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 organization’s 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 ...
Three reasons:
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
According to:
Obama Leads McCain 52% to 46% in Campaign's Final Days
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?
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.