Why Are So Many Pollsters Oversampling Democrats?

National Review ^ | 14 Jul 2012 | Jim Geraghty

[newzjunkey]

Since many liberals neither work nor spend much time with their families, it’s not hard to see why their opinions might be overrepresented.

You keep right on telling yourself those things.

[musicman]

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

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!

[kinsman redeemer]

Oh! I know!!
It makes Zero look better.
They hope the fake “poll” results will engender a bandwagon effect.

And they’re right.

Sadly.

[freedomtrail]

Hope so.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Upon further reflection, I think they are doing it to provide cover for the massive Democrat election fraud that is on tap.

[luvie]

Why Are So Many Pollsters Oversampling Democrats?

DUH...

[GraceG]

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.

[upchuck]

Why Are So Many Pollsters Oversampling Democrats?

I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question.

[Diggity]

They are just adjusting for voter fraud. Dems tend to vote more than one.

[Atlantan]

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

[2ndDivisionVet]

The question answers itself.

[OrangeHoof]

Um, because they *always* oversample Democrats because polling is as much about shaping public opinion as it is reporting public opinion.

The pollsters stopped being objective a few generations ago.

[Intolerant in NJ]

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...Interesting talk by David Horowitz on C-Span today about his latest book which looks at how so many of the biggest foundations in the coutnry have been taken over by the "progressive" leftists who as a result have something like 200 times the money conservative groups have to spread their propaganda around - mentioned Pew specifically and an example of how their CEO simply lied outright when challenged about their spending and orientation - this is why they have the "strange habit" of always including more 'rats in their samples than reality dictates - because they want 'rat candidates to win, and they they're habitual liars who never get seriously challenged for their mendacity.......

[chimera]

...and they they're habitual liars who never get seriously challenged for their mendacity.......

Remember that until relatively recently (concurrent with the rise of alternative media) the liberals have had exclusive control of the public dialog through their dominance of the media. They have controlled the meme for so long that they simply can't fathom being challenged. When they are, they react with visceral hatred and lash out at any and all who might challenge them. In the past, this has sufficed to cow any challengers. But such is not always the case now, and it freaks them out.

[GraceG]

The Truth points to itself...

You sound like a vorlon....

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Thanks for the reply. Also, what a lot of people seem to miss, is the revenue piece. The media needs the story line to be a "close race" so that literally millions of dollars in ads are purchased, to meet their revenue goals (presidential elections are only every 4 years, so this volume of revenue is not available every year). If it was a total blowout and one candidate was leading By 10 pts then the money well would dry up rather quickly.

Always look at the macro view and the money angle and you'll see the real story line.

INBN

[cpa4you]

Big campaigns also are driven by some pretty high-powered “consultants.” I’d not be surprised to learn that an awful lot of the money spent directly benefits them. Big ad buys make someone a lot of money!

I lead campaign finance audits for the FEC for five years and can say, with certainty, that more that one consultant or campaign manager personally benefited. Just check the FEC’s web site (fec.gov) and see where the money goes, and, to whom?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Because that’s how it’s always been done.

[bmwcyle]

Polls before the election are all rigged. Ignore them.