Posted on 10/31/2026 9:50:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Why do editors publish results they don’t believe?
Polling is an inexact science if it’s even a science, and sometimes it looks more like political comedy. It’s questionable enough when media folk assign authoritative weight to imperfect survey results that align with their partisan preferences. Now this urge has apparently become so strong at the Washington Post that the newspaper is publishing newsroom-pleasing results even while explaining in detail why they shouldn’t be trusted. Is this a joke?
Scott Clement reports for the Post on its new survey, which on its face appears to find a significant lead for Kansas Democrat Adam Hamilton against Republican Sen. Roger Marshall. But Mr. Clement expounds on why the survey is flawed:
Democrats were far more enthusiastic about taking the poll than Republicans were. Registered Democrats were more than twice as likely as registered Republicans to complete the survey after answering an interviewer’s call — 32 percent versus 12 percent — with a similar partisan gap when texting voters to complete the survey online.
Having recognized that the survey would likely yield inaccurate results, the Post and its polling partners at the George Mason University Schar School then attempted to solve the problem. Mr. Clement writes:
Our survey firm, Braun Research, combed random samples from a statewide database to find response gaps among Republicans and made thousands of additional calls to compensate for them.
Then we weighted the poll results to match the Kansas electorate by party registration, 2024 turnout and vote choice, as well as a half-dozen factors including education, region and age.
But it’s possible those efforts fell short.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“Why do editors publish results they don’t believe?”
I can spell that:
A - G - E - N - D - A
WY69
I’ve never been polled. Unless you count spam texts.
The polls are lies.
The Republicans are ahead.
The media has been trying to encourage their base.
Now that it’s almost all over, the media is finding it necessary to (sort of) tell the truth.
As Thomas Sowell said, when reality contradicts the liberal narrative,they conclude it's reality that's wrong.
*
People want to vote for the winner. The pollsters are there to provide them the winner.
See Hunter Bidens laptop emails for how much you should trust pollsters.
Elections are no longer how we form a government among people who agree about most things but disagree about some things. Elections are now about gaining power so you can go after your enemies.
It’s hard to conduct a scientifically-valid poll in this environment.
“Why do editors publish results they don’t believe?”
Because everyone knows a lie, especially the liars themselves.
This spiritual war is a war of truth against lies.
One inaccuracy of polls is whether the voter tells the truth.
A 2d inaccuracy is whether the poll wording is the same as t
he ballot. Some ballot styles put all R on the left, all D on the right. Some reverse that. Some are arranged vertical by office and not by party. Increasingly ballots are designed for the computer and not for human ways of thinking.
A 3d inaccuracy is WHO IS A LIKELY VOTER. Many people with opinions...strong opinions... do not vote. I all my days door to door in IL what was most striking was the I would go to a door. “Christ is the head of this house” on on the door. I knock. The door opens. TBS is on the TV. The voters have been registered to that address for many years and the last time they voted was 1994. The single most startling statistic to me was the pro-abort vote. When asked to vote pro-life pray about it and do not vote.
a 4th inaccuracy is in the count. Some voters mark 2 candidates for the same office. Some leave it blank. Some vote 3d party. The vote counter sees it and concludes “they really intended X”.
There are many other variables. Some impact the final results by 0.01%. Some impact the final results by 1.01%.
Some by 10.1%.
Good information, Thank you.
And it allows them to cheat easier if there is already some supposed expectation that Talfreako or El Sayed etc., are very close or even winning.
They want the Muslim Brotherhood and Adam Hamilton to win. Not so sure if that Texas freakshow is anything more than a red herring or body for them to light up and hurl over the castle wall to make the others appear mainstream.
They are becoming unhinged and increasingly desperate to win, so there is no telling to what level they will descend.
America may not survive another four years of Obama worshipers in high public office.
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.