who said they voted in 2012, they gave Obama a hefty 15-point edge over Romney: 54% to 39%. But the actual general election was a much tighter 4-point race: 51% Obama, 47% Romney. So Romney ended up performing 8-points better and Obama 3-points worse than this Democrat-heavy sample group reflected.
Among the same Democrat-heavy sample: 26% say they voted for Romney in 2012, 42% say they are leaning toward Trump in 2016.
Hillary Clinton
One polling expert told me there’s typically no disclosure or adjustment made when random sampling turns up significantly more respondents identifying with one party over another. There’s no way to know how that will match up with the population that actually turns out to vote. “It’s a judgement call,” says the expert. Finding substantially more respondents identifying with one party over another could be an indication that the makeup of the electorate is changing, she adds.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll does what the Bloomberg poll did in pressing respondents to pick a candidate even if they initially stated they didn’t know if they were going to vote or who they would vote for. [Bloomberg added in the “leaners” when reporting the totals in an article, even though the respondents were answering a different question than “for whom would you vote.” This gave Clinton the appearance of a slightly larger lead than she actually had in the Bloomberg poll.] The Washington Post/ABC News poll seems to take this a step further: they represent the two questions “for whom would you vote” and for whom would you “lean” as if they were a single question, though they were undoubtedly asked as two separate questions. See question #2. For some reason, they chose not to separately publish both answers, and only provided the combined total. Does that favor Clinton, as in the Bloomberg poll, whereas without the ” leaners,” Trump is closer? A query to the Washington Post polling department was not answered by publication time.
There’s another point worth noting. The pollsters asked a series of four questions raising negatives about Trump: “goes too far in criticizing,” “a problem with respect for for people with whom he disagrees,” “criticism of Muslim-American family whose son was killed while a U.S. Army captain in Iraq,” “biased against women and minorities.” But they asked just one question raising a negative about Clinton: “too willing to break the rules.” One could envision other questions more comparable to the Trump questions such as: “considers herself above the law in light of the FBI findings about her email servers,” “committed perjury giving incorrect testimony to Congress,” “demonstrates hypocrisy on women’s rights considering her husband’s background and her response to it,” and “jeopardized national security with conduct the FBI called extremely careless.” But these questions weren’t asked. This means there are a number of potential negative Trump points to highlight when reporting on the poll, but fewer potential negative Clinton points available.
None of this is to suggest the headline of this poll won’t prove to be entirely accurate in the general election. Poll trends over time are typically fairly accurate predictors. But this poll is most likely to be an accurate predictor, it seems, in a race where 10% more Democrats vote than Republicans… and that remains to be seen.
Of those who said they voted in 2012, they gave Obama a hefty 15-point edge over Romney: 54% to 39%. But the actual general election was a much tighter 4-point race: 51% Obama, 47% Romney. So Romney ended up performing 8-points better and Obama 3-points worse than this Democrat-heavy sample group reflected.
So, the this very same poll would have given Obama an extremely wide lead in 2012 when it was nothing like that when the actual vote took place in November 2012.
Attikisson is saying without saying it directly that this is a 'lying poll' that is being used as political manipulation.
They have to poll 10% more Dems because they know the amount of fraud coming.
The is a really worrisome thought.
My sense at this stage is that they are trying to manipulate the voting public. They want to encourage Clinton supporters and leaners and they want to demoralize Trump supporters and leaners.
And they actually want to shape the election if they can. So many people support the person in front because they want to end up being on the winning side.
Ping to Sharyl’s List Upchuck :D
The pollsters, most of whom are for Hillary any way are in panic. The Opinion Savvy/Fox 5 poll from Georgia, showed a tie, and had six percent more Republicans surveyed than Dems. They had Hillary ahead with independents to achieve that. There is no survey I have seen anywhere that tried that tactic to achieve the result. All polls with internals must be dissected thoroughly to see the games being played. And those without, tossed.
That's an idiotic reason to vote for someone, but I don't disagree with you.
Romney lost by 4 in the national popular vote, so with Trump 16 points better, that means a 12 point lead, which puts him over 400 electoral votes. Works for me.
Just look for the word “shame” as in “shame on you for supporting Trump.” It is everywhere in the media right now and it is how they think they can turn people from him. It’s an Alinsky tactic but it has had its day. Call it out when you see it, and laugh at it!! Turn it on Hillary and Obama! As in, “Shame on Obama for golfing instead of visiting Louisiana.”
“So, the this very same poll would have given Obama an extremely wide lead in 2012 when it was nothing like that when the actual vote took place in November 2012.”
On election day in 2004, the exit polls had Kerry up by a wide margin. We saw how that turned out.
Sharyl Attkisson Ping!
Amazon link to Sharyl's latest book.
Good news! Sharyl is now hosting "Full Measure," a half-hour Sunday morning talk show on the Sinclair network. More info.
Want on or off this ping list? Just drop me a FReep mail.
Perhaps I don’t know Georgia real well, but that poll is telling us that 55% of the state is female and 45% are male.
It is telling us that 24% of blacks have advanced degrees and 22% of whites have advanced degrees.
It is telling us that 9% of blacks in Georgia are Republicans.
Some of this just makes me scratch my head.
Love her reporting and analysis
Get Out The Vote
As I posted the other day, consider what if: the Soros owned machines were programmed in binary machine language to randomly flip one in ten or one in seven Trump votes to Hillary votes how many people in this country are there who could look at that code and realize what was done? Plus, what if that operating system was set to be wiped when the polls close and replaced with a “benign” one? How many people in this country could evaluate that machine and discover it? Even better, or worse, say that each machine contained a malignant and a benign operating system in machine language and a sub routine in the malignant ACTUAL operating system directed any download or query requests only to the benign operating system. How many people in this country could discover the tampering at any level or time, especially after the malignant operating system had been wiped? My guess is we are talking single digits.
If I can think of this and I am not even a programmer what chance does Trump have?
They are in full manipulation mode.
The Fox talking heads are almost to a person anti-Trump and they slyly pretend otherwise, but they always emphasize democratic talking points against him. Dana Perrino is a prime example. So is Campaign Carl Cameron. I think Eric whasisname is, too.
She has a record now for integrity. It cost her her job.
That’s what makes this significant.
Good point.
I don’t disagree with the article. But.
2012 presidential election, Obama 332 vs Romney 206 electoral votes are more than the spread of 4% point in general votes.
And we know the county by county map was a sea of red, except for the deep blue counties that turn the whole state to Obama camp (all the electoral votes go to him).
If this election is stolen again this way with even more outrageous voter suppression (of military votes) and fraud, how would the patriots take it? That is the real concern.
I have no doubt a civil war is coming during president Hillary’s first 4 months if not sooner.
That has been the “progressive” strategy for 50 years, at least.
The whole premise of “progressivism” is that voters are incapable of making wise choices, so the elite (progressives) have to make those choices for them. They do this by “manufacturing consent”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.