Posted on 06/15/2004 8:13:10 AM PDT by KMC1
Roll Call Magazine is now reporting that the Los Angeles Times newspaper misrepresented the latest results in their on going Presidential Poll. The poll had shown John Kerry with a 7% point lead over President George W. Bush. According to Roll Call, the results were impacted because of greatly advantaged sample rate. Democrats included composed 38% of the responses, while only 25% of Republicans were included. The sample rate is said to be an "unheard of margin" in polling methods today.
(Excerpt) Read more at crosswalk.com ...
Anyone with a memory can recall how thoroughly jimmeh cahtah was thrashing Ronald Reagan in Big Media's polls of summer '80.
And who can forget the flaying-by-poll Walter Mondale conducted against Ronald Reagan through Big Media in summer '84!
Not to mention the coming Dukakis landslide promised by Big Media polls the summer of '88.
I recall Big Media pollsters of '92 debating whether Perot support was coming from Clinton or Bush voters!
Who can forget the tight contests Big Media polls were calling for in what became the '94 Republican sweep?
Big Media pollers predicted a klyntyn landslide in '96!
I remember Big Media polls in '02 elections calling for Republican losses!
And now, Big Media poll pimps say that Kerry is ahead!/neck and neck!/gaining!
Big Media does not poll-they Push Poll.
Draw the opposite conclusion from the Big Media agitprop and you'll always be correct.
Oh, and one more thing- Do not buy their product in any form. You watch/read them- you support them.
AV
Anyone with a memory can recall how thoroughly jimmeh cahtah was thrashing Ronald Reagan in Big Media's polls of summer '80.
And who can forget the flaying-by-poll Walter Mondale conducted against Ronald Reagan through Big Media in summer '84!
Not to mention the coming Dukakis landslide promised by Big Media polls the summer of '88.
I recall Big Media pollsters of '92 debating whether Perot support was coming from Clinton or Bush voters!
Who can forget the tight contests Big Media polls were calling for in what became the '94 Republican sweep?
Big Media pollers predicted a klyntyn landslide in '96!
I remember Big Media polls in '02 elections calling for Republican losses!
And now, Big Media poll pimps say that Kerry is ahead!/neck and neck!/gaining!
Big Media does not poll-they Push Poll.
Draw the opposite conclusion from the Big Media agitprop and you'll always be correct.
Oh, and one more thing:
Do not buy their product in any form. You watch/read them= you support them.
AV
My apologies for the double post.
Double post.
AV
AV
SOme sources would make your post really valuable.
BEAR CRAPS IN WOODS
Bush has a much higher lead among Republicans than Kerry has among Democrats, on another thread someone said that if you balanced the parties equally, considering the percentage of support within the respective parties, Bush leads by six or seven percent.
Using just the above figures in the calculations,the result would be a 4.6% lead for the dimrats.
Gee whiz, doncha think this should have been posted under "Breaking News?"
Pollaganda strikes again.
"And this little tidbit of news actually surprises people???? "
The surprise/news is when the liberal media actually gets called on their tricks.
Do slanted polls do anything?
A strong, active Republican or Democrat would vote for his or her candidate even if the polls showed 95-5% against him. What effect do polls have on apolitical, busy, barely interested Americans who DO bother to vote?
If you lean Democrat but you aren't married to Kerry, are you less likely or more likely to vote for him if he is leading in what you believe are true polls? Some would say that you hop aboard the winner's bandwagon, but others might think you'd lean toward an underdog.
I am not sure that the Times and other sources of push polls have thought the psychology of this any farther through than just making Democrats smile as they read their morning paper.
"somebody with more math brains than me (and that is a lot of you) if 38% were demos and 25% were pubs and kerry had a 7% lead, what would the "lead" be if the poll was 50-50 demos and pubs?"
"Using just the above figures in the calculations,the result would be a 4.6% lead for the dimrats."
No, that's not right. assumming both Kerry and Bush get 85% of their 'own' party support, a kerry lead of 7% only despite a 13% party reg gap would actually show among independents a Bush lead (hmmm?). So skewing to a +13% Dem advantage, when we are actually more 50/50, that gives you a .85 * 13% = 11%-to-2% or 9% net effect advantage for Kerry. ... so unroll that. Putting 1/2 of that and giving 1/2 added into the GOP side (and assuming then a poll sample more like 31% for Dem and GOP both) gives you from +4.5 swing Dem to a +4.5 swing GOP for that 1/2 of the 13% that you swing over. This makes a +9 net for Bush change, or a +2 Bush advantage in a 'balanced' poll.
LA Times poll dishonest? ::::gasp!::::: It just can't be!
Because I'm skeptical of all polls, this most certainly doesn't surprise me. Agenda-driven manipulation of polls is far, far more common than many people may realize.
Excellent and very accurate (despite carping by some with short or no memories for sources to prove what you say). I know how easy it is to sometimes get a double post when servers slow down. In this case, what you said is worthy of a double bump. :-)
Lies, damn lies, and liberal polls. (with all apologies to the estate of Mark Twain)
The LA times also skewered their a poll during the recall to give Cruz a lead over Arnold. This was when all the other polls had Arnold winning easily. What the Tims pollster did was count Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in greater portion than they had ever voted in any election. Thus these minorities were over represented and the whites were underrepresented in the poll. The Times was dishonest and slanted the poll to wards what they wanted the outcome to be. Another example of dishonesty by the liberal media.
In order to please the poster who complained (He has a valid point though) about my lack of sourcing I ran a search of Gallup polls only to find their archives are subscription only.
I would just as soon pay for Al Jazeera.
I'm sure that many dissertations or studies of some sort have been compiled that can graphically illustrate the disconnect between what the polls "measured" and what actually transpired in November of past election years.
Anyone have an idea where a timeline of presidential polls for past elections may be found? It would certainly be quite useful.
AV
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.