SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: ms.smartest.person11/3/2008 4:42:46 PM
  Read Replies (1) of 224720
 
Liar Liar, Pants on Fire: Don’t Believe the Pollsters

2008-11-03 at 10:20 am
mensnewsdaily.com

I recall how in November 2004, we were told that most polls favored John Kerry over President Bush. On election day, the Rasmussens, Luntzes, Gallups, Zogbys and others were telling the American people that exit polls showed Kerry way ahead of Bush and liberals including Dan Rather were ready to pop open the champagne to celebrate the Kerry victory.

Well, we know what happened in that election. Bush won. Dandy Dan Rather — who attempted to pull a fast one by hurting Bush with fraudulent documents — was shocked, and most newspeople were visibly disappointed over Bush’s victory. The pollsters were dumbfounded.

Well, now in 2008, we have the same pollsters predicting that a Marxist will be our next president and most of the same members of the news media visibly attempting to help that Commie-come-lately, Barack Obama.

People wonder, “Who’s right? Why are the polls so different from each other, even on the same day?”

First of all, the numbers you hear represent all different kinds of polls. There are national polls and state polls. Then there are polls of polls (for example, some numbers represent the average of all the polls taken in, for instance, the last two weeks).

Now if the race is going to be determined by a handful of key states, changes in other states will be reflected in national polls but won’t matter for the actual outcome of the election. Moreover, if there is a change in voter attitudes taking place, it will take more time for such a change to show up on the state level than in the national polls – and there are fewer of the former than the latter. Finally, if a poll is a two-week average of polls, then changes taking place today will not be as obvious as they would be in a poll that tracks day to day changes.

The sheer multiplicity of polls this year, moreover, also means that there is quite a disparity of methodology and expertise. There’s a big difference between a polling company with decades of experience and a university group that decided to start polling this year. And if a pollster is polling in a particular state, the poll will be better depending on the expertise the pollster has about the electorate in that particular state.

Among polling companies, moreover, one must consider the quality of the sample size, the methodology used, the presumptions about the makeup of the electorate, the internal adjustments made in the numbers, and so forth. When you hear poll results, in other words, you have to ask, “Who exactly is being counted here, and what presumptions are being made?” Are the people who were polled registered to vote? Are they “likely” voters, and how has that been defined? From what party does the polling sample come?

Generally, a poll will take 40% of its sample from each major party and then 20% independents. But we have seen some polls representing one party with 50% of its sample, and the other party 30%. Those results will be skewed. It’s very helpful for a political interest group to create a poll like this for fundraising purposes, so they can send out a letter saying, “See, we’re up by ten points; send us more money so we can stay up!” Meanwhile, the donor hasn’t read any fine print about the poll’s methodology or sample group.

And presumptions about who will be “likely” voters can be tricky. Will the registration of many new young voters, for instance, translate into those young people actually showing up at the voting booth? That remains to be seen. A poll is an educated guess about how much of that will happen.

Polls often miss the dynamics involved in turnout, such as the motivation that various groups have, or the impact that the weather on Election Day will have. The good news for pro-life people is that the difference between a likely pro-life voter and other likely voters is that the pro-life voter is more likely to vote. Past election analysis shows that the pro-life movement’s voters are more motivated than those in the pro-abortion movement. We are better at getting our voters to vote. We care more about issues. We care more about showing up at the polls. This is not something a poll will measure in advance.

In the 27 states for example that have had marriage amendments, every single poll has understated the final turnout by as much as six to eight points. In states that looked like the marriage issue might be fairly close ended up not being close at all. Even in states like Oregon where it was expected to lose, it won fairly handily.

And, of course, a key number to pay attention to when you hear polls is the number of undecided voters. By definition, they can go either way, and haven’t gone there yet. Elections are decided by the undecided, who decide on Election Day itself.

We tend to “anoint” polls, but we shouldn’t. We tend to think that they are far more scientific than they actually are and we give them far more credence than they actually deserve. But they are filled with presumptions, projections, guesses, and margins of error, if not bad sampling, erroneous methodology, and outright bias.

Again, only one thing matters in elections, and that’s turnout. The elections of 2008 have not been decided, and they will be decided only when the voters come out and the votes are actually counted.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at jimkouri.us
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext