Posted on 09/25/2012 5:30:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editors' note: this piece originally appeared at PolicyMic.
Two things typically happen after the major parties conventions come to an end. People that normally do not pay attention for most of the year start to pay attention to the news and polls more, and voter enthusiasm jumps up as a result. The major polls that are appearing on the daily newscasts, in the newspapers and on the internet have become incredibly important. While meant to accurately reflect the views of the nation, these polls today have unfortunately turned into a weapon.
Many major organizations have skewed their polls as of late. They do this a couple of subtle ways that most people will not notice unless they bother to do a little digging. By over-sampling Democrat voters and under-sampling both Republicans and Independents, the poll organizations have been able to make it appear as though President Barack Obama has a decisive lead over former Governor Mitt Romney.
Aside from over-sampling, they also base their samples on previous voter turnout. Typically this is done with the last major voting year, which would have been 2010. Unfortunately for all of us, most polling agencies are basing their samples off of the 2008 turnout model. In 2008, the Republican vote was depressed, while Democrats came out in record numbers. In 2010, the Republicans returned in force, resulting in one of the most dramatic turnovers in history.
Considering that the GOP has maintained relatively high voter enthusiasm, there is no reason to believe that their numbers will be as low as in 2008. In fact, according to Rasmussen, Republican Party affiliation is at an eight year high, while Democratic Party affiliation is over four points behind. While Democrats have been registering more people over the past month, it is highly unlikely they will be able to overtake the GOP's lead.
So why should we believe that Democrats will come out in such superior numbers?
Conventional wisdom says that Obama should be trailing Mitt Romney in the polls, and the fact that he doesn’t appear to be doing so means that Romney must just be that weak of a candidate. Thankfully, some people have "unskewed" the polls, showing what looks to be a much different race than what we’ve all been fed by the mainstream media.
A look at the Unskewed polls shows us a spread of Mitt Romney being nearly 8 full points ahead of President Obama. While conservatives will naturally want to jump for joy, they should first remember the wise words made famous by President Reagan: Trust, but verify.
Rasmussen shows the current party affiliation as 37.6% Republicans, 33.3% Democrats and 29.2% Independents. However, the sample from the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows an over-sampling of Democrats by 8%! Instead of the plus four margin that the GOP should be enjoying to accurately reflect the current voter rolls, the Democrats are instead being reflected by a plus four margin. With the data unskewed and the appropriate number of independents reflected, Mitt Romney would actually lead by a near 7-point margin.
One sample is an outlier. Two or more? That's something else.
A recent New York Times/CBS poll came out showing 49% for Obama and 46% for Romney. Again, the data was wildly skewed in favor of Democrats. Unskewed data shows Romney with a lead again, 51% to 44%. The sample for that poll broke down with 44% Democrats, 39% Republicans and 18% Independents.
Polls have constantly shown Romney leading with Independent voters by double digits. Massive over-sampling of Democrats and under-sampling of Republicans and Independents was used again to make it appear that Obama is doing much better than he normally would be.
Each polls that the website shows leads to an Examiner article that breaks down the data. Each article links to the polls and the raw data. After looking though the data, it becomes obvious that the analyst was spot on. The links are there for everyone to see. Click on the stats if you have questions and add up the percentages for yourselves. When one takes into account the high levels of party loyalty, the truth becomes apparent. Again, trust, but verify.
The ultimate question is, why skew the data for President Obama? The answer to that is simple.
Polls can be used as a weapon. The result is a de facto means of voter suppression. Those that may be hoping for a Romney victory may see poll after poll with President Obama supposedly in the lead, and believe that it’s not worth voting. Even if it were to peel off 1% or 2%, it could end up having an effect on the election. If you don't believe so, ask Al Gore if a scant few votes can make a difference.
This is not the result of some grand liberal media conspiracy. Rather, it is a time honored technique that liberal-leaning groups have used for years. This is nothing new.
Two Gallup polls that came on Thursday should have the Obama administration worried. Even though the numbers were slightly lopsided and they were polling registered voters instead of likely voters, the polls showed bad news for President Obama. One poll showed Obama and Romney tied at 47% each, while the other showed Obamas approval rating back down to 46%.
In an age when it seems like every news company and organization has an agenda, it always helps to read between the proverbial lines. When you look through the samples that each poll puts out there, the truth beomes clear.Obama does not have an unsurpassable lead, and Romney is not a weak candidate.
Just like with McCain though it will come down to a few states and which way those states go. Really percentages of possible overall turnout and voting do not give the clear picture. If Mitt cannot take the needed battleground States he could possibly be 3 points ahead and still loose.
Mel
Higher poll numbers means higher donations.
Pray for America
The electoral college projections at RCP are still a bit troubling to me. I’d like to see more points in Mitt’s column right now.
