Posted on 09/06/2016 6:17:20 AM PDT by TheRef
The Washington Post commissioned a poll of all registered voters and decided to draw conclusions about who holds an electoral advantage from the results. The problem for the Washington Post, and they undoubtedly know this, is that polls of all registered voters always heavily favor Democrats and skew the results in such a way that they are ineffective in determining a likely winner. It may be useful in determining public opinion of all registered voters, but who cares about that when we are talking about who will actually win?
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalref.com ...
Trump has barely begun.
And Hillary is declining fast.
The debates will be highly entertaining.
The phone poll of today doesn’t mean the same thing as the phone poll of yesterday. The land line phone is increasingly the exception rather than the rule, with the cell phone able to do almost everything it could plus far more. Yet, how many people list their cell phones in the phone book?
Nothing new here. The Compost has been poll lying for decades to support their rat candidates.
Special Report
How Carter Beat Reagan
Washington Post admits polling was “in-kind contribution”; New York Times agenda polling.
By Jeffrey Lord – 9.25.12
Dick Morris is right.
Here’s something Dick Morris doesn’t mention. And he’s charitable.
Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?
That’s right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.
In a series of nine stories in 1980 on “Crucial States” — battleground states as they are known today — the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.
Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game — and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper’s polling an “in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.” Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan’s 1984 opponent and Carter’s vice president.
All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media — used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 — or Barack Obama in 2012.
First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.
The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:
· California — October 6, 1980
· Texas — October 8, 1980
· Pennsylvania — October 10, 1980
· Illinois — October 13, 1980
· Ohio — October 15, 1980
· New Jersey — October 16, 1980
· Florida — October 19, 1980
· New York — October 21, 1980
· Michigan — October 23, 1980
Of these nine only one was depicted as “likely” for Reagan: Reagan’s own California. A second — New Jersey — was presented as a state that “appears to support” Reagan.
The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were “close” — or the Times had Carter leading outright.
In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.
Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.
• Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:
Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan
The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had “suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish.” The paper said “a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan.”
The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard’s lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled “wizard” caught in the act to frantically start yelling, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed “a string of earlier polls on both sides” that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan.
Instead, the Times presented this data:
A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn’t even close to close.
http://spectator.org/articles/34732/how-carter-beat-reagan
OK, but even if they are polling all registered voters how many of them give an answer? What was the response rate of this mega-poll? Was it of the same magnitude that PEW reported ie less than 10%?
The Washington Post is living off a single event’s success at one point in time - the Watergate Affair, and the fantastically fortuitous luck of two hack journalist hacks (Woodward and Bernstein). They ‘took down a President’ in an arena bolstered by the lions and tigers of journalism supported by all the might of a media-commanding Democrat Party against a President that had the misfortune of inheriting a John effing Kennedy Vietnam.
At least Bernstein has the good sense to stop trying to glom off that event (mostly) while good old Slo-Mo Woodward just keeps trying to feather his nest ad nauseam.
Washington Post my ass!
Pollers have a real problem on their hands in this election: How do you predict turnout for THIS election??
Many of us HOPED the polls were misleading in the 2012 race, because they were over-sampling Democrats in a big way in all the pre-election polls. I knew the Rats would do better than the 2010 election, but didn’t believe they would match the 2008 turnout. Pretty much, they did.
I think that was 98% because of Obama, and he’s NOT on the ticket this time. With so many voters, on both sides, being dissatisfied with options, I foresee a pretty low turnout. Honestly though, I don’t know how ANYONE could predict what the electorate will look like. And, turnout is everything.
The next couple of months are going to be wild!
“The debates will be highly entertaining.”
Trump may be alone on the debate stage.
I have my doubts as to whether there will even be a debate this time.................
Babylon, not Rome................
If Hillary has a coughing fit during any of the debates it'll be devastating for her. I'm sure her handlers/doctors know this and will do all they can to have her properly medicated. Still, the worry it's causing them must be overwhelming.
Someone please explain this methodology to me. This is beyond sketchy. Taken from SM WashPo poll.
“METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS
This poll was funded by The Washington Post and is part of SurveyMonkey’s syndicated
2016 Election Tracking service.
The sample of registered voters living in each of 50 states was drawn from the pool of
respondents to user-generated poll conducted on SurveyMonkey’s platform, which
typically includes roughly 3 million people each day. After completing an unrelated
survey, a sub-sample of those respondents were invited to participate in a second
survey asking “Where do you stand on current events? Share your opinion.” Results were
analyzed among those who reported they are registered to vote. The survey was not
advertised on any website, and individual invitations could only be used to complete
the survey once. This sample differs from SurveyMonkey’s Audience, the firm’s ongoing
panel of survey respondents. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish.
From August 9 – September 1, 2016, the survey asked the sample of 74,886 registered
voters about their presidential support, including between 546 and 5,147 respondents
in each state. The final sample was weighted to benchmarks for the population of
registered voters in each state for age, race, sex, education and region from the 2012
and 2014 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement. In Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Texas, samples were also weighted to an average of party
identification in the current survey and previous weighted SurveyMonkey state surveys
this year.
The Post-SurveyMonkey poll employs a “non-probability” sample of respondents, drawn
from the large number of people who take user-generated polls. Washington Post and
Post polls with partners are designed to ensure all adults with a cellular or landline
telephone have a chance of being selection, but the probability of any given voter
being invited to a SurveyMonkey survey is unknown, as is the proportion of voters who
were able to be sampled because they did not participate in a separate user-generated
SurveyMonkey poll during the field period. A margin of error is not calculated for
SurveyMonkey results, since this statistic only applicable to randomly-sampled
surveys.”
She’ll be doped up to demonstrate her good health, and probably wear an IFB so that her handlers can remind her of any forgotten answers to the prearranged questions.
So, the sample is often based on a population initially lured by a discount of some sort.
-PJ
“Yet, how many people list their cell phones in the phone book?”
Pollsters do not use the phonebook to generate their sample, but rather generate or purchase RDD sample.
“The Washington Post mega-poll done by Survey Monkey assumes a 100% voter turnout rate.”
No it does not. No poll assumes a 100% voter turnout.
Pollsters may employ a turn out model, based on historical and relevant actual voter turnout in similar elections. But, no one assumes a 100% voter turnout.
I am a registered voter and I was never pooled
Enough codeine to suppress that cough will make her loopy and completely constipated.
They have to chart a careful path between appearing to be in ill health and appearing to be mentally dull. It is not certain that there is a path.
Look for her to pass on the debates claiming some kind of reason that Trump is "not worthy". Refusing to debate will not hurt her with dems, but independents will come over to Trump in droves.
When you poll all registered voters, you are by definition assuming a 100% turnout rate. You are describing a likely voter model. This is a REGISTERED voter poll.
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.