Posted on 10/15/2004 8:37:51 PM PDT by Kaslin
Public opinion polls burst on the scene in the USA in the 1920s. The popular magazine Literary Digest sponsored the first political polls. The Digest was right on the money in predicting the landslide win of Herbert Hoover in 1928. Likewise, the magazine forecast Hoover’s demise in 1932. Then came the 1936 election. Kansas Governor Alf Landon was the Republican nominee. Franklin D. Roosevelt was running for a second term. The 1928 Democrat nominee, Alfred E. Smith, broke with his party and denounced FDR for breaking almost all of his campaign promises in 1932. Literary Digest predicted that Landon would defeat FDR. Of course, FDR won one of the greatest landslides in U.S. history, all but wiping out the Republican Party. What happened? Literary Digest had contacted voters by phone. Those voters who could afford a phone did favor Landon. But the millions of unemployed who were barely hanging on were not polled. Literary Digest was so humiliated by its incorrect prediction that it folded. Public opinion polls in elections didn’t surface again until the 1940s, when in 1948 pollsters predicted New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would defeat President Harry S Truman. The problem was that Dewey was so far ahead at the end of September that pollsters stopped polling. Thus they completely missed the last-minute surge for Truman, largely the result of his “Give ‘em Hell” whistle-stop train tour. I mention this because political pundit Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report pointed out that pollsters are missing the 10 percent of Americans who have only cell phones. There is no directory for them to call. It happens that all three people I know who have only a cell phone are Republicans. Not that such a sample means anything, but 10 percent of the population is a large number. What if pollsters, all of whom are predicting a razor-thin race for president, were all wrong because voters owning only cell phones were largely disposed toward one of the candidates? That could throw off their calculations big-time. Look at what just happened in Australia. All the pollsters there said the race was too close to call. It wasn’t close at all. John Howard, the incumbent, who was supposed to be in deep trouble for deploying troops in Iraq, won an unprecedented fourth term. He picked up a significant number of seats in the lower house and won control of the Senate for the first time during his tenure. What happened here? Obviously, something significant. Polls were being taken right up to Election Day and none of the pollsters picked up the significant swing to Howard. One possibility is that voters lied to pollsters. The opposition Labor Party had the support of much of the establishment. Perhaps voters didn’t want to go against what was perceived to be popular. Somehow that seems unlikely. Pollsters often filter out responses they feel are not genuine. More likely, since Australia is so much like America, it is something like the missing cell phone link. I don’t have data on how many voters in Australia have cell phones and rely on them exclusively. If it is a significant number, that could account for pollsters being so far off. Perhaps I am living in a fantasy world, but somehow the Australian situation gives me hope that perhaps the same thing will happen here. The establishment is pro-Kerry and is doing everything it can to elect him. I have never seen anything like this in 46 years of political participation in one way or the other. The tilt in the establishment media is so pro-Kerry it is beyond bias. The media have an agenda, and they seem to be willing to do anything to further that agenda. Perhaps some voters are telling pollsters what they think they want to hear. Or it could be the cell phone factor. Wouldn’t it be interesting if on election night the race wouldn’t be close at all? Wouldn’t it be a surprise for all the pundits, ready for a long night, if the election were not razor-thin but the incumbent president were re-elected by a comfortable margin, with the race being decided early? Oh well, I am entitled to my fantasy. Some of the pollsters have become very arrogant. During the primaries they were making predictions that were off by only two-tenths of a percent. Something needs to bring them down to earth. It would be so satisfying if the American people did just that.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
I have an unlimited minutes national plan with AT&T and a Vonage account at home that forwards to my cell phone so I can have multiple numbers (1 for business, 1 for personal, etc.). The old land line is headed for the dumpster, so to speak. If the march of technology means that pollsters and marketers can no longer reach me, then so much the better.
Why exactly can't pollsters call a cell phone number? Can't they randomly dial those numbers?
Sounds like the crap M. Moore was trying to sell in his rant when Bush was up big
Bush - Dukakis was a dead heat, up to the Sunday before the election. The media explained the final Bush thrashing of Dukakis by saying ALL of the undecided vote broke for Bush. I suspect Bush - Kerry will be something of a repeat. All the undecideds, their Cousins, Aunts, and Uncles, suddenly shifted. Who woulda' guessed.
Good Lord! Don't give them any ideas! I would HATE to have people call my cell phone for solicitation purposes!!!!!
Let's do a reality check.
There was a time when the only people I knew who had cell phones were democrats who shouldn't have been able to afford them! The more conservative Republicans I knew, whether or not they could afford them, never felt they could.
Times have changed. Many of us have cell phones, but I think the people who ONLY have cell phones are more likely the younger people who go to college or live at home with their parents. Most of the home owners I know have land lines and cell phones. Renters may tend to only have cell phones, but are likely to have both. I don't think we can say with any certainly what party might me most represented by only having a cell phone, but if I had to guess, I would say it is the younger crowd that is more likely to vote democrat. JMO.
Exactly. I have nothing but a cell phone and I rarely even need that - the internet supplies all my communication needs.
However this young person is voting straight-ticket Republican, and so are a few more of my peers than you might think.
Can you comment on this article?
This made me start thinking - my young niece and her husband (a reservist)both have only cell phones - no land line - both are voting for Bush. A former employee dropped by today to visit - she and her husband only use cell phones - she stated she's voting for Bush(if I had to guess, knowing her husband, he's voting for Bush, too). Just something to think about.
How about the troops in Iraq. I think there are between 125,00 and 140,000. Is anyone polling them and adding their votes to their home state numbers? In close states like NJ, OR, IA, NM, and NV a thousand votes might make the difference.
I am 59 and haven't had a land line phone in years.
I don't live with my parents either.
I know a lot of people my age who are ditching their land lines.
My son has been in Iraq for more than a year and he says he hasn't met anyone who is voting for Kerry.
He has already voted for "W" by absentee ballot.
I've had a cell phone for about 20 years and I have never been solicited by anyone.
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.