Of course, I was pretty unsophisticated back then. I see with much more clarity, now, the devious and underhanded way the pollsters work, and how the media plays the results like a clarinet in an orchestra.
Posted on 05/09/2012 8:11:18 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Edited on 05/09/2012 8:20:22 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Polls have many purposes. To the chattering political classes in Washington, D.C., they are purposed to get a gauge of public opinion. To the political operative, they are utilized to mold public opinion, by the infamous ‘push poll (in which campaign claims are imbedded in the poll questions themselves), or by portraying a candidate as more popular than they are, or even by painting a demographic as unreasonable or absurd (such as the PPP poll that was only run in the southern states that asked if interracial marriage was wrong, and if Obama was a Muslim). To the public, they are read and used, by some, to jump on the bandwagon of a winner -- after all, nobody likes to vote for a loser.
Many times, polls seem to contradict common sense: A grossly-unpopular politician appears to poll above a much more popular opponent. When these polls unfold, a look to the makeup of the sample is in order. Oftentimes, a poll that favors the Democrats by a certain percent, will have the Democrats oversampled by that exact same percent.
Yet, the polling organizations that are most egregious in the manipulation of their samples, to create a result they favor, will point to the polls just prior to the elections. "Why," they shrilly yell, "We were within 2 points of the actual election results! Thusly we are credible!"
And herein lies the scam.
Throughout the entire season preceding an election, a less-ethical and more-partisan polling organization can oversample Democrats or Republicans as much as they wish, and apply all sorts of statistical and mathmatical trickery. They can word their questions in a biased manner. They can try to set a tone for 'their candidate'. They can 'push poll'.
And then, when the election is a week, or less, away, they can revert to more honest polling techniques and samples.
And then they can falsely claim credibility, and misleadingly state how they were 'never partisan' and 'always fair'.
This may be the real reason that elections 'tighten up' at the end of every voting season.
Thanks for the Ping!
More liberal pole questions you never see: 1. Stan Weralowski wants to know what you have against Poles: (a) they have seen what socialism does to a population or (b) they hate the loss of freedom 2. Who hates the spelling of the word “Poll” as “pole”? ALL of us,
Make that 72, please.
It works like this: You wouldn't want to be a bigot would you why the latest poll shows that {black issue/ gay marriage issue/ whatever issue} is favored by 51% of the population. That up from 40% just a year ago, you too should reconsider your position.
Polls are the supreme temptation to make conservative politicians abandon their principles in favor of popularity.
The thing a lot of people might not be considering, though, is how they tighten up the methodology and accuracy just prior to an election, so that even the most gamed, rigged polls LOOK like they were credible.
This is what I mean by 'the Credibility Scam'.
Another Satisfied CustomerTM!
Which brings up a problem with calculating unemployment by polling (the Department of Labor's 60,000 household Current Population Survey specifically). That size of sample can only estimate unemployment to ±0.25% with a 95% confidence, but the press considers Obama an economic genius for a change of 0.1% in the unemployment rate.
“Poles are for telephone lines and phishing.”
~Para Sailin’~
I think your points are very good, Mr. Mataz. I was naive and dumb as a rock in 2008 (still not TOO bright), hanging on every poll that came out. I don’t pay any attention to them now. Although, as you say, it pays to perk up as the election nears.
Such crooks.....
Thank you for the ping to your brilliance! You’re helping folks to realize that democrat polls are not [cough] entirely on the up and up.
Most everyone gets this already; what I'm hoping to deconstruct is the way these hopelessly biased polls try to correct themselves at the last minute, so their results and the actual election results are close enough for them to claim a false objectivity and accuracy.
I remember, years ago, how you alerted to us on Zogby’s Special Sauce. You even had a graphic to go with it. It was succinct and to the point. You should post it with your article!
They really haven’t changed much over the years, have they FRiend? You saw it then, and see it still today!
Of course, I was pretty unsophisticated back then. I see with much more clarity, now, the devious and underhanded way the pollsters work, and how the media plays the results like a clarinet in an orchestra.
The poll was run only in Mississippi and Alabama because those states' primaries were a couple of days away. The author weakens his valid overall point by overreaching to make things sinister.
Interracial marriage??? I mean, really? REALLY??
This poll was in 2010 or 2011... there's HOW MUCH problem with interracial marriage these days.....?
But let's ask that in the South, and see if we can tie the ignorant answers into the Obama is a Muslim meme, to discredit the South AND the meme.
I'm not buying that there was no sinister motive.
#2 needs an "all of the above" option.
Laz, you’ve gotten older and wiser, but don’t neglect the power your humor has either!
That was funny then, and it still makes me smile, especially when you post it in the comments of a Zogby poll!
Just the same, I’d like to see the same questions asked in other areas of the country. From my personal experience, spending three years stationed in Massachusetts, I heard and saw more anti-black prejudice there than in Alabama of the same time period.
It’s not just the South that has idiots. But a poll asking for idiotic replies in the South because the Yankee poll takers believe Southerners are idiots will vindicate those poll takers every time. To get accurate results then, they’d have to ask the same questions elsewhere. Think of it as a control. For all I know, they did, and didn’t like the results, so didn’t publish them.
Now as far as being a Muslim... A small boy, raised in a Muslim country with a Muslim step-father, whose biological father was muslim, and he was named for that same father, might—just could be—a muslim. Why is that so far-fetched or even, dare I say, redneck?
Now, the West Virginia primary, where a convicted felon serving time in Texas garnered 40% of the vote in the closed Democrat primary? That's a poll worthy of attention.
Keith Judd, American Hero:
Not that the Kenyan stood much chance in WV anyway, but still....
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.