I keep hearing and reading this assertion but what is the basis for it? (besides Rush said it.)
There is also a theory that if a candidate peaks too soon that the voters can get buyers remorse and the other candidate becomes the underdog, demotivating the first's base voters and motivating the second’s base voters. In addition the media gets bored and starts going after the one on top to keep the story going, no story without a race.
Why bother voting if you are not enthused and you think your side will win easily anyway?
I am always suspicious of these grand conspiracy theories.
How did the exit polls do in 2010? Garbage in Garbage out, they are only used to defeat us.
Pray for America
I dont remember any polls showing Dems would win in 2010. In 2010 Freepers loved the polls then. Where was the grand conspiracy then?
I think the Debates are going to be interesting. Romney practiced last week and Obama is practicing this week in Nevada. We will have to see how the first one goes next week.
I should have said ‘many’ polls, Dems did win NV and DE and CA Senate races.
Romney is no Reagan (THERE -- I got the #1 objection out of the way!) but what the MSM is doing today is exactly what the MSM was doing in 1980.
The best indicator that Obama is in trouble, is his frenzied campaigning in battleground states, and his neglecting of his job at the White House.
When our embassies are burning and our people are getting killed, the president should be spending more time addressing those problems, but, his biggest priority is campaigning, the problems of the country be damned.
He knows that the polls showing him ahead are not reflecting reality, and thus, he has to spend every minute he can campaigning.
...”This is not the result of some grand liberal media conspiracy. Rather, it is a time honored technique that liberal-leaning groups have used for years. This is nothing new.”....
I disagree with the author that this is not a grand liberal media conspiracy. I think it is, based on the existence of the Journolist “scandal”. The so-called MSM are all in on Obama and are pulling out all the stops. However, it will do them no good - they have awakened the sleeping giant, and we will crush them and the Affirmative Action Squatter who despoils our White House.
Such experienced pols/pundits as Newt Gingrich have been saying that the idea of a few states controlling, apart from the whole electoral college and popular vote, is bunk.
Newt pointed out that states don’t go wildly opposite the rest of the states, or opposite the popular vote, but fit in within a historical trend and with other facts of the vote.
He’s not talking about polls well before the election but the actual vote.
He also does not believe in aiming a campaign at each of several individual “swing” states as if that would pull the country along. Instead, he says the country as a whole and the swing states will tend to perform collectively and individually “in sync”, therefore run a national campaign WELL, and the necessary states will come to you ON ELECTION DAY.
McCain ran an awful campaign, and he was up against a candidate that mesmerized the country with youth, teleprompter speaking ability, the first Black potiential president, etc. Yes McCain won certain reliable Republican states anyway, because the nation IS divided along somewhat reliable lines.
But the reason he saw Indiana, NC, VA, FL, OH etc slip away ISN’T THAT HE FAILED IN THOSE STATES BUT THAT HE FAILED NATIONALLY.
Very nice analysis of the phony lib polls. But I get nervous when I read this:
+++++++++++
Rasmussen shows the current party affiliation as 37.6% Republicans, 33.3% Democrats and 29.2% Independents.
+++++++++++
Unfortunately Raz is the one pollster that we consider trustworthy and, given his view that the GOP has a 4 point party affiliation advantage over the Dem, it seems very, very unlikely that he is using a Turnout Model that oversamples Democraps.
And Rasmussen has the race essentially dead-even.
You really cannot reconcile the Rasmussen polling with the conclusions of this article. At least I can’t.
Better yet, call R+R and tell them to quit screwing around and to get on O’s case.
Praying for a specific candidate to win doesnt seem like that great of an idea. Usually backfires.
I dont remember anything like that. It was constant cheering and giddiness here and circular firing squads over at DU, pretty fun to read too. Lots of complaining about Obama in those days.
The only concern here was over a couple of Senate races.
Just like the mainstream media, pollsters are much less interested in credibility than they are interested in RELEVANCE.
If you own a polling company and want some press, you must put out a poll that puts Obama in the lead. There is a reason that unskewedpolls.com doesn’t find its results on the front page. It simply doesn’t help the narrative that both the media and pollsters want to push.
Relevance is what they seek, they are attempting to persuade, not report objectively.
You are quite right.
Mitt has a shot. But he hasn’t won yet.
And the clock is ticking. I’d sure like to see a 3 point bump in each of Ohio, FL and VA.
Short of that, and that in the next 45 days, obama will win. But, with that, Romney will win.
It’s that simple.
The RCP electoral college projections are based on the same type of D-skewed polling, and is subject to the same error.
Any state where the poll average has -bama with less than an 8-point lead is either in play or in Romney’s camp.
Go through the RCP projections and see how that knowledge changes your concerns.
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.