To think, I almost fell for the polyanna, state of denial I heard here... Can you say conspiracy? While it's obvious there's a huge liberal bias, to think that all of the media outlets are in cahoots to lie, come on...
This ranks up there with our esteemed, fellow FReepers thinking that the MSM is dying, and thinking Hillary has no shot... Both of these assertions are ignorant, misguided, and utterly foolish. OK, enough of my rant.
The truth is that they aren't always accurate. Take a look at the 2000 elections. If they had been Kerry would've won. Polling is far from being an accurate science. The trouble is that everyone wants to know ahead of time what is going to happen and it's just impossible to really know.
I, for one, will open up a can of whoopass on you
I never understood why people get upset at polls. The pollsters want to be accurate so they make more money.
POlls in the end show a snapshot of the election at one moment in time. In the end polls are our friend and should be used to help us
I was saying this for well over a year, mostly in regards to Dubya's free-falling approval ratings, but also with many of the electoral polls. Mostly, we saw smug dismissal of them, or a curt, wisecracking response that Dubya will not win a third term. It was very short-sighted then, and it is now.
Any one poll is suspect, but any dozen polls taken in the same window of time do convey meaning, if they all pretty much tell the same story. So when you have 10 polls that show the president with approval ratings between 36 and 39, you can bet that while no single poll is probably right, the president;s approval is between 36 and 39.
Freepers need to really try and develop clarity. It's one of the big deficiencies on FR. Without clarity you will never get sound, meaningful analysis. I was one of the posters who suggested that the high number of dems polled meant that more people were self-identifying as dems, which in itself was alarming. This was dismissed out of hand, but now we know it was fairly accurate.
For the most part--the polls were incredibly accurate (even with the biases, which will always exist)--just like they were in the last election.
For the most part, polling has gotten very, very accurate--as only a small percentage of polls were outside their margins of error.
As you stated, the 'state of denial' here is just incomprehensible. According to most on here--the only accurate polls are those which confirm the 'groupthink' here.
Nowdays polls give very, very useful information--which may not be perfect, but IS useful. I was glad to see this thread, because there has been little discussion on here about the accuracy of the polls (that speaks volumes in itself). Polls are to be trashed or ignored 'at your peril'.
I think you are confusing "media outlets" with polling companies.
Yes, the polling companies were by and large accurate --- but the "media outlets" such as MS-DNC, ABC, PBS, BCC, CBS are definitely in the can for the Dems.
Recall how ABC held the Foley story until late Sept. or early Oct., (they had the story in May or July) when it was too late to get another candidate, and it would do maximum damage.
Which it did.
The majority of national REPORTING media outlets, minus Fox News, and NOT talk shows, willingly printed any and every accusation or slam the liberal Democrats wanted.
How about "macacca".
It ran for two weeks on ABC, CBS, MS-DNC, PBS, NYTimes, etc.
How 'bout the rekindled investigation into GOP Rep. Curt Weldon's lobbyist daughter for supposedly knowing people who also knew her father, or something like that.
That story ran for a week here around Philly.
The Webb slights against women, the federal investigation of Menendez (NJ), the outright criticism of Hispanics and/or homo's by a dozen or more Democratic candidates NEVER made the national news once.
The only reason I (and probably you) heard any 'mistake' by a Democrat was because we listen to talk radio.
My local newspaper tried to tie my excellent Republican congressman to ... Foley, or some such nonsense because one of the Republican's staff members had once worked for Foley some 15 years ago.
The REPORTING news media, especially the AP, Reuters, and now Google News, is heavily in the tank for the Dems.
The polling companies might have a slight bias, but their business only does well if they remain as accurate as possible.
And that is a big incentive to play straight.
For the 2006 elections, Mason Dixon is the best. Second Raz. Third Survey USA. These are the polling companies to watch.
New York, I have made a copy of this and filed it under Important FR posts. I intend to hold you to your promise. Because I am sure that you will have infinitely more success than I did at rousing folks from a state of denial.
IMO we have another one on our hands. There is a widespread conviction here that McCain cannot win the primary. The polls tell us otherwise and ought to be taken seriously, not laughed off.
I don't think it's a case of take it or leave it. Each poll has to be examined carefully. The exit polls, for example, on election day oversampled Dems by 7 percent. That's why Fox News quit using them to declare races and started followin the tabulated returns. And don't forget the claims of gains of 40 and 50 seats the House by some very prominent pollsters. It was nowhere near there. And the Senate shifted on the vapors of a handful of votes.