Let me add this:
calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 04/30/2002 2:06:11 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
Whenever Democrat or liberal spirits have needed a lift in the past, Mervin Field and his Field Poll could be counted upon to provide it, even when convincing and commanding evidence suggested these spirits should indeed be depressed. Proving that some things — among them Field’s roll as liberal Democrat cheerleader — never change, the new Field poll shows Gray Davis leading Bill Simon by a healthy margin.
The convincing and commanding evidence to the contrary in this case is four separate private polls, all taken by Sacramento interests, and none sponsored by or connected to the Simon campaign, all of which show precisely the opposite. These four surveys — spaced almost evenly over the last month — show Simon with a lead of between 4 and 8 percent over Davis. One of these surveys was taken for a mammoth statewide union group that happens to be one of Davis’s largest boosters — in 1998, and today. It showed Simon leading Davis by 4 percent.
How, I hear you ask, can Field directly contradict so many other pollsters? Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure, you hear me answer.
Not that the Field folks are outright lying about the results they get. That would be ’way to blatant in this hi-tech age. No, the way you skew survey results in a particular direction is through the methodology used in selecting your sample to be polled. After all, who is asked to respond will determine how any survey turns out.
The Field poll has for years used a particularly lax, broadly “inclusive” polling methodology, which happens to be the method most likely to favor Democrats and liberals. For example, to be at all relevant to an upcoming election, those surveyed, obviously, should be limited to registered voters. How is this done? The vast majority of professional pollsters begin with voter registration lists, so they know the people they interview are registered.
In addition, in candidate races especially, the vast majority of professional pollsters add another “screen”: one filtering out voters least likely to vote.
The idea is to approximate election day’s actual voting population as closely as possible to produce the most accurate survey possible. And this is the method Field declines to use in most cases.
Rather, the Field methodology starts with a universe of “eligible” voters: people old enough to vote. A random sample is called and asked: are you registered? This method of screening for registered voters is notoriously unreliable, for the obvious reason that registration as a voter is considered part of being a good citizen. When asked the question, even some good people — gasp! — lie to pollsters about it.
The result is a survey sample unduly weighted with people not registered to vote at all. And it just so happens this is the population segment least sympathetic to Republican and conservative ideas and candidates, and most favorably disposed toward Democrat and liberal ideas and candidates.
So, class, for 100 percent of your final exam grade: in what direction will your results skew if you poll a sample weighted with respondents unsympathetic to Republicans and amenable to Democrats? I see you’ve all been paying attention. Straight “A”s for everyone!
The Field Poll has a reputation — at least among Republicans — for regularly publishing results that overstate Democrat and liberal strength. This year, in March, Field’s last pre-primary poll showed Simon ahead of Riordan by 6 percent. Simon’s final margin was a hair short of 20 percent.
In 1982, Field’s last pre-election survey showed Tom Bradley holding a comfortable lead over George Deukmejian for governor.
My point is not to beat up on Mervin Field or his organization, but rather to put his latest offering in perspective. Field presumably has his own reasons for using his peculiar methodology, but its use makes his numbers as suspect as the advice given by the psychic Miss Cleo.
That, considered in the context of the surveys by independent and Democrat-leaning organizations whose results flatly contradict Field’s, ought to minimize sleep loss among Simon fans. And it should absolutely raise a red flag to Simon’s campaign about reacting to this poll.
I wonder how Mervin Field looks in a turban?
Gee, what would ever give you that idea, huh???? :-)
Let me add this:
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
May 2001 - Mayor of Detroit
State Rep Kwame Kilpatrick - 25%
City Council member Gil Hill - 46%
Election Day
Kilpatrick 54%
Hill 46%
July 2000 - US Senate
Abraham - 45
Stabenow - 33
Oct 19
Abraham - 53
Stabenow 34
Election Day
Abraham - 46%
Stabenow - 47%
Michigan Governor - 1990
January
Blanchard - 53%
Engler - 18%
May
Blanchard 50
Engler 30
September
Blanchard 50
Engler 38
Election Day
Blanchard 49.6
Engler 50.4
Polls don't mean a thing.
Stooooooopedo!!!
Several of us noticed a flurry of anti-simon articles like Bill Simon's Enron Ties a little over a week ago. Then this poll comes out three days later.
This all seemed orchestrated to me.
Sure they do, especially when it comes to fundraising and suppressing/inspiring the base. And while you can always come up with exceptions (polls are only rated at 95% confidence), they are generally a decent way of measuring a candidate's chances. I just wish they weren't so prevalent, and manipulated by the media. [sigh]
D
Hehehehe. Great post Auntie...
Well, I think that it is, and it isn't at the same time. The Davis campaign is certainly playing to its natural allies in the media, but most reporting (with the exception of the LA times, that is frankly partisan in this election) is probably just done with blinders on. Goldberg's book "Bias" outlines this process very convincingly, and relatively clearly.
So, who cares how this is implemented? I subscribe to the maxim "know your opponent", to better counter him. In this case, the effect of the whispering campaign is to attempt to demoralize Simon's core consitutency, and depress fundraising efforts. Since in many cases the bias may be unconcious, letters to the editor, and call-ins to talk radio would be particularly effective, IMHO. Of course, with the LA Times, this is not applicable.
Yes, they do.
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.