Why So Many of the Polls Were Wrong

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 5, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I went back and looked at some of the news stories we had late last week, early this week. Remember the story in the New York Times by -- what was the guy's name? -- Cohn, Nate Cohn? "Why Polls tend to Undercount Democrats." Remember this? "Polls show that the Republicans have an advantage in the fight for control of the Senate.
"They lead in enough states to win control, and they have additional opportunities in North Carolina and New Hampshire to make up for potential upsets. As Election Day nears, Democratic hopes increasingly hinge on the possibility that the polls will simply prove wrong." So this guy had a story in the New York Times about how polls do not accurately count Democrats. Democrats are always under-sampled in the polls.
How does that look today?
Many polls got a lot of races totally wrong. The Drive-By Media today has a new job, and that is to make as many people as possible believe that even though the vast majority of voters voted for Republicans to stop Obama, the media's objective is to support Obama and Democrat policies, particularly amnesty and climate change legislation. From the Associated Press: "Exit Poll: Nation in a Funk Turns to Republicans --
"The glum voters who handed Republicans full control of Congress on Tuesday feel the US is stagnating under President Barack Obama's leadership, but put little faith in politicians of either party." See? You see how this works? The American people just threw Democrats out of office, and the AP is trying to tell everybody that everybody is disliked. It was not an anti-incumbent election. It was an anti-Democrat incumbent election.
Here's the next paragraph: "Most voters leaving polling places said they don't have much trust in government and feel the nation is off on the wrong track. They were twice as likely to predict life will be worse for the next generation than to say it will get better. Those feeling pessimistic were more likely to vote for Republican congressional candidates. ...
"Above all, voters worried about the economy, exit polls show. ... The exit polls show just over half of voters think the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, a Republican mantra. About two-thirds feel the nation is seriously off on the wrong track --slightly more than thought that when Republicans won control of the House in 2010."
But then there's this: "On some other issues, most voters took positions that align more with the Democratic Party. A majority favor offering immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to stay." If so, that's the first poll that's ever shown that. I have never seen a poll showing a majority of people support Obamacare, and I have never seen a poll showing a majority of people support amnesty. And yet AP says the exit polls showed this yesterday, isn't that amazing? We have a wave election, we have a landslide, we have an overwhelming shellacking of the Democrat Party, and yet voters said they want amnesty.
As wrong as many of the polls were on some of these races, we're getting to the point now where it is the intelligent thing to do to discount the polls. The polls could not have been more wrong about Alison Lundergan Grimes, could not have been more wrong about Wendy Davis in Texas. The polls got a lot of races wrong. It's stunning how much was missed. And why was it missed? It was missed because of a built-in media bias on the part of the pollsters who themselves are all liberal Democrats.
And it was missed because the purpose of polling, especially polling that's far away from the actual date of an election, like a poll result in June or July or August, doesn't mean anything. It can't. It cannot mean anything, other than an interesting talking point, but that's all it is. Unless the pollster is using it to try to shape public opinion. Why are you laughing? Did I just say something funny? (interruption) Oh, good. Snerdley is laughing because liberals are calling fit to be tied. He said it's hilarious what they're saying, but they don't want to go on the air and say it.
Were they mad at me? (interruption) Or just mad at the outcome? (interruption) Mad at everything. (interruption) Look at a horse race. At the halfway point, does anybody pay off their bets? Let's take a poll on a horse race that's halfway through. It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything 'til it's over.
So many polls got so much wrong, and the reason they got it wrong is because of the built-in bias that exists to try to deny the reality that people might not like liberal Democrats. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were rejected everywhere they went to support and endorse a candidate. Barack Obama, ditto. Michelle Obama, ditto. And that's simply unacceptable to the Democrat establishment. That just can't be. In their minds they are universally loved, respected, and adored.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Politicalkiddo]

It’s obvious. They wanted to make it look like they were winning in an attempt to discourage non-Democrat voters from voting.

[NEMDF]

Personally, whenever I am called for a poll and let the call go any further than hanging up right away, I tend to not tell the full truth. Possibly some of that goes on, on a large scale.

[fortheDeclaration]

We can understand why so many polls were wrong from listening to analyst's trying to rationalize the anti-Obama wave last night!

Polls refused to factor in the intense dislike for Obama and the Democrats.

[KarlInOhio]

Pollsters used to be able to assume that everyone had a (landline) phone, would answer the phone and answer the poll honestly. In the past ten years those assumptions have fallen apart, so to get a statistical sample pollsters make assumptions about the voters so they don't oversample the people who still answer the phone, but they end up with polls that merely match their demographic and political assumptions.

[goldstategop]

Liberal pollsters simply refused to see public antipathy for Obama and the Democrats was deep, genuine and widespread.

[Kaslin]

I used to be called years ago by pollsters from local elections, but since I switched from AT&T and we are not in the phone book anymore I don’t get no calls anymore. Besides I have audio caller ID and if I don’t recognize a number I do not answer it. The same for my smart phone, I have a specific ringtone for numbers that I don’t recognize

[Kaslin]

Actually the polls on Fox News were quite accurate.

[fortheDeclaration]

I don't think there was a single poll that saw this coming.

If there was, please show it to me.

Fox had many of the wins as tossups.

At the end, we saw some polls that finally admitted that the GOP would pick up 8 Senate sits, but that was in the final days.

[fortheDeclaration]

Exactly! And they are still in denial about it when you listen to the talking heads on TV.

Even the GOP analysts are idiots!

[Kaslin]

Especially where they used touch screen machines that switched the votes from Republican to democrat

We don't have that problem here in my town because of the machines that are used here

PDF Instructions in How to Cast Your Vote With MicroVote Infinity

[motor_racer]

Always, always ALWAYS lie to the pollsters!

[KC_Conspirator]

In denial.

[pierrem15]

And to discourage Republican donors; at least the ones not already intimidated by the IRS.

[jjotto]

Polls are not really news or even information. They’re like celebrities. They are a form of entertainment to entice you to hang around for the message, be it commercial or political. As long as people pay attention, there’s not much point in accuracy.