Skip to comments.Presidential Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage...
Posted on 09/26/2012 5:50:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editor's Note:This piece originally appeared at PolicyMic.
From its double standard on how the mainstream media has covered both campaigns, to the 2008-Democrat heavy polling models they use, to the lack of investigative reporting on the scandals associated with this administration, it has become blatantly evident that the mainstream media harbors a liberal bias, commits endless hypocrisies and will not hold this president up to the same standards it has for previous presidents.
I find the messaging from both campaigns to be remarkably stunning. Despite both candidates being Harvard graduates and worth millions of dollars each, one is labeled as out of touch with mainstream America by the elitist New York news media, Hollywood celebrities and Washington insiders (as if they have any idea whats in touch with mainstream America) while the other is not as he hosts $40,000-a-plate fundraisers and hob nobs on talk shows with these same millionaire celebrities and media personalities.
Furthermore, while the Romney campaign has kept its messaging solely focused on Obamas record as president, his policies and his results, the Obama campaign has launched into personal character attacks against Romney, accusing him of waging a war on women, of being a felon by not paying his taxes, and even murdering a steel workers wife.
For its part, the mainstream media has done a thorough job covering Romneys past, including tracing his familys history all the way back to their Mexican roots, his father having once been on public aid, and the personal lifestyles of Mitt, his wife Anne, and their five sons.
But where was the mainstream media on Obamas family history and professional career? Did you know that his grandparents deliberately moved to Mercer Island, Washington so that they could enroll his mother into the only openly Marxist school in America? Did you know that communist radical Frank Marshall Davis was chosen by his grandfather to be his political mentor? Did you know that he hasnt released any of his personal records from his college transcripts to the list of legal clients he represented when he was practicing law?
These arent rumors, these are facts. Did it really take an independent documentary by an academic scholar to reveal this to the general public?
If the media is going to question Romneys past, political views and lack of transparency in the national spotlight, I feel it is only fair that they do the same for Obama. But nothing short of a miracle would ever make that happen.
The liberal mainstream media and blogosphere are desperately trying to write Romneys funeral using polls that oversample Democrats by as much a D+10, D+11 and D+13. In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. So was the 2010 midterm election: evenly split. The Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 and 2010 models than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obamas support.
But as pollster John McLaughlin explains, The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR (Interactive Voice Response) polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are not enthusiastic to vote or non voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30% range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. Well see a lot more of this.
A certain pundit on this site (guess who?) provided a link to some web site claiming that a national average of 2012 election polls (without citing which ones specifically) shows Obama leading Romney in several key states when excluding Rasmussen polls, implying Rasmussen has a Republican bias. What they fail to mention is that a Fordham University study concluded that Rasmussen had been the most accurate pollster throughout the 2008 election (and that was Obamas good year).
I could just as easily provide a link to another website that claims to unskew the polls oversampling of Democrats to show that Romney actually leads Obama (and they even list which specific ones). But whether you look at Rasmussen, which has been accused of leaning right, Gallup, which has been accused of leaning left, both are showing the same thing: this race is virtually tied.
Absence of Investigative Journalism
Perhaps the biggest evidence of all proving the mainstream medias liberal bias is the fact that it has thus far failed to push any further into this administrations scandals such as Fast and Furious or the Benghazi attack.
Back in college, I remember reading Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins All the Presidents Men in journalism class, chronicling The Washington Posts journalistic efforts to uncover the Nixon administrations scandal regarding the Watergate break-in. It was a scandal in which President Nixon and his cabinet were exercising executive privilege to prevent the release of internal documents as well as trying to pin the blame on lower level subordinates to feebly deflect criticism and responsibility of the break-in.
Déjà vu 2012, where President Obama stopped the federal investigation into Operation Fast and Furious dead in its tracks by exercising executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from having to hand over internal Justice Department documents on the federal firearms sting operation that allowed weapons to reach Mexican drug cartels. Fourteen lower level subordinates at the Justice Department and ATF then get pinned for the blame and thats where the administration is hoping it ends. Will there be any further reporting from the mainstream media on this? Or is Obamas rendition of Al Green more important?
Or what about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya? Within a weeks time, we witnessed this administration claim that it was a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic American film that got out of hand and caught them off guard to a reluctant admission that this was a pre-planned, coordinated attack with possible assistance from al-Qaeda of which they were warned about.
Watergate was a campaign stunt. These are scandals where U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others have died. But where are todays Woodwards and Bernsteins?
Is it then any wonder that a new Gallup poll shows American distrust in the mainstream media is now at an all-time high?
Youll probably be even less shocked then to find that a majority of Democrats (58%) trust the mainstream media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, while only 31% of independents and 26% of Republicans trust the mainstream media to do the same.
Romney clearly has his work cut out for him. Too bad he doesnt send a thrill up their leg the way Obama does.
Not only is the MSM giving Obama a list of the debate topics, they’re also giving him the answers.
I have said several times that it would not surprise me if they feed him the answers they would like to hear
The Dems actually got 10 million more votes than the Reps that year ~ that was almost 15% more than the Republican vote total!
The '7' arises out of a mistake in arithmetic ~ since that's simply the percentage of the total vote that constitutes the difference between the Rep and Dem totals!
Then there's the problem with your typical random sample poll ~ you find out what their affiliations are in the course of doing the samples. It's only when you have a stratified sample of KNOWN respondents that you can go out and query them in greater or lesser numbers ~ which is something clearly suggested to be the case in the appellation 'model'.
Those are expensive polls not often done.
If you do a simple national random sample poll with a focus on just 5 characteristics, and you call at least 1,000 respondents, it will cost you a pretty penny, but it's RANDOM. Your respondents should be divided into R/D/I pretty much the same as they are in comparable polls ~ and you won't know what that is until you are done with the poll.
If, at the end, you go in and manipulate the results to reflect some pre-selected goal ~ e.g. that Romney wins, or Obama sweeps all before him ~ you no longer have a random sample poll ~ you have some other thing not worth reporting.
I am becoming convinced that the polling firms are being tasked with coverage for massive voter fraud.